Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Russell of Liverpool and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

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.

Immigration (Restrictions on Employment and Residential Accommodation) (Prescribed Requirements and Codes of Practice) and Licensing Act 2003 (Personal and Premises Licences) (Forms), etc., Regulations 2022

Debate between Lord Russell of Liverpool and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for initiating this debate on a system that has, of course, already come into operation. I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s explanation of these measures and their desirability. However, I have had a very helpful and reassuring briefing from her officials, for which I thank her.

I am sorry that there is no impact assessment. Large numbers of organisations and individuals are potentially involved—businesses, landlords and others. The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that there may even be savings in costs for them. Frankly, it would be worth detailing this for review, if there is a good story to tell. Perhaps I could make a wider point. We now have human rights and climate change statements on Bills and equality assessments on everything, but we have forgotten the importance of cost-benefit and impact assessment, which can be vital to productivity and growth. Perhaps the department could consider its approach for the future and talk to Mr Rees-Mogg as part of his quest for efficiency and opportunity and fight against bureaucracy, which often needlessly costs money.

In the absence of such an analysis, could my noble friend outline the response of businesses to these various measures, from employers generally and from landlords? Will a largely digital system be manageable by small businesses, especially if there are IT problems of the kind that some previous speakers have described? I believe that there is a new telephone helpline, and it would be good to know how it is coping and to hear about reactions to the move to digital. Finally, I understand that new codes of practice have been devised for employers and others, which I have not been able to find, and I would very much appreciate a summary of what they are trying to do, and a link.

I look forward to the Minister’s comments, and very much hope to be able to support her in the Lobbies.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness for introducing an element of farce into today’s discussions. The thought of the “Minister for the 18th Century” trying to navigate his way through a digital platform—or, as he is rather elegantly known, the Minister for Brexit Opportunities, for which, unfortunately, the acronym is the Minister for BO—is beyond belief, really. I shall try to put it out of my mind while I get my thoughts together.

When I looked at the briefing for this statutory instrument—I did not actually try to read it, because by the time you have got halfway through the title you need a drink—I wondered whether this was an example of the law of unintended consequences or an example of the law of intended consequences. Having read the briefings, which are very good, and having listened to my noble friend Lord Clancarty and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, talk in great detail about it, it is quite clear—and it must be clear to the Home Office—that there are a great deal of things in the system, as it is currently trying to operate, which are not working properly. There is no acknowledgement whatever in any of this, or in any impact assessment, that that there is room for considerable improvement.

What we are faced with is an SI that does not acknowledge what appears to be the case, which is that the system is currently not working properly. It is inconveniencing a great many people, many of whom are not necessarily the best equipped to try to navigate their way through these complexities. Adding insult to injury, it is now going to be made mandatory for a very large group of people, without any proper impact assessment.

My conclusion is that we are witnessing the law of intended consequences, because the Government and the Home Office are well aware that currently the system is not working, and that they are proposing to enact something which they know will not work. One definition of insanity is trying to make the same mistake again and again. This Government appear to be particularly gifted in that area. I ask the Minister and her officials to reflect on what they are doing. If any Ministers, Members of Parliament, Members of this House, advisers on this statutory instrument, or people whom they know, had to go through the indignities, inequalities and ineffectiveness of the current system, they would not put up with it, and nor should we.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Russell of Liverpool and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Thursday 15th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green. No? I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is an unexpected pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington, with his straight talking. I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in introducing a greater degree of flexibility in the use of employers apprenticeship levy funds.

I am particularly glad to see the involvement of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who brings practical experience of what works from running a training business and of the red tape—my words, not his—of complying with regulatory conditions, which I fear this Bill increases too much. The backdrop to all this is a dramatic fall in apprenticeship numbers in recent years—exactly the opposite of what we wanted and promised to achieve. A great deal of effort has been put into improving the quality and level of apprenticeships but I fear that, perversely, this has excluded many who would have benefited from the discipline and recognition of a successful apprenticeship, for example in my old industry of retail. However, my noble friend the Minister may have a better explanation for the decline and be able to reassure us that the fall has come to an end.

I was at the birth of the apprenticeship levy as the Minister who took the legislation, the child of Nick Boles, through our House. As noble Lords may have sensed earlier, I am passionate about apprenticeships, which were beginning to be a lost art, but I did have some carefully disguised doubts about the design of the arrangements for administering the levy. The system is a bureaucratic one and was led by education, rather than employers, so bigger employers paid a substantial levy. This often came off their existing training budgets; they were then unable to fix their training into the mould laid down by the Civil Service, so the levy ended up as a tax.

Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can explain why things are better now. In particular, where a company has surplus levy credits, can these be allocated to their supply chain or pledged to other companies without the levy payer having to become responsible in any way for the training in that other firm? That requirement was a real barrier to good practice and spreading the levy into the supply chain. What is the current cap on the new arrangements in percentage or other terms? Has the inevitable move to digital made the system more efficient, with fewer requirements to keep unnecessary records for inspection and more trust in employers to lead and train their apprentices? Or have more requirements been laid down in the digital world because, in theory, it is so very easy?

Amendment 39 seems to suggest that the levy funds could be diverted in other ways, which I might be more concerned about if it led to pressure for a rise in the levy. Companies can ill afford a levy increase at present, especially those whose training budgets have been hit hard by Covid. Before we reach Report, I would like to understand better what is planned for apprenticeships. Apprenticeships provide a passport to mobility from one job to a better one. They provide a route to advancement to people who do not need or want to go to university and incur debt doing so. If we could massively increase their numbers and their status on the German model, that would contribute to happiness and to growth.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I suspect that her knowledge of apprenticeships is far greater than mine and I appreciate her remarks. I also strongly agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said at the beginning of this debate.

I have added my name to this important amendment because apprenticeships need to be an integral part of the new skills and education system which the Government are rightly seeking to create. They are employer-led and job-focused, and they cover all levels, from GCSEs up to degree level. Through the levy, they provide a mechanism whereby employers contribute to the cost of skills training—where, at times, they have been less than forthcoming.

However, as we have heard, there is a widespread recognition that the levy is not working as well as it should. Relatively few employers are able to use more than a small proportion of their levy funds. Even for major employers in the energy and utilities sector, it is only just over 50%. So, to maximise the funding they can recoup, they tend to use a high proportion of the funds for apprenticeships that are about upskilling or reskilling existing employees, rather than taking on or training new, young apprentices. This is perfectly understandable and, of course, reskilling and upskilling are good things to do—but the result is that the number of 16 to 25 year-old apprentices has not grown nearly as much as the number of over-25s. Although there are mechanisms for employers to transfer up to 25% of their levy funds to other employers who can use them, the process seems overcomplicated and take-up has been pretty low.

At the same time as levy payers are unable to use all their levy funds—with much of the unused funding going back to the Treasury—there appears to be a shortage of apprenticeship funding for non-levy payers. So the impact of the levy on the total funding available for skills training has been rather less than might have been hoped. It is not even clear whether the total amount of funding going into apprenticeships is significantly greater than before the levy was introduced.

The word that crops up most often in discussions with employers about the levy is “inflexible”. As I have said, apprenticeships will surely be a significant element of LSIPs and they need to be properly integrated. I have felt for some time that it would make sense to recast the apprenticeship levy as a wider skills levy—perhaps with a lower payment threshold to bring more employers into the net of contributing towards training. But, at least, if employers in an LSIP area are not able to use all their levy funds, why should it not be possible for those funds to be used for other, defined LSIP training priorities? In any case, what is needed is a review of the apprenticeship levy system in the light of experience to date. It must be clear how it relates to the wider post-16 education and skills system, as set out in the White Paper and now in this Bill.

Amendment 39 does no more than encourage the Secretary of State to conduct such a review. In my view, that is the answer to the argument that it does not belong in this Bill. Well, it does belong in this Bill—it is fundamental to it—and the review is to ensure that levy funds are used in a way that is integrated with the priorities of local skills plans and properly reflects employers’ needs. Of course, such a review must not reduce the amount of funding available for the apprenticeships that are so badly needed. It should seek to maximise the funding available from the levy and to optimise its use in pursuing local and national skills priorities. I look forward to the Minister telling us how this will be achieved—but the review proposed by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would be a very good place to start.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, have both withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, who has done so much to keep the candle burning for technical and vocational education through many difficult times. This group on the role of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education is one of the most important and it has widened out in discussion.

In considering these amendments, I would like to understand more about the leadership of the institute and its level of independence from the department. I would like to know the extent of business representation, which has barely had a mention in that context, and understand any plans to change its governance or composition as the Government’s very welcome new emphasis on skills and post-16 education takes shape. How does it compare to the set-up in Germany, Switzerland or Austria? My concern is that it is much less employer-based and flexible than the arrangements that I have encountered there, but I would of course be happy to be proved wrong.

Is small business, the backbone of British innovation, properly involved? I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on the importance of encouraging small business apprenticeships. Will there be a culture of simplicity and speed, or is this a very bureaucratic organisation, as, I am afraid, the impact assessment suggests? It would be helpful to have an answer on some or all of these points today or, if it is easier, in writing.

With his Amendment 55, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is I believe right to explore the issue of charging for approval of qualifications, pointing out that the deterrent effect on providers might be a problem. That might lose us useful innovation and competition in the provision of qualifications. Should this not in fact be a public service, rather than a charged-for service, as I suspect it is in universities?

I also support the simple Amendments 51 and 53 of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which probe plans to cancel some qualifications to avoid duplication. It is always a great pleasure to hear from him and to be reminded that he is a brilliant product of vocational education. Against a background of declining achievements in technical education, is the proposed moratorium wise? Could we hear which employers are likely to be affected? We have heard quite a bit about individual qualifications, but what kind of employers are likely to be affected? For example, I recall that at Tesco we were able to frame qualifications in a way that suited our work patterns and needs, and we helped many thousands of apprentices to get on and indeed rise up within the retail sector. Is that kind of arrangement now at risk? One of the reasons why I loved working there with my public sector background was that it was a great provider of opportunity for some of the most disadvantaged in the land.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Lord Russell of Liverpool and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

I will speak briefly to several amendments in this group. Regarding Amendment 70, again I raise the question of substantial change, and whether that means a “significant amendment”. I am seeking clarification on the part of the Bill to which this refers.

Amendment 81 would delete “of no effect”, as would Amendment 84. Can the Minister say what that means when replying? It is very unclear. I am again grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for its help in putting forward and drafting these amendments.

In Amendment 92, what is meant by “less attractive”? In my view, to put a service provider at a disadvantage is a serious matter in a Bill such as this. Using a phrase such as “less attractive” as part of the assessment of disadvantage is subjective and lacks clarity. I would be very grateful if, when summing up, the Minister could just clarify what his understanding of “less attractive” is.

I turn to my Amendments 103 and 103A. Amendment 103, which would take out “mainly” and insert “substantially”, is a probing amendment to understand the meaning of “mainly” in connection with the gathering of experience—for example, in relation to Clause 23(7). In my view, Clause (23)(7)(b) requires further definition. How should “mainly” be measured? Will it be by the time spent as a proportion of the whole qualifying experience or by some other measure? How will this experience be recorded and verified?

The same questions arise in regard to that aspect of the experience obtained elsewhere than in the UK. The purpose of my Amendment 103A is to ask whether we are excluding all other experience than that obtained in the UK. I pray in aid my own experience, where I practised law in Brussels in two different situations. Would that experience, and the experience of others as well, qualify for the purposes of the Bill? I am grateful for the opportunity to move these probing amendments and I look forward to the Minister’s clarification of these points.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I want to speak to this group of amendments for two simple reasons. First, services are incredibly important to the UK and to all four nations within it. As I said on Amendment 4, they are vital to the success of our economy, making up more than 80% of GDP. They range from financial services, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which I believe now provide more jobs outside London than in the City, to arts and entertainment of every kind. Invisibles, including legal and accountancy services where we have world-leading expertise, represent more export value than goods.

Secondly, I am mystified by the clauses on services, which are the subject of these amendments. The arrangements seem to work well currently. No doubt some protection is provided by the carryover of EU rules under the withdrawal Acts, which are relatively light touch because attempts to align local rules within the EU on services were also light touch.

We are forcing on to the service industries apparently new rules and new exemptions linked to the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination. There could potentially be a whole load of bureaucracy and regulation associated with this activity, which business, the service sector and regulators will need to understand. Lobbyists may try to secure new rules that benefit narrow interests, as they do in Brussels now. Moreover, as someone who takes a morbid and forensic interest in these things, I find the impact assessment—welcome though it is in principle—extremely disappointing. These are usually very helpful to Committee discussions, but the assessment asserts on page 2 that

“the cost savings to businesses, consumers and the wider UK economy would be expected to significantly offset any costs imposed by this legislation, translating into a net benefit to the UK economy.”

The small and micro business assessment on page 37, a section to which I always pay the greatest attention as small business is the lifeblood of this country and key to its dynamism, says:

“Due to a lack of historical need, there is a shortage of data on businesses trading between different parts of the UK. It has therefore not been possible to identify the volume of such businesses who operate across borders, nor the extent to which they benefit because of the hypothetical nature of the future regulatory regimes.”


So we have no evidence to justify the new powers, nor an assessment of their consequences. We almost seem to be creating borders for services where none existed before, which is surely the opposite of what we want.

We need to understand better how this part of the Bill will work, but the material presented so far has stumped me, as a business operator who has worked in various industries across the UK and the world. In that connection, let me ask a simple question on marketing activity, which is not listed in the schedules: would I be permitted to discriminate in favour of a company that was Welsh to help with the marketing of Welsh products or would I have to take time to listen to pitches from English-owned—or, indeed, US or Canadian-owned—companies?

In response to a number of understandable probing amendments in this group, can my noble friend the Minister kindly justify the provisions simply, with some good worked examples relating to significant service sectors, and assuage my fears? I must say, at this point in time, I am confused and therefore concerned.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

Both the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, have withdrawn from this group so I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Russell of Liverpool and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As the Member who was lucky enough to speak first on this Bill, both in Committee and on Report, I thank those involved with its passage through our House. Indeed, I have spoken on nearly all the Bills that have followed from our exit from the EU, in my position as a former Minister and as a current member of the European Union Committee.

I particularly congratulate my noble friend Lady Williams on her handling of the Bill. It is possibly the most challenging of the EU exit Bills, involving very divided opinions across the House; yet, thanks to her good humour and diplomacy, shown again on Amendment 1 today, it has been progressed in a timely and very courteous manner. Thanks are also due to another Minister, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, our social security Minister on this Bill; to our Whip, my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay; to all those on these Benches who have spoken and to others across the House; and of course to the excellent Bill team.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I call the Minister.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Russell of Liverpool and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker]

My Lords, I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call on the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to ask a short question for elucidation.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]]

My Lords, I was a little disappointed by my noble friend the Minister’s response, especially given our shared aspiration to get digital ID to come in. Will she agree to either a meeting or a letter to talk in a little more detail about the timing of digital ID—recognising that there are some difficulties but that she has made some good progress with her call for evidence? We could also discuss whether there is anything to be done on the enforcement of age verification for alcohol during the Covid-19 period, perhaps using an easement of the kind that I mentioned to her has been used by some other departments.