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.