House of Lords

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Monday 15 December 2025

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

UK Research and Innovation: Ethnic Minorities

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked by

[Lord Young of Acton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether any UK Research and Innovation-funded grants to study in UK universities are not open to white or Asian applicants; and if so, what assessment they have made of the appropriateness.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)]

Last year, UK Research and Innovation funded around 1,800 training grants to support about 27,000 PhD students. Some research organisations ring-fence a small proportion of UKRI-funded studentships for groups they can demonstrate are underrepresented in order to break to down barriers to opportunities and address inequality. None of the training grants funded by UKRI entirely excludes white or Asian students from applying for a PhD studentship. Around 1% of all UKRI studentships are ring-fenced by research organisations for widening participation.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am afraid it is true that white and Asian applicants are told they cannot apply for at least one post, a post-doc post, funded by UK Research and Innovation. This is symptomatic of the capture of the research excellence framework by radical progressive ideology, as evidenced by recent research by Professor Eric Kaufmann at the University of Buckingham. I know that the Minister shares my concern and has recently taken steps to reduce the weight given to equity, diversity and inclusion in the REF. Would he like to take this opportunity to assure the House that, in future, research funding will be based on the applicant’s intellectual merit and not the colour of their skin?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord may be referring to the scheme run by the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, which is one of the world’s greatest research institutions, with 12 Nobel Prizes to its name. It has rightly taken two posts out of 128 specifically to increase black representation among scientists. This is very similar to what happened in 1995, when the Dorothy Hodgkin fellowships made positions for women more easily accessible; that led to a huge number of very successful women scientists emerging as a result of that. In terms of the research excellence framework, there is an increased weighting for research outputs, which I believe to be correct. There is, however, a significant weighting on strategy, people and research environment. A culture where bullying is tolerated, challenge is suppressed and diversity is not embraced is not conducive to great science.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree with the multiple analyses of major funders, including UKRI and the US National Science Foundation, which have consistently found that white applicants have higher grant awards than ethnic minority researchers? Indeed, in 2020-21, UKRI PI awardees were 81% white and 1% black. The major reason, I suggest, is that black, Asian and other minority ethnicities are underrepresented in academia; we have just 160 black professors, of whom only a quarter are women. Does the Minister agree that efforts to address these stark inequalities should be welcomed rather than criticised?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

Just to add to the starkness of those numbers, it is 160 black professors out of 22,885 professors overall. These are stark figures, and we need to do things to make sure that we get opportunity right. Yes, the figures are also stark for grants. It is interesting that the analysis of schemes that have been put in place already shows that, as a result of those schemes, not only does confidence increase for black scientists but the preparedness and quality of their applications also increase.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the statements from the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, of the facts involved. Can the Minister assure us that, in scrutinising individual schemes, the Government and the Office for Students will support universities’ and research councils’ ability to use lawful positive action to tackle well-documented disparities in participation and progression in the research workforce?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

Yes, much of this was about postgraduate students, but it is true in the workforce. The Office for Students recently issued guidance that makes it clear that staff and students should be free to undertake academic research within the law, and should not be restricted or compromised in any way because of the conclusions that that research may reach, or the views that it supports or any conflict with the higher education provider’s values. There are schemes right the way across the system, including in the White Paper that was recently published, for how to increase participation from multiple groups, based not just on ethnicity but also on socioeconomic deprivation and those with caring responsibilities.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that funding for PhDs and research in the arts is going to be cut by up to 60%? There has been a huge uproar in the academic world, which believes that this is not right. Of course, science is important; STEM is important, but surely it should be STEAM, which includes the arts as well, which are crucial for our education and our competitiveness.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

There is no plan to cut PhD numbers, which are running at about 5,000 per year, funded through UKRI. That makes up about 20% of the total funding, with the other 80% coming from other sources, including from European grants. In the new allocation of funding from UKRI, it will be very clear that the Arts and Humanities Research Council and people in the social sciences will be well provided for.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure all noble Lords would agree that, whatever the merits of diversity in its own right, it cannot be a substitute for academic excellence. If so, does the Minister accept, in this light, that the more research funding is seen to be granted for reasons other than quality and impact, the more we risk loss of confidence in scientific research done in the UK?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

Yes, I do agree with that, and that is why it is very clear that there is a focus on excellence in the very scheme that has been referred to, which is among the most excellent in the world in terms of what it searches for. It is worth going back to 2020-21, when the then Science Minister, Amanda Solloway, said: “We recognise that people from minority ethnic backgrounds, as well as other underrepresented groups, face systemic barriers to entering and progressing in R&D careers. We are committed to tackling these barriers to ensure that talent is not lost”. I agree with the last Government on that.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that the vast majority of noble Lords would agree that genuine equality of opportunity in academia and more widely requires a commitment to fair application procedures and continuing concerted efforts to address the obstacles that prevent different groups from accessing opportunities. This includes racial and ethnic groups, lower-income groups and groups from outside of the south-east. Can the Minister outline what steps this Government have initiated to address these barriers that are faced by disadvantaged students—disadvantaged construed in the broadest sense—in accessing different kinds of postgraduate study?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

UKRI is clear that, when it allocates grants, particularly for the studentships into doctoral training centres, those organisations should consider increased participation and any disadvantages on the grounds of ethnicity, disability, socioeconomic status or caring responsibilities. There are a number of schemes specifically designed to do that—and a number more were laid out in the White Paper—and the analysis of previous schemes has shown that they do have an effect. I referred to one from 1995, which had a very dramatic effect.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, as someone who cannot claim to have had his career held back, can I also say that the evidence is what is important here? It was evidence that scientists from ethnic minorities were adversely judged, despite their talent and the quality of their application, that led to this necessary positive action. The data clearly shows that. This is based on data, not on any ideological measure.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that comment, and I agree with it.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

The Minister has made his career—and to an extent his reputation—on statistics. Can he clarify something for me? According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, of all academic staff whose ethnicity is known, 22% were from ethnic-minority backgrounds in 2022-23. Is that a reflection of society at large, or is it disproportionate?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The data for postgraduate research numbers in 2023-24 was that 74% were from white backgrounds, 9% were Asian students, 5% were black students, 5% were mixed students and 3% were students categorised as of “other” ethnic background. I think that this is a fair representation. I go back to the striking statistic that, out of 22,885 professors, only 160 are black and of those, only a quarter are women.

Technology Adoption Review

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:48

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in implementing the recommendations of the Technology Adoption Review.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

The review’s recommendations were incorporated into the industrial strategy and since its launch we have begun to deliver on our commitments. For example, we have allocated £99 million of funding to allow for the expansion of the Made Smarter programme to support increased adoption of technologies such as AI in advanced manufacturing. We are taking forward work to implement the recommendations of the SME Digital Adoption Task Force, which published its recommendations in July.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, among its many findings, the review identified that there is a proliferation of different business support schemes designed to improve technology adoption and productivity. Many of these are short lived, their impact is variable and they are hard for SMEs to navigate. What consideration is being given to streamlining business support based on the evidence of which interventions have proved most successful in the past?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her commitment and sponsorship of this important area. Long-term certainty is critical in driving private sector investment. That is why we are expanding successful programmes such as Made Smarter Adoption, and making changes to government procurement and regulation. To make it easier for businesses to find the support they need, in July we launched the new Business Growth Service, including developing a single online access point for government-backed advice and support services. It has already seen over 127,000 domestic users.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, it is really encouraging to hear in the report about AI adoption hubs set regionally around the country. I would like to ask the Minister about AI literacy, which is also referred to in the review. Is she happy that we are doing enough to bring about that literacy? That seems to be one of the big problems with the development of AI in this country.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to take action on a number of fronts, including AI literacy and digital skills more generally. The Government are taking action on digital skills in a number of areas, including through what was the CyberFirst programme and is now the TechFirst programme, looking at both young people and students.

On AI skills, particularly for those in the workforce, the Prime Minister announced a plan to train 7.5 million workers with essential AI skills by 2030 through our industry partnership with key players. It is great to have those players collaborating with us on that.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Technology Adoption Review is clear that the UK’s ability to turn research excellence into productivity gains depends on skills and access to world-class talent across our innovation system. In light of Sir Paul Nurse’s recent warnings that high visa fees and restrictive rules are actively deterring early career researchers and damaging the UK’s science base, will the Government commit to aligning research visa policy with their technology adoption ambitions, say, by emulating the Canada Global Impact+ Research Talent Initiative?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that attracting high-calibre talent to this country is incredibly important. We have a number of ongoing initiatives to do that, including the Global Talent Taskforce, as well as through academia, as my noble friend the Minister with responsibility for science and technology talked about. The digital skills jobs plan will also set out how we can support that aim and get the balance right between growing homegrown talent and attracting those we need to from abroad, so that we have the best chances of growing our science base and the spin-outs.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that AI literacy should be extended to the police force and the judiciary? In very recent cases, it is clear that AI provided incorrect quotes in compiling reports and writing judgments; and in the case of the West Midlands Police, a non-existent football match was cited as a reason why Maccabi fans should not be allowed into Birmingham. Do we not have to do a lot more to teach people how to use AI properly?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that AI has huge potential, but that getting right its adoption and the use of critical skills, whether in the public or private sector, is an integral part of ensuring that it drives productivity and all the promised expectations.

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, impressive work is already under way to drive technological innovation across local and regional government. Derby City Council was the first in the UK to introduce phone assistants powered by generative AI—they are called Darcie, Ali and Perry; do come and ask me why they have those names if you want to know—to streamline call centre interactions with residents. I declare my interest as Bishop of Derby and a member of the Derby City Partnership board. How will the Minister’s department learn from best practice and pilot initiatives across local and regional government to ensure that AI implementation maintains inclusivity and high ethical standards in all sectors?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Learning from best practice is a critical part of our approach, as is taking test and learn pilots out so that we can see what works on the ground, particularly in collaboration with local government, businesses and civil society. It is an approach that we take across many different parts of the public sector, and I will make sure that we look at that example in particular.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, the report is critical of skills shortages, problems with regulations and the financial constraints on investments. I know that it is not directly the Minister’s responsibility, but could she talk to the Treasury about looking for alternative systems of raising funds, and involving the public and extending public/private partnerships, so that we can get some initiative and money going in, in addition to the money that will be invested that she already mentioned?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

In many areas—in fact, the entire industrial strategy and particularly the Technology Adoption Review—that has been done in concert with the private sector. It is an incredibly important part of the approach. To take one example, the skills package in construction takes that approach forward; both the private and public sectors are putting themselves forward together to provide more opportunities for young people. That is the approach that we will take across digital and AI skills, as I mentioned.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I draw noble Lords’ attention to my technology interests, as set out in the register. What assessment have the Government made of the critique of the CBI and others that their technology adoption plans are too fragmented? Does the Minister agree that, without strong co-ordination across different technology adoption initiatives, we will be unable either to assess their collective impacts or to learn their individual lessons?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The technology review and many others have identified that there is no silver bullet in respect of technology adoption. What is needed in the creative industries is perhaps completely different from what is needed in the energy sector, for example. The review’s approach and its adoption into the industrial strategy is to match the needs of a particular sector with a set of technological or digital approaches. Beneath that are some common themes—for example, on skills, connectivity or infrastructure. We have to look at it in that way: measures cut across the economy and specific measures are suited to subsectors.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, as a teacher, when anybody in the House says, “We need to teach people stuff”, I keep on saying, “Why do we not teach it in schools and why do we not teach it properly?”

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The question of digital skills and media literacy is probably most relevant to this area. The noble Lord will have seen that the curriculum and assessment review, which came out recently, has taken into account the need to update our approach to embrace both the risks and the opportunities of the digital world and AI.

Emergency Adrenaline

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:58

Asked by

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of community access to emergency adrenaline following the authorisation of needle-free delivery methods.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government welcome the approval of needle-free adrenaline delivery methods. In July, the medicines regulator, the MHRA, recommended consideration of changes to legislation to allow the supply of and access to such methods of emergency adrenaline delivery, particularly in schools. The Government are currently considering that recommendation, as well as any changes to regulations that may be required. The Government may assess community access to emergency adrenaline as part of any legislative changes.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, as the mother of a severely allergic needle-phobic 17 year-old, the authorisation of needle-free adrenaline devices such as Neffy is a potentially transformative development. These products offer families vital peace of mind by enabling life-saving treatment without needles. The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, for which I am a parliamentary ambassador, is urging better access to such treatments, but Neffy is currently available only privately. Could my noble friend the Minister confirm when it will be accessible on the NHS and whether wider rollout could improve adrenaline availability in public settings?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I very much understand my noble friend’s personal involvement in this area. I congratulate her on her work in promoting the availability of needle-free delivery of adrenaline, and I too welcome its approval. It is down to local area prescribing committees to provide advice to integrated care systems on whether to include new products such as nasal adrenaline and whether they should be included in local formularies. This takes into account available evidence, as well as any relevant guidance. Following this Question from my noble friend, I will seek a view from NICE as to whether it is considering developing guidance in this area, as I know she would find that helpful.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, it has been four years since the Commission on Human Medicines first examined widening public access to adrenaline auto-injectors. It is an excellent initiative, but it requires national co-ordination. What progress have the Government made in establishing a national lead for allergy—which some refer to as an allergy tsar—given their previous support for the idea?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We have been focusing our efforts, as I said, on whether changes to the law are required to allow wider access to, for example, adrenaline nasal sprays, which are a welcome development. Our focus is on that, rather than on the appointment of a tsar, to which the noble Earl referred. We will be establishing national clinical directors, and I am sure that this will be considered in that regard.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, with the disaster of poorly managed allergy, only 24 ICBs have been able to state the extent to which they have services, and none are able to state whether they have a specialist nurse and dietician. Will the Government use the opportunity of the single patient record to provide guidance to ICBs for commissioning, to make sure that those who have serious allergies, such as we have heard about, can get the advice and support they need and be guided to the most appropriate way to manage their allergy in the immediate emergency and in the long term?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that the single patient record gives us all sorts of absolutely key opportunities, including in this regard. It is important that we note how common allergies are—they affect nearly one-third of the UK population. Although in most people allergic reactions can be mild to moderate, in some cases they are severe. We need to cut that risk and, in particular, tackle the approximately 50 suspected cases of deaths each year that we currently have. I agree with her contention.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, following on from the previous question, new delivery methods are welcome but we need a workforce to implement them. As the noble Baroness said, it is concerning that not a single integrated care board currently holds the information on whether it has specialist allergy nurses employed in its area. How can the Government ensure that patients have access to these new treatments when local commissioners are failing to track, co-ordinate or prioritise the specialist skills needed to deliver them?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

This is an important part of the availability, as the noble Lord has highlighted. The kind of issues under consideration when we look at the availability of these welcome products include, in addition to their ease of use without specialist training in community settings and their use through proper training, suitability for different age groups and the temperature sensitivity of the products. Training will be part of how we look at developing the workforce plan, but I take the point about assessing what training is needed when we think about where they will be available. That is very much part of our consideration.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, based on the statistics the Minister just cited about the number of lives that would be saved if emergency adrenaline was easily available in the community, can she say what training would be required? If the drug is given inadvertently to a person who is not in anaphylactic shock, what will happen?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a point on the practical and safety concerns that we would need to consider in widening access to adrenaline in the community. I should add that that would be regardless of the administration method. On his point, and following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, it is essential that training ensures safe administration, whatever the formulation, because we do not want to create an unsafe environment. The training will be appropriate to what is needed. However, I must emphasise that we are in the process of considering this, but with a positive outlook and an intent to provide.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, to be helpful to the Minister, I know she will not be able to give an absolute commitment at the Dispatch Box, but with the Government’s 10-year health plan focusing on digital integration, will she commit to embedding a national allergy register within the single patient record, which would deal with many of the issues noble Lords have raised on this Question?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I know that the noble Lord always seeks to be helpful. That is indeed a helpful suggestion, which I will gladly take away, but I will not be able to give a commitment, as the noble Lord is aware.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I was a little unhappy with the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Patel. My understanding, having seen medical students being given injections of adrenaline during a physiology class to see what would happen—in larger doses than you would probably need in this case—is that they might feel a bit faint. I would have thought that giving a non-injection method is even safer and that the likelihood of side-effects is much lower. Is that not fair?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am sure that is fair and I certainly bow to my noble friend’s expertise in this regard. I thank him for that, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his question. However, I feel a little inadequate on the medical front here.

Breast Cancer

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Baroness Hodge of Barking]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to enable women over the age of 70 to continue to be invited by the NHS to have regular mammograms to support the early detection of breast cancer.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, too many women are dying of breast cancer. Even with a national screening programme, tragically, 11,500 die from breast cancer each year in the UK. AgeX, a large and important research study, is investigating the effects of routine screening of women over 70. Results are expected in 2027. The UK National Screening Committee has been closely involved throughout, and we will use the findings as soon as they are available.

[Baroness Hodge of Barking (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. She is right that a common cause of death in women is breast cancer, but age is a primary risk. One in three breast cancers occurs in women aged over 70 but, shockingly, nearly half of breast cancer deaths occur in women over 70. Yet the NHS stops inviting and encouraging women to have a mammogram at 70. Given the evidence, can the Minister bring the review of the age limit to a close more urgently than 2027, stop the discrimination against older women and ensure that women continue to be invited to have a mammogram after the age of 70?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very powerful case; I am grateful to her for doing so. The UK National Screening Committee continuously monitors emerging evidence through horizon scanning and maintains active engagement with international peers. Should robust evidence regarding the extension of breast screening age thresholds become available, the committee will look at it right away. In the meantime, a suite of public-facing information communicates to women aged 71 and over that they can have screening every three years if they wish. I realise that does not quite meet my noble friend’s request, but I hope it indicates movement to support women aged 71 and over.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, women over the age of 70 are entitled to receive free breast screening every three years. However, for those who are digitally excluded, both awareness of this and the practical process of making an appointment can present real barriers. What steps is the NHS taking to ensure that women over 70 are aware of this right, and how is access to screening being made easier for those who struggle with digital access?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Part of the 10-year plan, as we move from analogue to digital, will be ensuring that digital exclusion will not be a barrier. As I mentioned in response to my noble friend, it is indeed the case that women aged 71 and over can have screening every three years, and that can happen by women calling their local breast screening service to ask for an appointment. In other words, analogue is still possible, not just digital.

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interest as chairman of King’s Health Partners. Is the Minister content that sufficient resources are applied to the molecular characterisation of screen-detected breast cancer in such a way that those over the age of 70 who have breast cancer detected are appropriately treated?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I should be able to answer, I admit, but I would rather be honest with the noble Lord: I would prefer to write to him because of the specific nature of his question. I am content with the role of the research trial and that we are now harnessing AI tools through the EDITH trial backed by some £11 million of government support. Using cross-cutting AI tools in respect of the breast cancer screening pathway will be of great assistance.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I feel quite shocked after the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. I recently went for my final invited mammogram, so I did a little research. I did not come up with that figure, and I wish I had because it changes everything I was going to say; it is very important. People who do not necessarily enjoy the wonders of the world of AI and all these other things do not know all this. They are told, “Right, you’re over 70, you’re pretty much all right now”. Some people do not get any advice and, given what the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, said, we should review this as a matter of urgency.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I hope I have outlined to your Lordships’ House how the AgeX trial will greatly assist. Clinical evidence, as and when it is available—it is sought actively—is acted on by the National Screening Committee. I emphasise to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl who raised it previously that, as I said to my noble friend, NHS England is producing public-facing information to communicate to women aged 71 and over that they can have screening every three years if they so wish, and I hope that women will take that up if they so wish.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, I was unaware that women over the age of 70 can have screening every three years, and I am very grateful to have heard that today. Given the ages in the House of Lords, might it not be possible to do some screening of women here for breast cancer? What are the statistics for death from breast cancer in women over 70? How serious is the issue in terms of the number of fatalities?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers, and more than 50,000 were diagnosed with it in 2023. My noble friend Lady Hodge gave further information. On the point about offering screening here, my strong suspicion is that it will not be practical and it is better for people to go to their community. I will speak to my ministerial colleague, Ashley Dalton MP, in whose portfolio this falls. My recollection is that it is in letters or advice, but I want to check. It should be in there but, if it is not, perhaps it could be, so I will put forward my noble friend’s suggestion.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, up to what age will it be possible?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I do not know if I dare comment about vested interest, but why not? I am not aware that there is a final limit. It is on request.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

It is the turn of the Conservative Benches and then we will come to the Labour Benches.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s strategy to have a dedicated cancer plan, but can the Minister say when this plan will be published, particularly in relation to breast screening? Will she give an indication of the uptake rate by women from disadvantaged backgrounds and women from ethnic minorities? The uptake rates are very low. Will these also be considered in this national plan?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The answer to that latter question is yes, and the noble Baroness will not have to wait too long to see the national cancer plan.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, as a breast cancer survivor, I cannot estimate enough the benefit of breast screening leading to early diagnosis. In that respect, I urge my noble friend the Minister to talk not only to her ministerial colleagues in the devolved Administrations but to oncologists within the Department of Health to ensure that we get an earlier date for publication than 2027. Women, particularly those over 70, want reassurance about the prevalence or non-prevalence of cancer within their body.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We certainly do speak with the devolved Governments, as my noble friend highlights. As I have said, this whole area is guided by the scientific and independent advice of the UK National Screening Committee, which is closely involved in the AgeX trial to which I have referred. I assure my noble friend that action will be taken as quickly as possible.

Sydney Terrorist Attack

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Private Notice Question

15:19

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of any implications of the terrorist attack in Sydney for the United Kingdom.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have said, the Government are appalled by this act of terrorism on Bondi Beach targeting the Jewish community. It is particularly horrifying that it happened at a Hanukkah celebration. My thoughts are with the victims, their families and all those affected. There is no specific intelligence of a linked threat to the UK at this time, but we must remain vigilant and are working with the Community Security Trust and police forces to support Jewish communities, including Hanukkah events, here in the UK. The United Kingdom stands firmly with Australia and with the Jewish community of Sydney and those here in the UK, at this terrible time.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

First, my Lords, I want to praise the bravery of Mr Ahmed al-Ahmed in tackling one of the terrorists. He is clearly a better human being than I am, in that he took the rifle and then put it down, because I would have shot him.

I am afraid it appears that a small portion of our British people are under serious threat, and it is no good pretending otherwise. Will my noble friend confirm that there is positive recognition of that fact by the Government? What action can we take to make that proportion of our population safer?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend on the bravery of that individual. I watched on television yesterday the pictures of him tackling the armed gunman, and that is bravery for which he should be commended. I believe he was shot in the attempt, and I wish him well and a quick recovery.

The UK Government recognise that there are real threats to the Jewish community. That is why we have invested £28 million this year to protect Jewish places of worship, schools and community centres, and it is why we are passing measures in the Crime and Policing Bill to ensure that where there is harassment of any community—obviously, in this case, the Jewish community is at the forefront of our mind—the Metropolitan Police and other police forces can direct actions against those undertaking the harassment, in a strong and effective way. The action that took place in Sydney is simply unacceptable and our thoughts are with the Jewish community in Australia at this time, but we also need to be vigilant about the threat to the Jewish community in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, it is Hanukkah. What is Hanukkah? Hanukkah is when families get together, lighting the candles, celebrating the victory of light over darkness. We had another type of family, a father and son, barbarically shooting at will. This morning, I went to Western Marble Arch Synagogue and spoke to Rabbi Mendy Vogel. His first cousin was Rabbi Eli Schlanger, who was murdered. Sixteen precious souls were lost, including a Holocaust survivor and 10 year- old Matilda. May all their memories be for a blessing.

I am tired of listening to people saying, “We will stand shoulder to shoulder with the community”. That means nothing when there are dead Jews on the ground, whether in Manchester or Sydney. If noble Lords are not clear what “Globalise the intifada” means, it was on our TV screens yesterday. I ask the Minister to act. Such hate speech must be outlawed and the IRGC and the Muslim Brotherhood proscribed. If the Minister and other noble Lords wish to show solidarity, they can come outside to Parliament Square at 6.30 pm and join members of the Jewish community to light the Hanukkah candles.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord should know, and I think he does, that this Government condemn the attacks, condemn antisemitism and stand with the Jewish community. He asks what we are doing. We are putting in resources to support the Community Safety Trust and giving the police extra powers. We will not tolerate antisemitism and, as he knows, we will continue to keep under review organisations that pose a threat to the safety of members of the United Kingdom community, whether Jewish or anyone else. We will keep under review the proscriptions that he has mentioned; I cannot comment on that today, as he knows, but that does not take away from the fact that this Government stand with the Jewish community at this time and condemn those attacks. We will work with anyone to ensure that the scourge of antisemitism is ended.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I associate these Benches with the Minister’s words of condolence with regard to the victims--including, as we heard, a 10 year-old girl and a survivor of the Holocaust—innocent people targeted purely because they were Jewish. But we also saw an intervention by a bystander who just happened to be Muslim, which emphasises the evil intent of the perpetrators. I also commend the Community Security Trust for its proactive outreach yesterday to the Jewish community. The CST supported over 100 Hanukkah candle lightings across the UK with volunteers, but the Minister must know that many Jewish children and Jewish students are particularly worried at this time. Can he say more with regard to how the Government are both reassuring and giving practical security assistance, specifically for schools and university campuses, to that particularly vulnerable group who are very worried?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Prime Minister had already tasked Government Ministers to look at what else we can do, prior to yesterday’s events. The Prime Minister has also tasked the police forces, via the Home Secretary, to look at how we can step up security patrols to give reassurance in neighbourhoods where there are synagogues and events occurring. It is absolutely vital that people are free to enjoy and celebrate their religion, and to enjoy their family community events. I say that not just of the Jewish community, but of all religions and for those people who have none. We cannot accept a situation whereby people with warped views commit atrocious acts of violence against children, women and Holocaust survivors—people enjoying their day on a beach. We cannot accept that circumstance and this Government will work with anybody to ensure that we protect our communities from similar attacks.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, the Christian community has a special responsibility to stand in solidarity with the Jewish community, not only in Australia but in this country and around the world. In view of the fact that it was revealed that one of the people who committed this atrocity had already been examined by the Australian police as a potential terrorist, is there a case in this country for re-examining some people who have been examined in the past?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble and right reverend Lord will accept that I cannot comment on active live Australian investigations. It would be inappropriate for me to do so as a UK Government Minister, but in any UK context it would simply be the same. There has to be a due process to investigate what has happened and why, but, self-evidently, we need to ensure that our security services and police services in the United Kingdom, as well as the work we do in the Home Office and across government, can identify and monitor where there are potential threats, and take action to prevent those threats materialising into the type of action taken yesterday. That is an ongoing challenge but it is something that our security services do daily and will continue to do. I know that they have the support of both Houses of Parliament in that activity.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest because Rabbi Schlanger, who was murdered in this atrocity, was my relative too. Most Jewish festivals are commemorated privately at home or in synagogue, but Hanukkah is celebrated publicly. That is why my response to this atrocity is going to be to go to Parliament Square this evening to light a Hanukkah menorah, proudly and publicly. But so far as the Government’s response is concerned, while we are always grateful for support for the Community Security Trust, the debate about Jewish security needs to move away from being about higher walls around our synagogues and more guards outside our schools and on to the root causes of why we need such security. Will the Minister explain what the Government are actually doing in practical terms to counter the extremist ideologies which are driving this antisemitic violence, and to remove them and their proponents from our social media, out of our universities and off our streets?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I offer my condolences to the noble Lord for his loss. I cannot be with him this evening, because I will be in the Chamber dealing with the Crime and Policing Bill, but if I were not, I would certainly be standing in solidarity with him. The noble Lord asked what we are doing. I have given a range of things that the Government will do, and we are continually open to suggestions as to how we can tackle this scourge. We have already asked the noble Lord, Lord Mann, to review antisemitism in the National Health Service. We are also undertaking a review of antisemitism in universities, and we are demanding action from them to protect Jewish students.

We need to ensure that we encourage tolerance, understanding and knowledge of different religions, because there is a range of them in a multicultural society, and we need to have that tolerance. I reach out to the noble Lord to look on a cross-party basis at how we can ensure that the scourge of antisemitism and intolerance is tackled from very early on, so that we can ensure that people live their lives in an open, tolerant way, where their religion does not require armed guards at synagogues and schools. For the moment, I hope the noble Lord understands that we will support the Community Security Trust and police forces to deliver that safety, given that there are live threats, as evidenced by the recent Manchester attack.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that urgent steps should be taken to protect our national security and society by ensuring that those who disseminate antisemitic ideas—and, indeed, other vile racist ideas—can now expect to be prosecuted for doing so?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can give the noble Lord a definitive yes to that. There is clear legislation for police monitoring in relation to hatred and crimes of harassment that, while not leading to the type of activity that we saw yesterday—which is self-evidently a higher level of crime—should none the less be monitored and acted upon. There is no place in our society for racism; I hope that has the whole House’s support.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I was at a friend’s birthday party a few weeks ago. It was not at a school, synagogue or public place; it was a Jewish friend celebrating her birthday. She had organised security for the event, and I expressed surprise—naively. She said that this was normal for such a social gathering with a lot of the local Jewish community, which had come to celebrate her birthday.

I was very pleased to see the photo of our Prime Minister and his wife lighting the candles outside No. 10 last night; that was wonderful. However, it is not normal that a group of our society needs to have security, even at a party. My heart went out to all those people, including people in this House, who I was messaging yesterday saying, “Oh my God, I am so sorry; words fail me”. I thought that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, were absolutely on point. This is not normal. I know that my noble friend the Minister agrees, but can he say a little more about what His Majesty’s Government will do to provide education about the current, deeply ugly face of modern antisemitism in the country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful. It is important that we recognise that the Government have a responsibility in this area, but so do we all. We all have a responsibility to have no tolerance of antisemitism and racism. I will work with anybody, through the powers that we have in the Home Office, to look at how we can improve performance on those challenges. We need to ensure that, from school age through to universities and people in the workplace, intolerance is simply not accepted. I will do what I can to make sure that the Home Office responds to those challenges and looks again at what we need to do to help protect the Jewish community in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the vice-chair of the APPG on Counter Extremism, and the fact that I was the UK’s first Minister for Countering Extremism. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, we have repeatedly failed. I join others in sharing his loss, but that is not enough—specific action is required. Some suggestions have been given. I welcome the Minister’s call, and I am sure that there are many across the House who want to work with him on this objective. There are specific actions we can take. For example, let us join the Home Office and the Foreign Office together, ban extremist preachers at source, and not issue those visas. We cannot let this poisonous ideology destroy what we have built over centuries: not just a tolerant society, but a coherent society that is respectful of all faiths and none.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that the noble Lord will accept—given that his is the last question on this Private Notice Question—that this House will stand united against antisemitism and to support people from all faiths to celebrate and use their faiths in a positive, constructive way, both to support their own communities and to have a multicultural society where that respect goes across all our communities. As the noble Lord said, this is not about the Muslim faith; it is about a perverted view of the Muslim faith and people who are terrorists and murderers. We need to make sure that we stop the radicalisation at source and work across the community to build understanding and an open and tolerant society that respects everybody. I know that the whole House will join me in that wish.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:35

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I expect the Employment Rights Bill to return to this House from the House of Commons this afternoon. I thought that it would assist the House to set out the arrangements for the Bill tomorrow. Once the Bill returns and all amendments are printed, Members have until 12 noon tomorrow, Tuesday 16 December, to table Motions or amendments. Members wishing to table should speak to the Public Bill Office as early as possible. This House will consider the Bill again tomorrow, before the Second Reading of the Victims and Courts Bill. I will set out arrangements for further rounds of ping-pong in the usual way, if necessary.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, this seems an appropriate moment to have a short break before I call the next business—but not while I am still on my feet.

Crime and Policing Bill

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Committee (6th Day)

Northern Ireland legislative consent granted, Scottish and Welsh legislative consent sought. Relevant documents: 33rd Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 11th Report from the Constitution Committee and 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

15:37

Clause 87: Notification of name change

Amendment 317

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

317: Clause 87, page 100, line 34, at end insert—
“(aa) if the name change is by deed poll, seven days prior to submitting an application for change of name (if that day is earlier than the day specified in paragraph (a)), or” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that if a person is changing their name by deed poll, they must notify a new name to the police prior to submitting the application.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses a vital aspect of public protection, closing the loopholes that allow registered sex offenders to evade detection and monitoring by changing their identity. Effective management of offenders in the 21st century requires a justice system that is not only legally robust but properly resourced and technologically capable.

On these Benches, we strongly welcome Clause 87, which requires sex offenders to notify the police of a name change seven days before using that new name, in the words of the clause. This is a significant improvement on the current retrospective notification regime, which has allowed offenders to disappear from the radar of the authorities. However, my Amendment 317 seeks to tighten this provision further regarding deed polls. As currently drafted, an offender could theoretically go through the legal process of obtaining a deed poll to change their name without the police being aware until the moment they intend using it, again using the language of Clause 87.

My amendment specifies that if a name change is by deed poll, the offender must notify the police seven days prior to submitting the application. This would ensure that the police are alerted at the very start of the administrative process of changing identity rather than at the end. It provides authorities with the vital time needed to conduct appropriate risk assessments and, if necessary, intervene before a new legal identity is formally established. This proposal has been championed by campaigners such as Sarah Champion MP in the other place, and it is a common-sense safeguard to ensure that the police are always one step ahead.

I stress that the management of offenders today is not just about physical monitoring but about digital monitoring. Just as we have seen criminal recruitment drives for money mules take place on social media platforms, we know that the internet provides avenues for offenders to reoffend or breach their conditions. Although Amendment 317 seeks to tighten the management regime legislative framework, I urge the Government to ensure that the police and relevant agencies have the digital resources and data-sharing capabilities required to enforce these new powers effectively rather than relying on a fragmented system that allows offenders to slip through the net. This measure would strengthen the safety net around our communities immeasurably. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment as a logical extension of the Government’s own objectives in Clause 87. I beg to move.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was designed for a world with low demand for gender recognition certificates and did not anticipate modern safeguarding realities. I believe that that context has fundamentally changed, and that creates a serious gap that my amendment seeks to close. The system is no longer confined to a small number of older adults. New Ministry of Justice data shows that almost 10,000 GRCs have been issued. Last year alone, over 1,169 were granted. That is the highest number on record and more than triple the annual figure five years ago. This is quite a dramatic generational shift: almost a quarter of new certificates now go to people born since the year 2000. Demand has changed but safeguarding has not kept up.

I recently tabled a Written Question to the Government after I had seen multiple cases of male-born sex offenders changing their gender identity, so by the time they appeared in court or were sent to prison they identified as women. I was curious, so I asked the Government what safeguards would prevent a convicted rapist or sex offender going on to obtain a gender recognition certificate and being legally recognised as a woman. First, I was troubled that this Question, when it came to be answered, had been transferred to the Minister for Equalities rather than being answered by the Home Office. I believe it is fundamentally a matter of safety and not about equality. It should have been answered by the Home Office, so I worry that that demonstrates a confusion at the heart of the Government on this issue. Rape and sex offences are not about equality or identity but about safety.

Moreover, and more importantly, the response ignored the core issue. While of course we welcome the measures on name changes, passports and police notification, they do not prevent a convicted sex offender, if I understand it correctly, changing their legal sex under the Gender Recognition Act and going on to live the remainder of their life legally as a woman. To me, that highlights a serious safeguarding gap, and this amendment seeks to close that.

Noble Lords may ask why this is necessary and what this risk is that I speak about. We must be frank—sexual predators cannot be cured. The risk may be managed but it is not eliminated. That is why we have the lifelong monitoring regimes we have. That is why MAPPA exists and why I believe that the law must ensure that those who pose a permanent risk to women and girls, and men and boys, cannot access a legal mechanism that alters their status in ways that Parliament never intended.

15:45

We should not sit back while a legal framework that has been developed for one specific purpose is abused by sex offenders, thereby adding to victims’ pain and trauma; for example, the victim of Ryan Haley. She was sexually assaulted multiple times when she was a child and feared she would be raped. Later, the perpetrator—Haley—changed his name to Natalie Wolf, and now publicly identifies as a woman.

In the victim’s statement, she said:

“Ryan Haley wants everyone to know him as Natalie Wolf, in my eyes he is Ryan Haley, the man who sexually abused me”.

She said that watching how he celebrated his “life, body and choices” felt like salt in her wounds. Would any of us be happy if this predator was—in the future—able to obtain legal recognition via a gender recognition certificate and live as a woman following these crimes? That would be obscene. I cannot see how it could be defended in any circumstances, and even the most ardent believer in second chances would raise an eyebrow.

In this debate, we have spoken often about the need for the Government to be one step ahead, as is so often the case when we see these crimes occurring, and not to wait until bad things happen. It is really difficult to obtain data about the individuals who have gender recognition certificates and the overlap with the offender and prison cohort. Therefore, we just do not know how many individuals fall into these categories or what the risk would be.

However, we have evidence from some cases where we have left the gap open. For example, noble Lords will be familiar with the case of Karen White, who was a male-born sex offender who identified as a female. She was transferred to a woman’s prison—or “he”, I should say. He then went on to assault women in custody. That was a foreseeable failure.

The Supreme Court has now clarified that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex, which is helpful, but that ruling was not intended to and does not solve the operational confusion faced by prisons, hospitals and public authorities, which must navigate two legal regimes without clear guidance while we are still waiting for the Government to publish their advice. It is my understanding that the court judgment is narrowly concerned with the definitions of “man” and “woman”, and therefore any policy choices regarding the certificate regime will be outside of the guidance. In short, the legal status of the gender recognition certificate is unchanged. Without this amendment, therefore, a sexual predator can still obtain one.

This amendment is not about identity; it is about safeguarding. It is about ensuring that a person who has committed a serious sexual offence cannot obtain a certificate—that should be a privilege to obtain—that changes their legal sex in a way that compromises the safety of women. I would be very grateful if the Minister could answer some specific questions when he comes to respond. Could a convicted sex offender obtain a GRC while serving a prison sentence for sexual offences? Could a convicted criminal offender obtain a GRC while serving a prison sentence for any other offences? Could either of these groups obtain a GRC after their convictions are spent? Will the long-awaited guidance from the Government include in its scope any changes to the GRC policy framework? I look forward to the Minister’s reply, and I commend my amendment.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch. Both amendments have been spoken to very well and very strongly.

I want talk about one particular case, of a sex offender called Clive Bundy, who was in prison for some years for sexually abusing and raping his daughter, Ceri-Lee Galvin, from a young age. It was incestuous sexual abuse and rape. He went to prison in 2016 and before he was released, he declared he was a woman. Bundy then changed his name via deed poll, very generously helped and abetted by the prison authorities, to aid his release.

I have spoken about this issue in this House before, and there are a number of reasons why it has been brought to my attention. One reason is that Clive Bundy changed his name to Claire Fox—consequently, I know about it. Claire Fox now wanders freely. However, the most important reason is that I was contacted by his daughter, Ceri-Lee Galvin. Before we had the Supreme Court ruling, I raised this a number of times in a number of Bills to note that Ceri-Lee Galvin as a victim had been badly betrayed by this story. She was never told that her incestuous, rapist father was being released, because he was not—Claire Fox was. And of course, guess what? If you google Claire Fox, you will get horror stories, but they are about me and not him.

In all seriousness, it was a deed poll change. Therefore, Clive Bundy might well be on the sex offenders register, but Clive Bundy does not exist. Claire Fox exists, but Claire Fox is Clive Bundy the rapist and is therefore free to live in the same town as his daughter, which he has done, and he has harassed her. I will not go into the details, but Ceri-Lee Galvin has been incredibly brave in giving up her anonymity to talk about this story to the press various times. As she says, she cannot get anywhere when she tries to lobby on this point.

Therefore, in theory, Claire Fox—Clive Bundy—is not on the sex offenders register and can apply to work with young children in the local area, where her daughter goes to nursery, and nobody knows that this person is a child rapist. There must be something that the Government can do to strengthen the safeguarding, which I know is their intention in this group of amendments. Therefore, the two non-government amendments should be seriously taken up by them. They would not contradict their aims but would ensure that their aims are more than just written on paper but actually protect victims and future victims.

It is not a question of making a moral judgment. I do not care whether Clive Bundy thinks that he is a woman; that is irrelevant to me. I do not even care that he has taken my name—which, by the way, is a fashionable thing to do; to use a gender critical name is apparently a form of trolling which happens in America quite a lot. But that is irrelevant. The point is how we protect people when have a sex offenders register that does not reflect reality.

By the way, special privacy measures are given, meaning that when I have asked questions in the past, I have been told that because this person has chosen to change gender and is therefore now Claire Fox, they cannot investigate Clive Bundy. If Clive Bundy as Claire Fox turns up for a meeting to volunteer with the Girl Guides, no one can even ask whether they are the same person. We cannot even go there. This is ridiculous and it is not what the Government want. Therefore, I hope the Government are open to these two very important amendments on deed poll and gender recognition certificates.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I want first to pick up on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, and both her comments and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and ask the Minister a question. Am I right in thinking that given that the Prison Service—and I think also the Probation Service—must do a full assessment of risk on any transgender prisoner, the protections they seek are already there?

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for raising the case of Karen White. The Scottish Prison Service apologised because it did not do what it should have done: a full risk assessment. Had it done that, she would not have been placed on a women’s wing. I therefore hope the Minister can confirm that the protections for the public, particularly for victims, remain, because now, following the Karen White case in particular, real care is taken to make sure the law is followed. I would find it extraordinary if crimes were just dropped off the list because somebody had a transgender recognition certificate—so could the Minister confirm that this is not the case?

Turning now to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s amendment, we on these Benches also welcome Clause 87, but it needs strengthening. My noble friend’s amendment is very clear: we have to be able to stop offenders changing their names without the knowledge of the police. That also plays into the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean. Research from the Safeguarding Alliance has shown that key legislation is being made redundant because of a loophole that people can use to get through the cracks. This is not just about transgender issues; it is about people just changing their name regardless of their gender. Frankly, this makes Sarah’s law and Clare’s law utterly useless. I hope the Minister is prepared to consider this.

The remaining amendments in this group, from the Government, look as though they are sensible adjustments to the arrangements regarding sex offenders obtaining driving licences in Northern Ireland. We look forward to hearing from the Minister in more detail on those.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I was not going to participate in this debate until I heard about the Scottish case and the Scottish Prison Service admitting that it got it wrong and that it did not carry out what they should have done.

I recall Julia Hartley-Brewer interviewing the SNP Scottish Justice Secretary. The Justice Secretary was saying that it was terribly difficult to reach an assessment, make a judgment and try to get it right. Julia Hartley-Brewer said, I believe, “What is the problem? Just look down his trousers and you will find the answer”. I commend that as the best answer I have ever heard.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, beginning with the amendments that regulate the name changes of sex offenders, I am glad that Members across your Lordships’ House agree on the necessity of regulations. Clause 87 is a sensible measure from the Government, and the amendments that build on its principle are similarly prudent. An individual who commits a crime as intrusive and offensive as a sexual offence demonstrates that they are a threat to public order and safety. After all, that is the reason why we have a sex offender register. Criminals who have proven that they pose a risk should be monitored by the authorities, and the authorities should have the necessary details to monitor and manage them.

Amendment 317 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would ensure that those who change their name by deed poll are legally required to alert the police of this change. The amendments in the name of the Minister extend the provision restricting the granting of driving licences in a new name to Northern Ireland. All these amendments seek to consolidate the existing legislation to ensure that there are no gaps there or in the Government’s new law, and we support the principle behind them.

The most consequential of the amendments in this group is that tabled by my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch. It would serve to bar those who commit sexual offences from obtaining a gender recognition certificate. This is a very necessary measure. I am glad that the Government have not yet granted an exemption for sex-offending transgender criminals, which would allow them to attend a prison different from their biological sex. Hailing from north of the border—where, as others have commented, there have been several incidents of that happening—I believe that it is a very worrying scenario indeed.

The Government have still not implemented the Supreme Court’s judgment in the For Women Scotland case, neither in statute nor in guidance. There is still the chance that those who commit sexual offences can end up in the wrong prison through obtaining a gender recognition certificate. I am not remotely suggesting that the Government would wilfully do this, but I hope that, given their record on prisoner administration, the Minister can understand our concerns.

No safeguards currently exist outside of ministerial discretion. A way to guarantee that this does not happen would be to bar sex offenders from obtaining a certificate in the first place; it is a bare minimum. In sending such people to prison, we are admitting that they are not trustworthy among the public; why, then, should we risk the safety of prisoners of the opposite sex? For those reasons, I support my noble friend’s amendment, and I hope the Minister can too.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch. There are also a number of amendments in my name, which I will formally move and explain what they mean in a moment.

Clause 94, which we will come to in more detail later, provides for the police to restrict changes of name on registered sex offenders’ identity documents. Where the police consider it necessary to prevent sexual harm, they will be able to issue a notice to a registered sex offender, which may require them to apply for the police’s authorisation to change their name on specified documents. This will ensure that registered sex offenders who are deemed to be at risk of using a name change to commit sexual harm are unable to continue offending under a new name and pass under the radar of law enforcement. I am grateful for noble Lords’ broad support for the Government’s general direction of travel on these points.

16:00

Proposed new Section 93I of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 will create a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to prevent the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency granting a replacement driving licence to registered sex offenders who are subject to such restrictions by the police. The DVLA issues licences in England, Wales and Scotland. In Northern Ireland, that function is exercised by the Driver & Vehicle Agency, hence my Amendment 325 making equivalent provision in new Section 93I for Northern Ireland. This will enable the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland to make regulations preventing registered sex offenders being issued with a replacement licence in a new name without necessary authorisation. I am grateful for the support for that from both the Liberal Democrat and Opposition Benches. This will be possible whether the registered sex offender now holds or previously held a licence in Northern Ireland or Britain.

Amendments 320 to 324 provide for the DVLA to refuse to issue a British driving licence as a replacement for a licence issued in Northern Ireland to a registered sex offender attempting to obtain a British licence in a new name without authorisation. The remaining government amendments to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 are minor and consequential. Together, these amendments will mean that registered sex offenders cannot exploit the existence of two driving licence-issuing agencies in the UK. That will prevent them obtaining one without authorisation, regardless of where that licence comes from in the UK.

Amendment 317 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seeks to ensure that registered sex offenders who change their name via deed poll inform the police of their intention at least seven days in advance of submitting an application. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that Clause 87 already requires offenders to notify the police of a new name no less than seven days before using it. If he looks at page 100 of the Bill, he will see that Clause 87 inserts new Section 83A, subsection (1)(a) of which contains the phrase

“no less than 7 days before using it”.

I hope that reassures him that that requirement already exists. It applies whether the change is made through an enrolled deed poll, which involves an application to the Royal Courts of Justice, or through an unenrolled deed poll.

Where registered sex offenders intend to change their name via an enrolled deed poll, they will be expected to notify the police seven days before submitting the application, as it cannot be known how long it will take to process the application. To support this, updated statutory guidance will be issued to police forces ahead of implementation, clearly setting out the expectation that notification must be given at least seven days before the new name is used. There is an exemption from liability for breach of this requirement where advance notification is genuinely not reasonably practical, but such cases are expected to be rare, particularly for changes of name by deed poll.

I turn to Amendment 325A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I am sorry she has had difficulties with the name change, whether deliberate or accidental; it must be very inconvenient, and I understand her frustration. This amendment seeks to prohibit any offender who has been convicted of a sexual offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 from obtaining a gender recognition certificate. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, touched on the point I am going to make, which is that convicted sex offenders, regardless of their gender, are subject to post-conviction controls such as the notification requirements and are eligible for sexual harm prevention orders and multi-agency risk management assessments through the MAPPA process. They are managed according to the risk they pose rather than their gender, and that is the right thing to do.

This is not about gender; it is about risk. Given that robust post-conviction management of sex offenders is in place, and that a very low volume of gender recognition certificates are obtained each year, I do not see this as a necessary amendment. The sex offenders register is about managing risk, and the Government are not persuaded that a blanket ban on registered sex offenders obtaining a gender recognition certificate would be proportionate or necessary for these purposes. That does not take away—I hope the noble Baroness will accept this—that this is about management of risk, and the sex offenders register is in place for that purpose.

If a registered sex offender seeks to change their name following a change of gender, whether through a gender recognition certificate or otherwise, the provisions in the Bill will apply. If necessary, and if we assess that it would be helpful to the police in managing risk, we can exercise the existing regulation-making power to require registered sex offenders to notify the police when they obtain the gender recognition certificate. I hope I have been able to satisfy both the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, that the amendments are unnecessary.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Does that mean that if somebody changes a name and does not inform the police, the new name can be put on the sex offenders register?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is my understanding of the position. I hope that helps the noble and learned Baroness. That is the principle behind what we are proposing here today. Again, I say to the whole Committee that this is, ultimately, management based on risk, not on gender.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

May I press the Minister on one specific point? I understand what he is saying about management of risk, but would it be possible for a convicted sex offender—a serious sex offender or rapist—to be prevented, on the basis of risk, from obtaining a gender recognition certificate, should they wish to do so? Would it be possible for that to be barred in a specific case, should that individual be assessed as posing a risk to public safety?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 ensures that convicted sex offenders are already subject to post-conviction controls. They are managed according to their risk, and the sex offenders register is about looking at the position with regard to the individual having the risk on the basis of their actions. It would not be possible to stop someone applying for a gender recognition certificate. Ultimately, they would be placed on the sex offenders register based on their risk, not on their gender. With that, I hope that the noble Lords will not press the amendments.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, may I also ask a question for clarification? It is not really about GRC but about the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made about name change. I know that the Minister covered that in his comments, but I am still left a little confused. Can a person who is a convicted sex offender and on the sex offenders register change their name by deed poll and have their new name omitted, therefore, from the sex offenders register? Surely, as soon as a sex offender changes their name, if they are changing their name from a male name to a female name, that needs to be updated on the sex offenders register.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My understanding of the position is that the individual is on the sex offenders register, regardless of the name that they are currently providing. The risk is around the individual. If a registered sex offender seeks to change their name, the provisions in the Bill will apply, as proposed in the Bill here today.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

On a final clarification—possibly the Minister will write to us, because there is some confusion—I have always said that it is about managing risk and that it has nothing to do with gender. When I have raised this issue in the past, my concern has been that once gender is added into the mix, risk somehow gets forgotten slightly.

First, the point of the sex offenders register is not just for the authorities to know that they are there but for all sorts of institutions to know. I have been told in the past that an enhanced privacy privilege is given to those who change gender. Is that not true? Therefore, even probing that means that we will leave it well alone.

Secondly, in relation to DBS checks and so on, a change of gender, a change of identity—forget the politics of it—can mean that nobody knows that you are the person on the sex offenders register. If the DBS check is in one name, there is no way of knowing that you are the same person who is the rapist. That was why I used the Clive Bundy-Claire Fox example—Clive Bundy, as Claire Fox, would not show up on DBS checks or be on the sex offenders register if they went to work with children. That cannot be right or what the Government intend.

Maybe I have got it all wrong, but nobody from the Government has reassured me. By the way, my questions and amendments in the past were to the previous Government, so this is not having a go at this Government. This has been an unholy mess over two Governments.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It may help the Committee if I say that both the original name and the new name would be recorded. For clarity, where a DBS check applicant has changed their names, they are required to state all names that they have been previously known by on the application form. In submitting that form, applicants sign a legal declaration declaring that they have not knowingly provided false information. Failure to disclose previous names and deliberately avoiding detection of previous convictions would lead to an individual being liable for prosecution. I hope that helps to clarify the position with regard to the amendments. I invite the noble Lords not to press them at this stage.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am on the “how to change your name” government website, which says that if you are a sex offender, violent offender or terrorist offender, you must go to your local prescribed police station where you are known within three days of changing your name. It is a criminal offence if you do not tell the police straightaway. There will be probation and other things going on in the background as well.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

It is worth clarifying that this group of people are not necessarily the kind of people I trust. This idea that a local sex offender—or terrorist, since we have been talking about Bondi Beach—thinks, “God, it would be against the law if I didn’t declare that I’ve changed my name”, and would be frightened by the possibility that they would be breaking the law, seems a tad naive.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I remind the Committee that the position of any of these individuals—as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned in her initial contribution—will be subject to consistently heavy management. These are serious offenders. There is a Probation Service. There is a MAPPA process. There is the registration. I have given the assurance that both names will be included in that registration.

Every piece of legislation that any House of Commons and House of Lords passes is subject to people breaking it. That happens, but there will be significant consequences in the event of that occurring. I am simply saying to the noble Baroness who has proposed this amendment, and to the proposals in the Bill that are genuinely welcome across the Committee, that there is significant supervision of sex offenders, and the requirements are as I have outlined to the Committee already. I hope that on that basis, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am glad he focused on risk mitigation, and I think we got there in the final few paragraphs of his response. We need to take very seriously what he said, and I hope that if anything he said needs qualification, he will write to us subsequently, because this is a really important area.

16:15

I felt that when the Minister dealt with Amendment 317 there was somewhat of a “Not invented here” quality about it—not unusual in a ministerial response. But in this particular case, I am not quite sure that he has really taken a look at the existing Clause 87 and what the amendment actually tries to do. It is about speed; it is about the police becoming aware at an early stage, not just after the deed poll has been executed.

I hope that the Minister will take another look at this, because on these Benches we genuinely believe that much earlier notice—that is, seven days before the application itself is submitted—is the right time. That gives plenty of administrative time to change the sex offenders register, and for the authorities, who are in charge of the kind of risk management that the Minister has described, to respond and make sure that they are mitigating the risks of the name change. That is not necessarily the case under the current Clause 87. I therefore hope that he will take another look at this, and then we will truly have some assurance about risk mitigation. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 317.

Amendment 317 withdrawn.

Clause 87 agreed.

Clause 88 agreed.

Clause 89: Child sex offenders: requirement to notify if entering premises where children present

Amendments 318 and 319

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

318: Clause 89, page 104, line 17, after “46,” insert “46A,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Scotland) inserted after clause 63.

319: Clause 89, page 104, line 21, leave out “92O” and insert “92OA”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Child sexual abuse image generators: Northern Ireland) inserted after clause 63.

Amendments 318 and 319 agreed.

Clause 89, as amended, agreed.

Clauses 90 to 93 agreed.

Clause 94: Restriction on applying for replacement identity documents in new name

Amendments 320 to 325

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

320: Clause 94, page 120, line 20, leave out “driving licence” and insert “licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 16, makes it possible for the regulations made by the Secretary of State to prevent a relevant offender getting a British driving licence in a new name as a replacement for a previous driving licence issued in Northern Ireland.

321: Clause 94, page 121, leave out lines 4 to 8
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision that is no longer needed because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and came into force on 20 August 2025.

322: Clause 94, page 121, leave out lines 12 to 14
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 94, page 121, leave out lines 4 to 8.

323: Clause 94, page 121, line 16, at end insert “or under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1))”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 94, page 120, line 20, makes it possible for the regulations made by the Secretary of State to prevent a relevant offender getting a British driving licence in a new name as a replacement for a previous driving licence issued in Northern Ireland.

324: Clause 94, page 121, line 16, at end insert—
““section 93B relevant offender” means a relevant offender who is subject to the restriction in section 93B(1);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a definition of “section 93B relevant offender” into the new section about regulations restricting replacement of driving licences of sex offenders with new names in England and Wales and Scotland.

325: Clause 94, page 121, line 17, at end insert—
“(3) After section 93I of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (inserted by subsection (2)) insert—“93J Restriction on granting replacement driving licences in new name (Northern Ireland)(1) The Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland (“the Department”) may by regulations make provision to prevent a person from being granted a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)) (a “replacement licence”) if—(a) the person holds, or has held, a driving licence,(b) the name to be specified in the replacement licence (“the new name”) is different from the name specified in the driving licence most recently granted to the person, and(c) it appears to the Department, on the basis of information provided by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (“the Chief Constable”), that the person is a section 93B relevant offender who was not authorised to apply for a driving licence in the new name.(2) The regulations may, in particular, include provision for authorising or requiring—(a) the Chief Constable to disclose specified information to the Department, and(b) the Department to disclose specified information to the Chief Constable,where the disclosure falls within subsection (3).(3) A disclosure falls within this subsection if it is made—(a) for the purposes of enabling the Department or the Chief Constable to carry out their functions under or by virtue of the regulations, or(b) in connection with the detection or investigation of an offence under section 93B(3).(4) The regulations may, in particular, make provision about how the Department or the Chief Constable may or must use information disclosed to them by virtue of subsection (2).(5) The regulations may include provision amending Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)). (6) In this section—“driving licence” means a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)) or under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988;“section 93B relevant offender” means a relevant offender who is subject to the restriction in section 93B(1);“specified” means specified in regulations under this section.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the Department for Infrastructure to make regulations for Northern Ireland restricting replacement of driving licences of sex offenders in a new name.

Amendments 320 to 325 agreed.

Clause 94, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 325A not moved.

Clauses 95 and 96 agreed.

Schedule 10: Management of sex offenders: minor and consequential amendments

Amendments 326 to 329

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

326: Schedule 10, page 285, line 39, at end insert—
“15A In section 136 (Part 2: Northern Ireland), in subsection (11), after “sections” insert “86B, 87A, 93A, 93H,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the term “Secretary of State” is not read, in relation to Northern Ireland, as meaning the Department of Justice in provisions inserted into Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where there is different provision about Northern Ireland.

327: Schedule 10, page 287, line 8, at end insert—
“(2A) In subsection (5) for “the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland” substitute “a Northern Ireland department”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 17.

328: Schedule 10, page 287, line 10, after “93C(6)(b)” insert “, section 93J”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes regulations of the Department for Infrastructure under section 93J inserted by my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 17 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

329: Schedule 10, page 287, line 10, at end insert—
“(b) for “the Department of Justice” substitute “a Northern Ireland department”.(4) In subsections (8) and (9) for “the Department of Justice”, in each place it occurs, substitute “a Northern Ireland department”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 17.

Amendments 326 to 329 agreed.

Schedule 10, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 330

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

330: After Schedule 10, insert the following new Schedule—
“ScheduleDisqualification for riding a cycle: minor and consequential amendments1 The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 has effect in relation to a person disqualified for riding a cycle as if it was amended as follows.2 In section 26 (interim disqualification)—(a) omit subsection (7) to (11);(b) in subsection (12), for “section 34 or 35” substitute “section 34”.3 Omit sections 34A to 37A (provisions relevant only to a person disqualified for driving a mechanically propelled vehicle).4 In section 38(1) (appeal against disqualification), for “section 34 or 35” substitute “section 34”.5 In section 39 (suspension of disqualification pending appeal) omit subsections (3) and (4).6 In subsection 40 (power of appellate courts in England and Wales to suspend disqualification) omit subsections (7) and (8).7 In section 41 (power of appellate courts in Scotland to suspend disqualification) omit subsections (3) and (4).8 Omit section 41A (suspension of disqualification pending determination of applications under section 34B).9 In section 42 (removal of disqualification)—(a) in subsection (3) omit “(disregarding any extension period)” wherever those words appear, and(b) omit subsection (3A)(b), (3B) and (5)(a).10 Omit sections 44, 44A and 45A (endorsement of licence and driving record).11 In section 46 (combination of disqualification with orders for discharge)—(a) in subsection (1), for “sections 34, 35, 36, 44 or 44A” substitute “section 34”;(b) in subsection (2)—(i) omit “or” at the end of paragraph (a), and(ii) omit paragraph (b);(c) in subsection (3), for “sections 34, 35, 36, 44 and 45A” substitute “section 34”.12 In section 47 (supplementary provisions as to disqualifications and endorsements)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) for “section 34, 35 or 44” substitute “section 34”, and(ii) omit “or endorsement”;(b) omit subsections (2) to (4).13 Omit sections 48 to 50 (exemption from disqualification and endorsement for offences against construction and use regulations, etc).”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to amend the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 as it applies to persons disqualified for riding a cycle.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas is making a good recovery from an operation and has asked me to move or speak to his amendments for him. I suspect that he is watching on parliamentlive.tv to see if I get it right, so I hope the Committee will forgive this awful breach of protocol when I say, “Ralph, switch off the TV; just rest up and recover”. I shall move his Amendment 330, speak to his other amendments in the group and speak to my own amendments at the end, if I have time.

The purpose of this amendment is to fine-tune Part II of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 as it applies to persons disqualified from riding a cycle. The proposed new schedule would omit Sections 34A to 37A, 41A and the other odd section on the ground that they are relevant only to disqualified drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles. For example, Sections 34A to 34C cater for reduced disqualification on successful attendance on a course and apply only to persons convicted of a specified motoring offence. Section 35 relates to persons convicted of an offence in which fixed penalty points are to be taken into account, but fixed penalty points do not apply to cyclists. Sections 35A to 35D, which relate to custodial sentences, do not sit well with the proposed new cycling offences. Sections 36 to 37A all relate to motor vehicles, whether it be by disqualification until a driving test is passed, the revocation of a driving licence or the surrender of a revoked driving licence to the Secretary of State. Accordingly, all those sections would be omitted.

Noble Lords may well ask which of the disqualification provisions in Part II would therefore remain, as they apply subject to those minor and consequential amendments set out in the schedule. My noble friend has listed them: Section 26, interim disqualification; Section 38, appeal against disqualification; Section 39, suspension of disqualification pending an appeal; Sections 40 and 41, power of appellate courts to suspend disqualification; Section 42, removal of disqualification; Section 43, the rule for determining the end of a period of disqualification; Section 46, combination of disqualification and orders for discharge; and Section 47, supplementary provisions as to disqualification. That concludes Amendment 330.

On Amendment 338, my noble friend says that new Clause 29A(7) introduces new subsections (8) to (12). This amendment would extend the clause to new subsection (12A), forming part of another amendment that I propose to speak to later.

On Amendment 339, the thrust of Clause 106 is to bring cycling offences pretty much into line with those that apply to motor vehicles. However, at present, provision for obligatory disqualification is omitted for the most serious offences, so it may be said that there will be a lacuna in the law—disqualification, with motor vehicles being, inter alia, an added deterrent to offending. Accordingly, the amendment now before the Committee would amend Section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 by prescribing that the period of disqualification for the two most serious offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling will not be less than five years and two years respectively. The other two offences of causing death or serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling, where the culpability is less, will be subject to obligatory disqualification for not less than 12 months. No additional amendment of Section 34 would be required.

The only alteration that would be made by Amendment 340, in respect to the penalties for certain serious cycling offences, is the insertion of references to “obligatory” in column 5 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The expression relates to disqualification. Without it, certain provision in the amendment of Section 34 would be of no effect.

Amendment 342 is my noble friend’s last amendment in this group. He says that it would insert three subsections. He proposes a substitute for new Section 29A(12) to extend the penalties for certain serious cycling offences set out there. The proposed new subsection (12A) would amplify the definition of “disqualified”, and subsection (12B) would introduce proposed new Schedule 11A.

The only amendment that would be made by proposed new subsection (12) is with respect to the penalties for certain other serious cycling offences not catered for in new subsection (11), again with the insertion of the word “obligatory” in column 5 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. As before, the expression relates to a disqualification. It too is necessary if Section 34 is to bite.

Proposed new subsection (12A) addresses the fact that “disqualified”, as currently defined, is couched in terms that at present can apply only to disqualified drivers of “mechanically propelled” vehicles. In other words, “disqualified” is for holding or obtaining a driving licence. That formulation is retained in paragraph (a).

As for the riders of cycles, I am sure noble Lords are well aware that a driving licence is not required for them. Therefore paragraph (b), in relation to them, inserts a different formulation. It redefines “disqualified” as disqualified for riding a cycle

“on a road or other public place”,

the latter expression being in conformity with the same wording in the new cycling offences created by this provision.

Finally, proposed new subsection (12B) would introduce a new Clause 106(11)(a), containing as it does

“minor and consequential amendments of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988”.

That concludes my noble friend’s amendments. If one thought that the debate on the last amendment was highly technical, this one is even more technical. I shall set a test at the end by asking questions to see whether all noble Lords have got it.

I turn now to my own Amendments 337B to 337F. I am certain that the Minister will see that in the Marshalled List there are four groups of amendments tabled by many more Peers than just me who are deeply concerned at the scourge of dangerous cycling inflicting serious damage on pedestrians and aiding criminality. I am sure the Minister saw the news item last week on the Met finally cracking down on the big, heavy, illegal bikes capable of 70 mph that are used for snatching phones. Many of them are driven by food delivery couriers—mainly Deliveroo. I encounter them every night on my way home on the pavements outside Millbank.

We also have the problem of thousands of e-bikes—mainly Lime—lying scattered over our pavements; of companies deliberately selling massive off-road bikes, which people then use on our streets; of some e-bikes being so heavy that they are breaking the legs of users; and of thousands of people riding on our pavements, with grossly inadequate enforcement to stop it.

The penalties under Clause 106 are inadequate and I have suggested increased penalties for anyone convicted, as has my noble friend Lord Lucas. However, I submit that no one will ever be convicted under its subsections, because a conviction depends on someone, presumably a police officer, concluding that the cycling

“falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist”,

and that a competent cyclist would conclude that it was dangerous. Will the Minister tell me how many times the Home Office expects to find a police officer present to witness this behaviour and come to the subjective conclusions in subsections (4) and (6)? We need a simple objective test, as is in my Amendment 337E, which would mean that anyone

“who rides a cycle on any pavement … is to be regarded as cycling without due care and attention”.

I challenge any noble Lord to dispute that. It seems to me pretty obvious that that has to be the case.

My Amendment 337C introduces

“a presumption that it is automatically dangerous cycling if the person is riding a bicycle capable of exceeding the legal 15.5 mph speed limit and weighs more than 30 kilograms”.

Thirty kilograms is a new concept, but it is now essential. A non-electric bike weighs between 8 kilograms and 15 kilograms, and most electric bikes now weigh about 25 kilograms. However, the company Lime has increased the weight of its bikes to 35 kilograms, leading to a phenomenon known as “Lime bike leg”. In August, the Telegraph reported the following, which the BBC also covered:

“I’m a trauma surgeon and treat patients with ‘Lime bike leg’ weekly … It’s a really common cause of leg injuries today”.


Lime bikes are 25kg heavier than normal pedestrian bikes. The report continued:

“Doctors have observed an increase in lower leg injuries caused by heavy e-bike frames falling on their riders”


and breaking their legs.

I fed into a road safety algorithm, “What would be the effect of a 35-kilogram bike with a 70-kilogram man sitting on it hitting a pedestrian at 25 mph?” and the answer was, “Almost certainly in every case: fatal with pretty horrific, catastrophic injuries”. Even at 15.5 mph, the injuries would be life-threatening, and totally fatal in the case of a child. Therefore, we must introduce a weight restriction, as well as strictly enforcing the 15.5 mph speed limit.

Would a “competent and careful cyclist” ever ride a bike on a pavement, or ride a 35-kilogram bike faster than 15.5 mph? Of course not. If someone is riding one of these massive, heavy, fast bikes, we do not need a subjective judgment on the quality of the riding; the criterion for dangerous cycling has been met per se.

My Amendment 337D would add an aggravating factor. It simply makes the point that if an innocent pedestrian is killed by a person using an illegal e-bike capable of going faster than 15.5 miles per hour and weighing more than 30 kilograms, an additional penalty should be applied. I apologise for my typo in the amendment; it says 25 kilograms, but it should be 30 kilograms. I suggest an additional five years, and a minimum of 15 years where a life sentence has been given. This is not for the ordinary cyclist who is reckless but for someone deliberately using a big, heavy, fast, killer bike.

16:30

I strongly support Amendment 346B from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I think it is the current law, but it has to be rigorously enforced, which it is not, and that has to be done by the sellers. We possibly need a rule that no one can sell a so-called off-road bike above the limits in the amendment unless it is registered as a motor vehicle. Then there could be a nominal fee of, say, £5, but at least we would have a record of them at Swansea, along with registration plates and insurance.

The Minister, despite being a very decent and reasonable man, will reject these amendments as technically flawed, which they are, but he knows that the principle of what I have been saying is absolutely right, even if he cannot say so. I suggest that by the time we get to Report, he will need to synthesise these amendments and the other amendments we have coming from noble Lords, combine our different ideas, add in the conclusions from the Home Office consultation, which I think is still out at this moment or may be concluded, and come up with a couple of new clauses to deal with this scourge. He needs to come back with a coherent suite of government amendments. He has two months to do that, and I suspect that, if he does not, not just me but some other noble Lords will wish to come up with their own new clauses, some of which will pass. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to wish my noble friend Lord Lucas a very speedy recovery from his operation. I also thank the Minister and the Home Office for in part adopting my Private Member’s Bill, with which the Minister is very familiar, but they do not go far enough. That is why I have taken the opportunity to table Amendments 341, 343 and 344.

I have asked for a separate debate on Clause 106, because a number of us have had long discussions with the excellent clerks in the Public Bill Office. Although there is a clause in my Private Member’s Bill that relates to insurance—I put on record the concerns of the insurance industry, not least the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, about the lack of insurance provisions in this Bill—I am told that it is not in order to put it in this Bill. I will raise those issues when we discuss Clause 106 standing part.

My Private Member’s Bill is my third attempt at such a Bill. The first attempt was during Covid, when we had no Private Members’ Bills because we were quite rightly busy passing all the regulations for processing Covid at every level. Then another year was missed, but my current Private Member’s Bill still remains on the Order Paper. I still hope that it will be adopted in full before the end of this parliamentary Session.

The genesis of my Private Member’s Bill was the very sad case, with which I am sure the Minister and the Home Office are familiar, of Kim Briggs, who was mown down on a public road by a bike that was completely illegal. It did not have brakes that failed; there were no brakes fitted to it at all. It was designed to be used exclusively on the velodrome for speed trials. Poor Kim Briggs stood no chance at all: she was mown down and killed. I realised when I met Matt Briggs, Kim’s widower, that current laws do not treat road traffic offences the same way as any other incident caused by other motoring offences. That is completely wrong.

A bicycle is not a vehicle, but it can have devastating consequences, as in the case of the death of Kim Briggs and several others. E-bikes, as we have heard, are heavier and go faster. Then, of course, we have e-scooters, which are, in fact, vehicles and are meant to be completely illegal.

My Amendment 343 is taken straight from my Private Member’s Bill. We were promised that there were going to be trials for a period of time—there were going to be pilot schemes to use e-bikes on a rented basis in a number of cities. These trials have gone on and on for ever, and during that time there have been at least six, 10 or a dozen deaths and a number of injuries caused by the misuse of these electric scooters. They are used as delivery vehicles and are used by criminals to steal smartphones and other items—handbags and all sorts—particularly at this time of year.

I would like to understand why—I hope the Minister will agree to do this in summing up this debate—we cannot bring those trials and the pilot schemes to an end, report to both Houses and bring in appropriate legislation. It is meant to be completely illegal to ride—to drive, in fact—an e-scooter in a public place. You are allowed to own them and operate them on private land, which normally means a car park or some other part of your estate. The gist of the amendment is to ensure that the Government will assess whether it is appropriate to legalise the use of privately owned electric scooters in public places in order to regulate their safe use and introduce compulsory insurance. That is where I wish the Government to go.

The cost to the country and to all of us who drive a vehicle is horrendous. It runs into millions every year because there is no means of registering or insuring these e-bikes or, indeed, e-scooters, as I have mentioned. So that is the general thrust of my Amendment 343: to bring these pilots to a halt and, if there is a case for e-scooters to remain, making them legal, whether rented or privately owned, to ensure that they are safe and registered and can be insured. I think that would be a great step forward and much safer indeed.

Amendment 344 asks simply that there should be an annual report on cycling offences. I was almost mown down by a very fast-moving—I have to say younger—woman coming at me at speed on a pavement. Now, unless I am mistaken, it is currently illegal, it is against the Highway Code, to cycle or use an e-scooter or an e-bike on a pavement, but these cyclists are doing so with alacrity. Fortunately, I managed to hop out the way, even with my advanced years. I noticed that there was a police van, and I asked the police whether they had witnessed this incident. They assured me that they had witnessed the incident, but they told me there is a policy of no pursuit of any person who commits road traffic offences, whether in the Highway Code or earlier road traffic offences. The question I would like to ask the Minister and the Committee today is: what are we doing here passing new provisions if the current provisions are simply being flouted and ignored, giving free licence to people who want to ride an e-bike, an e-scooter or a pedal bike on the pavement when it is illegal to do so? I would welcome an answer to that question.

As far as my Private Member’s Bill goes, I am delighted that Clauses 1 and 2 are more or less incorporated in Clause 106 in full, so a big thank you to the Minister for doing that. With Clause 2, I would like to understand why it was considered appropriate to remove the reference to Section 28 of an earlier Act in the earlier subsections of Clause 106.

Amendment 341 would prefer 14 years as an offence for causing death or injury in those circumstances, which is the tariff for other road traffic accidents of that severity. I think that is the intention of the Government, not imprisonment for life. I would welcome the Minister’s consideration of the amendments and my remarks. It is entirely inappropriate that we have laws in existence which are simply being flouted and that the pilot scheme and trials for e-scooters have not been brought to a halt. In tribute to those who died, such as the late Kim Briggs, more needs to be done to ensure that these very serious road traffic offences are finally recognised for their gravity, whether caused by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling and whether resulting in death or serious injury. There should be compulsory insurance and therefore registration going forward.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I will speak to my Amendments 341A to 341D, 342A to 342F, 346A, 346B and 498A, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord McColl, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for adding their names to some of those amendments.

In 2015, 444 pedestrians were injured by cyclists. In 2024, this had increased to 603. Of those, the number of seriously injured rose from 97 to 181, and 25 of the casualties died. These numbers are based on police reporting, so it is clear that they are a minimum. They do not include incidents where the police did not attend a collision or incidents where pedestrians either did not need immediate medical treatment or later attended their GP or a hospital setting without telling the police.

Every day, particularly in our large towns and cities such as London, we see cyclists ignoring traffic regulations and putting people at risk, particularly pedestrians who have a disability or a lack of mobility, even when those same people are using pedestrian crossings. At night many cyclists are not displaying lights, wear dark clothing and ride dark cycles, and pedestrians and other road users just cannot see them.

I do not believe that cyclists are a group of people who are more criminal than the rest of society or than any other road users. However, they are less accountable than people who drive buses and cars, and general deterrence theory does not work for them. General deterrence theory claims that the risk of detection is the most effective deterrent to crime. Drivers of motor cars, lorries and buses know that there is a good chance that their behaviour will be noticed and probably investigated because they will be identified.

This identification process has allowed major strategic road safety measures to take effect. First, the licensing of drivers has allowed drivers to be prohibited from driving by the suspension of their licence. The introduction of automated cameras monitoring traffic speed and regulation has produced mass enforcement at dangerous locations to enhance police enforcement, which had proved inadequate, given the rise in the number of vehicles on the road and the miles of roads available. But these two measures are not available against cyclists. They have no licence or registration mark. This means that not only does the technology not work against them, but they cannot be identified for other road users, and they have no identification mark to offer for an investigator to identify them after they have behaved badly.

My amendments are all designed to remedy that situation. The Government usually respond to my proposals in a few predictable ways. First, they say that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the regulatory costs. I propose that at least 603 people in 2024 would not agree. How can the blatant disregard of our laws, intended to keep us safe, be allowed for cyclists, and why does their right to a healthy life trump the rights of pedestrians to feel safe?

16:45

The second thing that the Government have said before, and have been saying for at least 18 months, is that they are going to produce a road safety strategy in the summer, which will help. We are now in the cold winter, and I am afraid we still have not seen the road safety strategy. More importantly, nothing has been done to encourage cyclists to behave and to keep us all safe.

The last thing the Government usually say—we often hear it here, and we have perhaps heard it a little today—is that we just need the police to enforce the existing law. I agree, but I have already pointed out that most of the deterrence mechanism detection methods do not work for cyclists. There is good work by the enforcement agencies—that is, the police. The best example I have found is in the City of London Police, where Sergeant Stu Ford is leading his small team of cyclists in combating road cyclists. I went out with them, and they are having an effect. On the morning when I went with them, we walked just a few yards out of the police station to set up a morning check in the City. There were cyclists ignoring pedestrian crossings and red lights, and moving dangerously through pedestrians, despite the fact that they were outside a police station and there were six or seven uniformed officers on cycles, on the road and on the pavement. I do not believe that enforcement alone will cut it, but it clearly has to be part of the solution.

My amendments are all about the prevention of casualties and dangerous situations by holding cyclists to account for their bad behaviour. Amendments 341A to 341D and 342A to 342F propose that, when a cyclist commits a road traffic offence and they have a driving licence, penalty points should be added to their driving licence for the offence committed on a cycle, and then, should they achieve enough points, they may be banned from driving where that is appropriate. You could say that that was unfair, given that there are those who do not hold a driving licence. However, 75% of the adult population hold a licence and, of those who do not, many are trying to get one or have ceased driving because of infirmity. Surely the health benefits to pedestrians of such a penalty-point system outweigh the risks involved. In any case, the removal of careless cyclists from driving a motor vehicle is a positive road safety advantage.

Amendments 346A and 498A ask the Government to register cycles and e-bikes in order that they display a registration mark, allowing both witnesses and technological monitoring to identify the rider of the cycle. This would, of course, have costs—costs that the user should pay, just as car drivers do. The costs of registration are relatively low, particularly considering that many e-bikes and top-range cycles cost many thousands of pounds, sometimes in excess of £10,000.

Amendment 346B is about e-bikes. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has mentioned, e-bikes cannot exceed certain limits. They should not be capable of travelling quicker than 15.5 miles per hour or have a power output in excess of 250 watts, and they should have pedals that propel them. Many e-bikes, by simple modifications, ignore all three of those. At the moment, it is implied that, if they ignore those criteria, they could therefore become a motor vehicle, with all the necessary regulation, including insurance, and a rider could then be prosecuted not just for breaching the e-bike rules but for it being a motor vehicle and them breaching all the motor vehicle rules. The City of London has used this rule extensively, but surely this should be not an implied definition but an explicit one, so that when an e-bike breaches the criteria it immediately becomes treated as a motor vehicle.

I was to have a further amendment on a topic that has been mentioned—trying to get insurance for cycles—but I was advised by the clerks, who I respect, that that would be out of scope of the Bill. I do not quite understand that. This is a crime and police Bill and traffic offences on the road are criminal offences, some being so serious that people may be imprisoned or have their licence removed.

Insurance is a benefit for two reasons. The victim of negligent riding may be compensated in a way they presently cannot be. More importantly, insurers manage risk: they make drivers who are more dangerous, and likely to lead to more payouts, pay higher premiums. In that way, they incentivise all of us to reduce the likelihood of a collision or someone getting hurt. Both in absolute terms and as a crime prevention measure in a Bill where the Government argue for extra cycling offences, I struggle to see why an amendment on insurance is out of scope. I accept that the ruling was made, but I would like to come back to it at some stage on Report. I would like to understand better why what I see as a road safety measure cannot be considered within this Bill. And the Government might want to respond to explain why the 603 people who I mentioned earlier are unable to seek an insurance payout as compensation from the person who injured them.

[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.

17:00

A lot of the focus in this very welcome Bill is on trying to address anti-social behaviour. Is it not the case that what we are witnessing on the streets and pavements across this country is itself genuinely anti-social behaviour? If you are an elderly person, infirm or in a wheelchair, you are in danger. You should not be in danger if you are a pedestrian going across a pedestrian crossing, but the majority of cyclists I see every day pay no regard whatever. In fact, they use the green light coming on for a pedestrian as a sign that there will be no vehicles coming; therefore, it gives them a green light to go through with impunity. This is happening; we cannot pretend it is not. The Government have taken a very close look at anti-social behaviour and ways to address it, and it would be a very good idea to use the same approach to what is happening on our streets and pavements.

Trying to catch people is a problem. However, the e-bikes that we see around London—Lime, Forest and the others—all have a tracking mechanism that enables the owners of those bikes to know exactly what their location is, 24 hours a day. If there were cameras at major junctions, you could observe individuals going through with impunity and breaking the law. From the data and by tracking those cycles, you would have a high degree of probability of being able to identify the people, particularly the repeat offenders, and to apprehend them.

I leave it there. What is going on is clearly unacceptable. It irritates large numbers of people, whatever their political persuasion. It unfairly bears down on those who are older and less able to look after themselves as they go about their business. What we have heard today is a collective frustrated cry for somebody to do something about it. I just hope that we will not be having a similar discussion in five years.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I support the thrust of a number of the amendments that appear in this very broad group. Undoubtedly, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, told us, we have a significant problem, particularly in London. My own anecdotal experience is of cyclists and e-cyclists totally flouting the law, riding on the pavement and riding the wrong way down one-way streets. This is particularly prevalent among delivery riders.

I tend to walk around London—probably a couple of miles a day; most days around the West End and to and fro your Lordships’ House—and I can confidently say that I have never once seen a cyclist or an e-cyclist stopped for any very overt offences. The noble Lord suggests that he has been stopped.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I thought the noble Viscount was going to say “red light”.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

Perhaps so. It is not a question of having ineffective enforcement; I would say that we have no enforcement whatever—at least none that I have ever seen. If you have a law that is not enforced at all and is defined by people ignoring it, you have a serious problem. We should not be making additional laws on the subject if we do not have a high degree of confidence that they will be enforced, or else we are wasting everybody’s time here.

I invite the Minister, in the context of all the amendments in this big group, to give us a broad overview of what the Government are going to do about enforcement. I know there are other amendments later also talking about enforcement, but unless he can convince us about that, I suggest that there is not much point to many of the provisions in this part of the Bill.

I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, with whom I agree on many aspects of this and other Bills, knocks the ball into the Government’s court to come up with a registration scheme for cycles. This causes me some reflection. I think it would be extremely difficult to do and would be a very large step indeed, so my preference would be for more enforcement—in essence, people being stopped for those offences—rather than the amount of complication that such a scheme would generate. Children riding cycles on their way to school, for example, cannot have points because they do not have licences. I can imagine any number of unintended consequences. However, we need to do something, and if it is a licensing scheme for the heavier, faster e-bikes, maybe that is what has to happen, and I think the Government need to grasp that.

I was very taken with my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 337E. Stating for the avoidance of doubt that if you cycle on a pavement, you are by definition cycling without due care and attention seems eminently sensible, just to make the law a bit clearer. Amendment 346B on e-bikes in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is very important. I should declare an interest in that I have a mountain bike and an e-bike. I have two, as it happens, and I use them occasionally—not at the same time, I have to say; that would be too difficult.

People who want to move around London quickly have a choice. Either they buy a motorcycle and pass a complicated series of tests to get that motorcycle licence—if they go for the full licence; it is a lesser standard for smaller machines. They need to tax the vehicle; they need to insure it; and they need an MoT if it is of that age. Or they could ignore all that and get an illegal electric cycle with comparable performance to a moped, and no one seems to be stopping them, as far as I can see. They have no insurance, no tax, no registration and, happy days, no one is stopping them for any offences whatever.

There are, of course, proper electric motorbikes where you have to wear a helmet, have a registration and so forth—indeed, I think there are a few Peers who come to your Lordships’ House on such machines. We have a very broad spectrum, but at the moment a lot of people, particularly delivery drivers, are riding vehicles that are not being pedalled; they are just pushing an electric throttle, in essence. These are obviously illegal: even as an amateur, I can see that a policeman would have every right to stop them and impound that vehicle, so I think we have to make that clearer. I think by 15.5 miles an hour, we mean a maximum powered speed, because of course if you head downhill, you will go much faster, as with a conventional cycle. However, I think we have to say, for the avoidance of doubt, “That is a motorcycle”, if it does not meet the criteria, “and if you ride that without tax, registration, insurance and so forth, you are committing a series of significant offences, and you will be arrested and prosecuted for such”.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not being in my seat when my noble friend Lord Blencathra began his remarks on Amendment 330. I am very grateful to the Government Whip for taking into account the rather pathetic speed with which I can get from the Library to the Chamber. I thank him for that.

At 429 pages in length, with 16 parts, 21 schedules and 159 pages of amendments, this Bill is truly a legislative Christmas tree. I am worried it is about to topple on the Minister, which would not be very festive. I will therefore keep my remarks disproportionately brief and save the bulk of them for my related amendment, Amendment 346C, which is due to be considered later in group 9.

However, I thank those noble Lords who tabled these important amendments on dangerous, careless and inconsiderate cycling. In my view, they are pure common sense. I would say that we are reinventing the wheel in ensuring public safety on our roads and pavements, but I am not sure we have progressed that far, such is the scale of the anarchy that currently plagues our streets. We have, as we have heard, so much to do to reverse it.

The worst thing is that the situation we find ourselves in is entirely self-inflicted, predictable and even logical. Our response needs to be equally as logical. That is why I support these amendments; they point a practical way forward in the struggle—and there is no denying this is a struggle—against the very real threat posed by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, especially to anyone with a mobility, visual or hearing impairment.

In conclusion, I welcome these amendments, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, most of what I wanted to cover has already been spoken to, so I have very little to add. I did, however, want to pick up on a couple of points the noble Lord, Lord Russell, covered. For me, this is about disorder. There is a sense of unfairness for a lot of people that if you are a driver, you are subject to a huge number of restrictions—especially in London, with tighter-than-ever speed limits—and yet cyclists ride along in a way that seems to be flouting the laws of the road.

I will also pick up on something my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady McIntosh covered about the length of the trials that go on for e-scooters. I believe the same can be said for the seemingly never-ending approach to the consultation on pedicabs. We legislated for pedicabs to be subject to regulations 18 months ago, and it took us years to do that. TfL has done one consultation, has just completed another and it will be 2026 before regulations for pedicabs are in place. The length of time it takes for us to actually do anything which is seemingly common sense adds to people’s sense of frustration and disappointment that things that should not be happening are allowed to happen just because there is no simple enforcement.

The other thing I want to add is about delivery bikes. Often, they are the worst perpetrators of cycling on pavements, going through red lights and cycling at speed. We know they are doing this because there is a commercial imperative for them to act in that way.

Rather curiously, I was approached recently by one of the big digital delivery service businesses. It is concerned that the new provisions for additional protection against assault for retail workers do not apply to its delivery drivers. I am not advocating for what it is asking for, but, as I said to this particular company in reply to its email to me, my question to the company is: what is it doing as a business to make sure that its delivery drivers actually obey the law and do not drive in an anti-social way, on pavements, and so on?

17:15

I want to ask the Minister about the conversations and contact he is having with various organisations that are no doubt continuing to lobby him for more protection for their workers—we will come back to that some other time; the Minister has agreed to meet me and I am looking forward to that. These firms which employ people to deliver on these bikes need to comply with the law. They should make sure that this happens, if nobody else does.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. Many of the amendments seem to be shaped by individuals’ bugbears that they experience a lot on the streets of London. This group of amendments looks to increase penalties for dangerous cycling and raises other issues regarding cycling and scootering which cause danger to others. I welcome some of the amendments; they have raised interesting points.

The Bill sees cycling offences updated and brought in line with driving offences. I will give some context to the debate today. It should be remembered that, according to figures released by the Department for Transport in September, in 2024, 82 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, while 3,822 were reported to be seriously injured and 10,645 slightly injured. Going further, in the latest DfT accredited official statistics, published on 25 September, its pedestrian fact sheet shows that nine pedestrians were killed and 738 seriously injured by one pedal cycle. Let us compare this to the 1,047 pedestrians killed by one car, and the 19,241 seriously injured. Clearly, any death or serious injury on our roads is one too many, but it is important that, as we debate this legislation, we understand the full picture.

We on these Benches support a proportionate and evidence-based approach to updating the law, where any changes do not discourage people from cycling, which we believe is an important mode of sustainable transport. However, as we have heard in this debate, we have seen a rise in fast food deliveries by e-bikes and e-scooters, and in micromobility sharing schemes. They have become like an explosion across our cities. Time is literally money for all of these riders—those delivering food are being paid per minute to use these bikes or scooters. Therefore, riders take risks. They break the Highway Code, moving at high speeds across pavements and roads, as we have heard, putting themselves and others at risk. We want to see an end to this danger on our roads.

I am intrigued by the discussion on the e-scooter trials, which have gone on a long time. Let us be clear: they were extended five times by the previous Government. They started in 2020 and have now been extended to May 2028. It is clear that this has been going on under two different parties in government.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, look to tackle the issue of dangerous cycling through the disqualification of a person from cycling. While at first glance this may appeal, in reality it would pose significant challenges with regard to enforcement, as cyclists, as we have heard, do not require licences. It is very unlikely that a person disqualified from cycling who decides to ignore that disqualification would be caught and convicted.

Logically, the only potential way to address this would be to introduce a licensing system for cyclists, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, proposes in Amendment 346A, where he has set out his thinking in detail. However, that is likely to be complicated, costly and disproportionate. In contrast, the noble Lord’s other amendments—seeking to add 12 points to a person’s driving licence for dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling that causes serious injury or death—seem more sensible and a reasonable way forward, which would give a greater range of options for the judge in such cases. We agree that this would be far more manageable than trying to bring in a national licensing scheme for all cyclists and cycles. Given that 84% of people aged 18 years or over who cycle hold a driving licence, according to the latest Cycling UK report, this could be an effective penalty.

Amendment 337F, from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, looks to define a “cycle” as including a pedal cycle, an e-bike and an electric scooter. Given the rise in different types of micromobility, we believe that this is a reasonable amendment to try to cover all types of cycles that can cause injury, as they may otherwise fall through a loophole.

Amendment 346B, from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, seeking to clarify the definition of e-bikes and motorbikes, looks reasonable—certainly on an initial reading—but we would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on it. Are there any practical reasons that could make this difficult? We have sympathy with its aims, but we look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

The other amendments in this group are clearly looking to tighten up further the law on dangerous, careless and inconsiderate cycling. Some, such as Amendment 341, from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, look to change the penalties for causing death by dangerous cycling. We do not believe that these amendments are needed and we do not support them. However, it is important that road traffic law is enforced with equal vigour for cyclists and all road users, to secure everyone’s safety. One of the challenges not covered in the Bill or in our discussions today—it is the elephant in the room—is the limited number of road traffic police officers across the country and the clear need to invest in this part of the police workforce.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the many important points that have been raised by noble Lords today, to see how we can ensure that our streets are safer for all road users.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this important group of amendments.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I believe that the data provides an important context to this area. In 2023, there were four pedestrian fatalities and 185 serious injuries where a pedestrian was hit by a cyclist. Over the past decade, the average number of pedestrians killed annually by a cyclist has been three per year. On the roads more widely, in 2023, there were 87 pedal cyclist fatalities in Great Britain, with almost 4,000 people seriously injured and a further 10,000 classed as slightly injured. The most recent data from 2024 shows that fatalities from pedal cycles fell to 82 but serious injuries remained significant, even as overall pedal cycle traffic increased.

Moreover, as the Government recognise, the current maximum penalties for dangerous or careless cycling—a fine of up to £2,500 for dangerous cycling or £1,000 for careless cycling—are plainly inadequate to reflect the severity of incidents that result in serious injury or death. I therefore welcome that the Bill introduces the new offences of causing death by dangerous cycling, punishable with up to life imprisonment, and of causing serious injury by dangerous cycling, punishable with up to 5 years’ imprisonment. Those are severe sentences, but rightly so. In my view, they are reasonable and proportionate measures.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh spoke to her Amendment 341, which would remove the life sentence from the causing-death offence and replace it with 14 years’ imprisonment. With all due respect to her, I believe that, on this occasion, the Government have got the maximum penalty right. The penalties for the new cycling offences exactly mirror the penalties for causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Causing death by dangerous cycling is just as serious as causing death by dangerous driving. As such, it is entirely appropriate for the punishments to be the same. However, we must do more.

While cyclists are required to abide by the Highway Code and other relevant traffic legislation, we know that far too many do not. We have heard many descriptions from across your Lordships’ House this evening of the conduct of cyclists in London and elsewhere. One only has to walk down Whitehall and over Lambeth Bridge to witness the appalling conduct of a number of cyclists. We heard from my noble friend Lady McIntosh about her own experience, from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.

All too often, cyclists jump red lights, and they fail to stop at pedestrian crossings. While we rightly take injuries and death caused by cycling very seriously, the far greater problem is the general nuisance caused by cyclists who do not abide by the rules of the road. We currently hold drivers to a far higher standard than we do cyclists, and, quite frankly, enforcement needs to catch up.

This is even truer with regard to electric cycles. My Amendment 346 would create a new offence of altering the maximum speed and the rate of acceleration of an electric bike. Currently, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to, an electrically assisted pedal cycle is defined by 2015 regulations as being a bike with a maximum speed of 15.5 miles per hour and having an electric motor not exceeding 250 watts of continuously rated power output. Any bike with a maximum speed above that should be classed as a motorbike for the purposes of road traffic policing. In this regard, I agree entirely with Amendments 337F and 346B tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, respectively. The Bill as drafted focuses on cycles but does not explicitly include electrically assisted pedal bikes—e-bikes—or e-scooters. That legal ambiguity could quickly be exploited. Amendment 337F seeks to ensure that there is no loophole. Amendment 346B in the name of noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, seeks to make absolutely clear that where an electric bike is capable of exceeding 15.5 miles per hour, it should be treated as a moped or motorbike for policing purposes.

These amendments complement the new offence that I am proposing through my amendment. By placing penalties and sanctions on those who might try to modify their electric bikes to increase the speed above the limit, we give the police the necessary enforcement powers to prevent anti-social and reckless cycling that places pedestrians in harm’s way. Many modern e-bikes are heavy, fast and capable of inflicting severe harm, especially if ridden irresponsibly on pavements or in pedestrian zones. To treat such vehicles as equivalent to push bikes would be to ignore both the mechanics and the risks.

On Amendment 337E, I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Pavements are designated for pedestrians. Cyclists riding on pavements or in pedestrian-only areas pose a clear danger to the most vulnerable. By making it explicit that cycling on a pavement or in another pedestrian-only area counts as

“cycling without due care and attention”,

the amendment eliminates the ambiguity that currently hampers consistent enforcement. It is another aspect of a cyclist’s behaviour that should not occur but is all too often the norm. It reflects a simple principle of equity. Where a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle on the road, the driver of such a vehicle may be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving. A pedestrian hit by a cyclist on the pavement deserves to be treated with no less seriousness.

I also support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, relating to putting penalty points on driving licences for serious offences. That recognises the true severity of such offences. Misconduct on a bike should impact the standing of those with driving licences, especially where the behaviour demonstrates a disregard for road and pedestrian safety. On all these amendments, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

17:30

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems an awful long time since my cycling proficiency test. We can debate whether standards have slipped in the 50-plus years since I took my test, but I think it is a common experience of all noble Lords who have spoken that a small minority of cyclists’ reckless actions potentially put people at risk. As a temporary resident of London during the week, I regularly see cyclists on pavements and going through red lights. I can report that, on crossing a zebra crossing one evening, I myself was almost hit by a cyclist, who was then pulled over by a police car not 100 metres later, much to my satisfaction. So it is possible for enforcement to happen.

I want to start with enforcement, because it is a thread that has run through a number of noble Lords’ contributions. It is right that strict legislation is already in place for cyclists, and the police do have the power to prosecute if these laws are broken. Cyclists have a duty to behave in a safe and responsible way that is reflected in the highway code. The Road Traffic Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned, imposes a fine of £2,500 for dangerous cycling and of £1,000 for careless cycling. The Road Traffic Act 1988 also makes it an offence to ride a bike if a person is unfit to do so due to drink or drugs. A considerable amount of activity is undertaken by the police to enforce these potential breaches of legislation. In fact, the Government themselves have pledged £2.7 million for each of the next three years to support police enforcement action on road traffic offences in the form of Operation Topaz, which is a strategic partnership between the Department for Transport, the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council.

I was pleased also to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about the City of London Police, who I know have taken this matter extremely seriously. They have cycling police officers who can catch offenders who have gone off-road into areas where vehicles or police officers on foot could not catch them, so it is important we recognise that. We have had contributions today from the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Hogan-Howe, and Lord Blencathra, who introduced amendments on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We have also heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Pidgeon and Lady McIntosh of Pickering. All have touched on the issues of enforcement and whether the legislation is significant enough.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to Clause 106, which is where these amendments are coming from. Clause 106 underlines the Government’s determination that cyclists who cause death or serious injury should face the full force of the law, as if that were done by a motor vehicle. The criminal justice system should not fail fully to hold to account the small minority of cyclists whose reckless actions lead to tragic consequences. A number of contributors to the debate have mentioned their personal experiences and have also witnessed incidents. There is a whole cohort of cyclists who obey the law and who perform well, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, would anticipate me saying, there is a health benefit to cycling that should be recognised and encouraged. However, there is certainly a holding to account of death and serious injury, and that is where the Government are coming from as a starting point to the debate today.

A wide group of amendments has been put forward, and I will try to touch on each amendment in turn. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I spoke to him before he went on his short, I hope, leave of absence from the House and discussed these amendments with him briefly. I wish him well for his speedy recovery and thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for introducing the amendments on his behalf.

Amendments 330, 338, 339, 340 and 342 would allow persons to be disqualified from cycling upon conviction of any of the offences in Clause 106. Again, let us not forget that Clause 106 contains the penalty of significant jail time, and potentially a life sentence with significant jail time added to it. I agree that dangerous or careless cyclists are a serious risk to others, but disqualification would pose significant challenges. This may touch on other, later amendments, but self-evidently, cyclists are not currently required to have licences, and the only obvious way to address this would be to introduce a licensing system. However, such a system would be complicated, costly and, I would argue, potentially disproportionate, in that it would be created solely to enforce offences perpetrated by a small minority of people. Again, I do not think the noble Lord intended his amendment to serve as a barrier to cycling, but my concern is that it would risk implementation of this and would not really be workable.

In his own right, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, introduced Amendments 337B and 337F. Again, these would introduce greater criminal penalties for cyclists riding heavier, faster e-bikes. I do understand that, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, it is e-bikes that have been illegally modified for greater speed that represent an inherently greater risk to other road users. There is no longer any weight limit, following enactment of the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983, but they do specify that the electrically assisted speed for e-bikes is limited to 15.5 miles per hour. E-bikes that can achieve greater speeds would not be compliant with these regulations and therefore would be classed as motor vehicles. Because they are motor vehicles, a person using such could already be prosecuted under the existing offences in the Road Traffic Act 1988 of causing death or serious injury, which carry the same penalties as proposed in the new cycling offences: a life sentence with a 14-year potential sentence.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Just for clarification, the Minister said that they will be classed as motor vehicles. Does that mean they are still motor vehicles, even though they might not be registered or insured?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

They are classed as motor vehicles for the purposes of the legislation if they can travel above 15.5 miles per hour; but they are not, self-evidently, for the reasons I have already outlined, subject to the licensing arrangements that we have to date.

Mandatory uplifts based on specific vehicle type would be a novel but also an inconsistent approach to sentencing. Sentencing should always reflect the facts of the case and the level of culpability. Introducing rigid statutory additions could undermine the principle of proportionality, create inconsistency and risk setting an undesirable precedent. On the noble Lord’s amendments on changing the “careless and inconsiderate” cycling definition, I understand his desire to put beyond doubt that cycling on a pavement or in an area intended only for pedestrians should be considered as cycling without due care and attention. However, cycling on pavements is already an offence in its own right, as set out in Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, which is an awfully long time ago and has stood the test of time. It is also an offence under Section 129 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Given that these offences are still in place, I would suggest that, along with those in the Bill for serious offences, that provides a sufficient deterrent.

Amendment 337F would insert the definition of a cycle. Again, I come back to Section 192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which already defines cycles, and this definition includes compliant electrically assisted pedal cycles. As I said earlier, an e-bike that does not comply with the relevant legislation is a motor vehicle for the purposes of the legislation, not a cycle.

I turn to a series of amendments—341A to 341D, 342A to 342F, 346A, 346B and 498A—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, which propose that a person could receive up to 12 points on their driving licence upon conviction of any of the offences in Clause 106. Reaching 12 points on their driving licence would, of course, disqualify them from driving a motor vehicle.

As I have mentioned already, cyclists do not require any form of licence to cycle, therefore the noble Lord proposes points on a driving licence as an alternative penalty. In the Sentencing Bill, which is currently before your Lordships’ House, there is already a new driving prohibition requirement that the court can impose when giving a community or suspended sentence order. This prohibition will allow a court to take a more flexible and tailored approach to punishment than a driving disqualification, and it will be available irrespective of the offence that has been committed. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that the provision in the Sentencing Bill goes some way towards meeting his objective.

The noble Lord’s Amendments 346A and 498A seek to create a registration scheme for the purposes of enforcing the new offences in Clause 106—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, on the point about the prohibition that might come from the Sentencing Bill, is the danger that unless the sentencing guidelines shift to reflect that new piece of legislation, you will end up with a very inconsistent approach in at least 43 police force areas as applied by the magistrates in those areas? If it is just a random event, they might lose their driving licence because of anti-social behaviour, some of which might be on a cycle. I understand the principal point that the Minister makes but I am not convinced that it will lead to a radical change in the way that cyclists are called to account through their driving licence.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is ultimately for the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for the Sentencing Bill, to look at sentencing guideline issues later. I cannot give assurances on those points today. However, the Sentencing Bill is currently before this House and it is trying to look at those issues as a whole. When it is law, my noble friend Lady Levitt and others will look at guidelines and those potential enforcement issues as a matter of some urgency. The Sentencing Bill proposes, in some way, one of the issues that the noble Lord seeks to achieve.

Again, self-evidently, a registration scheme for cycles would make enforcement of offences easier. The absence of a registration scheme does not make enforcement impossible. As the noble Lord will know, the police would be expected to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry that are open to them by examining other evidence before them at the time of any potential incident.

As with the example of licensing for cyclists that I referred to earlier, the House must accept that the likely significant cost and complexity of introducing a registration scheme for cyclists would mean, for example—this was mentioned in one of the contributions today—that all cycle owners, including children and those making new purchases, would have to submit their information to a central database. That central database would be required to keep the information and the ownership up to date, and some form of registration plate would need to be affixed to a cycle. To give the noble Lord one statistic, the Bicycle Association has estimated that nearly 1.5 million new cycles were sold in 2024. That is a big undertaking. I know that the noble Lord understands that, but the enforceability of the existing legislation is the key, and the work that we are doing, which I have opened my remarks with, would be key to that and would counterbalance the potential cost to the public purse of establishing the registration scheme.

Amendment 346B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, seeks for e-bikes, which are currently faster and more powerful, to be treated as motorbikes or mopeds for policing purposes. The Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 mean that e-bikes which do not comply with existing regulations will be treated as motor vehicles for policing purposes. The Department for Transport, which has overall responsibility for these areas, has published fact sheets explaining that e-bikes which do not comply with regulations will be treated as motor vehicles.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has tabled Amendments 341, 343 and 344, which seek to reduce the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from life imprisonment to 14 years’ imprisonment. We have taken the view—I am pleased with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on this—that the offences in the Bill bring into line this behaviour so that it is subject to maximum penalties equivalent to those already in place for dangerous driving offences, which is life imprisonment.

17:45

On Amendment 343, I agree with the many sentiments in the House. We must crack down on e-scooters being used in an irresponsible and anti-social way. There are mechanisms whereby the new transport technology must work for everyone. However, I do not believe that after five years of running e-scooter trials, the Government should tackle that issue by imposing further duties to review the problem. The Department for Transport has already announced that the Government will pursue legislative reform for micromobility vehicles when parliamentary time allows. I cannot give the House an indication of when that will be, but the Department for Transport has indicated that it will do so and publicly consult before any new regulations come into force.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The Minister referred in a debate last week to a Bill currently before the House with micromobility provisions. It would be interesting to know whether the consultation has already taken place before that aspect of the Bill. I am sure that it is in his notes, but I cannot for the life of me remember what Bill it was. Also, the amount of funding from the Home Office that the department has announced is an operational matter. It is very welcome, but how will he ensure that each individual force such as the Met will use that money and implement enforcement?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There are operational issues. We put the money into Operation Topaz for all police forces to examine them, and ultimately it is for the forces to determine. The City of London Police has determined who is a problem in the City of London. There is a strong argument for parts of the country to face further enforcement measures because self-evidently there are problems. There will be public consultation before any new regulations come into force. It is a Department for Transport matter, so I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to reflect on that with regard to when the consultation is. I will get back to her as a matter of course.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 344 seeks to require reporting annually on cycling offences. We already publish annual statistics on those killed and seriously injured—in fact, a number of noble Lords and Ladies have quoted those in the debate today. Therefore, I suggest that this is already covered.

Amendment 346, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to make it an offence to tamper with an e-bike. I accept that some people may well tamper with or modify their e-bikes to increase their speed, but as I already mentioned, this is already an offence under Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Should the police issue a fixed penalty notice, this would result in a £300 fine and six penalty points, and should the case go to court, it could result in an unlimited fine and driving disqualification.

I have tried to cover a number of points; I apologise for not referring individually to every point made by every noble Lord. The broad thrust is that there is a problem—we recognise that. There should be enforcement—we are trying to address that. There is a new measure in the Bill, Clause 106, to increase the level of penalty for causing death and serious injury by dangerous cycling. We recognise that and I welcome the support of the House. A range of discussion points and measures have been brought forward today around lifting, increasing or changing the penalties accordingly. We may well revisit those on Report, but the Government are right in recognising the problem, putting some money into enforcement and making dangerous cycling and causing death by cycling further offences with serious consequences.

I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw and not to press his amendments on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am sorry that I could not be here at the beginning of this group. My noble friend has given a very encouraging response to the many amendments—

[Lord in waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has gone over time, but in any case the noble Lord needed to be here at the start of the group to be able to intervene during the debate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful. This Minister would not have gone over time had he not given way, but he now has gone over time and so will sit down. I commend the course of action that I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his decency in replying as fully as he possibly could. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that there are many more groups to go on cycling, and I think he will have a chance of input there.

The general thrust that the Minister detected is one thing, but, if I may say so, my forecast was right. I said at the beginning that the general thrust I would detect was that Peers from all sides would be highly critical that not enough is being done. Clause 106 is okay as far as it goes, but there is a much wider problem out there, as articulated by nine other Peers from all sides, in addition to me. My noble friends LadyMcIntosh of Pickering and Lady Stowell asked why this never-ending consultation is taking place. Someone said that, as this is a Home Office Bill, why does it not just get on with it? It may be a Home Office Bill, but it is the Department for Transport’s policy, and that is where the rot lies.

Those who criticised the last Government were absolutely right to do so. I condemn in no uncertain terms the Department for Transport under the leadership from 2019 to 2022 of Mr Grant Shapps, who was obsessed with getting more and more e-bikes and e-scooters on the road. The reason the consultations were extended was, in my view, and in what was tipped off to me, that he wanted to get so many more e-bikes out there that it would be impossible to pull back on them. It is like the police saying that everybody is shoplifting and so there is nothing they can do about it. Mr Shapps wanted to say, “Everyone has got e-bikes now, so we cannot put in a registration system and we cannot control them”.

If noble Lords want further evidence of the Department for Transport’s attitude, in February 2024 it went out to consultation again. The consultation was to double the size of the electric motor from 250 watts to 500 watts and to introduce an additional speeding system. There were 2,100 responses; the vast majority of professionals—police forces and others—totally condemned it, and the Department for Transport had to pull that back, and rightly so. But mark my words, it will try it on again and again.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made a very good point: why should cyclists have a right to a healthy life but not the pedestrians who are getting mowed down? He tabled some good amendments that would be excellent. He made the point that although everyone has called for more enforcement, you cannot have more enforcement if you do not know the bike and the identity of the person riding it.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made the point that the amendments just do not go far enough. She used the term Wild West. I assume she was quoting the press release—I have it here—from the Mayor of London, Mr Sadiq Khan, who said that very thing last month: London is now a Wild West for e-bikes.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, made an absolutely excellent speech, and I commend him for it. He is right to say that we have boosted cycling, which is a good thing, but have not boosted the safety protocols. He is right about cyclists jumping red lights. You do not have to go far to see that; go to our prison gates at the Peers’ entrance and stand there and look at the pedestrian crossing and the lights. Last week, when the lights changed to red for the cars, I was halfway across when a cyclist tried to come through. I stopped and said: “Get back! Get back!” He did actually stop and move back a bit. That happens all the time. They use the red lights as an excuse; when cars stop, the cyclists belt through.

My noble friend Lord Goschen made the point that there is no enforcement at all. He wondered why anyone would bother to buy a moped or a small motorbike, when you have to have an MOT and insurance and pass a test, when they can buy an e-bike which goes 70 miles an hour and does everything you want, and you do not have to do anything to register or insure it, and no one will stop you when you break the law.

My noble friend Lord Shinkwin made the comment, rightly so, that there is a threat to disabled people. I am glad the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, welcomed my definition of cycles. It is possible that that was the only thing she agreed with me on, but I will take any little crumbs of comfort. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel supported most of my amendments, as I fully support his. I did ask for tougher penalties, but I am now content that the penalties are okay.

The Minister, in his speech, which was as courteous as usual, said that only a small minority break the law. He is right, I think, when that applies to the conventional cyclists and not e-bikes. In the past, it was my experience that it was a tiny minority of Lycra louts—the ones with their heads down between the handlebars and their backsides up in the air, belting through lights. I submit that I am certain that the majority of e-bike riders are breaking the law one way or another, either by excessive speed or by riding through lights or on the pavement. I can say with absolute certainty that 100% of the food delivery drivers are breaking the law, but more of that in another group. I disagree with the Minister that we cannot have a simple presumption that if people are riding a bike on the pavement then it is automatically, per se, and without any other judgment needed, seen as driving without due care and attention.

I simply say this again. I always come in with slightly more trenchant views than many other colleagues in the House, but we have had support today from colleagues with much more moderate amendments than mine. I am fairly certain we will see that when we come to the other groups. The Minister has to go back to the Department for Transport and tell it to get off its high horse and on to its bike. We must have proper amendments to toughen up the law and deal with all the other abuses of e-bikes, particularly in London. In those circumstances, on the assumption that we will be doing more work on this, I beg leave to withdraw my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 330.

Amendment 330 withdrawn.

Clause 97: Stalking protection orders on acquittal etc

Amendment 330A

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

330A: Clause 97, page 122, line 31, at end insert—
“(b) in subsection (1) at the beginning insert “Subsection to subsection (1A),”;(c) after subsection (1), insert—“(1A) The court may only make a stalking protection order against a defendant if conditions A and B are met—(a) condition A is that the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant has engaged in stalking behaviour towards a person; (b) condition B is that the order is necessary and proportionate to protect that person from stalking, or the risk of stalking, carried out by the defendant.”.”

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 330A, I will speak to Amendment 330B, tabled in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and to Amendments 330AZA and 356E, tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. In doing so, I welcome this weekend’s announcements that were part of the Government’s strategy to halve violence against women and girls in the next 10 years, and I look forward to the publication of the strategy later this week.

We owe much to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for her 2019 stalking Bill that created stalking protection orders—SPOs—which were introduced in January 2020. The Government have recognised that the SPO process is in need of reform. Strengthening the use of SPOs was a manifesto commitment within their plan to have violence against women and girls over the next decade. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services’ response to the stalking super-complaint highlighted the need to change the legal framework for SPOs and align them more closely to orders available in domestic abuse cases. The amendments in this group seek to reform SPOs to ensure the victims of stalking are swiftly protected from further harm.

Amendment 330A seeks to clarify the evidential threshold for obtaining an SPO, to bring this in line with domestic abuse protection orders—DAPOs—and so ensure swifter and less onerous access to these protective orders. The Stalking Protection Act 2019 provides that the magistrates’ court may make an SPO if it is satisfied that the offender has carried out acts associated with stalking. However, the legislation does not explicitly state the evidential standard to be applied. This lack of clarity can lead to inconsistent interpretation and application across police forces and courts in England and Wales. In practice, some courts have applied the criminal standard of proof when determining whether the conditions for an SPO are met. This approach means that police forces need to gather evidence similar to that required for a full criminal prosecution in order to secure an SPO. Consequently, victims face significant delays in obtaining protection, leaving them at risk.

For example, a woman called Juliana experienced online harassment, criminal damage and vexatious complaints to her employer by her stalker. She reported it to the police, and her perpetrator was arrested. While an SPO was considered throughout the investigation, there was slow progress made by the police to submit her application. Multiple witness statements were obtained to support her SPO and legal services within the police were contacted. Seven months later, Juliana is still awaiting a court date for the hearing. Due to the time elapsed, she is concerned that her perpetrator will soon be let out on bail and she will have no protective measures in place. By contrast, under Section 32 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, a court may issue a DAPO on the civil standard of proof. This lower evidential threshold allows for swifter intervention and the earlier safeguarding of victims.

According to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, approximately half of stalking victims do not have a prior relationship with the offender, which means that there is a disparity in protection between the victims who qualify for a DAPO, who have a relationship with the offender, and those who must rely on an SPO. Given that stalking related to domestic abuse and stalking not related to domestic abuse have comparable impacts on victims, I suggest that the threshold should be consistent for both types of protective order.

18:00

Amendment 330B would introduce stalking protection notices, or SPNs, to provide an immediate safeguard to prevent unwanted contact or communication from a perpetrator until a full SPO is obtained, thus mirroring domestic abuse protection notices or DAPNs. In instances where a stalking victim is in a relationship with an offender, a DAPN can be authorised on the day of the offence by a police superintendent. These notices last for 48 hours, after which time there must be a full application heard in court. This window of time puts the suspect on notice before a case is heard, when the police will seek to have a full domestic abuse protection order imposed.

In cases where the stalker has been in a relationship with a victim, police must instead pursue an SPO, which is a significantly slower process. Officers must first gather evidence to support an SPO application and serve the offender with papers to notify them that an application has been made against him. The offender is then given 21 days to respond before a court date for an SPO hearing can be scheduled. Unlike DAPNs, which have a fixed 48-hour duration before they must be brought before a court and converted into a full DAPO, the SPO has no statutory timeframe for when an application must be heard. As a result, there is often little urgency to progress these cases, and delays are common due to scheduling difficulties between police, legal services and the magistrates’ court.

We often hear of victims waiting for months for their application to be heard in court, despite the immediate risks that stalking presents to victims. Introducing an SPN would streamline the process of obtaining an SPO and ensure that it is in line with the timescales of DAPOs and DAPNs, giving victims of stalking parity with victims of domestic abuse.

I stress that the introduction of SPNs is about early rapid intervention for victims and they are not a replacement for SPOs. A senior officer could immediately issue an SPN for the victim, establishing a legally enforceable framework that empowers police to proactively manage risk, impose restrictions on the offender’s behaviour and ensure consequences for any breach by the respondent. Following this, the application for a full SPO would be put before a magistrates’ court for judicial oversight.

The London Stalking Review found that, in London, SPOs were obtained in just 1.4% of stalking cases. Introducing SPNs would not only deliver immediate protection but encourage greater police use of these vital orders, ensuring that victims receive the swift, consistent safeguarding that they need.

Amendments 330AZA and 356E have very similar wording, but the former pertains to stalking protection orders and the latter to domestic abuse protection orders. They result from cases of survivors and campaigners that were brought to the attention of my colleague Kirith Entwistle MP, but too late for her to table amendments in the House of Commons. We have had many debates on the rapid advance of technology, and proposed new subsections (2)(b) of Amendment 330AZA and (2)(e) of Amendment 356E seek to prevent perpetrators leaving digital footprints that are visible to victims and thus would protect victims from the fear of what their perpetrator might do next.

One victim, Iman, told me of her experience. Her perpetrator was given a restraining order that stated, among other things, that the defendant must not contact the victim

“either directly or indirectly in any way including by telephone, text, or social media platforms”.

I quote from the victim:

“17 months into the making of this order, the defendant viewed my LinkedIn profile, leaving a notification for me, and terrifying me. It was decided by the police that the Offender’s actions did NOT amount to a breach/arrestable offence, as the offender hadn’t contacted me himself, that LinkedIn (rather than the offender) had notified me of the viewing. This was despite my stating to the Police I had no idea how he had learned my new name. The Offender was allowed to instil serious distress and fear in me, without repercussion”.

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

More importantly, the judge stated that, although he could not say whether such a term would be granted, the Court of Appeal did not like judges to make orders that include terms that are not well established. He further stated that he was not aware of which social media sites would alert victims that a defendant had viewed their account or profile, compared with those that are akin to reading an article about another. This seems to be a very unsatisfactory situation: the perpetrator was able to escape justice for leaving a digital footprint on LinkedIn, because the restraining order handed down by the Crown Court did not prohibit such conduct clearly. It is a grey area in which there should be clarity for victims who need protection from online and digital harassment.

Proposed new subsection (2)(c) of Amendment 330AZA results from the experiences of other victims, one of whom saw on her bank account the payment of 1p alongside the reference “I love you”. She was utterly terrified and fearful of the unwelcome presence of her perpetrator. The police said that they could not do anything about this as it was not direct contact, such as a phone call or email. It was clear, however, that the restrained party had managed to get around the rules of the restraining order by doing something that was not explicitly prohibited yet had managed to instil fear and distress, reminding the victim that he was still around and able to contact her.

Finally, proposed new subsection 2(d) of Amendment 330AZA is about publishing information relating to the protected party purporting to come from the person for whose protection the order is made. This links back to our debates about the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. There are cases in which abusers, using the name and likeness of survivors, have created dating profiles purporting to be from the survivors. Then, using the profile of the survivors, they have engaged with others on such sites.

I support Amendments 330AA and 330AB in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the government amendments in this group. I understand the rationale for Amendments 331 and 332 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Brinton, but I do not support them, as an independent review of stalking led by Richard Wright KC is already under way. It is currently expected to conclude by March 2026, but I say to my noble friend the Minister that ideally the timing should be brought forward so that key recommendations could be considered while the Bill is on Report. I wonder whether this might be possible. Perhaps my noble friend, in light of the new strategy, will tell us that we might expect another Bill in the next Session of Parliament. Who knows? I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 330AA, 330AB and 330C. I have also signed Amendments 331 and 332 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, which start at Amendment 330A. She and I have been involved in strengthening the law for victims of stalking since the stalking law inquiry in 2011, which led to the first stalking laws, enacted 13 years ago on 25 November 2012.

Two decades ago, I was stalked for three years by my Conservative political opponent when I stood for Parliament in Watford. After he was caught in 2008, even though he pleaded guilty to over 60 crimes, including criminal damage to property and criminal damage using a knife, there was no separate crime of stalking from harassment. So the abusive and some sexual literature that was circulated widely on the streets, the anonymous letters to residents, the silent calls late at night when I was on my own in my flat and the feeling of always being watched just did not count in the court—other than as the same as an argument between neighbours over the height of a hedge.

The police came and advised us on security and precautions for our house, and my then teenage foster son had to learn from the police how to always put on plastic gloves before picking up any post. I never knew which of my supporters the stalker would target next. Now, we recognise that this is a tried and tested formula for stalkers—going for their friends, their family and, in this case, my political supporters.

When the stalking law came in it was much welcomed. However, after it was implemented, the practicalities became clear. Often, neither the police nor the CPS would use a charge of stalking until that case was proven beyond all possible doubt. So there was no mechanism to provide protection to victims of stalking earlier in the perpetrator’s fixation. That is why the stalking protection orders, introduced in 2019 by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, were thought to be a really helpful tool to help dissuade perpetrators and give reassurance to victims that they would be safe. But we have to consider now whether they are fully effective.

This group of amendments seeks to address the weaker points of SPOs, the result of which is causing considerable distress to victims of stalking, both domestic and non-domestic. My Amendment 330AA seeks to better protect victims from offenders who try falsely to use educational or religious reasons to gain proximity to their victims. The Bill currently states that the prohibitions or requirements in an SPO should

“avoid … any conflict with … religious beliefs”,

and with attending work and educational establishments. Although that is not inherently objectionable in itself, it should be a matter for guidance and probably not in the legislation, as this clause would give priority to an offender’s right to freedom over the safeguarding of the victim. We know that stalking perpetrators already use religious beliefs in attempts to contact their victims, in defiance of protective orders. There are examples of offenders claiming to attend the same religious institution as their victim in an attempt to be allowed into the area. The problem is that the inclusion of the clause in the Bill risks these claims becoming more commonplace. Thus, it should be dealt with in the form of guidance.

My Amendment 330AB would ensure consultation with victims when SPOs are varied, renewed or discharged. Currently, there is no requirement to hear the views of the victim—if they wish them to be heard—despite the fact that the victim is the individual being protected by the SPO and thus may have relevant information that the court should hear prior to making a decision. It is unreasonable to expect the police or other authorities to know all the details of a victim’s activities, so it is important that a victim’s views are sought prior to an application being decided upon.

This amendment would require police to consult with a victim following an application to change an SPO. As an illustration, Lisa is a victim of stalking, and her offender made an application to vary certain terms of a restraining order. The proposed changes—allowing the offender to travel down certain arterial roads on the pretence that it was their route in and out of London—seemed inherently reasonable. However, it was only when Lisa’s views were sought that it became evident that the road included a petrol station she frequented and cut through a park in which her children walked regularly. This information would not have been readily available if the victim was not consulted. In this case, the information provided by the victim enabled the CPS to mount an effective defence. The application to vary the terms of the restraining order was then denied.

Amendment 330C would create a requirement to issue guidance on SPOs. Currently, the Bill says that the Secretary of State “may” issue guidance in relation to stalking. A briefing, along with many other significant pieces of work, such as the stalking super-complaint and the HMICFRS reports, made clear the confusion and inconsistency when it comes to the response to stalking. The need for guidance is clear. The Domestic Abuse Act’s section on guidance states that the Secretary of State “must” issue guidance. This amendment proposes similar wording to support future clarity and consistency.

Amendment 331 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, to which I have added my name, is important. It would ensure that stalking is part of the VAWG strategy, which is due to be published this week, while also ensuring that the terms of reference for the Wright review cover non-domestic stalking; too often, the police do not take that seriously. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that the review is under way. We did not withdraw the amendment because we wanted to make sure that some of the details discussed today will be covered.

18:15

There is still a core problem with using stalking law created in 2012. As I said, the CPS often charges using harassment crimes rather than specific stalking crimes. This has key consequences. First, the victims feel let down and feel that justice has let them down. If their stalker is a fixated and manipulative perpetrator, it tells the perpetrator that what they have done is not serious; that is why Amendment 332 was tabled. Despite the good news from Richard Wright’s review, it is rightly important that Parliament is reassured that there is a full assessment of why stalking legislation is not used by the CPS, even with repeat stalkers. The review should be about not just the new cyber and other important forms of stalking but the old ones, which we are still trying to get right.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I was very happy to add my name to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I arrived slightly later to the party than the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Brinton, because I was not around when they nobly started tackling this difficult subject. However, once I arrived, I was happy to try to help in whatever way I could.

The amendments in this group are interwoven with an awful lot of other legislation that we have passed in recent years and are discussing today because many of the same traits, particularly behavioural traits, are still there, together with some of the challenges that the different authorities have in trying both to understand this behaviour and to do something about it. The parallel drawn in Amendment 330A between the DAPO, to which domestic abuse perpetrators are subject, and the stalking protection order, which has nothing like the same power or speed, is a good analogy. I ask the Government to look at and consider that very carefully. If the Government were to talk with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, they would find, I suspect, that Dame Nicole Jacobs—a dame as of last week—would be very interested in discussing it further with them and would argue the case for that.

Amendments 330AZA and 356E, which deal with the ingenuity, frankly, of perpetrators in using online means to find different ways to get at their victims, has many parallels with what we look at in many areas that deal with online abuse. I appeal to the Government that we be joined up, in terms of the experience that different departments and specialist teams are gaining through the different pieces of legislation and guidance that we are enacting, so that we are learning from one another and not operating in silos, which, I fear, we sometimes do.

Amendment 330AA, which would remove the excuse of one’s religion or the need to be in an educational establishment—again, another ingenious excuse for finding a way to get to the perpetrator—is a loophole that I hope the Government will look at very carefully.

A stalking protection notice to accelerate and streamline the process would be extremely valuable. I am sure that, if the Minister and his team were to talk about this with some of the most advanced areas of the country and police forces—in particular, the county of Cheshire, which has five gold stars for doing this really well—and to ask whether they would find a stalking protection notice useful in order to move quickly, the answer would, I suspect, be a resounding yes. Going to talk to the people who are on the front line in dealing with this day in, day out would be a very useful use of time.

On Amendment 330C, of course the Secretary of State should have the power to issue stalking guidance, not least because, as stalkers get more and more ingenious and devious in some of the ways they find to make their victims’ lives horrible, it is important that the guidance keeps up. It is often two steps behind. The people who suffer because of that are the victims and the people who gain are the perpetrators, because it gives them the breathing room to do what they do and the law is quite slow to catch up.

I am broadly in sympathy with all these amendments. Stalking is one of the main causes of distress to victims in this country, alongside domestic abuse and anti-social behaviour. They are the unholy trinity and the largest volume affecting people, predominantly women. The ways perpetrators pursue their victims are often quite complex. These are quite devious and often quite intelligent individuals. We need an intelligent response in order to do something about it.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, this debate has underlined that stalking is not an occasional nuisance but a pattern of behaviour that our systems still struggle to recognise and act on early enough. The debate shows a familiar picture: warning signs are missed, threats are minimised and tools that Parliament has already provided are used patchily, if at all.

These amendments point towards a more joined-up and confident response, in which the police, prosecutors and other agencies share information, understand the particular dynamics of stalking and intervene at a much earlier stage, including online, before behaviour escalates into something far more dangerous. Looking ahead, there is now a real opportunity to embed that approach in the forthcoming review and in the VAWG strategy. Many of the ideas we have discussed—stronger use of stalking protection orders and notices, better guidance and training, and clearer expectations of consistency across forces—could and should be reflected on here.

The underlying purpose of these amendments is surely uncontroversial: to ensure that the law and practice keep pace with the reality of stalking and to give victims a response that matches the seriousness of the threat they face, so that this debate becomes a turning point rather than a missed opportunity.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, stalking is an offence which constitutes severe harassment and can instil grave fear into victims, as we have just heard. It is absolutely right that the law bears down on perpetrators of stalking. The Stalking Protection Act 2019 gave magistrates’ courts the power to impose stalking protection orders on application by the chief officer of police. Clause 97 extends this power so that a Crown Court can impose such an order where a person has been acquitted of any other offence.

The Government will no doubt argue that they are taking the necessary action to further prevent cases of stalking through this part of the Bill, but let us not forget another Bill they are currently taking through your Lordships’ House. The Sentencing Bill will suspend sentences for anyone charged with the offence of stalking. Section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 states that a person found guilty of stalking is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to 51 weeks—less than the 12-month time limit for the presumption of a suspended sentence order.

Furthermore, the offence of breaking a stalking protection order is also likely to lead to a suspended sentence under the Sentencing Bill. Although a custodial sentence of up to five years can theoretically be imposed on conviction on indictment, the Sentencing Council’s guidelines state that in most cases of culpability and severity the starting point will be one year’s custody, and the ranges can go down to 12 weeks in custody and even a community order. This may very well be proportionate for low-level stalking offences, but the fact is that a person with a high degree of culpability and a medium to high level of harm will fall into the range that will mean their sentence is highly likely to be suspended.

If the Government are serious about bearing down on stalking, I suggest that letting anyone convicted of that offence walk free is not a good move for the safety of the victim. The Minister might try to rebut this argument by talking about the stalking protection orders, but I gently say to him that there is no good in letting a stalker roam the streets just because they have an order slapped on them. Given the falling police numbers, what is the likelihood of a person who violates their order actually being arrested? I also suggest that victims of stalking will not feel safer simply because their stalker has been given a court order.

What makes this even worse is that there is a very real possibility that a person who breaks the terms of their suspended sentence order will still not receive a custodial sentence. Although the automatic presumption will not apply in that case, the Government have opposed Conservative amendments to explicitly exempt people with a history of non-compliance from suspended sentences. They have also resisted our amendments to exempt repeat offenders from being handed suspended sentences.

Under this Government’s legislation, there is a very real possibility that a stalker could continually stalk their victim, break their stalking protection order and their suspended sentence order and never face jail time. That is not protecting victims. Against this backdrop, I suggest that it does not matter what we do in this place regarding stalking; we can table all the amendments we like to toughen up the protection orders, but they will not protect victims or prevent stalkers if the Government let than walk free. I will be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, did not have much to say about what is in this Bill. He has opportunities to talk about another Bill; let him do that at another time. I am talking about this Bill. He never mentioned what was going on in this Bill, the measures within it or, indeed, the amendments before us in his opening contribution—not a single word. Maybe he should reflect on that, because he has not endeared himself to me in these discussions.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Do I ever?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks, “Do I ever?”—he does occasionally, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but I was not really impressed that he did not say one single word about what is currently before the Committee. Let us have a discussion about the Sentencing Bill with my noble friends Lady Levitt and Lord Timpson another time. That is being completed. Anyway, let us leave that to one side.

I hope to be helpful in part to the noble Baronesses and others who have spoken. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for bringing their experience, their views and their passion for this subject to this debate. A number of amendments are before the Committee. As I said, I hope to be helpful in part on some of them.

Amendments 330A, 330AZA, 330AA, 330AB, 330B and 330C all relate to stalking protection orders, which, as Members know, are civil orders introduced in 2020 to protect victims of stalking. Amendment 330A in the name of my noble friend Lady Royall seeks to reference explicitly the required civil burden of proof—that is, on the balance of probabilities—for determining whether the behaviour of a person to be made subject to a stalking protection order amounts to acts associated with stalking. Currently, statutory guidance for the police published by the Home Office references that it is likely the courts will apply the civil burden of proof when considering stalking protection orders, but I agree with my noble friend that there could be a case for making this clearer. I therefore undertake to consider her proposals in Amendment 330A ahead of the next stage on the Bill. I hope that helps the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, who also spoke on this matter and my noble friend.

I am grateful for Amendment 330AA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I am particularly grateful to her for drawing her personal experience to the attention of the Committee. I had not realised the traumas that she had had in the run up to the 2010 election, but I had a quick chance to google those matters while she was speaking. It looks like it was an appalling experience. I am grateful to her for bringing it to the attention of the Committee.

The noble Baroness’s proposal in Amendment 330AA would remove the requirement for the restrictions in SPOs to avoid, where possible, conflict with the defendant’s religious beliefs and interference with their attendance at work or at an educational establishment. On this occasion, I understand the noble Baroness’s view that this could be brought out in statutory guidance, but it is our view in the Home Office that it is important to retain this within primary legislation, particularly regarding an individual’s rights through the European Convention on Human Rights, especially Article 9 on freedom of thought, conscience and religion, so I am afraid I cannot help her on that one.

18:30

Amendment 330AB would introduce a statutory requirement for the chief officer of police to consult the victim of the offence when an application is made by the police or the defendant. It is important to note that a court may already make a stalking protection order if satisfied that the individual has carried out acts associated with stalking, they pose a risk associated with stalking another person and the order is necessary to protect another person from such risk. It is not necessary to prove that an offence has been committed. The amendment as drafted would not cover cases where there has not been an offence, and we believe that statutory guidance for the police is best placed to address this issue. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising it, but I hope she can reflect on what I have said.

My noble friend Lady Royall has Amendments 330AZA and 356E, to which other Members have spoken, which seek to list explicitly certain conditions that may be included in a stalking protection order or a domestic abuse protection order. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, spoke in favour of them. We believe that the behaviours listed in these amendments are already covered under existing legislation that allows the courts to impose any prohibitions or requirements they consider necessary and proportionate to protect the victim. I argue—but again it is for noble Lords and my noble friend to consider this—that listing specific conditions in the legislation would risk leading the police and courts to rely only on prescribed examples rather than tailoring orders to individual circumstances.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I will certainly discuss those suggestions and points with colleagues from the police. The current statutory guidance for police on SPOs includes a non-exhaustive list of suggested conditions, many of which could align with Amendment 330AZA. For example, the guidance could include prohibitions on contacting the victim or referring to the victim on social media, either directly or indirectly. Similarly, the statutory guidance for the police on DAPOs also includes a non-exhaustive list of suggested conditions. It may well be that the points the noble Lord has mentioned are covered in that, but I will happily reflect on what he said.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

I am sure my noble friend is correct that it is, or should be, covered in guidance, but patently the judge looking at the case that I mentioned was not aware of this and said the fact that the victim had been contacted via LinkedIn was not something he could take a view on. He did not know that this was something he could take a view on. I am grateful to my noble friend for ensuring that the guidance is properly looked at.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful again to my noble friend for referring to the LinkedIn experience. My assessment, having discussed this with officials and with my colleague Ministers, is that the statutory guidance for police includes prohibitions on contacting the victim by any means, including social media. If my noble friend will let me, I will reflect on what she has said today, and I will discuss again with officials whether the guidance in its current format is sufficient to cover that point. That is my understanding, and I think it is a reasonable understanding to put before the Committee today.

Amendment 330C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, would replace the power for the Secretary of State to issue multi-agency statutory guidance on stalking with a duty to do so. This would align the provision on guidance with the Stalking Protection Act 2019 and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, supported the general direction of travel that the noble Baroness brought forward in her amendment. I agree that it is important, where appropriate, to ensure that legislative provisions tackling violence against women and girls are consistent. Accordingly, this is an amendment that I am happy to take away for further consideration and to discuss with officials.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I think the key question is why it is acceptable that there are different rules for “may” and “must” between this and domestic abuse protection orders.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Baroness will allow me, we have agreed that we will take Amendment 330C away and have a look at it. That is not a guarantee that we will do something with it, but it is an opportunity to reflect on it. She can examine what, if anything, the Government do, and she can determine whether to table it again on Report.

Amendment 330B, again tabled by my noble friend Lady Royall, would introduce a stalking protection notice that could be imposed by a police superintendent. I think my noble friend’s motivation is to ensure that swift action can be taken. However, on reflection we view that introducing such a notice would potentially put further complexity into the legislative framework without significantly improving protection for victims. We also need to consider the proportionality of a police-issued notice backed by a criminal offence of breach that denies the respondent the opportunity to argue their case before an independent judicial tribunal. Failure to comply with a police-issued domestic abuse protection notice is not a criminal offence for this reason.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, tabled Amendment 331, which would provide a statutory review of the effectiveness of two stalking offences, and Amendment 332, which seeks to provide a statutory review of stalking awareness guidance. I hope the noble Baroness can accept—this goes to points that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend have also mentioned—that work is currently being undertaken on both these issues. In December 2024 we announced six new measures to tackle stalking, including a commitment to review the criminal law on stalking contained in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. As a number of speakers have referenced, we have already appointed Richard Wright KC to lead the review. It is intended to be completed by the end of March 2026. We have given a timetable. I do not think it is right and proper that we change that timetable now, as a number of noble Lords suggested. The review will consider measures to achieve clarity in the legislation. On completion of the review, the Home Secretary will consider the findings and recommendations before determining next steps, potentially including further legislation. I hope that helps the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.

There are a number of government amendments to the provisions in Clause 99. We have done this with guidance from stakeholders in the criminal justice system. Government Amendments 330AZB to 330AZE and 330AE clarify the process for appealing the making of a stalking order. Our Amendments 330AC and 330AD provide for applications to vary, renew or discharge a stalking protection order and avoid applications having to be heard by a higher court. Amendments 330BA, 330D, 522A and 547A extend the provisions in Clauses 97, 98 and 100 to Northern Ireland to allow the courts in Northern Ireland to make stalking protection orders. They have been introduced in conjunction with the Department of Justice and allow it to issue guidance to the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The changes have been brought forward in amendment form at the request of the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland.

I hope I have been able to assist in part my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton—supported by the noble Lord, Lord Russell—and Lady Doocey. I undertake to examine Amendments 330A and 330C further ahead of the next stage. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his positive response to so many of the amendments and I look forward to further discussions. I am sure that if any noble Lord who has participated in this debate can be of assistance in those discussions, we will be happy to have a meeting with the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 330A withdrawn.

Amendment 330AZA not moved.

Amendments 330AZB to 330AZE

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

330AZB: Clause 97, page 124, line 14, at end insert—
“(za) in subsection (1)(a) after “order” insert “by a magistrates’ court, a youth court or the Crown Court””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the cases in which an appeal against the making of a stalking protection order can be brought under section 7 of the Stalking Protection Act 2019.

330AZC: Clause 97, page 124, line 20, at end insert—
“(3B) An appeal under subsection (1), (2) or (3) to the Court of Appeal may be made only with the permission of that court.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the need for permission of the Court of Appeal to appeal to it against an order made under section 4 of the Stalking Protection Act 2019.

330AZD: Clause 97, page 124, line 26, after “appeal” insert “under this section”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the reference to an appeal in new subsection (5)(a) of section 7 of the Stalking Protection Act 2019 is to an appeal under section 7.

330AZE: Clause 97, page 124, line 29, after “appeal” insert “under this section”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the reference to an appeal in new subsection (5)(b) of section 7 of the Stalking Protection Act 2019 is to an appeal under section 7.

Amendments 330AZB to 330AZE agreed.

Clause 97, as amended, agreed.

Clause 98: Stalking protection orders on conviction

Amendments 330AA and 330AB not moved.

Amendments 330AC to 330AE

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

330AC: Clause 98, page 127, line 20, leave out from “by” to “a” in line 23
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment to inserted section 364D of the Sentencing Code, together with my amendment to clause 98, page 127, line 35, provides for applications to vary, renew or discharge a stalking protection order made by any court other than a magistrates’ or youth court to be made to the Crown Court.

330AD: Clause 98, page 127, line 35, at end insert—
“(c) where the order was made by any other court, the Crown Court;”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 98, page 127, line 20.

330AE: Clause 98, page 128, line 28, at end insert—
“(3A) An appeal under subsection (2) to the Court of Appeal may be made only with the permission of that court.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the need for permission of the Court of Appeal to appeal to it against an order made under section 364D of the Sentencing Code.

Amendments 330AC to 330AE agreed.

Amendment 330B not moved.

Clause 98, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 330BA

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

330BA: After Clause 98, insert the following new Clause—
“Stalking protection orders: Northern Ireland(1) The Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)) is amended as follows.(2) In section 6 (meaning of act associated with stalking and risk associated with stalking), in subsection (1) for “7” substitute “6A”.(3) After section 6 insert—“Meaning of “stalking protection order”(1) In this Act “stalking protection order” means an order under this Act which, for the purpose of preventing a person from carrying out acts associated with stalking—(a) prohibits the person from doing anything described in the order, or(b) requires the person to do anything described in the order.(2) This Act provides for the making of a stalking protection order—(a) on an application under section 7, or(b) where a person is acquitted of an offence, successfully appeals against a conviction for an offence, is dealt with in respect of certain findings or is convicted of an offence (see section 8(1)).”(4) In section 7 (applications for orders) omit subsection (1).(5) In section 8 (power to make orders)—(a) for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) This section applies in respect of a person (“D”) where—(a) the Chief Constable has applied under section 7 to a court of summary jurisdiction for a stalking protection order against D,(b) D is acquitted of an offence by or before a court,(c) a court allows D’s appeal against a conviction for an offence,(d) a court deals with D in respect of a finding that—(i) D is not guilty of an offence by reason of insanity, or(ii) D is under a disability and has done the act charged against D in respect of an offence, or(e) D has been convicted of an offence and a court deals with D for the offence.”;(b) in subsection (2), in the words before paragraph (a), for “the order” substitute “a stalking protection order”. (6) In section 10 (variations, renewals and discharges)—(a) in subsection (1), for “a court of summary jurisdiction” substitute “an appropriate court”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) In subsection (1) “appropriate court” means—(a) where the stalking protection order was made by a court of summary jurisdiction other than a youth court, a court of summary jurisdiction which is not a youth court;(b) where the stalking protection order was made by a youth court—(i) if the defendant is under the age of 18 when the application for variation, renewal or discharge is made, a youth court;(ii) if the defendant is aged 18 or over at the time the application for variation, renewal or discharge is made, a court of summary jurisdiction which is not a youth court;(c) where the stalking protection order was made by any other court, the Crown Court.(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)—(a) a stalking protection order made by a court on an appeal is to be treated as made by the court whose decision was appealed against;(b) a stalking protection order that is confirmed, varied or renewed on an appeal remains an order of the court that first made it (or, if it was made on an appeal, the court that is treated as having made it under paragraph (a)).”(7) In section 11 (interim stalking protection orders), in subsection (2), after “application” in the first place it occurs insert “under section 7”.(8) In section 12 (procedure)—(a) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) An application to the Crown Court under section 10 is to be made in accordance with Crown Court rules.”;(b) in subsection (5) omit “10 or”.(9) After section 12 insert—“Appeals(1) Where a stalking protection order is made in the circumstances mentioned in section 8(1)(b), (c) or (d), D may appeal against the making of the order as if—(a) D had been convicted of the offence and,(b) the order were a sentence passed on D for the offence by the court which made the order,(if an appeal would lie against such a sentence).(2) Where a stalking protection order is made in the circumstances mentioned in section 8(1)(e), D may appeal against the making of the order as if the order were a sentence passed on D for the offence by the court which made the order (if an appeal would lie against such a sentence).(3) The following may appeal against a decision under section 10 made by the Crown Court—(a) the person against whom the stalking protection order in question was made;(b) the Chief Constable.(4) An appeal under subsection (3) is to be made to the Court of Appeal, and may be made only with the permission of that court.(5) On an appeal under this section, the court may make—(a) such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and (b) such incidental or consequential orders as appear to it to be appropriate.(6) For appeals against decisions of a court of summary jurisdiction on an application under section 7, 10 or 11, see Article 143 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26) (appeal to county court against proceedings on complaint).”(10) In section 21 (interpretation)—(a) in the definition of “stalking protection order”, for “section 7(1)” substitute “section 6A(1)”;(b) at the end insert—““youth court” has the meaning given by section 12.”(11) In section 20(3) (report on the operation of Act)—(a) in paragraph (b) omit “and the number of orders made under section 8”;(b) after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) the number of stalking protection orders made under each paragraph of section 8(1);”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision extending the power of courts in Northern Ireland to make stalking protection orders at the end of criminal proceedings, similar to the provision made for England and Wales by clauses 97 and 98.

Amendment 330BA agreed.

Clause 99: Guidance about stalking

Amendment 330C not moved.

Clause 99 agreed.

Clause 100 agreed.

Amendment 330D

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

330D: After Clause 100, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance about disclosure of information by police: Northern IrelandIn the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)), in section 17—(a) in subsection (2) for “this section” substitute “subsection (1)”;(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The Department must issue guidance to the Chief Constable about the disclosure of police information for the purpose of protecting persons from risks associated with stalking.(2B) The Chief Constable must have regard to guidance issued under subsection (2A).”;(c) in subsection (3) for “subsection (1)” substitute “this section”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause requires the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to issue guidance to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland about disclosure of police information about stalking.

Amendment 330D agreed.

Amendments 331 and 332 not moved.

Clause 101: Administering etc harmful substances (including by spiking)

Amendments 333 and 334 not moved.

Clause 101 agreed.

Clause 102: Encouraging or assisting serious self-harm

Amendment 334A

Moved by

[Baroness Doocey]

334A: Clause 102, page 133, line 2, at end insert—
“(6) In determining the sentence for an offence under this section—(a) where the encouragement or assistance of self-harm is preceded by a history of domestic or “honour”-based abuse committed against the victim or other person by D, the court must treat their offence as aggravated by reason of such history;(b) where D has subjected the victim or other person mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) to physical, psychiatric or psychological harm that results in that person’s death by suicide, the sentence shall be one of life imprisonment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment recognises that where a victim has been subjected to domestic or “honour”-based abuse, any encouragement or assistance of self-harm is an aggravated offence for sentencing purposes, and that where such abuse, including physical, psychiatric or psychological harm, results in or significantly contributes to the victim’s death by suicide, the perpetrator can be subject to the same range of sentences as for murder.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 334A is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. I am grateful to Southall Black Sisters for the detailed evidence it has provided. On Wednesday we are going to cover broader issues around codes of honour and the deployment of these as a motivation and an excuse for horrendous crimes against the person. Amendment 334A deals with, in some ways, an even more insidious and hidden issue. It recognises the growing number of suicides and self-harm cases linked to domestic and so-called honour-based abuse.

I remember meeting a group of young women when I was a member of the London Assembly and hearing with horror the widespread acceptance that a murder could be justified by codes of honour in their community. It most certainly cannot. Culture does not transcend or trump the law, and nor should it. We are all familiar with the concept of death by a thousand cuts. Prolonged abuse and prolonged encouragement of self-harm can have devastating consequences beyond the physical and the immediate.

Last month, an inquest into the death of Michelle Sparman, a Caribbean woman who died by suicide in August 2021, reached a landmark verdict at Inner West London Coroner’s Court. The assistant coroner concluded that Michelle’s state of mind was “contributed to by neglect”, and that her prior relationship was marked by “toxicity”, highlighting an abusive pattern of relentless coercive messaging from her ex-partner that undermined her confidence and mental well-being. Crucially, the coroner identified this abusive conduct as the key causative factor in her death—a rare explicit recognition of prolonged domestic abuse that had contributed to her suicide. But there is a serious gap in the law. Michelle’s family were told by police that suicides were outside their remit and there was no case because Michelle had not reported domestic abuse when she was alive.

18:45

This is not an isolated tragedy. Recent figures show that suspected domestic abuse suicides now outnumber homicides. It is estimated that each week three women die by suicide following abuse. Between April 2020 and March 2024, 354 such cases were recorded, which is almost certainly an underestimate. Yet since 2017, only one conviction has recognised a victim’s suicide as the result of abuse. Police have said that they want to see more abusers charged with manslaughter when their victims take their own lives, but proving causation after years of abuse is extremely difficult in practice.

Amendment 334A addresses this in two key ways. First, where the encouragement or assistance of self-harm is preceded by a history of domestic or honour-based abuse, such offences must be treated as aggravating for sentencing purposes. Secondly, it allows the court to sentence to life imprisonment perpetrators who have caused a person such serious physical, psychological or psychiatric harm that it leads them to take their own life, as would be the case for the crime of murder.

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

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lady Doocey in this small but perfectly formed group of amendments. My Amendment 335 would mandate a statutory consultation on the guidance to accompany the new encouraging or assisting serious self-harm offences contained in Clauses 102 and 103.

On these Benches we welcome the underlying intention of Clauses 102 and 103 to implement the Law Commission’s recommendations for a broader offence covering encouragement or assistance of serious self-harm, expanding beyond digital communication to include direct assistance. However, offences that involve encouraging self-harm must be handled with the utmost care, given the vulnerabilities inherent in such cases. The critical issue here is the risk of inadvertently criminalising legitimate support services, which has been raised with us by a number of support organisations.

The offence requires a specific intention to encourage or assist serious self-harm. This is intended to ensure that charitable organisations and mental health professionals who advise sufferers on how to moderate or manage self-harming behaviour are not criminalised. My amendment addresses this directly by requiring the Secretary of State to produce guidance and consult extensively with representatives of self-harm support charities and organisations; mental health professionals, including those providing trauma-informed care; and legal experts—prosecutors and defence practitioners—regarding the application of the specific intent requirement. This mandatory consultation is essential, in our view, to ensure that the statutory guidance clearly differentiates between criminal encouragement and legitimate therapeutic activity. Without ensuring that this guidance is informed by experts and laid before Parliament, we risk confusion among front-line practitioners and the inadvertent penalisation of those working hardest to help vulnerable people. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to this amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I fully appreciate the general principle behind these proposals. This is an incredibly serious subject, and I appreciate the sincerity with which the noble Baronesses have approached the debate.

On the amendment in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Blower, everyone wants to reach a scenario where all possibilities are accounted for, and there are no loopholes through which those who either encourage or abet self-harm can jump. It is for that reason that I cannot offer my support for proposed subsection (6) in the noble Baronesses’ amendment. First, I am sceptical of the need for more aggravating factors. The general offences that fall under loosely defined so-called honour-based abuse are crimes themselves, so I am unsure why there is a need to create an aggravating offence when a criminal will already be able to be tried for those offences individually.

Primarily, though, I do not think this is the right time to be incorporating new definitions into our legal framework. There is guidance for Crown prosecutors as to what might fall under honour-based abuse and examples as to how that might look, but it is yet to be enshrined in law and it is a rather broad and non-exclusive term within our law. That is not to say that it is not easy to spot—it often is—but it should have its own delineated legal definition before it is made an aggravating factor. I agree with the noble Baroness that honour-based abuse is an increasing issue that we must tackle head on, but that cannot be done with a single amendment. However, I offer my support to the principle behind proposed subsection (6)(b).

I welcome the sentiment behind Amendment 335 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Policy rooted in pragmatism is crucial, and consultation and guidance are one of the primary ways to achieve that. The Government should base all the policy that they bring forward on the testimonies of people who dedicate their lives to the subjects that we legislate on, and that it is especially important for a policy in such a sensitive area as this. I hope the Minister agrees, and I look forward to her response.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling Amendments 334A and 335 respectively.

I am aware of the cases that have motivated the desire to have an amendment such as Amendment 334A, and I completely understand; the stories that the noble Baroness outlined cannot fail to move anyone listening to them. Having said that, the Government will not be supporting either of these amendments today, for the following reasons.

I shall deal first with the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. When a defendant has previous convictions, including those relating to a history of domestic abuse, that is already recognised as a statutory aggravating factor in sentencing. In addition, aggravating factors that are associated with honour-based abuse, such as abuse of trust or targeting vulnerable victims, are already covered in the domestic abuse guidelines. The presence of aggravating factors such as these should therefore already result in the sentence reflecting those factors, and in my experience it always would. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about not adding an ever-increasing list of statutory aggravating factors. This is certainly the third group of amendments that I have dealt with that has proposed different forms of offences.

On the second aspect of the amendment, proposed subsection (6)(b) raises a sensitive and important issue. The Government wholeheartedly agree that, when it can be proved that suicide was the result of abuse or encouragement, the abuser should be held accountable. There are existing offences that cover this situation, such as manslaughter or encouraging or assisting suicide offences, which have maximum penalties of life imprisonment and 14 years’ imprisonment respectively. However, imposing a requirement for the court to sentence the defendant in those circumstances as though they had been convicted of murder, when in fact they have not been convicted of murder, would be at odds not only with the current sentencing approach but with the principle that people are sentenced only for matters that have been proved to the satisfaction of the court. I also make the perhaps obvious comment that there is no range of sentences for murder; there is only one sentence, which is life imprisonment. For those reasons, amending Clause 102 in this way would not be appropriate.

However, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that the Law Commission is currently undertaking a review of homicide offences and of sentencing for murder, and this will include a review of the use of, and the obstacles to using, manslaughter offences where abuse may have driven someone to suicide. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why the Government are reluctant to make any piecemeal amendments in advance of the Law Commission reporting.

I turn to Amendment 335, from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I thank the noble Lord for his welcome of the offence. As to the guidance that he proposes in the consultation, as many in this Committee are aware, I was principal legal adviser to a rather well-known former Director of Public Prosecutions—I spent five years working for the Crown Process Service—so it is important to me to emphasise that it is in fact for the independent Crown Prosecution Service to update guidance on prosecuting offences under this new provision. It may well be that many noble Lords know this but, while the statutory Code for Crown Prosecutors governs in general terms how prosecutors make decisions on which cases to prosecute and which not, sitting underneath that is a raft of legal guidance that is published and publicly available. It exists for two reasons: the first is so that members of the public can see the basis on which the CPS makes its decisions, but the second is so that the CPS can be held to account. If it fails to follow its own guidance, that will often provide a ground for challenging the decision made.

I understand that the noble Lord’s amendment aims to ensure that legitimate support or therapeutic activity is not criminalised, so I reassure him that the offence has been carefully drafted to avoid capturing vulnerable individuals or those providing mental health support. The offence as drafted in the Bill was recommended by the Law Commission in its 2021 malicious communications report and contains two key safeguards: first, that the person must intend to encourage or assist serious self-harm and without such intent no offence would be committed; and, secondly, that serious self-harm is defined as harm amounting to grievous bodily harm. These safeguards ensure that the offence targets only the most serious and culpable behaviour and protects those who are, for example, sharing personal experience or discussing self-harm but not encouraging it.

The offence also does not cover the glorification or glamorisation of self-harm. The Law Commission found that that was too broad and would potentially capture vulnerable people who might then be exposed to prosecution: so, taking on board the commission’s comments, the Government have not included that.

In our view, this approach ensures that the offence is necessary, proportionate and focused on genuinely harmful acts. There is also a further protection for the vulnerable, which is provided by the public interest stage of the full code test. This requires that, even where there is sufficient evidence, prosecutors must consider whether or not a prosecution is required in the public interest, and plainly the vulnerabilities of the potential defendant would come into play at that stage.

I hope that the reasons I have provided clearly set out why the Government do not support either of these amendments today, and I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, do not press their respective amendments.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I thank the Minister, who has carefully taken us through three limbs, as far as I tell: first, there will be CPS guidance in terms of the specific offence, in the way that it decides whether or not to prosecute; secondly, the way that the offence itself has been drafted; and, thirdly, the public interest test. However, will she engage with the organisations that are concerned about the offences? I think I understand what she is saying about intent, grievous bodily harm and the other limbs that mean we will not see the kinds of prosecutions that people are concerned about, but will the MoJ engage with the organisations that have concerns?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. As far as the first of the three protections is concerned, obviously I cannot bind the Crown Prosecution Service—the whole point about it is that it is independent of government. However, based on my own experiences, where there are areas of the law that plainly need clarification as to when the Crown Prosecution Service would prosecute and when it would not, it usually issues guidance. As regards engaging with the organisations, of course, it is sometimes not easy to explain the law and the thinking behind it. It is in everyone’s interests that the organisations which are concerned for vulnerable people understand that the Government have those interests very much at heart. I would welcome the opportunity to explain to them.

19:00

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I am not a lawyer and certainly do not understand the law, even vaguely, but I really do not understand this. If what I am asking for is not necessary—I totally accept what the Minister has said—how come we have three cases of suicide a week, which is suspected to be an underestimate, and only one conviction since 2017? Those numbers do not seem to add up to me.

I take the point the Minister made about the Law Commission’s review. Reviews are helpful, but a recent report by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner exposed ongoing failures by government to act on the lessons from domestic homicide reviews. Only a quarter of national recommendations were fully implemented between 2019 and 2021, and this extends to domestic abuse suicides. It is very sad that victims have waited years for concrete changes and it now seems that there is not a huge amount, according to what the Minister said in her response, that will make the difference. There needs to be something, so I will think carefully about everything she has said. I certainly plan to come back at the next stage with something that perhaps will not have so many holes in it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for now.

Amendment 334A withdrawn.

Clause 102 agreed.

Clause 103 agreed.

Amendment 335 not moved.

Clause 104: Child abduction

Amendment 335A

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

335A: Clause 104, page 133, line 39, at end insert—
“(1B) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1A) where—(a) the person is a victim of domestic abuse within the meaning of section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and(b) the act of detaining the child outside the United Kingdom was attributable wholly or mainly to safeguarding themselves or the child from domestic abuse.(1C) In determining whether subsection (1B) applies, the court must have particular regard to—(a) any evidence of domestic abuse directed towards the parent or the child, and(b) any risk that return of the child would expose the parent or child to further abuse.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness Brinton, is intended to probe the effect of Clause 104 on victims of domestic abuse.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 335A and 335B, which relate specifically to child abduction across the United Kingdom. Government Amendments 336, 496, 521 and 549 relate specifically to the abduction, detaining and retention of children abroad who came from Northern Ireland—I was about to say “in Northern Ireland”, but that would be a tautology.

I am very grateful to all the organisations that have written to a number of Peers regarding child abduction. My two amendments are probing amendments, in which we seek to understand how Clause 104 will work and what the effect will be on a person who is a victim of domestic abuse, within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and who takes their child outside the UK to safeguard themselves or the child from domestic abuse, or who gets abroad and then decides to remain abroad to continue to safeguard themselves or their child.

Clause 104 arises from a recommendation from the Law Commission following the case of Nicolaou in 2012. That case focused on whether a parent commits an offence under Section 1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 if they initially have the appropriate consent to take a child outside the UK, for a defined period, but then fail to return the child after that period expires. The background is this: a father took his son to Cyprus for an agreed contact visit but did not return him to the UK at the end of the specified time, despite court orders from both Cypriot and English courts for the child’s return. An arrest warrant was issued for the child abduction.

In June 2012, the High Court ruled that an offence had not been committed under Section 1 of that Act in this specific scenario. The section, as written at the time, applied to the act of taking or sending a child out of the UK without consent, not the failure to return them after a period of consented absence. This case, along with another, R v Kayani 2011, highlighted a significant loophole in the Child Abduction Act 1984, which the Law Commission subsequently made recommendations to address. Its recommendation in its report Simplification of Criminal Law: Kidnapping and Related Offences is very legalistic in its approach. It makes no reference to having considered domestic abuse as a defence, for example, or even a contributory factor.

Article 12 of the 1980 Hague convention on abduction provides that, where a year has elapsed after a child has been wrongfully removed to or retained in another contracting state, the court has a discretion not to require the child’s return if the child is

“settled in its new environment”.

Clause 104 makes it a criminal offence to retain a child outside the UK “at any time” after the child is taken or sent outside the UK without the appropriate consent. It therefore criminalises conduct in a situation where a court may decide not to order the return of the child to the UK. Clearly, this is not in keeping with either the spirit or the letter of the Hague convention.

Additionally, it could significantly hamper efforts to enable the safe return of children and their taking parents—the parents who removed them—and could increase the number of cases where children are compelled to return alone, without their mothers, possibly to the care of an abusive father or to state care. My question to the Minister is: what is the position of someone who uses a defence of being a victim of domestic abuse as the reason why they have not returned to the UK with the child? If a court were asked to adjudicate on such an issue, would it demand evidence of abuse? I ask that because your Lordships’ House knows that in such cases, often the victim mother—it usually is a mother—will have been living in the UK with the perpetrator of domestic abuse and coercive control, but not many would have been to the courts. On that basis, what protection is there for that victim and their child in this position?

The real problem is that the Law Commission report, which has informed Clause 104, does not cover this difficult territory at all—nor do the Explanatory Notes for the Bill. My amendments are genuinely to probe the Government’s intention on how they would manage a case that involved domestic abuse and coercive control. While we agree that Clause 104 is important, letting it pass without taking account of the complex issues relating to those parents who are fleeing domestic abuse will be problematic and could even lead to miscarriages of justice. I beg to move.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her probing Amendments 335A and 335B, raising the problem of wrongful retention of children in the context of the criminal law and, in particular, the Child Abduction Act 1984. Essentially, that Act criminalised the wrongful taking of children, but not their wrongful retention after the end of a permitted period of contact.

In 1984, when the omission of unlawful retention was pointed out in debate on the Child Abduction Bill, as it then was, in another place, it was not addressed by the then Government. Indeed, the opposition spokesman at the time, now the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that it must be “for another day”. Moving on to 2012, the continuing discrepancy was highlighted by the decision of the High Court in the case of Nicolaou, referred to by the noble Baroness, which was indeed a classic case of unilateral retention of a child abroad in the face of court orders. In 2014, a Law Commission report speculated about the rationale for the difference between removal and retention cases and recommended what the Bill now seeks to do in Clause 104.

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

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

Secondly, there is now a far wider understanding of the nature and effects of abusive and alienating behaviour and attitudes as experienced by mothers and children, and, to some extent, by fathers. This is the sort of behaviour covered by the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. In reality, the retention of children by one parent occurs within a very wide range of scenarios. These are fact-sensitive cases. At one end of the range is the spiteful and vindictive parent who wants to remove the child from the other parent’s life. At the other end of the range are the cases of fearful and protective parents who realise that the child is at risk if returned to the other parent. In between those extremes are any number of variable situations and motivations.

The Law Commission report noted:

“The general policy of the law is that parental disputes about the care of children should be pursued in civil rather than criminal proceedings”.


If that is the general policy, criminalisation should be reserved to a limited number of cases of this sort, and criminal prosecution should be seen as a last resort to mark disapproval of plainly wrongful and harmful retention of a child. Moreover, overlapping criminal and family court proceedings should be avoided wherever possible, and the use of, or threats of, criminal prosecution should remain well out of the armoury of most warring parents. That is why, when resolving Hague proceedings, many parents often formally agree not to instigate or support criminal proceedings against each other. Such agreements remove one source of control and recrimination, and they serve to keep the focus on the children rather than on the parents’ grievances against each other.

I therefore hope that the Government will accept the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, or at least undertake some further analysis of what is needed for cases where the parent concerned is seeking to safeguard themselves or the child from harm. If not, will the Government confirm that any prosecution of these offences will continue to require the consent of the DPP under Section 4(2) of the 1984 Act? Will they confirm that there will be a restrictive approach to the prosecution, and that the guidance on prosecution will be reviewed and updated to cover the important points raised by the amendment?

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 335A and 335B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for setting out these probing amendments, because, as the Minister will know, there is concern that this change will criminalise domestic abuse survivors, who constitute the overwhelming majority of parents involved in retention cases.

As we have heard, Clause 104 is intended to close the gap in legislation, which the Law Commission recommended back in 2014. However, that recommendation did not take domestic abuse into account. Our understanding has evolved significantly since then, and, given our current knowledge of perpetrator behaviour, post-separation abuse and the Government’s stated commitment to end violence against women and girls, we should look at whether implementing that recommendation now would be appropriate. We need to consider the significance of domestic abuse in these proceedings.

On the difference between removal and retention, these actions are not equivalent. Treating them as equivalent fails to recognise that retention often reflects a delayed recognition of abuse, which the parent understands once they are safe among family and friends. As Clause 104 currently stands, these women would be criminalised and therefore deterred from returning with their child. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, set out how we could see some perverse outcomes from this.

19:15

The noble Lord, Lord Meston, talked about the Hague convention as the civil mechanism working to design to restore the child’s prior residence. As we know, it is not intended to punish the taking parent. The importance of maintaining that neutral stance was reiterated in recent Hague forums, precisely because it ensures that the best interest of the child remains paramount.

I want to ask the Minister about the equality impact assessment. Organisations such as GlobalARRK, Hague Mothers and Right to Equality—all with extensive experience in these matters—have raised concerns around the equality impact assessment, because it concludes that men and women are equally responsible for child abduction under the Child Abduction Act 1984, and therefore no protected group will be disproportionately affected. However, we know that over 75% of Hague abductions are carried out by mothers, many of whom are victims of domestic abuse. It is therefore worrying that the EIA does not acknowledge the gendered impact of these cases and their clear links to domestic abuse. Is the Minister confident that the EIA is based on enough accurate and representative data regarding gender and domestic abuse in parental abduction cases?

I recognise that the Government’s aim is to safeguard children from abduction, ensure their swift and safe return and uphold custody rights, which I am sure we all support. However, I worry that criminalising retention without an exemption for domestic abuse will not achieve those aims. We know that civil law remedies exist to secure the return of children to their habitual residences; introducing criminal sanctions may be unnecessary to achieve this outcome and could serve to punish rather than protect. I hope that the Minister will take these concerns back to the department ahead of Report and consider carefully whether the clause could be mitigated through a domestic abuse exemption.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, having heard a number of cogent arguments from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I cannot remain silent. I was certainly persuaded on the noble Baroness’s Amendment 335A, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister has similarly been persuaded.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments in this group concerning the important issue of child abduction. I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contributions this evening. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for bringing forward Amendments 335A and 335B, which raise important questions about the interaction between Clause 104 and the lived reality of victims of domestic abuse. The amendments probe how the new offence will operate where a parent has acted out of fear for their own safety or that of their child, and they touch on the wider issue of how the criminal law recognises coercive, controlling and violent relationships.

We very much support the principle behind the noble Baroness’s amendments and the safeguarding concerns that they highlight. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government intend to ensure that the operation of Clause 104 does not inadvertently criminalise vulnerable parents acting in desperation to protect themselves or their children.

Government Amendments 336, 496, 521 and 549, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, create and support a parallel offence in Northern Ireland relating to the detention of a child overseas without consent. I recognise the importance of maintaining consistency across jurisdictions and ensuring that children in Northern Ireland benefit from equivalent protections. I would be grateful if the Minister can set out how the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland intends to exercise the new regulation-making and commencement powers. What discussions have taken place with relevant agencies to ensure that the offence can operate effectively in practice? I look forward to the Government’s response on these points.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for tabling Amendments 335A and 335B. Her amendments have been grouped with the modest collection of government amendments—336, 496, 521 and 549—tabled in my name, which extend the provisions contained in Clause 104 to Northern Ireland.

I note the concern raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Davies, my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, that Clause 104 will criminalise parents who are fleeing domestic abuse where the detention of the child is primarily motivated by the intention of keeping themselves and/or the child safe. I reassure your Lordships that this absolutely is not the intention of the existing Clause 104. Indeed, in developing the provisions, very careful consideration was given to the implications of potentially criminalising a parent who has detained their child abroad.

Before I turn to the reasons why the Government will not be supporting these amendments today, I want to explain a little more about the purpose of Clause 104’s inclusion in the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her clear and even-handed explanation of her understanding of the reason why the Government included it in the first place. The clause seeks to implement the Law Commission’s 2014 recommendation that the Government should close a small gap in the law by making it a criminal offence for a parent, or person with similar responsibility to a parent, to detain a child abroad without appropriate consent, once the original consent has expired.

I am sure that I do not need to explain to anyone that the abduction of a child by a parent is an extremely distressing experience for everyone involved. For any Government, the aim is to safeguard children from abduction by preventing the unlawful removal of a child, ensuring their swift and safe return when they have been taken and upholding custody rights through international co-operation and legal enforcement. The new measure is intended to be consistent with the existing criminal framework, to stand as a deterrent and a backstop where we know that a gap in the law is being exploited, even if by very few people. Some of those who have not returned a child are themselves abusers; they are abusive parents seeking to evade the law. We cannot leave that gap unclosed.

However, I have listened very carefully to the concerns raised by your Lordships this evening, and to some sent to me by organisations with an interest in this area. I remain satisfied that there is no risk of vulnerable parents who have been victims of domestic abuse being criminalised. I hope I shall be forgiven for setting out my reasons in a little more detail; I alluded to them earlier in relation to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but that was in a slightly different context, and I think I need to give more detail.

Many of your Lordships will be aware that there is a two-stage test for the Crown Prosecution Service to apply when deciding whether a prosecution should be brought. The first is an “evidential sufficiency” test but, even if that stage is passed and it is felt that there is sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution, that is not the end of the matter. The second stage is the “public interest” test, which asks whether the public interest requires a prosecution to be brought. It is this stage of the test that is often applied in, for example, assisted dying cases. This is important, including in a domestic abuse context, because it means that prosecutors must consider the background, including whether the alleged offender was acting from benign motives or was themselves a victim of domestic abuse, before deciding whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. Additionally, and importantly, a third test applies for the new offence in Clause 104 which adds an additional safeguard: that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required for a case to proceed.

Prosecutorial discretion remains a key safeguard, and evidence of domestic abuse would be a highly relevant factor in any decision to prosecute, or in whether the Director of Public Prosecutions would give his consent in addition. Factors that are relevant to the public interest do not require proof to the criminal standard. It is a much more “in the round” assessment than would be required if bringing some kind of criminal proceedings.

To be clear, in answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the Government continue to believe that the civil courts remain best placed to deal with child abduction cases. That is why we support international co-operation and recourse to the 1980 Hague convention as a civil mechanism for facilitating the safe return of children. The UK continues to work with other state parties and the Hague Conference, especially in cases involving domestic abuse, to ensure that the convention operates effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, in effect agreed, that this prosecution should be the act of last resort. We agree. We are conscious, however, that criminal proceedings may be needed in some cases. It has been suggested that some parents see detaining a child abroad following any earlier consent as an easier route to keeping their child permanently outside the UK with no criminal charges or police involvement. That clearly circumvents the law. This change to the criminal law is intended to sit alongside and supplement existing civil remedies, rather than filling the courts with people who have retained their child abroad.

The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asks whether the Government would be prepared to add a domestic abuse defence, in effect. The law on defences, including those relevant to domestic abuse, is highly complex. It requires definitions and decisions about where the burden of proof lies and what the standard of proof will be. It is precisely because of this complexity that the Law Commission is currently reviewing defences in domestic abuse cases as part of its wider project on homicide and sentencing. While the primary focus of its review is on homicide, the findings are likely to have broader implications for how defences operate in domestic abuse contexts and could be relevant across a broader range of offences. A bespoke defence of domestic abuse in the offence created by Clause 104 could have implications far beyond the child abduction framework.

I hope that the noble Baroness will accept from me that the Law Commission’s findings will be carefully reviewed before any changes to the law are considered, in order to ensure that any legislative changes are informed by evidence. In the meantime, we are exploring ways to strengthen our understanding of how defences operate in non-homicide cases by gathering more robust data. For these reasons, it would be premature to legislate before the Law Commission has completed its work, but I take the point about the equality impact assessment and the gendered nature of some of these offences. I will, if I may, write to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and, obviously, to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as well.

I turn very briefly to government Amendments 336, 496, 521 and 549. Until now, the provisions in Clause 104 extended to England and Wales only. However, at the request of the Northern Ireland Executive, these provisions will now also apply to Northern Ireland. I note the concerns raised by the two amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but I hope that, for the reasons I have set out, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment at this stage. I hope your Lordships will join me in supporting the government amendments in this group.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am very grateful to all those who have spoken. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Davies, for their implied support. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for their detailed responses to the amendment and the debate we are having. They rightly confirmed that criminal proceedings must be a last resort, and that we should always aim for these cases to be settled via the family court and through the Hague process.

I am particularly grateful to the Minister for her detailed response on the two-stage test, especially the public interest test. If that is where domestic abuse issues can be assessed, that is good. I am also grateful that she has repeated that the consent of the DPP must be obtained, and that this is not up to the criminal standard. That is very reassuring.

It is always difficult when the Law Commission is working on something, because one cannot say “When is it going to be done?” I hope that it will not be too long. If issues remain after the Law Commission reports, I hope that the Government, or a future Government, will be prepared to discuss this at that point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 335A withdrawn.

Amendment 335B not moved.

Clause 104 agreed.

Amendment 336

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

336: After Clause 104, insert the following new Clause—
“Child abduction: Northern Ireland(1) The Child Abduction (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/1638 (N.I. 17)) is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).(2) In Article 3 (offence of abduction of child by parent etc)—(a) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) Subject to paragraphs (2A) to (3A) and (7), a person connected with a child under the age of 16 commits an offence if—(a) the child is taken or sent out of the United Kingdom with the appropriate consent, and(b) at any time after the child is taken or sent, the person detains the child outside the United Kingdom without the appropriate consent.”;(b) in paragraph (2A)—(i) in the words before sub-paragraph (a), after “United Kingdom” insert “, or by detaining a child outside the United Kingdom,”;(ii) in sub-paragraph (b) (before its substitution by paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 3 to the 2022 Act), after “United Kingdom” insert “, or detains the child outside the United Kingdom,”;(iii) in each of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) (as substituted by paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 3 to the 2022 Act), after “United Kingdom” insert “, or detains the child outside the United Kingdom,”;(c) in paragraph (2B), after “United Kingdom” insert “, or detaining the child outside the United Kingdom,”;(d) in paragraph (3A), in paragraph (b) after “out of the United Kingdom” insert “, or detaining the child outside the United Kingdom,”. (3) In the Schedule (modifications of Article 3 for children in certain cases), in each of the following provisions after “paragraph (1)” insert “or (1A)”—(a) paragraph 1(2)(a);(b) paragraph 3(2)(a) (before its substitution by paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 3 to the 2022 Act);(c) paragraph 3(2)(a) (as substituted by paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 3 to the 2022 Act);(d) paragraph 4(2)(a).(4) The amendments made by this section apply only in cases where the taking or sending of the child out of the United Kingdom takes place on or after the date on which this section comes into force.(5) In this section “the 2022 Act” means the Adoption and Children Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 18 (N.I.)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it an offence in Northern Ireland for a parent etc to detain a child under 16 outside the UK without appropriate consent.

Amendment 336 agreed.

Clause 105 agreed.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.10 pm.

Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Statement

19:30

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Wednesday 10 December.

“With permission, Madam Speaker Deputy, I shall make a Statement on industrial action by resident doctors. I thank you, Mr Speaker, business managers and the Official Opposition for facilitating this evening’s statement.

As we head into winter, our hospitals are running hot and the pressures on the NHS are enormous. Flu season has come earlier, with a sharp rise in cases and the peak still to come, and this year’s strain is more likely to affect older people more severely. Already, the number of patients in hospital in England with flu is the highest on record at this point in the year. It is 50% higher than this time last year and 10 times higher than in 2023. Some 95% of hospital beds are occupied, growing numbers of staff are off sick and we are already seeing the pressure in our A&E departments. It is against that backdrop that the British Medical Association is threatening to douse the NHS in petrol, light a match and march its members out on strike. This represents a different magnitude of risk to previous industrial action.

The BMA resident doctors committee is in dispute on two issues: pay and jobs. On pay, resident doctors have already received a 28.9% pay rise—the highest in the public sector. For a first-year resident doctor, that is the equivalent of a £9,400 pay rise. I have been consistent, honest and up front with resident doctors that we cannot go further on pay this year. There is a gap between what the BMA is demanding and what the country can afford. Nor would further movement on pay be fair to other NHS staff, for whom I am also responsible and many of whom will never in their careers earn as much as the lowest-paid doctor. As I have made clear to the BMA and other trade unions, I am open to discussing multi-year pay deals with any trade union if we stand a chance of bridging the gap between affordability and expectations.

On jobs, I have much more sympathy with the BMA’s demands. I have heard the very real fears that resident doctors across the country have about their futures; it is a legitimate grievance that I agree with. My Conservative predecessors created training bottlenecks that threatened to leave huge numbers of resident doctors without a job. In 2019, there were around 12,000 applicants for 9,000 specialty training places. This year, that number has soared to nearly 40,000 applications for 10,000 places.

It used to be the case that UK graduates competed among themselves for specialty roles; now, they are competing against the world’s doctors. That is a direct result of the visa and immigration changes made by the previous Conservative Government post-Brexit, and it is compounded by the Conservatives’ decision to increase the number of medical students without also increasing the number of specialty training places.

Taxpayers spend £4 billion training medics every year—we then treat them poorly, and some leave to work abroad or in the private sector. It is time that we protect our investment and give bright, hard-working UK medical graduates a path to becoming the next generation of NHS doctors. Our 10-year plan for health set out our commitment to provide that path. It pledged to introduce 1,000 extra specialty training places and prioritisation of medical graduates from the UK and Ireland.

Today, in an offer to resident doctors, I can announce that I am able to go further. I want to thank Sir Jim Mackey, the chief executive of the NHS, and his team, who have been going trust by trust to see how many extra places can be funded and are needed. Thanks to their hard work, I am in a position today to be able to offer 4,000 specialty places for resident doctors, starting with an additional 1,000 for those applying this year.

In the Department of Health and Social Care, we have been working intensively on UK graduate prioritisation. The barriers have been legal ones, so I have been working intensively with my team to see how quickly we could introduce legislation. Thanks to their efforts, the co-operation of colleagues across government, and my counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I can notify the House tonight that, subject to the agreement of resident doctors, we intend to introduce urgent primary legislation in the form of a Bill to be presented to Parliament in the new year.

The legislation will prioritise graduates from UK medical schools over applicants from overseas during the current application round and in all subsequent years. The reforms will also prioritise doctors who have worked in the NHS for a significant period for specialty training. This will not exclude international talent, who will still be able to apply to roles and continue to bring new and vital skills to our NHS, but it will return us to the fair terms on which homegrown medics competed before Brexit. The impact of these changes is that instead of four doctors competing for every training post, it will now be fewer than two doctors for every place. That is a good deal for doctors.

Following discussions with the BMA, we are also addressing the specific costs faced by resident doctors that do not apply to other NHS staff. Although I cannot go further on pay this year, I am able to offer today to put money back in resident doctors’ pockets by reimbursing royal college portfolio, membership and exam fees, with the latter backdated to April. The allowance for less-than-full-time resident doctors—many of whom are parents and carers—will be increased by 50% to £1,500, helping to close the gender pay gap.

In recent days, I formally made this offer to the BMA resident doctors committee. The BMA will now survey its members in the coming days on whether to accept this offer and end its dispute with the Government. The BMA told us that it will survey its members quickly and give us less than 48 hours’ notice of whether the strikes are going ahead. That presents serious operational challenges for NHS leaders, who need certainty now as to whether they are cancelling patient appointments and cancelling staff annual leave to cover strikes.

In my determination to prevent the havoc that strikes would cause this Christmas, I therefore made one more offer to the BMA, which I will now share with the House, the country and front-line doctors. So that the BMA could run a genuine ballot of its members and call off next week’s strikes while that ballot ran, I offered to extend its strike mandate. This would have allowed enough time for the BMA to reschedule next week’s strikes for the end of January, were the offer to resident doctors rejected in a ballot. It would have avoided the chaos that looming strike action threatens at the most dangerous time of year by removing the spectre of strikes next week. I knew that extending the BMA’s strike mandate would leave me open to attack from political opponents; that was a risk I was willing to take to stop the Christmas strikes going ahead. Madam Deputy Speaker, I must report to the House that the BMA’s leadership said no.

In the coming days, as the NHS prepares for strike action that may or may not happen, there are patients whose operations will be cancelled. There are NHS staff who will have to tell their families that they will not be home for Christmas because they have to cover for their resident doctor colleagues. This was entirely avoidable—no one should be in any doubt that the BMA has chosen to play politics with people’s lives this Christmas, and to continue holding the spectre of strikes over the NHS. I ask resident doctors to bear that in mind when they cast their votes.

The power to end these strikes now lies in the hands of doctors. Resident doctors face a choice: to continue the damaging industrial action in which everyone loses, or to choose more jobs, better career progression, more money in their pockets and an end to strikes. The deal that is on offer would mean emergency legislation to put our own homegrown talent first; to increase the number of extra specialty training places from 1,000 to 4,000, with a quarter of those places delivered now; to reduce the competition for training places from around four to one to less than two to one; to put more money in doctors’ pockets by funding royal college exam fees, portfolio fees and membership fees, with exam fees backdated to April; and to increase the less-than-full-time allowance by 50% to £1,500. It is a chance for a fresh start, to end this dispute and look ahead to the future with hope and optimism—a chance to rebuild resident doctors’ working conditions and rebuild our NHS. I urge every resident doctor to vote for this deal, and I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, the announcement of further industrial action by resident doctors is obviously deeply concerning. These strikes, which we now know will go ahead after all, will have a serious impact on the capacity of our health service to function at precisely the time of year when demand is at its highest. Resident doctors make up almost half the medical workforce, and NHS leaders have already warned that action will cause significant disruption.

We on these Benches agree with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care when he says that the BMA has clearly chosen to strike when it will cause maximum disruption, causing untold anxiety at the busiest point of the year. We agree with Rory Deighton, the acute and community care director of the NHS Confederation, who warned that, with the winter now upon us and rising levels of flu and staff sickness, pressure on services will be intense, with the likely consequence of

“thousands of cancelled appointments and operations”.

The impact of these strikes is compounded by the fact that NHS England has warned that it is bracing for an unprecedented flu wave this winter. In London alone, there are three times as many people hospitalised with flu compared to last year, with an average 259 hospital beds occupied each day, compared to just 89 a year ago. It is in this context that the CEO of the NHS described the BMA’s decision to strike in the run-up to Christmas as

“cruel and calculated to cause mayhem”.

There is a wider concern, shared by patients and families across the country. When the Government caved in to the BMA last year with an unconditional 29% pay settlement, noble Lords on all Benches warned that this would only incentivise the BMA to come back year after year with more demands. At the time, the Secretary of State brushed off these concerns and criticised those who raised this obvious observation, claiming that there would be no further strikes, no more cancellations and no more disruption. While we agree with the Health Secretary that this action by the BMA is cynical, strong words alone will not keep operating theatres open or ensure that patients receive their care in a timely manner. Appointments will still be postponed or cancelled, operations will be postponed and patients will suffer.

Now that the BMA membership has rejected the latest offer and is pressing ahead with further strikes, will the Minister lay out the Government’s plan? What additional resources have been made available to mitigate the serious disruption that these strikes will inflict? Given the combined pressures of flu and RSV, what steps are being taken to ensure that those who are eligible for vaccination actually receive it?

It appears that we are stuck in a downward spiral. Strikes are threatened, offers are rejected, strikes happen, misery is inflicted and then it is threatened all over again. If the Government do find a way of ending the threatened action, will they please do a couple of things? Will they make sure that it is conditional on updating work practices, to ensure that we have a more efficient health system? Many people who work in the health system know that some practices are out of date and have not moved on since the 1940s. Will they make sure that it does not incentivise the BMA to pocket any settlement and return next year threatening more strike action? The very uncertainty surrounding future militancy by the BMA is deeply damaging. It should be a matter of grave concern to the Government that the public seem not to have any confidence in the Government’s ability to keep doctors at work and keep the health service functioning.

As part of this, does the Minister recognise that the Government’s Employment Rights Bill risks making matters significantly worse next year? Will they think again about their rejection of minimum service levels to protect patients in the future? Finally, we know that the OBR has said that the cost of industrial action is a major risk to health spending. What estimate have the Government made of the cost of strike action in December, and will costs be paid using existing NHS budgets? As we know, the Chancellor often says there is no more money.

We are clear that these strikes must end and that the behaviour of the BMA is indefensible, but we must remember that it is not Ministers, unions or negotiators who will bear the cost of this action; it is patients and their families and loved ones. They deserve better. I am sorry to say that we are not yet convinced that the Government are on top of this and working to end the threat of these damaging strikes now and avoid incentivising future strikes in future years. I really hope that the Minister can reassure noble Lords that the Government have a plan.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for putting the Statement before us, but do so with a measure of frustration—a feeling shared by countless citizens. This frustration with the ongoing and deeply damaging resident doctors dispute is directed at both parties, the Government and the British Medical Association leadership. We are witnessing a breakdown in negotiation, a failure of common sense and, critically, a failure of duty towards the patients who rely on the National Health Service.

First, let me address the actions of the Government. The manner in which this dispute has been handled is, frankly, not best practice. We have seen periods of silence followed by 11th-hour media interventions by the Secretary of State. This pattern suggests not a serious negotiation but a high-stakes, last-minute political gamble, PR approach. The way the reported details of the last-minute offer were put before the public and resident doctors serves only to deepen this suspicion. This approach disrespects the process and the professionals involved. Given that the issues addressed in the Government’s 11th-hour offer have been known since the general election, why did the Government choose a high-stakes, last-minute intervention, rather than presenting the offer within a calm, realistic timeframe that could have facilitated constructive consideration by resident doctors?

Further, I must express my dismay at the tone sometimes employed by the Secretary of State. Using rhetoric that seeks to divide resident doctors from the public is counterproductive. This dispute will not be solved through grandstanding but through respect and meaningful compromise. The Government must reflect on their tone and timing.

However, the frustration I feel over the Government’s handling is matched in equal measure by my frustration over some of the tactics and demands employed by the BMA leadership. The pursuit of this round of strike action, especially scheduled at the most challenging time of the year, is, in my view, deeply irresponsible. The BMA has a singular responsibility that transcends typical union negotiations. Their members are the direct custodians of people’s health. We are currently grappling with two severe pressures on the NHS: the rising tide of flu and the deliberate scheduling of this strike to coincide with the Christmas period. To choose this time, when hospital rotas are already thin and the NHS is under maximum strain, is totally unacceptable. It shows a disregard for the welfare of the most vulnerable patients. We on these Benches wish to thank the consultants, those resident doctors who decide to go into work, and the other dedicated staff who will keep our NHS safe during this unnecessary strike, for doing the right and decent thing.

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

This failure is a stain on both parties. The Government must return to the table with a genuine commitment to a multi-year funded plan that addresses the systematic non-pay issues, and the BMA leadership must immediately reassess the morality of its current strike schedule and shift its focus from an unrealistic pay demand to achievable reforms in training and conditions.

I have two further questions for the Minister. The recent offer included a promise to create up to 4,000 extra speciality training posts. However, the BMA leadership has claimed that these posts are simply being cannibalised or repurposed from existing locally employed roles. Will the Minister confirm categorically that these 4,000 places represent genuinely new, funded training opportunities that increase the total number of doctors retained in the NHS career structure and are not merely a reclassification of existing roles?

Given that the pay restoration demand is deemed unachievable, how will the Government—outside of pay—guarantee fundamental reforms to the working time directive enforcement, the quality of training rotations and the rota planning to ensure that resident doctors are used efficiently for patient care and for the development of their skills, thereby making a medical career in the NHS sustainable and attractive?

Our healthcare system cannot afford this deadlock. I urge both sides to put down their political weapons, swallow their pride and focus on the real-world issues before the consequences become truly tragic.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have made a comprehensive offer to resident doctors to resolve their disputes. I listened closely to the assessment of the Government’s performance made by the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Scriven, and it is not a reflection I agree with. This has dominated the agenda, and the Secretary of State has taken a proactive and collaborative approach with the BMA resident doctors committee. For example, he has had 18 meetings and seven phone calls with the BMA; he has sent 10 letters; and there have been dozens of meetings with officials.

I cannot recognise the suggestion of a hands-off, confrontational approach: the Secretary of State has consistently chosen to do everything he can, particularly to cancel the Christmas strikes, which are timed for the most damaging period of the year. The Secretary of State even went as far as to extend the BMA’s strike mandate, giving it time to call off strikes while it consulted its members and an option to rearrange if the offer was rejected. I am astounded that the BMA rejected the offer that was put before it. It was a comprehensive offer to resident doctors to resolve their disputes, providing those currently applying with more training job opportunities, prioritising UK-trained graduates, and it would have put money back in the pockets of resident doctors. Among a whole range of things that noble Lords have rightly acknowledged, the rejection of the offer means that NHS colleagues will be cancelling Christmas plans to cover shifts and patients will have their operations cancelled as the NHS prepares for the worst.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked: what happens next? In these circumstances, it is a very powerful question. The Government will consider our next steps, with our first priority being to deal with strikes. I reassure noble Lords that the focus of the department and the NHS will be on getting the health service through the double whammy—as has been well referenced by noble Lords—of flu and strikes. We have already vaccinated 17 million people, which is 170,000 more than last year; we will continue to work intensively with front-line leaders to prepare for the coming disruption.

On the offer, the BMA asked us to create more training places, which is what we would have done. The offer would have created 4,000 new speciality training posts for resident doctors over the next three years, with an additional 1,000 for this year. Under this deal, more doctors in non-training roles would have had the opportunity to progress their careers and become the consultants and GPs of the future we all want to see. Sadly, this offer is no longer on the table, thanks to the rejection by the BMA membership. That is why our focus has to be on dealing with strikes and getting through.

Our operational response is to mitigate the impact of any industrial action. We should acknowledge, as we have heard from the Front Benches, that flu rates are the highest they have been in the last five years for this time of year. I am sure that all noble Lords, while recognising legitimate concerns about access to training places, will remain concerned that an offer that would have made a real difference has been wholly rejected and strikes are going ahead. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I do believe there was a way out and the BMA membership has chosen not to take it.

On the estimated cost of strike action, the July strikes cost the NHS around £250 million. If those costs repeat themselves for November and December, strike action will have cost around £750 million in this year alone. The cost of the five-day resident doctors’ strike in July could have paid for training for over 1,600 GPs over three years or 28,000 hip and knee replacements. But, again, the Government’s offer has been rejected so we will have to make our first priority dealing with the strikes.

Through the Employment Rights Bill, we want to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation; we want productive and constructive engagement; we want to respect the democratic mandate of unions; and we want to reset our industrial relations. For me, this sets us back considerably, sadly, and that has been clearly acknowledged. What do strikes do? They suck up time, resources and energy, and the costs for the NHS, as I have already stated, are around £250 million. While we have made a number of offers and acknowledged legitimate concerns, I do not believe that that has been treated in the way it should have been.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked about the 4,000 roles. That was in response to the BMA, which asked us to create more training roles, which was a fair request and exactly what we would have done. It would have created 4,000 new speciality training posts for resident doctors over the next three years, with an additional 1,000 this year. It would have meant more doctors in non-training roles having an opportunity to progress. But, as a Government, it is our duty to consider our next steps, and our first priority will be to deal with the strikes.

19:49

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister respond to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven: are these genuinely new training places? I put this question last week and did not really get an answer. I understand that resident doctors are concerned about the inability to plan ahead for training places, and want to have a place that will last for up to a year or longer. They are at the age where they want to put down roots and probably marry and have a family, but because of the way training is organised, that is not possible.

Furthermore, I am not quite sure if it was a 29% or 30% pay increase in any one year, but whatever it was, I understand that this still leaves resident doctors with an under-pay performance of less than 17% compared to 2009. They are being paid less than a train driver, a tube driver or even an Uber driver. I believe we owe them the respect they deserve. My father and brother had to work every Christmas or new year. In my father’s time it was every other night and weekend on call. We have come a long way since then, but we need to give the British-born doctors who want to train a priority in the system which is not being shown to them at the moment.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has just made a very good case as to why the offer which has been rejected would have been so helpful. On the issue of pay, our door has remained open to the BMA and to reasonable, realistic solutions to resolving the dispute, on which we have been repeatedly clear. I know the noble Baroness did not say this, but I say more broadly that there can be no suggestion that the BMA was not aware that we can go no further on pay this year. Resident doctors have already had a good deal on pay—an average 28.9% rise over the last three years—but pay expectations have to take account of the fiscal position and the impact across the whole of the NHS and beyond. I am glad to hear that noble Lords are in agreement with that approach.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the BMA pay claim has been ridiculous right from the start, and I share my noble friend the Minister’s outrage at the decision to carry out these strikes at a moment when the health service is on its knees, certainly in Birmingham. We are in a critical situation: the service is working under huge pressure, and ambulances are finding it very difficult to discharge patients at A&E because we cannot get the flow of patients through the system.

Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I wondered if my noble friend the Minister shares my view. I remember the 2014 junior hospital doctors’ dispute. Although that was ostensibly about pay, what came through was frustration at the way training and working lives were organised, with inflexible placements and utterly insensitive rota allocations. It made junior doctors’ working lives increasingly difficult. This was 2014. Does my noble friend the Minister think that part of the reason we are here now is that nothing was done to respond to the substantive issues juniors raised at the time, and that at some point, there will be a constructive way forward? I am convinced that tackling the way junior and resident doctors are treated in the health service will have to be at the heart of what we do.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, and I share his view. I am sure he will be very familiar with this, but it is worth reminding ourselves that in the Statement we are debating, the Secretary of State said last week:

“On jobs, I have much more sympathy with the BMA’s demands. I have heard the very real fears that resident doctors across the country have about their futures; it is a legitimate grievance that I agree with”.


As the Secretary of State outlined and my noble friend referred to, we have inherited

“training bottlenecks that … leave huge numbers of resident doctors without a job … UK graduates”

used to compete

“among themselves for specialty roles; now, they are competing against”

the rest of the world.

“That is a direct result of the visa and immigration changes made by the previous … Government post-Brexit, and … compounded by the”


then Government’s

“decision to increase the number of medical students without also increasing the number of specialty training places”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/25; col. 429.]

This has not just come about, and I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding us of the history of this.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister was asked what happens next. May I ask her to consider this? Notwithstanding what has already been discussed tonight in this Chamber, the general public out there are going to face a long period with a lot of bank holidays. If we think back to the Covid period, people, for different reasons, were reluctant to dial 999 or 111 to get medical advice or to seek assistance. I know from a personal point of view that I would really not want to be admitted into an emergency department unless I was literally dead. People have a fear of this: we see the trollies and hear now of the shortage of staff. I say that having worked in an operating theatre over a Christmas period.

Can the Minister say what plans the Government have already made to give accurate information to the general public about how they should proceed during this Christmas period if they have relatives who are showing cardiac symptoms or severe respiratory problems? There is a need for some practical guidance on what to do and to encourage people—if they are sitting at home and are genuinely that ill, they must seek help.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with a number of the points made by the noble Baroness, particularly her last one: people must seek the help they need. I assure your Lordships’ House that the entire focus of the department and the NHS will be on getting the health service through this double whammy of flu and strikes. Despite the huge extra numbers, there will still be people who are not vaccinated. Therefore, in addition to seeking help when needed, I also make a plea to those who have not yet been vaccinated please to do so; that will help immensely.

It is probably worth saying that the next round of strikes will bring the total number of days of strike action to 59, over 14 rounds of industrial action, since March 2023. So I remind your Lordships’ House that this did not start with this government but has preceded it for some time.

To the noble Baroness’s point about performance, I pay huge tribute—as I am sure we all do—to the dedication of NHS staff at this time. During the November round of strike action, the NHS set an ambitious goal to maintain 95% of planned care. It succeeded in doing that, which is totally down to the NHS workforce pulling round. We also proved last time that we could maintain a near full programme of elective care. Our immediate plan, which the noble Baroness asked about, is to replicate this over the upcoming five days of industrial action in December. There is no reason for these strikes, and I know the effect they have and the concern they create for the general public. The noble Baroness allows me to remind us that these strikes are not supported by the general public.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, one of the four priorities named in the Budget delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was reducing waiting lists. If this strike goes ahead, what increase would there be in the waiting lists? Secondly, the Secretary of State in his Statement said that he is putting

“money back in … doctors’ pockets by”

funding

“royal college portfolio, membership and exam fees … backdated to April”,—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/25; col. 430.]

and increasing the allowance for less-than-full-time doctors to £1,500. Where is the money coming from? Is this funded, or will this money be borrowed?

Finally, taxpayers spend £4 billion training medics every year. Are the Government persuading resident doctors to keep their social contract with taxpayers? It seems to me that calling this strike at this point in time is a bargain betrayed.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly understand the noble and right reverend Lord’s point. The offer we made—which covered a number of the areas that the noble and right reverend Lord referred to, plus more—is not applicable because it was not accepted. We put it forward, developed it further and did all we could that was realistic. The noble and right reverend Lord asked whether it is funded, but I will change the tense of his question: it would have been funded, but the offer was rejected and therefore is no longer on the table. That is why it is not going ahead.

On waiting lists, as I mentioned to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, we have proved that we can maintain a near full programme of elective work, with 95% of planned care being maintained—and, again, let us pay tribute to the NHS staff who have done that. But let us not suggest that there are no effects. It affects the staff who step in to cover for their colleagues. We have an NHS in desperate need of reform. We are turning it around, but these strikes get in our way. As I mentioned, we cannot underestimate the amount of effort, finance, direction and morale—the list could go on—that these strikes take up. I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord for raising those points.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I share the outrage, fury and frustration about this industrial action. My noble friend the Minister and others around the Chamber are absolutely right to pay tribute to the workforce, and I give a particular shout-out to nurses. We are always focused on doctors—I hope noble Lords present who are doctors will forgive me—but nurses do a splendid job, and too often we forget that they work for relatively little pay as well.

I was glad that when the Secretary of State was negotiating, he was talking about the training places, because the training bottleneck is absurd. I know many brilliant young resident doctors who are so frustrated and have a terrible deal, so I urge my noble friend to pass on to the Secretary of State my view that, when he is next around the negotiating table, training places should be there in the negotiations.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend rightly refers, as I did earlier, to the training bottleneck. The Secretary of State was glad to acknowledge the need to tackle training. While he felt that there was no point on pay to be accepted, he certainly felt that the BMA resident doctors committee had a good point on jobs. To be honest, that is why it is so disappointing to be where we are today.

I will pass on my noble friend’s generous comments to the Secretary of State. He offered to introduce emergency legislation in the new year to prioritise UK medical graduates and other doctors with significant experience of working in the NHS in speciality training posts. That would have made a huge difference, but it has been rejected. He also offered to increase the number of training posts over the next three years, from the 1,000 that was originally announced to 4,000, bringing forward 1,000 of those training posts to start next year—that would have made a huge difference. I could go on, but I have made my point.

I agree with my noble friend’s point about acknowledging the role of nurses. In fact, if my noble friend will allow me, I will go further: we are talking about the whole healthcare team. That is another point to the issue on pay: while the BMA doctors committee continues to press for a pay deal far in excess of anything that anyone else is getting, the impact across the NHS, both on staff and on services, continues to be under threat—and we cannot allow that.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, as a doctor, I feel that a doctor withdrawing or withholding services from a patient is dishonourable and unethical—full stop. I find no reason that I can support for a doctor to withdraw their services, because their patients are trusting them with their lives. As far as I am concerned, junior and senior doctors should never go on strike, whether or not the issue with pay is justified—that is a separate issue; there are other ways to discuss and handle that. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about what should happen now, junior doctors or resident doctors, or whatever they call themselves, should go back to work and not go on strike—not now and not ever.

There is a separate and long-standing issue with training, which has been referred to. Some years ago I reviewed medical training and was chairman of the Specialist Training Authority. There is a need now to review doctors’ training completely, particularly postgraduate training. It is not sufficient to allow for more training posts—that does not solve the issue. What is required is a complete review of the training of speciality doctors. I hope that the Secretary of State, in his discussions, can make that offer and set up a review. I have no reason whatever to support the junior doctors’ strike.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord is an honourable man, as we all know in your Lordships’ House. I heard his comments on how he sees withdrawing labour in this regard, and I hope they are heard more widely. He makes a good point about reviewing training. Unfortunately, we are currently in the position of having made an offer that was rejected. The offer we made is not going ahead, so I cannot give the commitments that the noble Lord might like. We will deal with the strikes in the first instance, as I know noble Lords would expect. I am sure that if we ever get back to a constructive discussion, the issue of a review could be put forward, as the noble Lord suggested.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on strikes. Why are we still allowing in overseas doctors, when domestically trained doctors cannot secure the speciality jobs that they are applying for? When will the legislation that the Government have talked about come in? It really would make a difference.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I can only agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness about what a difference it would make. It was actually included in the comprehensive offer that we made to the BMA on 8 December. Our first point was about introducing emergency legislation, which would—exactly as the noble Baroness asks for—prioritise UK medical graduates and other doctors who have significant experience of working in the NHS for speciality training posts. At the risk of repeating myself, I can do no more than to say that the BMA has rejected that, as part of the offer, and so it will not go ahead. Had the BMA accepted it, we would have been absolutely willing and able to introduce that emergency legislation. Our job will be to consider the next steps, now that we have had confirmation of the rejection of the very point that the noble Baroness rightly emphasised.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, has not the time come for the BMA to reject the way the resident doctors committee is behaving? I do not believe that the NHS I know would be supportive of its actions.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am sure that the BMA will hear what your Lordships’ House has said today and, in particular, the point made by the noble Baroness. Perhaps I could conclude this important debate by referring to a YouGov poll which was conducted on 12 December. It found that only 33% of the public support strikes in this area and that 58% of the public oppose strikes. The public have made their voice clear, as has your Lordships’ House, for which I am grateful.

Crime and Policing Bill

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Committee (6th Day) (Continued)

20:11

Amendment 337

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

337: After Clause 105, insert the following new Clause—
“Safeguarding vulnerable groups: regulated activity (Northern Ireland)(1) Schedule 2 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/1351 (N.I. 11)) (regulated activity) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 1 omit—(a) in sub-paragraph (2A)(b), the words “(disregarding paragraph 2(3A) and (3B)(b))”;(b) in sub-paragraph (2B)—(i) in paragraph (a)(ii), the words “(disregarding paragraph 2(3A) and (3B)(b))”; (ii) paragraph (b) and the “or” immediately before it;(c) sub-paragraph (2C);(d) sub-paragraph (13).(3) In paragraph 2 omit—(a) sub-paragraph (3A);(b) in sub-paragraph (3B), paragraph (b) and the “and” immediately before it;(c) sub-paragraph (3C).(4) Omit paragraph 5A and the italic heading before it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for Northern Ireland which is equivalent to that made by clause 105 for England and Wales.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 337 replicates for Northern Ireland the provisions of Clause 105, which apply to England and Wales. Amendments 520, 550, 559 and 561 are consequential to Amendment 337.

Currently, the definition of regulated activity—that is, roles that are subject to the highest level of enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service, or DBS, check, such as those working closely with vulnerable adults and children—includes an exemption for work which is

“subject to the day to day supervision of another person”.

This means that people in roles which involve close work with children are not in regulated activity if they are working under supervision.

In its final report, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse recommended that anyone engaging an individual to work or volunteer with children on a frequent basis should be able to check whether they have been barred by the DBS from working with children, including where the role is supervised. The Government agree with this recommendation, and, at the request of the Department of Health, these amendments make the same change to the law for Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has Amendment 337A in this group. I will respond to that once we have heard from the noble Lord and others. For now, I beg to move.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 337A, in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman and Lady Doocey. As ever, I declare my interest as a state secondary school teacher and as a level 2 ECB cricket coach, which is relevant here. I tried to table a similar amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill but was told that it would be better here, so here we are. I give thanks to Alistair Wood of Edapt, who has doggedly pursued this issue.

I was astounded to learn earlier this year that someone who has been barred from working with children can still privately tutor without having to reveal their conviction, as it is a private matter between tutor and parents or carers. Amendment 337A therefore seeks to address a simple but significant safeguarding loophole in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 that allows individuals who have been barred from working with children to operate entirely legally as private tutors, coaches or instructors in out-of-school settings.

20:15

The problem arises because activity arranged directly by a parent is treated in law as a private arrangement under Section 6. As a result, it is not regulated activity. That single distinction has wide-reaching consequences. It means that an individual who has been placed on the children’s barred list, whether due to a criminal conviction or serious safeguarding concerns, can legally tutor a child in the tutor’s own home, online or in any other unsupervised setting. The same applies to other forms of instruction where parents are hiring self-employed individuals directly or via an online brokering platform. Unlike regulated activity, parents are unable to request the enhanced barred list check that would reveal the risk. Crucially, the police and the DBS cannot intervene even when they are aware that someone on the barred list is advertising as a tutor or working with children.

In a school or a sports club, such an individual would commit an offence by applying for the role. In private tutoring, no offence occurs until a new harm is caused. It is nonsensical that someone deemed too dangerous to work in a school, with its safeguarding duties and oversight, can legitimately advertise, locally or online, to teach a child one-to-one in their bedroom or living room.

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

Your Lordships discussed the issue briefly during Committee on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, when the Minister said:

“Anyone who regularly teaches, trains, instructs, supervises or cares for children unsupervised is considered to be working in a regulated activity”.—[Official Report, 2/9/25; col. 739.]

But that is not how Section 6 of the 2006 Act operates. Where a parent hires a private tutor directly, no matter how frequent or intensive the work, it is not a regulated activity because the parent is not a regulated activity provider. That is precisely the gap that this amendment seeks to close.

The amendment consciously seeks to maintain the balance between the responsibilities of parents and those of the state. It would preserve the long-standing exemption for family members and friends, ensuring that informal arrangements, such as enterprising sixth form students from the same school or a family friend providing support, are entirely untouched. Parents would not become regulated activity providers and would incur no legal duties. The amendment would simply close off the route by which a barred individual can present themselves as a tutor and make it an offence for a barred person to do so. This is not a partisan matter. It is a straightforward safeguarding correction to ensure that the DBS regime operates as intended. I urge the Government to accept it.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 337A, which is about consistency and common sense. The same standard of protection should apply wherever a child is taught, whether in a classroom, online or in their own home. Parents assume that safeguards already exist, and they are shocked when they learn that someone barred from working with children can still legally offer tuition. In my experience, the vast majority of parents do not know this. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has said, this is a huge loophole, and something needs to be done about it as a matter of urgency.

The targeted change would simply ensure that the law reflects modern patterns of learning and closes an indefensible gap without adding either bureaucracy or cost. It would strengthen public confidence in the DBS system and in the integrity of child protection as a whole. Tutoring is now a central part of many children’s education, especially those who are already vulnerable or struggling, and the law really does need to keep pace with this reality. By backing the amendment, the Government can demonstrate that safeguarding principles are applied consistently across all settings, formal and informal alike, and that known risks will never again be allowed to fall between the cracks of overlapping regulations. It is a modest step, but one entirely consistent with our shared commitment to protect every child from exploitation and harm. In the end, it is simply a test of resolve. If we know where the danger lies, we have a duty to act before another child is placed at risk.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, just to demonstrate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, this is a cross-party matter and he has my support. I would be interested—he may or may not know—in the number of children affected by the failure of the regime to make sure that these tutors and so forth are properly registered. In any case, I wholeheartedly agree that this is a common-sense measure and needs to be brought in as soon as possible.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, one area that is of great concern to me is private music tuition. I have had some pretty horrendous safeguarding cases to deal with in churches, where a church musician who has committed some serious offences has gone on to privately tutor underage pupils. That particular form of tuition—which is very often done privately, arranged by parents who see an advertisement on the internet or in a newspaper—needs to be included.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, I have been a community worker for over 35 years now and I have dealt with many communities where one parent has found someone to do tuition, and that has acted as a bit of a kitemark. Other parents have felt they were safe because of the relationship they have with that particular parent. This very strong common-sense proposal would protect entire communities in one fell swoop. I really support this very important amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments tabled by the Government and to Amendment 337A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Amendment 337 provides Northern Ireland with provisions equivalent to those in Clause 105. As with similar amendments earlier in the Bill, we recognise the need for aligned protections across jurisdictions, and I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the engagement with Northern Ireland departments and confirm that operational partners are prepared for implementation. Similarly, Amendments 520 and 550 ensure appropriate territorial extent and commencement powers for Northern Ireland. These are direct drafting and procedural changes that appear entirely sensible.

Turning to Amendment 337A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, we are supportive of the principle it raises. Closing a loophole that allows barred individuals to tutor children through so-called private arrangements seems an important and proportionate step, while the amendment sensibly preserves the long-standing exemptions for family and friends. I recognise, however, that extended regulated activity in this way may raise practical questions about enforcement and the potential impact on legitimate private tutoring arrangements, and it would be helpful to understand how these concerns would be managed in practice. I hope the Minister will respond constructively to the issues highlighted here.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for setting out the case for his Amendment 337A. I pay tribute to his advocacy on this issue and on many other related issues as a teacher and—I did not realise this until tonight—as a cricket coach as well. I hope he is doing good work churning out a better set for the next encounter we have with the Australians, because I am afraid I have fears for the third Ashes Test, which is due to begin.

I also pay tribute to other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, to demonstrate the cross-party nature of the issue that we are talking about and the consensus, we must make sure that there is protection for families and young people in every scenario and every setting. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for bringing the specific issue of music tutoring to the Committee’s attention, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, for sharing his experience from his years as a youth worker.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has explained, this amendment seeks to prevent individuals who are barred from working in regulated activity with children from working as private tutors when hired directly by a parent. It does this by specifying that private tutoring is a regulated activity, even when provided under a private arrangement. I can assure the noble Lord that this amendment is unnecessary because the existing legal framework already achieves this outcome. Under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, teaching, including private tutoring, that meets the statutory frequency criteria—for example, on more than three days in a 30-day period—is already a regulated activity. It is already an offence for a person on the children’s barred list to undertake such activity.

It is certainly the case, as the noble Lord pointed out, that parents are currently unable to check whether a private tutor is barred from working with children. This is because, under the current legislation, self-employed individuals cannot access higher-level DBS checks, which may include information on spent convictions, cautions and barred list status. However, I am pleased to inform your Lordships that on 20 November, the Government laid a statutory instrument, which was debated in the other place this very evening and is due to come into force on 21 January. It is an affirmative statutory instrument, so your Lordships’ House will be discussing it early in the new year.

This SI will allow individuals who are self-employed or employed directly by an individual or family where they are engaged in regulated activity with children and adults to access enhanced DBS checks, including checks of the relevant barred lists. As a result, private tutors who meet the statutory frequency criteria for regulated activity with children will be able to obtain an enhanced DBS certificate, including a check against the children’s barred list. Parents will be able to see this check before deciding whether to engage the tutor and will not become regulated activity providers by doing so.

This statutory instrument delivers the core safeguarding purpose of the amendment, enabling parents to check whether a prospective tutor is barred by the DBS from working with children and giving them the information that they need to make confident and informed decisions. I have already spoken about the government amendments, but in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, around engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive, they approached us to ensure that there was UK-wide coverage of the enhanced scheme. We have been working very much hand-in-glove with them to develop the regime that the government amendments put in place.

I hope that on that basis, the noble Lord will not move his amendment but will support the government amendments.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I am not quite sure that I understood properly. The statutory instrument will allow parents to check whether somebody is on the barred list, but it does not seem to affect the critical bit. People can still work with children or say that they are tutors even though they are on the barred list. Am I correct? This seems to be the crux of the whole thing more than where parents sit on this and whether they are regulated providers.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The important change that we are making is that it enables parents to access checks at the higher level, so they will be able to decide on whether to engage somebody. The parent will be able to access the check, see their history and, based on what the DBS check throws up, decide whether they will be engaged without necessarily becoming classified as a provider as in the current regime. That is an important distinction. It does not pull them into a different sphere of activity but allows them to ask a crucial question: is this person fit to be a tutor for my child?

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I am still not clear. There are 90,000 names on the DBS barred list. I understand the Minister to have said that parents will now be able to access the enhanced barred list, therefore things that would not be picked up in a lower-level DBS check will be picked up with the enhanced one. However, if somebody asks, “Is Fred Bloggs okay?”, can they just ask for his enhanced records or will it say that “Fred Bloggs is one of the 90,000 people that are on the DBS barred list”?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

To be clear, they will have the same rights and access as a school has at the moment. We are equalising the scheme, so yes, they would be able to see that he is on the barred list and have access to the record. I hope that clarifies it for the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

It would say, “This person is barred”.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Absolutely.

20:30

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

As the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, and the right reverend Prelate were saying, the fact that these people can set themselves up as tutors or much respected musical educators is what I find astonishing. There seems to be no way of stopping these people posing as those even when they are on a barred list. They cannot work in a school or somewhere where they would be regulated, but they can work in people’s homes—in people’s bedrooms.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I understand the point that is made, but the system is about evaluating, classifying and giving information—in the current case to institutions—about the worthiness of the individual to work with children or with anybody in a safeguarding situation. We are levelling the playing field so that anybody who wants to engage someone in that capacity can do that and have the same knowledge and security that they are engaging with somebody who is—

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I know that the Minister is doing his best and this is not meant to be a controversial debate, but surely the paramount concern must be the welfare of the children. Sharing information is not just a mechanical exercise. It requires trust by the parent who is employing the music teacher in a private space that they are approved—that they are permitted to engage in one-to-one teaching activity in somebody’s home. The parent could be downstairs or in the next room, but I know that music teachers can get up to all sorts of tricks while the parent is in the next room. We need to be a little bit more robust in ensuring that this regime is there to protect children and not simply to make life easy for bureaucrats.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

This supposes that a parent has the wherewithal, time and skill to interrogate this list. It is not making a level playing field. I have been a governor of many schools. We have people who are employed specifically to do these things. I have never met a parent who has done them. We should be sending a message to people who are deliberately trying to trick parents that they will be held directly responsible, not that the parent will have to catch them out. It only takes one predator to get lucky once to devastate a child’s life, whereas a parent will have to be lucky every single time to stop this. The emphasis is in the wrong place.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I appreciate the points that the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, are making. To be absolutely clear, anyone who is on the barred list who works with children is committing an offence. What we are doing by laying the statutory instrument is to allow anybody easy access to understand the nature of the person they are engaging with, whether that person is on the barred list or not. We are not trying to make life easy for bureaucrats here, but we are not trying to invent a whole new system. We are trying to make a system that is effective in all settings.

Obviously, we will have a debate on the statutory instruments, so there will be another opportunity in the very near future for your Lordships to come back to this discussion. But it is clear that this, as we have all agreed, is about safeguarding children. We do not want to disrupt a system or have different tiers and levels of access, or different ways of operating, depending on whether you are talking about private tutors in one setting or another. We are just trying to make a level playing field, and that is what the system we are proposing does.

The Northern Ireland Executive want to buy into it, and that is why they have asked us to lay the government amendments in this group. So I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton—we are all speaking from the right place and with the right motivation—so I hope he understands and will not move his amendment.

Amendment 337 agreed.

Amendment 337A not moved.

Clause 106: Dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling

Amendments 337B to 342F not moved.

Debate on whether Clause 106 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to have a short debate—not so much on Clause 106, which I welcome and congratulate the Government on bringing forward, but rather more on what is not in Clause 106. I am delighted to have my Private Member’s Bill still before the House, so it may yet be adopted before the end of the parliamentary Session. I know that my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith took some parts of it and ran with it in a previous Bill—I think it was criminal justice—now an Act.

There are two aspects omitted which concern me, and which we touched on. I will not go into great length, but I just want to float them before the Minister and the Committee this evening. One is the question of insurance. The Motor Insurers’ Bureau was first established in 1946 to compensate victims of accidents involving uninsured hit and run drivers under agreements with the Department for Transport. It aims to reduce the level and impact of uninsured driving in the UK, which is something we all commend and support.

Since 2019, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau responsibilities have also included compensating victims for Road Traffic Act liabilities arising from the use of a motor vehicle in an act of terrorism, whether or not the vehicle is insured. So, obviously, the funding to the MIB is quite considerable. The levy is set at £530 million for this year and it handles something like 25,000 claims every year.

What is really missing here is the insurance link. The department has brought forward, rightly, in Clause 106 offences which have been missing. Two of them, as I mentioned earlier, are the first two clauses of my Private Member’s Bill—so far so good. But then it goes rapidly downhill. If you are going to create these offences and these liabilities where someone cycling a pedal bike or an e-bike or driving an e-scooter causes death or injury by dangerous cycling and other forms of cycling—death by careless or inconsiderate cycling as well as dangerous cycling—the corollary must surely be that insurance cover must legally follow. That is what is missing from the Bill at the moment.

I have tried to plug that gap, and I think another noble Lord earlier also mentioned that they had tried to come forward with provisions in that regard. Obviously, the department is in the best position to do this. The Minister is doing a great job on the Bill and is listening to all sides of the Committee very carefully and considerably. That is greatly appreciated.

Before the Bill leaves Committee—I would like to bring this back on Report—I would like to leave it to the Minister’s good offices to plug that gap. The corollary of creating these motor offences is that there must be some form of compensation for the victims concerned. I do not see why I, as a motorist—unfortunately, I do not cycle any more; it is a question of balance, not a lack of good will—should have to pick up the compensation claims for those who have been injured in this way.

I touched earlier on the second point I want to raise, but I have now remembered the relevant Bill. Micromobility is also being dealt with in a small part of—I hope I have not forgotten it again. There are so many Bills coming through: you wait for one and 27 come along at once. It is the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—not the most obvious place to have a chapter on micromobility.

This is the second request I have of the Minister this evening and, if he is not prepared to, I stand prepared to do it. There was an earlier amendment that did not go as far as the clause in my Private Member’s Bill. I would like to help the Minister. I know that, were we in the other place together, as we were once, he might find this a cynical approach, but I genuinely would like to help the Minister.

The definition that I propose is that which I have set out in my Private Member’s Bill, and I am grateful to the clerks for helping me draft it. I know your Lordships will all want to go away to read it, so I should say that it is the Road Traffic Offences (Cycling) Bill. I am prepared to answer any questions on it, at any stage.

I propose the following definition:

“a pedal cycle … an electrically assisted pedal cycle … a mechanically propelled personal transporter, including … an electric scooter, …. a self-balancing personal transporter (including a self-balancing scooter, self-balancing board or electric unicycle), and … any other mechanically propelled personal transporter provided for by the Secretary of State in regulations made under this section”.

The clause concludes by saying that, for the purposes of this subsection,

“mechanically propelled personal transporters are to be defined in regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section”.

I am very grateful to the clerks for coming up with that form of words.

The point I am trying to make is that we have two departments involved here: the Home Office for the purpose of the Bill before us this evening, and the Department for Transport in a Bill which is not its Bill but the English devolution Bill. I hope the Minister will agree that, for both Bills, we need a definition of these pedal bicycles or other such, and micromobility vehicles. I hope that he might come forward with a form of words in this regard and bring the two departments together, so that we are all on the same page for the purposes of this Bill and the English devolution Bill.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this clause stand part notice seeks to remove the clause that creates the new offences of dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling. I now understand why: it is to raise the issue of insurance and the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill, which was raised and discussed in an earlier group today.

If we look at the figures from Cycling UK, we see that the proportion of cycling trips has returned to pre-pandemic levels. Some 41% of those aged five or above have access to or own a bike. We are looking at around 22% of people over five cycling more than once or twice a month, so it is a really important mode of transport. It is important for people to be able to get around, but we need to make sure that people who cycle are able to do so safely through good infrastructure and that they are considerate, obey the Highway Code and cycle in a safe and considerate way.

As I raised earlier, given that in the period 2020-2024, nine pedestrians were killed and 738 were seriously injured in incidents involving a pedal cycle, it is important that the law is up to date and provides the necessary penalties for such actions. Therefore, on these Benches we do not support the removal of the clause.

20:45

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I was very interested in the list of different types of wheeled movement produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Mcintosh of Pickering. It is easy to go into great detail—she mentioned monocycles. You could have further definitions depending on the diameter of the wheel, the pressure in the tyre and any other kind of thing. But where will it get us apart from more fines and a lack of enforcement? As my noble friend said in the last group of amendments, he is doing his very best with enforcement, particularly in the City of London. There is a limit to how much enforcement you can get.

You could then have a category for different-sized boxes on the back of these things. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has got it right—we should just keep it simple; make it proportionate to the damage and effect that cycling and scootering have on other people, and leave it like that.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her clause stand part notice. On behalf of the Opposition Front Bench, we support Clause 106. As was set out in response to one of the earlier groups on cycling, we on this side strongly support the creation of the new offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling.

It is often said, and too rarely challenged, that cyclists are harmless; that their contribution to road danger is negligible. But the facts tell another story. As was said earlier, there were 82 pedal cycle fatalities in 2024 and many more serious injuries. Yet in the same period, the number of prosecutions for careless or dangerous cycling remained vanishingly small. In 2023, only 44 pedal cyclists were convicted for careless cycling and only five convicted for dangerous cycling. That discrepancy between actual harms and enforcement cannot stand.

Contrast that with motor vehicle driving—serious collisions involving cars or motorbikes routinely lead to formal investigations, charges, licence points, disqualifications and even long prison terms. The law, and indeed the public, treat death or serious injury caused by a motor vehicle as a major crime, but there is no comparable public or legal response when a cyclist injures or kills a pedestrian. That double standard undermines justice and safety and sends the wrong message.

Furthermore, with the rise of e-bikes and e-scooters, a dangerous tool is emerging that should not go unaddressed. As noted in the impact assessment for the Bill, prosecutions for existing offences are minimal and the penalties are insufficiently dissuasive. That suggests not only a failure to protect law-abiding cyclists and citizens but a broader pattern of underpolicing of cycle-related crime.

If we are serious about public safety and fair and equal enforcement, we cannot continue to treat dangerous cycling as a lesser category of offence. For that reason, I support Clause 106.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

The noble Lord did not mention cars running over pedestrians and killing them—does that not matter?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Of course it matters. It is quite a serious matter, in my opinion.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree: it does matter. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for Clause 106.

I will bring the debate back to what Clause 106 is about, which is ensuring that every road user complies with road traffic law in the interests of their safety and that of other road users. This includes cyclists, which is clear in the Highway Code. Clause 106 should stand part of the Bill. We put the clause in so that there is parity between cars and cyclists in the event of death and serious injury. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for that. If I accepted the recommendation that the clause should not stand part, we would not have that provision before the Committee today.

It is important that we agree to the clause for several reasons, not least of which is the fact that over the past 10 years an average of three pedestrians have been killed by cyclists per year. In total, there were 603 pedestrian injuries following a collision with a pedal cycle in Great Britain in 2023, which was a quite considerable rise on 2014.

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

The Government do not believe that the current offences for cyclists who exhibit dangerous or careless behaviour have appropriate penalties, particularly when it results in death or serious injury. That is why we are introducing the new dangerous cycling offences here in Clause 106. That will bring equality before the law. It will make sure that there is parity with motoring offences. If somebody is killed because of the poor performance of a road user, that road user should ultimately face a penalty whether they are on a bike or in a car.

I say again: this should be about trying to make cyclists aware that their vehicle is dangerous, even though it is a bike, and that it can lead to death or to serious injury. At the same time, we want to ensure, as we are doing, that we get the huge health and environmental benefits of cycling. The Government have committed £600 million in the spending review for new cycling and walking infrastructure, and that is the right thing to do.

I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on these matters. She has asked two specific questions, about insurance and about defining the type of vehicle involved. They are both amendments to the clause, in effect, but I accept the discussion. The question is about the clause and its implementation, but the clause is not about insurance or about defining. Any change to insurance requirements would require some very careful consideration, as it could put people off cycling and have adverse effects on health and congestion. It might well stop people cycling; they would use cars for short journeys instead. It might involve an enforcement regime, which we have talked about earlier, being examined again. Some cyclists have third-party insurance and that is good.

This is predominantly a Department for Transport matter. I will examine both the issues, on insurance and on definition, that the noble Baroness raised and discuss them with the Department for Transport. Ultimately, Clause 106 is about prevention of death or serious injury by cycling. It should stay part of the Bill and should not be deleted. That is why I hope the noble Baroness will not take that option at an appropriate moment, if not today. I hope she reflects on what I said, and I will certainly reflect on what she said.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am not sure whether the noble Lord replied on the definition.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With due respect, I am very happy to look at that. Essentially, there is a Home Office aspect to this clause, which is death and serious injury by dangerous cycling, but the issues the noble Baroness raised about insurance and the definition are for the Department for Transport. I will take those issues away and make sure that my noble friend Lord Hendy examines them, but it is not for me to look at issues that I have not thought through because they are Department for Transport issues. We have thought through this Bill and the clause before us, and it is about death and serious injury by dangerous cycling, not the two issues that the noble Baroness raised.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I thank the Minister for responding. There will be another opportunity in the other Bill to do this. I tried to table an amendment on insurance, but we were told it was out of scope. However, it is a corollary of creating the offences, and we welcome the creation of the offences.

Clause 106 agreed.

Amendments 343 and 344 not moved.

Amendment 345

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

345: After Clause 106, insert the following new Clause—
“Police guidance and pilot: enforcement of criminal offences for illegal vehicles on roads(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must issue guidance to the college of policing and the National Police Chief’s Council on enforcement of criminal offences committed by drivers of vehicles illegally being driven on public roads.(2) The guidance under subsection (1) must include guidance on enforcement of criminal offences committed by drivers of vehicles which—(a) do not have a valid MOT;(b) are not registered with the DVLA;(c) are driven without a registration plate or one that is non-complaint or not associated to that vehicle;(d) are driven by drivers without a valid driving license;(e) are not insured;(f) are persistent evaders of toll, congestion or parking offences;(g) are displaying a stolen, ceased or fraudulent Blue Badge;(h) are vehicles registered overseas which have been in the UK for more than six months.(3) In conjunction with the guidance published under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must by Regulations make arrangements for an enforcement pilot, within the area of one or more police forces and for a period of not more than two years working with other public bodies that may lead to improving enforcement of the criminal offences in subsection (2).(4) In the context of the pilot under subsection (3), the Secretary of State may provide by regulations that—(a) outsource the operation (but not the oversight) of the pilot to another public body, or to a firm accredited by the Enforcement Conduct Board; (b) permit information sharing between relevant public bodies who hold information which will assist enforcement of those criminal offences in (2) and the operators of the pilot;(c) provide the operators of the pilot the powers that they need to detain vehicles where the owners have not responded to requests to regularise any of the offences in subsection (2).”

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Amendments 345 and 398 stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. As I said earlier, my noble friend is making a good recovery from an operation. Amendment 345 is straightforward. It asks the Secretary of State to give clear national guidance to policing bodies on how to enforce criminal offences committed by drivers of illegally operated vehicles and to run a short, tightly defined pilot to test practical improvements in enforcement. Across the country, too many dangerous and unlawful vehicles remain on our roads. We have vehicles without MOTs and without insurance, driven by drivers who are unlicensed or who are using stolen or fraudulent plates. These are not just paperwork problems; they are real risks to road users and communities. At the same time, persistent evasion of tolls, congestion charges and parking rules blights town centres and funds organised offending. The current responsibilities are fragmented between the DVLA, local authorities and the police, and that fragmentation creates gaps that offenders exploit.

My noble friend’s amendment would do three things. First, it would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council so that enforcement is consistent, proportionate and focused on the highest harms. Secondly, it would mandate a time-limited enforcement period so that we can test new operational models and information-sharing arrangements in a controlled way. Thirdly, it would allow a pilot to be run with accredited partners under strict oversight so that we can learn what works without rushing into permanent untested powers.

Why is a pilot the right approach? A pilot is the responsible way to proceed. It would let us trial better use of data, test targeted interventions against repeat and organised offenders, and measure the impact on road safety and community harm before any national rollout. It would also allow Parliament to see independent evidence about proportionality, costs and safeguards, which is exactly what the public expect. Let me be clear: this amendment is not a blank cheque. Any information-sharing would have to comply with data protection law, any detention powers would be narrowly defined and subject to review, and any outsourced delivery would operate under ministerial oversight and public reporting. The Secretary of State would have to build those safeguards into the regulations and the pilot design so that civil liberties and accountability are front and centre.

This would be a practical, evidence-led new clause. It would build on existing enforcement work and give police the tools to tackle the most dangerous and persistent offenders while protecting the public and taxpayers. I ask noble Lords to support this amendment so that we can make our roads safer, reduce organised and repeat offending and ensure that enforcement is effective and accountable.

I conclude by saying that I like the other amendments in this group, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and other Peers who have signed them. I look forward to hearing what she has to say. However, I am mystified as to why this amendment is in a group of amendments all about drunk-driving. Having said that, I beg to move.

21:00

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 350 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, Amendment 416B in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, and Amendments 356G and 398 to which I have added my name.

I will turn first to Amendments 350, 356G and 398, about drink-driving, something we all want to see end. Amendment 350 would bring the UK into line with virtually every other country by reducing the permitted blood alcohol level from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. This has widespread support among the public and has been endorsed by an impressive range of organisations, including the BMA—which is not very popular at the moment—the National Police Chiefs’ Council, IAM RoadSmart, PACTS, RoSPA, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Society for Acute Medicine, the College of Paramedics, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners—in other words, exactly the people who have to pick up the pieces when drivers have been behind the wheel after drinking. As RoSPA’s strapline states,

“accidents don’t have to happen”

—never so true as with drink-related car crashes.

The arguments are clear. England and Wales are now the only countries in Europe with a limit as high as 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. All the others, including Scotland, have a limit of 50 milligrams or lower, which the bodies I have name-checked want for new and commercial drivers. A 50-milligram limit leads to fewer crashes and fewer deaths and injuries. Drink-driving fatalities have risen to a fifth of all road deaths, the highest rate since 2009. That is 260 deaths a year, with the victims often an innocent passenger, a pedestrian or a driver from another car. That is only part of the problem, with over 7,000 casualties, some life-changing, because while wonderful medicine and brilliant ambulance staff can save lives, they cannot always save limbs. Public support for change is overwhelming, with three-quarters favouring a lower limit, and nearly this number wanting zero tolerance of drink-driving.

Amendment 398 allowing random breath tests, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, would be a major disincentive to drivers, knowing they could be stopped on any road for a quick blow-into-the-bag test. Few would risk their licence if the chances of being stopped were increased and unpredictable. Regrettably, enforcement of our existing laws has nearly collapsed, with the number of breath tests more than halved since 2009. Meanwhile the proportion of drivers who admit to driving while over the limit has been rising, especially among the under-25s, with some one-third confessing to this. Random breath testing happens in many other countries and the effects are evident. In Queensland, Australia, a reduction from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams with the added use of random testing saw fatal accidents drop by 18%. It is easy to see why. If the chance of being caught is slim, then the likelihood of risking it is high, but if the chance of being caught is high, then the likelihood of risking it is slim.

There is a further measure in Amendment 356G in this group, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will speak in more detail. This is aimed at the repeat drink-driver who, once caught, would then have to have an alcolock fitted to the car, meaning a compulsory unavoidable breath test before the ignition could be switched on. This measure is clear, effective and preventive, and widely used in other countries and widely supported by the public.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 416B, which might answer some of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. This is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, and it concerns something very different. It addresses an oddity that has grown over the years; namely, that the maximum fine for keeping or driving an uninsured car is now well below the cost of insuring a car. It is a real disincentive to bother with that small matter of purchasing insurance.

There are up to 400,000 uninsured cars on our roads every day, yet, as a result of inflation, the fixed penalty notice for uninsured driving remains at just £300, and for keeping such a vehicle a mere £100—this, when the average insurance is about £560. So the price of doing the wrong thing is half of doing the right thing.

Of course, any accident of an uninsured cover driver is covered by all the rest of us via our insurance premium, because some of that funds the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, which pays out. The victim of any crash caused by an uninsured driver is still compensated, so we are all paying for the uninsured driver. Every 20 minutes, someone is injured by an uninsured driver. Indeed, those drivers account for about 130 of the deaths that I have mentioned each year. Despite that, deterrence against non-insurance is minimal so long as the fine is half the average premium.

Our intention when we looked to table an amendment was simple: we wanted to increase the level of the fine, whether for keeping or driving an uninsured vehicle, to a figure well above the cost of insurance. However, that fell foul of the clerks, who advised that it was out of scope of the Bill, meaning that we could not table a change to increase the penalty. What is in scope is to allow the police to confiscate an uninsured vehicle and to hold it until it is insured or, failing that, for the police to take ownership of it—when I told my noble friend the Minister this, I think he hoped it was a Jaguar that was going to be uninsured, which would help the police no end.

Of course, it would be a real incentive if you would lose your car if it was not insured. It was not the original intention to call for that, but I have to say that now it is on paper I am rather attracted to it. However, my question to the Minister today is: please will the Government either take their own action to jack up these fines for having an uninsured car or take the more radical step of giving police the nod to confiscate any car on the road without insurance?

In summary, the amendments to which I put my name would deter people from keeping or driving an uninsured car. Via the random breath tests, about which we will hear shortly from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, they would deter people from driving after drinking. Via the lower blood alcohol level, they would push down the rates of driving after drinking and, via the alcolocks, they would prevent a drink-driving offender taking to the car for a second time. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I shall speak to Amendment 356G in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, who has spoken so forcefully on the subject.

Drink-driving remains one of the most preventable causes of death on UK roads. The latest Department for Transport figures show that an estimated 260 people were killed in crashes on Britain’s roads involving at least one driver over the legal alcohol limit in 2023, and approximately 1,600 people were seriously injured.

Alcohol interlock technology, or alcolocks, can reduce reoffending and save lives. Alcolocks prevent a vehicle from starting if alcohol is detected on the driver’s breath. The driver has to breathe into a tube, and the levels of alcohol are instantly detected before the engine is able to be turned on. According to the RAC Report on Motoring 2025, 82% of UK drivers support the introduction of alcolocks, so—stops, looks meaningfully at Ministers—it is very popular with voters. Research for the RAC report also found rates of admitted drink-driving near pre-pandemic levels, with more than one in 10 respondents, 12%, saying they had driven when they thought they were over the limit, either directly after drinking or on the morning after. The figures for younger drivers were even more pronounced, with 14% of those aged 25 to 44 admitting to drink-driving, and as many as 18% of those under 25.

The good news is that alcolocks are already in the Road Safety Act 2006, but the experimental wording in its Section 16 effectively turned the interlock provisions into a contingent pilot that ended in 2010. That pilot was never fully taken forward and the powers never came into effect. As a result, alcohol interlocks are not part of the UK courts’ sentencing toolkit. This has left the interlock scheme in limbo, despite years of persistent drink-driving offending and the accompanying road deaths and injuries. However, removing this experimental wording will mean that the interlock scheme under Section 15 of the Road Safety Act can be brought into force, restoring the original purpose of the Act to give courts a rehabilitative, safety-oriented sentencing tool for drink-drive offenders.

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

This provision is already there in legislation; it just needs a tweak. These international programmes show that alcolocks can reduce reoffending by up to 70% and are as effective as airbags in reducing road deaths. All the Government have to do is accept this amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

May I ask for one point of clarification? These alcolocks sound fantastic. Do they have to be fitted by the manufacturers when the car is made, or can they be attached as a gadget afterwards?

[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.

21:15

When I articulated this argument from the Government Dispatch Box in about 2011, I was confident that the policy was correct but not certain. We now have the evidence of the Scottish Government, who did exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is suggesting. After a suitable period, they commissioned academic research that showed that the change had no measurable effect on road safety, which came as no surprise to me. That is why I do not support her Amendment 350.

At a recent Question Time debate, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, argued that the reason for the Scottish failure was that it was not coupled with extra enforcement. Surely, if we improved enforcement of our current limits, especially in respect of high levels of intoxication, we would do better. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for supporting my Amendment 398, which, in effect, provides for random breath tests, but does not require the police to do anything. It merely removes some of the burdensome restrictions that I suspect were made on the introduction of breath testing in 1968.

As I understand it, at present the police cannot stop every vehicle travelling along a particular road solely for the purpose of determining whether the motorists have been drinking, and, if they have, to require them to undertake a breath test. Of course, the same issues arise with drug-driving. However, with a roadside stop, drink-driving is easy to detect. To be honest, I envisage infrequent dragnet operations detecting my unregulated drinker but also deterring and reducing all driving after drinking—as the noble Baroness said—or at least minimising it. Of course, we recognise that how the police enforce the law is an operational matter for them, but we need to give them the tools.

I cannot recall being breathalysed for over 40 years, and I do not know anyone else who has been. It seems that the frequency of testing, either by using the policeman’s mark 1 nose or a breathalyser when indicated, is far too low to be an effective deterrent.

I strongly support Amendment 416C in the name of my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington, and I look forward to hearing him speak to it. I also support the alcolock amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. That device has an interesting side-effect in that people who have an alcohol problem have to completely avoid drinking alcohol, because they cannot go about their daily business. That has the effect that they will not drink and drive, so although I opposed it years ago when it was part of a Bill, I am now minded to support it. Interestingly enough, when we were debating it I used my technical experience to detect a loophole in the legislation, because it did not quite work. When I suggested an amendment, the Government lapped it up.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I thought that the noble Lord was going to tell us about the experience of driving tanks—I know he is a great expert on that—with or without the right alcohol limit, but he did not.

I have listened very carefully to all the speeches on this group of amendments. They seem to have one thing in common, which is that it is a way of trying to mitigate the previous scaredom, if you like, of previous Governments to upsetting the motorists: “Let’s do the minimum, because we don’t want to upset the motorists”. That applies to the random breath tests and many other things.

My noble friend Lady Hayter listed the various countries with the different blood alcohol limits. If you dig a bit further, you find that there are four European countries that have a zero-tolerance level, where you must not have any alcohol at all. They are the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. Many of us have visited these places; maybe their driving is safer and maybe it is not. Then there is of course the question of bikes. Should you be under the influence of 80 milligrams or 50 milligrams if you are riding a bike? I will not go into that one now; we have talked a lot about bikes today. However, many noble Lords have been fighting to get it down from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams for many years, led by my noble friend Lady Hayter and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I have tried to help. We have all failed because it appears that Governments of whichever hue—the Labour Party, the Tories, or whatever—have been so frightened of the motorists’ reaction that they have refused to go forward with it.

The evidence is uncontroversial now, and we should go for this. I favour a 50- milligram limit to start with, but—it is a big but after our discussions today—with much better enforcement and much better reduction in the number of different rules that have to be applied before anybody can be tested with a breathalyser. It has to be simple and, if people will be frightened by it, that, combined with a lower limit, will hopefully make the roads a great deal safer.

[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.

21:30

That does not negate petrol and diesel vehicles, because they also have an unbelievably high threshold for how dangerous they can be. However, electric vehicles—of which we have more and more on our roads—are even more dangerous.

In 2024, 244 police officers reported injuries due to incidents involving deliberate vehicle ramming. Some of these incidents were actually deadly. Tragically, PC Andrew Harper was dragged behind a vehicle for over a mile while responding to a burglary, which unfortunately led to his death. PC Stuart Outten was struck in the head with a machete by a suspect who concealed the weapon in his vehicle. When we ask ourselves whether this is an evasive power, the answer is no, it is a protective power. It protects the officers involved and the public.

This is a practice which, internationally, is pretty widely accepted. Jurisdictions such as Canada, Australia and several EU nations already have this law. In these countries, they have found that empowering officers to control the stopping environment significantly enhances officers’ safety and helps to de-escalate potential threats. Many officers say that if they could have been more in control of a situation, it would never have spiralled out of control in the first place, which protects both them and the public.

On electric vehicles, when a police officer stops someone, they may have to lean in the window. If that vehicle can leave without them knowing that there is any chance of it moving, they can then get trapped in the vehicle and dragged along; I have already explained how that could be deadly. When we allow officers to control the environment, it also means that they can control the public’s safety, which is the other crucial part of this. While this is primarily about officers’ safety, it is not only about them: it is about them being able to control the environment to keep both themselves and everybody else safe.

This amendment is about ensuring that officers are not placed in avoidable danger because the law fails to keep pace with the operational realities of being a police officer. It gives officers a simple, proportionate tool to manage one of the most dangerous situations they can find themselves in. It is a routine situation for many officers, but it is highly dangerous. When I spoke to the Police Federation about this, it said that, hand on heart, it cannot tell its members that stopping a vehicle is safe. That is something we really need to get into because if it keeps having that conversation with its members, we then have a police service that cannot carry out its duties in this way. It also challenges police chiefs, because they have to guarantee that they are training their officers to deal with situations they will regularly be in. If this situation is seen as too risky, we will still be having traffic stops? We need them; they are a valuable tool.

[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.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group consider a highly important issue that requires the utmost consideration, so I thank noble Lords who have contributed thus far.

We support the idea behind my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 345 that guidance, and a pilot based on that guidance, is a viable approach to stemming the proliferation of illegal vehicles and criminal offences by the drivers of those vehicles on our roads. A measure such as this is all the more urgent following the report published this week by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Transport Safety, which laid bare the scale of criminality plaguing our roads. As many as one in 15 vehicles may carry modified and ghost number plates to evade ANPR detection. These modified vehicles, guilty of a crime in and of themselves, are then being used to bypass surveillance and undertake activities such as black market trading, drug dealing and organised crime.

Over 34,000 suppliers are registered with the DVLA to produce UK number plates, many of which are private and unregulated. A consultation and pilot should be the bare minimum. The APPG report has issued recommendations, but a more general consultation would be able to cover different types of road crime. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have acknowledged this report and are considering wider measures to deal with illegal vehicles and criminal activity on our roads?

I take much the same approach to Amendment 416B, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, and Amendment 416C, in the name of my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington. Both measures aim to reduce crime on our roads by increasing police powers. I am not sure whether there is a power already under Section 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for police to take possession of uninsured vehicles on the road; I stand to be corrected on that.

I support the principle behind the two amendments, particularly Amendment 416C, which closes an obvious gap in the law that has emerged as technology has developed. That said, simply increasing the powers of our police is meaningless if there is not the manpower to use those powers. New powers are welcome, but they should come with effective enforcement.

I am not opposed to the principle behind Amendment 350, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Both Houses, when legislating on matters concerning public safety, as the amendment does, should err on the side of safety. It is the same reason why we are not opposed in principle to the Government’s announcement of their intention to reduce the drink-driving limit per 100 millilitres of breath.

21:45

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

Secondly, I know that the noble Baroness and the Government believe that these measures will increase road safety. Every year, 300 people die due to drunk-driving, a number that we should aim to reduce wherever possible. But I am concerned that these reforms will not have the desired effect. I somehow doubt that persistent defenders will take notice of such a decrease.

We have the perfect case study to use for the amendment in question: Scotland. I find myself at one with my noble friend Lord Attlee. In 2014, the Scottish Government lowered the legal limit of blood alcohol content from 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres—the same change proposed by the noble Baroness. As has already been said, in three academic studies on whether these changes helped to reduce the number of traffic accidents or fatality rates relative to England, it was found that lower Scottish limits had no impact. One study found that there was no change on Friday and Saturday nights despite those being the nights when accidents are most likely to occur. It also found that there was no difference in the accident rates of young males—the group most likely to engage in drink-driving.

This is not to say that these papers are conclusive, but it does seem that there are currently no grounds to reduce the alcohol limit in the name of safety. The opportunity cost of lost freedom seems to come with no benefit. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government will undertake a thorough consultation and analysis before supporting Amendment 350 and continuing with their own reforms.

That does not mean that measures are not available that reduce and punish drink-driving without lowering the limit. Amendment 356G amends the Road Safety Act 2006 to make the issuing of alcohol ignition interlock programmes easier. This is a piece of technology that we should be making the most of and that keeps vulnerable people safe without curbing the freedoms of the public.

Amendment 398, in the name of my noble friend Lord Attlee, would expand police powers to breath-test drivers, allowing them to proceed without prior suspicion or an accident or offence having taken place. These are just two measures that could be taken to curb drink-driving, and they are not at the expense of the public at large. I wonder whether the Government have considered any similar measures, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say on this.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, before I turn to the substance of the amendments in this group, I shall briefly set out the Government’s plans for road safety. As many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate will know, the Government are currently developing the first road safety strategy in a decade. The safety of road users is a top priority for the Government, and we are fully committed to considering the range of existing motoring offences and police powers, while implementing policies that will improve road safety for all. Our intention is to publish this strategy soon. Many of the issues raised in these amendments fall under the purview of this strategy, and I encourage noble Lords to study the strategy once it is available.

Amendment 345 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on his behalf, seeks to make provision for a pilot to help tackle the problem of non-compliant vehicles on our roads—that is, vehicles which are uninsured, unregistered, untaxed or without an MoT. The police already have robust enforcement powers under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Police Reform Act 2002, including the ability to seize and dispose of vehicles for offences such as driving without insurance or a valid MoT. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, the College of Policing provides authorised, professional practice guidance on roads policing, and the strategic policing requirement prioritises this nationally.

Enforcement on the roads is a matter for the police, given their operational independence, and should remain so. We have already talked earlier at some length this evening in Committee about the impact of Operation Topaz on focusing efforts of all partners in improving road policing, and certainly the Government, as we have heard, are investing in this. It is for police forces to enforce road traffic legislation, with chief officers deciding how to deploy available resources, taking into account any specific local problems and demands. Given his experience in road transport matters, it is good to be on the same side of this argument as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, at least on this one amendment tonight. For future days we shall see. Additional statutory guidance, as envisaged by the amendment, is therefore unnecessary. Mandating new guidance and pilots would place further strain on police resources without clear funding or staffing provisions.

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, intends that the pilot would provide a self-funding solution, but it is not immediately apparent to us how this would be the case. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that enforcement pilots will deliver better outcomes than existing measures such as the automatic number plate recognition—ANPR—systems and intelligence-led approaches.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about the APPG report, which talked about ANPR. Of course, we welcome the contribution of the APPG’s report on the issue. I note that the ANPR system is, of course, a valuable tool—as we would all acknowledge—to help the police tackle crime and keep the roads safe. The Government assure your Lordships’ Committee that they keep the effectiveness of police use of ANPR systems under regular review so that it remains a robust tool for identifying vehicles of interest and drivers who break the law to the police. The DVLA and National Police Chiefs’ Council work closely with trading standards, local authorities and other government departments to improve the identification and enforcement of number plate crime.

The danger is that the well-intentioned amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would duplicate existing frameworks, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing guidance. The focus should remain on optimising the use of current enforcement powers and technology rather than introducing a duplicative statutory provision. Having said that, I will arrange for Home Office and Department for Transport officials to meet the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in the new year.

I turn to Amendments 350 and 398, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayter and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Bailey, and discussed with some thought and care by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The Government fully share their—all our—commitment to reduce the numbers of those killed and seriously injured on our roads. Driving under the influence of drink or drugs is unacceptable and illegal. We are determined to combat this behaviour and to ensure that all such drivers are caught and punished. We have a combined approach of tough penalties and rigorous enforcement, along with our highly respected and effective THINK! campaign. This reinforces the social unacceptability of drink-driving, reminding people of the serious consequences such practices have for themselves and others.

I assure my noble friend that the upcoming road safety strategy includes serious consideration of lowering the drink-drive limits, as well as testing of suspects, and penalties. As part of this, we are considering concerns raised by campaigners, parliamentarians and bereaved families whom my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport have met. The Government are listening closely to the concerns of those affected by tragic cases of death or serious injury on our roads and want to put them at the heart of this work.

Amendment 356B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, seeks to extend the alcohol ignition interlock programme to drivers convicted of certain drink-driving offences. Obviously, there is a very strong argument for alcolocks, not skipping over the fact that they have a lot of popularity with voters. I could not possibly comment on that in your Lordships’ House. As the noble Lord said, alcohol ignition interlock programmes are widespread in many jurisdictions. I reassure the noble Lord that the road safety strategy will consider the case for the use of alcolocks in dealing with drink-driving offenders.

It is worth considering the current regime in place for higher-risk offenders: those who have already engaged in what may be seen as repeated drink-driving or been involved in those alcohol misuse issues. There is a higher-risk offender—HRO—scheme for those who refuse to provide a breath sample, have had two drink-driving convictions in 10 years or were two and a half times over the legal limit. Currently, the practical consequences of becoming a drink-driver HRO is that the driver’s licence is not automatically reissued upon application once the period of disqualification has ended. Instead, the HRO must apply for a new licence, and the DVLA will issue a licence only after the HRO has proved their medical fitness to drive. Having said that, these alcolocks will be considered in the road safety strategy. I hope that gives the noble Lord some assurance and that he will look out for it and study it carefully.

Amendment 416B, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayter, related to the confiscation—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Before my noble friend goes on to the issues that will come under the strategy, can he confirm whether, if anything is agreed along any of these lines, separate legislation will be brought in? Our fear otherwise is that this Bill goes, and it is then a long time before any legislation is brought in.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The road safety strategy review is being undertaken by the DfT, so it is a little outside my bailiwick to speak on it. There may well be lots of provisions in the strategy—this is more my speculation than anything else—that do not require primary or secondary legislation. The strategy will be out soon, and we are about halfway through Committee.

My noble friend’s amendment on confiscation of uninsured vehicles was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, who spoke with considerable knowledge of the insurance industry and the costs of free riding in car insurance and those who do not act responsibly. As I have indicated, the police already have powers under Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to seize vehicles that are driven without insurance. This amendment goes further by making confiscation automatic and permanent after 28 days.

Under the existing regulations, the process for reclaiming a seized vehicle is clear and time-bound. Once the vehicle is seized, the registered keeper or driver has seven working days to reclaim it by paying all recovery and storage charges and providing proof of valid insurance. This ensures that enforcement is firm but fair, giving owners a reasonable opportunity to comply. If the vehicle is not reclaimed within the seven-day period, the police may proceed to dispose of it. Disposal can mean sale, destruction or other lawful means after issuing a formal notice of intent. This step ensures transparency, and due process for ownership is effectively transferred. These provisions strike an appropriate balance between enforcement, cost, recovery, and fairness to vehicle owners.

Having said that, my noble friend has indicated that her underlying point is about the inadequacy of the sanctions for driving without insurance, which the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, was discussing as well. My noble friend has pointed to the fact that at £300, the maximum fixed penalty notice for this offence is about half the cost of average annual car insurance. As I have said, we will soon be publishing a new road safety strategy. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this will, among other things, set out our proposals for changes to motoring offences. I invite my noble friend to study the strategy and accompanying consultation documents once they are published.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Clearly, the intention of noble Lords is to bring this forward because the feeling is that the power is not being used very often. Will this road strategy put in place the existing data or encourage its use to its full effect if this amendment is not required?

[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.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

Before the Minister goes on, I think there is a real worry about the current situation on the face of a previous Bill and the insurance that is paid by law-abiding citizens today. I would like some reassurance that that is going to be seriously considered when this comes forward. It is way too far apart today and there is no incentive to buy insurance, which we all desperately need to be bought should anybody get hurt.

22:00

[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.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an eye-opener of a debate, not just for me but, I think, for many noble Peers; we have all learned something that we did not know before.

I feel a bit of a fraud doing this little wind up at the end. It really should be the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, after her superb speech and the amendments she spoke to. Let me just rattle through a few comments. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Attlee did not like my noble friend’s amendment. Mind you, I did not like his amendment on random stops much either.

My noble friend Lady Coffey was right. The police should have good reason for stopping someone. I remember a few years ago that my constituents, way up in the wilds of Cumbria, used to complain that when they left the local pub late at night, they would drive a few yards and a police officer hiding in a car around the corner would stop them and say, “We have reason to think you have been drinking, sir”. Was that a random stop or was it done with good reason? The noble Lord himself said that the police do not need a reason to stop someone, so we do not need random stopping.

The points made by my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington were absolutely right. We read those horrible stories about policemen being dragged along, and I hope the gap there can be plugged.

I really liked what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said about interlock schemes. I think I first heard of those on “Tomorrow’s World” 20 years ago and they still have not been implemented. I simply do not understand what the problem is with doing a pilot. If the noble Lord brought that back on Report and it was in order, many of us would be tempted to support him.

I come now to the two big crunch amendments, which were the eye-opener for me. The noble Baroness was so right to talk about uninsured vehicles, and so was my noble friend Lord Ashcombe. I had no idea that the fine was less than half the insurance—that just cannot be right. Although we cannot put increased fines in the Bill, I like the idea of confiscation. Everyone says, “The police have the power to confiscate”, but are they actually doing it? I get the impression that very few vehicles are being confiscated.

We have automatic number plate recognition all over the country. If it is working, why are there tens of thousands of uninsured cars on the road? I say to the police, and perhaps to the Home Office to advise them: get out there and start grabbing those vehicles, getting the people and confiscating their cars. When they get them back, it will be not a £50 administrative fine but a £500 admin fine added to the current penalty to get their vehicle back. That might act as a disincentive for them until the government strategy comes along.

I conclude with the amendment from my noble friend Lord Lucas. The Minister seemed to make a very good case as to why his amendment was not necessary, and he did it in a courteous and nice way. I thank him for agreeing that my noble friend may come to the Home Office and meet the officials there and be briefed on it. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 345 withdrawn.

Amendments 346 to 346B not moved.

House resumed.

Employment Rights Bill

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with a reason.

House adjourned at 10.07 pm.