Lords Chamber

Monday 15th December 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
14:37
None Portrait Oral questions: UK Research and Innovation funding grants to study at UK universities which are not open to white or Asian applicants
-

I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. Yes, sir.
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Enabling women over the age of 70 to continue to be invited by the NHS to have regular mammograms to support the early detection of breast cancer
-

>> I beg to move the question. >> Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:29
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm can I offer my condolences to the noble Lord for his loss? And can I also say to him that I can't be with him this evening because I'm in here dealing with the police and crime bill today? But had I not been in here dealing with the police and crime bill, I would certainly be with him to stand in solidarity. He asked what we are doing. I've given a range of things that the government will do. We are open continually to suggestions as to how we can tackle this scourge.

But we've already asked the noble Lord Mann to review anti-Semitism in the National Health Service. We've got a review undertaking and demanding action from universities on action to protect Jewish students. We need to ensure that we encourage what I would hope we should encourage, which is tolerance, understanding and knowledge about different religions, because there's a range of of in a multicultural society where we need to have that tolerance. And I reach out to him to look at how we, on a cross-party basis can ensure that we say the scourge of anti-Semitism, the scourge of intolerance, is one that we need to start from very early on and to ensure that people live their lives in an open, tolerant way where their religion doesn't require armed guards at synagogues and doesn't require armed guards at schools.

But I hope he understands at the moment that we will support the community security trust and the police forces to deliver that safety, where now there are self-evidently, given the Manchester attack recently, threats that our life.
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:37
15:38
None Portrait AMDT: 317 Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-

>> To move. Amendment 317. This group of amendments addresses a vital aspect of public protection, closing the loopholes that allow registered sex offenders to evade detection and monitoring by detection and monitoring by changing their identity. Effective management of offenders in the 21st management of offenders in the 21st century requires a justice system that is not only legally robust, but properly resourced and technologically capable. On these benches, we strongly welcome clause 87, which requires sex offenders to notify the police of a name change seven days before using that new name.

In the words of the clause, this is a significant improvement on the current retrospective notification regime, which has allowed offenders to disappear from the radar of the authorities. However, my amendment 317 seeks to tighten this provision further regarding deed polls. As currently drafted, an offender could theoretically go through the legal process of obtaining a deed poll to change their name without the police being aware until the moment they intend using it again. Using the language of clause 87, my amendment specifies that if a name change is by deed poll, the offender must notify the police seven days prior to submitting the application.

This ensures that the police are alerted at the very start of the administrative process of changing identity, rather than at the end. It provides authorities with the vital time needed to conduct appropriate risk assessments and, if necessary, intervene before a new legal identity is formally established. This proposal has been championed by campaigners in the Commons, such as Sarah Champion MP. In the other place, and it is a common sense safeguard to ensure the police are always one step ahead.

I must stress that the management of offenders today is not just about physical monitoring, it's about digital monitoring. Just as we've seen criminal recruitment drives for money mules take place on social media platforms, we know that the internet provides avenues for offenders to re-offend or breach their conditions, while amendment 317 seeks to tighten the management regime legislative framework, I would urge the government to ensure that the police and relevant agencies do have the digital resources and data sharing capabilities required to enforce these new powers effectively, rather than relying on a fragmented system that allows offenders to slip through the net.

My Lords, this measure would strengthen the safety net immeasurably around our communities. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment as a logical extension of the government's own objectives. In clause 87, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 87, page 100, line 34. At the end, insert the words as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. MoJ.
15:41
Baroness Maclean of Redditch Portrait Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
-
-
>> MoJ. >> My, my Lords, the Gender Recognition Act, passed in 2004 2004, was designed for a world with 2004, was designed for a world with low demand for gender recognition certificates and without anticipating modern safeguarding realities. I believe that that context has fundamentally changed, and that creates a serious gap that my amendment seeks to close. So the system is no longer confined to a small number of older adults. New Ministry of Justice data shows that almost 10,000 Grcs have been issued.

Last year alone, over 1169 were granted. That's the highest number on record and more than triple the annual figure five years ago. This is quite a dramatic generational shift. Almost a quarter of new certificates now go to people born. Since the year 2000. Demand has changed, but I don't think safeguarding has kept up. I recently tabled a written question to the government after I'd seen multiple cases of male born sex offenders changing their gender identity, so by the time they appeared in court, all were sent to prison.

They'd identified as a woman. So I was curious. And so therefore, I asked the government what safeguards would prevent a convicted rapist or sex offender from later going on to obtain a gender recognition certificate and being legally recognised as a woman. But while firstly, I was troubled that this question, when it came to be answered, had been transferred to the Government Minister for equalities, rather than being answered by the Home Office, I believe it's fundamentally a matter of safety, not about equality.

It should have been answered by the Home Office, and so I do worry it demonstrates the confusion at the heart of the government on this issue. Rape and sex offences are not about equality or identity, they are about safety. Moreover, and more importantly, the response ignored the core issue. While of course we do welcome the measures on name changes, passports and police notification that they are welcome, but they do not prevent a convicted sex offender, if I understand it correctly, from changing their legal sex under the Gender Recognition Act and going on to live the remainder of their lives legally as a woman.

And to me, that highlights a serious safeguarding gap. And that's why this amendment would seek to close that. My Lords, you may be asking why this is necessary, and noble Lords may be wondering, what is this risk that I speak about? We must be frank. Sexual predators cannot be cured. The risk may be managed, but it's not eliminated. And that's why we have the lifelong monitoring regimes we have. That's why MAPPA exists. And that's why I believe the law must ensure that those who pose a permanent risk to women and girls, and also men and boys, cannot access a legal mechanism that alters their status in ways that Parliament never intended.

And we should not sit back. While a legal framework is developed for one specific purpose is abused by sex offenders, thereby adding to victims pain and trauma. For example, the victim of Ryan Haley, who was sexually assaulted multiple times when she was a child, fearing that she would be raped later on. Her predator, her perpetrator, Haley changed his name to Natalie Wolf and publicly identifies as a woman in The Victim. In the victim statement, she said, Ryan Haley wants everyone to know him now as Natalie, but in my eyes, he's Ryan Haley, the man who sexually abused me.

She said that watching how he celebrates his life and his body and his choices felt like salt in her wounds. And would any of us be happy if this predator was able to, in the future, attain legal recognition for a gender recognition certificate and live as a woman following these crimes? Surely this is obscene. I can't see how this could be defended under any circumstances. And even the most ardent believer in second chances would raise an eyebrow about this. We've spoken often in this, in this debate about the need for the government to be one step ahead, as is so often the case when we see these crimes occurring, and not to wait until bad things happening, it's really difficult to obtain data about the individuals who have gender recognition certificates and the overlap with the offender and prison cohort.

So actually, we just don't know how many individuals fall into these categories or what the risk would be. But we do have evidence of some of these cases where we've left this gap open. The case of Karen White, noble Lords will be familiar with that. A male born sex offender who identified as a female, she was transferred to a women's prison, he, I should say, and he went on to assault women in custody. That was a foreseeable failure. The Supreme Court has now clarified that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex, which is helpful.

But that ruling doesn't and was not intended to resolve the operational confusion faced by prisons, hospitals and public authorities who must navigate to legal regimes without clear guidance. While we're still waiting for the government to publish that advice, it's my understanding that the court judgement is concerned narrowly with the definition of the terms man and woman, and therefore any policy choices concerning the certificate regime will in any case be outside of the guidance. In short, the legal status of the Gender Recognition Certificate is unchanged and without this amendment and sexual predator can still obtain one.

My Lords, this amendment is not about identity, it's about safeguarding. It's about ensuring that a person who has committed a serious sexual offence cannot obtain a certificate that should be a privilege for somebody to obtain that changes their legal sex in a way that compromises the safety of women. And I would be very grateful if the Minister, when he comes to respond to me, could answer some specific questions, which is, could a convicted sex offender obtain a GRC while serving a prison sentence for sexual offences? Could a convicted criminal offender obtain a GRC while serving a prison sentence for any other offences? And could either of these groups obtain a GRC after their convictions are spent? And will the long awaited guidance from the government include in its scope any changes to the GRC policy framework? So I do look forward to the Minister's reply and I beg leave to move the amendment I am.
15:48
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords. Very briefly to just >> My Lords. Very briefly to just say that I'm I'm very supportive of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones and noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness McLean of Redditch, which I think have been spoken to very well and very strongly. I just well and very strongly. I just wanted to talk about one particular case of a sex offender called Clive Bundy, who, while in prison he was in prison for some years for sexually abusing and raping his daughter, Kerry Lee Galvin, from a young age.

So it was incestuous sexual abuse and rape. He went to prison in 2016. When he before he was released from prison, he declared that he was a woman and changed his name by deed poll, helped and abetted by the prison authorities, as it were, very generously, to aid his release. There's a number of reasons why this issue has been brought to my attention. I've actually spoken about it in this house before. And the reason is, is because Clive Bundy changed his name to Claire Fox, and so consequently, I know about it.

Claire Fox now wanders freely, as it were. But the most important thing was I was contacted by his daughter, Kerry Lee Galvin, and before we had the Supreme Court ruling, I have actually raised this a number of times in a number of bills before to note that Kerry Lee Galvin, as a victim, has been badly betrayed by this story because Kerry Lee Galvin was never told that her incestuous rapist father was being released because he wasn't. Claire Fox was.

And of course, guess what? If you Google Claire Fox, there are horror stories that you'll get, but they're about me, not him. In all seriousness though, it was a deed poll change. Clive Bundy might well be on the sex offenders register, but Clive Bundy doesn't exist. Claire Fox exists, but Claire Fox is Clive Bundy, the rapist, and therefore is free to live in the same town as his daughter, which he has done and harassed her. And I won't go into the details, but Kerry Gavin has been incredibly brave and giving up her anonymity to talk about this story to the press and various times and, as she says, can't get anywhere when she's tried to lobby on this point.

But that therefore, in theory, Claire Fox, Clive Bundy, not on the Sex offenders register, can apply to work with young children in the local area where her daughter goes to nursery. And nobody knows that that person is a child rapist. There must be something the government can do to strengthen. Therefore, the safeguarding that I know is the intention of the government in this group of amendments and therefore I think the two amendments should be seriously taken up by the government as not contradicting your aims, but helping ensure that your aims are more than just written on paper, but that actually do protect victims and future victims.

It is not a question of making a moral judgement, let me say. I don't care whether Clive Bundy thinks that he's a woman or not. That's irrelevant to me. I don't even care that he's taken my name, which, by the way, is a fashionable thing to do to use a gender critical name as a kind of form of trolling apparently happens in America quite a lot. That's irrelevant to this. The point is, how do we protect people when we say we've got a sex offenders register? That does not reflect reality? By the way, the special privacy measures are given.

And when I've asked questions in the past, I've been told that because this person has chosen to change gender and therefore is now, we cannot investigate Clive Bundy. And if Clive Bundy, as Claire Fox, turns up for a meeting with to volunteer with the Girl Guides, no one can even ask, are you the same person? I mean, we can't even go there. It's ridiculous. Not what the government wants. Therefore, I hope the government is open to these two very important changes of amendments on deed poll and on Lords.
15:53
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I want to just pick up, first of all, on Baroness Mcclean's amendment and both her comments and Lady Fox's comments, and to ask the Minister a question, am I right in thinking that given the Prison service and I think also the Probation Service must do a full assessment of risk on any transgender prisoner, that actually the protections that they seek are already there. And I'm grateful for lady McLean for for raising the case of Karen White. Scottish Prison Service apologised because they did not do what they should have done, which was a full risk assessment.

Had they done that, she would not have been placed on a on a woman's wing. And I therefore would just hope that the Minister can confirm that the protections to the public, and particularly to victims, remain, because now, following the Karen White case in particular, there is real care taken to make sure that the law is followed. And I would find it extraordinary if crimes were just dropped off the list because somebody had a transgender recognition certificate. So can the noble Lord confirm that that is not the case? My Lords, turning now to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones amendment from from these benches, we too welcome clause 87, but it does need strengthening, and his amendment is very clear.

We do have to be able to stop offenders from changing their names without the knowledge of the police. And this also plays into lady McLean's amendment as well. The research from the Safeguarding Alliance has shown that key legislation is being made redundant because of a loophole that people can use to get through the the cracks. This is not just about transgender issues, it's about people just changing their name, regardless of their gender. And frankly, this makes Sarah's Law and Clare's Law utterly useless.

So I do hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, is prepared to consider this. The remaining amendments in this group from the government look as if they are sensible adjustments for the arrangements for sex offenders obtaining driving licence in Northern Ireland. And we look forward to hearing from the Minister in more detail on those.
15:55
15:56
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, beginning with the amendments that regulate name changes of sex offenders, I'm glad changes of sex offenders, I'm glad that members across your Lordships' House are in agreement of the necessity of regulations. Clause 87 is a sensible measure brought forward by the government, and the amendments that build upon its principle are similarly prudent. An individual who commits a crime as intrusive and offensive as a sexual offence demonstrates that they are a threat to public order and public safety.

It is the reason, after all, why we have a sex offender register. Criminals who have proven that they pose a risk should be monitored by the authorities, and the authorities should have the necessary details needed to monitor and manage them. Amendment 317 in the name of the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones ensures that those who change their name by deed poll are legally required to alert the police of this change. The amendments in the name of the noble Lords Minister extend the provision restricting the granting of driving licences in a new name to Northern Ireland.

All of these amendments seek to consolidate and ensure that there are no gaps in the existing legislation and the government's new law, and we support the principle behind them. My Lords, the most consequential of amendments in this group is that tabled in the name of my noble friend, lady McLean of Redditch, her amendment would serve to bar those who commit sexual offences from obtaining a gender recognition certificate. This is a very necessary measure, my Lords. I'm glad the government has not yet granted an exemption for sex offending transgender criminals, which would allow them to attend a prison different to their biological sex.

Hailing from north of the border. As others have commented, where there have been several incidents of that happening, it is a very worrying scenario indeed. But I do note the government has still not implemented the Supreme Court's judgement in the For Women Scotland case, neither in statute nor in guidance, and there is still the chance that those who commit sexual offences can end up in the wrong prison through obtaining a gender recognition certificate. I'm not remotely suggesting the government would wilfully do this, but given their record regarding prisoner administration, I hope the Minister, the Minister, can understand our concerns.

There currently exists no safeguards outside of Minister's discretion, and a way to guarantee that this does not happen would be to bar sex offenders from obtaining a certificate in the first place. It is a bare minimum in sending such people to prison. We are already admitting they are not trustworthy amongst the public. Why then should we risk the safety of prisoners of the opposite sex? For those reasons, I support my noble friend's amendment and I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, can do so to.
15:59
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful for the amendments down on this group from amendments down on this group from the noble Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Baroness McLean of Redditch and the. There are a number of amendments down in my name, which I formally beg to move now, and I'll explain what they mean in a moment. My Lords, clause 94 of the Bill, which will come on to in more detail later, provides for the police to restrict changes of name for registered sex offenders, identity documents that they hold where the police consider it necessary to prevent sexual harm.

They will be able to issue a notice to a registered sex offender, which may require them to apply for the police's authorisation to change their name on specified documents. This will ensure that those registered sex offenders who are deemed to be at risk of using a name change to commit sexual harm, are unable to continue offending under a new name and pass under the radar of law enforcement. And I'm grateful for the broad support from noble Lords for the general direction of travel from the government on these points.

New section 931 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, creates a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to prevent the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency from granting a replacement driving licence to registered sex offenders that are subject to such restrictions by the police and the DVLA issues. Licences in England, Wales and Scotland. In Northern Ireland that functions exercised by the Driver and Vehicle Agency and hence my amendment 325, making equivalent provision to new section 931 for Northern Ireland.

It will enable the Department of Infrastructure in Northern Ireland to make regulations preventing registered sex offenders from being issued with a replacement licence and a new name without necessary authorisation, and I'm grateful for the support for that from both the Liberal Democrat and government opposition benches. This will be possible whether the registered sex offender now previously held a licence in Northern Ireland or Britain. Amendments 320 to 324 provide for the DVLA to refuse to issue a British driving licence as a replacement for a licence issued in Northern Ireland to a registered sex offender attempting to obtain a British licence in a new name without authorisation, and the remaining government amendments are minor and consequential to the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Together, these amendments from the government mean that registered sex offenders cannot exploit the existence of two driving licence issuing agencies in the UK, and that will enable them to be unable to obtain a driving licence without authorisation, regardless of where that licence comes from in the UK. Now, if I can turn to amendment 317, in the name of the noble Lord Clement Jones, which seeks to ensure that registered sex offenders who change their name by deed poll inform the police of their intention, at least seven days in advance of submitting an application.

I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that clause 87 already requires offenders to notify the police of a new name no less than seven days before using it, and if he looks at clause 8783 A1A, he will see that no less than seven days before using it is the phraseology on page 100 of the current text of the Bill, and I hope that will reassure him that that requirement is already there. This requirement applies whether the change is made through an enrolled deed poll, which involves an application to the Royal Courts of Justice or through an Unenrolled deed poll where registered sex offenders intend to change their name via an enrolled deed poll, they will be expected to notify the police seven days before submitting the application, as he cannot be known how long it will take to process the application and to support this.

Updated statutory guidance will be issued to police forces ahead of implementation, clearly setting out the expectation that notification must be given at least seven days before the new name is used. There is an exemption from liability for breach of this requirement, where advanced notification is genuinely not reasonably practicable, but such cases are expected to be rare, particularly for changes by name by deed poll. Now amendment 325A in the name of the noble Lady McLean, supported by the noble Baroness Fox and I.

I'm sorry she's had the difficulties with the name change. It's whether it's deliberate or accidental. It's it must be very inconvenient. But I understand her frustration at that. The amendment 325 A seeks to prohibit any offender who's been convicted of a sexual offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 from obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate. Now, noble Baroness Brinton, I think touched on the point that I would have said and I'm going to say, which is that convicted sex offenders, regardless of their gender, are subject to post-conviction controls like the notification requirements and are eligible for sexual harm prevention orders and multi risk management assessments through the MAPPA process.

And they're managed according to the risk they pose rather than their gender. And that, I think, is the right thing to do. This is not about gender, it's about risk. And given there are robust post-conviction management of sex offenders in place, and also, may I just say that very low volume of gender recognition certificates have changed each year. I don't see this as a necessary amendment. The sex offender register is about managing risk, and the government is not persuaded that a blanket ban on registered sex offenders obtaining a gender recognition certificate would be proportionate or necessary for these purposes.

But that doesn't take away and hope the noble Lady will accept this, that this is about management of risk and the sex offenders register is in place for that purpose. If a registered sex offender seeks to change their name following a change of gender, whether through a gender recognition certificate or indeed otherwise, the provisions in the bill will apply if necessary and if we assess it would be helpful to the police in managing risk. We can exercise the existing regulation, making power to require registered sex offenders to notify the police where they obtain a gender recognition certificate.

So I hope I've been able to satisfy both the noble Lord Clement-jones and the noble Lady McLean, that the amendments are unnecessary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And Lords Minister. Could I just check them? Does that mean that somebody changes a name and doesn't inform the police that the name, the new name can be put on the sex offenders register?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

offenders register? That is my understanding of the position and I hope that helps. The position and I hope that helps. The noble and learned Lady that is the the the principle behind what we're proposing here today. But again, I say to the whole House that this is based on, again, ultimately management based on risk, not on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gender. And I hope with those with that, sir. I thank the noble Lord, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, very much. May I just press him on one specific point? I do understand what he's saying do understand what he's saying about management of risk, but may I ask then, if it would be possible for a convicted sex offender, a for a convicted sex offender, a serious sex offender or rapist to actually be prevented on the basis actually be prevented on the basis of risk from obtaining a gender recognition certificate should they wish to do so, would actually be possible for that to be barred in a specific case, should that individual be assessed as posing a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

risk to public safety. The the position for the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The the position for the noble Lady there is that the Sexual Lady there is that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 would ensure that individuals, convicted sex offenders are already subject to post-conviction controls. They're managed according to their risk and managed according to their risk and the sex offenders register would be around looking at the. The position with regard to the the individual having their risk on on the basis of the the actions and it wouldn't be possible to stop someone applying for a gender recognition certificate, but ultimately they would be placed on the sex offenders register based on their risk, not on their gender.

And with that, I hope that the House will withdraw the amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I just also ask a question for clarification, which is not really about GRC, but to the point really about GRC, but to the point that the noble Baroness Lane-Fox made about name change, and I know he did cover that in his comments, he did cover that in his comments, but I'm still left a little confused. Can a person who is a convicted sex offender and on the convicted sex offender and on the sex offenders register change their name by deed poll and their new name by deed poll and their new name be omitted, therefore, from the sex offenders register, as in as soon as a sex offender changes their name, surely whether they're changing their name from a male name to a female name that needs to be updated on the sex offenders register.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My understanding. And again, if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My understanding. And again, if I examine this, that the the position is that the individual is on the sex offenders register, on the sex offenders register, regardless of the name that they are currently providing them with, and the risk is around the and the risk is around the individual, and that if a registered sex offender seeks to change their name, the provisions change their name, the provisions in the bill will apply as proposed in the bill here today. So I hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that the House will. Well, I'll. Final clarification. And possibly it's the case that the possibly it's the case that the noble Lord, the Minister, would write to us post this because there are there is some confusion. I think I always said it's about think I always said it's about managing risk. It's got nothing to do with gender. My concern is that do with gender. My concern is that once gender is added into the mix, risk somehow gets forgotten slightly.

That's what my concern has been when I've raised this issue in the past. So can I just ask if somebody's changed their name on the sex offenders register? A completely different name. The point of that sex offenders register is not just that the authorities know they're there, but there's all sorts of it's all institutions, and there is an enhanced privacy privilege given to those who change gender. Is that not true? That's what I've been told in the past. And therefore actually even probing that can it means that we will leave that well alone.

That's one question. Secondly, to clarify again in relation to things like DBS checks and so on, a change of gender, a change of identity. Forget the politics of it can mean that nobody knows that you are the person on the sex offenders register, or that in fact, as a DBS check, you have one name and there's no way then of knowing that you're the same person who's the rapist. That was the reason that I used the Clive Bundy Claire Fox example, because Clive Bundy, as Claire Fox, would not show up on DBS checks, would not be on the sex offenders register if they went to work with children, as the example was given.

That can't be right or what the government intend, surely. Maybe I've got it all wrong, but nobody has reassured me from the government. By the way, my questions and my amendments in the past were to the previous government. So this is not having a go at this government. This has been an holy mess over two governments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It may help the House if I say to the House that both the original to the House that both the original name and the new name would be recorded, and for clarity, where a recorded, and for clarity, where a DBS check applicant has changed their names, they are required to state all names they've been previously known by on the previously known by on the application form, and in submitting that form, applicants sign a legal declaration declaring they've not knowingly provided false information and failure to disclose previous names, and deliberately avoiding detection of previous convictions would lead to an individual liable for prosecution.

And I hope that helps clarify the position with regard to the amendments. But I would invite noble Lords not to press them and to withdraw them at this stage, but.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To sit down. Before the Lord sits down. I'm very grateful to him. I'm actually very grateful to him. I'm actually on How to Change Your Name government website, which says that if you are a sex offender, violent if you are a sex offender, violent offender or terrorist offender, you must go to your local prescribed police station where you are known police station where you are known to change your name within three days. It's a criminal offence. If you don't tell the police straight away.

And of course I'm so sorry. There will be probation and other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

things going on in the background as well I do. I think it is worth clarifying that this group of people are not that this group of people are not necessarily the kind of people I trust. This idea that local sex trust. This idea that local sex offender goes, God, it would be against the law if I didn't declare that I'm changing my name or indeed that I'm changing my name or indeed terrorists. As we've just been talking about Bondi Beach, the idea of local terrorists is sharp and of local terrorists is sharp and would be frightened by the possibility that they'd be breaking the law.

Just seems a tad naive.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. Let me let me again remind the House that the position of any of these individuals, as the noble Lady Brinton mentioned in her initial Brinton mentioned in her initial contribution, will be subject to consistently heavy management. These are serious offenders. These are serious offenders. There's a probation service, there's a MAPPA process, there is the registration. And I've given the registration. And I've given the assurance now that both names will be included in that registration. Now I can, of course, every piece of legislation that any House of Commons and House of Lords passes is subject to people breaking it.

That happens, but there will be significant consequences in the event of that occurring. I'm simply saying to the noble Lady that has proposed this amendment and to the proposals in the bill that are genuinely welcome across the House, that there is significant supervision of sex offenders, and the requirements are as outlined as I've outlined to the House already. And I hope on that basis, the noble Lord Clement-jones can withdraw his amendments, and I will beg to move the ones in my name in this grouping.
16:14
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, can I thank the Minister for his response? I'm glad Minister for his response? I'm glad he focussed on risk mitigation, my Lords. And you know, we got there, I think in the final few paragraphs of his response and we need to take very seriously what he said. And I hope that if anything that he did say does need qualification, that he will right to us subsequently. My Lords, because this is a really important area.

I did feel, my Lords, that when he dealt with amendment 317, there was somewhat of a not invented here quality about it. My Lords, not unusual in a ministerial response, but in this particular case, my Lords, I'm not quite sure that he's really taken a look at the existing clause, clause 87, and what the amendment actually tries to do. It's about speed, my Lords. It's about the police becoming aware at an early stage, not just after the deed poll has been executed, my Lords, and I hope that he will take another look at this, because we genuinely, on these benches believe that much earlier notice, i.e.

seven days before the application itself is submitted is the right time, which gives plenty of administrative time to change the sex offenders register. And for if you like, the authorities who are in charge of the kind of risk management that the Minister has described, so that it gives them the time to respond and to make sure that they're mitigating the risks of the name change. And, my Lords, that that isn't necessarily the case under the current clause. 87.

So I do hope that he will take another look at this, and then we will truly have some assurance about risk mitigation. My Lords, in the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

317 Mr. Prejudice. Amendment be withdrawn, Mrs. Bailey withdrawn. The question. Is that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that. Clause 87 stand. Part of the bill is finished with that opinion will say content contrary not will say content contrary not content. The contents have it. The question is at clause 88 stand part of the bill as Minister of that of the bill as Minister of that opinion will say content contrary not content The contents have it not content The contents have it clause 89, amendment 318 319 Lord Hanson moved formally. Question is that these amendments be agreed to.

As many as are of that opinion will say content contrary not content. The contents have it questions. The clause 89, as amended stand part of the bill is Minister of that opinion will say content contrary not content. The contents have it. The question is that clauses 90 to 93 stand part of the bill. En bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause 94. The question is that amendment 320 to 325 be agreed to? Are these amendments to be moved formally? Lord Hanson the question is that amendment 320 to 325 be agreed to en bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content.

The contents have it. The question is that clause 94, as amended, stand part of the bill, as amended to that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 94, amendment 325 a Baroness Maclean not moved, not moved. The question is that clauses 95 and 96 stand part of the bill, as manager of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it in schedule ten, amendment three, 26, seven, eight and nine.

Lord Hanson moved formally. Question is that these amendments be agreed to en bloc, as many of that opinion will say. Content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that schedule ten, as amended, be the 10th schedule to the bill, as manager of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it after schedule ten, amendment 330. Lord Lucas.
16:19
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, my noble friend, the >> My Lords, my noble friend, the Lord Lucas is making a good recovery from an operation and he's asked me to move his amendments for asked me to move his amendments for him. I suspect that he's watching on Parliament TV live to see if I get it right. So I hope the House will forgive this awful breach of protocol. If I say, Ralph, switch off the TV, just rest up and recover. Now I shall move as amendment 330 speak to his other amendments in the group, and then speak to my own amendments at the end, if I've time.

The purpose of this amendment is to fine tune part two of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, 1998, as it applies to persons disqualified for riding a cycle. The schedule omits sections 34 to 37 and 41, and another odd section on the ground that they are relevant only to disqualified drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles. For example, sections 34 to 34 C cater for reduced disqualification on successful attendance at a course, and they apply only to persons convicted for a specified motoring offence.

Section 35 relates to persons convicted of an offence in which fixed penalty points are to be taken into account, that fixed penalty points do not apply in the case of cyclists, sections 35 to 35, which relate to custodial sentences do not sit well with the proposed new cycling offences. Sections 36 to 37 all relate to motor vehicles, whether it be by disqualification till a driving test is passed, the revocation of a driving licence or the surrender of revoked driving licence to the Secretary of State.

Accordingly, all of those sections are omitted. Noble Lords may well ask which of the disqualification provisions in part two therefore remain applying as they do, subject to those minor and consequential amendments set out in the schedule. A noble friend has listed them. They are. Section 26 interim disqualification. Section 38 appeal against disqualification. Section 39 suspension of disqualification pending an appeal. Sections 40 and 41 power of appellate courts to suspend disqualification. Section 42 removal of disqualification. Section 43 the rule for determining the end of a period of disqualification and section 46 combination of disqualification with order for discharge and section 47 supplementary provisions as to disqualification.

That concludes section Amendment 331. Amendment 338. My noble friend says my Lords, subsection seven, which introduces subsections 8 to 12, is intended by this amendment to subsection 12, a subsection forming part of amendment that I propose to move later. Amendment 339 My Lords, the thrust of clause 106 is to bring cycling offences pretty much into line with those apply to motor vehicles. If, however, as at present, provision for obligatory disqualification is omitted for the more serious offences, then it may be said there will be a lacuna in the law.

Disqualification, as in the case of motor vehicles being, inter alia, an added deterrent to offending. Accordingly, the amendment now before the House reminds amends section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 by prescribing that the period of disqualification for the two most serious offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling will not be less than five years and two years respectively. As for the other two offences of causing death or serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling, where the culpability is less, there will be subject to obligatory disqualification for not less than 12 months and no additional amendment of section 34 being required on amendment 340.

My Lords, the only alteration made by this amendment, which is with respect to the penalties for certain serious cycling offences, is the insertion of the references to obligatory in column five of part one of schedule two to the Road Traffic Offenders Act of 1988. The expression relates to disqualification without it, certain provision in the amendment of section 34 would be of no effect on amendment 342. My noble friends, Last Amendment, he says. My Lords, this amendment inserts three subsections a substituted section 12, which extends the penalties for certain serious cycling offences set out there, a subsection 12 which amplifies the definition of disqualified, and subsection 12 B, which introduces schedule 11 A as to subsection 12, the only amendment made by it, which is with respect to the penalties for certain other serious offences not catered for in subsection 11 is again the insertion of the word obligatory in column five of part one of schedule two to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

As before, the expression relates to disqualification. It too is necessary if section 34 is to bite. As far as subsection 12 is concerned, it addresses the fact that disqualified, as currently defined, is couched in terms that can at present apply only to disqualify drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles. In other words, disqualified is for holding or obtaining a driving licence, and this formulation is retained in paragraph A as for the riders of cycles. I am sure noble Lords are well aware that a driving licence is not required for them.

Therefore, paragraph B in relation to them inserts a different formulation. It redefines disqualified as meaning disqualified for riding a cycle on a road or other public place, the latter expression being in conformity with the same wording in the new cycling offences created by this clause. And finally, subsection 12 B introduces schedule 11, containing, as it does, minor and consequential amendments of the Road Traffic Offenders Act of 1988. As that concludes my Noble Friends Amendment. And if one thought that the debate on the last amendment was highly technical, then I think this one is even far more technical.

And I shall set a test at the end by asking questions that all noble Lords have got that on. Now to my own amendments on 3.37 B to 337 F in the same group. My Lord, I am absolutely certain that the noble Lord, the Minister, will see that in all the list of amendments in the Marshall List, there are four groups of amendments tabled by many more peers than just me, who are deeply concerned at the scourge of dangerous cycling, now inflicting serious damage on pedestrians and aiding criminality.

I'm sure he saw the news item last week. The met are finally doing a crackdown on those big, heavy illegal bikes capable of 70 miles an hour and used for snatching phones and driven a lot of them driven by food delivery couriers, mainly Deliveroo. And I encounter them every night on the pavements outside Millbank on my way home. Then we've got the problems of thousands of e-bikes, mainly line lines scattered over pavements, with a problem of companies deliberately selling massive off road bikes, which people will then use in our streets.

And the problem that some e-bikes are so heavy that breaking the legs of users, with the problem of thousands of people riding on our pavements, and grossly inadequate enforcement of that, and I believe that penalties under 106 106 are inadequate. And I've suggested increased penalties for anyone convicted, as has my noble friend Lord Lucas. However, my Lords, I submit this no one will ever be convicted under these subsections because a conviction depends on someone, presumably a police officer. Concluding that the cycling falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and a competent cyclist would conclude that it was dangerous and all the noble Lord, the Minister, tell me how many times the Home Office expect to find a police officer to be present, to witness this behaviour and come to the subjective conclusion in subsection four and six, we need a simple objective test as my amendment 37 337E, which is that anyone who rides a cycle on the pavement is to be regarded as cycling without due care and attention.

And I challenge any noble Lord to dispute that. It seems to me pretty obvious, and that has to be the case. My amendment 337 C introduces a assumption that is automatically called dangerous cycling. If the person is riding a bike capable of exceeding the legal maximum of 15.5mph and weighs over 30kg. Now, this 30 kilogram thing is a new concept, but I believe it is now essential. A non-electric bike weighs between 8 and 15kg, and most electric bikes now weigh in at about 25kg.

However, the company lime has increased the weight of their bikes to 35kg, leading to a phenomenon known as lime bike leg. A report in The Telegraph also covered in the BBC this year in August this year, says I got it here. I'm a trauma surgeon and treat patients with lime bike leg weakness. It's a really common cause of leg injuries today. Lime bikes are 25kg heavier than a normal pedestrian bike, and doctors have observed an increase in lower leg injuries caused by heavy e-bike frames falling on their rider's legs and breaking them.

Now, my Lords, I fed into a road safety algorithm. What would be the effect of a 35kg bike with just a 70kg man sitting on it and hitting a pedestrian at 25mph? And the answer was almost certainly, in every case, fatal, with some pretty horrific catastrophic injuries. And even at 15.5 miles an hour, the injuries would be life threatening and totally fatal in the case of a child. Therefore, my Lords, I believe we must introduce a weight restriction on them as well as strictly enforce the 15.5mph speed limit.

I certainly would a competent and careful cyclist ever ride a bike on a pavement? Of course not. Would a competent and careful cyclist ever ride a 35 kilogram bike faster than 15.5 miles an hour? Of course not. And if someone is riding one of these massive, heavy, fast bikes, then I submit we don't need a subjective judgement on the quality of the writing. The criterion for dangerous cycling has been met per se. Now my amendment 337 D adds an aggravating factor, and it simply makes the point that if an innocent pedestrian is killed by a person using an illegal e-bike capable of of faster than 15.5mph and weighing more than 30kg, then an additional penalty should be applied by apologise for my typing in the amendment says 25kg, it should be 30.

I suggest an additional five years and a minimum of 15 years where a life sentence has been given. This is not for the ordinary cyclist who was reckless, but for someone deliberately using a big, heavy, fast killer bike on my amendment. 346. Sorry, not my amendment on amendment 346I strongly support the noble Lord Hogan-Howe, I think. I think that is the current law, but it has to be rigorously enforced, which is not. And I think he has done and that has to be done by the sellers possibly need a rule that no one can sell a so-called off road bike above those limits unless it's registered as a motor vehicle, and then there could be a nominal fee of, say, £5, but at least we have a record of them at Swansea and registration plates and insurance.

Now, of course, the noble Lords Minister, despite being a very decent and reasonable man, will reject these amendments as technically flawed, which they are. But he knows that the principle of what I've been saying in this is absolutely right, even if he cannot say so, and I suggest to the noble Lord, the Minister, that by the time we get to report, I suggest he will need to synthesise these amendments and the other amendments we've got coming from noble Lords. Combine our different ideas, add in the conclusions from the Home Office consultation, which I think is still out at this moment, or maybe concluded and and come up with a couple of new clauses which deal with this scourge, and he needs to come back with a coherent suite of government amendments.

He's got two months to do it, and I'm afraid if he doesn't, I suspect it won't be just me. But some other noble Lords as well will wish to come up with their own new clauses on it, and some of them will pass. I beg to move my noble friend. Lord Lucas amendment 330.
16:31
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
For amendment proposed after schedule ten, insert the new schedule as printed on the schedule as printed on the marshalled list. >> I would like to take the opportunity to wish my noble friend, Lord Lucas a very speedy recovery from his operation. I would also like to thank the Minister in the Home Office for, in part, adopting my private member's bill with which the noble Lord is very familiar. But it doesn't go far enough. So that's why I've taken the opportunity to table amendments three, four, one, three, four three and 344.

I've asked for a separate debate on clause 106, because a number of us have had long discussions with the excellent clerks in the public bills office. And while my clause that I'm going to come on to in my private member's bill when we discuss that does relate to insurance, and I would like to put on record the concerns of the insurance industry, not least the Motor Insurance Bureau, for the lack of insurance provisions. On the face of the bill, I'm told it's not in order to put on the face of the bill.

So I will raise those issues, if I may, when we come to discuss the clause 106 stand part. Now the Genesis. This was my third attempt at a private member's bill. The first attempt was during Covid, and we had no private members bills because we were busy passing all the regulations quite right for processing Covid at every level. Then another year was missed and it still remains on the order book, and I'm still hopeful that it will be adopted in full before the end of this parliamentary session.

The genesis of this was the very, very sad case, which I'm sure the noble Lord and the Home Office is familiar of Kim Briggs, who was mown down on a public road by a bike that was completely illegal. It not just it didn't have brakes that failed. It had no brakes fitted to that bicycle at all. It was designed to be used exclusively on the velodrome for speed trials. So the poor Kim Briggs stood no chance at all.

She was mown down and she was killed. And I realised when I met Matt Briggs, the the widow of Kim, that current laws do not actually treat road traffic offences the same way as any other incident caused for other motoring offences. And I think that is completely wrong. A vehicle, a bicycle is not a vehicle but can have devastating consequences in this case and several others. The death of Kim Briggs. But e-bikes, as we've heard, are heavier and go faster.

And then of course, we've got e-scooters who are in fact a vehicle and are meant to be completely illegal. So the the amendment I've tabled here in amendment 343 asks the government and taken straight from my private member's bill, we were promised that there were going to be trials for a period of time that were going to be pilot schemes to use e-bikes on a rented basis in a number of cities. These trials have gone on and on forever.

And during that time there have been at least probably 6 or 10 or a dozen deaths and a number of injuries caused by the misuse of these electric scooters they used by delivery vehicles. They're used by criminals to steal phones and other items, handbags and all sorts, particularly at this time of year. So I would like to understand why the government cannot agree, and I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, in summing up this debate, will agree to do this.

Why we cannot bring those trials in the pilot schemes to an end. Report to both houses and bring in appropriate legislation. It is meant to be completely illegal to ride, to drive. In fact, an e-scooter in a public place. You are allowed to own them and operate them on private land, which normally means a car park or some other part of your estate. So the gist of the amendment is to ensure that the government will have an assessment of whether it is appropriate to legalise the use of privately owned e-scooters electric scooters in public places in order to regulate their safe use and introduce compulsory insurance would be where I would wish the government to go.

The cost to the country and the cost to all of us who drive a vehicle is horrendous, and it runs into millions every year because there is no means of registering or insuring these e-bikes or indeed e-scooters as I've mentioned. So that that is the general thrust of my amendment at 343 to call to to actually bring these pilots to a halt and to actually if there is a case for them to remain either making them legal, whether rented or privately owned, to ensure that they are safe and that they are registered and that they can be insured.

And I think that will be a great step forward and much safer indeed. Then. Amendment 344 I've simply asked that there should be an annual report of cycling offences. I was almost mown down by a very fast moving, I have to say, younger woman coming at me at speed on a pavement. Now, unless I'm mistaken, it is currently illegal. It is against the highway code to cycle or use an e-scooter or an e-bike on a pavement.

But there are these cyclists are doing so with alacrity. Fortunately, I managed to hop out the way even with my advanced years. I noticed that there was a police van, and I asked them if they'd witnessed this incident, and they assured me that they had witnessed the incident. But they told me there was a policy of no pursuit for any person who currently infringes current road offences, whether in the Highway Code or earlier road traffic offences.

So the question I'd like to ask the Minister and indeed myself and the House today is what are we doing here if we are passing new provisions, if the current provisions are simply being flouted and ignored, and giving free licence to those people who want to ride an e-bike and e-scooter or. A pedal bike on the pavement when it is perfectly illegal to do so. So I would welcome an answer to to that question. So as far as my private member's bill goes, I'm delighted that clauses one and two are more or less incorporated in clause 106 in full.

So a big hand up, hand out. Thank you to the Minister for doing that. There is not in full clause two. Covered and I would like to understand really why it was considered an appropriate to remove the reference to an earlier act, which is section 28 of the earlier act in that regard, in the earlier clauses of clause 106. So turning to, if I may, amendment three four one, which actually would prefer 14 years as an offence for causing death or injury in those circumstances, but 14 years, I think, represents what is the tariff for other road traffic accidents of the severity, which is on the face of the bill and I think is the intention of the government, not imprisonment for life.

So I would welcome the noble Lords consideration of both the amendments, but also my remarks. I think it's entirely inappropriate that we have laws in existence at the moment which are simply being flouted, that the pilot scheme and the trials for e-scooters have not been brought to a halt, and that in tribute to those who died, such as the late Kim Briggs, that more needs to be done to ensure that these very serious road traffic offences are finally realised for the gravity that they are, whether caused by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate, inconsiderate cycling, whether it's death or serious injury.

But I would make the case that there should be compulsory insurance and therefore a registration going forward.
16:41
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
I'd like to speak to my amendments three four. >> To D. >> 342A to F, three four, six A and B and 498A. I'd like to thank Lord McCaul, Baroness Neville-Rolfe and McCaul, Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Lord Blencathra bring their names to some of those amendments. In 2015, 444 pedestrians were injured by cyclists. In 2024, this had increased to 603. Of those, the number of seriously injured rose from 97 to 81, and 25 of the casualties died. These numbers are based on police reporting, so it's clear there are a minimum.

They do not include incidents where the police did not attend a collision. They don't include the incidents where the pedestrians either did not need immediate medical treatment or later attended their GP or hospital setting without telling the police. We see every day, particularly in large towns and cities such as London cyclists, I'm afraid ignoring traffic regulation and putting people at risk, particularly those pedestrians with disability or lack of mobility, and even when those same people are crossing pedestrian crossings at night, many cyclists are not displaying lights.

They wear dark clothing, ride dark cycles and pedestrians just can't see them. Or other road users see them either. I don't believe that cyclists are a group of people who are more criminal than the rest of society, or any other road users. However, they are less accountable. They're less accountable than people who drive buses, drive cars, and generally speaking, generally, deterrence theory doesn't work for them. General deterrence theory claims that the risk of detection is the most effective deterrent to crime.

I'm afraid that motorcar drivers, lorry drivers, and drivers of buses know there is a good chance their behaviour will be noticed, and probably investigated because they'll be identified. This identification process has allowed the major strategic road safety measures to take effect. So first of all, the licensing of drivers has allowed the drivers to be prohibited from driving by the suspension of the licence and also the introduction of automated traffic speed and regulation. Monitoring cameras have produced massive enforcement at dangerous locations to enhance police enforcement, which have proved inadequate given the rise in the number of vehicles on the road and the miles of roads available.

But of course, these two measures aren't available against cyclists. They have no licence and they have no registration mark. This means that not only does the technology does not work against them, but it means that people cannot be identified to for other road users, and they have no identification mark to offer for an investigator to identify the cyclists after they have behaved badly. So my amendments are all designed to remedy that situation. Now the government responds usually to my proposals in a few, I think, predictable ways.

One the health benefits of cycling outweigh the regulatory costs. I propose that at least 633 people in 202,024 would not agree. And how can the blatant disregard of our laws intended to keep us safe, be allowed for cyclists? And why does their right to a healthy life trumped the rights of pedestrians to feel safe? The second thing the government have said before, and they've been saying this for at least 18 months, is that they are going to produce a road safety strategy in the summer, and that will help.

Well, now, my Lord, in the cold winter, I'm afraid we still haven't seen the road safety strategy. But more importantly, nothing's been done to encourage cyclists to behave and to keep us all safe. And the final thing they usually say, and we often hear it in here. We perhaps heard it a little today. We just need the police to enforce the existing law. Well, I would agree that I've already pointed out that most of the deterrence mechanism detection methods do not work for cyclists.

There is good work by the enforcement agencies, the police. The best example I found is the City of London Police, where Sergeant Stu Ford is leading his small team of cyclists in combating road cyclists. I went out with them and there they are having an effect. However, on the occasion I went with them, one morning we walked out to the police station just a few yards to set up a morning check. In the city there were cyclists ignoring pedestrian crossings, red lights and moving dangerously through pedestrians.

Despite the fact we were outside a police station, the 6 or 7 uniformed officers on cycles, on the road and on the pavement. So I don't believe enforcement alone will cut it, but it clearly has to be part of the solution. My amendments are all about prevention of casualties and dangerous situations by holding cyclists to account for their bad behaviour. Amendments 3418 and 342A to F propose that when a cyclist commits a road traffic offence and they are they, they have a driving licence, then penalty points should be added to their driving licence for the offence committed on a cycle.

Then, should they achieve enough points, there may be banned from driving where that's appropriate. Now you could say this is unfair on those who do not hold a driving licence. However, 75% of the adult population do hold a licence. Of those who don't, many are trying to get one or have ceased driving because of infirmity. So surely the health benefits to pedestrians of such a penalty point system outweigh the risks involved. And in any case, should removal of careless cyclists from driving a motor vehicle is a positive road safety advantage.

Amendments three, four, six eight and 498A are asking the government to register cycles and e-bikes in order that they display registration mark, allowing both witnesses and technological monitoring to identify the rider of the cycle. This, of course, would have costs which the user should pay, just as car drivers do. The cost of registration are relatively low, particularly considering that the cost of many e-bikes and top range cycles cost many thousands of pounds and in fact sometimes in effect in in excess of £10,000.

Amendment 346B is about e-bikes, as Lord Blencathra has already mentioned, e-bikes cannot exceed certain limits. They should not be capable of travelling quicker than 15.5km/h, sorry miles per hour have a power output in excess of 250W and should have pedals pedals that propel it. Many e-bikes, by simple modifications, ignore all three of these. At the moment, it's implied that if they do ignore those criteria that they should, they could therefore become a motor vehicle with all the necessary regulation, including insurance, and a rider can then be prosecuted for not just breaching the e-bike rules, but for being a motor vehicle and breaching all the motor vehicle rules.

The City of London again have used this rule extensively, but surely this should not be an implied definition, but an explicit one, so that when a cycle an e-bike breaches the the criteria, they immediately become a motor vehicle. I was to have a further amendment, which is really has already been mentioned about trying to get insurance for cycles, but I also was advised by the clerk, so I respect that. In fact, this was going to be out of scope for this bill.

I just don't quite understand this because this is a crime and police bill traffic offences on the road are criminal offences, some being so serious that people may be imprisoned or have their licence removed. Insurance is a benefit for two reasons. The victim of negligent riding may be compensated in a way they presently cannot be. More importantly, insurers manage risk. They make more dangerous drivers who are likely to lead to more payouts, pay higher premiums, and in that way, they incentivise all of us to reduce the likelihood of a collision or someone getting hurt.

So both in absolute terms and as a crime prevention measure, in a bill where the government argues for extra cycling offences, I often really do struggle to see why an amendment on insurance is out of scope. But I accept the ruling was made. But I would like to come back to it at some stage at Report stage, I'd like to understand more why what I see to be a road safety measure cannot be considered within this bill, or the government might want to respond to explain why the 606 people I mentioned earlier are unable to seek insurance from the person who injured the Or insurance payout compensation from the person who injured them.
16:51
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise. 346B in the name of the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe, who has just spoken as I've added my name to them. And I also support the other amendments in this group. In general terms, there's a lot of dissatisfaction about the arrangements for cycles, for e-bikes and for e-scooters, and the never ending nature of e-scooter pilot schemes, which my noble friend lady McIntosh of Pickering, has rightly condemned. Now I'm grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for introducing the new offences in clause 106 to put cyclists on an equal footing with car drivers if they cause death or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling.

I am also very grateful to him for generously giving up time to meet me with his officials to discuss my various amendments to this bill. The truth is that, like others who have spoken, I don't believe that the government's proposals go far enough. I've been campaigning on this issue of the dangers of e-scooters and e-bikes for some years. It's a bit like online harm to children. You could see the matter getting worse day by day. We needed to take early action and yet nothing was done.

I mainly blame the Department of Transport or their Ministers for this. They have a history of making the wrong judgement on important matters. Investing in roads, not railways in the 50s and 60s pursuing HS2 rather than upgrading the existing railways, particularly in the north of England, and now prioritising cycling and e-scooters over pedestrians. We have a wild West, my Lords, as a pedestrian, particularly in central London, you take your life in your hands every day. Scooters and cycles regularly ride on pavements and because of electrification, they can go at high speeds up to 70mph, according to the Sunday Telegraph.

They can't be heard and steal up behind you or approach at speed, making the pavement potentially as dangerous as the road. Those good enough to use the road, or the huge number of cycle lanes that now pepper our capital have no compunction. They jump lights all the time. There is an arrogant culture of non-compliance with the law, made worse by recent legislation to give cycles priority. Both my husband and I have been knocked over the behaviour of cyclists, and indeed some of those on scooters, makes it dangerous to walk, particularly in the rush hour.

Hard e-scooters are also dumped on pavements, posing a hazard to walkers. Now if I was disabled, like my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, who also has an amendment in a later group, I would now be extremely nervous about walking around town at all. The problem is relevant to everyone, not just those unlucky enough to be involved in a serious incident. So what can be done? There has to be a major change in enforcement, since riding on pavements and through traffic lights is already illegal, and I was glad to hear of the work by the City of London Police, and to read in the Metro last week that the met had been having a bit of a crackdown.

But these initiatives are, I fear, a drop in the ocean. I would add that some riders are criminals out to steal your phone or your handbag, transporting drugs or riding bikes that have themselves been stolen. Three members of my family have had their bikes stolen in recent years. The indulgent culture I have described is fuelled by Department of Transport neglect and police failure to give this area of lawlessness any priority, although it actually represents a crime wave. It reminds me of those mopeds stealing handbags in Italy, that beloved country when I was young but experienced here is now far worse.

Who would have thought that this would happen in England? The accident and fertility, fertility, fertility, infertility statistics are chilling. There were 603 pedestrian struck by bikes in 2024. As we've heard one was fatal, 4 in 2023 and 188 suffered broken bones. We've also heard from Lord Blencathra about the increases in lower leg injuries caused by life style bikes. Because they are so heavy. My conclusion is that their case is a case for much stronger action, and that's both from a perspective of neighbourhood safety and local crime prevention, and as a contribution to reducing serious crime.

And I know that with his long experience at the Home Office, the Minister is keen to take measures that work. So I'd like him to make three changes. First, we need a national initiative to give scooter and cycle crime priority in enforcement by the police. I remember the Met's Operation Bumblebee in the 1990s having huge impact on burglary and on its acceptability. Second, we need to listen to Lord Hogan-Howe with his knowledge, experience and common sense, we should agree to his proposal for a registration system which, in an era of CCTV cameras which hugely aid enforcement and be popular with every honest cycle or scooter owner because it would make it easier for them to get stolen bikes back and deter the gangs.

Seizing banks of bikes for resale. Finally, we should accept his amendment to treat bikes and scooters that go the more than 15.5mph, like motor bikes or mopeds. They'd have to have number plates and insurance, and riders would wear helmets, limiting head injuries and freeing up time in A&E. If riders can't be shamed into keeping off pavements, the risk of being booked Lord Hogan-Howe risk of detection should be restored, at least for these ultra dangerous vehicles. It may help to persuade the Minister that New York, in the land of the free, has already imposed a 15 mile per hour limit on e-bikes.

The noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe and my noble friend Baroness McIntosh also mentioned insurance and the benefits that it would bring. I realise that it doesn't seem to be in scope and although everything they have said is valid, I don't want that to be used as another excuse for delay. So I look forward to hearing from the Minister. This is his bill, not the Department of Transport and I hope he will be brave. They've done nothing to tackle this dreadful issue for years.

Persuaded by e-scooter and cycle lobbyists and in his time by Boris Johnson, and as in other walks of life, and in the words of John F Kennedy, we pay a heavy price for allowing a problem to go unsolved.
16:58
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise. Neville-Rolfe, and I have an interest in that. I am a regular cyclist on both a normal road bike cyclist on both a normal road bike and an e-bike. My Lords, what we have going on in the world of cycling and e-scooters has some parallels with your Lordships' House, in the sense that it is a giant experiment in self-regulation. Now, as we know from your Lordships' House, particularly some recent arrivals, the individual subjective interpretation of self-regulation can, on the one hand, mean regulation that suits oneself or on the other hand, can actually be regulation that thinks about everybody else.

I will say no more on that subject. My Lords, we have made a huge strategic mistake alongside a great success. We have been very successful, more than I thought we ever imagined in encouraging cycling across this country. But in encouraging cycling and in putting cycling infrastructure in place, the element we have completely ignored while we have been doing this successfully is how to actually do it safely, and how to enforce rules and laws, and to do the one without the other, with the benefit of hindsight, is blindingly stupid, and the results are all around us.

I mean, I see it every day when the weather is nice enough for me to bicycle here. There is virtually no policing at all. The chances of you being caught are non-existent now. I can recall about 14 years ago I live in Fulham. There was a fatal accident not far from from where I live, and for a period of about a week there was a very, very heavy police presence in the area where there had been a fatal accident, a very visible police presence.

To the extent that your Lordships will be aware at every major traffic light junction, there is an area in front of where the cars are meant to stop, which is a box with a bicycle logo inside it, which is only meant for bicyclists. Your Lordships will be aware, if you are observant, that not only are is that box usually full? Full of moped delivery drivers trying to get ahead and go as fast as they can, but in many cases it is also full of of motorists, many of whom I suspect have no idea what that box is there for.

And that is happening every day. My Lords, a lot of the focus in this very welcome Bill is on trying to address antisocial behaviour. My Lords, is it not the case that what we are witnessing on streets and pavements across this country is itself genuinely anti-social behaviour? If you are an elderly person, if you are infirm, if you are in a wheelchair, you are, you are in danger. You should not be in danger. If you are a pedestrian going across a pedestrian crossing.

But the majority of cyclists that I see every day take no regard whatsoever to. In fact, they actually use the green light coming on for a pedestrian as a sign that there will be no vehicles coming. Therefore, it gives them a green light to go through with impunity. And you know it's happening. You can't pretend it's not. It really is happening. So I do think that in the same way, the government has taken a very close look at antisocial behaviour and ways to address it, using the same approach with what is going on on our streets and pavements would be a very good idea.

A last idea, I mean, trying to catch people is a problem. However, all of the e-bikes that you see all around London, Lyme Forest and the others, they all have a tracking mechanism which enables the owners of those bikes to know exactly what their location is 24 hours a day. So if you had cameras at major junctions and you could observe individuals going through with impunity breaking the law, you could actually tell from the data of those cycle, tracking those cycles, you would have a high degree of probability of being able to identify the people, particularly the repeat offenders, and to apprehend them in that way.

So, my Lords, I leave it there. What is going on is clearly unacceptable. It is, it is, it is irritating a large numbers of people, whatever their political persuasion, it is unfairly bearing down on those who are older and less able to to to look after themselves, going about their business. So, my Lords, you know, what's your what one is hearing today is, is a collective sort of frustrated cry for somebody to do something about it. And my Lords, I just hope we're not having a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time. Yeah. I'd like to. Support the thrust

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to. Support the thrust of a number of the amendments that appear in this very broad group this afternoon, undoubtedly, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, told us that we do have a significant problem, particularly in London. My own anecdotal experience of of
17:03
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
own anecdotal experience of of cyclists and cyclists totally flouting the law, riding on the pavement, riding down the wrong way, down one way streets. And this is particularly prevalent amongst delivery riders. That is very much the case. And my Lords, as far as I can see, and I tend to walk around London, so probably a couple of miles a day most days around the West End and to to and fro. Your Lordships' House and I can confidently say that I have never once seen a cyclist or cyclist stopped for any very overt offences.

So I would say the noble Lord suggests he's been stopped. Well, you know, but. Perhaps so. So it's not a question of having ineffective enforcement. I would say we have no enforcement, no enforcement whatsoever, or at least none that that I've ever seen. And I believe if you have a law that is not enforced at all and is defined by people ignoring it, then you've got a serious problem. And my Lords, we shouldn't be making additional laws here on the subject if we don't have some high degree of confidence that they're going to be enforced, else we're wasting everybody's time here.

So, my Lords, I would invite the noble Lord, the Minister, in the context of all the amendments, this big group, just to give us a broad overview of what the government is going to do about enforcement. I know there are other amendments later, but unless he can convince us about that, the Lords, then I would suggest that there's not much point to many of the provisions in this part of of the Bill. Now, the noble Lords Lord Hogan-Howe with which with whom I agree on so many aspects of this Bill and indeed other bills, I.

I note that he knocks the ball into the government's court to come up with a registration scheme for for cycles. This causes me some reflection. I do think that that would be extremely difficult to do, and would be a very large step indeed. So I, I think my preference would be to try and see, you know, some enforcement, more enforcement, essentially people being stopped for, for these offences rather than having to put, I mean, the amount of complications that that would generate children riding up cycles on their way to school, for example, how would they, you know, they can't have points, they don't have licences.

I can imagine any number of unintended consequences. But we need to do something. And if it is perhaps a licensing scheme for the heavier, faster e-bikes, then maybe that's what what has to happen. But I think the government needs to needs to grasp that. I was very taken with my noble friend Lord Blencathra amendment 337 E stating, for the avoidance of doubt, that if you cycle on a pavement, you are by definition cycling without due care and attention, seems eminently sensible to me.

And just to make the law perhaps a bit a bit clearer. And then, my Lords, the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe amendment 340 6BI thought was was very important really, because on the one hand you have e-bikes and I should declare an interest. I have a mountain bike e-bike. I had two, as it happens, and I've used them occasionally. Not. Not at the same time. I would have to say that would be too difficult. But my Lords, people who in London want to move around quickly have really got a choice.

Either they buy a motorcycle, they pass a complicated series of tests to get that motorcycle license. If they go for the full licence, a lesser standard for smaller machines, they need to tax the vehicle, they need to insure it, and they need to have an MOT if it's of that age. Or they could ignore all of that and get an illegal electric cycle with comparable performance to a moped. And no one seems to be stopping them.

Not as far as I can see. I have no insurance, no no tax and happy days, no registration, no one stopping them for any offences whatsoever. There are, of course electric motorbikes, proper electric motorbikes where you have to ride, where you have to wear a helmet, have registration and so forth. And indeed, I think there are a few peers who come to this your Lordships' House on such machines. So we've got a very broad spectrum, but at the moment we've got a lot of people, particularly delivery drivers, riding vehicles that aren't being pedalled, just pushing an electric throttle essentially.

So obviously illegal. Obviously, even to an amateur, I can see that the policeman would have every right to stop them and to impound that vehicle. So I think we do have to make that clearer. We have to say if it doesn't fall within the criteria that we've heard, and I think my 15.5 miles an hour, we mean a maximum powered speed because of course you head downhill, you can go much faster. As with the conventional cycle. But, my Lords, I think we have to say, for the avoidance of doubt, that is a motorcycle.

If it doesn't meet the criteria, and if you ride that without tax, registration, insurance and so forth through committee, a series of significant offences and you will be arrested and prosecuted for such.
17:09
Lord Shinkwin Portrait Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak. I apologise to the House for not being in my seat when my friend Lord Blencathra began his remarks on amendment 30, and I'm very grateful to the government for taking into account the rather pathetic speed with which I can get from the library to the chamber. So I thank him for that. My Lords, at 429 pages in length, was 16 parts, 21 schedules and 159 pages of amendments. This bill is truly a legislative Christmas tree, and I'm worried that it's about to topple on the Minster, which would not be very festive.

So I'm going to take my remarks disproportionately brief and say for both of them to my related amendment three. Four. Six and cycling. In my view, they are pure common sense. I would say that we are reinventing the wheel in terms of ensuring public safety on our roads. And of course, as we have heard, unfortunately, our pavements. But I'm not even sure we have progressed that far. Such is the state of vanity that currently plagues our streets.

We have, as we have heard, so much to do, to reverse it. And the worst thing is that the situation we find ourselves in is entirely self-inflicted. Predictable, even logical. My Lords are response needs to be equally Lord Stockwood. That's why I support these amendments, because they point out that the way forward in the struggle, and there's no denying this is a struggle against the very real threat posed by dangerous terrorists or inconsiderate cycling, especially to anyone with mobility, visual or hearing impairment.

So, my Lords, in conclusion, I welcome these amendments and I look forward to know the Lord. The Minister's reply.
17:12
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Portrait Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, most of what I was >> My Lords, most of what I was wanting to cover has already been spoken to, so I have very little to spoken to, so I have very little to add, but I did want to pick up on a couple of points that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, covered, which Earl, Lord Russell, covered, which is that I think for me this is about. Disorder and and that and that kind of that kind of thing. And for a lot of people, there's a sense of unfairness, really, that, you know, if you're a driver and you are subject to a huge amount of restrictions and especially now in London with no tighter than ever speed limits.

And yet you see cyclists riding along in a way which seems to be flouting, flouting the, the, the laws of the road. And, and I guess what I just wanted to pick up, which I don't think has been covered yet, although I think my noble friend Lord Lady Neville-rolfe did, as well as my hon. Friend Baroness McIntosh about the length of these trials that go on for the e-scooters. I think the same can be said for the seemingly never ending approach to the consultation on pedicabs, which we legislated for pedicabs to be subject to regulations.

Now, we passed that and it took us absolutely years to do that. But we passed the new legislation 18 months ago, and TfL has done one consultation. They've now just completed another consultation, and it will be 2026 before regulations for the pedicabs are in place. And I think the the length of time that it takes for us to actually do anything, which is seemingly common sense, adds to people's sense of frustration. And just that sort of sort of disappointment, really, that things which, you know, should not be happening.

I'm allowed to happen just because there isn't simple enforcement. The other thing I just wanted to add, which was about delivery bikes and, and the reason why I just wanted to raise this because they, they are often the worst perpetrators of cycling on pavements, going through red lights, cycling at speed. And we know that they're doing this because there's a commercial imperative for them to be acting in that way. Rather curiously, I have been approached recently by one of the businesses that operates a delivery service, one of the sort of big digital delivery services, because they are concerned that the new provisions for protection of additional protection of sort of assault for retail workers doesn't apply to their delivery drivers.

Now, I'm not advocating for that that they are asking for. But as I said to this particular company, in reply to their email, to me, my question to them is what are they as a business doing to make sure that their delivery drivers actually obey the law and do not drive in a way which is antisocial by the by virtue of the fact that they're on pavements and so on and so forth. So I would, I would just if you like, sort of ask the Minister as well in the, in the sort of various different conversations and contacts that he is having with various different organisations that I'm no doubt are continuing to lobby him for more protection for their workers.

And we'll come back to that some of the time. And I know the Minister has agreed to meet with me, and I'm looking forward to that meeting. But but there is there is a need for these firms who are employing people to be out there on these bikes delivering to comply with the law, and they should be able to make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and many of the amendments seem to be shaped by amendments seem to be shaped by individuals bugbears on that. They experienced a lot on the streets of London. But this group of amendments is looking to increase amendments is looking to increase penalties for dangerous cycling and to raise some other issues regarding cycling and scooting
17:16
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
regarding cycling and scooting which caused danger to others, some of which I welcome and have raised interesting points. But the bill itself does see cycling offences updated and brought in line with driving offences. And let's put some context around this debate today. It should be remembered. According to figures released by the Department for Transport in September, that in 2024, 82 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 3822 were reported to be seriously injured and 10,645 slightly injured.

And if we go further and we look in the latest DfT accredited official statistics published on the 25th of September, they produced a pedestrian fact sheet. And for the period 2020 to 2024, nine pedestrians were killed and 738 seriously injured by one pedal cycle. Let's just compare this to 1047 pedestrians killed by one car and 19,241 seriously injured. Now, clearly, any death or serious injury on our roads is one too many. But it really is important, as we debate this legislation, that we understand the full picture.

Now, we on these benches support a proportionate and evidence based approach to updating the law, where any changes do not discourage people from cycling, which we believe is an important mode of sustainable transport. But as we've heard in this debate, we have seen a rise in fast food deliveries by e-bikes and e-scooters and micromobility sharing schemes. They've become like an explosion across our cities. And the thing with these is that time is literally money for all of these riders, whether it's delivering because it's their food or being paid.

You pay per minute to use these scooters and bikes. So therefore riders take risks. They break the highway code, they're moving at high speeds across pavements and roads, as we've heard, putting themselves and others at risks. And we do want to see an end to this danger on our roads. But I'm intrigued by the discussion about these e-scooter trials, which have gone on a long time. But let's just be clear they were extended five times by the previous government. They started in 2020.

They've now been extended to May 2028. It's clear this has been going on under two different parties in in government. But let's look specifically at the amendments in this group. Lord Lucas group of amendments looks to tackle the issue of dangerous cycling through the disqualification of a person from cycling. Whilst at a first glance this may appeal, in reality this poses significant challenges with regards to enforcement as cyclists, as we've heard, do not require licences, so it's very unlikely that a person disqualified from cycling who decides to ignore that disqualification would be caught and convicted.

It's logically, the only potential way to address this would be to introduce a licensing system for cyclists, which Lord Hogan-Howe proposes in in amendment 346, and he set out his thinking in detail. But this is likely to be complicated, costly and disproportionate. Whereas Lord Hogan-Howe other range of amendments seeking to add 12 points to a person's driving licence for dangerous cycling, careless or inconsiderate cycling, which caused serious injury or death seem more sensible. They seem a reasonable way forward which would give a greater range of options for the judge in such cases, and we agree this would be far more manageable than trying to bring in a national licensing scheme for all cyclists and cycles.

And given that 84% of people aged 18 years or over who cycle hold a driving licence, according to the latest cycling UK report, this shows this could be an effective penalty. Now. Lord Blencathra amendment 337 looks to define a cycle as including a pedal cycle, an e-bike and an electric scooter. And I think given the rise in different types of micromobility, we think this is a reasonable amendment to try to cover all types of cycles which can cause injury, which otherwise may fall through a loophole.

And I think the amendment. 346 B from Lord Hogan-Howe clarifying the definition of e-bikes and motorbikes, certainly at an initial reading, looks reasonable, but we would like to hear from the noble Lords Minister his thoughts on this amendment. Are there any practical reasons that could make this difficult? We have sympathy with its aims, but we look forward to hearing the government's response. But the other amendments in this group are clearly looking to tighten up the law further in relation to dangerous, careless and inconsiderate cycling.

Some, such as amendment 341 from Baroness McIntosh, look to change the penalties for causing death by dangerous cycling. We do not believe these amendments are needed or support them, but it's really important. The road traffic law is enforced with equal vigour in relation to cyclists and all road users, in order to secure the safety of everyone. But one of the challenges not covered in this bill, and through our discussion this afternoon, is the limited number of road traffic police officers across the country.

It's the elephant in the room. With all our discussions today and the clear need to invest in this part of the police workforce, I look forward to hearing the Minister's responses to the many important points that have been raised by noble Lords today, and look at how look to how we can ensure our streets are safer for all road users. Yeah.
17:22
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, can I thank all noble >> My Lords, can I thank all noble Lords who spoken in this important group of amendments and like the noble Baroness Baroness Pidgeon, the data does provide an important context to to this area. In 2023, there were four pedestrian fatalities and 185 serious injuries, where a pedestrian was hit by a cyclist. Over the past decade, the average number of pedestrians killed annually by cyclists has been three per year. But on the wider roads front, in 2023 there were 87 pedal pedal cyclists.

Fatalities in Great Britain, with almost 4000 people seriously injured, with a further 10,000 classes slightly injured. On the most recent data from 2020, four, fatalities from pedal cycles fell to 82, but serious injuries remain significant even as overall pedal cycle traffic has increased. But moreover, as the government recognises, the current maximum penalties for dangerous or careless cycling, that's a fine of up to £2,500 for dangerous cycling or £1,000 for careless cycling. These penalties are plainly inadequate to reflect the severity of incidents that result in serious injury or death, and I therefore welcome that this bill introduces new offences of causing death by dangerous cycling, punishable with up to life imprisonment and causing serious injury by dangerous cycling, which is punishable with up to five years imprisonment.

Those are severe sentences, but rightly so and in my view are reasonable and proportionate measures. I know my noble friend Baroness McIntosh has spoken to her amendment 341, which I think would remove the life sentence from the causing death offence and replace it with 14 years imprisonment. And with all due respect to her, I do think that on this occasion the government have got this right in terms of of the maximum penalty, the, the penalties for the new cycling offences exactly mirror the penalties for causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving.

In the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, causing death by dangerous cycling is just as serious as causing death by dangerous driving, and as such I think it is entirely appropriate for the punishments to be the same. But we must do more. While cyclists are required to abide by the Highway Code and other relevant traffic legislation, we know that far too many do not, and we've heard many descriptions from across your Lordships House this evening in respect to conduct of cyclists in London and elsewhere, and one only has to walk down Whitehall over Lambeth Bridge to witness the appalling conduct of a number of cyclists.

We heard from my noble friend Baroness McIntosh about her own experience from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and from my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe. All too often cyclists jump red lights. They fail to stop at pedestrian crossings. And whilst we rightly take injuries and death caused by cycling very seriously. In fact, the far greater problem is the general nuisance caused by those who cycle who do not abide by the rules of the road. We currently hold drivers to a far higher standard than we do to cyclists, and quite frankly, enforcement needs to catch up.

This is even truer with regard to electric cycles. My amendment 346 would create a new offence of altering the maximum speed and the rate of acceleration of an electric bike. Currently, as the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe has referred to, an electrically assisted pedal cycle is defined by 2015 regulations as being a bike with a maximum speed of 15.5mph and having an electric motor not exceeding 250W of continuously rated power output. Any bike with a maximum speed above that should be classed as a motorbike for the purpose of road traffic policing, and in this regard I agree entirely with amendments 3.37 F and 346 B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe, respectively.

The bill as drafted focuses focuses on cycles, but does not explicitly include electrically assisted pedal bikes or e-bikes, nor e-scooters. That legal ambiguity could quickly be exploited, and amendment 337 seeks to ensure there is no loophole. Amendment 346B in the name of noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe seeks to clarify absolutely that where an electric bike is capable of exceeding the 15.5mph, it should be treated as a moped or motorbike for policing purposes. These amendments, I believe, complement the new offence that I'm proposing through my amendment by placing penalties and sanctions on those who might try and modify their electric bikes to increase the speed from the limit, we give the police the necessary enforcement powers to prevent anti-social and reckless cycling that does place pedestrians in harm's way.

Many modern e-bikes are heavy, fast and capable of inflicting severe harm, especially if ridden irresponsibly on pavements or pedestrian zones, and to treat such vehicles as equivalent to to push bikes would be to ignore both the mechanics and the risks. On amendment 330 7EI wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra pavements are designated for pedestrians, cyclists riding on pavements or pedestrian only areas pose a clear danger to the most vulnerable. And by making explicit that cycling on a pavement or other pedestrian only area counts as cycling without due care and attention.

This amendment eliminates the ambiguity that currently hampers consistent enforcement. It's another aspect of a cyclist's behaviour that should not occur, but is all too often the norm, and it reflects a simple principle of equity. A pedestrian hit by a vehicle on the road may be prosecuted on. The driver of such vehicle, may be prosecuted as careless or dangerous. Driving a pedestrian hit by a cyclist on the pavement deserves no less seriousness, and I also support the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe amendments relating to placing penalty points on driving licence, driving licences for serious offences that recognises the true severity of such offences.

Misconduct on a bike should impact the standing of those with driving licences, especially where the behaviour demonstrates a disregard for road and pedestrian safety. So on all these amendments, I look forward to hearing the noble or the Minister's response.
17:29
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, it seems an awful long time since my cycling proficiency time since my cycling proficiency test. We we can debate whether standards have slipped in those 50 plus years since I took my my cycling proficiency test, but I think it is a common experience from all the noble Lords who have spoken that there are a small minority of cyclists whose reckless actions potentially put people at risk, and as a temporary residence of London during the week. I do see on a regular basis cycles on pavements through red lights.

I can report that on one occasion I did cross the zebra, crossing myself to find myself almost hit by a cyclist, but who found themselves pulled over by police car not 100m later, much to my satisfaction on that evening. And it is possible for enforcement to happen. I just want to start with enforcement, if I may, because it is a thread that has run through a number of contributions from noble Lords. It is right already that there are strict legislation in place for cyclists, and the police do have the power to prosecute if these laws are broken.

Cyclists have a duty to behave in a safe and responsible way that is reflected in the Highway Code. The Road Traffic Act, as the noble Lord Cameron mentioned, puts a fine of 2500 pounds for dangerous cycling and 1000 for careless cycling. The Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it also an offence to ride a bike. If a person is unfit due to drink or drugs and there is a considerable amount of activity undertaken by the police to enforce these potential breaches of legislation.

In fact, the government itself has pledged £2.7 million for each of the next three years to support police enforcement action on road traffic offences. And that's under the name of Operation Topaz, which is a strategic partnership between the Department of Transport, the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs Council. And I was pleased also to hear from the noble Lord Hogan-Howe of the City of London Police, who I know have taken this matter extremely seriously and do also have a cycling police officers to be able to catch offenders who have gone off road down areas where vehicles or police officers on foot couldn't catch.

So I think it is important that we recognise that and the the contributions today from the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool, noble Lord Shinkwin, noble Lord Hogan-howe Lord Blencathra in introducing the amendments on behalf of the noble Lord Lucas Viscount Goschen, Lady Stowell of Beeston, Lady Neville-rolfe, Lady Pidgeon and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering of all basically touched on those two issues, which is enforcement and whether the legislation is significant enough. So I just want to start as well, if I may, withdrawing the House's attention to clause 106 of the bill, which is where we're starting with these amendments are coming from.

And clause 106 of the bill underlines the government's determination that cyclists who cause the death or serious injury of another should face the full force of the law, as if that were done by a motor vehicle. The criminal justice system should not fail to fully hold to account the small minority of cyclists whose reckless actions lead to tragic consequences, and a number of contributors to the debate have mentioned their personal experiences, but have also witnessed experiences. There is a whole cohort of cyclists who obey the law and who perform well, and as the noble Lord Hogan-howe would anticipate me saying there is a benefit to health in cycling and that should be recognised and encouraged.

But there is certainly a holding to account of death and serious injury, and that's where the government is coming from. As a starting point to the debate today. Now, there are a number of amendments before, and I'll try and just touch on each in turn, because it's quite a wide group of amendments that have been put forward. First of all, the noble Lord Blencathra who spoke on behalf of the noble Lord Lucas, who I wish well, I spoke to him before he went on his short leave.

I hope, of absence from the House, and discuss these amendments with him briefly, and I do wish him well for his speedy recovery. And thank the noble Lord for introducing on the noble Lords behalf the amendments 33 333 383393 14 342 would allow for persons to be disqualified from cycling upon conviction of any offences in clause 106. Now, again, let's not forget that in clause 106 there's a significant penalty of significant jail time and potentially, you know, a life sentence with significant jail time added to it.

And I do agree that dangerous or careless cyclists are a serious risk to others, but disqualification would pose significant challenges. This may touch on other amendments later on, but self-evidently cyclists do not currently require licences, and the only obvious way to address this would be to introduce a licensing system. However, such a system would be both complicated, costly and, I could argue, potentially disproportionate in that it would be created solely to enforce offences perpetrated by a small minority of people.

Now, again, I don't think the noble Lord intended his amendment to serve as a barrier to cycling, but my concern is that it would create a risk for the implementation of this and would not really be very workable in his own right. The noble Lord Blencathra turned and introduced amendments 337 B and 337 F now again, these would introduce greater criminal penalties for those cyclists riding heavier, faster e-bikes. And again, I do understand and it's been mentioned again by a number of noble Lords, that the e-bikes, which have been illegally modified for greater speed, which represented inherently greater risk to other road users, there is no longer any weight limit following the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983, however, do specify that the electrically assisted speed for e-bikes is limited to 15.5mph.

E-bikes that are able to achieve greater speeds would not be compliant with these regulations, and therefore would be classed as motor vehicles, and because their motor vehicles, a person using such a vehicle will already be prosecuted under the Existing Offences and the Road Traffic Act 1988, causing death or serious injury, which carry the same penalties as proposed in the new cycling offences, as in life sentence, with the 14 year potential sentence usual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just for clarification, he said there would be classed as motor vehicles. Does that mean there's still motor vehicles even though

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they may not be registered or insured? They are classed as motor

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They are classed as motor vehicles for the purposes of the legislation. If they're above the 15.5mph. But they're not self-evidently for the reasons that I've already outlined, subject to the licensing arrangements that we have to date, mandatory uplifts based on a specific vehicle type would be a novel approach, but also inconsistent approach to sentencing. Sentencing should always reflect the facts of the case. The level of culpability and introducing rigid statutory additions could undermine the principle of proportionality, creating consistency and risk, setting an undesirable precedent.

The proposed amendments and again in the name of the noble Lord for changing the careless and inconsiderate cycling definition I understand the noble Lords desire to put beyond doubt that cycling on a pavement, or an area intended only for pedestrians should be considered, and cycling without due care and attention. However, it is already an offence that cycling on pavements in its own right set out in section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, which is an awful long time ago and has stood the test of time.

Section one, two nine of the Road Scotland Act 1984, and given the existing offences and those being still in place, then I would suggest that that provides with the Bill as drafted for serious offences, sufficient deterrent. The amendment 337 F would insert a definition of a cycle for the purposes of clause 105, and again I come back to section 192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which already defines cycles, and this definition includes a compliant electrically assisted pedal cycle.

And as I set out earlier, an e-bike that does not comply with the relevant legislation is a motor vehicle for the purposes of legislation, not a cycle. Now, I hope the House will bear with me. There is a series of amendments three, four, one through to three, four, two through to three, four, six through to 49A, which are all in the name of the noble Lord Hogan-howe and they bring forward the proposal that a person could receive up to 12 points on their driving licence upon conviction of any offences in clause 106.

Reaching 12 points on the driving licence would, of course, have the effect of disqualifying a person from driving a motor vehicle. As I've mentioned already, cyclists do not require any form of licence or cycle. The licence to cycle and therefore the proposal from the noble Lord would propose points on a driving licence as an alternative penalty. Now, in the sentencing Bill, currently before your Lordships House, there is already a new driving prohibition requirement that the court can impose when giving a community or suspended sentence order.

This prohibition would allow a court to take a more flexible and tailored approach to punishment than a driving disqualification, and it will be available irrespective of the offence that has been committed. And I hope the noble Lord will agree that the provision in the sentencing Bill does go some way towards meeting his objective. His amendments 3646A and 498A again, try to create a registration scheme for the purposes of enforcing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

new offences in clause 106. Just on the the point about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just on the the point about the the prohibition that might come from the Sentencing Act. Is it the danger with that unless the sentencing guidelines shift either reflect that new piece of legislation, you'll end up with a legislation, you'll end up with a very inconsistent approach. At least 43 police force areas as applied by the magistrates in those applied by the magistrates in those areas, because if it's just a random event, they might lose their driving licence because of anti-social behaviour, some of which might be on a cycle.

I understand the principle point he makes. I'm not convinced it's going to lead to a radical change in the way cyclists are called to account

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through their driving licence. It is for the Ministry of Justice who are responsible for sentencing bill, ultimately to look at sentencing guideline issues at sentencing guideline issues later. And I'm not able today to give the assurances on those points give the assurances on those points to the noble Lord. But I simply say to him that the sentencing bill is before this House at the moment, and the sentencing bill is trying to look at those issues as a whole. And when the sentencing bill is more then my noble friend Baroness Levitt and others will look at the question of guidelines and look at those potential enforcement issues as a matter of some urgency.

But the sentencing bill at the moment proposes in some way one of the issues that the noble Lord is seeking to achieve. And again, it's self-evidently a registration scheme for cycles, would make enforcement of offences easier. And the absence of a registration scheme does not, of course, make enforcement impossible. As the noble Lord will know, the police would be expected to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry open to them by examining other evidence before the police at the time of any potential incident.

Now, as with the example of licensing for cyclists that I referred to earlier, I think the House has to accept that the likely significant cost and complexity of introducing a registration scheme for cyclists would, for example, mean. And this was mentioned again in one of the contributions today that all cycle owners, including potentially children as well as those making new purchases, would have to submit their information to a central database. That central database would be required to keep the information and the ownership up to date.

There would need to be some form of registration plate that would need to be affixed to a cycle, and if I just give my the the noble Lord one statistic. The Bicycle Association has estimated that nearly 1.5 million new cycles were sold in 2024. Now again, that is a big, big undertaking. And I know the noble Lord understands that. But I would say to him that potentially the enforceability of the existing legislation is the key. And the work that we're doing, which I've opened my remarks with, would be key to that, would sort of counterbalance the potential cost to the public purse of establishing the registration scheme.

His amendment 346 b about the treatment of electric bikes. The amendment proposes e-bikes, which are currently faster and more powerful, should be treated as motor bikes or mopeds for policing purposes. And again, the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983 will mean that e-bikes which do not comply with existing regulations, would be treated as motor vehicles for policing purposes, and the Department of Transport, who have an overall responsibility for these areas, have published fact sheets explaining e-bikes which do not comply with regulations would be treated as motor vehicles.

Now, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering has introduced amendments three four, 1343 and 344, which would reduce the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from life to 14 years imprisonment. We have taken the view and again I'm pleased for the support for the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel on this, that the offences in the Bill bring into line the behaviour subject to maximum penalties equivalent to those already in place for dangerous driving offences, which is life imprisonment. In relation to amendment 343 I agree with the many sentiments in the House.

We must crack down on using e-scooters as an irresponsible and anti-social behaviour way, and there are mechanisms whereby the new transport technology must work for everyone. However, I do not believe that the way this government should tackle that issue after five years of running e-scooter trials is to impose further duties to review the problem, the Department of Transport has already announced the government will pursue legislative reform for micromobility vehicles when parliamentary time allows. I can't give the House an indication of when that's going to be, but the Department of Transport has indicated they will do so and will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

publicly consult before any new regulations come into force. Yeah. I'm very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very. Grateful to him. He did refer. To this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To this. In an earlier debate. I think it was last week. There are provisions in the bill now. I can't remember in the bill now. I can't remember which bill it is, but there is a bill before the House. And the noble Lord referred to the micromobility provisions. It'd be interesting to know if the consultation has already taken place before that aspect of the bill. I'm sure it's in his notes, because I can't for the life of me remember what what what bill it was the other.

Can I just ask also that it is an operational matter, that I think the amount of funding that the department has announced is very welcome from the Home Office. But how will you ensure that each individual force, like the met,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will actually use that money and implement enforcement. That there are operational issues? We put the money in through Operation Topaz, and that is for all police forces to examine. And but ultimately, it's operational for police forces to determine. The City of London police particularly have determined in the City of London it is a problem. But I personally think that there is a strong argument for particular strong argument for particular parts of the country to face further enforcement measures, because self-evidently there are problems.

There will be public consultation before any new regulations come into force. It's a Department of Transport matter, so I hope the noble Lady will allow me to reflect on that as to when the consultation is, and I will get back to her as a matter of course. Her amendment 344 would require the reporting of annually on cycling offences. We already publish annual statistics on those killed and seriously injured. In fact, a number of noble Lords and ladies have quoted those in the debate here today.

So I would suggest to her that that is already covered the amendment. 346 in the name of the noble Lord Davis would make it an offence to tamper with an e-bike. I accept that some people may well tamper with or modify their e-bikes to increase their speed, but as I've already mentioned, this would be an offence already under section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. And should the police issue a fixed penalty notice, this would result in a £300 fine and six penalty points already.

And should the case go to court, it could result in an unlimited fine and driving disqualification. So in the time that I've had, I've tried to cover a number of the points and apologies for not referring individually to every point made by every noble Lord or speaker, but the broad thrust is there are there is a problem. I think we recognise that there should be enforcement. We're trying to recognise that there is a new measure in the bill, 106, to increase the level of penalty for dangerous cycling and death and injury, serious injury by dangerous cycling.

I think we've recognised that and I welcome the support as a whole. There are a range of discussion points and measures which have been brought forward today around either lifting or increasing or changing the penalties accordingly. We may well revisit those at Report stage, but I think the government has got it right at the moment to recognise the problem, put some money into enforcement and make dangerous cycling and death by cycling a particular further offence with serious consequences. So I would invite the noble Lord not to push his amendments on behalf of the noble Lord Lucas Lord.

And I was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going to sit down, but I will now give way. Before my noble friend. Sits down, and he's given a very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sits down, and he's given a very. I'm sorry I couldn't be here at the beginning of this group, but he's beginning of this group, but he's given a very encouraging response to the very many amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the very many amendments. Particularly as we've, the noble, noble friend, has gone over, gone over time, but never really had to over time, but never really had to be in the start of the group to be able to intervene at any point in time during the debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm grateful, and this noble Lord wouldn't have gone over time had he not given way. But he time had he not given way. But he now has gone over time. So we will sit down and I commend the course

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sit down and I commend the course of action. I suggested to the noble Lord Blencathra. To noble Lord, the Minister, for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To noble Lord, the Minister, for his decency, and replied as fully as he possibly could. I say to noble Lord Lord Berkeley, there's many more groups to go in cycling. I think he'll have a chance to have input there. And the Minister used the general thrust he detected was one thing, if I may say so. My forecast on one thing was right. I
17:50
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
said at the beginning, the general thrust I would detect was that peers from all sides would be highly critical, that not enough highly critical, that not enough has been done. Section 106 is okay as far as it goes, but there are much wider problem out there, as much wider problem out there, as articulated by nine other peers from all sides. And in addition to from all sides. And in addition to myself now, noble Baroness Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and my and my noble friend and also my noble noble friend and also my noble friend Baroness Stowell, what about why has this never ending consultation taking place? And someone said, well, of course this is this is the Home Office bill.

Why don't they get on with it? It may be the Home Office bill, but it's the Department of Transport policy. And that's where the rot lies, my Lords, and those who criticise the last government were absolutely right to do so. I condemn in no uncertain terms the Department of Transport, under the leadership of Mr. Grant Shapps from 2019 to 2022, who was obsessed with getting more and more e-bikes and e-scooters on the road, and the reason they think the consultations were extended was, in my view, and in what was tipped off to me, he wanted to get so many more e-bikes out there that it was impossible to pull back on them.

It's like the police say now everybody's doing shoplifting. There's nothing we can do about it. He wants everyone's got e-bikes now. We can't put in a registration system. We can't control them. So, my Lords, and if you want further evidence of the attitude of the Department of Transport in February 2024, they went out to consultation again. The consultation was to double the size of the electric motor from two 50W to 500W, and to introduce an excessive and additional speeding system, 2100 responses.

The vast majority of professionals, police forces and others totally condemned it, and the Department of Transport had to pull that back. And rightly so. But mark my words, my Lords, they will try it on again and again and again. So I greet the noble Lord. Lord Hogan-howe made a very good point. Why should cyclists have a right to a healthy life, but not the pedestrians who get mowed down? I think he's a very good amendment. Be excellent. And he made the point.

Everyone's called for more enforcement, more enforcement. You can't have more enforcement if you don't know the bike which is doing it, and you don't have the identity of the person who was riding it. And my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe made the point that the amendments just don't go far enough. She used the term Wild West. I assume she was quoting the press release from the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who said that very thing last month, and I got the press releases here. London is now a wild west for e-bikes, said the mayor of London and the noble Lord of Lord Russell of Liverpool in an absolutely excellent speech.

I commend him for it. He was right. We boosted cycling, which is a good thing, but we haven't boosted the safety protocols. And he's right about them jumping the red light. My Lords, you don't have to go far to see that. Go to our prison gates at the pier's entrance. Stand there and look at the pedestrian crossing and the lights. Last week I the lights changed to to to red for the cars. I was halfway across when a cyclist tried to come through, so I stopped.

I get back, get back and actually he did stop and move back a bit, but that happens all the time. They use the red lights as an excuse. When cars stop. The cycle is built through my. My noble friend Lord Viscount Goschen made the point. There's no no enforcement at all. And he said, why bother to buy a moped or a small motorbike when you've got an MOT and insurance and pass a test when you can buy an e-bike which goes 70 miles an hour and does all the and does everything you want, and you don't have to do anything to register it and shoot it, and no one will stop you when you break the law.

And my noble friend Lord Shinkwin made the made the comment that rightly so, that it is a threat to disabled people and and Baroness Pidgeon the noble Lady Baroness Pidgeon. I'm glad she welcomed my definition of cycles. I think it was possible the only thing she agreed on with me. But I'll take any little crumbs of comfort. And my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel well, I'm glad that he supported most of my amendments and I fully support his. And I can say I did ask for tougher penalties, but I'm now content that the penalties are okay.

Now the Minister and his is courteous speech as usual, so that only a small minority, but only a small minority break the law. I think he is right and that applies to the conventional cyclists and e-bikes. And in the past it was my experience. It was a minority of light louts, you know, the ones head down between the handlebars, backside up in the air, belting through light. A tiny minority. Now, I would submit that I'm certain that the majority of e-bike riders are breaking the law one way or another, either by excessive speed or riding through lights or on the pavement.

And I can say with absolute certainty that 100% of the food delivery drivers are also breaking the law. But more of that in another group. Now I say to the noble Lord, the Minister, I disagree that we cannot have a simple presumption that if people are riding a bike on the pavement, it is automatically, without any other judgement, needed automatically per se. Driving without due care and attention. I simply say this again when we look at when we have the discussion on the other groups, I am fairly certain I always come in with slightly more trenchant views than many other colleagues in the House, but we've had support today from colleagues with many more modern, much more moderate amendments than mine.

We will see that when we come to the other groups. And I do say to the noble Lord, the Minister, he's got to go back to the Department of Transport and tell him to get off their high horse on this, and we want them to get on their bike and make sure we get proper amendments to toughen up the law, to deal with all the other abuses of e-bikes, particularly in London. But but in those circumstances, on the assumption we will be doing more work on this, I beg leave to withdraw my noble friend.

Lord Lucas amendment 3.30 is H or Lordships' pleasure that the amendment.
17:56
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Portrait Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
-
-
Be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn in amendment in clause 97, withdrawn in amendment in clause 97, amendment 330, a Baroness Royall of Blaisdon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Blaisdon. My Lords, I rise to move. Amendments 330 A and 330 B, which are tabled in my name, and the are tabled in my name, and the names of Lord Russell of Liverpool and Baroness Doocey, and to speak to amendments 330 ASA and 330 56E which are tabled in my name and the name of Lord Russell of Liverpool. In doing so, I welcome this weekend's announcements, which are part of the government's strategy to halve violence against women and girls in the next ten years and I look forward to the publication of the strategy later this week.

We owe much to the noble Baroness Baroness Bertin for her 2019 stalking bill, which created Stalking Protection Act orders. SPOs, which were introduced in January 2020. The government has recognised that the SPO process is in need of reform. Strengthening the use of SPOs was a manifesto commitment within its plan to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade. His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services response to the stalking super complaint also highlighted the need to change the legal framework for SPOs, and align them more closely to orders available in domestic abuse cases.

The amendments in this group seek to reform SPOs to ensure the victims of stalking are swiftly protected from further harm. 330 A clarifies the evidential threshold for obtaining an SPO, bringing this in line with domestic abuse protection orders, depots and so ensuring swifter and less onerous access to these protective orders. The Stalking Protection Act 2019 provides that the Magistrates Court may make an SPO if it is satisfied that the offender has carried out acts associated with stalking.

However, the legislation does not explicitly state the evidential standard to be applied. This lack of clarity can lead to inconsistent interpretation and application across police forces and courts in England and Wales. In practice, some courts have applied the criminal standard of proof when determining whether the conditions for an SPO are met. This approach means that police forces need to gather evidence similar to that required for a full criminal prosecution in order to secure an SPO. Consequently, victims face significant delays in obtaining protection, leaving them at risk.

For example, a woman called Juliana experienced online harassment, criminal damage and vexatious complaints to her employer by her stalker. She reported to the police and her perpetrator was arrested. While an SPO was considered. Throughout the investigation, there was slow progress made by the police to submit her application. Multiple witness statements were obtained to support her. SPO and legal services within the police were contacted, but seven months later, Juliana is still awaiting a court date for the hearing. Due to the time elapsed, she is concerned that her perpetrator will soon be let out on bail, and she will have no protective measures in place.

By contrast, under section 32 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, a court may issue a depot on the civil standard of proof. This lower evidential threshold allows for swift intervention and the earlier safeguarding of victims. According to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, approximately half of stalking victims do not have a prior relationship with the offender, which means that there's disparity in protection between the victims who qualify for a depot, i.e. those who have a relationship with the offender and those who must rely on an SPO.

Given that both domestic abuse related and non domestic abuse related stalking have comparable impacts on victims, I would suggest that the threshold should be consistent for both types of protective order. Amendment 330 B would introduce stalking protection notices ESPN's to provide an immediate safeguard to prevent unwanted contact or communication through a perpetrator until a full SPO is A is obtained, thus mirroring domestic abuse protection notices. DAP in instances where stalking victim is in relationship with an offender, a domestic abuse protection notice, a DAP can be authorised on the date or on the day of the offence by a police superintendent.

These notices last for 48 hours, after which time there must be a full application heard in court. This window of time puts a suspect on notice before a case is heard, where the police will seek to have a full domestic abuse protection order imposed in cases where the stalker has been in a relationship with a victim, police must instead pursue an SPO, a process which is significantly slower. Officers must first gather evidence to support an SPO application and serve the offender with papers to notify them.

An application has been made against him. The offender is then given 21 days to respond before a court date for an SPO hearing can be scheduled. Unlike DAP, which have a fixed 48 duration before, they must be brought before a court and converted into a full depot, the SPO has no statutory time frame for when an application must be heard. As a result, there is often little urgency to progress. These cases and delays are common due to scheduling difficulties between police legal services and the Magistrates Court.

We often hear of victims waiting for months for their application to be heard in court. Despite the immediate risk stalking presents to victims. Introducing an SPN would streamline the process of obtaining an SPO to ensure that it's in line with the timescales of Dapo and Dapo. Dapo giving victims of stalking parity with victims of domestic abuse. I stress that the introduction of Spns is about early rapid intervention for victims, and not a replacement for SPOs. A senior officer could immediately issue an SPN for the victim, establishing a legally enforceable framework that empowers police to proactively manage risk imposed restrictions on the offender's behaviour and ensure consequences for any breach by the respondent.

Following this, the application for a full SPO would be put before a magistrates court for judicial oversight. The London Stalking Review found that in London, SPOs were obtained in just 1.4 stalking cases. Introducing Spns would not only deliver immediate protection, but also encourage greater police use of these vital orders, ensuring victims receive the swift, consistent safeguarding that they need. Amendments 3.3 AZA and 365356 have very similar wording, but the former pertains to stalking protection orders and the latter to domestic abuse protection orders.

They result from cases of survivors and campaigners, which were brought to the attention of my colleague Chris Entwistle MP, but too late for her to table amendments in the House of Commons. We've had many debates on the rapid advance of technology, and sections to E and B of the amendments seek to prevent perpetrators from leaving digital footprints which are visible to victims, thus protecting victims from the fear of what their perpetrator might do next. One victim, Iman, told me of her experience her perpetrator was given a restraining order that stated, amongst other things, that the defendant must not contact the victim, either directly or indirectly in any way, including by telephone, text or social media platforms.

A quote from the victim. 17 months into the making of this order, the defendant viewed my LinkedIn profile, leaving a notification for me and terrifying me. It was decided by the police that the offender's actions did not amount to a breach Arrestable offence, as the offender hadn't contacted me himself. That LinkedIn, rather than the offender, had notified me of the viewing. This was despite my stating to the police that I had no idea how he had learned my new name. The offender was then allowed to instil serious distress and fear in me without repercussion.

Iman appeared. Sorry. Applied to vary the restraining order with her new name. When the matter was heard in court, the judge expressed sympathy for the distress caused by the LinkedIn viewing and explained that the viewing of LinkedIn profile by restrained party fell within a largely grey area. She asked if she would need a further application to request that the restraining order be varied to prohibit the defendant leaving a visible digital digital footprint online or on social media, in addition to other digital prohibitions.

She was advised that a further hearing would be required. More importantly, the judge stated that although he couldn't say whether such a term would be granted, the Court of Appeal didn't like judges to make orders, which include terms which are not well established. He further stated that he wasn't aware of which social media sites would alert victims that a defendant had viewed their account profile, compared to those which are akin to reading an article about another. This would seem, my Lords, to me, to be a very unsatisfactory situation.

The perpetrator was able to escape justice for leaving a digital footprint on LinkedIn, because the restraining order handed down by the Crown Court did not prohibit such conduct. Clearly, it is a grey area on which there should be clarity for victims who need protection from online and digital harassment. Section two of two C of the amendments result from the experiences of other victims, one of whom saw on her bank account the payment of one p alongside the reference I love you.

She was utterly terrified and fearful of the unwelcome presence of her perpetrator. The police said that they couldn't do anything about this as it wasn't in direct contact, as in a phone call or email. It is clear, however, that the restrained party had managed to get around the rules of the restraining order by doing something that was not explicitly prohibited, yet it managed to instil fear and distress, reminding the victim that he was still around and able to contact her. Finally, section two D of the amendments is about publishing information relating to the protected party purporting to come from the person whose for whose protection the order is made.

This links back to our debates about the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. There are cases in which abusers have created dating profiles using the name and likeness of survivors purporting to have come from the survivor. They have then, using the profile of survivor, engaged with others on such sites. I should add that I support amendments three 3330 a b in the names of Baroness Doocey and Baroness Brinton. Also the government amendments in this group. I understand the rationale for amendments 331 and 332 in the names of Baroness Brinton and Baroness Doocey, but I do not support them as an independent review of stalking led by Richard Wright KC is already underway.

Currently, it is expected to conclude by March 2026. But I would say to my noble friend the Minister, that ideally the timing should be brought forward so that key recommendations could be considered during the Report stage of this bill. And I wonder if this might be possible, although perhaps my noble friend, in light of the new strategy, will tell us that we might expect another bill in the next session of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parliament. Who knows? I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 97,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 97, page 122, line 31 at end. Insert the words as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the words as printed on the marshalled list. I have amendments three, 3330
18:08
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
>> I have amendments three, 3330 double B and 330 C. I've also signed Lady Lucy's amendments 331 signed Lady Lucy's amendments 331 and 332, and I also want to put on record my support for Lady Royle's amendments that started with 330 a. She and I have been involved in the strengthening the law for victims of stalking since the Stalking Law inquiry in 2011, which led to the first stalking laws, which were enacted 13 years ago on the 25th of November 2012.

I Lords, two decades ago, I was stalked for three years by my conservative political opponent when I stood for Parliament in Watford after he was caught in 2008, even though he pleaded guilty to over 60 crimes, including criminal damage to property, criminal damage using a knife, there was no separate crime of stalking from harassment, so the abusive and some sexual literature circulated widely on the streets. Anonymous letters to residents, the silent calls. Late at night when I was on my own in my flat, and the feeling of always being watched just didn't count in the court, other than as the same as an argument between neighbours over the height of a hedge, the police came and advised us on security and precautions for our house, and my then teenage foster son had to learn from the police how to always put on plastic gloves before picking up any post.

I never knew which of my supporters the stalker would target next. Now we recognise this is a tried and tested formula for stalkers by going for their friends, family and in this case, my political supporters. So the stalking law when it came in was much welcomed. However, the practicalities after it was implemented became clear because often neither the police nor the CPS would use at a charge of stalking until that case was proven beyond all possible doubt. So there was no mechanism to provide protection to victims of stalking earlier in the perpetrator's fixation.

And that's why Baroness Bertin 2019 stalking protection orders were thought to be a really helpful tool to help dissuade perpetrators and to give the reassurance to victims that they would be safe. But what we have to consider now is whether they are really fully effective. So this group of amendments seeks to address the weaker points of SPOs, the result of which is causing considerable distress to victims of stalking, both domestic and non-domestic. My amendment 330 AA seeks to better protect victims from offenders who try falsely to use educational or religious reasons to gain proximity to their victims.

The Crime and Policing Bill currently states that the prohibitions or requirements in an SPO should avoid any conflict with religious beliefs and with attending work and with educational establishments. Now, whilst this is not inherently objectionable in itself, this should be a matter for guidance and probably not on the face of the legislation, as this clause would give priority to an offender's right to freedom over the safeguarding of the victim. We know stalking perpetrators already use religious beliefs in attempts to contact their victims in defiance of protective orders, with examples of offenders claiming to attend the same religious institution as their victim in an attempt to be allowed into the area.

The problem is the inclusion of this clause on the face of the bill risks these claims becoming more commonplace, and thus should be dealt with in the form of guidance. My amendment 330 AB would ensure that consultation with victims when SPOs are varied, renewed or discharged. Currently, there is no requirement to hear the views of the victim if they wish them to be heard, despite the fact the victim is the individual being protected by the SPO, and thus may have relevant information that the court should hear prior to making a decision, and it is unreasonable to expect the police or other authorities to know all the details of a victim's activities.

And so it's important that victims views are sought as prior to an application being decided upon. This amendment would require police to consult with a victim following an application to change an SPO. As an illustration, Lisa is a victim of stalking and her offender made an application to vary certain terms of a restraining order. The proposed changes, allowing the offender to travel down certain arterial roads on the pretence that this was their route in and out of London, seemed inherently reasonable.

However, it was only when Lisa's views were sought that it became evident that the road included a petrol station that she frequented and cut through a park in which her children walked regularly. Now, this information would not have been readily available if the victim was not consulted. In this case, the information provided by the victim enabled the CPS to mount an effective defence and the application to vary. The terms of the restraining order were then denied. Amendments 330 C creates a requirement to issue guidance on SPOs.

Currently, the Crime and Policing Bill says that the Secretary of State may issue guidance in relation to stalking, and this briefing, along with many other significant pieces of work such as the stalking, super complaint and the HMI. Reports have made it clear about the confusion and inconsistency when it comes to the response to stalking. The need for guidance is clear. The Domestic Abuse Act clause on guidance states that the Secretary of State must issue guidance. So this amendment proposes similar wording to support future clarity and consistency.

Amendment 331 laid by Lady Ducey, which I signed, is important in that it would ensure that stalking is also part of the Vawg strategy, which is due to be published this week, and whilst ensuring also that the terms of reference for the right to review also cover non-domestic stalking, because too often the police don't take that seriously. And I take Lady Royle's point that the review is actually we didn't withdraw this amendment because we wanted to make sure that some of the details that are discussed today will be covered.

There is still a core problem with using stalking law created in 2012. And as I've said, the CPS often charge using harassment crimes rather than specific stalking crimes. My Lords, this has key consequences. Firstly, the victims feel let down and justice has let them down. And if their stalker is a fixated and manipulated, manipulative perpetrator, then it tells the perpetrator that what they've done isn't serious. And that's also why amendment 332 has been laid. Despite the good news of the Richard Wright review, it's rightly important that Parliament is reassured that there is a full assessment of why stalking legislation is not used by the CPS, even with repeat stalkers, and the review should not just be about the new cyber and other important forms of stalking.

It's that old ones that we're still trying to get right.
18:16
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I was. noble Lady Baroness Royall. I arrived slightly later to this party with Baroness Royall and Baroness Brinton, because I wasn't around. When you both very nobly started tackling this difficult subject. But once I did arrive, I was very happy to try and help in whatever way I can. My Lords, the amendments that were discussing in this group are interwoven with an awful lot of other legislation that we have passed in recent years and are discussing today because many of the same traits, particularly behavioural traits, are still there, together with some of the challenges that the different authorities have to try and understand this behaviour and be do something about it.

I think that the parallel in drawn in amendment 330 a between the the darpo which the domestic abuse perpetrators are subject to, and the stalking protection order, which has nothing like the same power or the same speed, is a good analogy. And I do think I would ask the government to look at that very carefully and consider that. And I think if if the government was to talk with the domestic abuse commissioner, I suspect you would find that Dame Nicole, as she now is Dame Nicole Jacobs, as of last week, would be would be very interested to discuss it further with the government and see and argue the case for that.

The two amendments, 330 ASA and 356, which deal with the frankly, the ingenuity of perpetrators in in using online means to try and find different ways to to get at their victim has many parallels with what we're looking at in many areas which deal with online abuse. And I do think all I would appeal to the government is that we are joined up in, in the experience that different departments and different specialist teams are gaining through the different pieces of legislation and guidance that we are enacting, so that we are learning from one another and we're not operating in in silos, which I fear we sometimes do.

I think amendment 330 AA removing the excuse of of one's religion or one one the need to to be in an educational establishment. Again, as another ingenious excuse for finding a way to get to the perpetrator is, is a loophole that I hope the government will look at, will look at very carefully. I think the the stalking protection notice to accelerate and streamline the process would be extremely valuable. I'm sure if the noble Lord, the Minister and his team were to talk about this with some of the areas of the country and policing, who are the most advanced, particularly the county of Cheshire, which has the sort of five gold stars for doing this really, really well.

And one spoke to the teams there about whether they would find a stalking protection notice useful to move very quickly. I suspect the answer would be a resounding yes. So I think going and talking to the people who are in the front line and who are dealing with this day in, day out, would be a very useful, useful use of time. I think. Amendment 330 C yes, of course, the Secretary of State should have the power to to issue stalking guidance, not least because as stalking stalkers get more and more ingenious and devious in some of the ways they are finding ways to make their victims lives horrible, it is important that that the guidance keeps up with that, because it is often two steps behind, and the people who suffer because of that are the victims.

And the people who gain from that are the perpetrators, because it gives them the breathing room to to do what they do. And the law is quite slow to, to catch up. So I'm broadly in, in, you know, in, in sympathy with all of these amendments. Stalking, you know, is one of the largest causes of distress to victims in this country, alongside domestic abuse and antisocial behaviour. Those are the sort of the the unholy trinity where is where the largest volume is, which is affecting people, predominantly women.

The ways in which perpetrators pursue their victims are often quite complex. These are quite devious individuals, often quite intelligent individuals, and we need an intelligent response

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in order to do something about it. My Lords, this debate has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this debate has underlined that stalking is not an occasional nuisance, but a pattern of behaviour that our systems still of behaviour that our systems still struggle to recognise and act on early enough. The debate shows a familiar picture warning signs are missed, threats are minimised and tools that Parliament has already tools that Parliament has already provided are used patchily, if at all. These amendments point towards a more joined up and confident response in which the police, prosecutors and other agencies share information, understand the particular dynamics of stalking and intervene at a much earlier stage, including online, before behaviour escalates into something far more
18:21
18:22
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> Stalking is an offence which constitutes severe harassment and can instil grave fear, as we have can instil grave fear, as we have heard just heard into the victims. It is absolutely right that the law bears down on perpetrators of Stalking and stalking. Protection Act of 2019 gave the Magistrates Court the power to impose stalking protection orders on application by the Chief Officer of Police. Clause 97 extends this powers that a Crown Court can impose such an order where a person has been acquitted of any other offence, the government will no doubt argue that they are taking the necessary action to further prevent cases of stalking through this part of the bill, but let us not forget another bill they are currently taking through your Lordships House.

The sentencing bill will suspend sentences for anyone charged with the offence of stalking. Section two A of the protection from Harassment Act 1997 states that a person found guilty of stalking is liable, on summary conviction to imprisonment of up to 51 weeks. Therefore, that is less than the 12 month time limit for the presumption of a suspended sentence order. Furthermore, the offence of breaking a stalking protection order is also likely to lead to a suspended sentence under the sentencing bill. While theoretically a custodial sentence of up to five years can be imposed on conviction on indictment, the Sentencing Council guidelines state that in most cases of culpability and severity, the starting point would be one year's custody and the ranges can go down to 12 weeks in custody and even a community order.

Now, this may very well be a proportionate for low level stalking offences, but the fact is that a person with a high degree of culpability and a medium to high level of harm will fall into the range. That will mean their sentence is highly likely to be suspended. So the government is serious about bearing down on stalking. I would suggest letting anyone convicted of that offence walk freely is not a good move for the safety of the victim. Now, the noble Lord, the Minister, might try to rebut this argument by talking about the stalking protection orders, but I would gently say to him that there is no good in letting a stalker roam the streets just because they have an order slapped on them.

Given the falling police numbers, what is the likelihood of a person who violates their order from actually being arrested? I also suggest that the the victims of stalking are not going to feel safer, simply because the stalker has been given a court order. What makes this even worse is that there is a very real possibility of a person who breaks the terms of their suspended sentence order, still not receiving a custodial sentence. Whilst the automatic presumption will not apply in that case, the government have opposed conservative amendments to explicitly exempt people with a history of non-compliance from suspended sentences, and they have resisted our amendments to exempt repeat orders from being handed suspended sentences as well.

So under this government's legislation, there is a very real possibility that a stalker could continually stalk their victim, break their stalking protection order and break their suspended sentence order, and never face jail time that is not protecting victims. So I would suggest against this backdrop, it does not matter what we do in in this place regarding stalking, we can make all the amendments. We like to toughen up the protection orders, but they will not protect victims and they will not prevent stalkers if the government lets them walk free.

So I'll be very interested to hear what the Lords Minister has to say in response.
18:26
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Well, I notice, my Lords, that the noble Lord Davies of Gower didn't have much to say about didn't have much to say about what's in this bill. If he's got opportunities to talk about another bill, let him talk about another bill in another place and another time that I'm talking about this bill tonight. He never mentioned one opening contribution about what was going on in this bill and what the measures are before it, or indeed what the amendments are before it. So I think maybe you should just reflect on that, because he's not he's not endeared himself to me in relation to the discussions today.

Well, the noble Lord says, does he ever he does occasionally. And I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But I wasn't really impressed with the fact he didn't mention one single word about what's before the committee this afternoon. Let's have a discussion about the sentencing bill with my noble friend Baroness Levitt and Lord Timpson and Lord Timpson. That's another place and that's being completed. But anyway, let's leave that to to one part. I hope to be helpful in part today to noble Baroness and others who have spoken.

And I'm grateful for my noble friend Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and the noble Baroness Brinton and noble Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness Doocey, for bringing their experience in part, their views and the passion for this subject to the debate here today. There's a number of amendments before the Committee, and I again, as I said, I hope to be helpful in part to some of those amendments. Amendments 330330AZA330330AB330B and 330C all relate to stalking protection orders, which again, as members know, are civil orders introduced in 2020 to protect victims of stalking.

Amendment 330A in the name of my noble friend Baroness Royal seeks to explicitly reference the required civil burden of proof that is, on the balance of probabilities for determining whether the behaviour of a person to be made subject to a stalking protection order amounts to acts associated with stalking. Now, currently, statutory guidance for the police, published by the Home Office, references that it is likely the courts will apply the civil burden of proof when considering stalking protection orders.

But I agree with my noble friend that there could be a case for making this clearer, and I can therefore undertake to consider the proposals that she's put in her amendment. 330, and look at the amendments ahead of the further next stage of the bill, and I hope that helps the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool who again spoke on this matter. And my noble friend I'm grateful for. 330, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. And I'm particularly grateful, if I may say so, for her drawing her personal experience to the attention of the house.

Again. I personally hadn't realised that the traumas that she'd had in the room up to the 2010 election, but I had a quick chance to google those matters whilst she was speaking, and it looks like it was an appalling experience and I'm grateful for her to bring it to the attention again of the House. Her proposal in amendment 3308 would remove the requirement for the restrictions in SPOs to avoid, where possible, conflict with the defendant's religious beliefs and interference with their attendance at work or educational establishment.

Now, on this occasion, I understand the noble Ladies view that this could be brought out in statutory guidance, but I think it's the view of all of us in government, in the Home Office, that it's important to retain this within primary legislation, particularly regarding an individual's rights through the European Convention of Human Rights, especially article nine on freedom of thought, conscience and religion. So I can't help her on that one, I'm afraid. Amendment 330AB again, would introduce a statutory requirement for the Chief of Police to consult with the victim of the offence when an application is made, either by the police or the defendant.

It's important to note that a court may already make a stalking protection order if satisfied. The individual has carried out acts associated with stalking that they pose a risk associated with stalking another person, and the order is necessary to protect the person from such risk. It is not necessary to prove an offence has been committed. The amendment as drafted would not cover cases where there has not been an offence, and we believe that statutory guidance for the police is best placed to address this issue.

But I hope that I'm grateful for her for raising it, but I hope she can reflect on on what I've said there. My noble friend Baroness Royall also has amendments three, three, oh A, Z A and 356E to which other members have spoken, which seek to explicitly list certain conditions that may be included in a stalking protection order or domestic abuse protection order. And the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool spoke in favour of that. Also. We believe that the behaviours listed in these amendments are already covered under the existing legislation, which allow the courts to impose any prohibitions or requirements they consider necessary and proportionate to protect the victim.

And I would argue, but again, it's a noble Lords and my noble friend, to consider this, that listing specific conditions in the legislation would risk leading the police and courts to rely only on prescribed examples, rather than tailoring orders to individual

**** Possible New Speaker ****

circumstances. Yes. I understand that point of not wanting it to go on primary legislation, but given the way in which it is possible to use the which it is possible to use the online world to find all sorts of ways to circumvent the conventional ways in which one would try and ways in which one would try and intimidate a perpetrator, could one not have a look at the guidance to to ensure that it includes descriptions of the ways in which perpetrators are using this in slightly innovative ways to make those charged with policing this more aware of it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for that intervention, and I'll certainly will will discuss with colleagues will will discuss with colleagues from the police that those those suggestions and points, the statutory guidance currently for police on SPOs includes the non-exhaustive list of suggested conditions, many of which could conditions, many of which could align with amendment 330 ASA. For example, the guidance could include prohibitions on contacting the prohibitions on contacting the victim's, referring to the victim on social media, either directly or indirectly, and similarly, the statutory guidance for police on depots also includes non-exhaustive list of suggested conditions, so it may well be that the points the noble Lord has mentioned are covered in that.

But I'll happily reflect on on what he said in terms of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forgive me, my noble friend. I'm sure that my noble friend is correct that it it is covered or correct that it it is covered or should be covered in guidance. But patently the the judge who was patently the the judge who was looking at the case that I mentioned in my intervention was mentioned in my intervention was not aware of this and said that actually the fact that this victim had been contacted via LinkedIn, that was not something that he could take a view of because he didn't know that this was something that he could take a view on, so I do.

I am grateful to my noble friend for ensuring that guidance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is properly looked at. I'm grateful again to my noble friend for referring back again to friend for referring back again to the LinkedIn experience. Perhaps what I could I could do is, I mean what I could I could do is, I mean my assessment, having discussed with officials and with my colleague Ministers, is that the statutory guidance for police does statutory guidance for police does include prohibitions on contacting the victim by any means, including the victim by any means, including social media.

But again, if she'll let me, I will reflect on what she has said today and I will discuss again with officials whether or not the guidance in its current format is sufficient to cover that point. But that's my understanding, and I think that's a reasonable understanding to put before the committee today. Amendment 330C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton would replace the power for the Secretary of State to issue a multi-agency statutory guidance on stalking with a duty to do so, and this would align the provision on guidance with the Stalking Protection Act of 219 and the Domestic Abuse Act of 221.

And I agree, it's important that the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool, again supported the general direction of travel that the noble Lady brought forward in her amendment. I agree it's important, where appropriate, to ensure the legislative provisions tackling violence against women and girls are consistent. So accordingly, this is an amendment. Again, I'm happy to take away to look at,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

discuss with officials and to take away for further consideration. I'm very grateful for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful for the Minister. I think the key question is why is it acceptable that there are different rules between May and are different rules between May and must, between this and domestic abuse protection orders?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the noble Lady will allow me? Amendment 330C, we have agreed that we'll take it away. Have a look at we'll take it away. Have a look at it. And that's not a guarantee we do something with it. But it's a, it's a it's an opportunity to reflect upon it. And she can examine what, what if anything the government does and she can determine whether to replace it again at Report stage. Amendment 330B, again performed by my noble friend, would introduce a stalking protection notice which can be imposed by a police superintendent.

My noble friend's motivation, I think, is to ensure swift action can be taken. However, on reflection, we view that introducing such a notice would potentially put a further complexity into the legislative framework without significantly improving protection for victims. And we also need to consider the proportionality of the police issued notice backed by a criminal offensive breach, which, if denies the respondent the opportunity to argue their case before an independent judicial tribunal. Failure to comply with the police issue domestic abuse Protection notice is not a criminal offence.

For this reason, the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lady Lady Ducie, Amendment 331 providing a statutory review of the effectiveness of two stalking offences and 332 seeking to provide a statutory review of stalking awareness guidance. I hope the noble Lady can accept and I think again, this goes to points that the noble Lady Brinton and my noble friend have also mentioned that there is work undertaken on both these issues. Now, currently, we've announced in December 24th six new measures to tackle stalking, including a commitment to review the criminal law on stalking contained in the Protection of Harassment Act of 1997.

We have already, as has been referenced by a number of speakers, appointed Richard Wright KC to lead the review. It is intended to be completed by the end of March 26th. We've given a timetable. I don't think it's right and proper that we change that timetable now, as was suggested potentially by a number of noble Lords. But the review will consider measures to achieve clarity in the legislation and on completion of the review, the Home Secretary will consider the findings and recommendations before determining next steps, including potentially further legislation.

So again, I hope that helps the noble Lady Ducey. There are a number of government amendments in the provisions to clause 99 of the bill. We've done this in guidance with stakeholders in the criminal justice system. The the government amendments 330 ASBO to 330AZE and 330 clarify the process for appealing the making of stalking order or amendments three three OAC and 330 AD provide for applications to vary and renew or discharge stalking protection order, which avoids applications having to be heard by a higher court.

The amendments 330330522A and 547A extend the provisions in clauses 97, 98 and 100 to Northern Ireland to allow the courts in Northern Ireland to make stalking protection orders. This has been introduced in conjunction with the Department of Justice, and allows them to issue guidance to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and they have been brought forward in amendment form at the request of the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland. And I think, in conclusion, I hope that I've been able to assist, in part, my noble friend, noble Lady Baroness Brinton, supported by the noble Lord Russell and the noble Lady Baroness Doocey and I will undertake to examine amendments 3308330.

See further ahead of the next stage. And on that basis, I would hope that the noble, my noble friend, could withdraw her amendments.
18:39
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Portrait Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
-
-
I'm very grateful to my noble friend for his very positive response to so many of the amendments. I look forward to further discussions, and if I'm further discussions, and if I'm sure that any noble Lord who's participated in this debate, if any of us can be of assistance in those discussions, we would be very happy to have a meeting with the Noble order. The Minister. With that, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw my amendment three. Is it your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 330 Asa not moved. Lord Hanson. 330 Asa not moved. Lord Hanson. Amendment 330 ASBO a z c a z a z e Amendment 330 ASBO a z c a z a z e moved. Formally. The question is that these amendments be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it.

The question is that clause 97, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause 98 Baroness Brinton three three OAPA and 330A be not moved move formally Lord Hanson amendment 330ACADA En bloc. The question is that these amendments be agreed to, as many of those of that opinion will say. Content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 330B Baroness Royall not moved.

The question is that clause 98, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 98 Lord Hanson amendment 330 be moved formally. The question is that this amendment stand part of the bill. As many as that opinion will say. Content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause 99 Baroness Brinton amendment 330C not moved. The question is that clauses 99 and 100 stand part of the bill.

As many as of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 100, amendment three 300 Lord Hanson move. Formally, the question is that this amendment stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents. Habit amendments 331 and 332 Baroness Doocey not moved in clause 101, amendment 333 and 334 have already been debated, not moved. The question is that clause 101 stand part of the bill, as many as if that opinion will say content.

Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause 102, amendment 334A Baroness Doocey.
18:42
18:43
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
cover on Wednesday broader issues around codes of honour and the deployment of these as motivation for and as an excuse for horrendous for and as an excuse for horrendous crimes against the person. Amendment three, three, four deals Amendment three, three, four deals in some ways with even more insidious and hidden issue. It recognises the growing number of suicides and self-harm cases linked to domestic and so-called honour based abuse. I remember meeting a group of young women when I was a member of the London Assembly and hearing with horror the widespread acceptance that a murder could be justified by codes of honour in their community.

My Lords, it most certainly cannot. Culture does not transcend or trump the law, and nor should it. We're all familiar with the concept of death by a thousand cuts. Prolonged abuse and indeed, prolonged encouragement of self-harm can have devastating consequences beyond the physical and beyond the immediate. Last month, an inquest into the deaths of Michelle Sparman, a Caribbean woman who died by suicide in August 2021, reached a landmark verdict at inner west London Coroner's Court.

The assistant coroner concluded that Michelle's state of mind was contributed to by neglect, and that her prior relationship was marked by toxicity, highlighting an abusive pattern of relentless coercive messaging from her ex-partner. That undermined her confidence and mental well-being. Crucially, the coroner identified this abuse, this abuse of conduct as the key causative factor in her death. A rare, explicit recognition of prolonged domestic abuse that had contributed to her suicide. But there's a serious gap in the law.

Michelle's family were told by police that suicides were outside their remit, and there was no case because Michelle had not reported domestic abuse when she was alive. This is not an isolated tragedy. Recent figures show that suspected domestic abuse suicides now outnumber homicides. It's estimated that three women each week die by suicide following abuse between April 2020 and March 2024, 354 such cases were recorded, which is almost certainly an underestimate. Yet since 2017, only one conviction has recognised a victim's suicide as the result of abuse.

Police have said they want to see more abusers charged with manslaughter when their victims take their own lives. But proving causation after years of abuse is extremely difficult in practice. Amendment 334 addresses this in two key ways. First, where the encouragement or assistance of self-harm is preceded by a history of domestic or honour based abuse, such offences must be treated as aggravating for sentencing purposes. Second, it allows the court to sentence perpetrators who've caused a person such serious physical, psychological or psychiatric harm that it leads them to take their own life.

To life imprisonment, as it would the case for crime of murder. Prolonged and sustained abuse, particularly where it involves coercive control and psychological harm, can be the catalyst for the deepest despair and ultimately for the loss of life. The amendment would recognise and encourage judges, coroners and police to investigate these cases thoroughly so that victims are no longer failed in death as they were in life. I urge the government to consider it carefully, and I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

That. Clause 102, page 133, line two at end, insert the words as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

two at end, insert the words as printed. My Lords, I follow my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I follow my noble friend Baroness Doocey in this small but perfectly formed, I hope, small but perfectly formed, I hope, group of amendments. I'm speaking to amendment 335, which mandates a
18:47
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
to amendment 335, which mandates a statutory consultation on the guidance. To accompany the new encouraging or assisting serious self-harm offences contained in clauses 102 and 103. And my Lords, on these benches we welcome the underlying intention of clause clauses 102 and 103 to implement the Law Commission's recommendations for a broader offence, covering encouragement or assistance of serious self-harm. Expanding beyond digital communication to include direct assistance. However, offences that involve encouraging self-harm are ones that must be handled with the utmost care.

Given the vulnerabilities inherent in such cases, the critical issue here is the risk of inadvertently criminalising legitimate support services, which has been raised with us by a number of of support organisations. The offence requires a specific intention to encourage or assist serious self-harm. This is intended to ensure that charitable organisations and mental health professionals who advise sufferers on how to moderate or manage, manage self-harming behaviour are not criminalised. My Lords, my amendment addresses this directly by requiring the Secretary of State to produce guidance and consult extensively with representatives of self-harm support charities and organisations.

Mental health professionals, including those providing trauma informed care and legal experts, prosecutors and defence practitioners regarding the application of the specific intent requirement. This mandatory consultation is essential, in our view, to ensure that the statutory guidance clearly differentiates between criminal encouragement and legitimate therapeutic activity, without ensuring that this guidance is informed by experts and laid before Parliament. We risk confusion among frontline practitioners and the inadvertent penalisation of those working hardest to help vulnerable people.

My Lords, I very much hope that the government will give serious consideration to this amendment.
18:50
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, beginning with the >> My Lords, beginning with the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey and and Baroness Blower. I fully appreciate Baroness Blower. I fully appreciate the general principle behind these measures. There is an this is an incredibly serious subject, and I appreciate the sincerity with which noble Lords. The the noble Ladies have approached the debate. Everyone wants to reach a scenario where all possibilities are accounted for, and there are no loopholes through which those who either encourage or abet self-harm can jump through.

But it is for this reason why I cannot offer my support for subsection six of the noble Baroness Amendment. Firstly, I am sceptical for the need for more aggravating factors. The general offences that fall under the loosely defined so-called honour based abuse are crimes themselves. I'm not sure why there is a need to create an aggravating offence when a criminal will already be able to be tried for these offences individually, but primarily. I do not think that this is the right time to be incorporating new definitions into our legal framework.

There is guidance for Crown prosecutors as to what might fall under honour based abuse, and examples as to how this might look, but it is yet to be enshrined in law. It is a rather broad and non-exclusive term within our law. That is not to say that it is not easy to spot. It often is, but I do think that it should have its own delineated legal definition before it is made an aggravating factor. I agree with the noble Baroness that honour based abuse is an increasing issue that we must tackle head on, but that cannot be done with a single amendment.

And moving on, my Lords. I will, however, offer my support to the principle behind subsection six be among Lords. Finally, I welcome the sentiment behind amendment 335, the name of the noble Lord. Lord Clement-jones policy, rooted in pragmatism, is crucial. Consultation and guidance are one of the primary ways to achieve this, and the government should base all of the policy that they bring forward on the testimonies of people who dedicate their lives to the subjects we legislate on. And it is especially important for a policy in such a sensitive area as this.

So I hope the noble Lady, the Minister, agrees and I look forward to her response.
18:52
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> I thank the noble Lady Baroness Doocey and the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones for tabling Clement-Jones for tabling amendments three three, four A and 335 respectively, dealing first with amendment three three for A. I completely understand the cases which have motivated the desire to have amendment such as this one, and the stories that the noble Lady outlined cannot fail to move anybody listening to them. Having said that, the government is not going to be supporting either of these amendments today for the following reasons.

Dealing first with the noble Lady Baroness Brinton Baroness Doocey amendment, where a defendant has previous convictions, including those which relate to a history of domestic abuse, this is already recognised as a statutory aggravating factor in sentencing and in addition, aggravating factors which are associated with honour based abuse, such as abuse of trust or targeting vulnerable victims, are already covered in the domestic abuse guidelines. Therefore, the presence of aggravating factors such as these should already result in the sentence reflecting those factors and in my experience, always would.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davis, about not adding an ever increasing list of statutory aggravating factors. This is, I think, certainly the third group of amendments that I have dealt with that has proposed for different forms of offences that there should be one. On the second aspect of this amendment, the proposed subsection six B raises a sensitive and important issue. Government wholeheartedly agrees that where it can be proved that suicide was the result of abuse or encouragement, the abuser should be held accountable.

And there are existing offences which cover this situation, such as manslaughter or encouraging or assisting suicide offences, which are maximum penalties of life imprisonment and 14 years imprisonment respectively, but imposing a requirement for the court to sentence the defendant in these circumstances as though they had been convicted of murder, when in fact they have not been convicted of murder, would be at odds not only with the current sentencing approach, but actually to the principle that people are only sentenced for matters that have been proved to the satisfaction of the court.

And, of course, I make the perhaps obvious that comment that there is no range of sentences for murder. There's only one sentence, and that sentence is life imprisonment. So for these reasons. Amending clause. Clause 102 in this way would not be appropriate. However, I can reassure the noble Lady, Lady Doocey, that the Law Commission is currently undertaking a review of homicide offences and of sentencing for murder, and this is going to include a review of the use of and the obstacles to using manslaughter offences where abuse may have driven someone to suicide.

I hope that the noble Lady will understand why the government is reluctant to make any piecemeal amendments in advance of the Law Commission reporting. Turning now to amendment 335, moved by the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones, I thank the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones for his welcome of the offence. Turning to the question of the of the guidance that he proposes in the consultation on it, as many in this chamber are aware, I was principal legal adviser to a rather well known former Director of Public Prosecutions.

I spent five years working for the Crown Prosecution Service, and it's important to me to emphasise that it is, in fact, for the independent Crown Prosecution Service to update guidance on prosecuting offences under this new provision. It may well be that many of your Lordships know this, but there is the statutory code, the code for Crown prosecutors, which which governs how in general terms, prosecutors make decisions on which cases to prosecute and not but those which they're not going to, but sitting underneath those, it's a raft of legal guidance which is published and is publicly available and exists.

It exists for two reasons. The first is so that members of the public can see what the basis upon which the Crown Prosecution Service makes its decisions, but also so that the Crown Prosecution Service can be held to account. So if they fail to follow their own guidance, that will often provide a ground for challenging the decision made. I do understand that the noble Lords Amendment aims to ensure that legitimate support or therapeutic activity is not criminalised, so I can reassure the noble Lord that the offence has been carefully drafted to avoid capturing vulnerable individuals or those providing mental health support.

The offence has drafted in this bill was recommended by the Law Commission in its 2021 Malicious Communications Report, and it contains two key safeguards. First, that the person must intend to encourage or assist serious self-harm. Without such an intent, no offence would be committed. Secondly, that serious self-harm is defined as harm amounting to grievous bodily harm. These safeguards ensure that the offence targets only the most serious and culpable behaviour and protects those who are, for example, sharing personal experience or discussing self-harm.

But you are not encouraging it. The offence also does not cover glorification or glamorisation of self-harm, which the Law Commission found was too broad and would potentially capture vulnerable people who might then be exposed to prosecution. And so, taking on board the Law Commission's comments, government has not included that. In our view, this approach ensures that the offence is necessary, proportionate and focussed on genuinely harmful acts. There is also a further protection for the vulnerable, which is provided by the public interest stage of the full code test, which requires that even where there is sufficient evidence, prosecutors must consider whether or not a prosecution is required in the public interest, and plainly the vulnerabilities of the potential defendant would come into play at that stage.

I hope the reasons I've provided clearly set out why the government doesn't support either of these amendments today, and I ask that the noble Lady Baroness Doocey and the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones withdraw their respective amendment.
18:59
18:59
19:00
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank the Minister for her response. I am not a lawyer and I'm certainly don't understand the law, even vaguely, but I really don't even vaguely, but I really don't understand if what I'm asking for is not necessary. And I totally accept what the noble Lady has said. How come with three cases of suicide a week, which is suspected to be an underestimate and only one conviction since 2017? I just do not understand those don't don't, don't seem to add up to me.

I take the point, you say about the Law Commission's review and reviews are helpful, but a recent report by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner exposed ongoing failures by government to act on the lessons from domestic homicide reviews. Only a quarter of national recommendations were fully implemented between 2019 and 2021, and this extends to domestic abuse suicides. So it's very sad that victims have waited years for concrete changes. And it seems now that there is not a huge amount, according to what the noble Lady said in her response.

That is going to make the difference and there needs to be something. So I'll think very carefully about everything the noble Lady has said, and certainly plan to come back at the next stage with something that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

perhaps I won't have so many holes in. I think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think. And I beg leave, to withdraw the amendment for now. Is it your Lordship's pleasure?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's pleasure? But amendment 334A be withdrawn amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is at clause 102, The question is at clause 102, stand part of the Bill and that opinion will say content, content not content. The contents have it. not content. The contents have it. The question is at clause 103, stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content, content, content The contents have it after clause 103, amendment 335 Lord Clement-Jones not moved, not moved.

Amendment in clause 104, amendment 335A Baroness Brinton.
19:03
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I have amendment 335A and 335B, >> I have amendment 335A and 335B, which relate specifically to child abduction across the United Kingdom. abduction across the United Kingdom. The government amendments three three, 6496521 and 549 relate three, 6496521 and 549 relate specifically to the abduction, detaining and retention of children abroad in who came from Northern Ireland, as opposed to, say, in Northern Ireland. But that's a tautology. I'm very grateful to all the organisations who have written to a number of peers regarding child abduction, and my two amendments are probing amendments in which we seek to understand how clause 104 will work, and what the effect is on a person who is a victim of domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and who takes their child outside the UK to safeguard themselves or the child from domestic abuse, or gets abroad, and then decides to remain abroad to continue to safeguard themselves or their child? Clause 104 arises from a recommendation from the Law Commission following the case of Nicolaou in 2012, and that case focussed on whether a parent commits an offence under section one of the Child Abduction Act 1984, if they initially have the appropriate consent to take a child outside the UK for a defined period, but then failed to return the child after that period expires.

The background is this a father took his son to Cyprus for an agreed contact visit, but did not return him to the UK at the end of the specified time, despite court orders from both Cypriot and English courts for the child's return. An arrest warrant was issued for the child abduction. In June 2012, the High Court ruled that an offence had not been committed under section one of the act. In this specific scenario, the section as written at the time applied to the act of taking or sending a child out of the UK without consent, not the failure to return them after a period of consented absence.

My Lords, this case, along with another case, Kayani versus Regina 2011, highlighted a significant loophole in the Child Abduction Act 1984, which the Law Commission subsequently made recommendations to address, and their recommendation in their report. Simplification of the Criminal Law. Kidnapping and related offences is very legalistic in its approach, and does not make any reference to having considered domestic abuse as a defence, for example, or even a contributory factor. Article 12 of the 1980 Hague Hague Abduction Convention provides that where a year has elapsed after a child has been wrongfully removed to, or retained in another contracting state, the court has a discretion not to require the child's return if the child is settled in its new environment, and paragraph 104 makes it a criminal offence to retain a child outside the UK at any time after the child is taken or sent outside the UK without the appropriate consent, and it therefore criminalises conduct in a situation where a court may decide not to order the return of the child to the UK.

And clearly this is not in keeping with either the spirit or the letter of the Hague Convention. Additionally, it could significantly hamper efforts to enable the safe return of children and taking parents could sorry children and their taking parents, the parents who removed them and could increase the number of cases where children are compelled to return alone without their mothers, possibly to the care of an abusive father or to state care. So my question to the Minister is what is the position of someone who uses a defence of being a victim of domestic abuse as the reason why they've not returned to the UK with the child? And if a court were asked to adjudicate on such an issue, would it demand evidence of abuse? I ask that because your Lordships House knows that in such cases as this, often the victim mother and it usually is a mother will have been living in the UK with the perpetrator of domestic abuse and coercive control, but not much would have been to the courts.

So on that basis, what protection is there for this victim and their child in this position? The real problem is that the Law Commission report, which was informed clause 104, does not cover this difficult territory at all, nor do the explanatory notes for the Bill. So my amendments are genuinely to probe the government's intention on how they would manage a case that involved domestic abuse and coercive control. So whilst we agree clause 104 is important, letting it pass without taking account of the complex issues relating to those parents who are fleeing domestic abuse will be problematic and could even lead to miscarriages of justice.

My Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Amendment proposed. Apologise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. Apologise. Amendment proposed. Clause 104, page 133, line 39 at end. Insert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 133, line 39 at end. Insert the words on the Marshall List. Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her probing amendments. 30 35A and B raising the problem of
19:08
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
and B raising the problem of wrongful retention of children in the context of the criminal law, and in particular the Child Abduction Act 1984. Essentially, the Child Abduction Act criminalised the wrongful taking of children, but not their wrongful retention. After the end of a permitted area of permitted period of contact. In 1984, when the omission of unlawful retention was pointed out in the debates on the Child Abduction Bill, as it then was in another place, it was not addressed by the then government and indeed the opposition spokesman at the time.

Now the noble Lord Lord Dubs said that it must be for another day. Moving on to 2012, the continuing discrepancy was highlighted by the decision of the High Court in the case of Nicolaou, referred to by a noble Baroness, which was indeed a classic case of unilateral retention of a child abroad in the face of court orders, and in 2014 a Law Commission report speculated about the rationale for the difference between removal and retention cases, and recommended what the bill now seeks to do in clause 104.

So, 41 years after Lord Dubs spoke of another day, it now seems to have arrived. Unjustified retention of a child can be both irresponsible and very harmful. Whether the decision to retain the child is planned or is more spontaneous, it can have a very considerable emotional and practical consequence for all concerned, not least the child. I do suspect that with a little more analysis and resolve back in 1984, we would not be where we are today. However, there have been significant developments in the intervening period to make us think about what, if anything, is now currently required in legislative terms.

First, as the noble Baroness is mentioned, the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction is now well established as a successful measure, dealing with most cases of this sort, providing for the immediate protection and swift return of children to their home country when justified in most cases, the use of the Hague Convention, coupled with any necessary consequential proceedings in the home country, the wrongful retention of children is adequately and firmly dealt with in the family courts without recourse to criminal proceedings.

Secondly, there is now, of course, a far wider understanding of the nature and effects of abusive and alienating behaviour and attitudes as experienced by mothers and children, and to some extent by fathers. This is the sort of behaviour covered by Lady Brinton's amendment. In reality, the retention of children by one parent occurs within a very wide range of scenarios. These are fact sensitive cases. At one end of the range is the spiteful and vindictive parent who wants to remove the child from the other parent's life.

The other end of the range are the cases of fearful and protective parents, who realise that the child is at risk if returned to the other parent. In between those extremes are any number of variable situations and motivations. The Law Commission report noted that the general policy of the law is that potential parental disputes about the care of children should be pursued in civil rather than criminal proceedings. If that is the general policy, criminalisation should now be reserved to a limited number of cases of this sort, and criminal prosecution should be seen as a last resort to mark disapproval of plainly wrongful and harmful retention of a child.

Moreover, overlapping criminal and family court proceedings should be avoided wherever possible, and the use of or threats of criminal prosecution should remain well out of the armoury of most warring parents. That is why, when resolving Hague proceedings, many parents now often formally agree not to instigate or support criminal proceedings against each other. Such agreements do remove one source of control and recrimination, and they serve to keep the focus on the children rather than rather than on the parents grievances against each other.

I therefore hope the government will accept Baroness Brinton's amendment, or at least undertake some further analysis of what now is needed for cases when the parent concerned is seeking to safeguard herself or the child from harm. If not, will the government confirm that any prosecution of these offences will continue to require the consent of the DPP? Under section 42 of the 1984 act, and confirm that there will be a restrictive approach to prosecution, and that the guidance on prosecution will be reviewed and updated to cover the important points raised by the amendment.
19:14
Baroness Sugg Portrait Baroness Sugg (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to the amendments 335A and 335B in the amendments 335A and 335B in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton and grateful to the noble Lady for setting out these probing Lady for setting out these probing amendments, because as the noble Lady, the Minister will know, there is concern that this change will criminalise domestic abuse survivors who constitute the overwhelming majority of parents involved in retention cases. And as we've heard, clause 104 is intended to act as a record to close the gap that the Law Commission recommended.

But that did not take into account domestic abuse back in 2014. I'd also add that I think our understanding has evolved significantly since then, and given our current knowledge of perpetrator behaviour, post-separation abuse, and the government's stated commitment to end violence against women and girls, we should look at whether this implementing this recommendation now would be appropriate. And we do need to consider the significance of domestic abuse in these proceedings. I would just say on the difference between removal and retention.

These actions aren't equivalent, and treating them as equivalent can fail to recognise that retention often reflects a delayed recognition of abuse that once the parent understands, once that they're safe amongst family and friends. And as clause 104 currently stands, these women would be criminalised and therefore deterred from returning with their child. Perhaps, and the noble Lady Baroness Brinton set out what we could see some perverse outcomes from this. The noble Lord Lord Meston talked about the Hague Convention and the civil mechanism working to design to to restore the child's prior residence.

And it's as we know, it's not intended to punish the taking parent and the importance of maintaining that neutral stance was reiterated in recent Hague forums, precisely because it ensures that the best interest of the child remains paramount. I did just want to ask the noble Lady, the Minister, about the Equalities Impact Assessment, an organisation such as Global Arc, Hague Mothers and Right to Equality all of course, with extensive experience in these matters have raised concerns around the equality impact assessment because it concludes that men and women are equally responsible for child abduction under the Child Abduction Act 1984, and therefore no protected group would be disproportionately affected.

However, as we know that over 75% of Hague abductions are carried out by mothers, many of whom are victims of domestic abuse, and it's therefore worrying that the EA doesn't really knowledge that sort of gendered impact of these cases and their clear links to domestic abuse. So I just wanted to ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, if she's confident the EA is based on enough accurate and representative data regarding gender and domestic abuse in parental abduction cases. My Lords, I recognise that the government's aim is to safeguard children from abduction and ensure their swift and safe return and uphold custody rights, which I'm sure we all support.

But criminalising retention without an exemption for domestic abuse, I worry, doesn't achieve those aims. We know that civil law remedies exist to secure the return to children of children, to their habitual residences, and introducing criminal sanctions may be unnecessary to achieve this outcome and could serve to punish rather than protect. I hope the label the Minister will take these concerns back to the Department ahead of Report stage, and consider carefully whether the clause could be mitigated through a domestic abuse exemption.
19:17
19:18
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Rose. I'll speak briefly to the amendments in this group concerning the important issue of child abduction, and I'm very grateful for those contributions by noble Lords this evening. And I'm also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for bringing forward amendments 335A and 335B, which raise important questions about the interaction between clause 104 and the lived reality of victims of domestic abuse. The amendments probe how the new offence will operate, where a parent has acted out of fear for their own safety or that of their child, and they touch on the wider issue of how the criminal law recognises coercive, controlling and violent relationships.

My Lords, we very much support the principle behind the noble Baroness amendments and the safeguarding concerns they highlight, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the government intend to ensure that the operation of clause 104 does not inadvertently criminalise vulnerable parents acting in desperation to protect themselves or their children. Turning to the government amendments, the name of the noble Baroness Lloyd Lord Levy amendments three three, 6496521 and 549. These create and support a parallel offence in Northern Ireland relating to the detention of a child overseas without consent, and I recognise the importance of maintaining consistency across jurisdictions and ensuring that children in Northern Ireland benefit from equivalent protections.

I would be grateful if the noble Lady, the Minister, could set out how the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland intends to exercise the new regulation making and commencement powers, and what discussions have taken place with relevant agencies to ensure the offence can operate effectively in practice. So I look forward to the government's response on these points.
19:19
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Lord Woolley to thank the noble Lady Baroness Brinton for tabling amendments three, three, five eight amendments three, three, five eight and 335B her amendments have been grouped with a modest collection of government amendments 336496521 and 549, tabled in my name, which extend the provisions contained in clause 104 of the Bill to Northern Ireland. I note the concerns raised by the noble Lady and the noble Lords. Lord Meston Lord Davies of Gower, my noble friend Lord Hacking, and the noble Lady Baroness Sugg, that one of the effects of clause 104 would be to criminalise parents who are fleeing domestic abuse, where the detention of the child is primarily motivated by the intention of keeping themselves and all the child safe.

First of all, can I reassure your Lordships that this absolutely is not the intention of the existing clause 104? Indeed, in developing the provisions, very careful consideration was given to the implications of potentially criminalising a parent who has detained their child abroad. Before I turn to the reasons why the government will not be supporting these amendments today, I want to explain a little bit more about the purpose of clause 101 hundred for inclusion in the bill, and I am very grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Brinton for her clear and even handed explanation of why she knows the government had included it in the first place.

The clause seeks to implement the Law Commission's 2014 recommendation that the government should close a small gap in the law by making it a criminal offence for a parent or a person with similar parent or person with similar responsibility to a parent to detain a child abroad without appropriate consent. Once the original consent had expired. I'm sure that I don't need to explain to anyone that the abduction of a child by a parent is an extremely distressing experience for everyone involved and for any government.

The aim is to safeguard children from abduction by preventing the unlawful removal of a child, ensuring their swift and safe return when a child has been taken, and upholding custody rights through international cooperation and legal enforcement. The new measure is intended to be consistent with the existing criminal framework, to stand as a deterrent and a backstop, where we know that a gap in the law is being exploited, even if by a very few people, some of those who have not returned the child are themselves abusers, and they are abusive parents seeking to evade the law.

We cannot leave that gap unclosed. But I've listened very carefully to the concerns raised by your Lordships this evening, and some that have been sent to me by organisations with an interest in this area. I remain satisfied that there is no risk of vulnerable parents who have been the victim of domestic abuse being criminalised, and my reasons are these I've already, and I hope I shall be forgiven for setting them out in a little bit more detail. I already alluded to them earlier in relation to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones, but that was in a slightly different context, and I think I need to give a little bit more detail.

Many of your Lordships will be aware that there is a two stage test for the Crown Prosecution Service to apply when deciding whether a prosecution should be brought. The first is an evidential sufficiency test. But even if that stage is passed and there is, it is felt that there is sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution. That is not the end of the matter. The second stage is the public interest stage. And what that asks is whether the public interest requires a prosecution to be brought.

And it's at this stage of the test that is often applied in, for example, the assisted dying cases. This is important, including in a domestic abuse context, because it means that prosecutors must consider the background, including whether the alleged offender was acting from benign motives or was themselves a victim of domestic abuse, before deciding whether a prosecution was required in the public interest. Additionally, and importantly, a third test applies for the new offence at clause 104, which adds an additional safeguard, namely that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required in order for a case to proceed, so the prosecution prosecutorial discretion remains a key safeguard, and evidence of domestic abuse would be a highly relevant factor in any decision whether or not to prosecute, or whether or not the Director of Public Prosecutions would give his consent.

In addition, and factors that are relevant to the public interest do not require proof to the criminal standard, so it's a much more in the round assessment than would be required if bringing some kind of criminal proceedings. But to be clear, the government continues to believe in answer to the point raised by the noble Lord Lord Meston, that the civil courts remain best place to deal with child abduction cases. And that is why we support international cooperation and recourse to the 1980 Hague Convention as a civil mechanism for facilitating the safe return of children.

The UK continues to work with other state parties and the Hague Conference, especially in cases involving domestic abuse, to ensure the convention operates effectively, Lord Meston said. And the noble Lady Baroness Sugg, in effect, agreed that this prosecution should be the act of last resort. We agree, but we are conscious that the criminal proceedings may be needed. In some cases. It has been suggested that some parents see detaining a child abroad following any earlier consent, as an easier route to keeping their child permanently outside the UK with no criminal charges or police involvement, and that is clearly circumventing the law.

So this change to the criminal law is intended to sit alongside and supplement existing civil remedies, rather than filling the courts full of people who have retained their child abroad. The noble Lady Baroness Brinton amendment asks whether the government would be prepared to add a domestic abuse defence. In effect, the law on defences, including those relevant to domestic abuse, is highly complex. It requires definitions, decisions about whether burden of proof lies what the standard of proof will be. And it's precisely because of this complexity that the Law Commission is currently reviewing defences in domestic abuse cases as part of its wider project on homicide and sentencing.

And whilst the primary focus of its review is on homicide, the findings of that review are likely to have broader implications for how defences operate in domestic abuse contexts, and that could be relevant across a broader range of offences. So a bespoke defence of domestic abuse in law in the offence created by clause 104 could have implications far beyond the child abduction framework, but I hope the noble Lady will accept from me that the Law Commission's findings will be carefully reviewed before any changes to the law are considered, in order to ensure that any legislative changes are informed by evidence.

But in the meantime, we are exploring ways to strengthen our understanding of how defences operate in non-homicide cases by gathering more robust data. For these reasons, it would be premature to legislate before the Law Commission has completed its work. But I take the point about the equality impact assessment and the gendered nature of some of these offences. And I will, if I may, write to the noble Lady and obviously to the noble Lady Baroness Brinton as well. Turning now very briefly to government amendments three three, 6496521 and 45549.

Up until now, the provisions of clause 104 extended to England and Wales only, but at the request of the Northern Ireland Executive, these provisions will now also apply to Northern Ireland. I note the concerns raised by the noble Lady Baroness Brinton and the noble Lord, Lord Davis, but for the reasons I set out, I hope that she will be content to withdraw her amendments at this stage, and I hope your Lordships will join me in supporting the government amendments contained within this group.

I beg to move.
19:28
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'm very grateful to all those >> I'm very grateful to all those who have spoken, and I thank Lord Hacking and Lord Davis for their implied support. Particularly want implied support. Particularly want to thank Lord. Excuse me, Meston and Baroness Sugg for their very and Baroness Sugg for their very detailed response to the amendment and the debate we're having, and I thought that it was right that they both confirmed, first of all, that criminal proceedings must be a last resort and that we should always aim for these to be settled via the Family Court and and through the Hague process.

I'm particularly grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for her detailed response to the two stage test and especially the public interest case. Because if that's where the domestic abuse issues can be assessed, that is good. And I'm also grateful that she's repeated that the consent of the DPP must be obtained, and that it's not up to the criminal standard. I think that is really very reassuring. It's always difficult when the Law Commission is working on something because one can't say, when's it going to be done.

I hope it won't be too long. I think if there remain issues after the Law Commission reports, I hope that the government or a future government would be prepared to discuss this at that particular point. In the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Would your Lordships pleasure that amendment 335A be withdrawn that amendment 335A be withdrawn amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 333335B Baroness Brinton Amendment 333335B Baroness Brinton not moved. The question is clause 104 stand part of the bill? As many 104 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content not content. The contents have it after clause 104, amendment 336 Baroness Levitt move. Formally, the question is that amendment 336 be agreed to.

As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content not content. The contents habit question is that clause 105 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content, content, not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the house be resumed. We'll then move to dinner. Break. Business will to dinner. Break. Business will therefore not return to the bill for 2010.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for 2010. But the House be resumed. As many as are of that opinion will say content, content, not content. say content, content, not content. The contents have it. Questions. On a statement made in the House of Commons on Wednesday, the 10th of December, on industrial action by
19:31
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
resident doctors is obviously deeply concerning. These strikes, which we now know will go ahead after all, will have a serious impact on the capacity of our health service to function at precisely that time of year when demand is highest. Resident doctors make up almost half of the medical workforce, and NHS leaders are already warning that action will cause significant disruption from these benches. We agree with the Secretary of State for Health and Care when he says that the BMA has clearly chosen to strike when it will cause maximum disruption, causing untold anxiety at the busiest point of the year.

We also agree with the Rory Deighton, the acute and community care director of the NHS Confederation, who warned that the winter now upon us and rising levels of flu and staff sickness pressure on services will be intense, with the likely consequences of thousands of cancelled appointments and operations. My Lords, the impact of these strikes are compounded by the fact that NHS England has warned that it is bracing for an unprecedented flu wave this winter. In London alone, there are three times as many people being hospitalised with flu compared to last year, with an average 259 hospital beds occupied each day, compared with just 89 a year ago.

And it's in this context that the CEO of the NHS has described the BMA's decision to strike in the run up to Christmas as cruel and calculated to cause mayhem. But, my Lords, there is a wider concern shared by patients and families across the country. When the government caved into the BMA last year with an unconditional 29% pay settlement, noble Lords of all benches warned that it was obvious that this would only incentivise the BMA to come back year after year with more demands, and at the time the Secretary of State brushed off these concerns and criticised those who raised this obvious observation, claiming that there would be no further strikes, no more cancellations and no more disruption.

Now, my Lords, while we agree with the Health Secretary that this action by the BMA is cynical, strong words alone will not keep operating theatres open or ensure patients receive their care in a timely manner. Appointments will still be postponed or cancelled, operations will be postponed and patients will suffer. So. So therefore, can I ask the Minister now that the BMA membership has rejected the latest offer and is pressing ahead with further strikes, could enable the Minister lay out what is the government's plan, and also what additional resources have been made available to mitigate the serious disruption that these strikes will inflict.

And given the combined pressures of flu and RSV, what steps are being taken to ensure that those who are eligible for vaccination actually receive it? My Lords, it appears that we are stuck in a downward spiral, starts, strikes are threatened, offers are rejected, strikes happen, misery is inflicted, and that it is threatened all over again. So if the government does find a way of ending the threatened action, will the government please do a couple of things? Make sure that it is conditional on updating work practices to ensure that we have a more efficient health system.

Many people who work in the health system know that some of the practices are out of date and have not moved on since the 1940s, and also make sure it does not incentivise the BMA to pocket any settlement and return next year, again threatening more strike action. That very uncertainty surrounding future militancy by the BMA is deeply damaging, and it should be a matter of grave concern to the government that the public seem in many ways, not to have any confidence in the government's ability to keep doctors at work and keep the health service functioning.

Can I ask as as a part of this, as a noble Lady Minister, recognise that the government's own Employment rights bill risks making matters significantly worse next year? And so will they think again about their rejection of minimum service levels to protect patients in the future. And finally, we know that the OBR have said that the cost of industrial action is a major risk to health spending. What estimate has the government made of the cost of strike action in December, and will cost be paid using existing NHS budgets? As we know, the Chancellor often says there's no more money.

My Lords, we are clear that these strikes must end and the behaviour of the BMA is indefensible. But, my Lords, we must also remember that it is not Ministers, unions or negotiators who will bear the cost of this action. It is patients, their families and their loved ones. They deserve better than this. And I'm sorry to say that we are not yet convinced that the government is on top of this and working to end the threat of these damaging strikes now, and incentivising future strikes in future years.

So I really do hope that the Minister can reassure noble Lords that the government has a plan.
19:35
Lord Scriven Portrait Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lady for putting before us the statement, for putting before us the statement, but do so with a measure of frustration, a feeling shared by countless citizens. This countless citizens. This frustration is directed at both parties for this ongoing and deeply damaging resident doctors dispute. The government and the British Medical Association leadership were witnessing a breakdown in negotiation, a failure of common sense and, critically, a failure of duty towards the patients who rely on the National Health Service.

Firstly, firstly, let me address the actions of the government. The manner in which this dispute has been handled is frankly not best practice. We've seen periods of silence, followed by 11th hour media interventions by the Secretary of State. This this pattern suggests not a serious negotiation, but a high stakes, last minute political gamble PR approach. The way the reported details of the last minute offer were put before the public and resident and resident doctors, only serves to deepen this suspicion. This approach disrespects the process and the professionals involved.

Could I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, given that the issues addressed in the government's 11th hour offer have been known since the general election? Why did the government choose a high stakes, last minute intervention rather than presenting the offer within a calm, realistic time frame that could have facilitated constructive consideration by resident doctors? Furthermore, I must express my dismay at the tone sometimes employed by the Secretary of State, using rhetoric that seems to divide resident doctors from the public is counterproductive.

This dispute will not be will not be solved through grandstanding. It will be solved. It will be solved through respect and meaningful compromise. The government must reflect on its tone and its timing. Yet, my Lords, the frustration I feel for the government's handling is matched even more in equal measure by some of the tactics and demands employed by the BMA leadership. The pursuit of this round of strike action, especially scheduled at the most challenging time of the year, is, in my view, deeply irresponsible.

The BMA has a singular responsibility that transcends typical union negotiations. Their members are the direct custodians of people's health. We are currently grappling with two severe pressures on the NHS the riding, the rising tide of flu and the deliberate scheduling of this strike to coincide with the Christmas period. To choose this time when hospital rotors are already thin and the NHS is under maximum strain, is totally unacceptable. It shows a disregard for the welfare of the most vulnerable patients I wish to thank, and these benches do the consultants, those resident doctors who decide to go into work and other dedicated staff who will keep our NHS safe during this unnecessary strike, and and for them for doing the right and decent thing.

The core demand pushed by the BMA leadership is full pay restoration. Whilst I acknowledge the significant financial pressures facing resident doctors, a demand for full restoration to a prior decades real terms value is in the present economic climate, neither achievement achievable nor reasonable. By focusing the entire dispute on the single maximum pay demand, the BMA leadership is allowing the government to ignore the far more crucial, systematic issues that genuinely plague resident doctors and threaten the future of NHS workforce.

My Lords, this failure is a stain on both parties. The government must return to the table with a genuine commitment to a multi-year funded plan that addresses the systematic non-pay issues, and the BMA leadership must immediately reassess the morality of their current strike schedule and shift their focus from an unrealistic pay demand and focus on the achievable reforms in in training and conditions. And I have two further questions for the noble Lady, the Minister. The recent offer included a promise to create up to 4000 extra speciality training posts.

However, the BMA leadership has claimed that these posts are simply being cannibalised or repurposed from existing locally employed roles. Will the noble Lady, the Minister, categorically confirm that these 4000 places represent genuinely new funded training opportunities that increase the total number of doctors retained in the NHS career structure and do not merely and are not merely a reclassification of existing roles. And given that the pay restoration demand is deemed unachievable, how will the government, outside of pay guarantee fundamental reforms to the working time directive enforcement, the quality of training rotations and the and the and the rota planning to ensure resident doctors are used efficiently for patient care and for the development of their skills, thereby making a medical career in the NHS sustainable and attractive.

Our healthcare system cannot afford this deadlock. I urge both sides to put down their political weapons, swallow their pride and focus on the real world issues before before the consequences become truly tragic. Yeah.
19:41
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
My my Lords. >> My my Lords. >> The government has made a comprehensive offer to resident doctors to resolve their disputes, and I listened closely to the assessment made by the noble Lord Lord Kamall, the noble Lord Lord Scriven their assessment of the government's performance. And I have to say that it isn't a reflection that I would share. This has dominated the agenda, and the Secretary of State, in my view, has taken a proactive and a collaborative approach with the BMA resident doctors committee.

So, for example, he has had an 18 meetings with the BMA, seven phone calls, he has sent ten letters and there have been dozens and dozens of meetings with officials. So I can't recognise the suggestion of a hands off, confrontational approach. The Secretary of State has consistently chosen to do everything that he can, particularly to cancel the Christmas strikes, which are, of course, timed for the most damaging period of the year. Secretary of State even went as far as to extend the BMA strike mandate, giving them time to call off strikes while they consulted their members and an option to rearrange if the offer was rejected.

And I am astounded that the BMA rejected the offer that was put before them. A comprehensive officer office offer to resident doctors to resolve their disputes. It would have provided resident doctors currently applying with more training job opportunities. It would have prioritised UK trained graduates, and it would have put money back in the pockets of resident doctors. So by rejecting this offer, what it does mean amongst a whole range of other things, as noble Lords have rightly acknowledged, it does mean that NHS colleagues will be cancelling Christmas plans to cover shifts.

Patients will have their operations cancelled as the NHS prepares for the worst. The noble Lord Lord Kamall specifically asked well, what happens next? It's a very powerful question in the circumstances that we have. So let me say the government will consider its next steps, and our first priority is going to be dealing with strikes and the focus of the department and the NHS. I can reassure noble Lords will be on getting the health service through what is a double whammy again, as has been well referenced by noble Lords, the double whammy of flu and strikes.

But let me also say to the noble Lord Lord Kamall, we have already vaccinated 17 million people. That's 170,000 more than last year, and we'll be continuing to work intensively with frontline leaders to prepare for what is a coming disruption. I also want to refer to the offer. The BMA asked us to create more training places. That's exactly what we would have done. The offer would have created 4000 new speciality training posts for resident doctors over the next three years, with an additional 1000 for this year.

Under this deal, it would have been the case that more doctors who would have been in training roles would have had the opportunity to progress their careers and become consultants and GPS of the future that we all want to see. And that is why, having had this deal rejected by the BMA, our focus has to be on dealing with strikes and getting through. And I would also say that we continue to be committed, we we that this offer is no longer on the table.

And that is thanks, sadly, to the rejection by the BMA membership. And our operational response is to mitigate the impact of any industrial action and that we should also acknowledge within this that flu rates, as we've heard from frontbenchers, are the highest for this time of year that I've been in the last five years. I'm sure all noble Lords, whilst recognising legitimate concerns about access to training places, remains that noble Lords will remain really concerned that an offer that would have made a real difference has been wholly rejected and strikes are going ahead.

So I would say to the noble Lord Lord Scriven, I do believe there was a way out and the BMA membership are choosing not to take it. And to the matter of the estimate of cost action, the July strikes cost the NHS around a quarter of £1 billion. If those costs repeat themselves for November and December, strike action would have cost around three quarters of £1 billion in this year alone. Now, in terms of what that means is, and I'll go back to the five day resident doctors strike in July, that cost could have paid for training for over 1600 GPS over three years, or 280,000.

Hip and knee. Oh forgive me, 28,000 hip and knee replacements. But I have to say again, the government's offer has been rejected and therefore we will have to make our first priority. Dealing with strikes. We do want to, through the Employment Rights Bill, create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation. We want productive, constructive engagement. We want to respect the democratic mandate of union of unions, and we do want to reset our industrial relations. For me, sadly, this sets us back considerably, and I feel that's been clearly acknowledged.

And let me say also to noble Lords, what a strike do they suck up? Time, resources, energy, the costs. As I've already stated for the NHS, around a quarter of £1 billion and. Whilst we have made a number of offers and and acknowledged legitimate concerns, I'm afraid I that I don't believe that's been treated in the way that it should be. The noble Lord Lord Scriven particularly asked about the 4000 roles that was in response to the BMA, who asked us to create more training roles.

That's a fair request, and that's exactly what we would have done. It would have created 4000 new speciality training posts, resident doctors over the next three years, with an additional 1000, it would have meant that more doctors would have been in training roles. They would have where they are in that position, they would have had an opportunity to progress. And yet all I can say to noble Lords, it is our duty as a government to consider our next steps, and our first priority will be dealing with the strikes.
19:49
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
MoD respond to the question asked by the noble Lord Scriven are asked by the noble Lord Scriven are these genuinely new training places, or are they actually training or are they actually training places? Because my. I put this question last week and we didn't really get an answer. What I understand the resident doctors are concerned about is the inability to plan ahead for training places, and to have a training place that is lasting for up to a year or longer, that at that age where they want to sort of put down roots, probably marry and have a family.

And because of the way that training is organised, it's not possible to do that. My further understanding is that I'm not quite sure if it was 29% or 30% pay increase in any one year, whatever the pay increase was. I understand that this still leaves resident doctors at an underpay performance of less than 17% of where they were in 2009. They're being paid less than a train driver, a tube driver, or even an Uber driver. I believe that we owe them the respect my father had to work.

My brother had to work at every Christmas or New Year. In my father's time, it was every other night on call, every other weekend on call. We've come a long way since then, but we do need to give the people who want to train, who are British born British doctors, I think a priority in the system, which is not being shown to them at the moment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Lady just made a very good case as to why the a very good case as to why the offer which is has been rejected, would have been so helpful. And on would have been so helpful. And on the issue of pay, can I just say our door has remained open to the BMA. It has remained open to reasonable and realistic solutions reasonable and realistic solutions for resolving the dispute, and we have been repeatedly clear and I so I don't think there can be any.

I know the noble Lady didn't say this, but I'm saying it more broadly. There can be no suggestion that the BMA were not aware that we can go no further on pay this year. Resident doctors have already had a good deal on pay, an average 28.9% rise over the last three years, but pay expectations have to take account of the fiscal position and also the impact across the whole of the NHS and beyond. And I'm glad to hear that noble Lords are in agreement with that approach.
19:52
19:53
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
And I'm grateful to my noble >> And I'm grateful to my noble friend, and I do share his view. friend, and I do share his view. When I look back, and I'm sure my noble friend will be very familiar with this. But it's worth reminding with this. But it's worth reminding ourselves that actually, in the statement that was in this statement that we are debating, the Secretary of State said last week, I have much more on jobs. I have much more sympathy with the BMA's demands.

I have heard the very real fears that resident doctors across the country have about their futures. This is a legitimate grievance that I agree with. Why? Because as the Secretary of State outlined and my noble friend referred to, we have inherited a position where there are training bottlenecks that leave huge numbers of resident doctors without a job, that UK graduates used to compete amongst themselves for speciality roles. Now they're competing against the rest of the world. That is a direct result of the visa and immigration changes that were made by the previous government post-Brexit, and compounded by the then government decision to increase the number of medical students without also increasing the number of speciality training places.

So this hasn't just come about, and I'm grateful to my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

friend for reminding us of the history of this. Mr. was asked. What happens next?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What happens next? Could I just ask her to consider this? Notwithstanding what's been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

discussed already. Tonight in this chamber. The general public out there are
19:55
19:56
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
Well, I absolutely agree with a number of the points, but number of the points, but particularly that last point the noble Lady made. People must seek noble Lady made. People must seek the help that they need, and I can assure your Lordships House, the entire focus of the Department and the NHS will be getting the health service through this double whammy of flu and strikes, in addition to seeking help when needed, I would also make a plea to those who have not yet been vaccinated.

Despite the huge extra numbers, there will still be people who are not vaccinated. Please do so. That will help immensely. It's probably worth saying that the next round of strike action will bring the total days of strike action to 59 days. Over 14 rounds of industrial action since March 2023. So I would also remind your Lordships House this didn't start with this government, but actually precedes it for some time. And to the noble Lady's point about performance, I have to pay huge tribute and I want to pay huge tribute.

I'm sure we all do to the dedication of NHS staff at this time. Actually, during the November round of strike action, the NHS set what is an ambitious goal to maintain 95% of planned care and it succeeded in doing that. That's totally down to the NHS workforce pulling round, and we also proved last time we could maintain a near full programme of elective care. Our plan, our immediate plan, which the noble Lady was asking about, is to replicate this over the upcoming five days of industrial action in December.

There is no reason for these strikes, and I know the effects of concern it has on the general public. By the way, the noble Lady allows me to remind ourselves these strikes are not supported by the general public.
19:58
20:00
20:01
20:02
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
Well, the the my noble friend refers rightly as I did earlier, to the training bottleneck, and the the training bottleneck, and the Secretary of State was glad to acknowledge the need for tackling training. He certainly felt that whilst on pay there wasn't a point to be accepted. He certainly did feel that on jobs. There was a point that the BMA resident doctors committee had a good point and I feel if I can be honest, I think that's why it's so disappointing to be in the place that we are today, because the Secretary of State, indeed, and I will pass on my noble friend's generous comments in particular, offering to introduce emergency legislation in the new year to prioritise UK medical graduates and other doctors with significant experience working in the NHS for speciality training posts.

That would have made a huge difference and this has been rejected, increasing the number of training posts over the next three years, from the 1000 that was originally announced to 4000, bringing forward 1000 of those training posts to start next year. That would have made a huge difference. And so I could go on, but I think my point is made. I agree with the point my noble friend makes about acknowledging the role of nurses. And in fact, if my noble friend will allow me, I'll go further.

It is a whole healthcare team that we are talking about, and that is another point to the issue on pay that whatever the BMA doctors committee continue to press for a pay deal, far in excess of anything that anyone else is getting the impact across the NHS, both on staff but also on services, will continue to be at threat and we can't allow that.
20:04
Lord Patel Portrait Lord Patel (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, sorry. My Lords, I as a doctor, feel that for a doctor to a doctor, feel that for a doctor to withdraw or withheld services to the patient is is dishonourable and the patient is is dishonourable and unethical. Full stop. I find no reason that I can support that a doctor with withhold a trust that the patient puts in them for of their lives to withdraw that service. So I as far as I'm concerned, junior or senior doctors should never go on strike.

Whether the justified in pay or not. That's a separate issue. And there are other ways to discuss that and handle that. So I hope with Doctor Lord Camoys question about what should happen now. Junior doctors, resident doctors, whatever they call themselves, should go back to work and not go on strike. Not now, not ever. There is a separate issue though, and that was referred to by as far as training is concerned. There is a long standing issue. I reviewed medical training some years ago and in the past was chairman of the Specialist Training Authority.

There is a need now to completely review doctors training, particularly postgraduate training. It is not sufficient to allow for more training posts. That doesn't solve the issue. What is required is a complete review of training of doctors, speciality doctors, and I hope that the Secretary of State is able, in his discussion, to make that offer and set up a review. But as far as junior doctors strike is concerned, I have no reason to support that whatsoever.
20:06
20:07
20:08
20:09
20:09
20:11
20:11
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> My Lords. Amendment 337 replicates for Northern Ireland the provisions of clause 105, which apply to England and Wales. Amendments five, 25, 5559 and 561 are consequential on amendment 337. Currently, the definition of regulated activity, that is, those roles that are subject to the highest level of enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service or DBS check, such as those that check, such as those that are working closely with vulnerable adults and children, includes an exemption for work which is subject to day to day supervision of another person.

This means that people in roles which involve close work with children are not in regulated activity if they are working under supervision. In its final report, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse recommended that anyone engaging in an individual to work or volunteer with children on a frequent basis basis should be able to check whether they have been barred by the DBS from working with children, including where the role is supervised. The government agrees with this recommendation, my Lords, and at the request of the Department for health, these amendments make the same change to the law for Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord Lord Hampton has also has amendment 337 A in this group. I will respond to that once we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heard from the noble Lord and others. For now I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 105, insert the following new 105, insert the following new clause. Safeguarding vulnerable groups. Regulated activity northern Ireland as printed on the Marshall

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 337 a in my name and that of the noble Baroness Spielman and of the noble Baroness Spielman and Ducie. As ever, I declare my interest as a state secondary school teacher, but also a level
20:13
Lord Hampton Portrait Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
-
two ECB cricket coach, which is two ECB cricket coach, which is relevant here. It's not funny. I tried to get a similar amendment in the Children's Wellbeing and the Children's Wellbeing and Schools bill, but was told that it would be better here. So here we would be better here. So here we are. I'd like to give thanks to Alastair Wood of Edap, who has doggedly pursued this issue. My Lords, I was astounded to learn earlier this year that, in fact, someone who has been barred from working with children can still privately tutor without having to reveal their conviction.

As it is a private matter between tutor and parents or carers. Amendment 337 A addresses a simple but very safe, significant safeguarding loophole in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, one that allows individuals who've been barred from working with children to operate entirely legally as private tutors, coaches or instructors in out-of-school settings. The problem arises because activity arranged directly by a parent is treated in law as a private arrangement under section six.

As a result, it is not regulated activity. That single distinction has wide reaching consequences. It means that an individual that has been placed on the children's barred list, whether due to a criminal conviction or serious safeguarding concerns, can legally tutor a child in the tutor's own home, online or in any other supervised unsupervised settings. The same applies to other forms of instruction where parents are hiring self-employed individuals directly or via an online brokering platform. Unlike regulated activity, parents are unable to request the enhanced barred list check that would reveal the risk.

And, crucially, the police and the DBS cannot intervene even when they are aware that someone on the barred list is advertising as a tutor or working with children in a school or sports club, such an individual would commit an offence by applying for the role. In private tutoring. No offence occurs until a new harm is caused. It is nonsensical, my Lords, that someone deemed too dangerous to work in a school with its safeguarding duties and oversight, can legitimately advertise locally or online to teach a child 1 to 1 in their bedroom or living room.

For the most part, private tuition is unregulated, meaning that anyone can call themselves a tutor without any safeguarding checks at all. In fact, my Lords, it's the case that parking attendants are subject to more rigorous criminal checks than private tutors. The Sutton Trust estimates that almost a third of children receive tuition on a regular basis, and the majority of such tuition is arranged directly by parents and is therefore not regulated. Activity. Both my children have been tutored in such a way.

Your Lordships' House discussed the issue briefly during Committee on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. When the Minister said, and I quote anyone who regularly teaches, trains, instructs, supervises or cares for children, unsupervised is considered to be working in regulated activity. But my Lords, that is not how section six of the 2006 Act operates, where a parent hires a private tutor directly, no matter how frequent or intensive the work, it is not regulated activity because the parent is not a regulated activity provider.

That is precisely the gap this amendment seeks to close. The amendment also consciously maintains the balance between the responsibilities of parents and those of the state. It preserves the long standing and long standing exemption for family members and friends, ensuring that informal arrangements whereby an enterprising sixth form student from the same school, or a family friend providing support are entirely untouched. Parents do not become regulated activity providers and incur no legal duties. The amendment simply closes off the route by which a barred individual can present themselves as a tutor, and makes it an offence for a barred person to do so.

This is not a partisan matter, my Lords. It is a straightforward safeguarding correction to ensure the DBS regime operates as intended, and I would urge the government to accept it.
20:19
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Mr. My Lords. I'm pleased to support amendment 337 A, which is support amendment 337 A, which is about consistency and common sense. The same standard of protection The same standard of protection should apply whether a child is taught, whether in a classroom, online or in their own home. Parents assume that safeguards already exist, and they're shocked when they learn that someone barred from working as children can still legally offer tuition. In my experience, the vast majority of parents don't know this, and as the noble Lord Lord Hampton has said, this is a huge loophole and something needs to be done about it as a matter of urgency.

The targeted change simply ensures that the law reflects modern patterns of learning and closes an indefensible gap without adding either bureaucracy or cost. It strengthens public confidence and the DBS system, and in the integrity of child protection as a whole. Tutoring is now a central part of many children's education, especially for those who are already vulnerable or struggling. And the law really does need to keep pace with this reality. By backing the amendment, the government can demonstrate that safeguarding principles are applied consistently across all settings, formal and informal alike, and that known risks will never again be allowed to fall between the cracks of overlapping regulations.

It's a modest step, but one entirely consistent with our shared commitment to protect every child from exploitation and harm. In the end, it's simply a test of resolve. If we know where the danger lies, we have a duty to act before another child is placed at risk.
20:21
20:21
20:22
20:22
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Rose I'll speak briefly to this group of amendments moved by this group of amendments moved by the government and to amendment three, three, seven a tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Amendment noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Amendment 337 provides Northern Ireland with provisions equivalent to those in clause 105. As with similar amendments either in the bill early sorry earlier in the bill, we recognise the need for aligned protections across jurisdictions. I'd be grateful if the Minister could outline the engagement with Northern Ireland, other departments and confirm that operational partners are prepared for implementation.

Similarly, amendments 520 and 550 ensure appropriate territorial extent and commencement powers for Northern Ireland. These are direct drafting and procedural changes that appear entirely sensible. Turning to amendment 337 A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, we are supportive of the principle it raises, closing a loophole that allows barred individuals to tutor children through so-called private arrangements seems an important and proportionate step. While the amendment sensibly preserves the long standing exemptions for family and friends, I recognise, however, that extended regulated activity in this way may raise practical questions about enforcement and the potential impact on legitimate private tutoring arrangements, and it would be helpful to understand how these concerns would be managed in practice.

So I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will respond constructively to the issues highlighted here.
20:24
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for setting out the case for his amendment. 337 A and I pay tribute to his advocacy on this issue and many other related issues as a teacher and as well as I didn't realise until tonight as a as a cricket coach. I hope he's doing good work, churning out a better set for the next encounter we have with Australians, because I'm afraid I don't, I don't I have fears for the third ashes, which are due to begin, but I also pay tribute to other noble Lords spoken in debate.

And, as Lord Garnier said, to demonstrate the cross party nature of the the issue that we're talking about, the consensus that we're talking about, that this is a we must make sure that there is protection in every scenario, in every setting for families and for and for young people. And I thank the right reverend Prelate that the Bishop of Manchester for bringing this specific issue of music tutoring to the to the committee's attention, as well as the experience that Lord Bailey have Paddington brought from his his years as a youth worker, as the noble Lord Lord Hampton has explained, this amendment seeks to prevent individuals who are barred from working in regulated activity with children from working as private tutors.

When hired directly by a parent. It does this by specifying that private tutoring is a regulated activity, even when provided under a private arrangement. I can assure the noble Lord that this amendment is unnecessary because the existing legal framework already achieves this outcome. Under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, teaching, including private tutoring that meets the statutory frequency criteria. For example, on one three days in a 30 day period is already regulated. Activity. It is already an offence for a person on the children's barred list to undertake such activity.

It is certainly the case, as he's pointed out, that parents are currently unable to check whether a private tutor is barred from working with children, and this is because, under the current legislation, self-employed individuals cannot access high level DBS checks, which may include information on spent convictions, cautions and barred list status. However, I'm pleased to inform Noble Lordships' House that on the 20th of November, the government laid a Statutory Instrument which indeed was debated in the other place this very evening, which is due to come into force on the 21st of January.

It's an affirmative summary instrument, so your Lordships' House will be discussing it in early in the new year. This will allow individuals who are self-employed or employed directly by an individual or family, where they are engaged in regulated activity with children and adults to access enhanced DBS checks, including checks of the relevant barred lists. As a result, private tutors who meet the statutory frequency criteria for regulated activity with children will be able to obtain an enhanced DBS certificate, including a check against the children's barred list.

Parents will be able to ask to see this check before deciding whether to engage the tutor. Parents will not become regulated activity providers by doing so. This Statutory Instrument delivers the core safeguarding purpose of the amendment, enabling parents to check whether a prospective tutor is barred by the DBS from working with children and giving them the information they need to make confident and informed decisions. I've already spoken about the government's amendments, but just to respond directly to the noble Lord.

Lord Davis's question around engagement with Northern Ireland executive. They actually approached us to ensure that the there was there was UK wide coverage of the enhanced of the enhanced scheme. So it's very much we've been working very much hand in glove with them to develop the develop the, the, the amendment, the, the regime that the government amendments put in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

place. So I hope on this basis that the noble Lord will not move his amendment and support the government amendments. Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Sorry, I'm not quite sure if I answered him properly that the Statutory Instrument will allow parents to check whether somebody is on the barred list, but it doesn't seem to affect the the critical bit, which is people can still work with children or apply to be, say, their tutors, even though they're on the barred list. Is that am I correct in this because that this seems to be the big crux of the whole thing, that actually where parents sit on this and whether they're regulated

**** Possible New Speaker ****

providers or not. Well, as I understand it, the important, the important change important, the important change that we're, that we're making is that it enables parents to access checks at the at the higher level. checks at the at the higher level. So they'll be they'll be able to make a decision as to whether somebody engages with activity, wants to try and engage with the wants to try and engage with the activity or not. The the parent will be able to access the check and see and see their history and and see and see their history and make the decision on the basis of what the DBS check throws up as to whether they will be engaged.

And I think that without necessarily becoming classified as a provider in the in the sense that that that occurs in the current regime, and that's an important distinction. So it doesn't it doesn't pull them into kind of a different sphere of activity, but does allow them to ask a crucial question is this is this person fit to fit, fit to to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be a tutor for my child? I'm still not clear. There are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm still not clear. There are 90,000 names on the DBS barred list. I understand the Minister to have said that parents will now be able to access the enhanced debarred list, and therefore things that list, and therefore things that wouldn't be picked up in a lower level DBS check will be picked up level DBS check will be picked up with the enhanced one. But if somebody says has Fred Bloggs, is Fred Bloggs okay? Can they just say can I have his enhanced records or will it say Fred Bloggs is on our debarred list? He is one of the 90,000 people that are on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debarred list. To be clear as as I as I understand it, there will be able understand it, there will be able to be able to actually have the same, have the same rights and access that that that a school access that that that a school would at the moment were were equalising the scheme. So yes, they would be able to have a have advanced not just these on the advanced not just these on the debarred list but have have access to have access to the to the record

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady. I would say this person is debarred. Absolutely. I'm sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The as Lord Bailey Lord Addington I think was saying and the the right reverend Prelate the the the right reverend Prelate the fact that these people can set themselves up as tutors, you know, themselves up as tutors, you know, much respected representatives, musical things. And that's the musical things. And that's the thing that I find astonishing, is that there seems to be no way of that there seems to be no way of stopping these people posing as when they're on a disabled list, as we said, you know, they can't work in a school, they can't work somewhere where they would be regulated anyway.

But they can work

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bedrooms. I understand the point being made, but it's about the but this made, but it's about the but this is about the whole the whole system is about is about evaluating, is about is about evaluating, classifying, giving information to, in the current case, institutions in the current case, institutions about the where the, the worthiness of the individual to work with, with children, anybody in the with children, anybody in the safeguarding situation. So this so what we're doing is, is, is equalising the the making level playing field so that anybody who wants to engage anybody in that capacity can can do that and have the same, same knowledge, the security that that they're engaging with somebody who isn't.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know he's doing his best. And this is not meant to be a controversial debate, but surely controversial debate, but surely the paramount concern must be the welfare of the children and sharing information is not just a sort of mechanical exercise. It requires trust by the parent employing the trust by the parent employing the music teacher in a private space that they are approved. That's to say that they are permitted to engage in 1 to 1 teaching activity in somebody's home.

Now, it may well be the parent could be downstairs or in the next door room, but I know from people I know that music teachers can get up to all sorts of tricks while the parent is in the next door room, and I think we just need to be a little bit more robust in making sure that this regime is there to protect children and not there simply to make life easy for bureaucrats. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just say this supposes that a parent has the wherewithal, the time, the skill to to to the time, the skill to to to interrogate this list. It isn't making it isn't making a level playing field. I've been a governor playing field. I've been a governor of many schools. We have people who are employed specifically to do these things. I've never met a these things. I've never met a parent who has. And and surely we should be sending a message to people who are deliberately trying to trick parents that they will be held directly responsible, not the parent will have to catch them out.

It only takes one predator to get lucky once to to devastate a child's life, whereas parents will have to be lucky every single time to stop this. I think the emphasis

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is in the wrong place. I appreciate the points. The noble Lord, indeed noble Lord Lord noble Lord, indeed noble Lord Lord Garnier is making to be absolute. But to be absolutely clear, anyone who's on the barred list who works with children is committing an with children is committing an offence. And what we're doing by, by, by, by laying this Statutory Instrument is to make it is to Instrument is to make it is to allow anybody easy access to understand the person, the nature of the person they're engaging with, whether that person is on the, on whether that person is on the, on the, on, on the barred list, on or not.

I mean, we're not trying to make life easy for bureaucrats here, but we're not trying to reinvent a whole new system. We're trying to actually make, make, make a system that's effective in all in all settings. Now, obviously, we'll have the debate on the Statutory Instrument. There's another there's another opportunity in the very near future for, for your Lordships to come back to this, come back to come back to this discussion. But the but it's it's clear that this is about as you, you know, as we've all agreed, it's about safeguarding children.

And what we want to do is not disrupt a system or make or, or have a different kind of different tiers and different levels of access or different ways of operating, depending on whether you're talking about private tutors or private tutors in one setting or another. We're trying to just trying to make a level playing field. And I think this is what this, this the system we're proposing does. And obviously, you know, Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland executive wants to buy into it, so to speak.

And that's why they've asked us to delay the government's amendments that are, that are, that are in this group. So, as I say, I hope the I hope the noble Lord Lord Hampton I understand his concerns and, and and we're all speaking from the from the right place and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the right motivation. So I hope he understands. Withdraw this amendment. Question is amendment 337 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is amendment 337 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 337 A contents have it. Amendment 337 A Lord Hampton not moved in clause Lord Hampton not moved in clause 106, amendments 337 B to 337 F Lord Blencathra not moved. Amendments 338, 39 and 340 Lord Lucas not moved. Amendment 341 Baroness McIntosh not moved. Amendments 341 A, B, C, D Lord Hogan-Howe not moved.

Amendment 342 Lord Lucas not moved. Amendments 342 H 342 F Lord Hogan-Howe not moved. The question is that clause 106 stand part of Pickering.
20:36
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
I'm grateful to. Have a short debate, not so much on clause 106, debate, not so much on clause 106, which I welcome. I congratulate the government for bringing forward, but rather more what is not. In clause 106. I am delighted to have clause 106. I am delighted to have my private member's Bill still before the House, so it may yet be adopted before the end of this parliamentary session. I know that my right hon. Friend Ian Duncan Smith took some parts of it and ran with it in a previous, I think it was a criminal justice bill.

Now an act. There are two aspects omitted which do concern me, which we touched on, and I won't go into great lengths, but I just want to float before the Minister in the House this evening. One is the question of insurance, because since the Motor Insurances Insurers Bureau was first established in 1946, compensating victims of accidents involving uninsured hit and run drivers under agreements with the Department of Transport, it aims to reduce the level and impact of uninsured driving in the UK, which I think is something we all commend and support.

Since 2019, the Motor Insurance Bureau's liabilities responsibilities have also included Compensating victims for Road Traffic Act liabilities arising from the use of a motor vehicle and an act of terrorism, whether or not the vehicle is insured. So obviously, the funding to the MIB is quite considerable. The levy is set is £530 million for this year, and it handles something like 25,000 claims every year. Now, what is really missing here is the insurance link, because I think the the Minister and the department in clause 106 have brought forward rightly, offences which have been missing.

Two of them, as I mentioned earlier, are the first two clauses of my private member's bill. So, so far so good. But then it goes rapidly downhill. At that point. If you are going to create these offences and these liabilities, if someone cycling a pedal bike, an e-bike or driving an e-scooter does cause death or injury by dangerous cycling and and other forms of cycling, which careless death by careless or inconsiderate cycling as well as dangerous cycling, then the corollary must surely be that insurance cover must legally follow, and that is what is missing from the bill at the moment.

Now, I have tried to plug that gap, and I think another peer, noble Lord, earlier also mentioned that they had tried to come forward with provisions in that regard. Obviously, the department is in the best position to do this. So I would just like to use this opportunity to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, who I think is doing a great job on this bill and is listening to all sides of the House very carefully and considerably, and that is greatly appreciated.

So if we could, before we leave the bill at Committee stage, it's something certainly I would like to bring back at Report stage, but I would like to leave it with his good officers to to plug that gap, because the corollary of creating these offences is that there must be some form of compensation for the victims concerned, and I don't see how I, as a motorist who unfortunately I don't cycle anymore. I it's a question of balance, not not for lack of goodwill. Why I should have to pick up as a motorist the compensation claims for those who've been injured in this way.

The second point I'd like to raise that I touched on earlier, and I now have remembered which bill it is. Micro mobility is also being dealt with in a small chapter. A small part of the. I hope I haven't forgotten it again. Of the so many bills coming through, you wait for one bill and 27 come along at once. It is the English Devolution and Empowerment Bill, not the most obvious place to have a chapter on micro mobility.

So the second request I have of the noble Lord, the Minister, this evening, because if he's not prepared to, I stand prepared to do it. And I think there was an earlier amendment that didn't go as far as the amendment, which is a clause in my private member's bill. I would like to help the Minister. I know, were we in the other place together as we were once before, he might find that this was cynical approach, but I actually genuinely mean that I would like to help the noble Lord, the Minister, and the definitions that I would propose in this regard are the ones set out.

And I'm grateful to the clerks for helping me draft this clause of my private member's bill. I know you all want to go away and read it, so I'll let you know. It's the road traffic offences cycling Bill and I'm prepared to answer any questions on it at any stage. So what I propose is defining it as follows A pedal cycle, an electrically assisted pedal cycle, a mechanically propelled personal transporter including an electric scooter, a self-balancing personal transporter including a self-balancing scooter, self-balancing board or electric unicycle, and other mechanically propelled personal transporter provided for by the Secretary of State and regulations made under this section, and the clause concludes by saying that for the purposes of this section, mechanically propelled personal transporters are to be defined in regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section.

Now those I'm very grateful to the clerk for coming up with those form of words. The point I'm trying to make is we have two departments involved here, the Home Office Department, for the purpose of this bill before us this evening, and the Department of Transport in a bill which is not its own bill, but the English empowerment and English Devolution and Empowerment Bill. So I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will agree. I do think both for the purposes of the Bill before us this evening and for the purposes of the, I'll call it, for short English devolution bill, that we do need to have a definition of these bicycles, pedal bicycles or other such and micromobility vehicles.

So I hope that he might be able to come forward with a form of words in this regard and actually bring the two departments together. So we're all on the same page for the purposes of this bill and the English devolution Bill. I beg to move. Lords. This group seeks to remove the clause which creates new offences of dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, and I now understand why. It's in order to raise the issue of insurance and the noble Lady's private member's bill, which was raised and
20:43
20:45
20:46
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank my noble >> My Lords, I thank my noble friend Baroness McIntosh Pickering for moving this group. My Lords, on behalf of the Official Opposition behalf of the Official Opposition frontbench, I have to say that we support clause 106, as was set out in response to one of the early groups in cycling. We on this side strongly support the creation of the new offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling. It is often said in to really challenge the cyclists are harmless, that their contributions to road danger is negligible.

But the facts tell another story. As was said earlier, there were 82 pedal cycle facilities in 2024 and many more seriously injured. Yet in the same period, prosecutions for careless or dangerous cycling remain vanishingly small. In 2023, only 44 pedal cyclists were convicted for careless cycling and only five for dangerous cycling. This discrepancy between actual harms and enforcement cannot stand. Contrast that with motor vehicle driving. Serious collisions involving cars and motorbikes routinely lead to formal investigations, charges, licence points, disqualifications or even long term prisons.

Prison terms. The law and indeed the public, treat death or serious injury caused by motor vehicle as a major crime, but there is no comparable public or legal response when a cyclist injures or kills a pedestrian. This double standard undermines justice, undermines safety, and sends the wrong message. Furthermore, the rise of e-bikes and e-scooters a dangerous tool is emerging that should not go unaddressed. As noted in the impact assessment for this bill, prosecutions for existing offences are minimal and the offences insufficiently dissuasive.

That suggests not only a failure to protect law abiding cyclists and citizens, but a broader pattern of under policing of cycle related crime. So if we are serious about public safety and about fair and equal enforcement, we cannot continue to treat dangerous cycling as a lesser category of offence. And for that reason, I support clause 106.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He didn't mention the option of cars running over pedestrians and killing them. Is that does that not matter?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

matter? Of course it matters. It's quite a serious matter in my opinion.
20:49
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
>> Can I agree, noble Lords? It does matter and I agree. And I welcome the support of the noble Lord Davies of Gower for clause 106. Let me just bring this back to what clause 106 is about. Clause 106 is to ensure that we have every road user complying with road traffic law in the interests of safety of themselves and other road users. This includes cyclists, which is clear in the Highway Code, and I agree that clause 106 should stand.

We've put the clause in so that this parity between cars and cyclists in the event of death and serious injury. I'm grateful to the support of the noble Lord Davies of Gower and the Baroness Pidgeon for that. And if I accepted the recommendation of the effectively clause not stand part, we wouldn't have that provision before the committee today. So I think it's important to do that now. Again, it's important to do that for several reasons, but not least of which is over the last ten years, an average of three pedestrians have been killed per year, and in total there were 603 pedestrian casualties following a collision with a pedal cycle in Great Britain in 2023, which was a rise on 2014, a quite considerable rise on 2014.

Now, we heard in the earlier debate concern around cyclists riding on pavements, going through red lights, going through zebra crossings. This is not about putting cyclists in prison or committing cyclists for serious offences. This is about trying to change behaviour. It's about ensuring that people recognise there is a penalty for poor behaviour and if somebody is killed as a result of somebody cycling badly, or somebody is seriously injured as a result of somebody cycling badly, then it is absolutely right that we take action in clause 106 to do that.

The government does not believe that the current offences for cyclists who exhibit dangerous or careless behaviour have appropriate penalties, particularly when that results in death or serious injury. That's why we're introducing the new dangerous cycling offences here in clause 106 that brings equality before the law. It makes sure that parity is with motoring offences, and if somebody is killed because of the poor performance of a road user, whether they're on a bike or in a car, then ultimately they should face a penalty.

But I want to say again, this should be about trying to make cyclists aware that there vehicle is a dangerous vehicle, even though it is a bike and it can lead to death, it can lead to serious injury, but at the same time, we want to ensure, as we are doing that the cycling has huge health benefits, it has huge environmental benefits. The government's committed to £600 million in the spending review for new cycling and walking infrastructure, and that's the right thing to do.

Now. The noble Lady Baroness McIntosh of Pickering, for whom I welcome her support on these matters, as asked two specific questions. One is around insurance and one is around defining the the the type of vehicle involved. Now they're both, if I may say so, amendments to the clause effectively to to look at that. But I'll accept the the discussion. Well I think the the it's a question around the clause and implementation, but it's still the clause is not about insurance or about defining.

But any change to insurance requirements would require some very careful consideration, as it could put people off cycling. It might have adverse effects on health and congestion. It might well stop people using cycling instead of then going in cars for short journeys. And it might involve enforcement regime, which we've talked about earlier, being examined. Again, some cyclists do have third party insurance and that's good. So what I will say, if I may, this this is predominantly a Department of Transport matter.

I will examine both issues the noble Lady has raised on insurance and on definition, and discuss that with the Department of Transport, but ultimately, clause 106 is about prevention of death by cycling or serious injury by cycling. It should stay part of the bill, it shouldn't be deleted. And that's why I hope the noble Lady doesn't take that option today, and that we beg to move the. I hope that she doesn't take no take that option. That's an appropriate moment, if not today.

And I hope that she reflects on what I said, and I'll certainly reflect on what she said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't know if the. noble Lord replied on the. Definition of. With with due respect, I'm very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With with due respect, I'm very happy to to look at that. The definition and this clause is essentially this aspect of this essentially this aspect of this clause, which is death by dangerous driving and dangerous cycling and driving and dangerous cycling and serious injury by dangerous cycling. But the issues that she's raised about insurance and about definition are ones for the definition are ones for the Department of Transport, which I will take away. Make sure my noble friend Lord Hendy has an examination of those issues, but it's not for me today to look at issues around which I haven't thought through because their Department of Transport issues, this bill and the clause before us, we have thought through and it's about death by dangerous cycling and serious injury by dangerous cycling, not the two issues the noble Baroness has raised.
20:55
20:55
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
The Lords. and 398 standing in the name of my noble friend, the Lord Lucas. As I said earlier, my noble friend has been a good recovery from an been a good recovery from an operation. Now, this amendment is straightforward. It asks the Secretary of State to give clear national guidance to policing bodies on how to enforce criminal offences committed by drivers of illegally operated vehicles, and to run a short, tightly defined pilot to test practical improvements in enforcement across the country.

Too many dangerous and unlawful vehicles remain in our roads. We got vehicles without Mots, without insurance driven by licensed drivers or using stolen or fraudulent plates. And they're not just paperwork problems. There are real risks to road users and to communities. At the same time. Persistent evasion of tolls, congestion charges and parking rules blights town centres and funds organised offending. The current responsibilities are fragmented between the DVLA, local authorities and the police and that fragmentation creates gaps that offenders exploit.

My noble friend's amendment does three things. First, it requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs Council so that enforcement is consistent, proportionate and focussed on the highest harms. Second, it mandates a time limited enforcement period so we can test new operational models and information sharing arrangements in a controlled way. And third, it allows a pilot to be run with accredited partners and a strict oversight so that we can learn what works without rushing into permanent, untested powers.

So why is a pilot the right approach? Well, the pilot is a responsible way to proceed. It lets us trial better use of data to test targeted interventions against repeat and organised offenders, and measure the impact on road safety and community harm before any national rollout. It also allows Parliament to see independent evidence about proportionality, costs and safeguards, which is exactly what the public expects. Let me be clear this amendment is not a blank check. Any information sharing was complied with.

Data protection law. Any detention powers must be narrowly defined and subject to review, and any outsourced delivery must operate under ministerial overnight oversight and public reporting. The Secretary of State must build those safeguards into the regulations and into the pilot design, so that civil liberties and accountability are front and centre. This is a practical, evidence led new clause. It builds on existing enforcement work and gives policing the tools to tackle the most dangerous and persistent offenders, while protecting the public and taxpayers.

I ask noble Lords to support this amendment so we can make our roads safer, reduce organised and repeat offending, and ensure enforcement is effective and accountable. But before I sit down, I conclude by saying I really like the other amendments in this group and I congratulate the noble Lady, the Baroness Hayman and other noble peers and Lords and ladies who have signed them. I look forward to hearing what she has to say, and I mystified as to why this amendment is in a group of amendments all about drunk driving.

Having said

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that, I beg to move my noble friend's amendment three four, five. Amendment proposed after clause 106, insert the following new clause police guidance and pilot enforcement of criminal offences enforcement of criminal offences for illegal vehicles on roads, as printed on the martial list. My Lords, I rise to speak to Lords, I rise to speak to amendments three five, oh in my name and that of the noble Lady Baroness Finlay. Amendment 416 be in my name and that of Lord Ashcombe and amendment 356 and 398,
20:59
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Portrait Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
-
which I have added my name. Let me first turn to amendment 3503563 and 398 about drinking and driving, 398 about drinking and driving, something we all want to see ended. Amended. Amendment 350 would bring the UK into line with virtually the UK into line with virtually every other country by reducing the permitted blood alcohol level from permitted blood alcohol level from 80mg to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. This has widespread support amongst the public and has been endorsed by an impressive range of organisations.

I was going to say, including the BMA, but they're not very popular at the moment. The National Policy Chiefs Council, IAM Roadsmart, Pax Rospa, Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of General Practitioners, society for Acute Medical Care, College of Paramedics, Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. In other words, exactly the people who have to pick up the pieces when drivers have been behind the wheel after drinking.

Indeed, as Rospa strapline states, accidents don't have to happen. Never so true. As with drink related car crashes, the arguments are clear England and Wales are now the only countries in Europe with the limit as high as 80mg per 100ml of blood. All the others, including Scotland, have either 50mg or indeed lower, as the bodies I have namechecked want for new and commercial drivers, a 50 limit leads to fewer crashes, fewer deaths and injuries. Drink driving fatalities have risen to a fifth of all road deaths, its highest since 2009.

That's 260 deaths a year, with the victims often an innocent passenger, pedestrian or a driver from another car. But that's, of course, only part of the problem, with over 7000 casualties, some life changing because while wonderful medicine and brilliant ambulance staff can save lives, they can't always save limbs. Public support for change is overwhelming, three quarters favouring a lower limit and nearly this number wanting a complete zero tolerance to drink driving. Amendment 398, led by the noble Lord Lord Attlee and supported by the noble Lord Lord Browne of Ladyton, allowing random breath test would be a major disincentive to drivers knowing they could be stopped on any road for a quick blow into the bag test.

Few would risk their licence if the chances of being stopped were increased and were unpredictable. Regrettably, enforcement of our existing laws has nearly collapsed. The number of breath tests and more than halved since 2009. Meanwhile, the proportion of drivers who admit to driving while over the limit has been rising. Especially, I'm afraid to say, amongst those under 25 years, some third confessing to this random breath testing happens in many other countries and the effects are evident in Queensland, Australia.

A reduction from 80 to 50 with the added use of random testing, so fatal accidents dropped by 18%. It's easy to see why, if the chance of being caught is slim, then the likelihood of risking it is high. But if the chance of being caught is high, then the likelihood of risking it is slim. There's a further measure in this group. Amendment 356. G to which Lord Hampton will speak in more detail. This is aimed at the repeat drink driver, who, once caught, would then have to have an alcohol lock fitted to the car, meaning compulsory, unavoidable breath test before the ignition could be switched on.

Clear, effective and preventative. Widely used in other countries and widely supported by the public. Finally, I turn to amendment 416B, which might answer some Lord Blencathra question. This is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, and it concerns something very different. But addressing an oddity that has grown up over the years, that the maximum fine for keeping or driving an uninsured car is now well below the cost of insuring a car. It's a real disincentive to bother with that small matter of purchasing insurance.

There are up to 400,000 uninsured cars on our road every day. Yet as a result of inflation, the fixed penalty notice for uninsured driving remains at just £300. And for keeping such a vehicle a mere £100. This when the average insurance is about £560. So the price of doing the wrong thing is half of doing the right thing. And of course, the cost of that is covered. Any accident of an uninsured cover driver is covered by all the rest of us via our insurance premium, because some of that funds the Motor Insurance Bureau, which pays out.

So the victim of any crash caused by an uninsured driver is still compensated. So we are all paying for the uninsured driver. Every 20 minutes someone is injured by an uninsured driver. Indeed, these drivers account for about 130 of the deaths I've mentioned each year. Despite this, deterrence against non-insurance is minimal, so long as the fine is half the average premium. So our intention when we looked to put an amendment was actually very simple. We wanted to increase the level of the fine, whether for keeping or driving an uninsured vehicle to a figure well above the cost of insurance.

However, that fell foul of the clerks, who advised that it was out of scope of this bill, meaning we couldn't table a change to increase the penalty. However, what is in scope is to allow the police to confiscate an uninsured vehicle and to hold it until it's insured, or failing that, for the police to take ownership of it. I think when I tell my noble friend, the Minister, this, he hoped it was going to be a Jaguar that was going to be uninsured and that would that would help the police no end.

Now, it would, of course, be a real incentive if you were going to lose your car, if it wasn't insured, that wasn't the original intention to call for this. But I have to say now that it's on paper, I'm rather attracted to it. However, my question to the Minister today is please, would the government either take its own action to to jack up these fines for having an uninsured car, or would they take a more radical step of giving police the nod to confiscate any car on the road without insurance? So, in summary, the amendments to which I put my name would deter people from keeping or driving an uninsured car.

They would rather buy the random breath tests for which we'll hear from Lord Attlee shortly. They would deter people from drinking after driving, driving after drinking. I think they would buy the lower blood alcohol level, push down the rates of driving after drinking and buy the Alco locks. They'd prevent a drink drive offender taking to the car for a second time. I commend these amendments to the House.
21:07
Lord Hampton Portrait Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 356G in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, who's spoken so forcefully on the subject. Drink driving, my Lords, remains one of the most preventable causes of the most preventable causes of death in the UK. Roads ladies Department for transport figures show that an estimated 260 people were killed in crashes on Britain's roads, involving at least one driver, over the legal alcohol limit in 2023, approximately 1600 people were seriously injured.

Alcohol interlock technology or alcohol locks can reduce re-offending and save lives. Alcohol prevent a vehicle from starting if alcohol is detected on the driver's breath, the driver has to breathe into a tube and the levels of alcohol are instantly detected before the engine is able to be turned on, according to the RAC report on motoring 2025, 82% of UK drivers support the introduction of alcohol stops looks meaningfully at Ministers. It's very popular with voters.

Research for the RAC report also found rates of admitted drink driving are near pre-pandemic levels, with more than 1 in 10 respondents 12% saying they'd driven when they thought they were over the limit either directly after drinking or on the morning after. The figures for younger drivers were even more pronounced, with 14% of those aged 25 to 44 admitting to drink driving, and as many as 18% of those under 25. The good news, my Lords, is that alcoholics are already in the Road Safety Act 2006.

But the experimental wording in section 16 effectively turned the interlock provisions into a contingent pilot that ended in 2010, but the pilot was never fully taken forward and the powers never came into effect. As a result, alcohol interlocks are not part of the UK courts sentencing toolkit. This is that the interlock scheme in limbo despite years of persistent drink driving, offending and accompanying road deaths and injuries. However, removing this experimental wording will mean that the interlock scheme under section 15 of the Road Traffic Act can be brought into force, restoring the original purpose of the act to give courts a rehabilitative, safety orientated sentencing tool for drink drive offenders.

Section 16 meant the courts could only impose an alcohol ignition interlock program order in designated pilots or trial court areas, i.e. only in areas specifically chosen by the Secretary of State. This was a purposefully cautious approach for any scheme to be selective and closely monitored to build an evidence base. However, the evidence base is now robust and expansive, and the UK is behind the curve, with all 50 US states. Most EU countries, New Zealand and more all introducing a form of alcohol interlock program with substantial research available that supports the effectiveness.

My Lords, it's already there in legislation. It just needs a tweak. These international programmes show that alcohol can reduce re-offending by up to 70%, and are as effective as airbags in reducing road deaths, all the government has to do is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accept this amendment. Can I ask one point for clarification? My ignorance do these. They sound fantastic. Do these. They sound fantastic. Do they have to be fitted by the manufacturers when the car is made,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or can it be attached as a gadget afterwards? I hear they can be fitted in an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hear they can be fitted in an hour for under £200.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have amendment 308. In this group I will address my noble friend Lord Lucas amendment 345 first, which my noble friend Lord Blencathra expertly articulated, but I fear that I did not find it convincing. As I
21:12
Earl Attlee Portrait Earl Attlee (Conservative)
-
-
understand it, he is really proposing a function that should only be undertaken by a police only be undertaken by a police officer or the police. The power to detain a vehicle is a very significant one, and one that significant one, and one that should not be undertaken lightly. I am not in favour of this amendment, and I hope that the Minister will speak in similar terms. My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter is the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter is a tireless advocate of road safety, and if she had not tabled her amendment, I would be worried for her.

Had she worried that run out of steam? Apparently not. I agree with much of what she has said about the harm that alcohol can cause, and I will not repeat what she has said so skilfully. Whilst we are very closely aligned, we do part company of over what is an appropriate blood alcohol concentration. The back, my Lords, the committee will recognise that the Grand Rapids study showed that the standard of driving deteriorates rapidly once a blood alcohol concentration of 80 is reached, and that is why our drink drive limit is set at that level.

However, I would agree that there is no safe upper limit for driving a vehicle and any alcohol will cause a deterioration in the standard of driving. I would suggest to the committee that there are three broad classes of drink driver offences. Offenders. I accept that there is a small cohort who regularly drink sufficient alcohol to take them to or over the limit. The next is a group who make a horrible mistake and for one reason or another, and unusually, find themselves driving over the limit.

I will not rehearse all the reasons why this may happen, but there is no excuse. They are relatively easily caught by a skilled traffic police officer. This is partly because they give themselves away with their style of driving. This offence is no longer socially acceptable and we rightly have severe minimal minimum penalties in place. But I contend that the real problem lies with unregulated drinkers who are usually clinically dependent upon alcohol, who have no idea how much alcohol they have drunk, and pay absolutely no attention to what the law says.

Lowering the BAC will have no effect with them at all. And the bad news is that their driving tends to be very fluid, and it is hard for the traffic police to detect them from their driving alone, and they often only drive short distances. When I articulated this argument from the government Dispatch Box in about 2011, I was confident that the policy was correct, but I was not certain. My Lord, we now have the evidence of the Scottish Government who did exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is suggesting.

After a suitable period they commissioned academic research which showed that the change had no measurable effect on road safety, which came as no surprise to me. And that is why I do not support her. Amendment 350 at a recent Question Time debate, the noble Lord Lord Browne of Ladyton argued that the reason for the Scottish failure, but it was not coupled with extra enforcement. Surely if we improved enforcement of our current limits, especially in respect of high levels of intoxication, we would do better.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter and the noble Lord Browne for supporting my amendment 398. The effectively provides for random breath tests, but it does not require the police to do anything. It merely removes some of the burdensome restrictions that I suspect were made on the introduction of breath testing in 1968. As I understand it at present, what the police cannot do is to stop every vehicle travelling along a particular road solely for the purpose of determining if the motorist have been drinking and if they have required them to undertake a breath test.

Of course, the same issues arise with drug driving. However, with a roadside stop, drink driving is easy to detect. To be honest, I in fact envisage infrequent dragnet operations to detect my unregulated drinker, but also as a noble Baroness said, to deter and reducing all driving after drinking, or at least to absolutely minimise it. But of course, my Lords, we recognise that how the police enforce the law is an operational matter for them, but we need to give them the tools.

My Lords, I cannot recall being breathalysed for over 40 years and I don't know anyone else who has been either. It seems to me that the frequency of testing, either by using the policeman's mark, one nose or breathalyser when indicated, is far too low to be an effective deterrent. My Lords, turning to amendment 416 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington, I would like to strongly support it and look forward to hear hear him speak to it.

Regarding the Lord Hampton's Alkyl-oc amendment, I support that. It does have an interesting side effect. The experience is that people who have an alcohol problem, they actually have to avoid drinking alcohol at all because they can't go around their daily business. And that also has the effect that they'll that they won't go and drink and drive either. So although I opposed it when it was part of the bill years ago, I'm now actually minded to support it. Interestingly enough, when we were debating it, I detected a loophole in the legislation using my technical experience because it didn't quite work.

And when I suggested an amendment, the government lapped up my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So that's all I have to say. I thought the noble Lord was going to tell us about experience of driving tanks, which I know he's of driving tanks, which I know he's a great expert on that. With or without the right alcohol limit. But we didn't. Anyway, my Lords, I've listened very carefully to all
21:19
Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley (Labour)
-
-
the speeches in this group of amendments, and they. They seem to have one thing in common, which is it's a way of trying to mitigate previous scare them, if you like, from previous governments to upsetting the motorists. But let's do the minimum because we don't want to upset the motorist. And that that applies to the random breath tests and many other things. And I find it extraordinary. My noble friend Baroness Hayter listed the various different countries with a different blood alcohol limits.

If you dig a bit further, you find that there are four European countries that have a zero tolerance level. That is zero tolerance. You mustn't have any alcohol at all. Czech and Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia and many of us who have visited these places. And maybe the driving is safer, maybe it's not. But then there's of course the question of bikes. Should you be under the influence of 80 or 50 if you're riding a bike? I'm not going to go into that one.

Now. We've talked a lot about bikes today, but I hope that the I mean, many noble Lords have been fighting to get this down from 80 to 50 for many years, led by Baroness Hayter and noble Lord, Lord Attlee. And I've tried to help, and we have all failed because it appears that the governments of whichever hue, Labour Party, Tories, whatever, have been so frightened of the motorists reaction that we refuse to go forward with it.

I think the evidence is uncontroversial now. I think we should go for this and I favour the 50 limit to start with. But and that's a big but after our discussions today with much better enforcements and much better. Reduction in the number of different rules which have to be applied before anybody can be tested with a breathalyser, I think it's got to be simple and people will get frightened of it. I think that combined with the lower level, lower limit, will hopefully make the roads a great deal safer.

the roads a great deal safer.
21:22
Lord Ashcombe Portrait Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'd like to rise to speak to amendment 416, be tabled in the name of noble Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town concerning the issue of uninsured drivers, to which I've added my name as this is a serious crime, I must declare my interest as an insurance broker. With Marsh limited within the motor industry. It is is a regrettable truth that a significant number of vehicles on our roads are being driven without insurance. The Motor Insurance Bureau estimates that between 300,000 and 450,000 vehicles fall into this category.

That alone, that figure alone should give us pause for thought. It represents not merely statistics, but a vast unknown risk to every law abiding citizen. When accidents occur involving these vehicles, there is no third party insurance to provide protection or compensation. Instead, the burden falls upon the Motor Insurance Bureau, which must step in to provide cover where none exists. Sadly, we read of such occurrences all too often, particularly in the local press. The scale of this problem is stark.

The Bureau receives a claim arising from an uninsured driver every 20 minutes every week. At least one person is killed as a result of uninsured driving, and every single day another individual suffers injuries so severe that they require lifelong care. This is not an issue. My Lords, it is a persistent and devastating reality. The financial consequences are equally sobering. The Bureau spends approximately 400 million annually on claims, with its 220 24 annual report noting reserves of around 3 billion.

It estimates that uninsured driving costs the UK economy 1 billion each year and adds 260 million to motor insurance premiums. These figures are not abstract. They translate into an additional cost of around £15 on every policy paid by law abiding drivers. In effect, responsible motorists are subsidising the reckless and negligent. Anecdotally, when police apprehend uninsured drivers and ask who is their insurer, the response is simply the MIB, the Motor Insurance Bureau. This casual reliance on the bureau underscores the inadequacy of current deterrents.

At present. The penalties, as my as Lady Hayter has explained, standard £100 for keeping an uninsured vehicle and £300 plus six penalty points for driving without insurance, these sums are significantly lower than the average premium of £550, and far below the £1,000 often paid by younger drivers. This disparity is glaring. The penalty for breaking the law is cheaper than the cost of compliance. It is little wonder, then, that uninsured drivers persist at such such scale.

Ideally, we would strengthen the financial penalties to reflect the gravity of the offence. However, as these measures, as Lady Hayter has mentioned, have been ruled out of scope. This amendment amendment offers a practical and proportionate alternative. It would empower authorities to confiscate uninsured vehicles and if insurance is not secured within 28 days, to have them permanently removed from roads, that to you and I means crushed. Gone. This is not punitive for its own sake. It is a necessary step to protect the public and to uphold the principle that motor insurance is mandatory for the benefit of us all.

My Lords, uninsured driving is not a victimless crime. The law abiding majority should not be asked to carry the burden of those who flout their responsibilities. Amendment 416B is a measured and effective response to this scourge, and I commend it. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just briefly, in 2011, I went out with a Hampshire traffic police, out with a Hampshire traffic police, and we were there demonstrating to me Anpr systems, and we did detect me Anpr systems, and we did detect an uninsured motorist, and they did relieve the car of the motorist. But the problem the noble Lord described is absolutely I absolutely agree with him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolutely agree with him. I speak to my amendment. The amendment in my name for 16C. But before I do that, can I just give my unequivocal support for my noble friend Lord Ashcombe amendment? We really need to take into account the confusion this causes for poor communities. Because you'll sit around, you'll make a direct calculation which is cheaper, and unless you send a very, very strong message about which is more risky, it will. These numbers will continue to grow.

As motoring becomes more expensive. Insurance will become, for many communities, optional. And if you're involved in an accident, it will be anything but optional. So I really want to put my support against that. I also want to talk to Baroness Hayter. As someone who's the last time I had a drink, I think I was 17 years old. I don't drink at all, but I deal with young people regularly and have been over doing it for over three decades now. What's important about a limit is how easy it is to detect in the moment.

So although you've said you should lower it to 50, I actually think we should lower it to to zilch, to nothing, to nada. Because when you're out with your friends and you're 18, 19, 21, and the light's going your way to make that adjustment, have I jumped 50? Have I done 80? Probably won't happen. You'll take the risk. Young people are full of energy. They're risk takers. It's too much estimation. So I support your amendment as it stands. But we should probably be going to zero so that people have no confusion when they're out of a night enjoying themselves, particularly young people.

That is as well. But having said that, let me move on to my amendment. This is a requirement for occupants to leave the their car once they've been stopped on a traffic stop by a police officer. The police officers have that power. There's a gap in the current law. The Road Traffic Act 1988 does not have does not currently have powers for an officer to request that the vehicle occupants exit the vehicle during a traffic stop. This leaves officers vulnerable to attack and ambush, particularly in light of modern vehicles.

If you're a police officer and you stop a vehicle, you you may want to listen to the engine. But now electrical vehicles can be on silently. Their ability to accelerate is unbelievable. They way more so. I tend to be more deadly when used in an attack, and I think we need a law to respond to that, and that doesn't negate petrol and diesel driven vehicles, because they also have an unbelievably high threshold for how dangerous they can be.

But electric vehicles in particular, of which we have more and more on our roads, are even more and more dangerous. In 2024, 244 police officers reported injuries due to incidents involving deliberate vehicle ramming. Indeed, some of these incidences are actually deadly. PC Andrew Harper was tragically dragged behind a vehicle for over a mile while responding to a burglary, which unfortunately led to his death. We had PC Stewart Alton, who was struck in the head with a machete by a suspect who concealed the weapon in his vehicle.

So when we when we ask ourselves, is this an evasive power? No, it's a protective power not only for the officers involved, but for the public involved as well. This is a practice that internationally is pretty widely accepted. Jurisdictions such as Canada and Australia, excuse me, and several EU nations already have this this law. And in these countries they have found it empowering officers to control the stop environment significantly enhances officer safety and helps de-escalate potential threats. Many officers you'll speak to would say if they if they could have been in more control of the situation, it would never have spiralled out of of control in the first place, which protects them and the public involved as well.

Again, I want to I want to return to this, to this idea of an electric vehicle, because you stop someone as a police officer, you may have to lean in that window. And if that vehicle can leave without you knowing it's even, there's any chance of it moving. You can then get trapped in that vehicle and dragged along. And I've already explained how that could be absolutely deadly. When we allow officers to control the environment, it also means they can control the safety for the public themselves.

That's the other crucial part of this. This isn't only about officer safety, it is primarily about officer safety, but not only about officer safety. It's about them being able to control the environment, to keep themselves safe and everybody else safe as well. This amendment is about ensuring that officers are not placed in avoidable danger, because the law fails to keep pace with the operational realities of being a police officer, it gives officer a single proportionate tool a simple, proportionate tool to manage one of the most dangerous situations they can find themselves in a routine situation for many officers, but also highly dangerous situation as well.

And when I spoke to the Police Federation about this, they said, hand on heart, they cannot tell their members that stopping a vehicle is safe. Now that's something we really need to get into because if they keep having that type of conversation with their members, you then have a police service that cannot carry out its duties in this particular, particular, particular way. And also it challenges chief inspectors because they have to guarantee that they're training their officers to deal with situations they regularly will be in.

If this situation is seen as too risky, then will we be stopping? Vehicle stops, traffic stops? I suggest we need them as a valuable tool. So that's why I present this to you today. To move.
21:33
21:33
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
variety of reasons, and it's very expensive to insure cars and the like, but in reality there is no like, but in reality there is no reason. Therefore, I think this is a sensible measure, recognising a sensible measure, recognising that a number of bodies, a number of public bodies have the power to not only seize vehicles but to not only seize vehicles but to crush them instantaneously, actually, and as a consequence, actually, and as a consequence, this seems like a actually a modest measure to allow people to give 28 days, four weeks in which to make sure that the car has been insured.

And as an aside, I should perhaps approach my noble friend because my car insurance went up massively this year. So perhaps I need to come and find him to discuss. I'm not quite sure what's happened in my life. It's joining the House of Lords. It seems to have massively increased the risk, apparently. That said, I'm not as convinced by a number of the other amendments that have been tabled today, and I do understand the seriousness of drink driving and the impact it can have, and particularly actually my noble friend Earl Attlee has talked about the evidence, and I think that is fair in what is the balance of whether it's 50, whether it's 80.

I think all evidence so far has shown there is a distinct that a massive distinction. So not only covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland and I appreciate her. Scotland is gone to 50, recognising some of the other challenges they've introduced in order to tackle consumption of alcohol, like minimum alcohol pricing and the like. But so I'm not convinced that that is the reason why I'll develop this a little bit, just briefly. And it's not I'm not trying to advocate drink driving at all, but I do think considerably of rural pubs and the like, where people believe that they can probably have a good pint of beer and be able to drive their family home or their friends home safely without it going to the elements of trying to work out.

And I appreciate what the noble Lord Lord Hampton has tried to do by trying to remove something from the 2006 act. I think it is. But there's a reason why, perhaps why, 90 years on, it still hasn't been put into place. The the belief or evidence to show it just hasn't been needed in that regard. And I was struck by what my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington said about the drive away I was. I was genuinely interested in trying to understand where was he going with his amendment and what was this really an issue? And I'm struck by what he's talked about, about how many people have, whether it be significant accidents in that regard.

So I think it's worth considering whether this is an issue solely in the Met in London, or whether it's an issue elsewhere before the government would consider making any further changes, I'd say to my noble friend Earl Attlee that I do understand where he's heading with this random breath test, and I take this to a different perspective. I'm actually. I'm not sure the best way to say this. I actually don't want the police to have a reason to stop people for anything.

I actually do think the police should have a reason to stop people going about their everyday lives. I do understand this. What he is trying to achieve in in his amendment today, but I just I'm concerned that we need to make sure that when we have the police who have extraordinary powers already, that when they use those powers, we need to make sure they believe it's genuinely because somebody is doing something wrong. Therefore, I think the current situation we have is sufficient.

And I hope that, my noble friend, I don't disagree on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very often, but may understand why I disagree with him on his amendment. Tonight I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could make a counter argument and I absolutely understand her concerns. But the fact of the concerns. But the fact of the matter is, if the police want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stop someone, they can. My Lords, are this group of amendments is looking at illegal vehicles on our streets and enforcement and guidance. Amendment 345 from Lord Lucas seeks guidance on enforcement of legal vehicles. But as I understand it, looking into this, there currently exists a range of existing powers for the
21:38
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
police to deal with these offences, and the College of Policing already produces authorised professional practice on roads policing, which sets out these existing powers and their operational application in their operational application in detail. So we therefore do not think this amendment is needed. But think this amendment is needed. But the amendments 350 and 356 G in the names of Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Hampton are very Town and Lord Hampton are very important around the issue of drink driving.

The first, as we heard, seeks to reduce the drink driving limit so that it's in line with most of other countries. And the second is about the use of alcohol ignition interlocks, which are in use in many jurisdictions. And as we've heard, drink driving remains a major but preventable cause of death and serious injury on our streets. Reducing the drink drive limit is one step in trying to tackle this, but I do think it would need to go hand in hand with the publicity and enforcement campaign for maximum effect.

If I think back to when I was younger, when I learned to drive, it was absolutely drummed into you that you never went out and drank and drank and drove. And one person is the designated driver, or you use public transport or taxi or persuade someone's parents or whatever to come and pick you up. And I think this message needs to be amplified as well as drunk driving, which I have raised in this chamber before, which seems to be a growing trend.

So I think it needs to come as a package. But alkaloids that have been discussed are a really important development in trying to reduce drink driving and people reoffending. A simple breathalyser linked to your ignition, which means if you're over the limit, you simply cannot start your vehicle. And there was recently a drop in only a couple of weeks ago in portcullis House, where this was on, demonstrated to us all, and I just thought, what a fantastic invention. As we've heard already used in many EU countries, New Zealand, Australia, the United States and given around 260 people are killed in drink driving collisions every year.

And drink driving accounts for around 16% of all UK road deaths. This is a really important, simple development that's been shown to successfully work and reduces repeat offending internationally. So why wouldn't we want to bring this in here? So we fully support this amendment and hope the government will respond positively. I did note Minister also came to the drop in from the other place, so I'm hopeful that the government might be moving in that area now. Lord Attlee's amendment regarding random breath tests, I say I agree with Baroness Coffey that without suspicion, it's not in our view and therefore we wouldn't support it on these benches.

But Lord Baillie's amendment 416C highlights this potential loophole which he's outlined, which I think is really interesting as technology has moved forward. And Baroness Hayter 416B, which makes a strong point about uninsured vehicles. So I look forward to hearing the government's response to these and the other issues raised in this group.
21:41
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the amendments in this group consider a highly important issue that requires the utmost consideration. And so I thank noble Lords that have contributed thus far. My Lords, we do support the idea behind my noble friend Lord Lucas amendment 345 that guidance and a pilot based on that guidance is a viable approach to stemming the proliferation of illegal vehicles and criminal offences by the drivers of those vehicles on our roads. My Lords, a measure such as this is all the more urgent.

Following the report published this week by the all party Parliamentary Group for Transport Safety, which laid bare the scale of criminality plaguing our roads. As many as 1 in 15 vehicles may carry modified and ghost number plates to evade Anpr detection. These modified vehicles, guilty of a crime in and of themselves, are then being used to bypass surveillance and undertake activities such as black market trading, drug dealing and organised crime. So over 34,000 suppliers have registered with the DVLA to produce UK number plates, many of which are private and indeed unregulated.

A consultation, consultation and pilot should be should be the bare minimum. The Appg report has issued recommendations, but a more general consultation would be able to cover different types of road crime. So can the Minister confirm that they have acknowledged this report and are considering wider measures to deal with illegal vehicles and criminal activity on our roads? Well, as I take much the same approach to amendment 416B in the name of the noble Baroness Brady Hayter of Kentish Town, and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe an amendment 416C in the name of my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington.

Both measures aim to reduce crime on our roads by increasing police powers. But I stand to be corrected on this. I'm not sure whether there is a power already under section 165 of the Road Traffic Act of 1988 for police to to actually take possession of vehicles uninsured on the road. But I do stand to be corrected on that. But I do support the principle of particularly in the case of amendment four and six C, which closes an obvious gap in the law that has emerged as technology has developed.

That being said, simply increasing the power of our police is meaningless if there is not the manpower to use those powers. New powers are welcome, but they should come with effective enforcement. Moving on to amendment 353 503 50. In the name of the noble Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Findlay of London. I'm not opposed to the principle behind it. Both houses, when legislating on matters concerning public safety, as this amendment does, should on the side of safety. It is the same reason why we are not opposed in principle to the government's announcement of their intention to reduce the drink driving limit per 100ml of breath.

That being said, we must acknowledge the fact that there are multiple facets of this debate to consider. Firstly, I do not think that we should be legislating on such a matter with an without an adequate consultation. A change that will be the first of its kind in 50 years should not be a casual appendage to a wide ranging bill. A change in the drink driving limit should be subject to a thorough analysis by public health professionals in order to discern the correct level of reduction.

Secondly, I know that the noble Baroness and the government do believe that these measures will increase road safety. 300 people a year die from drunk driving, a number that we should aim to reduce wherever possible. But I am concerned that these reforms will not have the desired effect. I do somehow doubt that the persistent offenders will perhaps not take notice of such a decrease. My Lords, we have the perfect case study to use for the amendment in question, Scotland, and I find myself at one with the Earl Attlee.

In 2014, the Scottish Government lowered the legal limit of blood alcohol content from 80mg per 100ml to 50mg per 100ml, the same change proposed by the noble Baroness, and in three, as has already been said in three academic studies, into whether these changes help to reduce the number of traffic accidents or fatality rates relative to England, it was found that lower Scottish limits had no impact, so one study found that there was no change on Friday and Saturday nights, despite those being the nights when accidents are most likely to occur.

It also found that there was no difference among the accident rates of young males. The group most likely to engage in drink driving. That is not to say that these papers are conclusive, but it does seem as if there are no grounds at this moment to reduce the alcohol limit in the name of safety. The opportunity cost of lost freedom seems to come with no benefit. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the government will undertake a thorough consultation analysis before supporting amendment 350 and continuing with their own reforms.

My Lords, that does not mean that measures are not available that reduce and punish drink driving without lowering the limit. Amendment 356 amends the Road Safety Act 2006 to make the issuing of alcoholic ignition interlock programmes easier, a piece of technology that we should be making the most of that keeps vulnerable people safe. Without kerbing the freedoms of the public. Amendment 398, tabled in the name of my noble friend Earl Attlee, would expand police powers to breath test drivers, allowing them to proceed without prior suspicion on accident or offence having taken place.

These are just two measures that could be taken to kerb drunk driving, not at the expense of the public at large, and I wonder whether the government has considered any similar measures. And I look forward to what the noble Lord, the Minister, has to say on this.
21:48
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, before I turn to the substance of the amendments in this group, I should briefly set out the government's plans for road safety. As many noble Lords have spoken, this debate will know the government is currently developing the first road safety strategy in a decade. The safety of road users is a top priority for the government, and we are fully committed to considering the range of existing motoring offences and police powers, whilst implementing policies that will improve road safety for all.

Our intention is to publish the strategy soon. Many of the issues raised in these amendments fall under the purview of this strategy, and I would encourage noble Lords to study this strategy once it is available. Turning to the amendments. Firstly, amendment 345, tabled by Lord Lucas and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on his behalf, which seeks to make provision for a pilot to help tackle the problem of non-compliant vehicles on our roads, that is, vehicles which are uninsured, unregistered, untaxed or without an MOT.

The police already have robust enforcement powers under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Police Reform Act 2002, including the ability to seize and dispose of vehicles for offences such as driving without insurance or a valid MOT. And as the noble Lady Baroness Pidgeon said, the College of Policing provides authorised professional practice guidance on roads, policing and the strategic policing requirement prioritises this nationally. Enforcement on the roads is a matter for the police, given their operational independence, and should remain so.

And we've already talked earlier in, earlier this evening in committee about at some length about the impact of Operation Topaz on focusing efforts of all partners in improving road policing, and certainly the government, as we've heard, investing in investing in this. It is for police forces, my Lords, to enforce road traffic legislation, with chief officers deciding how to deploy available resources, taking into account any specific local problems or and demands giving a his experience in road transport matters. It's good to be on the same side of this argument as the noble Lord, noble Earl Attlee, at least on this one amendment.

Tonight, for future dates, we shall see additional statutory guidance as envisaged by the amendment is therefore unnecessary. Mandating new guidance and pilots would place further strain on police resources without clear funding or staffing provisions. I understand the noble Lord Lord Lucas, in his amendment, intends that the pilot will provide a self-funding solution, but it's not immediately apparent to us how this would be the case. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that enforcement pilots will deliver better outcomes than existing measures.

Measures such as the automatic number plate recognition or Anpr systems and intelligence led approaches. In his contribution, noble Lord Lord Davis asked about the APPG report, which talked about Anpr. Of course we welcome the contribution of the APPGs report on the issue. Note the Anpr system is, of course, a valuable tool we do acknowledge to help the police tackle crime and keep the roads safe. The government want to assure that Lordships' House keeps the effectiveness of police use of Anpr systems under regular review, so that it remains a robust tool for identifying vehicles of interest to the police and drivers who break the law.

The DVLA and National Police Chiefs Council work closely with trading standards, local authorities and other government departments to improve the identification and enforcement of number plate crime. The danger that the that the well-intentioned amendment that was tabled by Lord Lucas and and moved by the noble Lord Lord Blencathra would would duplicate existing frameworks, including the National Police Chiefs Council and College of Police guidance. The focus should remain on optimising the use of current enforcement powers and technology, rather than introducing a duplicative statutory provision.

Having said that, I will arrange for the Home Office and Department of Transport officials to meet with the noble Lord Lord Lucas in the New Year. Turning to amendments two, three, five eight and 398, tabled by a noble friend, Baroness Hayter and the noble Earl Lord Bradley the government, and also supported by Lord Berkeley and Lord Bailey, and discussed with some thought and care by the noble noble Lady Baroness Coffey. The government fully shares their commitment to reduce all our commitment, I'd say, to reduce the numbers of those killed and seriously injured on our roads.

Driving under the influence of drink or drugs is unacceptable and illegal. We are determined to combat this behaviour and ensure that all such drivers are caught and punished. We have a combined approach of tough penalties and rigorous enforcement, along with a highly respected and effective think campaigns. This reinforces the social unacceptability of drink driving, reminding people of the serious consequences such practices have on themselves and others. I can assure my noble friend that the upcoming road safety strategy includes serious consideration of lowering the drink drive limits, as well as testing of suspects and penalties.

As part of this, we are considering concerns raised by campaigners, parliamentarians and bereaved families that my ministerial colleagues in the Department for transport have met. The government is listening closely to the concerns of those affected by tragic cases of death or serious injury on our roads, and we want to put them at the heart of this work. Turning now to amendment three five, six B in the name of the noble Lord Lord Hampton, which seeks to extend the alcohol ignition interlock programme to drivers convicted of certain drink driving offences, and obviously noting his very strong arguments for for the case, for for Alco locks and not not skipping over the fact that it has a lot of popularity.

He put his popularity with the voters. I couldn't possibly comment in your Lordships House, but as as the noble Lord Lord Hampton said, alcohol ignition interlock programs are widespread in many jurisdictions. Let me reassure him. Reassure him that the road safety strategy will consider the case for use of alcohol in dealing with drink driving offenders. But it is worth at the moment, considering the current regime in place for higher risk offenders, those who are those who've already engaged in who, who might be seen as repeat drink drivers, or those who are alcohol misuse issues, there is a higher risk offender scheme for those who refuse to provide a breath sample, have two drink driving convictions in ten years, or two and a half times over the legal limit.

Currently, the practical consequences of becoming a drink driver HRO is that the driver's licence is not automatically reissued upon application once the period of disqualification has ended. Instead, the HRA must apply for a new licence and the DVLA will only issue a licence after the HRO has proved their medical fitness to drive. Having said that, these are Alco locks are an issue that will be considered as part of the road safety. Road safety strategy and so I hope that that gives him some assurance to look out at it, look out, look out for it and study it carefully.

Turning to amendment 416B for my noble friend Lady Hayter, which related to the confiscation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

O before my my noble friend goes on to that the other issues that on to that the other issues that are going to come under the strategy, would he confirm that if anything is agreed along any of anything is agreed along any of these lines, that then separate legislation would be brought in? Our fear otherwise is that this Our fear otherwise is that this bill goes. It may be a long time till any legislation would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

brought in. Well, I I'd say an answer to my noble friend that this is a this is a road safety strategy is obviously being undertaken. The review is being undertaken by the, by the DfT. So it's a little outside my bailiwick to speak for it. And also I'd say there may well be lots of provisions in the strategy. And this is more my speculation than anything else that don't necessarily require either primary or secondary legislation. But what I would say is that, you know, the, the, this, this the strategy will be out soon and we are but halfway through committee, turning to my noble friend, however, her amendment on confiscation of uninsured vehicles is supported by Lord Ashcombe, who spoke with his considerable knowledge of the insurance insurance industry and indeed the costs of free riding in, in, in in car insurance.

And those who don't, don't act responsibly. As I've indicated, the police already have powers under section 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to seize vehicles being driven without insurance. This amendment goes further, but by making confiscation automatic and permanent after 28 days. Under the existing regulations, the process for reclaiming a seized vehicle is clear and time bound. Once the vehicle is seized, the registered keeper or driver has seven working days to reclaim it by paying all recovery and storage charges and providing proof of valid insurance.

This ensures that enforcement is firm but fair, giving owners a reasonable opportunity to comply. If the vehicle is not reclaimed within this seven day period, the police may proceed to dispose of it. This step disposal, cancer cell destruction or other lawful means after issuing a formal notice of intent, which this step ensures transparency and due process for ownership is effectively transferred, and these provisions strike an appropriate balance between enforcement, cost recovery and fairness to vehicle owners. Having said that, my noble friend has indicated that her underlying point is, of course, about the inadequacy of the sanctions for driving without insurance.

And certainly that's what Lord Ashcombe was discussing as well. And my noble friend is in particular pointing to the fact that £300, the maximum fixed penalty notices for this fence, is about half the cost of average annual car insurance. As I indicated in my at the start of my remarks, we will soon be publishing a new road safety strategy. At the risk of sounding a broken record, this will, amongst other things, set out proposals for changes to motoring offences. So I would invite my noble friend to study the strategy and accompanying consultation documents once they are published.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister give way. Clearly the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister give way. Clearly the intention of the My Lords is to bring forward this because it doesn't feel like this power is being used very often. I wonder if this road strategy will actually put in place either the data that put in place either the data that exists, or encouragement for it to be used to its full effect of the. be used to its full effect of the. If this amendment is not required.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm at no greater advantage than other than than than other members of your Lordships House in seeing inside what's in House in seeing inside what's in the what will be in the road safety strategy. But what I, I mean, there's there's a good reason why there's there's a good reason why all these amendments are grouped together in the sense that there are all of them raise issues which are all of them raise issues which are going to be covered in some way by the road safety strategy.

And as by the road safety strategy. And as I said to my noble friend Baroness Hayter, there could be things that are in the strategy that don't require, you know, don't require changes to the guidance or don't necessarily require action in primary legislation or secondary legislation that allow us to act, act quickly. But that would be me. Me speaking well beyond my responsibilities as a as in terms of speaking for the the DfT for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which I have absolutely no, no responsibility. My Lords, I hope the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I hope the Minister does understand that he speaks for His Majesty's Government and not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

His Majesty's Government and not the Home Office. Well, of. Course I do. And I slightly misspoke there, but all I can say misspoke there, but all I can say is I haven't been whilst I've been slaving away over the Crime and Policing Bill, I haven't been slaving away over the road safety slaving away over the road safety strategy. So it's a I can only, I can only find so much clarity and guidance on the on the progress of that piece of work.

Finally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Minister goes on, I think there is a real worry about the current situation on the face of a previous bill and the insurance previous bill and the insurance that is paid by law abiding citizens today. And I'd like some reassurance that that's going to be reassurance that that's going to be very seriously considered when when this comes forward, because it's this comes forward, because it's it's way too far apart today and there is no incentive to buy insurance, which we all desperately need to be bought should anybody

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get hurt. Well, I think the noble the noble Lord makes his point. Well, noble Lord makes his point. Well, and I'm sure that it is a point that has been noticed, and indeed there have been representations there have been representations made to the DfT in the process of developing the the road safety strategy. And there will be once it strategy. And there will be once it is published, there'll be a consultation, there'll be further opportunities for representations by organisations like Abi. And by organisations like Abi.

And indeed, I am sure that as part of the as part of the process of preparing the new strategy that DfT will be poring over the, the, the Hansard for this evening's committee to to to understand the debate and the and the issues raised. Finally, turning to amendment 416C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. Pennington. The government is well aware of tragic incidents where police officers have been injured by drivers during traffic stops. And I thank him for raising for speaking about and raising the tragic death of PC Harper, which demonstrates the real dangers that our police put themselves in every day of the week, doing something that you would think would quite humdrum and everyday, as in just attending to, to, to, to a vehicle that they had, they had stopped and we were always right to remember the contribution, the vital contribution they make to our safety by putting themselves in danger.

My Lords, this behaviour is unacceptable and we determined all such drivers are caught and punished. We are determined that police officers can do their vital jobs in a safe and environment as possible. And as I said in response to a previous amendment, the government is considering concerns that have been raised by the Police Federation on this, on this issue, and we'll look to address them in the road safety strategy. In conclusion, I have sympathy for many of the points raised in this debate by noble Lords.

We all want to see our roads safer for all road users, as well as the police, in their vital role in enforcing our road traffic laws. As noble Lady Baroness Pidgeon said, for this to be effective, it needs to come as a package. We need the right laws, the right enforcement and the right awareness and education. So again, I would encourage all noble Lords to examine our forthcoming road safety strategy and respond to the associated consultations. Given the imminence of the strategy, I'd open my noble friend, the noble, the noble Lord.

Rather, Lord Blencathra would be content to withdraw his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think all noble Lords can agree that we've had a fabulous debate, which we can be proud of. debate, which we can be proud of. But can the noble Lord, the Minister, explain why he's considering lowering the blood alcohol level when the Scottish experiment shows that it doesn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work? Well without without going into the detail, the Scottish experiment. the detail, the Scottish experiment. I think what I'd say to to to to the noble Lord Earl Attlee is is simply that to for the for the road safety strategy to be to to do a complete job. It's going, it's going in, it's going into the, it's going into the excise whilst keeping options on the, keeping options on the table. I'm not going to prejudge what it's going to say, what it's going to say, but I think it would all behove it to rule everything, rule everything out.

Just as we're not ruling out the the potential measures on alcohol or the potential measures on, on, on on insurance, I would simply say as again, I feel a bit like a broken record in responding to this group of amendments. But watch this space.
22:03
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
This has been an eye opener of a debate, not just an eye opener for me, but I think for many noble me, but I think for many noble peers, we've all learned something we didn't know before. I feel a bit of a fraud during this little wind of a fraud during this little wind up at the end. It's really should be the noble Lady Baroness Hayter after after her superb speech and the amendments, she moved. But let me just rattle through a few comments. I'm sorry my noble friend Earl Attlee didn't like my noble friend's amendment.

Mind you, I didn't like his amendment much either. On on on on on random stops. And I think my noble friend Baroness Coffey was right. The police should have a good reason for stopping someone. I remember a few years ago, my constituents, way up in the wilds of Cumbria, used to complain that when they left the local pub late at night, they'd drive a few yards and a police car hiding around the corner would stop them and say, we've reason to think you've been drinking, sir.

And of course that was at a random stop. Or was it done? With good reason. I think the noble Lord himself said, the police don't need a reason to stop someone, so we don't need random stopping. I thought the points made by my noble friend Lord Billy of Paddington were absolutely right. We read those horrible stories of policemen being dragged along and I hope the gap there that can be plugged. I really like the noble Lord, Lord Hampton said about interlock schemes. I think I first heard of those and Tomorrow's World 20 years ago, and they still haven't been implemented.

I simply don't understand what is the problem from not doing a pilot. I think if he brought that back at report and it's in order, many of us would be tempted to support it. Then I come to the two big crunch ones, and that's what the eye opener for me and the noble Lady was so right to talk about uninsured vehicles. And so as my my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, I had no idea that the fine was less than half the insurance.

That just cannot be right. And although we can't put increased fines in here, I do like the idea of confiscation. Now everyone says, oh, the police have power to confiscate, but are they actually doing it? I get the impression that very few vehicles are being confiscated. We've got automatic number plate recognition all over the country. If it's working, why are there tens of thousands of uninsured cars on the road? So I say to the police and the Home Office, advise them, get out there and start grabbing those vehicles, getting the people take confiscating their cars.

And when they get them back, it won't be a £50 administrative fine, a £500 admi fine to get your vehicle back added to the current penalty. That may act as a disincentive for them until the government strategy comes along. But I conclude on on my noble friend Lord Lucas amendment. I must say the Minister did seem to make a very good case, for his amendment was not necessary, and he did it in a very courteous and nice way. And I really want to thank him for agreeing that my noble friend may come to the Home Office and meet the officials there and be briefed on it.

And with those words, I beg leave to withdraw my noble friend. Lord Lucas amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 346. Lord Davis not moved. Amendment 346A and B Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hogan-Howe not moved. My Lords, I beg. To move that the house be resumed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the house be resumed, as many of that opinion will say. Content, content, content not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move the House to now adjourn. House to now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page