Passport e-Gates Network Outage

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the repeat of this important Statement, which deals with the recent eGates outage affecting border control and security. I join the noble Lord and others in paying tribute to the staff who responded and the passengers who waited patiently for flights, often for many hours.

We all care passionately about our border security and are united in recognising its importance. There are, however, a number of serious points and questions for the Government that arise from what happened just a few days ago. This example is just the latest in a number of failures with the eGates system. Can the noble Lord reassure us that the Government’s confidence in this system has not been shaken and that the intention is still to expand the eGates network? Is the technical issue that was responsible in this case the same issue that caused previous outages?

The security of our borders is crucial, so can the noble Lord again confirm that the outage was the consequence of a technical failure and not of any malign actor? Can he also confirm that, although the system was down for a number of hours, no aspect of our border security was compromised in any way? Can he confirm that there was no cyber element to the attacks and that there are no weaknesses that could be exploited by adversaries?

In discussing this matter, the Minister in the other place said

“how we got to this point in the first place—as soon as the fix was put in place, the posture changed to getting us to a place where we better understand that root cause. That work is ongoing, and it would not be right for me to speculate on it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/5/24; col. 594.]

Is there still a problem, on which we have put a sticking plaster and called it a fix, while the root cause, as yet unidentified, remains? If so, what are we doing about it?

Can the noble Lord also reassure us that any lessons learned are being implemented as a matter of urgency and that all the contingency plans that were in place are being reviewed in light of how well they did or did not work?

As an aside to this issue, can the noble Lord also take the opportunity to give a guarantee that all necessary preparations are in place in Dover for when new entry and exit checks are introduced in the autumn?

Alongside the introduction of eGates, automation and new technology, do the recent issues that have arisen not highlight once again the need for a visible, physical Border Force presence at our ports? Yes, we need people to help and advise—that is crucial and important—but also those whose job it is to ensure compliance with and the enforcement of our laws at the border.

There cannot be another repeat of the chaos we saw recently at our borders. These problems seem too persistent and to occur regularly. That undermines the confidence of all of us in the security of our borders. It undermines that public faith which is so crucial to the integrity of our country, as we all must believe that our border security system works and works well—because that is in all our interests, is not it?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the staff involved, both Border Force staff and other airport staff, who took the pressure when this occurred. It is now five days after this Statement was made in the other place and, understandably, the Minister there was able to give only limited detail and indicate that investigations were ongoing. Clearly there will be more known now than was known then, so can the noble Lord give us more detail and a commitment that, when the final report is produced, he will return to inform us about the lessons that it revealed? Getting this right is obviously vital.

The Government were lucky this time, as the issue occurred in the early evening, midweek, in early May—at a quiet time of the day, a quiet time of the week and a quiet time of the year. If it had occurred at peak time, the story would probably have been very different. This is the third eGate failure in a year. It simply cannot be acceptable to regard it as an inevitable part of a technology-based system, because even more complications are coming in the near future.

The UK Government are introducing the ETA—the electronic travel authorisation—for non-visa countries. This has already started with the Gulf countries, and plans to roll it out gradually—first to the rest of the world other than the EU, and then to the EU—are scheduled for October 2024. The EU is also introducing the EES—the entry and exit scheme—including facial recognition and fingerprints. This scheme’s full implementation has been delayed until after the Olympics and is now also expected in October. Surely it is a potentially fatal mistake to introduce both the ETA and the EES at the same time. Can I ask what discussions the Government are having with the EU to ensure that everything does not all coincide at the same time?

The general public are blissfully unaware of what lies ahead. What plans do the Government have to alert and inform people well in advance of the introduction of these changes? Can the noble Lord assure us that the technology for this is fully ready and thoroughly tested?

Both UK and EEA citizens can use eGates, and the Government have recently added 10 more countries to the list of those that can use them. That is why eGates are so busy. Ironically, instead of taking back control of our borders following Brexit, we have in fact reduced the number of controls at our borders. Noble Lords will know that when we UK citizens go abroad to the EU now, we are not able to use eGates in most cases; we are required to queue up, and very often we have to answer detailed questions about our visit, rather like we do if, for example, we visit the USA. We no longer have the privilege of easy entry and exit from EU countries. We are making life easier for people coming here, but life is not being made easier for us going to other places.

We all know that having a physical presence is a major deterrent to people wanting to abuse access to this country. Does all this not underline the need to keep a strong physical presence of Border Force officers at our points of entry and exit from this country?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions, which I will endeavour to answer. I join them in thanking all the Border Force officers for their efforts.

On a question that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me, I take this opportunity to reassure the House that border security was not compromised in any way. I am also grateful to the public, who were extremely patient, and I join my honourable friend in the other place in offering our sincere apologies for the inconvenience caused to them.

It is worth giving a little context about eGates, because they have revolutionised the experience at the border, as I am sure all noble Lords can attest. Many more checks are performed automatically than was previously possible, and it is now quicker, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has just noted, for many passengers to land in the UK.

The eGates generally continue to perform extremely well, and most ports report that an average of 90% of passengers eligible to use eGates use them very successfully. The Border Force facilitated over 132 million passenger arrivals last year, with 90% of those within current service standards. The number was even better in the fourth quarter of last year; it was 96.7%. I am grateful for its efficiency and, much as it will regret the occasional blip, none the less it is generally speaking a very strong story.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked whether the root cause has been identified and rectified. Engineers identified the cause of the outage—and it was an outage—as a capacity issue. That was on an element of the network that controls network traffic within the data centres. The incident was caused by the cumulative effect of changes we have been making to sustain and modernise the network environment; incidentally, those will produce increased resilience over the summer. All the incidents that have affected the eGates have been singular and nothing has been repeated. The technical term for the outage was something to do with a logical network route—at which point, I confess I rather glazed over and did not really understand the further technical remarks that were made to me. But I am reassured that that has been entirely dealt with; capacity has been increased, and this therefore should not happen again—I hesitate to say it will not happen, but it should not.

I turn to the other questions asked of me. There was no malign actor, hacking or cyberactivity associated with this; it was simply a capacity issue with regard to the network infrastructure. That also rules out software and hardware problems; it really was just about system capacity. As I have already said, there were not any vulnerabilities at the border.

I was asked questions about the EU Entry/Exit System. As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, the Government are doing as much as they possibly can to prepare for the implementation of the EES and its impact on British travellers, particularly at the juxtaposed border controls in Dover, at Eurostar in St Pancras and at the Channel Tunnel. We engage regularly with the Commission and the French Government at every level. Beyond this, we hosted the director-general of the Police aux Frontières on his visit to Dover, St Pancras and Folkestone last month. We continue to work with the port operators to understand the impacts of the EES and obviously support their plans to mitigate them.

We are working up plans to make sure that the public are kept abreast of all these new requirements, and that any impacts they may have on their future travel plans are well understood in advance. I believe my right honourable friend in the other place is due to appear before the European Select Committee on this, at which point no doubt much more will become available. The European Commission guidelines have not yet been issued, so there is not much more I can say about the European side.

As regards the timing and phasing of this, obviously the ETAs have now been in operation for a while—certainly going back to last year. They are not, as it were, coincident. The simple fact of the matter is that it may be inconvenient for us if the EU is tightening its border controls, but I respect and defend its right to maintain its own border integrity, as we do.

I was asked about a physical presence at the border. I agree: of course, there must be a physical presence. However, there has been much chatter about things such as roving officers, and so on. I reassure noble Lords that the border is not compromised by a roving officer not being present; they do not control who can pass through the eGates. The eGates undertake all the security measures of passengers who use them.

It is simply not true that this involves reduced control. Individuals who use these eGates—this answers one of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—are not routinely questioned by Border Force officers, but they continue to conduct a full range of security checks, and the biometric check they undertake to compare the person with their travel document means that they are a highly effective means of detecting imposters. They are also able to identify pre-existing adverse information about travellers, and individuals subject to information will be seen by a Border Force officer. If officers require information about any person’s previous immigration history, the Home Office has access to data, including advance passenger information and exit record checks, to be able to verify a person’s individual history. Those officers retain the ability to exercise the full range of their powers at the border, and will continue to refuse entry, where appropriate, to those they deem eligible. I agree that it needs to be visible, but it is effective.

To go back to what the ETA actually is, it is a digital permission to travel to the UK for those who want to visit who do not need a visa. As the noble Baroness correctly pointed out, the scheme has already launched for nationals of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries—Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Other non-visa nationals will be able to apply for ETAs later this year. We believe they are making the UK safer, because they enhance the Government’s ability to screen travellers and prevent those who pose a threat getting on a plane, ferry or international train. Of course, by knowing more in advance of travel, our ambition is to increase automation of passenger clearance at the border and generally improve the experience.

I think I have answered all the questions, but I reassure noble Lords that this was a one-off incident and I am reliably informed that it has now been corrected and that additional capacity has been put in place. Obviously, I would not like to claim that it will never happen again but, as far as I am aware, the situation has been dealt with and again I thank Border Force officers and those in the Home Office data and digital team who worked very hard on this.

EU Borders: Hand and Face Scanning

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I have said, I am afraid that this is a system being applied by the EU. It is not for us to say how it is applied; it is for it. However, coaches have already been dealt with as far as the new arrangements at Dover are concerned, and, as far as I am aware, this will not be particularly onerous.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

The Minister referred to freight traffic. Since Brexit, we have had phytosanitary certificates, plant passports, import licences and export health certificates. On 30 April, we will suffer Brexit-related import checks on meat and plants, leading to payment of common user charges of up to £145 per consignment, estimated to add 10% to the cost of those imports. Can the Minister tell us why the Government gave only 27 days’ notice of the size of this charge and the date of its implementation? What discussions have they had with small businesses in particular about the impact this will have?

Sir Edward Heath: Operation Conifer

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I say to the noble Lord that I am of course aware of this. There were three main forms of scrutiny during the investigation. There was an independent scrutiny panel to ensure proportionality; the role of the panel members was to check and test the decision-making and approach in the investigation. At the end of the investigation the panel issued a statement. The noble Lord referred to Operation Hydrant. In September 2016 and May 2017, there were two reviews which concluded that the investigation was proportionate, legitimate and in accordance with national guidance. Finally, there was a review in January 2017 by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, as it then was, of whether the resources assigned to the investigation by the Home Office were being deployed in accordance with value for money principles. The review concluded that they were.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has indicated that there will not be an independent inquiry under this Government’s watch. Given that this is an issue which needs to bring closure to both the alleged victims and to the family of Sir Edward Heath, what does the Minister suggest should be the way forward as an alternative to allowing this damaging situation to drift on?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I said to other noble Lords, of course we all regret the fact that the damaging situation arose in the first place, I am sure. However, this is a matter for the local police and crime commissioner and, as recently as 2019, the then police and crime commissioner said that Operation Conifer was scrutinised by an independent review and found to have been “reasonable and proportionate”, and he remained satisfied then that this was still the case.

Electronic Passport Control Systems

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My noble friend makes a valid point, and I will certainly take that back to the department.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, this was a short-lived issue but there is a long-term issue for our airports, ports and Eurostar around longer times trying to get through passport control since Brexit. This week saw the final Eurostar Disneyland Paris train from London. The service is no longer viable because of longer check-in times, and Ebbsfleet and Ashford International have in effect been mothballed as Eurostar stopping points. Does the Minister agree that, instead of a declining network, the Government should be encouraging Eurostar to increase its network, because that is the most environmentally friendly way of travelling to and from Europe? What are the Government doing to renegotiate passport control arrangements to make travel easier in the future?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

International rail infrastructure is a very valuable part of our international travel systems. I am afraid it is beyond the ken of the Home Office to require Eurostar to run any particular route, but Border Force does facilitate the clearance of passports, as I have already said, in Brussels and Paris, and this works very effectively. As a result of the agreement with our French friends, they run checks in London, and those are sometimes the subject of delays. That can impact the running of trains; I entirely accept that.

Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support the principle behind the Bill. Equipment theft has been an increasing problem, particularly in rural areas, in recent years and is a serious drain on the resources of both farmers and the police. However, I want to raise a couple of specific queries. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred in passing to a couple of the issues that I am raising.

First, Clause 1(2)(b) allows regulations to specify

“other equipment designed or adapted primarily for use in agriculture or commercial activities”.

That is an extraordinarily broad statement, especially in contrast with Clause 1(2)(a), which is very specific in defining all-terrain vehicles. It is very unfortunate that the Government’s consultation on whether to extend this Bill, which sounds a very specific Bill, to other equipment was launched only yesterday—although of course I welcome the fact that the consultation has been launched at all. The consultation is about whether to extend the Bill to other

“large agricultural equipment and power tools”,

but that is not what the Bill allows. The Bill does not specify “large”, and I will be interested in the Minister’s definition of what “large” means.

The Bill also extends to equipment related to commercial activities. “Commercial activities” could mean almost anything. It could mean construction, and I think it probably does mean that. It could mean things connected with the leisure industries. There is a broad spectrum of leisure equipment. It could mean things connected with tourism—caravanning, for example. I would welcome specific answers from the Minister about what the Government have in mind here, because there is real concern among trade bodies and other sector representatives at the extent of the potential application. If you are making compulsory the sort of measures this Bill includes to apply to equipment which is rarely stolen, you are adding a considerable additional expense to those who purchase it without giving them the concomitant benefit, so the Government need to clarify their intent.

It is ironic that the Government are backing such a vague clause at the same time as they are avowedly trying to reduce regulations through the Bill to revoke EU law. We could have regulation gone mad here. I think the Government need to be very specific and make it very clear what they wish to apply this to, because it has potential for enormous benefit, but it could also be a real problem and an additional cost for people across a huge spectrum of society.

My second concern is much more specific. The Explanatory Notes refer to the CESAR scheme for identification. Why? There are loads of schemes out there. Clearly there has been no comparative work so far on the effectiveness of different schemes—the Explanatory Notes say so, at paragraph 10:

“The evidence of the impact of forensic marking is less certain, and mainly relates to domestic burglary”.


This refers to a benefit that we are not sure will actually exist.

The consultation gives a valuable opportunity to compare systems. I urge the Government to keep an open mind and draw up a specific scheme only after the conclusions of the consultation. It is important that the Bill is used as an opportunity to future-proof any scheme that the Government decide to adopt. The Bill sounds modest but could be expanded rapidly depending on the interpretation of that small clause.

UK-EU: Revised Passenger Requirements

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I understand that the United Kingdom has always taken the view that the Europeans are our friends and we treat them in the same way we always did. That, sadly, has not been the approach adopted by some of our European and EEA colleagues.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, in his first Answer the Minister referred to working with port operators, but of course, the Channel Tunnel also deals with 10 million passengers a year and is a conduit for £140 billion of UK-EU trade. The operators of the Channel Tunnel calculate that 85% of their customers will have to pre-register and be subject to the necessary border controls. This is obviously a huge task, so can the noble Lord give us some details of his Government’s discussions with the EU? Are there any plans for a phased introduction, and to try to defer this whole huge change until after the Paris Olympics?

Eurostar St Pancras: Border Control

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Viscount for raising that important point. We anticipate that future digitisation, both in the EU system and in our own electronic travel authorisation scheme, will accelerate the rate at which people can cross the border. We are implementing infrastructure in Paris which will be able to accelerate the rate at which people can pass through our e-gates.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

The Minister seems remarkably complacent in his answers. I invite him to travel more frequently on Eurostar to see the reality of the situation. Looking forward, the new EES will be accompanied next year by the European Travel Information and Authorisation System, or ETIAS. That will cost us €7 each to visit EU countries, as well as introducing new systems that require fingerprints. Can the Minister tell us what preparations the Government are making to expand capacity at border control for these more comprehensive checks and to raise public awareness of the new requirements?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As the noble Baroness will be aware, the European scheme requires people in advance to obtain these authorisations and to deposit the biometrics. It is not anticipated that this will cause delays at the border at St Pancras, as far as I am aware. As I say, for the reasons I gave to the noble Viscount, the anticipation is that increased digitisation will lead to faster use of e-gates.

Police National Computer

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The Government are confident. There has been one incident of data loss, but it was a human error, as opposed to a software error and all that data has been recovered. So, yes, the Government are confident.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the Horizon scandal involved 736 innocent sub-postmasters being prosecuted; four suicides; many more individuals and families torn apart by the prolonged cover-up of technical problems; and a cost to taxpayers of more than £1 billion so far. I know this Government’s reputation for financial probity is at a very low ebb, but can the Minister explain how Fujitsu was able to land this complex and sensitive contract when the Government had removed it from the list of preferred suppliers in the last year?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have to say again that I think I have answered most of the noble Baroness’s question already. Fujitsu is not a preferred supplier, but it is able to enter open competitions for government business. Fujitsu has not been found guilty of any fraud or other crime related to Horizon and is complying with all inquiries. There was no viable alternative.

Passenger, Crew and Service Information (Civil Penalties) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive introduction to the regulation. My amendment would disapply the sunset clause, and I shall briefly explain why. If the provision has been successful—and I accept that it has—why do we need to keep it anymore?

I spent a lot of time building the Channel Tunnel, 30 or 40 years ago. We have had problems on trucks, trains, coaches, ferries and air—and with people getting into small boats, as we all know—and there has been a trend. As soon as life gets too hard for people smuggling in one mode, they go to another. If it has settled down now, it is time to consider whether it is appropriate for the long-term future for these operators to continue to act basically as immigration officers on behalf of the Government. They are commercial operators—ferries, airlines and train operators, passenger and freight—and it costs them money. I am pleased that nobody has faced serious fines yet, but it could happen. I have no objection at all to including the Channel Tunnel services; that is a good idea, but it needs to be fair and proportionate.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. The word “scheduled” services is used several times in the Explanatory Memorandum and was used in her speech. To me, trucks going across the channel are not scheduled: they go when they feel like going. If a truck is caught smuggling people, and it just happens to be on the next ferry that goes, that is hardly a scheduled service, and ditto with rail freight, which does not go on a particular schedule. I just wonder why the word “scheduled” is used and why this does not cover non-scheduled services. My second question is on transport to and from the Republic of Ireland, which is of course in the European Union. Do the regulations apply there by road, rail and, presumably, sea? Perhaps she could respond on that one.

My main reason for raising the issue today is that I have come across a European Commission draft regulation, COM (2021) 753 final, which is trying to impose similar controls on the borders of the European Union and, equally, within its internal frontiers. I do not know whether the Minister and her colleagues have talked to anyone in the Commission about this. It is still in draft form—it is open for consultation—but it applies to all transport operators, so it covers much the same ground as this regulation.

It basically means that if these transport operators are carrying somebody defined as having entered the European Union illegally, and if the transport operator facilitates this movement across anywhere within Europe, the Commission can take action against the transport operator. This can include—this is key—removal of the right to provide transport services anywhere in the EU. That could cause British Airways, if it happened to be accused and found guilty of carrying one illegal immigrant from Berlin to London, to lose its licence to operate anywhere in the EU. It could apply to trains, coach services or anyone operating services not just on external frontiers such as Spain, Italy or Greece, but between France and Belgium, for example, if it is a British carrier. I do not know whether the European Commission has tried to learn from the British regulations over the years and tried to make them a bit more stringent, but this could mean that if an operator—for example, P&O Ferries or Ryanair—transported an illegal immigrant, as they might be called, from the European Union to the UK, it would suffer twice. It could be fined £10,000 per offence and lose its licence to operate.

Is the Minister aware of this? Whether she is or not, I hope the British Government will have discussions with the European Union to come up with some common policy on dealing with people who are either being smuggled or want to move between the UK and the European Union for whatever reason—that includes Ireland. I hope they could persuade the European Commission that this is not a particularly good idea. I do not think it has got to the European Parliament yet, which is probably a good thing; I do not know what it will say.

This indicates that there are two different means of dealing with the problem of people wishing to come into or leave this country when the Government do not want them for whatever reason. It is really important that there is some commonality of policy, otherwise we are all going to look pretty stupid. I hope I have got it wrong and this does not happen, but this is an opportunity to debate the whole thing and it would be much better if the immigration department looked after immigration and the transport operators were allowed to get on with their jobs, which they are very good at. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation. As she said, this SI does two main things. First, it removes the sunset clause in the original 2015 regulations and, secondly, it extends the provisions to the Channel Tunnel. The 2015 regulations were welcome because they introduced civil penalties that effectively encouraged transport operators to take regular and systematic steps to keep accurate records to check passengers against names and so on.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Lords Hansard - part two & Report stage
Monday 13th December 2021 Lords Chamber

I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I am saying that I support it before I have heard what she has got to say, but there we are—I look forward to what she has to say.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for that vote of confidence. I wish to speak to the amendments in my name and to the group in general.

I start with Amendment 63, on exceptional hardship. If you Google “exceptional hardship”, the first listing is an advert from a firm of solicitors. I will not give their name; they do not need free publicity from me because they also advertise on the television. They describe themselves as “exceptional hardship” and “totting up” solicitors. They define exceptional hardship as “real hardship”. They say they have covered more than 10,000 cases and have a 98% success rate. No wonder, as a recent FoI request revealed, there are 8,632 drivers driving around with more than 12 penalty points. The firm I have described is not alone; there are dozens of other firms of solicitors advertising similarly. This is an industry: this is not an exceptional situation that we are dealing with.

Amendment 63 seeks to define exceptional hardship as something significantly greater than the definition provided by that firm of solicitors and significantly greater than the hardship that would arise for a large majority of other drivers. The definition takes into account the offender’s economic circumstances, location and family circumstances. I bring this to the attention of the Government, and say that there is no point in putting down amendments for more and more stringent penalties if there is a gigantic loophole which is being exploited in front of our eyes.

Amendment 66AA, on bridge strikes, is the manuscript amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I am grateful to him for persisting with this issue because it is a very serious accident waiting to happen. As he has described, lorries hit bridges all the time. This causes a major impact on train services and on our economy, as well as obviously presenting a road safety issue. There are huge costs to the HGV drivers as well. Clearly, drivers do not do this deliberately, so there must be a problem. The problem is almost certainly in the signage; we have the technology nowadays, and improved signage needs to be implemented. There also needs to be a reappraisal of responsibilities between Network Rail and the highways authorities, where there is an interface.

Clearly, both my Amendment 66A and that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, present examples of the type of issues that need to be included in a long overdue review of road traffic offences. My amendment is similar to that from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but I have selected some other features that I think are important. It is unfortunate that all these are lumped together, but it is important that we look at this in a little detail. There is a separate group for pedicabs, which are a very small feature of modern roads and do not exist outside London, but they are one of a large number of new features of our transport system that need to be looked at and reappraised in the context of road traffic overall.

Another example of a new feature is e-scooters. It is reported that at least 11 people have been killed in the last year either on or by e-scooters. The Government’s approach has been to set up lots of pilot projects. Basically, e-scooters have been allowed to spread nationwide as a result of a lack of intervention. In a Written Answer I received from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, when I made inquiries about safety issues associated with e-scooters, she said:

“While trials are running, privately-owned e-scooters will remain illegal to use on the road, cycle lanes or pavements.”


That is fair enough, but no one ever does anything about the fact that thousands of them are being used, and tens of thousands more will be bought this Christmas.

The large number of pilot projects has led people to believe that e-scooters are legal everywhere. The problem is that, because they are illegal, there are so many of them around and the rules not enforced, bad practice is now the norm. Noble Lords have only to walk outside this building to see that bad practice. There are issues such as minimum age—they are often ridden by very young people—maximum speed, wearing helmets, registration, and where you ride: on the pavement or on the road. This week, Transport for London has responded to the latest danger: fires from exploding batteries. There have been several fires on TfL vehicles because people carry those scooters on trains. Transport for London has said that people can no longer do that, but it has had considerable problems and all transport operators will have to consider this issue.

We will come later to the issue of alcohol levels, so I will leave that, but another issue I want to raise is road signage. In 2016, there was a relaxation of the specification and standards for road signs. It appears to be part of a drive to reduce red tape. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and I met the family of a young woman who drowned when she drove at night into a ford in bad weather on a country road. From the coroner’s report, it is obvious that the poor quality of the signage was a key factor because other people had also driven into that ford by mistake—luckily for them, with not such a terrible impact. The depth gauge at that ford was so slim and poorly marked that it was invisible at night. The previous standard for depth gauges, which was abolished in 2016, required a much bigger and clearer structure.

This and others are simply taster issues for the huge range that need to be included in a review. It was promised in 2014, with a public consultation phase. We are still working on the basis of the endlessly amended Road Traffic Act 1988. Our roads have been transformed since then by the number of vehicles, vehicle technology and capability and new sorts of vehicles. The key point I am trying to make with this amendment is that the review must be comprehensive, rather than just addressing a handful of issues that are annoying Ministers at the moment. It needs to be done now, not kicked into the long grass again. It needs specifically to grapple with new technologies and forms of transport such as autonomous vehicles. It must take an overall approach to consistency of sentencing.

The problem with the approach in the Bill is that the Government have plucked out some offences for tighter sentencing, which will inevitably leave them out of kilter with other offences. The Government’s approach is for stiffer sentences with longer jail terms, but many transport campaign groups would prioritise appropriate sentencing, especially disqualification and community sentences. There are many bad drivers out there, but they often lead otherwise law-abiding lives. We have nothing to gain as a society by locking them up, which is costly to the taxpayer in the short term and in the long term, as they become much less employable on release. So, alternatives ought to be considered to simply putting people in prison.

The good thing about disqualification is that it protects the public. The key point of my amendment is that there needs to be full public consultation. In 2016, in a debate in the other place, the Government claimed that there had indeed been a review, as promised in 2014, but there was no public consultation and no published outcome. That makes a mockery of the whole process, so I am very pleased to hear from the Minister that there are plans now for a proper review, and I shall be listening carefully to what she has to tell us. I hope it will be a full and comprehensive review with proper public consultation that will take place in the very near future.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is good that the Government have realised that our road traffic laws are a mess, because the cost—the human cost, the social cost—of the crimes and offences we are talking about is extremely high. When we think of the cost of the deaths and injuries to the NHS, to social services, to the emergency services, we are talking about billions of pounds and we really ought to understand that a lot of the causes are avoidable.

When I first got on to the Met Police authority, I went out a lot with the traffic teams—I have told this story before—and one sergeant said to me, “If I wanted to murder somebody, I would run them over with a car, because nobody could ever prove it was not an accident”. This brings me to the word “accident”, which we really should not use when we are talking about road collisions, road incidents and so on. It offends me and the whole road safety community deeply, because the minute you use the word “accident”, you are judging the cause of whatever happened and that is obviously unfair. You have to look into what really happened.

The most dangerous idea is people who should be disqualified from driving being able to plead exceptional hardship. We have heard a lot about “exceptional hardship”: what a misnomer. People are often allowed to keep on driving and quite honestly, they should feel lucky that they have not gone to prison because a lot of the time, it is complete nonsense. I have read about a lot of cases where the judge or the magistrate allowed someone to get away with—well, not murder, but certainly manslaughter at times. It is obviously a crime against society, not to mention the families themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, moved her amendment extremely clearly and explained the background in a way that I, as a sitting magistrate in the City of Westminster, understand very well. I have indeed dealt with some pedicabs in my time. The noble Baroness said that she will not divide the House, and I understand that.

I will pick up a couple of points made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. This is a fast-evolving situation with freight pedicabs and electric freight pedicabs. Even in my current sitting pattern over the last few months, I have seen the way the police charge e-scooters changing really quite radically. To give an example, probably less than a year ago, I only ever saw e-scooters charged with traffic offences if there was another offence associated with it, such as robbery or an accident. But now, literally in the last month or so, I see e-scooters charged as a stand-alone traffic incident, if I can put it like that. There is clearly an evolution in the way the police are addressing these issues. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness has tabled an interesting group of amendments, and I look forward to exploring it in more depth if the Private Member’s Bill ever gets here.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. This is an evolving situation. The key point is that the noble Baroness has raised the issue of a particular type of pedicab, but there is a crossover with the cargo bikes that are increasingly being used and are increasingly welcome for the delivery of goods, parcels and so on. They are hugely welcome on our streets. It is really important that any legislation deals with those two issues and separates them out, although the vehicles are very similar. To my mind, that underlines the point I was making earlier about my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley: we need a complete and comprehensive review of the emerging and changing picture of traffic on our streets.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank again my noble friend Lady Stowell for her work on this issue. I know she feels passionately about the regulation of pedicabs, particularly in the capital. I also thank all noble Lord who took part in this brief debate.

In England outside of London, as my noble friend is aware, pedicabs can be regulated as hackney carriages—that is, as a taxi—so the local licensing authority can require the driver and the vehicle to be licensed. In London, which has separate taxi and private hire vehicle legislation, this is not the case, as my noble friend pointed out. This means that there are not many powers for Transport for London to regulate pedicabs.

The Government agree that there needs to be greater regulation of pedicabs in London. That is why they are fulsomely supporting the Private Member’s Bill being brought forward by Nickie Aiken MP in the other place. I know my noble friend has also been a strong supporter of that Private Member’s Bill. The Government also strongly support that Bill as it would enable Transport for London to put in place a cohesive regulatory framework for the licensing of pedicabs in London. I share my noble friend’s disappointment that it has yet to pass its Second Reading, but, as she noted, that has been rescheduled for 21 January.

Should that Private Member’s Bill be unsuccessful, the Government remain committed to bringing forward the necessary legislation when parliamentary time allows. I assure noble Lords that we will take this commitment seriously. We explored whether the provisions of the Private Member’s Bill could be incorporated into this Bill, but regrettably, as they focus on regulation and licensing, they fall outside its scope.

Once again, I praise my noble friend’s commitment to resolving this issue, but although I note the spirit with which her amendments have been proposed, it is the Government’s view that amendments are not the right method for making these changes. The introduction of a licensing regime for pedicabs, as the Private Member’s Bill would introduce, is the appropriate way forward for this matter. The Government do not believe that a partial way forward would be an appropriate or effective way to deal with this.

On the subjects raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, to go back to the previous group, my noble friend the Minister outlined the call for evidence. I suggest that that would be the appropriate place to raise those points, because they are very good ones. This is probably not the right time to get involved in a debate about what is and is not a tandem, however.

I hope my noble friend is somewhat reassured that the Government share her view and commitment on this. Although I cannot give her the categorical assurance she seeks, I hope she feels able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I support the opposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and my noble friend Lady Randerson to this clause. The clause as it stands is simply wrong in principle and I agree with the noble and learned Lord that this is not a case where you can simply tinker with the language. The problem is that the clause threatens to penalise the outcome of the offence—that is, serious injury—with imprisonment, yet the mental element of the offence of careless driving is no more than negligence. Careless driving involves no more than a driver falling below the standard of care of a prudent driver. All negligence is careless; a simple mistake or inadvertence will suffice. To make such an offence imprisonable because it results in serious injury is not a step that we have taken before. It offends against the principle that the seriousness of the offence should depend not just upon the act done, but on the state of mind of the offender. That is what distinguishes careless driving from dangerous driving, because dangerous driving involves a very serious departure from the normal standard of a careful and sensible driver.

I make one further point. In the absence of mechanical failure or an unexpected event, almost every accident is the result of negligence on the part of at least one of the drivers involved. Sadly, a large number of accidents involve serious injury. A broken limb is a serious injury for this purpose, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out.

The vast majority of accidents arising from negligence —whether they cause serious injury or not—do not currently lead to prosecution. I should be grateful to hear whether the Minister regards the establishment of this new offence as likely to lead to more prosecutions. This clause would leave it to the police and prosecuting authorities to pick out the few accidents which they decided should lead to prosecution. This would expose drivers to the risk of imprisonment for a simple mistake. Leaving this decision to the police and prosecuting authorities to implement in a very few selected cases would be arbitrary and unfair. It would introduce an unwelcome element of lottery into our justice system.

It may well be that the noble and learned Lord does not press this to a vote. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, we will get a very clear statement from the Minister as to how prosecuting decisions will be taken in these cases and as to what he regards as the likely approach to sentencing. I suggest that imprisonment for inadvertence is a retrograde step.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I was pleased to have the opportunity to join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on Amendment 60A—whether Clause 67 should stand part of the Bill. I thank the Minister for his time and willingness to try to assist us. I shall listen carefully to what he has to say.

The crux of this is when careless becomes dangerous. My experience in 20 years as a magistrate is that, basically, people are charged with both in the hope that the prosecution manages to make one or the other stick, as they say. I share the concern expressed by my noble friend of exactly what careless means. What should it mean? It should mean exactly what comes into our minds when we use the word. It should not be regarded as just a slightly milder form of dangerous. The thought processes behind it should be significantly different. Careless usually implies without specific intent—often a momentary lack of attention. Most of us sitting here will have suffered from this at some point in our driving careers. Most of us will have been lucky enough not to have caused an accident during that momentary lack of attention. Or, if we did cause an accident, hopefully it did not cause injury. Even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has struggled with the definition and hence opted to try to remove the clause.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, because he has assured us that he will be able to elucidate sufficiently for us to feel that there will be a clear distinction. We do not want to face a situation in which, for example, a harassed mother with a child or two in the back who backs out of a parking space and inadvertently hits a pedestrian might go to prison, when she was backing out carefully in terms of her own concentration at that moment, was not going fast and was looking in her mirrors, but there were too many things happening at the same time for her to be able to concentrate fully and she made a terrible mistake.

I think we have all been guilty of that sort of momentary inattention or error of judgment and people should not find themselves being sent to prison for something such as that. It is therefore very important that the Minister is able to reassure us that that is not the kind of thing the Government have in mind.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, it appears that there has been some constructive discussion behind the scenes in preparation for this debate—I can see the Minister nodding his head.

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his very clear exposition of the issues he is raising with this. Essentially, his points were that the law should not threaten prison if somebody is careless, when a disqualification is more appropriate, and that adding the word “very” before the words “careless” or “serious injury” is not an appropriate way forward and there should be another approach. I hope we may hear from the Minister on that in due course.

I support the opposition to the clause itself expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and also listened with great interest to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on whether the Minister thinks there may be any possible increase in prosecutions under this new definition of carelessness. I hope that is not what the Minister intends.

I also share the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that in magistrates’ courts you often see dangerousness and carelessness charged in the alternate and it is up to the court to decide which is the more appropriate charge. Having said all that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have answered the particular point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but before I sit down I again record, sincerely, my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for the time they spent with me discussing the issues to which Clause 67 gives rise. I therefore suggest that it should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation, which is very interesting and largely reassuring. The one aspect of it that worries me is the comparison with the maximum six-month sentence for driving while disqualified, because that goes back to the points my noble friend Lord Marks was making: if I go out and drive while disqualified, I am doing so with a settled determination to do something I know is wrong. I have already been punished for doing something pretty bad, and I am building on that by ignoring the disqualification. Comparing that with the case of someone who goes out with no intention to be careless—because it is at the heart of carelessness that it comes on you unexpectedly—but does something wrong by mistake and someone is injured as a result, it seems to me that the mental state is far worse in the case of the person who goes out to drive while disqualified, however perfectly they manage to drive.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, of course I understand and to a certain extent accept that point; we have previously helpfully discussed it. What we try to do with the two-year maximum is find the appropriate level. One has to fit it between that six-month point and the five-year point for the reasons I have explained. Even if the noble Baroness does not accept the comparison with six years, it still obviously has to be below five years. The question is where we should put it. The central point is that maximum penalties are there for the worst imaginable case. The two years, therefore, is really for the worst imaginable case. I have sought to set out, in not too great length but clearly, why it is two years and, more importantly, what a maximum sentence means in this context and what the very limited circumstances are in which we would expect a maximum sentence to be imposed—not because the Government are telling the courts what to do but because, given the guidelines under which the courts already operate, it would be a very rare case to have a term of imprisonment or, certainly, a maximum term of two years. That is why I set it out earlier in the terms I did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I will speak briefly to support my noble friend’s amendments and welcome the support that other noble Lords have given to him. I watched from the sidelines an issue that reminded me that the drink-drive legislation comes from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. It does not just apply if you are driving on a public road; it applies if you are on a private road, driving along a beach in a 4x4 or driving round a large field or estate that you own. The fact remains that if you are under the influence there and you injure somebody, the penalties are no different from those you would incur if you were on the road.

I reflect that it is a responsibility to drive a vehicle. It is no different to driving a train, piloting an aircraft or operating machinery in a port or a factory. Most companies nowadays are adamant that employees should not have alcohol in their bloodstream. We all accept that and think it is a very good idea—we do not want to be on a plane if the pilot is half drunk. Why, then, do we accept that people can go around with too high a blood-alcohol level when driving a car, which is just as lethal as a plane, a train or a piece of machinery?

I support these amendments. I would go further, as I think the noble Baroness would. This is not about fun. It is about driving safely what can be lethal machinery.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I was very pleased to add my name to Amendment 61. Alcohol has been a factor in road safety for as long as there have been roads, but we know a lot more about it now and there is worldwide evidence of what works. That evidence has been taken up across Europe and, indeed, across the world, by a large number of countries.

In Committee, I was surprised to hear doubt being cast on this issue on the basis of an apparently disappointing impact in Scotland of lowering the limit. However, this is a very misguided approach, casting doubt on the scientific evidence rather than looking to see, if it has not worked in Scotland in the way that was hoped, why. Indeed, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that there are sound grounds for saying that it has had an impact in Scotland.

There are two factors involved in all this: the level at which it is illegal to drive and the enforcement of that level. There is scientific evidence for the former and a debate to be had on the best ways of enforcement, which is why I did not sign the other amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. That does not mean that I do not agree with it, but I think that there is a serious debate to be had about how you enforce it most fairly. The story in Scotland is that enforcement has been weak. All social change requires a combination of legislation, enforcement and social debate. There has been proper legislation in Scotland and some social debate, but also a lack of enforcement.

I want to concentrate on the statistics. In Committee, I made the point that with Scotland remaining at a stable level and things getting worse in England and Wales, you could say that Scotland was a success story. I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has done her maths and confirmed that this speculation is possibly accurate. However, I want to turn to government analysis, because government statistics say that overall, 5% of casualties in reported road accidents in 2019 occurred when at least one driver or rider was over the limit. In Wales, the figure was 6.9%, which is very disturbingly high. In England, the figure was 5.1% and in Scotland it was 4.6%, despite the fact that Scotland has a lower limit, which you would expect to lead to a higher percentage of those involved in accidents being over the limit.

So the difference might be marginal, but at least these statistics show a positive impact in Scotland—and, remember, each percentage point represents lives saved. I can think of no reason why British drivers and riders should be different from those across the world. We need to modernise, and this should be a top priority for the review of road traffic legislation—but I will be supporting the noble Lord if he presses this to a vote.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I well remember the debates that we had on this issue shortly after Scotland decided to reduce the drink-driving limit in 2014. My recollection was that the Government were in effect saying, “We want to wait and see what the outcome is in Scotland”, while others were saying, “Why wait to see what has happened? Why not just proceed and lower the limit to the same level as Scotland has done?”—which, as has already been said, would be in line with most other countries. The Government held their line that they wanted to wait for evidence from Scotland and would then look at the matter. I may be wrong, but I think that there was a general feeling that if it had had an impact on reducing drink driving in Scotland, the pressure would have been quite considerable on the Government to move, as far as this country was concerned.

Not all the suggested difficulties that might have arisen from reducing the limit in Scotland actually materialised. My understanding is that there was not a significant impact on pubs and restaurants, which is one thing that was said. We did not end up, as I understand it, with the police and the courts in Scotland being overloaded. My understanding—although obviously I will stand corrected if I am wrong—is that the lower limit was generally accepted by the public in Scotland. But it did not have the impact that many of us hoped it would have as far as drink-driving in Scotland was concerned. As I understand it—once again I will stand corrected if I am wrong—there have been academic studies by Bath University and Glasgow University that rather confirm that situation.

This is clearly an important issue and it needs looking at. There must be some logic in saying that one would have expected that reducing the drink-drive limit would have an impact on the level of such driving, to the benefit of us all—but it does not seem so far that it has had a great effect on the number or severity of accidents in Scotland. Views have been expressed this evening about lack of enforcement and lack of publicity for the change as far as Scotland was concerned, but certainly Scotland is not providing a particularly robust evidence base at present, subject to further studies and a more robust evidence base—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to issues concerning the figures. We need to look at all the factors that might contribute to making people safer, including, although it is only one, the level of enforcement, and the culture.

The Government have said that they are putting out what they describe as a wide call for evidence on a number of road safety issues. It is supposed to be starting in a month’s time. I hope we will be told that this will be a major one, because the question is repeatedly asked why we have a much higher limit than virtually everywhere else, and that surely the logic would show that if you reduce the limit you ought to get a benefit from that in a reduction in drink-driving.

So we welcome the call for evidence that the Government are making. I know that I cannot speak for all my colleagues in saying this, but we accept that the evidence from Scotland is not showing that the change has had the effect many of us thought it would have. There may well be reasons for that and perhaps that needs further investigation and study, but our view is that, as long as the Government commit to look at this seriously in the review that is being undertaken and the call for evidence on a number of road safety issues, we should not vote on this issue immediately but wait for that further review. However, we have heard points raised quite validly about whether this review will go on and on, or whether it will be conducted within a reasonable timescale to enable decisions to be made that could involve further legislation.

The Government need to say what plans they have to bring down the level of drink-driving. One hopes that that will emerge from the review that is being undertaken and that the course of reducing the limit might well be part of it. In the meantime, we will wait for this call for evidence and the outcome of the review. We want some understanding that it will be conducted within a reasonably speedy timescale. In the meantime, we could not support the amendment that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe has moved if he decided to push it to a vote.