Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Oral questions: Discussions with the European Union in relation to alignment with the EU Digital Services Act, and greater co-operation on digital services regulation

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question, standing under my name on the Order Paper.

15:29

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

The government regularly. policy, including direct discussions on the Digital Services Act, which, like the UK's Online Safety Act, requires companies to take proportionate steps to protect users online. While the UK has taken its own regulatory approach, we cooperate with the EU, where it supports UK citizens and businesses. The new EU UK digital dialogue will deepen cooperation on shared challenges, including AI and online

15:30

Baroness Gill (Labour)

- -

child safety. I thank the Minister for her response. There would be several economic, regulatory and strategic benefits if the UK were to be part of the EU's Digital to be part of the EU's Digital Services Act. Scale matters when it comes to dealing with the powerful comes to dealing with the powerful global tech companies. It's quite clear from the US's AI action plan it's not going to limit their it's not going to limit their powers, and DSA is likely to become a global standard like GDPR.

So I ask the Minister to confirm whether this government will include. It is a matter of urgency on the agenda of ongoing recent discussions with the EU, with a view to becoming a

15:31

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

member. We have reset our relations with European partners, improving diplomatic, economic and security cooperation, and we are committed to playing, to playing a role, to playing, to playing a role, shaping an open, trusted digital future. With the EU and other partners. We have the Online Safety partners. We have the Online Safety Act here. We have announced consultations on future measures, including on children's well-being and the EU. Digital omnibus is looking at lots of other aspects of reform and our new UK EU digital dialogue, announced as part of the reset, will provide a structured forum for ongoing engagement on digital policy.

15:31

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, my Lords, Lords, digital governance for online platforms relies on certain basic principles so that they should operate both transparently, responsibly and in alignment with legal standards. That, I think, is a formal basis that we should operate on too. But can I ask the Minister why, instead of having new laws that align with the EU, why do we not simply codify the laws that we currently have and make those applicable to these new areas, which are innovative and ever developing?

15:32

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

In respect of the Online Safety Act, we have the Online Safety Act, which is enforced by by Ofcom and other regulators. And as the noble Lord will know, we announced a consultation just recently on areas which we may seek to expand or take further measures to to enhance children's well-being.

15:32

Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)

- -

The Minister accept that as part of this dialogue, close cooperation on robust competition enforcement is essential to resist growing US pressure to weaken digital rules as the EU actively enforces its Digital Markets Act. Will the government commit to aligning in practice with strong EU enforcement standards, rather than allowing US corporate lobbying to dilute the regime?

15:33

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

Yes. >> Yes. >> The UK has taken decisive action to strengthen competition and to strengthen competition and fairness in digital markets, and in January 2025, Parliament equipped the CMA with new powers to boost competition and innovation in digital markets. In May, the government issued a clear steer to the CMA to prioritise this work and align action with international jurisdictions, including the EU and the UK, and the CMA engage regularly with EU counterparts as both regimes are beginning operation to help maintain close alignment on emerging issues.

15:34

Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)

- -

The EU already has has AI legislation. Is the government intending to bring forward its own legislation on AI, on AI and how to regulate it?

15:34

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

We are taking the approach in >> We are taking the approach in terms of AI, AI regulation, that we have regulators who are regulating, have regulators who are regulating, who are sector specific and who have the expertise to look at how AI is affecting there, the companies they regulate and the impacts of that. And that is the approach we are taking.

15:34

Viscount Camrose (Conservative)

- -

My Lord. Many digital harms, >> My Lord. Many digital harms, such as disinformation and illegal or fraudulent content operate across borders. So in that light, across borders. So in that light, could the noble Lady, the Minister, enlarge a little bit about the practical measures the government is pursuing with the European Union to ensure effective cross-border enforcement of our respective digital regulations, particularly with respect to Ofcom's work with those responsible for enforcing the Digital Services Act.

15:35

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

The Ofcom and the EU have a memorandum or have an agreement to cooperate and talk frequently. In terms of regulatory cooperation. Ofcom is also a member of a global network of regulators so they can share best practice and and work on further cooperation. This is.

15:35

Oral questions: Advice to the general public and businesses on mitigating and preparing for Iranian state-sponsored cyberattacks, sabotage or disruption arising from recent events in the Middle East

Fourth Oral Question Lord Harris of Haringey.

15:35

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

As recorded in the. and beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper. >> My Lords, the National Cyber Security Centre is closely Security Centre is closely monitoring the situation in the Middle East and directly engaging with critical sectors, providing immediate and specific information and advice. They have issued an alert urging all organisations, especially those with assets or supply chains in the region, to remain vigilant. Whilst it is likely that direct cyber threat from Iran to the UK has not changed, NCSC advises organisations to strengthen their cyber security posture.

Now, due to the fast evolving nature of the conflict, the National Security Agency also issued guidance, updated guidance last year on countering the threat of sabotage, helping organisations to protect their sites from physical threats.

15:36

Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I'm grateful to my noble friend, the Minister, for that reply and I'm also grateful for what the National Cyber Security Centre has been doing in terms of targeted advice. But last week, four people were arrested by the Metropolitan Police under the National Security Act for what is being reported. As for spying against Jewish organisations, so there is an issue about that in terms of risk of Iranian sabotage. But there have also been a series of incidents across Europe and in this country of Russian inspired or Russian paid for attacks on various sorts of business.

So what is the general advice being given to the public, to small businesses and to larger businesses in terms of the precautions that they increasingly ought to take under the current international situation?

15:37

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

My noble friend raises an incredibly important point. And all of this comes down to our national resilience and making sure we're prepared for such threats. Before I highlight what we're doing in terms of the specifics of cyber and also cyber more generally, I just want to highlight that ministerial colleagues and the security services who have done so much in recent days to keep us safe, have met with including as well as the Minister, have met and spoken to a large range of Jewish and Muslim organisations to provide reassurance.

As well as meeting with my noble friend. Lord Mann and 20 councils provide reassurance to those who are so worried by the current conflict. In terms of the specific guidance, my Lords, the reality is in this space we need a whole society approach. Businesses have to take the lead. They know where their threats are, they know where their vulnerabilities may lie. But at this time, at this point, we need to make sure that we are collectively working together in terms of government actions.

We are bringing forward the Cyber Action Plan by spring, and obviously the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill is currently in the other place.

15:38

Lord Howell of Guildford (Conservative)

- -

Defence production.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Needs for entirely new kinds of warfare steps up, as it is now warfare steps up, as it is now doing. Is the government satisfied that the needs of our strategy, which are rapid and growing, are closely aligned enough with the plans of British industry?

15:38

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

plans of British industry? >> Noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to make sure that we're protecting British industry and that we're working with key allies. Last year, cyber attacks cost the economy £15 billion and this is a growing threat. So we do need to work with them. But we also need to be led by business because they know what infrastructure is there. But as noble Lords, some noble Lords will be aware, some of this is low tech as much as it's high tech, and people are seeking every single vulnerability, we all need to be cognisant of that and making sure that there is a genuinely whole society approach.

15:39

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)

- -

We better make sure that the whole society is informed about the nature of the threat. Nearly a year ago, the Strategic Defence Review talked about the need for a national conversation led by the government, political leadership by the government to inform and educate the wider public about the nature of these new cyber and other hybrid threats from a number of different countries Iran, Russia, China and others. When is the government going to provide that political leadership through the national conversation which was proposed?

15:40

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> My Lords, I'm disappointed that not everybody looks at the NCSC website in the same way that I do to ensure that they're updated. The to ensure that they're updated. The noble Lord, the noble Lord, is right that we do need to make sure that people are aware. It's one of the reasons why it was so important in the run up to the national alert that we had on all of our phones last year, that materials were made available about what else could be done in terms of resilience, and what other things needed to be needed to be done.

I would urge all noble Lords to make sure that they are also protected. And one of the things that I am, I hate to do this, but my Lords, there is a cyber offer which is available to every member of your Lordships' House, and I believe only ten of us have access to it. So it would be very good at this opportunity that also all members of your Lordships House took up the security offering provided to protect us while we talk about others too.

15:41

My Lords, when my Lords, when we. Oh sorry my Lords, sticking. >> With the theme. >> Iran is a sophisticated actor. Iran works closely with Russia. We know the threats that Russia can generate, which are more than cyber. So I think it isn't just a time for a national conversation. It's a time to strengthen our national security narrative for the whole country. Does the Minister. country. Does the Minister.

15:41

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

I think Mr. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord. I think it's yes, I do agree. It's also about making sure that what we've got in place in terms of the foundations are right to, which is why some of the and we go from national security to national defence within this space, as well as our wider resilience programme. It's one of the reasons why the Ryecroft review is so important in terms of funding of our political parties, why the representation of the peoples Bill, which is in the other place, is key.

It's also why we're investing £170 million on the sovereign encrypted technology so that we can protect ourselves. But the noble Lords actually be right. The challenges from Iran are not one dimensional, they are multi-dimensional, and we all need to be prepared.

15:42

Lord Polak (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, when when Russia. Invaded Ukraine, we. Invaded Ukraine, we. >> Were very quick to sanction individuals and freeze assets. Can you, the noble Lady, tell me what assets we frozen of the late Ayatollah? His office, I believe, is still open in in Kilburn. Apparently there are flats and so on near the Israel Embassy in Kensington. What are we doing to sanction them? Yeah.

15:42

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

My Lord, the government has taken significant action in terms of what has happened so far. We have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, as well as 550 Iranian individuals and entities. We've also placed the whole of the Iranian state, including Iran's intelligence services, on the enhanced tier of the Foreign influence registration scheme, to better reveal any Iranian influence on the UK. We're also training frontline police officers on what state threats are and are not. In terms of the specifics, I will have to write to him.

15:43

Lord Stirrup (Crossbench)

- -

We've talked a lot about cyber defence and of course that's extremely important. But you don't win a war purely through defence and be in no doubt we are at war in cyberspace. I do not expect the noble Lady, the Minister, to give us any details, but could she reassure the House that we're taking all the action that's necessary to go on the offensive in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this area, as well as to defend? The noble and gallant? Lord

15:43

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

>> The noble and gallant? Lord knows much more than I about how to fight a war. But he's absolutely right. We need to be prepared on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right. We need to be prepared on all fronts, and I want to reassure him that we are making sure that we are. The National Audit Office

15:43

Baroness Finn (Conservative)

- -

>> The National Audit Office recently examined the cyber threat facing the UK government and reached some deeply concerning reached some deeply concerning conclusions. It found that 58 critical government IT systems have significant gaps in their in their cyber resilience, and that the government does not even know how vulnerable at least 228 legacy systems are to cyber attack. They also highlighted a number of underlying weaknesses shortage of cybersecurity skills within government and insufficient coordination across departments. So, in the face of what the Nao has described as a severe and advancing threat, and with tensions in the Middle East further heightening the risk environment, can the noble Baroness set out what steps the government are taking to address these shortcomings and strengthen the resilience of critical government systems?

15:44

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

The noble Lady will be very aware that the cybersecurity and resilience is other place, which is a starting point. I'm aware of what she has highlighted and and we are working across government to fix it. But there is also the Cyber Action spring.

15:44

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Labour)

- -

My Lords, going back to the question of a national conversation and ask her a rather more prosaic question about what efforts the government are making to counter the kind of information which gives rise to very unhelpful behaviours, for example, hoarding of certain kinds of foodstuffs and petrol and other things. And is she aware, or is the government aware of any particular rise in that kind of behaviour at this moment?

15:45

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

I thank my noble friend for the >> I thank my noble friend for the question, which is interesting, and I have not been made aware of any of those behaviours that have yet of those behaviours that have yet happened. I would say that that anyone that watches the news is aware of quite how volatile and uncertain the world is, and you could understand why. That is what I would say, both to members of your Lordships' House and to the general public, is that there is a responsibility on those of us that can look after ourselves at a point of crisis to make sure that we have at home, minimum levels of food and water, so that the state can look after the most vulnerable and deal with the emergency at hand.

All of that guidance is available on Gov.uk.

15:45

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Of. So much of this activity is >> Of. So much of this activity is from the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Why has our government not prescribed that? our government not prescribed that? To try and prevent this activity at source? And secondly, the growth of the rampant mis and disinformation which is causing Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and some indeed from right far right wing evangelical groups in the United States is now becoming pervasive. So what work is the government doing with Ofcom also to prevent that at source? Yeah.

15:46

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord will be aware of >> The noble Lord will be aware of my own voting record on the IRGC prescription. So let me be clear in prescription. So let me be clear in opposition. But let me be clear. Prescription powers are designed for non-state terror organisations, not state organisations. We have committed to take forward plans recommended by Jonathan Hall KC for a prescription like power for state and state linked bodies to tackle state hostile state activity, and that will come forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

With regard to the other points, my Lord, some of this action is happening in terms of media literacy training. The changes to the curriculum, how we also interrogate all of us, interrogate data and what we see online. The reality is, and I say this as someone who has lived and breathed some of the misinformation that is put out about people in this space is we need to make sure that we need to be very aware that what happens online really does have an effect offline, and that is increasingly the realities we have to manage.

Which is why my final words, my Lords, I want to put on, I want to say once again how services.

15:47

Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)

- -

My Lord, my Lords. Private >> My Lord, my Lords. Private notice question on pension schemes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ministerial powers Baroness Altmann. I beg leave to ask the questions of which I have given private notice, and the question is to ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the need for Ministers to possess powers, one to direct specific investment allocations for private sector workers pension funds, and sector workers pension funds, and two to make investment in government directed assets a condition of approval for automatic enrolment pension schemes. And I declare my interest as set out in.

My Lords. The Pension Schemes Bill contains a reserve power on asset allocation, designed as a backstop to the voluntary commitments made by the pensions

15:48

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

industry under the Mansion House Accord. The government does not currently expect to use this power were this power ever exercised. were this power ever exercised. Schemes that cannot meet the requirements without causing material financial detriment to their members would be able to their members would be able to apply for an exemption. Under the Savers Interest Test, the power is time limited and subject to consultation, parliamentary approval and robust safeguards.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

approval and robust safeguards. My Lords, I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for that answer. But

15:48

Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)

- -

I'm afraid that if the government's main argument for including these powers is that it doesn't expect to powers is that it doesn't expect to need to use them, and will only use them if pension schemes themselves them if pension schemes themselves decide that they don't believe it is wise to actually achieve the allocations that the government wants them to achieve, then I have even greater concerns about those powers and I would urge the government to think again about overriding the trustees decisions about what assets to invest in.

In particular, my Lords, the government is trying to take unlimited powers in this bill to prescribe a percentage. We don't know what that percentage might be to invest in assets. We don't know which assets they will actually be. And even those who brokered the Mansion House Accord are saying, such as pensions UK and Abi, that they wish this to be reconsidered. My Lords, does the government really believe that it knows better than the investment industry how pension schemes should invest? And would it not consider that there is an example of the problems that the government might have in terms of its exclusion from the bill of some of the ideal vehicles, which could be used to invest in the very assets the government says it wants to support.

15:50

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

Well, my Lords, as the noble Lady will know, we've been discussing this matter for some weeks now in the committee, and weeks now in the committee, and we'll be discussing it again on Monday when we come to the matter in the Report stage. So let me give her a brief answer to the points that she's made. I know she agrees with the government's objectives because she herself has previously advocated, indeed during committee, that we make pension tax relief contingent on 25% of new investment being allocated to UK assets.

So I know she wants the same thing that we do. To be really clear, the power is being taken as a reserve power to back the voluntary industry led Mansion House Accord, which said that by 2030, 17 of the largest pension schemes in the private in the private pension sector would be investing 10% of their of their relevant default funds into private investment, half of that in the UK. The expectation is the industry having done that will do it. The reason for taking a reserve power is because, as she knows very well, the challenge in the UK is in fact, too often people are competing in schemes on cost, not on value, and there is always a risk that for small competitive advantage, somebody may want to try and separate off from that.

So the reserve power is signalling very clearly to the industry. This is the direction of travel. So let's stay with it. All we're doing is backstopping that.

15:51

Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)

- -

The government say this power is merely a backstop to the Mansion merely a backstop to the Mansion House Accord. But this is a gross misrepresentation. The pension scheme bill goes far beyond that and gives Ministers sweeping authority to mandate pension investments to whatever level they choose. The state should not be directing the allocation of private pension assets. Those decisions must be taken by trustees in the best interest of their members, not by Labour Ministers pursuing political objectives. This policy risks undermining confidence in the entire auto enrolment system, which was built on the promise that people's savings would be invested in their interest, not the government's.

So I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, a simple question will the government remove this dangerous and unjustified power from the bill?

15:52

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

There's a short answer and a long answer. My Lords, the short long answer. My Lords, the short answer is no. The long answer is that the government has made clear. Abundantly clear, because I've done it myself many times during committee what the purpose of the reserve power is, and it's to backstop the mansion house and trust commitments. And so to be really clear that both my, my friend, the pensions Minister, and I have made clear and he said again this morning at a pensions conference that he would make absolutely sure the government's intention simply to backstop those agreements was was there for the bill.

That's what the legislation's for. But I do need to correct something in particular. This power does not direct schemes into specific assets or projects. What it does is to set a broad framework aligned with the industry's own voluntary commitments. Under the Mansion House Accord, trustees retain full discretion over individual investment, selection and the balance between asset classes. The role of a pension trustee has always been to exercise judgement subject to constraints, and nothing in these provisions changes that.

15:53

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

Could the Minister perhaps tell us why she thinks it is that pension funds are not currently investing, or have not been investing in the types of assets that she would like them to do? So that she would like them to do? So I ask that question because surely the better way forward is to understand what is stopping them understand what is stopping them doing so and fixing that problem, rather than telling them to do something they don't wish to do.

15:54

Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)

- -

Yeah.

15:54

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

so for the benefit of the whole House. I think I've just explained the main reason what the government believes the challenge is by believes the challenge is by international standards, we are really very low. I mean, so aiming for 10% Canadian schemes alone for 10% Canadian schemes alone invest 11% in infrastructure simply. And if the evidence is really clear that to invest a small proportion that to invest a small proportion of funds in the context of a diversified portfolio brings better returns for savers over the long returns for savers over the long run.

And the aim for this is to get better returns. For savers. There is too much short term termism in our markets at the moment, and the government's view is, and the evidence seems to be out there, it's because schemes are competing on cost, not on return and not on value. It's much easier to pitch to an employer on that basis, and not if we make clear the whole industry is going in this direction, then we believe that will be the case. The choices will still be there, the safeguards are still in place, and we believe that within the term.

15:55

My my Lord. House Accord target is 2030, and when will the government commence consultation as there hasn't been any yet? And what analysis has been done about the difficulties now reported daily of private credit funds and others not being able to make redemptions or exits? Would make redemptions or exits? Would the effect be that the government would be forcing workers pensions to be buyers of last resort? And is that fair when private sector workers don't have any guaranteed benefits? benefits?

15:55

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Yeah. have made clear that we do not wish to use it and do not expect to use it. The timeline for the mansion

15:55

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

house is clear. The power expires if it is not used, and if any, any requirements are in place, they're requirements are in place, they're capped at that level and can't be raised thereafter. So this will only happen if it becomes clear only happen if it becomes clear that the mansion House is not able to. The courts are not able to be delivered on. So at that point the government would consult, it would produce draft regulations, and the process would then happen. But as I've made clear since, the only aim I've made clear since, the only aim is to backstop the Mansion House Accord, the evidence should come from what the companies are doing in the Mansion House Accord.

15:56

Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)

- -

Black Rod. looking forward to discussing these issues at length in the forthcoming Report stage of the Pension Schemes Bill. Does she give me the real trick? Isn't so much directing the investment, it's finding the suitable opportunities in which to invest. And her noble friend, the pensions Minister, has talked extensively about the failure of. Investment in reservoirs over the last 20, 30 years. There is a failure there which has to be addressed.

15:57

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

My hon. Friend is quite right. >> My hon. Friend is quite right. We have had many opportunities. It's been a joy to discuss the Pension Schemes bill over many weeks, and that joy is set to to extend for some weeks to come. My Lords, in my noble friend, raises a really important point. If the government wants to make sure that people are investing in good projects, we need to make sure there are good projects to invest in. But also what we need to do is to make sure that there are vehicles for doing that.

The government has done a great deal already. The British Business Bank looking at sterling, what's happened with Sterling? 20 looking at making sure we work with industry to create the opportunities. But my Lords, there is clearly money to be made here. If international pension funds are coming to our country and buying up chunks of our infrastructure and our private equity, then we should be making sure these are open actually to our own pension funds to make money on them. No one is making them do it.

They're doing it because it's the right thing to do. So we need to make sure we enable it as well as encourage it. And the industry has taken the first steps themselves. We're simply making sure the backstop is there to make clear that this is where the direction of travel is.

15:58

Lord Macpherson of Earl's Court (Crossbench)

- -

Hello. >> Hello. >> I declare my interest as chairman of the Scottish American Investment Company. I understand why the government would want to why the government would want to take reserve power, given the persistent failure of the City of London, one of the biggest global financial centres, to provide financial centres, to provide equity finance to British industry, over 150 year years, but equally successive governments record of direct investment, or indeed direct intervention, is poor, to put it charitably. Does the Minister acknowledge that government intervention carries a price in terms of market confidence, and will the government take that into account before exercising any reserve power?

15:58

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

I thank the Lord for for an excellent question. With his background, I'd expect no less. The background, I'd expect no less. The answer. The simple answer is yes. But just again, to be really clear, the power does not direct schemes into any specific assets or projects. What it does is to set a broad framework. So all it does is to talk about about private investment as a whole, not about specific assets. And crucially, the safeguards are really clear. If the power ever comes to be used, a number of things have to happen.

First is there has to be a report commissioned and published before the power is used to make sure the conditions are right and to show the impact on savers interests and on growth. Secondly, there is a savers interest test. So if the trustees believe it would not be in the interests of their beneficiaries to be actually to follow the direction, they not only can they, but one would expect that their fiduciary duties would guide them to make an application for an exemption under the Savers Interest Test that is there to do to do that job for them.

And also, of course, there is the parliamentary scrutiny of any regulations. So I hope that reassures him.

15:59

Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)

- -

As the noble as the noble >> As the noble as the noble Baroness herself has just. >> Said. >> As a noble Baroness herself has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As a noble Baroness herself has just said. The signatories to the Mansion House Accord signed up to a voluntary agreement to invest in UK assets. Will she agree that they assets. Will she agree that they were not aware that the reserve power, the so-called mandate element, was going to be in the bill? Does she therefore agree with me, with many of the signatories themselves and those in the pensions industry, that mandate goes well beyond the Mansion House Accord here.

16:00

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

My Lords, again, just to be >> My Lords, again, just to be really clear, the government designed this power specifically to backstop the Mansion House Accord. And that's our intention. And I'm And that's our intention. And I'm always open to suggestions if there are ways to make it any clearer than we have tried to do so far. And I've had a great opportunity to talk to many members of the House about this and many other issues, and I'm really happy to carry on doing that.

But in terms of the mansion House signatories, my Lord, the, the there was a very simple way for any mansion House signatories to make sure this power is never used, and that is to keep to the voluntary commitments that they've already made. Because if that happens, there will be no need for the power ever to be used. The government will not be bringing it in and everybody is happy. So that's the simple way forward here. The attorney general president with the attorney general, president.

16:00

Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Mansion House Accord and the mandate that now sits behind it. People on the lowest incomes will find 10% of their pensions put into high risk, illiquid assets. Given that that pool of assets is currently now in very serious trouble, that are thanks to illiquidity. And this is prior to the Iraq war, which is going to burst the bubble. Will the Minister say that if she's going to force this through, that the government will backstop the losses that happen to those people on the lowest incomes so that their pensions are not wrecked when they reach retirement? Yeah.

16:01

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

Just to be really clear, as I've >> Just to be really clear, as I've said before, were the power ever to be used, the government is very clear. The bill makes clear the government must commission a report government must commission a report which will look at the state of the market and look at the impact on savers interests, as well as as well as as wider impacts before using the power. So if what she's describing were to be the case, that would become evident, my Lords.

And that would of course, that would affect the government's decision. But secondly, again, just to be clear, it is because we want to look after the interests of savers that we want to tackle the fact standards, UK pension funds invest tiny amounts of money and therefore, as a result of not investing in private assets, it is savers who are losing out. And those those savers she describes specifically who are not getting the returns they need. Because of course, these are the default funds. So savers who know lots about this, who will want to make judgements about making sure their assets in the right place, they're already doing that.

These are default funds. So my Lords, it is not serving their interests. If they're simply being put into passive investing or things which will not bring the long term returns. But finally, the debate is, of course, back to the fact that the trustees are not being directed to invest in any specific asset or any particular project, and if they believe it's not in their interests, were the power ever to be brought in and they were ever asked to do this, then we would expect them to apply for an exemption to protect the interests of their members.

And if there was something about their members and the way she describes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that were relevant, then they simply have to write that evidence together. That's what the savers interest test is for. Noble Lady in the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lady in the Minister. My Lords, that completes our oral questions for today and for today so people can leave the today so people can leave the chamber quietly. And hopefully someone can unplug the clock and

16:04

Business of the House

16:06

Legislation: Crime and Policing Bill - report stage (day 5) part one

>> My Lords, I beg to move the Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be now further considered on report. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be now further considered on report, as many of that have been, will say, content and not content. The content and not content. The contents have it after clause 160,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it after clause 160, amendment 384 Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. Lords, I fear I am a wholly inadequate substitute for my noble

16:07

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)

- -

friend Lord Attlee, who has now retired from your Lordships' House after 35 years of dedicated service. During that time he raised many important issues relating to haulage, including during the committee on this bill. While my noble friend was proud to be the only member of either House of only member of either House of Parliament with an HGV licence, I should admit with a little shame that I do not have a driving that I do not have a driving licence at all.

There's perhaps a lesson in that. Now that we've passed a bill to expel our hereditary colleagues with all their varied areas of expertise, leaving behind former apparatchiks like me. But I was very glad to support my noble friend's amendment in committee and to take up the cudgels now alongside the noble Lord Lord Faulkner of Worcester, because it's an issue which has a profound impact on many organisations across the cultural, tourism and heritage sectors, not least our heritage railways. As the noble Lord Lord Falconer set out very strongly in committee this weekend, he and I had the pleasure of being in Kladno in our capacities as president and chairman of the Heritage Railway Association for the HRA.

Annual awards. These celebrated the extraordinary achievements of charities, small businesses and volunteers of all ages from every corner of the UK. In keeping this much loved part of our national heritage thriving in the face of considerable challenges such as rising costs, employment, taxes and more. I was especially pleased there to see such strong representation from the North East of England, as we celebrated those responsible for marking the 200th anniversary of the first passenger rail journey from Stockton to Darlington in such style, and I was delighted to see the Tanfield Railway, which charts its history back 100 years even further, to the age of horse drawn Wagonways become railway of the year.

That means that a small corner of County Durham now boasts the Museum of the Year in Beamish and the railway of the year just a few minutes away. But one of the things which makes the work of brilliant organisations like these harder is the way that certain police forces manage the movement of abnormal loads on our road network. The movement of most heritage rolling stock between railways is actually undertaken by road on low loaders. These movements are vital for the galas at which historic locomotives and vintage carriages bring such joy to people of all generations, not to mention inward investment to towns, cities and rural communities, as well as for essential maintenance and repairs.

These road movements are undertaken by specialist haulage contractors, and sometimes have to be accompanied by a police escort vehicle. The cost of these police escorts are typically between two and a half and £5,000 per trip, but they can be higher and in some cases even exceed the hauliers charges, with some heritage railways reporting charges that they've seen in excess of £7,000. For many of our heritage railways, which are registered charities or small businesses operating on very tight margins. These costs can be entirely prohibitive.

Moreover, there is widespread inconsistency in the application of these charges, with some police forces charging and others not. Most determine whether a police escort is required based on the weight of the load, but some determine it on the length. In some cases, an escort is required only for a few miles through a particular police force area, with the rest of the journey going unescorted, but a full fee is still applied to avoid these charges. Some hauliers are now making large and unnecessary detours, which adds mileage and cost and increases the environmental impact.

In committee, my noble friend Lord Attlee and the noble Lord, Lord Falconer explained that a particular culprit in this regard is West Midlands Police, which many hauliers have been trying to avoid because of the unhelpful attitude that they've displayed. But of course, that's not very easy given its central location in England. Following the debates in committee and the tireless efforts of my noble friend Lord Attlee, the Policing Minister Sarah Jones had a helpful exchange of correspondence with the acting Chief Constable of West Midlands, underlining the importance of adhering to the guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs Council on this matter.

We're very grateful to the Minister for writing in the way that she did, and all hope that her letter and the change of leadership at that force will bring some improvements. But West Midlands is far from the only force causing dismay with an inconsistent approach or excessive charges. Heritage railways moving loads through Staffordshire, West Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and parts of Scotland have all reported similar issues to those confronted in the West Midlands. And of course, this is a problem which afflicts which afflicts many businesses and organisations in every sector.

I've heard from the Holiday and Residential Parks Association, which represents the owners and operators of approximately 3000 holiday touring and residential parks across the United Kingdom. Their members to have experienced excessive cost increases when transporting static caravans to and from holiday parks, as well as significant delays from an inconsistent application of embargoes by various police forces. Most Troublingly, the Holiday and Residential Parks Association, say that despite the publication of revised guidance by the MPC last summer, they and their members continue continue to see very little improvement in practice given the need for clarity and consistency.

This is not a matter which should have to rely on the whims of individual police forces, or rely on the the good officers of the policing Minister, whoever he or she happens to be at the time. And this is particularly damaging for rural and coastal areas where tourism is one of the major sources of employment. If the government wants to support economic growth across our country, here is a clear area where they could act to help the growth creators. So can I ask the noble Lord Minister, who has been very helpful in discussing this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Falconer, and me? First, what weight does the guidance prepared by the National Police Chiefs Council actually carry? What penalties or remedies apply if an individual force does not adhere to it? Second, is he able to set out some of the actions that the West Midlands Police have promised following the exchange of correspondence between them and the Policing Minister? And thirdly, the noble Lord Lord Katz said in committee that introducing a standardised regulatory framework would risk undermining the ability of forces to respond flexibly and proportionately to local needs.

But does he really think it fair that heritage railways or holiday parks in some parts of the country should be treated differently to others? And does he think it right to risk creating the sort of postcode lottery that we've already begun to see? Amendment 384, which the noble Lord, Lord Falconer and I are proud to bring on behalf of our noble friend Lord Attlee and building on his work, doesn't ask Ministers to intervene in operational matters. It simply requires the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework to manage more clearly and consistently the fees that are charged to hauliers when escorting what may be drily termed in the industry as abnormal loads, but which ordinary people across this country would think of as inspiring locomotives, much loved holiday

**** Possible New Speaker ****

homes and more besides? I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 160. Insert the new clause as 160. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have added my name to emblem 384, which is similar to the one tabled by the noble Earl, Lord tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. And indeed and debated in committee on the 15th of January.

16:14

Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)

- -

committee on the 15th of January. Police charges for abnormal loads is a cause which he very much made his own, as Lord Parkinson has said. And I'm sorry, but his retirement from your Lordships House just came a couple of weeks too early for him to be here to move the amendment today. As I said in committee, my interest in this issue is as honorary president of the Heritage Railways Association. Their members make extensive use of abnormal load road movements to move historic steam or diesel locomotives or vintage carriages between railways on low loaders.

Most commonly, this takes place in connection with gala events featuring featuring visiting locomotives such as that on the wonderful Severn Valley Railway from the 16th to the 18th of April, where the star attraction will be the Duke of Gloucester. Not, sadly, His Royal Highness himself, but the British Railways class locomotive carrying his name, numbered 71,000 and built at Crewe in 1954. There will also be visiting locomotives from the East Lancashire Railway and the Bodmin Railway. Events like these are taking place at heritage railways all over Great Britain, and are crucial to their survival and prosperity.

Their concern is that they may become unviable if police forces levy excessive charges for escorting abnormal load movements. The reasons for the escort charges have not been adequately explained, and there has been widespread inconsistency, with some forces making charges and others not. To avoid charges, some hauliers has no Lord Low. Parkinson says, are now having to take massive detours around and around the police force area, adding up to 100 miles to their journeys. Crucially, there seems to be no national policy or framework that regulates how or when police forces may charge for escorting these movements.

Although there is guidance offered by the National Police Chiefs Council, but this inconsistency results in arbitrary and often excessive fees in certain police force areas. I share the noble Lord Lord Parkinson's view of the efforts being made by the Policing Minister Ceri Jones MP, and she is very much on the case. She met Lord Ashley earlier this year and, as you said, wrote to West Midlands Police Acting Chief Constable taking a firm line on consistency and charging. I gather Mr.

Green has replied, but I don't know what he said. May I ask my noble friend, the Minister? His view on whether he feels that police forces generally have now come into line and are promising consistency and fairness in charging for abnormal loads in future.

16:18

Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I stand up to her. >> Baroness Pidgeon. >> Who I'm afraid is one of those occasions when real life catches up with your Lordships House and with your Lordships House and excludes her from stops her from being here today. But she does support this amendment. It is one support this amendment. It is one which, when you start to think about it, becomes under the heading of the no brainer. There should be a consistent approach. If you are taking on an economic activity to transport something across the country, you should have a rough idea about a consistent approach to actually transporting it.

If you haven't, there should be a very good reason. And my Lords, we don't seem to be one other than we've decided we'll charge them at this rate. Now, heritage railways are a nice cause, but there are more widespread, more universal economic impacts of this. If you transport goods on our main transport system without incurring extra costs, sometimes prohibitive costs. It would be a comparatively easy thing for the government to do, to at least bring them into line, and at least give them some steer as to what is a realistic level of charge to be placed upon them.

And very least, you can cut down admin considerations on this. I would hope that the Minister, when he responds, will be able to tell us it's all in hand, and they have a timetable for making sure anybody involved in this knows what is happening. So everybody can say thank you very much and move on to the next issue.

16:19

Lord Pannick (Crossbench)

- -

Lords. >> I. >> To support this amendment. Can I suggest that if, as I hope the Minister will agree that regulations are needed, they should not just deal with consistency, but they should impose a substantive they should impose a substantive limit on the fees that should be charged. And it would seem to me that in this context, as in many others, the maximum that should be charged is the cost to police context.

16:20

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, although the movement of abnormal loads may seem like a of abnormal loads may seem like a niche and marginal activity, my noble friend Earl Attlee, recently retired from your Lordships' House, retired from your Lordships' House, laid out a compelling argument at Committee stage for why this is not the case. The heavy haulage the case. The heavy haulage industry is a vital component of our national infrastructure and construction sectors. Yet the framework governing when police escorts are required and how much may be charged for them is inconsistent.

It is wonderful that my noble friend Lord Parkinson has now taken up the mantle on this matter, and he began his contribution today by outlining his concern relating to usage by the heritage railway industry, usage of heavy haulage, an issue also made today by the noble Lord Lord Faulkner of Worcester. The issues are wider than that at Committee stage. My noble friend the Earl Attlee spoke with considerable authority on this matter and set out the difficulties that parts of the industry have experienced.

In particular, he highlighted the sharp increase in charges in certain areas and the absence of any national framework governing those fees. In some cases, police forces have charged for a full shift of officers, even where the escort itself may take a very short period of time. Industry representatives have raised understandable concerns that such practices can result in costs that far exceed the cost of the haulage operation itself. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of police forces apply the relevant legislation in good faith and without difficulty.

The problem appears to arise in only a minority of forces, where the absence of national guidance has led to practices that industry considers disproportionate. The result is uncertainty for hauliers. Increased costs for major infrastructure projects, and ultimately, inefficiency within a system that should be operating smoothly. The amendment, therefore, seeks to ensure that there is a clear national framework. It sets out when police escorts are truly necessary as opposed to private self escorts, and establishes a transparent schedule of fees.

It also sensibly allows police forces to apply to the Secretary of State for flexibility in genuinely exceptional circumstances. To put it simply, this amendment balances the need for consistency with the operational realities that police forces face. And for those reasons, I am grateful both to the tireless campaigning of Lord Attlee and for my noble friend Lord Parkinson for continuing to push the government on this matter.

16:22

Lord Katz (Labour)

- -

My Lords. >> I will join all the speakers in debate on this, on this small but debate on this, on this small but important issue. Small in terms of length of time. Second, at least in praising the noble Lord Attlee, who after almost 34 years of service in this House, retired just a few days ago, and it would be very remiss of me not to join in paying tribute to him and his work, and also the tenacity of which he pursued this issue, particularly, I'd say, in recruiting the noble Lord Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester into taking up the cudgels on, on, on his behalf.

He was a true champion of heavy haulage industry. As Lord Cameron of Lochiel said, it's important that we actually focus on this not just because of the impact on Heritage Railway Association's. Dear as that issue is to many hearts in your Lordships House. But because of the absolute vital importance it has to our economy. Thinking about all the construction and infrastructure that we are, that we wish to provide, the noble Lord Earl Attlee did take great pride in being the only member of your Lordships House in holding an HGV licence, and I think in his absence he'd be I'd hope he'd be pleased to know that that, that that knowledge gap has been bridged.

I think in some part I can say by my noble friend newly in this house, Lord Roe of West Wickham, who by virtue of being a firefighter, holds or at least held an HGV licence for the purposes of of driving fire engines, and I think Earl Attlee would would have appreciated that on on to the the matters before us and the amendments, as noble Lords have have explained. This amendment relates to the setting criteria specifying when a police escort is required and charges levied by the police for escorting abnormal loads, and seeks to require the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework to regulate such fees.

And whilst I recognise the aim of this amendment is to improve consistency and predictability for operators moving such large loads, we do not believe that a new statutory framework is necessary. Changes have been already been made to support greater consistency. In May last year, the National Police Chiefs Council published new guidance outlining when police escorts should be provided for abnormal loads. This was developed in collaboration with policing, industry and national highways. The NPCC Abnormal Load Guidance 2025 is the national framework used by all UK police forces to determine whether an escort is required and, if so, whether that escort must be provided by the police or can be undertaken as a self escort.

Furthermore, a national framework setting out charges for escorting these loads already exists. Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 contains a power for the police to recharge the cost of policing in specific circumstances. Fee levels are set out in the guidance on special police services by the NPCC, and this is updated annually. Now, My Lords, introducing a statutory standardised regulatory framework, as I did indeed say at Committee on Repeat here, does undermine the ability of forces to respond flexibly, flexibly and proportionately to local needs.

The operational demands. We cannot escape this fact. The operational demands placed on police forces by abnormal movements can differ across the countries and influenced by a range of local factors, including geography, road infrastructure, traffic conditions and the availability of police resources. But I want to be clear that the government does take this issue seriously. And as we've heard the following meeting with the noble Earl Attlee, my colleague, the Policing Minister, Mr. Jones, has wrote to the West Midlands Police to pass on his concerns.

And and I think, you know that I'm grateful for the commendation from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, noble Lord, Lord Falconer for for that that that correspondence. And as a result of this, I understand West Midlands Police are undertaking an independent expert evaluation to assess the force's compliance systems and processes against the NPCC guidance. I think it's important to allow time for the recent guidance to have effect before considering further action and furthermore, to ensure it remains fit for purpose.

The NPCC has committed to formally review their abnormal loads guidance 12 months after publication, that is in May of this year, a couple of months time. Now, I do understand noble Lords concerns around the adherence of police forces to this guidance. Therefore, I can confirm the government will write to the NPCC following Royal Assent to this Bill to remind forces of the need to follow the guidance. I have mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and actually in the same in the same spirit that my noble friend Lord Falconer asked where whether the wait what weight could be given to the to to the to the guidance issued by the NPCC and what actions might might be pursued by the West Midlands Police as a as as as a consequence.

Well I've already as I've already said, police are undertaking a review. This is NPCC guidance, which they themselves are reviewing to make sure that it remains current and and and and responsive to issues that emerge over over time. Whilst there's always a balance between having a statutory guidance that's inflexible, statutory regulation which is inflexible and, and, and guidance which is operated locally, and we currently are on the, on, on the, on the side of the latter, I think within that this is national guidance.

Police forces are will have will pay a great attention to that. And I think they'll pay even greater attention to the to the idea that as to, to quote my noble friend Lord Falconer, the police Minister is on the case with this. So I would I would say with respect, we can I think that's an appropriate level of of intervention. It's an important issue. The government is aware it's an important issue. We will always keep our eyes on this and make sure that we can have a level of level of scrutiny to ensure that police forces do, do behave respectfully towards hauliers, whilst at the same time maintaining their local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

operational independence. Great. Thank you. Will the. Lesser the noble Lord mentioned make the point that it is make the point that it is unacceptable in principle for police forces to seek to make a police forces to seek to make a profit by the imposition of these fees.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fees. I would need to go back and actually check on the, on, on, on, on the correspondence and for, for the noble Lord. Lord Pannick. But I would say, of course, this is about making sure that this is covering costs rather than rather than anything else.

16:29

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)

- -

I'm I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Addington, the noble Lord Lord Addington, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon in her absence, and the noble Lord Lord Pannick, as well as to my friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for their support on this amendment. And I'm grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, both his reply and for the engagement that we've had in in recent days and for the meetings he had before that with my noble friend Lord Attlee. As Lord Addington says, I mean this this really ought to be a a no brainer.

We do need to see consistency from police forces, and we haven't seen that. The noble Lord Lord Pannick rightly adds the point that it's very important that industry, in all the sectors that are affected here, see that this is where charges are being applied. It is merely to cover legitimate costs and not as a useful revenue stream for police forces, as many suspect it is. It has become, as I say, I'm very grateful to the policing Minister, who was written to a particular offender in West Midlands Police, and I'm conscious there was a change of leadership in that force.

And I'm grateful to the Liberal or the Minister for setting out the particular actions that West Midlands are taking following the exchange of correspondence. I'm grateful more particularly that the government will be writing to all police forces through the National Police Chiefs Council, because this isn't just an issue in the West Midlands, and the question of consistency relies on all forces behaving in the same predictable way, so that organisations affected can plan. The noble Lord says. The NPCC will review the guidance that was published last summer in May.

I think that it is reasonable for us to see how the correspondence that the policing Minister has had will continue to have actually translate into practice, but as he and the police forces will have heard, this is being watched by a growing number of noble Lords, a growing number of businesses and organisations who are concerned about it. And if we don't see the change in behaviour from police forces that we would like to see in this area, the growing band of noble Lords who are interested in this will seek further legislative opportunities and I hope, with the continued support of of the government, I'm conscious that my noble friend Lord Attlee in retirement is probably watching us live now on BBC Parliament and would have a view on the wisdom or otherwise of pressing this amendment.

But I do think he would be pleased by some of the things the noble Lord has said. So for now, with your Lordships agreement, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships. Pleasure that this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pleasure that this amendment. Be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn. After clause 160. Amendment 385. Baroness Neville-Rolfe Lord Jackson Baroness Neville-Rolfe Lord Jackson of Peterborough. My Lords, I rise to move the amendment to which I

16:32

AMDT 385

have attached my name, and amendment 385 in the name of my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe.

16:32

Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)

- -

But before I move on to that, I just want to very briefly indicate just want to very briefly indicate my support for the excellent amendment by in this group, by my amendment by in this group, by my noble friend Baroness Buscombe 387A which gives regulatory authorities which gives regulatory authorities greater powers to tackle illegal activity which is afflicting many activity which is afflicting many villages, towns and cities in our country and in particular is impacting the residential amenity and quality of life in both residential and commercial areas.

And I very much hope that the House is predisposed to support that amendment. My Lords, the amendment 385 seeks to get round the problem of cyclists hiding themselves from the public by covering their faces when breaking the law. The amendment gives police officers the power to stop individuals while wearing a face covering. Following an intervention from the noble Lord Hogan-Howe in committee, my noble friend also provided that the constable may require the person to remove the face covering.

I think it's fair to say that many of us have been disappointed by the government's response so far to all the amendments on cycling, e-bikes and e-scooters, and to our efforts to use this bill to destroy the business model which makes mobile phone theft so profitable and attractive to criminals. And my Lords, I don't seek to relitigate the debate last week that we had on my mobile phone thefts, but I do hope that your Lordships House. Is able to understand the context into which my noble friend moves this amendment, or I move it in her name, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said from our front bench in committee, I ask any member of the committee to watch footage of these phone thefts and deny that there is a problem with face coverings and bikes.

Face coverings mean that they are not detected by CCTV, while electric bikes, often modified, means that the victim has no chance of chasing and retrieving the stolen property. My Lords, our city streets now teem with men, usually men on fast cycles and electric bikes and scooters whose faces, even in summer, are hidden by balaclavas or ski masks. This feels hostile, even if it is not, especially if accompanied by loud music or shouts of get out of the way! Often the intentions of such concealment are malign.

At best, they are hurrying to make fast food deliveries and endangering people like myself, using the pavement for its proper purpose. Nor, I must stress, are we just talking about this being a London issue. Newspaper reports show, for example, that in Darlington there were hundreds of complaints last year about youths on bikes wearing balaclavas, riding recklessly in groups around pedestrians. Appalling especially for the elderly or infirm. My Lords, we need to put a stop to all of this.

We need a new power and we need it now. Rather than waiting while the problem grows, I should make it clear that I am not against cycling or the wearing of masks or scarves or helmets. This is not a prohibition. I merely want police to have the powers they need to take action where they suspect a crime is being committed. The powers of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, mentioned in winding up under the Public Order Act to remove face coverings in designated areas or for local authorities to make public space protection orders are inadequate.

They may be useful for hotspots such as Oxford Circus, which I strongly support. However they are. They ignore the fact that cycle crime is widespread and undermining faith in the police and indeed the government. Minister of state, the noble Lord Lord Hanson, later argued in our Report stage debate on the 4th of March that mobile phone theft was coming down a bit by 12% under this government, which I concede that is good news, but it is still an appalling level, making life miserable for tens of thousands of victims.

I myself made the point that there were 4985 cases of robbery and theft of a mobile phone in London alone, using a motorcycle or an e-bike in 2023, and that a face covering was worn in over a thousand of those incidents. We have also heard that the Department of Transport are planning legislation on what they like to call micro mobility, but as the noble Lady Baroness Doocey suggested, such legislation could in practice take another two years. Actually, it could take longer to secure a legislative slot.

My Lords, my noble friend Baroness Neville made the point that the Food Safety Act, during which time she was a civil servant, was passed, had been waiting for a slot for nearly ten years until Edwina Currie created a crisis and it became a political priority. In short, we cannot wait. Moreover, this bill is the right vehicle for this amendment on face coverings as it concerns the enforcement of the criminal law by the police rather than controls on cyclists cycles and e-bikes per se.

Some countries Switzerland, France and Denmark are reported to have prescribed facial coverings in public spaces. My Lords, I'm not seeking to go that far. So. So to summarise, this amendment would allow a police officer, but not other enforcement officers, to be notified to stop a person who wore a face covering while cycling or riding on a scooter in such a way as to conceal their identity and to require them to remove it. It would not ban such face coverings.

The penalty is a level three fine, up to £1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one month. My noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe tackled the matter gently in committee, hoping that the Minister would take the opportunity to bring forward a government amendment at Report stage. But in the absence of a more positive response, I would normally have been minded to test the opinion of the House. But in order and in the interests of expeditious transport action of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

house business, I will not. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after. Clause 160. Insert the new. Clause as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshalled List. And I rise in support of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I rise in support of amendment tabled in my name 386. It concerns itself with police officers being able, after a lawful

16:39

Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)

- -

officers being able, after a lawful stop, to ask a member of the public to exit the vehicle. I support this amendment and the work of the Police Federation of England Wales for for obvious reasons. First, it closes a clear operational gap in a world of keyless and electric vehicles. Removing the key no longer guarantees that that vehicle is disabled and officers need a law to reflect this reality. Secondly, it is a modest and practical power. It does not create a sweeping new stop power.

It applies only to after a lawful stop has already taken place, and allows officers to control the scene more safely. Thirdly, it is about safety of officers for passengers and for the wider public. Requiring occupants to exit a vehicle can reduce risk of sudden flight injury, interference with evidence and of escalation at the roadside. And fourthly, it contains proper safeguards. The test of reasonableness and proportionality are built in, and the Secretary of State may issue guidance linked to the Pace codes.

This is a sensible and limited necessary amendment and I hope the House will support it. We are now in an era where many police officers and members of the public who are being harmed because people are able to drive away because a police officer does not have the right, in my opinion, to make that scene safe by asking someone to step out of the car. I've been through the reasons why this is proportional, useful, and is a gap that needs to be filled. So I commend this to the house here.

16:41

Baroness Buscombe (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I rise. >> To speak in this group to amendment 387A in my name. Let me begin by explaining the reason and intent behind this simple amendment. On the 20th of January, 2026, further to an urgent question regarding business rates in the hospitality sector, I asked quotes. Are any of the many thousand Turkish barbers, vape shops and nail bars which are cash only and have infected our villages, towns and cities paying any business rates? And we know that most of them are about money laundering, organised crime and county lines drugs.

In his response, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Livermore stated. Quotes I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness has said. HMRC has announced substantial measures to crack down on some of the businesses she mentioned, and I think she will have seen several of them closing in recent months. She is quite right that more needs to be done. Quotes. In addition, the Labour MP Jo Powell stated recently quotes the crackdown on dodgy shops across the country is something the public cares deeply about.

Our high streets are being hollowed out by illegitimate businesses that often don't pay the tax they owe, sell illicit goods and have links to serious organised crime. That has real consequences for those that play by the rules and for communities fed up with seeing illegal activity in plain sight. Quotes. Just last week, in response to an oral question on the 5th of March in your Lordships' House regarding growth in cash only businesses, the Labour peer, the noble Lord Lord Watts, who I have given notice that I would be referencing him in this debate, stated that the businesses quotes are not there for the customers benefit, but in some cases for the business to avoid tax and other things.

Quotes. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Livermore, in response, stated that the government are aware and HMRC has recently engaged in increased enforcement activity around this exact points. Close quotes. In short, my Lords, there is clearly a cross-party support for the intent behind this amendment. In addition, I have been informed that the Chartered Trading Standards Institute very much support this amendment, stating that it would be extremely helpful for to the Trading Standards profession and other enforcement agencies if ever there was a case for sharing intelligence across Whitehall and HMRC.

Together with the Home Office, the National Crime Agency and Trading Standards, this is it. The noble Lord Lord Watts referred to quotes, other things, quotes. I gently suggest that it is time to stop being afraid to tell the truth and the whole truth about organised crime and the appalling gangs involved in money laundering, county lines, drugs and straightforward fraud. They are operating in almost every village, town and city in the UK. Here is a bill that you might think would address some of this, or at least attempt to, but no.

479 pages and nothing about the urgent need to address the myriad crimes committed each day by these people. In my own village of Goring on Thames, the occupants of these fake barber shops, fish and chip shops, taxi drivers, etc. come on the trains from other neighbourhoods and immerse themselves among us. We watch the drug dealing, the leering at us as each tier of our police and councillors turn a blind eye, afraid to intervene. They use young people, often from local schools, to do their dirty work in delivering drugs to locals.

Those locals, of course, we'd love to see driven from our neighbourhoods. We watch as the fabric of our shops deteriorate and turn ugly. We take the number plates of the bosses as they swing in from other neighbourhoods in their big cars, pretending to have their hair cut when actually they're collecting the proceeds of crime. Dusk is a good time of day to stand and observe, but much of the dealing, of course, takes place in quiet places, on quiet lanes and along the riverbanks.

It all creates a climate of real fear, as these people can be brutal. We send the number plates to the police, but nothing happens. Of course not. No doubt the plates are false. The gang bosses pay cash up front to the landlords who, if they don't give them a lease, often accuse them of racism. The Equalities Act with special characteristics card is so handy for these criminals. These people are laughing at us and see that when it comes to their crimes, we are effectively lawless.

They are also smart, difficult to pin down with evidence short of entering their shops without notice and searching the premises again and again. We used to have strict liability for landlords who could be a thousand miles away and still be criminally liable if someone was caught taking drugs on their property. But of course, that was until sweet v parsley 1970, when the House of Lords quashed the conviction against a landlord landlady, unaware that students who rented her property used it for cannabis.

Ruling that the knowledge of the illegal activity was essential for the offence, Operation Madness is a good start and to be commended, but the magnitude of this evil is so now so enormous, that only a multi-agency approach, armed with the necessary powers to act right across the UK, including our small towns and villages, will work before it's too late and we lose face faith in our police and the whole system. I wholeheartedly support our police, whose hands are tied by weak politicians, weak law and of course the College of Policing.

Meanwhile, our police stations continue to shut and our police are unable to cope with the casework, nor do they have the powers to act decisively when they detect upon reasonable grounds that something is wrong. If nothing happens soon to stop this and reverse the decline and impact on our streets, local people will take this into their own hands. What have they got to lose? As the late President Reagan once said, if fascism ever comes to America, it will be in the name of liberalism.

No different here, my Lords. My small amendment is not the panacea. But if accepted, would we believe, support the police and encourage the government to seek further measures both to deter and stem this menace? Nudges to our criminal justice system and regulations by themselves will not work. This demands a massive shift in our policing capability and our confidence to do the right thing. The amendment itself simply extends the opportunity for the police to investigate and, if necessary, suspend operations of a premises repeatedly, if necessary, to pin these criminals down.

The Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Police Act 2014 offers an opportunity to enable the police to close premises initially, at least on a temporary basis, where a property is thought on reasonable grounds to be associated with nuisance and or disorder. In its current form, the time limits are, however, too short so the criminal gangs can sit tight for a short closure period, reopen with a new name, or transfer their operations to another shop before the enforcement agencies have time to complete the necessary investigations.

Furthermore, a closure order lasting a maximum of three months may not be long enough where the organised criminal networks are involved. Currently they sit. They can sit tight with their ill gotten gains, focus upon other parts of their network, or take over new premises such that their operation remains intact and can continue. In addition, the extension of timelines for the closure orders will mean much needed increased efficiencies of both court and police time. An extended timeline for the closure order would clearly act as a stronger deterrent and free up court time by hearing one closure application for a long term, rather than multiple shorter timelines and extensions.

My Lords, in 2014, the timelines to support the work of our police, together with the relevant government agencies, made sense. Not now. We are dealing with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a whole different artful and evil scenario. EA just first of all, just to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

EA just first of all, just to talk about briefly about amendments three, eight, five that Lord Dixon three, eight, five that Lord Dixon introduced and three eight, six that Lord Bailey introduced in terms of 385 the mass on cycle. It terms of 385 the mass on cycle. It is a difficult area. We all know that cyclists wear masks for reasons just keeping the house warm reasons just keeping the house warm when it's cold, so it's a difficult area. Not everybody who covers their face is a criminal.

However,

16:50

Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)

- -

it's clear that some groups of criminals are using wearing masks to avoid detection, and this is to avoid detection, and this is what this is intended to address. The point I raised at Committee stage was obviously, an officer already has power to stop any vehicle so they can stop any cycle without having to wear a mask or for any other reason. My only point for any other reason. My only point was, if you do intend to give this power, then it's not much point having the power.

If you don't have having the power. If you don't have the power to ask them to remove the mask. So I think there are difficulties with it, but that's that was where my support is in terms of Lord Paddick Lord Bailey amendment. It's a good point. Certainly as long as I've been a police officer, when you stop vehicles, you always have to take the key ignition key out to make sure you don't get run over or they don't run off. But now, if they don't have the key in the car, still goes.

Probably. As importantly, you're always wary of what they're sitting on, either a gun, a knife, or whatever else they might be sitting on. To get them out of the car can be helpful. I have to say, there's been some times when there've been so big I've kept them in the car. There are times when you use discretion. All that said, I think it's a good it's a good amendment to consider the changes in vehicle design. And I think it's worth the government thinking about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Seriously. My Lord, I rise to express my real reservations about 385, which I'm afraid I cannot support. I'm very glad that my noble friend is not, in fact, thinking of taking the opinion of this House. I speak as a cyclist, this House. I speak as a cyclist, and I fear that what is proposed in 305 is likely to damage relations 305 is likely to damage relations between the police and innocent cyclists, rather for the reason

16:52

Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)

- -

that the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe touched on. The truth is that we all bicycling, we wear a variety of things that are capable of disguising our identity. I did this disguising our identity. I did this morning. One always wears a helmet. Very frequently. One wears goggles Very frequently. One wears goggles or spectacles, either sunglasses or to keep the rain out. And when it's cold, one wears a ski mask or a scarf around the bottom of one's mouth. Now, all of these things are capable of concealing one's identity, and I saw several when I was bicycling in today from King's Cross people doing this, and it will damage the relations between the police and the innocent cyclists.

And we ask a question. I ask a question rhetorically what kind of person is the police

Feed Live - Click to view video

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page