Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

436: After Clause 166, insert the following new Clause—
“Police enforcement data(1) Police forces in England and Wales must publish annual data on the enforcement of the following offences—(a) shoplifting,(b) offences involving a blade,(c) phone theft,(d) fare dodging on public transport, and(e) offences involving bicycles and e-scooters.(2) In this section, “enforcement” means the investigation and collection of evidence in preparation for a prosecution.”

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, in moving my Amendment 436, I will also speak to my Amendment 437. I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson for his support on the crucial issue of police force publication of enforcement data and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for supporting my proposed review of police paperwork or its online equivalent.

As I explained at Second Reading, I have discovered in my long career in business and in government that enforcement of the law is as important as the rules and regulations themselves. This is as true for neighbourhood policing as it is for serious crime, and far too little is being done. I also believe in the power of comparative statistics as a driver of performance and success. As I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, during the Sentencing Bill debate, good leadership and management —the manager of a store or the prison governor—is the best predictor of success. I believe the same will be the case in the police, although I would be interested to hear from the Minister at what level that is true in the police structure.

However, it is not possible to identify and promote the best without comparative data. Hence, my amendment takes five areas of public concern, which we have already debated and which the Great British public care about: shoplifting, offences involving a blade, phone theft, fare dodging on public transport, and offences involving bicycles and e-scooters. It would require police forces individually to publish annual data—so not a great burden—on the investigation and collection of evidence in preparation for a prosecution. It needs to be accessible, so the public and parliamentarians can see it and hold police forces to account. They will also be able to see how others are doing and learn from their success.

The amendment would, I suspect, help to reveal the scale of wasted effort. Many cases of burglary, shoplifting and theft are not pursued, despite good evidence from the victim, because of the bureaucracy and even indifference of the system, and the poor IT integration between the CPS and the courts, which we have discussed on other occasions. It would help to focus on the right things, away from prosecutions for tweets and back to the Peelite principle that the police need to be part of the community they serve. The sunlight of publicity would help to drive necessary change. I say to the Minister that data helps people to do the right thing and to take timely and sensible action. I would be interested to know from the Minister how much of the data proposed in my amendment is already collected and how accurate it is, so that we can assess how difficult the change would be.

Amendment 437 seeks to tackle the huge bureaucracy that the police services have become, with energetic police women and men weighed down by requirements. The effect is to drain resource from the front line and our pavements. Indeed, the Bill will just add to such requirements, rather than the reverse. Unfortunately, we cannot solve the problem today, which is why I propose a review of police paperwork, which needs to be led by an outsider with a passion for cutting red tape and looking to experience elsewhere, such as lean thinking in business, which we found very useful in the supermarket sphere—another huge employer of well-trained and decent people. The review could also look at the IT and AI systems linking the police to the courts, the CPS and other enforcement bodies. I believe there is huge scope to reduce and simplify paperwork and its online equivalent.

The Minister may know that there is already a Police Federation campaign known, curiously, as #SimplifyDG6. It aims to tackle the bureaucracy around disclosure, which sees both uniformed and detective officers tied up for hours. Police officers are required to redact files that go to the CPS in order for it to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to charge an offender. The federation believes that a data bubble, allowing unredacted information to be exchanged between the police and the CPS before a charging decision, would free up thousands of policing hours every year. Redactions could then be completed by the police if a person is to be charged. I know from my business experience that taking a proper look at such processes can yield huge productivity savings.

I hope the Minister will look at the proposals in our amendment seriously and not just refer me to the police reform package announced yesterday. The Wild West of street crime is here today but, as the Government have made clear, their reforms will take years to bring in. They will also increase and not decrease paperwork.

There are bad apples in the police, like everywhere. However, the idea of regularly requiring a licence to practice for every police constable is not necessary and will reduce efficiency, cost a fortune and lead to a mushrooming of accreditation and training paperwork, or its online filing, linked to the proposed well-being and development checks and career pathways. Licensed professions are generally for areas where there are specific and clear academic requirements, such as medical doctors or accountants. I do not believe it makes sense and could undermine one of the great advantages of the police—I speak from the experience of having a son in the Met—that it attracts intelligent and brave people to the dangerous task described so well by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, who, sadly, is no longer in his place.

These policemen do not necessarily have, need or want the paperwork credentials of other important professions. We need common sense, not credentialism. That is the way ahead. On the face of it, this approach feels mistaken, although I recognise that there will be extensive consultation on the changes in the White Paper. But this is all the more reason for our proposed review of paperwork and bureaucracy. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think this has been a constructive discussion with a good tone. I thank the Minister for his comments, including on the new dashboard and the plan to review that again in 2027-28, and other mechanisms such as the policy activity review and things that have been proposed in the White Paper. I will look at all that before deciding how we come back to this important subject on Report.

I would warn against relying too much on AI. I am a huge fan of using AI to improve justice systems. But it is also important to look at the underlying processes themselves before turning them into AI or tech processes. You need to use the lean thinking that I mentioned, which I have experience of from the private sector, because that helps you to do things much better.

Having said that, I am very, very grateful for the wide support for this area; I thank in particular my noble friend Lord Jackson for reminding us of some of the numbers, especially in London. We heard about the collapse of cases and other difficulties which we need to tackle together. We heard about the importance of improving public perception of police activity. Good, streamlined, clear data could help drive a better perception of what the police are doing and what they are trying to do, and so improve public confidence.

On paperwork, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is right to question some of the things that the police are required to do and to record, and I feel that a review, going slightly beyond what is in the White Paper, could actually help us with that. That would help our very energetic Home Secretary to do the right things to try to reduce bureaucracy, which I know is the Government’s intention.

Although we agreed on several things, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and I tend to do, including the need for the data bubble between the police and the CPS, I think a review might help to make things happen. When I was a Minister, I used to resist reviews, again and again. But occasionally I had to agree to them and I actually found, where I managed to stay as Minister for a reasonable period, that they were incredibly useful in driving the department to be more effective and proactive. The truth is that we need the right sort of data, and we need to reduce paperwork to release resources for front-line policing. Luckily, in this debate, we have all got the same objective. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 436 withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

454C: After Clause 190, insert the following new Clause—
“Submarine Telegraph Act 1885: amendmentIn section 3(2)(a) of the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885 (punishment for violation of Article 2 of Convention), omit from “penal” to the second “imprisonment” and insert “imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 years and to a fine at level 5 on the standard scale”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to increase the punishment for sabotaging an undersea cable to a 15-year prison sentence, in addition to an unlimited fine, in the light of their status as critical national infrastructure.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 454C seeks to increase the punishment for sabotaging an undersea cable to a 15-year prison sentence and an unlimited fine. This constitutes critical national infrastructure and we need a stronger deterrent, I believe—as do one or two others from the Back Benches who have probably been caught out by the loss of the previous amendment.

Interestingly, one of Rishi Sunak’s early successes was a pamphlet on the subject for Policy Exchange, which he wrote with Admiral James Stavridis of the US Navy, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. Written in 2017, it helped to propel him into office and to his extraordinarily rapid advancement. As he said:

“While few realise it, our ability to transmit confidential information, to conduct financial transactions and to communicate internationally all depend upon a global network of physical cables lying under the sea”.


The admiral said that

“we have allowed this vital infrastructure of undersea cables to grow increasingly vulnerable”.

A severe attack by a hostile actor

“is potentially catastrophic, but even relatively limited sabotage has the potential to cause significant economic disruption and damage military communications”.

Fast forward to last year, when I took a renewed interest in the subject with the release of a report by the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy. It found, as the Minister concerned said in reply to a question I asked last year, that:

“The UK has plenty of cable routes and good repair processes for business-as-usual breakages”.


However, it also found “particular vulnerabilities” around the UK’s outlying islands, military cables and the financial sector, with a small set of “high-value targets”. Onshore infrastructure was also a concern, with links to data centres creating worrying levels of concentration. All this infrastructure could also be targeted in a crisis.

It noted that there were various laws around telecommunications, notably the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885. These have low penalties—£100 for damaging a cable by culpable negligence—with only modest increases possible via secondary legislation. The report concluded that updated and

“tougher criminal liability provisions might also help”.

In response to the report in December, the Government argued that the National Security Act 2023 could be used, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, but only if the activity was carried out by a foreign state or at the direction of a foreign state. Where this was not possible, it would be necessary to rely on the 1885 Act.

That Act is plainly inadequate for today’s dangerous situation. As the time is late, I would like to cut to the chase and hope that the Minister might look positively at my simple amendment in these dangerous times. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government take the security of our subsea cables extremely seriously. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for raising this issue. It is crucially important and right that it is debated and achieves the attention it deserves.

As the noble Baroness said, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy recently conducted a public inquiry into the security of the UK’s subsea cables, and it shone a spotlight on this issue. Following that inquiry, in November 2025 the Government formally committed to increasing penalties for those who damage subsea cables where the activity cannot be linked to a hostile state. As the noble Baroness rightly says, where it can be linked to a hostile state, a life sentence is available through the National Security Act.

I hope that the noble Baroness, for whom I have a great deal of respect, will understand why the Government are not able to support her amendment today. I am sure she will readily agree that penalties are not the only issue here. It is essential that any strengthening of the law is done carefully and not piecemeal, with full consideration for our fishing and wider maritime sectors. Any potential changes would need to be proportionate and workable for those sectors, and that requires proper consultation.

One further aspect about the non-criminal elements of this that may reassure your Lordships’ Committee is that cable breaks happen regularly in UK waters, given the busy nature of our shallow seas. But the UK’s international connectivity is highly resilient, and we have a well-developed system of civil litigation that ensures that cable owners are reimbursed when a break occurs. I hope that, for all these reasons, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is late, but I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend the opposition spokesman Lord Cameron of Lochiel, with his compelling Scottish perspective.

Given the vulnerabilities that have been identified, and identified successively, most recently by the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy’s report—which nobody is disagreeing with—it is important that something is done. The Minister rightly refers to the possibility of civil litigation. However, for something of this seriousness, given the scale of the threat that we now have in the waters around our country, that is not good enough.

I will reflect, but I hope the Government will take this away and perhaps come forward with their own amendment. That would obviously be ideal. Perhaps we can have some further discussions about how we solve this problem sooner rather than later. I note the point that the Minister made about fisheries and so on, but that feels like an excuse. I have been a Security Minister and, normally, when you have a big security issue, you try to take steps to mend matters as quickly as you can, as has been done with previous legislation. For today, I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I might come back to this on Report.

Amendment 454C withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendments. I start, however, with the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who prayed in aid the great Conservative, as he said, Robert Peel. From my recollection, Robert Peel was certainly not in charge of the police force during the 14 years of the previous Government, under which the noble Lord served. I was Police Minister in 2009-10 and know that we lost 20,000 police officers—I repeat, 20,000—in the first years of the Conservative Government. I think Sir Robert Peel had gone walkabout during that period and was not serving as a neighbourhood police officer under the Conservative Government’s watch at that particular time.

There was a lamentable decline in neighbourhood policing between 2010 and the last election. This Government have delivered on our commitment in the election to restore neighbourhood policing. We have already announced that police forces will be supported to deliver an increase of 13,000 officers for neighbourhood policing by the end of this Parliament. In the previous six months, we have delivered 80% of our year-one target, with nearly 2,400 additional neighbourhood officers in post. We remain on track to reach a full 3,000 uplift by April this year, which goes to the heart of the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. We backed that with £200 million of additional investment in the current financial year, as part of a total funding settlement to police forces of £17.6 billion. Total funding will again rise next year, 2026-27, by £746 million, taking the total funding for police forces up to £18.3 billion next year. That is a major level of investment in policing that this Government have brought forward, and I argue that it meets the objective of the noble Baroness’s amendment.

It is because of our neighbourhood policing guarantee that every neighbourhood across England and Wales now has named and contactable officers. These neighbourhood teams are dedicated to engaging with communities, gathering intelligence, and preventing crime and anti-social behaviour. Forces are ensuring that regular beat meetings take place, providing local people and businesses with a direct platform to shape policing priorities. We have more visible patrols, and officers and PCSOs have started to complete the new neighbourhood policing programme. There is career pathway training, launched in June 2025. There are designated leads for anti-social behaviour in every police force and a commitment to 72-hour response times to neighbourhood queries. These are all measures that I am sure Robert Peel would have welcomed had he been in charge for the previous 14 years—but he was not, and it did not happen, but it is now.

The new police standards and performance improvement unit will ensure that police performance is consistently and accurately measured. The work of the unit is going to reinforce our commitment to transparency and, for the noble Baroness, I pray in aid the upcoming White Paper on police reform—she will not have too long to wait for it now. It will detail how wider reforms will support the Government’s pledge to rebuild neighbourhood policing.

The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, are absolutely in the right direction of travel. The question is whether she wants to constrain chief constables with the demands that she seeks to put centrally. I argue that the Government will continue to bolster neighbourhood policing and have reversed the cuts imposed by the previous Government—the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seems to have had a memory blank around what happened over that time. The Government have set clear standards of local policing, and will work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and others. We are heading in the direction of the noble Baroness’s amendment, without the need to legislate.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Could the Minister say something about the Police Federation’s attitude to the list of changes to enforcement that he has laid out?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government work closely with the Police Federation and will always listen and gauge the situation with them. I have met the chair of the Police Federation on a number of occasions, and other Ministers in government do the same. We will engage with that body. Like other federations or any form of trade union—although it is not a trade union—there will on occasion be differences between the organisation, the police chiefs and the Government, as is perfectly natural. I believe that we are investing in supporting police officers on the ground to do a better job in what they are trying to do and ensuring that the Government undertake a focus on neighbourhood policing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, seeks. On that basis, I urge her to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

As I said, police deployments must comply with the Equality Act 2010 and data protection law, which, of course, include the latest data protection law under the GDPR. In relation to that specific point on Article 22 of the GDPR, I will have to write to the noble Lord to give him the full details, but, as I say, the general principle of compliance applies.

Just to finish the point I was making in reference to the noble Lord’s point about black box systems, where a system is inherently opaque, forces must have compensating controls such as rigorous testing, performance monitoring and strong human review, or not use that system.

Given these assurances—and I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he was encouraged, and we will wait to hear from his colleague as to whether she is encouraged by these responses—I hope the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am very interested in this area and supportive of the right use of AI in policing, because it can be enormously helpful to the police in terms of resources. I remember when I was at the Cabinet Office, they were doing a trial where they were using AI instead of officers to look through CCTV of abuse and child abuse, and that was saving a lot of resource and a lot of difficulty for police officers. The Minister did not mention what kind of use the police were making of AI. Does he have any information on that, or can I be referred elsewhere?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

A range of use is made by police forces at individual force level. Each force makes operationally independent decisions as to what tools they test or deploy. Sometimes it is around administrative tasks that we see across lots of public services and sometimes it is specifically around operational issues and investigation. It is probably best that I do not go into too much detail, but I can certainly go back and talk to officials to see what we might be able to follow up on in writing with the noble Baroness, if there is more detail we can provide.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 432 proposes that the Government embark on a five-year strategic overhaul to deliver modern, interoperable systems across policing and the wider criminal justice system. It does not dictate the detailed infrastructure, but it does require a national plan, proper co-ordination and oversight. Without that, the risk is that valuable initiatives, however well intentioned, remain piecemeal and fail to deliver the transformation that officers, victims and the public deserve. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said about the problems we face. This links in well with my amendments, which will be taken next week: Amendment 436 on enforcement data and Amendment 437 on police paperwork.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of officer time is wasted. There is too much paper and too much copy and paste, and, as the noble Baroness said, opportunities are missed. I know this because my son works in the Met and often complains when he comes to see me about the poor IT integration, particularly between the police, the CPS and the courts, where cases are being progressed.

I am sure that the Minister is well aware of all this and that steps are being taken to improve things, and I know, having worked in government on IT systems-related work, that it is very difficult. However, there is an enormous advantage to be gained from making progress in this area and spending police time on chasing and catching criminals, not on so much bureaucracy.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I want to make a very brief contribution—cheekily, because I have not taken any role in this Bill. My noble friend’s amendment, what she said in support of it and the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, are highly pertinent to the debate on the Government’s proposal to restrict jury trials. On the Tube in, I read an account of the report from the Institute for Government, which has looked at the Government’s proposals and concluded that the time savings from judge-only trials would be marginal at best, amounting to less than 2% of Crown Court time. It suggests, pertinently, that the Government

“should instead focus on how to drive up productivity across the criminal courts, investing in the workforce and technology required for the courts to operate more efficiently”.

As others who know the situation much better than I do have said, it sounds dire. One is used to all these problems of legacy systems—lack of interoperability and so on. I remember all that being debated at EU level. It is difficult and probably capital-intensive work—at least, initially—but instead of promoting these headline-grabbing gestures about abolishing jury trials, the Government need to fix the terrible lack of efficiency in the criminal justice system. I am not sure that the civil justice system is any better. Having, unfortunately, had a modest involvement in a case in the county court, I found that it was impossible to phone any staff. You might be lucky to get a response to an email after a week.

Making the system work efficiently, with all bits interacting with each other, would do a great deal more to increase productivity and save the time of all those people who are running around. One hears accounts from people who work in the criminal courts of reports not being available, files being lost and staff being absent, let alone the decrepit state of court buildings. All this investment needs to go in before the Government resort to gesture politics and things such as abolishing jury trials.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that we are sympathetic to what her amendment seeks to achieve. We, of course, share her desire for a concrete change in policing IT systems. The Government are already working with police partners to deliver these improvements through established programmes. I hope that, in light of this, she will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, I am obviously delighted to hear about the White Paper. We are really looking forward to it being published. He helpfully mentioned a contract that has been let to look at this whole area—a police technology strategy and road map for intelligence and the technical use of it. I wondered who that contract had been let to and what the timeframe was for delivering conclusions. The other point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, was the question of having enough capital for the IT. Being a businesswoman, I know very well how expensive that can be. If the Minister could say a little bit more about that, that might help us before Report.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I do not have details of the contract in front of me. I am, of course, aware that there could be commercially confidential issues at play which might prevent the level of disclosure that she wants, but, in the spirit of trying to be helpful, I will certainly go away, take it back and write to the noble Baroness if I can.

Retail and Hospitality Sector

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I start by welcoming today’s maiden speeches. One of the most civilised aspects of life in the Lords is the Long Table. I had the pleasure this week of dining with the triumvirate of the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, and the noble Lords, Lord Forbes of Newcastle and Lord John of Southwark. I know that they and the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, will make an energetic and positive contribution, such as we have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres.

My noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest started off with a stirring speech. She explained clearly how pubs are struggling and waiting desperately for the extra help that the Government have promised. The uncertainty of their position, as the Government dither, is deafening. One minute, Rachel Reeves is imposing a huge increase in their costs, notably on rates, through a botched revaluation. Then we have a series of briefings suggesting that not only pubs but hotels and others might benefit, only for their hopes to be dashed by the Chancellor yesterday in Davos—hardly a democratic gathering. I hope that the Minister will have the grace to share the Treasury’s thinking with us. Parliament is paramount, however much the leadership might like to think differently.

I am speaking today because my neighbour, who owns a London pub, thinks that he will become bankrupt and have to move abroad unless substantial changes are made on rates. He has a pub with a hostel—not a smart hotel but a lodge, in the bureaucratic vernacular. He is in the category where rateable values alone will rise by 70% rather than 30%. Can the Minister look into this unfairness? Add to this the quadruple whammy of: first, the increase in NICs; secondly, the steep rises in the national minimum wage, particularly for young people; thirdly, IHT on family businesses that will still kill many of them; and, fourthly, the new cost of the Employment Rights Act. Multiply that across the economy and you have a crisis, so it is no surprise that thousands of pubs are closing.

The position will erode further with the introduction of a lower drink-drive limit. It will strike a hammer blow to pubs in rural areas—look at Scotland. Like so much modern regulation, it is not necessary. Those who, like me, take care to stay below the limit will stop going to the pub and the reckless will continue to drink and drive. The Government are right to say that they will act on rates, but it is complex. I am not convinced that Treasury Ministers have ever taken the time to understand what they have done.

What is clear is that growth is going backwards, which brings me on to hospitality more broadly. It is a huge industry suffering from that quadruple whammy and from tourist uncertainty, not helped by the failure to tackle street crime. Magnets for tourism such as music venues and stately homes are also in peril. The visitor levy on hotels is a threat to a slowing sector that is already facing a high tax burden and mushrooming construction costs. There is also another long-term hit: the impact of slimming drugs, reducing demand in restaurants and for alcoholic drinks. I have a relative who manages a vodka start-up. Assailed by national insurance, rates and a tougher economic backdrop, he is now working with a partner in the US, which they see as a more business-friendly country, even with today’s rolling Trump news.

Finally, I turn to retail. This is a highly productive sector. But it already shoulders a disproportionate tax burden: 7.4% of all business taxes, or £33 billion a year, according to the BRC. As well as rates, there are more costs in the pipeline on packaging and recycling. Employment is falling in retail, as it is in hospitality. The Government should be wary of increasing the burden there. The sector saw the promised rates reform as a possible driver of growth, only to be gravely disappointed.

The truth is that this Government have so far made a mess of the economy. Taxes, spending and now inflation are up, while growth, productivity and employment are sluggish. I believe that this partly reflects the Government’s ignorance of business, particularly less elite businesses such as retail and hospitality, as was highlighted by my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is an honourable exception, as is the noble Lord, Lord Leong, who is winding today. A useful new year’s resolution would be for the Prime Minister to seek their counsel as he frames his overdue U-turn on rates.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

416: After Clause 144, insert the following new Clause—
“Wearing a face covering while cycling(1) A constable may stop any person to whom subsection (2) applies.(2) This subsection applies to a person who wears a face covering while cycling or riding a scooter in such a way as to conceal their identity.(3) A person who fails to stop when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of their powers under this section commits an offence.(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (or both).”

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 416 would get around the problem of cyclists hiding themselves from the police by covering their faces when breaking the law.

I was extremely grateful to the Minister for taking time to meet me to discuss the various amendments to the Bill that I had tabled or supported. I endorse much of the Bill, as he knows, in its efforts to prevent and reduce crime. That includes the Government’s new offences on cycling and e-scooters, and the amendments discussed on 15 December and moved by the former Met Commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who, like me, felt that we could go further. I just hope that action will follow.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra, who spoke so eloquently in that debate, may be amused to know that the comparison with the Wild West was a repeat of what I had said many months before. My reference to the Wild West was taken up by, I think, the Daily Mail, only to be requoted by the Mayor of London—no doubt because he agrees that it represents the problem well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I completely agree. I was talking more about the rationale for wearing face coverings. Without too much speculation, one could contend that some seasonal conditions might pertain to somebody wearing a full face covering or a balaclava. More importantly than anything else, this being accompanied by anti-social or suspicious behaviour would give police the rationale to use the powers I have already set out. I am not in any sense trying to make light of or excuse the situations we are talking about. I am just observing that there are reasons why people would wear a partial face covering, such as a mask, when cycling. It was just an observation; I agree with the point the noble Lord made.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the concern across the Committee—it is a serious problem—and for trying out his winter of action. However, I am disappointed by his response. The existing 1994 Act powers and the local authority arrangements he mentioned are too narrow and specific.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that I am not against cyclists or masks. I am trying to make sure that, where they are being used by criminals to hide from the police, it is easier to take action. It is quite a light amendment. It is stop, not search, which we were discussing earlier.

I am grateful for the support I have had from my own Front Bench: from my very experienced noble friend Lord Davies of Gower; from my noble friend Lord Jackson, whose evidence that face coverings in particular are an issue I liked; from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who spoke about the scale of the problem, of which there are lots more examples; and from my noble friend Lord Goschen, who spoke about his concerns around lack of enforcement, which I know the Government are trying to address but which is a serious priority. I appreciated the moral support, if I might put it like that, of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe. I will take up his offer to talk to him further about the exact character of this amendment before we get to Report—something may need to be added, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said. It sounds as if there is a definite lacuna in relation to e-scooters, presumably because they are not usually regarded as vehicles in all legislation. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 416 withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

366: After Clause 117, insert the following new Clause—
“Cloud service access restrictions: lost or stolen mobile phone devices(1) A provider of cloud-based services that support smartphone functionality must, upon receiving verified notification from a registered user that their device has been lost or stolen, take reasonable and timely steps to prevent that device from accessing its services, in order to discourage the resale of illegally-gained devices.(2) The provider must block access to cloud services from the identified device, including but not limited to—(a) data synchronisation services,(b) remote storage access,(c) account authentication services, and(d) app store or software update services.(3) The provider must inform, as soon as practically possible, the National Crime Agency and the police service in the area in which the theft or loss of the device was first reported.(4) Providers must, subject to appropriate safeguards, establish a process for users to appeal or reverse a block on a device in cases of error, fraud, or device recovery.(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for—(a) the technical standards required to enforce the steps outlined in subsection (1),(b) the implementation timeline for providers, and(c) sanctions for non-compliance.(6) In this section, “the provider” means a provider of cloud-based services to mobile phone users.” Member's explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to ensure that technology companies use technical measures such as cloud-based blocking and IMEI linked device locks to make the resale of stolen mobile phone devices abroad more difficult and thus reduce the incidents of phone thefts in the UK.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 366 and speak to Amendment 538 in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who has commitments overseas today. I am particularly delighted to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, with his experience as Met Commissioner and the wisdom he showed when we served together on the Cabinet Office Board, and also of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, not a Conservative but my partner over the last decade in the defence of intellectual property.

Given its importance in cutting crime, this is rightly a cross-party amendment, and we have drawn heavily on the work of Dame Chi Onwurah MP, her Select Committee on Science, Innovation and Technology and her well known tech expertise.

There is a serious problem. Politicians, spurred on by their advisers, boast far too often that they are “world-leading”. Unfortunately, we are a world leader in the sphere of phone theft. We are the phone theft capital of Europe with a horrific 70% of UK thefts in London, many of them from tourists so important to UK growth. In 2024, around 80,000 smartphones were reported as stolen compared with just 64,000 in the previous year; just the sort of growth we do not want to see.

On the streets, the value of a phone is roughly £300 to £400, and because they are the most valuable, about 80% are iPhones, Apple’s brilliant device. According to the Met, stolen phones had a street value of around £20 million in 2024. But the replacement value of these phones—members of the public and insurance companies having to pay out to replace them—was estimated by the Met at around £50 million last year.

Commander Conway of the Met told the Select Committee in June that 65% to 70% of our knife crime is produced by our robbery problem, and that it also drives a significant chunk of our violence challenge in the capital and across the UK. In that space lies the exploitation of young children and young people, into gangs; and this is largely an international organised crime phenomenon driven by criminal economics and the difficulty of getting hold of smartphones legitimately in some parts of the world.

Analysis of data relating to an industry sample of some 4,000 Apple devices stolen in London in 2023 shows that Algeria, with 22%, is the most common internet address of connected devices, followed by China, at 16%. In total, 78% of the stolen devices were connected to overseas networks. This means that the devices are, for the most part, being sold to be used as devices in other countries—not as parts, a current focus of Apple.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am content, with the noble Lord’s experience of how these matters can be dealt with, to reflect on what he has said, but it does not get away from the fact that the problems I have outlined with the amendment as drafted would still be present. I cannot accept the amendment today but, in principle, we are all looking for solutions to stopping mobile phones being stolen, either by effective police action on the ground or by use of neighbourhood policing targeting hotspot areas with high levels of mobile phone theft. The noble Lord mentioned Tube exits, for example.

I cannot accept the amendment in this form because the reasons I have given need to be thought through. The noble Lord’s contribution points to another area where thought can be given. In light of what I have said, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment for now, but not the general concern of this Committee and this Government that we need to take action on this issue.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his constructive response to this important amendment, and all those who took part in the debate. The powerful combination of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hogan-Howe, my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Davies of Gower and the Minister himself represent a lot of expertise in this area and concern to tackle this criminal activity. I am very grateful for that.

The former Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, was absolutely right to convene interested parties to try to tackle the appalling damage being done to victims of this criminal activity. Theft of phones and their onward sale overseas is a very profitable business. The theft statistics probably understate the problem, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the providers do not at present have an incentive to solve it. It is highly regrettable but, as a result, not enough has been done.

I am not convinced that tracking, data sharing and hotspot enforcement, of which I am very supportive and have spoken in favour of to the Minister before, are quite enough. I am glad to hear that working groups are continuing, and the undertaking to have a further meeting of the Home Secretary’s group is very valuable.

I hope the Minister will also reflect on the debate, think what can be done and perhaps come back with a government amendment or undertakings as to what can be done. But failing that, and probably in any event, I think we will wish to return to this important issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 366 withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 346A and 346B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who has just spoken, as I have added my name to them. I support the other amendments in this group in general terms. There is a lot of dissatisfaction about the arrangements for cycles, e-bikes and e-scooters, and with the never-ending nature of e-scooter pilot schemes, which my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has rightly condemned.

I am grateful to 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 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 do not believe that the Government’s proposals go far enough. I have been campaigning on the issue of the dangers of e-scooters and e-bikes for some years. It is a bit like online harm to children: you could see the matter getting worse day by day. We needed to take early action, yet nothing was done. I mainly blame the Department for Transport or its Ministers for this. They have a history of making the wrong judgment on important matters: investing in roads not railways in the 1950s and 1960s; 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. 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 70 miles per hour, according to the Sunday Telegraph. They cannot be heard and they 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 of some of those on scooters makes it dangerous to walk, particularly in the rush hour. Hired e-scooters are dumped on pavements, posing a hazard to walkers. If I was disabled, like my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, who 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. 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 have 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 that I have described is fuelled by Department for 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 experience here is now far worse. Who would have thought that this would happen in England?

The accident and fatality statistics are chilling. As we have heard, 603 pedestrians were struck by bikes in 2024, with one fatality; in 2023, four accidents were fatal and 188 people suffered broken bones. We have also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, about the increase in lower leg injuries caused by Lime-style bikes, because they are so heavy. My conclusion is that there is a case for much stronger action, both from the perspective of neighbourhood safety and local crime prevention and as a contribution to reducing serious crime.

With his long experience at the Home Office, I know that the Minister is keen to take measures that work, so I would 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 a huge impact on burglary and its acceptability.

Secondly, we need to listen to the noble Lord, 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, would 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 from seizing banks of bikes for resale.

Thirdly, we should accept the noble Lord’s amendment to treat bikes and scooters that go more than 15.5 miles per hour like motorbikes or mopeds. They would need number plates and insurance, and riders would wear helmets, limiting head injuries and freeing up time in A&E. If riders cannot be shamed into keeping off pavements, the risk of being booked—what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, described as the “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 miles per hour limit on e-bikes. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh also mentioned the benefits that insurance would bring. I realise that it does not seem to be in scope and, although everything they said is valid, I do not want that to be used as another excuse for delay.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister. This is his Bill, not the Department for Transport’s, and I hope he will be brave. For years, the department has done nothing to tackle this dreadful issue, having been persuaded by e-scooter and cycle lobbyists and, in his time, by Boris Johnson. 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.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise with a degree of trepidation after the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I declare an interest in that I am a regular cyclist on both a normal road bike and an e-bike.

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. As we know from your Lordships’ House, particularly from some recent arrivals, the individually subjective interpretation of “self-regulation” can mean, on the one hand, regulation that suits oneself or, on the other hand, regulation that thinks about everybody else. I will say no more on that subject.

We have made a huge strategic mistake alongside a great success. We have been very successful, more than we ever imagined, in encouraging cycling across this country. But, while we have successfully encouraged cycling and put cycling infrastructure in place, the element we have completely ignored is how to do it safely, and how to enforce rules and laws. With the benefit of hindsight, to do the one without the other is blindingly stupid. The results are all around us—I see them 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.

I recall, about 14 years ago, a fatal accident not far from where I live in Fulham. For a period of about a week, there was a very heavy and visible police presence in the area where there had been the accident. Your Lordships will be aware that 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 that is meant only for bicyclists. Noble Lords will be aware, if they are observant, that not only is that box usually 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 motorists, many of whom I suspect have no idea what that box is there for. That happens every day.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

214F: Clause 37, page 57, line 17, at end insert—
“(c) is employed by the occupier or owner of the retail premises in delivering goods directly to a consumer from the premises.”

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 214F and 214G, in my name, as we move away from the regulation of weapons to retail crime and shoplifting. I will try to be brief.

In my 15 or so years as an executive at Tesco and as vice-chair of the British Retail Consortium, I spent many hours investigating and studying shoplifting and what could be done to reduce it. We used staff training, the latest waves of technology and generous business investment to combat it. I was always very worried by the wider social impact, as stolen goods were sold on to fuel drug habits and innocent shop workers were sometimes hurt in the process of trying to stop it. The truth is that these risks and their devastating effect on individuals have become much greater as society has changed and become more divided and less moral, and hence violent crime has become more of a day-to-day occurrence. As with so much else, the long Covid lockdown has made things worse, and the police have prioritised other things.

However, this Bill is full of amendments requiring the police to do more. That will put yet further pressure on the police contribution to tackling neighbourhood crimes such as shoplifting and assaults on retail workers, which frighten retail workers, especially in the smallest shops, and lead, sadly, to more shop closures on the high street. For some years I strongly supported USDAW’s campaign for a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker. As the Minister knows, I am delighted that the Bill puts that into law. It is a good day for the Minister, given his USDAW links, and for the noble Lord, Lord Hannett of Everton, smiling over there, who represented USDAW so intelligently when I was at Tesco.

However, the Bill as drafted does not quite do the trick as it does not cover retail delivery drivers, who have also been the subject of growing aggression. This is a particular problem if the driver has to ask for ID because a juvenile under 18 is taking delivery—a flashpoint, according to a recent British Retail Consortium survey—or if there is a disagreement about what is being paid for and delivered. Last week, Tesco even announced that it was piloting giving body cameras to delivery drivers. Another point of significance is that such drivers are already covered by parallel legislation in Scotland. That is not always a recommendation, but given the national character of much of retail, I hope the Minister will agree that this alignment makes sense and accept my Amendments 214 F and 214 G. I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief this time. My Amendment 214FA seeks to add hospitality venues. This is an important clause which has my full support; I simply want clarification that cafes, restaurants, pubs and bars are included in the definition of retail premises.

In UK law, “retail premises” typically refers to premises where goods are sold directly to consumers for personal use. This includes shops, supermarkets and other establishments where tangible products are offered for sale. Hospitality venues such as cafes, restaurants, pubs and bars primarily provide services: the preparation and serving of food and drink for consumption on the premises. While these venues may sell some items to take away, their main business activity is the provision of hospitality services rather than retailing goods.

UK planning law differentiates between retail and hospitality venues through the use of “use classes”, which categorise buildings and their permitted activities. Class E—commercial, business and service—includes shops, restaurants, cafés, financial services and other commercial uses. While both retail shops and hospitality venues are covered under class E, they are distinct subcategories within this class. Class E(a) refers to shops selling goods, while class E(b) refers to the

“sale of food and drink principally to visiting members of the public where consumption is mostly undertaken on the premises”,

which covers cafés, pubs and restaurants. Therefore, while cafés and restaurants fall under the same broad planning class as retail shops, they are not regarded as retail outlets in the strict sense, but rather as hospitality or food service venues.

Legislation relating to employment, health and safety, licensing and business rates may further distinguish between retail and hospitality businesses. For example, food hygiene regulations specifically address food service establishments, while retail regulations focus on the sale of goods. Under UK law, cafés and restaurants are not generally regarded as retail outlets; they are classified as hospitality venues or food service establishments. The key distinction lies in the primary activity. Selling goods is retail whereas providing food and drink services is hospitality. From what I understand, the core hospitality operations—serving meals and drinks, and providing accommodation—are not generally covered under the definition of a retail outlet. If I am wrong and Clause 37 includes cafés, bars and restaurants, then I am content that there is no problem. However, if it does not, we have a gaping hole in the law and my amendment is essential to plug it. If I am right that those are not covered, I hope the Minister will bring forward a little amendment to ensure that those workers get the same protection as workers in retail shops.

--- Later in debate ---

I understand the additional pressure for delivery drivers. I hope that I have clarified the points on public-facing and hospitality workers. I am grateful for the support across the House and I want to grab the opportunity of a long-standing campaign—from the people who are at the front face of retail violence—for this offence to be implemented. I am proud to stand here today and speak to that offence in Clause 37. I hope that we can settle on it, and have discussions with other colleagues around other matters outside the Committee today. I hope that, on the back of today’s discussion, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will withdraw her amendment. The other amendments could not as yet be pushed. Between now and Report, we will have an opportunity for discussion, with the groupings that I will try to pull together with the help of my officials. I welcome, however, this long-standing campaign from USDAW, and the fact that the Freedom From Fear campaign has been successful. I hope, on that positive note, that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and my noble friend Lord Davies for their support for my amendment. I thank the Minister for agreeing to further discussions, and to a meeting, although I have to say that I am slightly disappointed by his initial remarks. I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannett, and my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lady Stowell, for the probing and constructive questions that they have put forward on this important part of the Bill. I emphasise again the everyday risk to retail staff and retail drivers who were, of course, so heroic during Covid. Without them, we would all have starved.

I hope the Minister will understand that I drafted a very narrow amendment advisedly; I reduced what was originally proposed by the experts from the retail industry. It very much confines the opportunity to retail, and to drivers from retailers. I am very happy to look at the wording and I can see that we need to keep it narrow. I have resisted a number of representations from other sectors in putting forward this amendment, because it is so important that we look at the evidence base, which seems to be stronger in respect of violence, both towards retail workers and drivers. I look forward to our further discissions; I may bring this issue back at Report. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 214F withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government’s rhetoric must be met with practical measures. This amendment offers one such measure. It would not overload the courts. It would simply ensure that, where an offender has persistently exploited the leniency of the system, the system responds with firmness, clarity and consequence. I hope the Minister will look favourably on this amendment. It would strengthen public protection, reinforce judicial tools already at the court’s disposal and send a clear message that persistent shop theft will not be tolerated. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 216 in my name. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister’s response to the proposal from my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower for tougher community treatment of repeat offenders. As it is focused on the community and on suspended sentence orders, it seems to fit in very well with the spirit of the Sentencing Bill, which we will no doubt be debating on a number of further days.

As the Minister the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, has already acknowledged, and as the recent Crime Survey shows, shoplifting has risen very significantly in recent years, especially since Covid. Indeed, we heard on the “Today” programme this morning that the average number of days it takes to deal with shoplifting cases has increased by 80% in the last decade.

My own experience has taught me something else: the biggest problem with shoplifting is not so much the law as the patchy and sometimes non-existent nature of police enforcement in relation to shoplifting and associated misdemeanours. The general acceptance that thefts worth less than £200—the noble Lord, Lord Hannett, was the first to mention that minimum—do not matter to the authorities is a particular bugbear of mine and of others who care about decency and limiting neighbourhood crime and its distressing effects.

That issue lies behind my Amendment 216, which would reverse that deplorable trend. My amendment would require the College of Policing to issue a code of practice to ensure that police forces also investigate shoplifting where the value of goods is less than £200. Letting people walk into shops, steal things and get away scot free eats at the heart of a civilised society, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, explained earlier. You only need to visit San Francisco in recent years to see the awful effects on its once golden streets. However, there is hope there: a Democratic mayor is at last seeing good sense. I hope the Government will follow that lead and consider my amendment this evening.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, on the noble Lord’s Amendment 215, I have great sympathy for its suggestions. Electronic monitoring can certainly play a useful role, although there is mixed evidence of its ability to reduce reoffending. However, there are multiple challenges in implementation, including inconsistent use by probation services, delays in procuring new GPS tags and gaps in responding promptly to breaches. However, my main problem is that, from a policing perspective, I worry there is no slack available in police time to monitor curfews, exclusion orders or electronic tagging. I fear it may be counterproductive to give the police yet more work when they are having great difficulty coping with what they already have.

I have a similar reservation about Amendment 216, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. In principle, I would support a code of practice to improve enforcement. However, in the absence of more police resources, the danger is that this would only exacerbate the current situation, where chief constables are faced with having to rob Peter to pay Paul in other areas of policing, and victims of other crimes would likely suffer as a consequence.

I would stress prevention over cure. I draw the Committee’s and the Minister’s attention to a West Midlands Police programme that diverts repeat low-level shoplifters into services like drug rehabilitation. Since its pilot in 2018, it has been credited with saving local businesses an estimated £2.3 million through reduced shoplifting. Surely this is something we ought at least to investigate.

--- Later in debate ---

I repeat that I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, but I do not believe that—

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her courtesy and the depth of her reply, but I am not quite sure how we solve the £200 problem. The points she made about enforcement are very good ones, but the difficulty is this belief that if you steal something worth less than £200, nothing will happen to you; thus my parallel with San Francisco. What are we going to do about that?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The first thing we want to do is Clause 39, which, of course, was opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. But in addition, this is about making it clear to everybody that it really does matter, and driving it through to the police that there should be no immunities—that there are no levels below to which this should not apply.

For all these reasons, I do believe these amendments are not required, but I would be very happy to discuss the matters further with both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, and I encourage them to speak with me if they feel there are matters that I have not fully taken into account. But, for now, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, while I agree with so much that has been said so eloquently today, I want to focus on three areas close to my heart: the inadequacies of enforcement of the criminal law; how to deal with the Wild West of e-scooters and cycling; and the best way to reduce shoplifting. Although this is not declarable as an interest, my son is a detective in the Met, and I think he would agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, has just said about the need to retain skills and experience in the police.

In a long career in and outside government, at the top and on the front line, I have discovered that enforcement of the law is as important as the rules and regulations themselves. As Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States, said, the laws of the country must be enforced. There is no substitute for law enforcement, and that is why, in March 2024, we the Conservatives ensured that police numbers were at their highest ever. For this Bill to be effective, they need to rise further, and the resource needs to be focused on the right things: away from the obsession with online harm, prosecutions for tweets and non-hate crime, and into neighbourhood policing.

The truth is that we have moved away from the founding Peelite principle that police need to be part of the community they serve. They are increasingly a wholly separate organism, usually absent from our streets and town centres, and sometimes appearing to want to control our thoughts. Part of the problem has been the huge increase in bureaucracy, with energetic police men and women weighed down by paperwork requirements and the inefficiency of the police, CPS and court interaction and its supporting and less than compatible IT systems. My noble friend Lady Coffey has drawn attention to the burden of yet more reporting requirements in the Bill. To my mind there is an enforcement crisis, and I ask the Minister what he is planning to do about it.

I am very pleased to see Clause 106, introduced in the other place, which creates new offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling. I also like Clause 8, which makes it easier to seize an e-scooter being driven anti-socially—I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, actually wants to go further. As noble Lords know, I have been horrified by this Wild West of scooters and cyclists, especially speedy electronic versions, dashing through lights, driving routinely on pavements and spreading terrors among mothers with pushchairs, the disabled, the infirm and sometimes me. I have been knocked over myself. The truth is that this lawlessness in London has got worse; the results can be seen in A&E admissions.

However, there is no need to wait for the new Act, as cycling on pavements is illegal. Current laws must be enforced. I ask the Minister to consider a hotspot policy, perhaps by the Transport Police, to crack down on bad behaviour by cyclists and e-scooterists. We know that this sort of enforcement works. When I worked at Downing Street in the 1990s, the Met got burglary down with Operation Bumblebee and, more recently, we have seen the successful crackdown on mobile phone thieves at Oxford Circus.

My final plea for better enforcement relates to shoplifting, which has also exploded recently. I know from my time at Tesco how this ruins honest endeavour and allows free-riders free rein. It is so difficult for the staff and there is a wider impact. I remember women putting large jars of Nescafé and beef fillet down their trousers to sell and fund their drug habit and I remember the drudgery and cost of adding security tags to every valuable item. The Bill rightly responds to USDAW’s long-standing campaign and creates a new offence of assaulting a retail worker. Clause 39 seeks to tackle the ridiculous situation whereby so-called “low-value theft”—under £200—tends to go unprosecuted. However, I note that the Opposition have concerns about how this is achieved. We would also like to see tougher sentences on shoplifting where there have been more than three occasions of theft.

In conclusion, I return to Sir Robert Peel. He not only founded the Met but gave officers clear guidelines on expected behaviour, so establishing a highly visible and positive relationship with the British people. In this respect, it is time for us to revisit our roots.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

However, the Government know what the impact will be; they say so in the impact assessment. They have provided no evidence at all that there is a problem to solve. So there is no other way to put it: with this Bill, the Government are knowingly and deliberately damaging the life chances of the most vulnerable, particularly young people trying to get their first step on the employment ladder, and for no apparent tangible benefit. I urge them to think again. In the absence of constructive commitments from the Minister, I will support the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, if he decides to press his amendments.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


In other words, lower growth.

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

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

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

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