Crime and Policing Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

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

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 398 in this group. I will first address my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 345. My noble friend Lord Blencathra expertly articulated it, but I fear that I did not find it convincing. As I understand it, he is really proposing a function that should be undertaken only by a police officer or the police. The power to detain a vehicle is a significant one and should not be undertaken lightly. I am not in favour of this amendment, and I hope that the Minister will speak in similar terms.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is a tireless advocate of road safety; if she had not tabled her amendment, I would be worried for her. Had she run out of steam? Apparently not. I agree with much of what she said about the harm that alcohol can cause and will not repeat what she said so skilfully. While we are closely aligned, we part company over what is an appropriate blood alcohol concentration, or BAC. The Committee will recognise that the Grand Rapids study showed that the standard of driving deteriorates rapidly once a blood alcohol concentration of 80 milligrams is reached, and that is why our drink-drive limit is set at that level. However, I agree that there is no safe limit for driving a vehicle and that any alcohol will cause a deterioration in the standard of driving.

I suggest to the Committee that there are three broad classes of drink-driver offenders. I accept that there is a small cohort who regularly drink sufficient alcohol to take them to, or over, the limit. The next is a group who make a horrible mistake and, for one reason or another, unusually find themselves driving over the limit. I will not rehearse all the reasons why this may happen, but there is no excuse; they are relatively easily caught by a skilled traffic police officer. This is partly because they give themselves away with their style of driving. This offence is no longer socially acceptable and we rightly have severe minimum penalties in place.

I contend that the real problem lies with unregulated drinkers who are usually clinically dependent on alcohol, have no idea how much alcohol they have drunk and pay absolutely no attention to what the law says. Lowering the BAC will have no effect at all on them. The bad news is that their driving tends to be very fluid, so it is hard for the traffic police to detect them from their driving alone, and they often drive only short distances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 416B, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, which concerns the issue of uninsured drivers and to which I have added my name, as this is a serious crime. I declare my interest as an insurance broker with Marsh Ltd.

Within the motor industry, it is a regrettable truth that a significant number of vehicles on our roads are being driven without insurance. The Motor Insurers’ Bureau estimates that between 300,000 and 450,000 vehicles fall into this category. That figure alone should give us pause for thought. It represents not merely statistics but a vast unknown risk to every law-abiding citizen. When accidents occur involving these vehicles, there is no third-party insurance to provide protection or compensation. Instead, the burden falls upon the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, which must step in to provide cover where none exists. Sadly, we read of such occurrences all too often, particularly in the local press.

The scale of this problem is stark. The bureau receives a claim arising from an uninsured driver every 20 minutes. Every week, at least one person is killed as a result of uninsured driving and, every single day, another individual suffers injuries so severe that they require lifelong care. This is not a marginal issue but a persistent and devastating reality.

The financial consequences are equally sobering. The bureau spends approximately £400 million annually on claims, with its 2024 annual report noting reserves of around £3 billion. It estimates that uninsured driving costs the UK economy £1 billion each year and adds £260 million to motor insurance premiums. These figures are not abstract. They translate to an additional cost of around £15 on every policy paid by law-abiding drivers. In effect, responsible motorists are subsidising the reckless and the negligent. Anecdotally, when police apprehend uninsured drivers and ask who is their insurer, the response is simply, “The MIB”—the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. This casual reliance on the bureau underscores the inadequacy of current deterrence.

At present, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has explained, the penalties stand at £100 for keeping an uninsured vehicle and £300 plus six penalty points for driving without insurance. These sums are significantly lower than the average premium of £550 and far below the £1,000 often paid by younger drivers. This disparity is glaring. The penalty for breaking the law is cheaper than the cost of compliance. It is little wonder, then, that uninsured drivers persist at such scale. Ideally, we would strengthen the financial penalties to reflect the gravity of the offence. However, as these measures have been ruled out of scope, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned, this amendment offers a practical and proportionate alternative. It would empower authorities to confiscate uninsured vehicles and, if insurance is not secured within 28 days, to have them permanently removed from the road. That, to you and I, means crushed—gone. This is not punitive for its own sake: it is a necessary step to protect the public and to uphold the principle that motor insurance is mandatory for the benefit of us all.

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

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, just briefly, in 2011, I went out with Hampshire traffic police who were demonstrating ANPR systems to me. We detected an uninsured motorist and they relieved the motorist of the car. I absolutely agree with my noble friend about the problem he describes.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 416C in my name, but before I do that, I give my unequivocal support to my noble friend Lord Ashcombe’s amendment. We really need to take into account the confusion this causes for poor communities, because people will sit around and make a direct calculation about what is cheaper, and unless we send a very strong message about which is riskier, these numbers will continue to grow. As motoring becomes more expensive, insurance will become optional for many communities, whereas if you are involved in an accident, it will be anything but optional, so I really support the amendment.

I speak to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, as someone who last had a drink, I think, when I was 17 years old—I do not drink at all—but I deal with young people regularly and have been doing so for over three decades now. What is important about a limit is how easy it is to detect in the moment, so although the noble Baroness would lower it to 50, I think we should lower it to zilch, to nothing, to nada, because when you are out with your friends and you are 18, 19 or 21 and the night is going your way, you will not make that adjustment. To ask, “Have I jumped 50, have I done 80?” probably will not happen: you will take the risk. Young people are full of energy, they are risk takers and it is too much estimation, so I support the noble Baroness’s amendment as it stands but we should probably be going to zero, so that people have no confusion when they are out of a night enjoying themselves, particularly young people.

On my own amendment, this is a requirement for occupants to leave their car once they have been stopped on a traffic stop by a police officer—so that police officers have that power. There is a gap in the current law: the Road Traffic Act 1988 does not currently have powers for an officer to request that vehicle occupants exit the vehicle during a traffic stop. This leaves officers vulnerable to attack and ambush, particularly in the light of modern vehicles. If you are a police officer and you stop a vehicle, you may want to listen to the engine, but now electric vehicles can run silently and their ability to accelerate is unbelievable. They weigh more, so they tend to be more deadly when used in an attack, and I think we need the law to respond to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I support Amendment 416B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and signed by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe. There is no real justification for any vehicle to be on the highway and uninsured. There will be a variety of reasons for it be uninsured—car insurance is very expensive, and the like—but, in reality, there is no excuse. Therefore, this is a sensible measure, recognising that a number of public bodies have the power to not only seize vehicles but crush them instantaneously. As a consequence, this seems like a modest measure to allow people 28 days, or four weeks, to make sure that the car has been insured.

As an aside, I should perhaps approach my noble friend because my car insurance went up massively this year. Perhaps I need to come and find him to discuss this. I am not quite sure what has happened in my life. Joining the House of Lords seems to have massively increased the risk, apparently.

That said, I am not as convinced by a number of the other amendments, although I understand the seriousness of drink-driving and the impact it can have. My noble friend Lord Attlee talked about the evidence, and the balance regarding whether the limit is 50 or 80. All the evidence so far has shown there is a massive distinction, so it not only covers England, but Wales and Northern Ireland. I appreciate that Scotland has gone to 50, recognising some of the other measures they have introduced in order to tackle the consumption of alcohol, such as minimum alcohol pricing. However, I am not convinced that this is the reason why.

I am not trying to advocate drink-driving at all, but I think of rural pubs and the like, where people believe that they can probably have a pint of beer and be able to drive their friends or family home safely without needing to make a calculation. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is trying to do in attempting to address something from the 2006 Act, but there is a reason why, 19 years on, it still has not been put into place. The evidence has shown it just has not been needed in that regard.

I was struck by what my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington said about the drive-away. I was genuinely interested in trying to understand where he was going with his amendment, and whether this was really an issue. I was struck by the number of significant accidents in that regard. It is worth considering whether this is an issue solely for the Met, in London, or whether it is an issue elsewhere, before the Government consider making any further changes.

I understand where my noble friend Lord Attlee is heading with the random breath test, but I take a different perspective. I am not sure of the best way to say this, other than to say that I do not want the police to have a reason to stop people for just anything. They should have a real reason to stop people going about their everyday lives. I understand what he is trying to achieve in his amendment, but we need to make sure that when the police use their already extraordinary powers, it is because they believe that somebody is genuinely doing something wrong. Therefore, the current position is sufficient. I hope that my noble friend, with whom I do not disagree very often, will understand why I disagree with him on his amendment tonight.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, to make a counterargument, I absolutely understand my noble friend’s concerns, but the fact of the matter is that if the police want to stop someone, they can.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments looks at illegal vehicles on our streets, enforcement and guidance. Amendment 345 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks guidance on enforcement in respect of illegal vehicles. However, having looked into this, my understanding is that a range of powers exists to enable the police to deal with these offences. The College of Policing already produces authorised professional practice on roads policing that sets out the existing powers and their operational application in detail. We therefore do not think the amendment is needed.

Amendments 350 and 356G, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on drink-driving, are very important. The first, as we heard, seeks to reduce the drink-driving limit so that it is in line with most other countries. The second is about alcohol ignition interlocks, which are in use in many jurisdictions.

As we have heard, drink-driving remains a major but preventable cause of death and serious injury on our streets. Reducing the drink-drive limit is one step in trying to tackle that, but it would need to go hand in hand with a publicity and enforcement campaign for maximum effect. When I was younger and learning to drive, it was absolutely drummed into us that we never went out and drank and drove. One person would be the designated driver, or we would use public transport or a taxi, or we would persuade someone’s parents to come and pick us up. This message needs to be amplified—as well as for drug-driving, which I have raised in this Chamber before, and which seems to be a growing trend. This needs to come as a package.

Alcolocks, which we have discussed, are an important development in trying to reduce drink-driving and people reoffending. It is a simple breathalyser linked to your ignition, which means that, if you are over the limit, you simply cannot start your vehicle. There was a drop-in, only a couple of weeks ago, in Portcullis House in which this was all demonstrated to us, and I thought it was a fantastic invention. As we have heard, it is already used in many EU countries, New Zealand, Australia and the United States. Given that around 260 people are killed in drink-driving collisions every year, and that drink-driving accounts for around 16% of all UK road deaths, this is an important yet simple development that has been shown to work successfully and to reduce repeat offending internationally. Why would we not want to bring it in here? We fully support this amendment and hope that the Government will respond positively. I note that a Minister from the other place also came to the drop-in, so I hope that the Government might be moving in that area.

On the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that, without suspicion, having random breath tests is not proportionate. Therefore, we on these Benches do not support it.

Amendment 416C, from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, highlights a potential loophole, which he outlined; it is interesting to consider given that technology has moved forward. Amendment 416B, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, makes a strong point about uninsured vehicles. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to these and the other issues raised in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am at no greater advantage than other Members of your Lordships’ House regarding what will be in the road safety strategy. There is a good reason why these amendments are grouped together: they all raise issues which will be covered in some way by the road safety strategy. As I said to my noble friend Lady Hayter, there could be things in the strategy that do not require changes to the guidance, or action in primary or secondary legislation that allows us to act quickly. However, I would be speaking well beyond my responsibilities in speaking for the DfT, for which I have absolutely no responsibility.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister understands that he speaks for His Majesty’s Government and not the Home Office.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Of course I do—I slightly misspoke there. All I can say is that while I have been slaving away over the Crime and Policing Bill, I have not been slaving away over the road safety strategy. I can provide only so much clarity and guidance on the progress of that piece of work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes his point well. I am sure that it is a point that has been noticed and, indeed, there have been representations made to the DfT in the process of developing the road safety strategy. Once it is published, there will be a consultation and further opportunities for representations by organisations such as the ABI. I am sure that, as part of the process of preparing the new strategy, the DfT will be poring over the Hansard for this evening’s Committee to understand the debate and the issues raised.

Finally, turning to Amendment 416C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, the Government are well aware of tragic instances where police officers have been injured by drivers during traffic stops. I thank him for speaking about and raising the tragic death of PC Harper, which demonstrates the real dangers that our police put themselves in every day of the week, doing something that you would think was quite humdrum and as everyday as attending to a vehicle that they had stopped. We are always right to remember the vital contribution they make to our safety by putting themselves in danger.

This behaviour is unacceptable, and we are determined that all such drivers are caught and punished. We are determined that police officers can do their vital jobs in as safe an environment as possible. As I said in response to a previous amendment, the Government are considering concerns that have been raised by the Police Federation on this issue and will look to address them in the road safety strategy.

In conclusion, I have sympathy for many of the points raised in this debate by noble Lords. We all want to see our roads safer for all road users, as well as the police in their vital role in enforcing our road traffic laws. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, for this to be effective, it needs to come as a package. We need the right laws, the right enforcement and the right awareness and education. Again, I would encourage all noble Lords to examine our forthcoming road safety strategy and respond to the associated consultations. Given the imminence of the strategy, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I think all noble Lords can agree that we have had a fabulous debate which we can be proud of, but can the Minister explain why he is considering lowering the blood alcohol level when the Scottish experiment shows that it does not work?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Without going into the detail of the Scottish experiment, I will say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that for the road safety strategy to do a complete job, it is going into the exercise while keeping options on the table. I am not going to prejudge what it is going to say, but it would ill-behove it to rule everything out, just as we are not ruling out the potential measures on alcolocks or those on insurance. I will simply say—I feel a bit like a broken record in responding to this group of amendments—watch this space.