Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Bailey of Paddington and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and I have attached my name to it. Before I move on to it, I want briefly to indicate my support for the excellent amendment in this group tabled by my noble friend Lady Buscombe, Amendment 387A, which would give regulatory authorities greater powers to tackle illegal activity that is afflicting many villages, towns and cities in our country and, in particular, is impacting the amenity and quality of life in residential and commercial areas. I very much hope that the House is predisposed to support that amendment.

Amendment 385 seeks to get around the problem of cyclists hiding themselves from the public by covering their faces when breaking the law. It would give police officers the power to stop individuals while wearing a face covering. Following an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, in Committee, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe also provided that a constable may require the person to remove the face covering.

I think it is fair to say that many of us have been disappointed by the Government’s response so far to all the amendments on cycling, e-bikes and e-scooters, and to our efforts to use the Bill to destroy the business model that makes mobile phone thefts so profitable and attractive to criminals. I do not seek to relitigate our debate last week on mobile phone theft, but I hope that your Lordships’ House can understand the context in which I am moving the amendment in my noble friend’s name.

My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said from our Front Bench in Committee:

“I task any Member of the Committee to watch footage of these phone thefts and deny that there is a problem with face coverings and bikes. Face coverings mean that they are not detected by CCTV, while electric bikes, often modified, mean that the victim has no chance of chasing and retrieving the stolen property”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 163.]


Our city streets now teem with men—they are usually men—on fast cycles, electric bikes and scooters, whose faces are, even in summer, hidden by balaclavas or ski masks. This feels hostile even if it is not, especially if it is accompanied by loud music or shouts of, “Get out of the way”. Often, the intentions of such concealment are malign; at best, they are hurrying to make fast-food deliveries and endangering people like me who are using the pavement for its proper purpose.

I must stress that we are not talking about this being a London-only issue. For example, newspaper reports show that, in Darlington, there were hundreds of complaints last year about youths on bikes wearing balaclavas and riding recklessly in groups around pedestrians, which is appalling—especially for the elderly or infirm. We need to put a stop to all of this. We need a new power, and we need it now, rather than waiting while the problem grows.

I should make it clear that I am not against cycling or the wearing of masks, scarves or helmets. This is not a prohibition. I merely want the police to have the powers they need to take action where they suspect that a crime is being committed. The powers in the Public Order Act to remove face coverings in designated areas or for local authorities to make public space protection orders—these were mentioned by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, in winding up—are inadequate. They may be useful for hotspots such as Oxford Circus— I strongly support such use—but they ignore the fact that cycle crime is widespread and undermining faith in both the police and the Government.

The Minister of State, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, later argued in our debate on Report on 4 March that mobile phone theft is coming down a bit: it is down by 12% under this Government. I concede that—it is good news—but it is still at an appalling level, making life miserable for tens of thousands of victims. I made the point that, in 2023, there were 4,985 cases of robbery and theft of a mobile phone in London alone, using a motorcycle or an e-bike, and that a face covering was worn in more than 1,000 of those incidents.

We have also heard that the Department for Transport is planning legislation on what it likes to call “micro-mobility”. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, suggested, such legislation could in practice take another two years; in fact, it could take longer to secure a legislative slot. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made the point that, when the Food Safety Act was passed, during which time she was a civil servant, it had been waiting for a slot for nearly 10 years; that was until Edwina Currie created a crisis and it became a political priority. In short, we cannot wait.

Moreover, this Bill is the right vehicle for this amendment on face coverings because it concerns the enforcement of criminal law by the police, rather than controls on cyclists, cycles and e-bikes per se. Countries such as Switzerland, France and Denmark are reported to have proscribed facial coverings in public spaces. I am not seeking to go that far.

To summarise, this amendment would allow a police officer—but not other enforcement officers, it should be noted—to stop a person cycling or riding a scooter who is wearing a face covering in such a way as to conceal their identity, and to require them to remove it. It would not ban such face coverings. The penalty would be a level-3 fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one month.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe tackled this matter gently in Committee, hoping that the Minister would take the opportunity to bring forward a government amendment on Report. In the absence of a more positive response, I would normally have been minded to test the opinion of the House, but, in the interests of the expeditious transaction of House business, I will not do so. I beg to move.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 386 seeks to enable police officers, after a lawful stop, to ask a member of the public to exit the vehicle. I support the work of the Police Federation of England and Wales, and I have tabled this amendment for four obvious reasons.

First, the amendment seeks to close a clear operational gap. In a world of keyless and electric vehicles, removing the key no longer guarantees that the vehicle is disabled. Officers need a law to reflect this reality. Secondly, the amendment would create a modest and practical power, not a sweeping new stop power. It would apply only after a lawful stop has taken place and would allow officers to control the scene more safely. Thirdly, it is about the safety of officers, passengers and the wider public. Requiring occupants to exit a live vehicle can reduce the risk of sudden flight, injury, interference with evidence and escalation at the roadside. Fourthly, the amendment contains proper safeguards. The tests of reasonableness and proportionality are built in, and the Secretary of State may issue guidance linked to the PACE codes.

This is a sensible, limited and necessary amendment that I hope the House will support. We are now living in an era when many police officers and members of the public are being harmed, because people can simply drive away as police officers do not have the right to make the situation safe by asking them to step out of the car. I have been through the reasons why this is a proportionate and useful amendment that fills a gap that needs to be filled. I commend it to the House.