Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

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

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, keeping our roads safe is a key priority for the Government. Too many innocent road users are killed or injured by the reckless actions of a minority of selfish and uncaring drivers who simply do not understand or appreciate the responsibility that comes with holding a driving licence. We can and must do more to force home the message that holding a driving licence comes with a serious level of responsibility. If drivers are prepared to ignore their responsibility, we will use the law to ensure that they are removed from the roads.

We listened carefully to the passionate and well-informed opinions voiced by noble Lords during the Committee stage debates on road traffic offences. Against that background, we reflected with great care on what change we might make to the Bill to further the cause of road safety. Our deliberations have resulted in the Government tabling Amendment 58, which I am confident will improve road safety.

The amendment focuses on two of the most serious road traffic offences: causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. These cause untold grief to many families every year. Both involve a degree of recklessness that is completely unacceptable. Elsewhere in this Bill we are increasing the maximum sentence from 14 years to life for these offences.

This amendment reinforces the seriousness with which the Government regard these two offences by increasing the minimum period of disqualification from driving for anyone convicted of them. In the case of causing death by dangerous driving, the amendment increases the minimum period of disqualification from two years to five years. In the case of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, the amendment also increases the minimum period of disqualification from two years to five years. But it also goes a step further in respect of this offence. The amendment maintains the existing principle of having a longer minimum period of disqualification for a repeat offence of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, raising it from three years to six years.

I recognise that depriving a driver of his or her licence for at least five years is a substantial sanction, but when a driver causes the death of another person by driving dangerously or carelessly because of drink or drugs, I think we are fully justified in saying that those drivers should be taken off the road for a substantial period of time. This amendment should act as a serious deterrent for drivers—a warning that driving so dangerously or carelessly as to cause the death of another person is completely unacceptable and will have serious consequences, not only for personal liberty but for the ability to continue driving.

There will remain within the law an element of discretion for judges. They will be permitted to impose a disqualification that is less than the minimum period of five or six years, or not to impose a disqualification at all where there are special reasons for doing so. This allows judges to deal with the unique circumstances of any case before them, which is an important element of our judicial system.

A number of other road traffic-related amendments in this group put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raise important issues, but the nub of it is that the sponsors of these amendments want to see a wider review of road traffic legislation. I can advise noble Lords that the Department for Transport is currently scoping a call for evidence on changes to road traffic offences. I will say more when winding up, but, for now, I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to the various amendments in this group. I first thank the Minister for arranging two meetings with her colleagues, one in Transport and one in her department, which were very helpful in sharing our concerns—I am speaking from briefings from a large number of groups that are concerned about road safety generally. As a result, we reached some quite good conclusions about where things are going.

Amendment 58 is a good start, so I do not need to spend too long speaking to some of the other amendments. Although it is a welcome start, I also welcome the much wider review that the Minister mentioned. The issue with that review, which comes under my Amendment 65, is that it could cover an enormous scope of issues. We can all think of things about road safety that should be improved—the legislation and the penalties—and it covers some of the issues which will probably come up later today in considering other amendments. I am pleased that the review is starting in January, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say a little more about it. How long it will take? Who will be involved? Will the Government welcome input from people outside—from your Lordships’ House, from the other place and from other groups? Will a report be published with all the evidence? One hopes so.

If that is the case, the next thing, of course, is the legislation needed to implement those. Some of it may require primary legislation; some of it could perhaps be done by secondary legislation. But, again, that needs to be looked at. Perhaps when the Minister responds at the end of this grouping, she could give us a bit more detail about that. This is a good start, but there is still a long way to go.

I will speak very briefly, first on Amendment 63. We discussed “exceptional hardship” at some length in Committee. What worries me—it is worth repeating the statistics—is that 8,632 motorists are still permitted to drive despite having 12 or more points on their licence. I will not go into examples, but that indicates to me that something needs to be done. I do not know whether the Minister has considered it, but in advance of and separately from the review, would it be possible for Ministers to look again and consider revising or amending the sentencing advice to magistrates, so that this was tightened up a bit? I think she will agree that 8,000 such people driving around, having decided that having their car is essential to take their dog for a walk, is probably rather more than one would want to see.

Turning now to Amendment 64, on failure to stop and report, we got into quite a significant debate about that and the relationship between the circumstances and the penalties. What worries me is that, since 2017, the number of people convicted of this offence had gone up by 43% in four years. I do not know why that should be—maybe the Minister has some answers to that—but it indicates that failing to stop and report collisions is quite serious. We discussed in Committee whether that was due to more people having mobile phones or whatever, but this is another of those things I would ask her to look at in advance of the review. If she can, what timescale would that entail?

I think I have probably spoken enough about the review itself. We are grateful for the review. The list of issues I put in the amendment is just a sample, and I am sure many people will have many other things to put in. But if the Minister can give us some information about the scope, as well as the timescale and everything else, that would be extremely good.

I will now speak very briefly to the manuscript amendment I tabled this morning. I apologise for the late delivery of this, but it was due to a changed meeting with Network Rail that many of us thought would be a good idea to have before we tabled the amendment—it turned out that it did not happen. I put it to the Minister that she is aware that this is a serious problem. Network Rail’s figure is that there is an average of seven bridge bashes a day—I repeat, seven a day—across the whole network. Some are not serious, but some could derail a train, and I do not want to go into what might happen there.

I have got as far as coming up with a long list of possible solutions, which I will not spend too much time on, and this is something that needs looking at. One of them is to allow local authorities to prosecute lorries for contravening the height regulations. They can prosecute for contravening weight regulations at the moment, so why could they not do height ones as well? I think it just needs a small change to the regulations. Traffic commissioners could be asked to remove the licences of drivers of vehicles that contravene. Obviously, the drivers and shippers could be prosecuted. The Government could require drivers’ apps—or whatever it is we put on our mobiles—to include the height of bridges; it could even include the height of the lorry, and an alarm could sound if it went wrong. You could erect those barriers we talked about last time, with the little electronic eyes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 59 I will also speak to the other amendments in my name as part of this group. I will try to take as little time as possible, because I know that there is still much to get through this evening.

These amendments refer to pedicabs, which are also sometimes known as rickshaws. They are loud and sometimes garish, and they hang out at all the tourist hot spots here in London. I will not repeat all that I said in Committee, but let me remind your Lordships of the problem I am seeking to address.

Pedicabs are the only form of public transport in London that is completely unregulated. The vehicles and their drivers are not subject to any kind of checks, they do not need insurance, they can charge passengers whatever they want, and they are exempt from the vast majority of traffic violations. Pedicabs can ply for hire in direct competition with our heavily regulated black cabs on any street or place in Greater London. Knowing that they can act with impunity, the vast majority of them do.

Noble Lords heard me describe in Committee the evidence of careless driving and antisocial behaviour. One of the most unacceptable aspects of pedicabs is the huge disruption they cause through the extremely loud music that many of them play. This unacceptable situation has gone on for well over 20 years. Westminster City’s residents, business owners and tradespeople who have to navigate our congested streets to do an honest day’s or night’s work have had enough and want something done.

My modest amendments to this Bill do not go anywhere near far enough in addressing the unfairness of this situation, never mind limiting the damage and reputational risk of allowing these vehicles to continue unregulated on our roads. I tabled them in part to raise awareness of the problem. These amendments are the best I can do with the legislation in front of us.

I am very grateful for the positive response I received from noble Lords in Committee. I am especially grateful to the Government for their fulsome support, not for these amendments but for the much better solution, which I referred to in Committee, that is currently in the House of Commons. A Private Member’s Bill has been brought forward by Nickie Aiken, the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, which would give Transport for London the powers it needs to introduce a licensing and regulatory regime for pedicabs. It would not ban them outright, because there are one or two reputable businesses which provide this service and want to be properly licensed and regulated.

Before I say any more about why I have retabled my amendments and where we are now with the Private Member’s Bill, I should explain why legislation is needed. Although pedicabs can be covered by local authority licensing and regulatory regimes in the rest of England and Wales, case law has determined that, in London, these vehicles are stagecoaches rather than hackney carriages. Therefore, Transport for London needs to be given the necessary powers to introduce a proper licensing and regulatory regime.

I am pleased to say that Nickie Aiken’s Pedicabs (London) Bill started its Second Reading on Friday 19 November, which was after the Committee stage of this Bill. Getting that far is no mean feat, bearing in mind where she was on the Order Paper that day—she was fifth, and she managed to get her debate under way. She set out her case very powerfully, and the Minister responded, declaring the Government’s full backing for the Bill, which is brilliant news and vital if that Bill is to make it on to the statute book. Sadly, time ran out that day before it could complete its Second Reading. Nickie tried again, unsuccessfully, to complete it on 3 December. It is now scheduled again, for Friday 21 January.

Nickie is not giving up, and neither am I. There is still a real chance that she will get over that hurdle next month. If she does, and with the Government’s declared support, there is every reason to be positive that we will get this on to the statute book this Session—but time in this Session is starting to run out.

I am very grateful to my noble friends Lady Vere, Lady Williams and Lord Sharpe, their officials and the Bill team for the time they have given to meeting me to discuss this matter over the last few weeks. Since Committee, I have explored a range of alternative amendments to this Bill, as stopgaps in case that Private Member’s Bill fails, but these are either deemed out of scope or are detrimental in some other way as to render them unacceptable.

I will not divide the House on these amendments tonight, as I know the Government do not support them; no doubt the Minister will explain why. I remind noble Lords that these amendments would bring pedicabs into scope of careless driving offences and prohibit loudspeakers, which they use to amplify music.

Even though Nickie and I have not given up on her Private Member’s Bill succeeding, I am worried not to lose the faith of the people of Westminster, the black cab drivers and businesspeople who pay their taxes, live by the law of the land and work hard to maintain the reputation of our capital city. Countless times over the years they have had their hopes raised and dashed that this will be sorted out. Indeed, this situation must feel like a real injustice when they face so much regulatory burden and so many hurdles, while the pedicab riders who flout the law without a care in the world do not. This sense of unfairness only gets worse, as yet more road restrictions in the capital are implemented, especially for our black cab drivers.

I am immensely grateful for the Government’s ongoing support of the Private Member’s Bill and all the effort everyone is making to get it over the line. We are not giving up on that; there is still everything to play for. Before I withdraw this amendment at the end of the debate, I ask my noble friend the Minister: what assurance can he give me that the Government will not allow this injustice to drift on if the worst happens and Nickie’s Bill does not pass in this Session? I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling these amendments, which are very interesting. I will speak to the amendments as opposed to the Private Member’s Bill, but I will have quite a few comments on that too.

I have nothing at all against pedicabs, though I do not like the noise and they get in the way sometimes—but then so do bicycles, although they do not make noises. My worry is, first of all, with the definition of a pedicab. As I read it, it would also include a tandem bicycle. Who would know whether my passenger on the back was paying me? I think one has to go into a bit more detail than that.

There are more and more pedicabs going around which are actually pulling freight. I am sure the noble Baroness would not want to stop them being an environmentally friendly form of freight. If the vehicle had two seats, and if the driver had a friend on the back and somebody said, “You’re paying for it”, he would come under this regulation. That is before we get into the question of electric assistance, which I think some pedicabs have. Frankly, some of them go very fast and I do not think it is particularly safe, but we have to make sure that the definition is absolutely right.

--- 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.

Migrants

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in following the noble Lords, Lord Green and Lord Lilley, I want to question one of many points from each of them. The noble Lord, Lord Green, contrasted the people coming across the channel with what he called genuine refugees. Can the Minister confirm the government figures that I have seen that say that the majority of people coming across the channel are granted refugee status? So the noble Lord’s comparison should not be made. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, quoted the number of applications for US visas from a significant number of countries. None was on the list of the main countries from which the people crossing the channel have come. His figures are therefore entirely irrelevant to this debate.

I want to make three points in the brief time available to me. The first is about practicality. A lot of our discussion in this debate focuses on what we can do to stop the boats. Of course we do not want anyone crossing the world’s busiest shipping channel in inadequate, flimsy vehicles. However, I go back to a bleak January day in 2016 when I went to the memorial service for a 15 year-old Afghan boy called Masud who died in the back of a lorry while trying to get across the channel to join his sister here in the UK.

In the year to that death, about a dozen refugees died trying to cross the channel in the back of boats, on trains and through other vehicles. At that time— five years ago—there were almost no crossings. Those routes, through a combination of Covid and government action, have essentially been closed off, so people have taken to the boats. If the Government could somehow just snap their fingers and stop the boats, desperate people who have ties to the UK, such as the Afghan soldier documented in the Times this morning, would still seek to come here. The odds are that those routes will become more and more dangerous, and, as several noble Lords have said—I associate myself with essentially everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—at great profit to nasty, illegal criminals.

There has been a lot of discussion about so-called pull-factors. It is worth looking at what we actually do to the refugees who arrive here seeking to exercise the right to which they are entitled. We often detain them indefinitely, in a way that no other European country does. We often reject their applications when we should not. Three quarters of rejected claims are appealed, a third successfully. I have seen the great difficulty in taking on those. I have no doubt that many more should be upheld.

Unlike many other countries, we do not allow people seeking asylum to work while their claims are being processed. According to the latest figure, from September, 67,547 claims are awaiting decision—up 41% year on year and the highest figure on record. Refugees, who are often victims of human rights abuses and have had to flee in the most desperate circumstances and in the most awful conditions, are trapped in limbo for years. They are living on an absolutely inadequate sum of money in frequently horrendous accommodation. There is no pull-factor there.

Finally, we must consider how many more people might seek to come because of our actions and policies. I will highlight two points. The first is the recent slashing of official development assistance. The other is the failure of the COP 26 climate talks, of which we were chair, to secure any funds, beyond a contribution from Scotland, for what is known as loss and damage. These funds are reparation for the climate damage caused by our actions that is impacting on people’s lives and making it impossible for them to live in their own country.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is difficult to follow the noble Baroness because she made so many good points. I have been following the cross-channel movement of people ever since I worked on building the Channel Tunnel 30 or 40 years ago. At that time, all we were doing was trying to keep rabid foxes out. Sadly, the situation has got much worse than that. What happened last night was a horrible example of the dangers of crossing in small boats, but, as other noble Lords have said, it was not the first such incident and it probably will not be the last.

There was a time when people smuggled themselves on passenger trains and freight trains and virtually killed the traffic across the channel at that time. They then moved on to trucks; we have heard about that. There was that terrible incident a couple of years ago when 39 people were discovered asphyxiated in a truck in Essex, having come across and been there for several days. Now, boats are used. However, it is not even comparable with the number of people who have come across the Mediterranean—not just from Libya, but from other places as well—into the European Union. There have been problems between Turkey and Greece, of course, and now between Poland, Ukraine and Belarus.

These people have one thing in common. They are coming to seek a better life from war-torn, demolished famine areas. One cannot blame them. Why do they want to come to the UK? Many noble Lords have talked about that but apart from English becoming a bit of a world language, we also do not require people to carry ID cards, and certainly do not enforce it. I can understand why the French authorities and local police are not very enthusiastic about looking after refugees and probably want shot of them. However, we must find a solution. Having worked with French authorities all those years ago, I am convinced that if the Government and the French Government tried, there could be a very good joint policy and implementation to sort this out in a humanitarian way that does not involve people going across in small boats or smuggling themselves in lorries, but gives those who are justified in seeking asylum what they want. The others would be sent back where they came from.

However, at the moment, we seem to enjoy having a verbal war with the French. It may be fishing one day and agriculture the next. There are now joint statements from the Prime Minister and the President of France that they will work together, which is nice to see but they must deliver, at Calais and the other places along the coast, as well as in this country, and come up with a policy that is fair to everyone.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, commented that the only people who can afford to pay the smugglers are the middle classes. He may remember that a couple of years ago, when we had our medical crisis and there was a shortage of doctors, the Government started recruiting doctors and nurses from other countries where they were desperately needed. That is unfair. We should be training our own doctors and nurses and not poaching them from other countries. If some of them are having such a rough time in Syria, for example, that they seek asylum here, so be it, but we should not be poaching them.

Small Boats Incident in the Channel

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Indeed; I might be conflating the debates I have taken part in today, but I did earlier mention the G7, which is a really important forum to bring international partners together. It has to be an international effort, because it is an international problem.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a very sad day. We have discussed it before but, as the Minister has said, the traffickers will find whatever route they can to get people to this country if it suits them financially. We heard earlier about people being smuggled in trucks but that could restart all the way up and down the coast, not just in France but in Belgium and Holland. Of course, it could happen on small boats because on the north coast of France there are an enormous number of those, probably parked up for the winter, which could be used. We have a very long coastline along the south. I live in Cornwall and pay tribute to the coast-watch people, but they are out only in the daytime and it is very difficult to police. I hope that the Government will spread their watch over a much wider area.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a really good point because, since the truck route has been severely curtailed, the small boat route has been much more obvious. Short of literally having patrols round the entire coastline, our agencies are very reliant on intelligence. That probably is, and will be, one of the most effective tools in our armoury—we were talking about it earlier in regard to France—when finding out where these people are, where they are coming from and where they are going to.

Terrorist Incident at Liverpool Women’s Hospital

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I do not know. I agree with the principle of what my noble friend says—it is pure humanity—but I do not know the details of what is going on in order to help the taxi driver to rebuild his life. I have seen things in the press this morning, but I could not comment on them because I do not know if they are correct. But that man is a hero.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My noble friend Lord Rosser asked about this report about the constituent parts of a homemade bomb. From my experience in the construction industry long ago, some of those bits and pieces are easily obtainable in the construction and agricultural industries. Could the Minister make sure that a copy of this report is put in the Library and sent to noble Lords who have spoken? It seems very important that there should be some control over these materials.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord is right. Certain parts of what could be used to make a bomb are now controlled under Home Office licence, as he will know. If I can, I will of course put a copy of the report in the Library.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

One day, the Committee will consider my Amendment 241, which proposes drastic reform in respect of prolific minor offenders. It is targeted particularly at offenders who are illiterate, innumerate and whose personal conduct falls far below the standard required. However, it is not the whole solution for Travellers. There are some very complex social problems to be solved. Sadly, the Bill’s simplistic provisions do no such thing as they address the symptoms and not the underlying causes.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Can I ask the noble Earl a question? It seems, from listening to his speech, he is saying that all Travellers are criminals. He did not quite say that all criminals are Travellers, but he got some way towards it. What is his solution? Is it to deport them to some offshore island, so they do not affect our way of life?

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

When the noble Lord looks at my speech carefully, he will see I said there is legitimate economic activity for Travellers. I accept that plenty of Travellers engage exclusively in legitimate economic activity. I decided not to tease the noble Lord and ask him who he thought was stealing all the electrical cables from the railway system.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, as the last Back-Bench speaker, I want to introduce my speech by saying to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe that I can beat him when it comes to making noisy protests, because I did one last week and he clearly did not.

I shall concentrate on Part 5, on the road traffic issues, which we have been debating for 10 years if not longer ago than that, especially with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. The problem is partly that we never quite know who is in charge: is it the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office or the Department for Transport?

The poor old road user wants to use the road safely, whether for cycling, driving, walking, coaches or trucks—we will have scooters soon, I think. The penalties need to be fair, proportionate and a deterrent, as many noble Lords have said. Much of this legislation goes back decades—perhaps even to the horse and cart—and it is interesting that, in 2014, the Government promised a full review of the framework for road traffic offences, but it never happened. There were some limited proposals in 2017, but there is an argument for having a much wider overhaul of the legal framework to address its many failings and prevent the proposals in the Bill having unintended adverse consequences. Some of the proposals are good, so, along with others, I will bring forward some amendments in Committee, largely supporting the work of Cycling UK and RoadPeace.

I will give examples of three issues. Drivers routinely escape driving bans by pleading that this would cause exceptional hardship. A statement or speech by a Member of the House of Commons yesterday quoted a Bentley driver—the Bentley cost £160,000, I am told—who escaped a speeding disqualification by pleading that he had to use the car to walk his dog. That is pretty stupid, and I have some examples from where I live in Cornwall that are equally stupid. We need to look at this—exceptional hardship is a cop-out, frankly.

We need to look at the maximum sentences for hit-and-run offences when someone is left very seriously injured. I come back to the full review of offences and penalties, as promised seven years ago; we need to look at the legal distinction between careless and dangerous driving, driving bans, interim driving bans and a few other things—I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to some of those in his speech.

My question to the Minister is this: how can we take this forward, together with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, and perhaps the Home Office, so that we can get one policy, a decision and a series of meetings, rather than being played off against one another, which I fear has happened in the past? Perhaps the Minister could respond to that.

Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

If I can, I will echo the words of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. As I said earlier, thousands of police officers patrol the streets of Greater London, putting themselves in danger and helping the lives of the members of the public whom they serve. The Home Secretary is looking into the institutional defensiveness that goes hand in glove with this report, but it is important to remember that we owe an absolute debt of gratitude to the thousands of police officers who keep us safe.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for achieving something incredibly difficult that has taken so long largely because she did not have the powers of the Inquiries Act 2005. Can the Minister explain the issue of the Freemasons? The report says:

“The Panel has not seen evidence that Masonic channels were corruptly used in connection with either the commission of the murder or to subvert the police investigations.”


Of course, the Freemasons are very good at hiding everything, particularly from women, so the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, probably had a more difficult job, as would the Minister. Who is monitoring and enforcing what the police are doing? The police code of ethics may be better, but who is checking on it? I am afraid, on the evidence that I have seen, that I have to conclude that there is significant corruption in the Metropolitan Police.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I repeat, as the noble Lord said, that the panel is clear that it found no evidence that freemasonry had any effect on the investigations, and I refer noble Lords to the code of ethics. It might help the noble Lord to know that HMICFRS is currently undertaking a follow-up inspection of all forces’ counter-corruption and vetting capabilities. The Home Secretary has asked HMICFRS to ensure an urgent focus on the Metropolitan Police.

E-scooters

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think doing that with the media present would be a recipe for disaster, particularly for some Members of either your Lordships’ House or the other place. But I agree with the noble Lord’s point that these things have to be well tested. He makes the point about Segways and those mono-wheels, which I think are incredibly dangerous. I agree with him.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I fear that the Government have lost the race now. I am told by cycling groups that there will be 1 million illegal e-scooters on the roads by the end of this year. Would it not be best to make them the same as e-bicycles in the concept and concentrate enforcement on their not going on pavements and on road traffic not speeding?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

All of what the noble Lord says is true. E-scooters are different from e-bikes in that you actually have to make some effort to propel the e-bike, whereas the e-scooter is self-propelling. I think they are here to stay, but at the heart of this is the safety of other people riding bikes or, indeed, driving cars, as well the as safety of pedestrians, particularly disabled ones, as my noble friend mentioned.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving us the opportunity to debate again this very sad issue. Many noble Lords have spoken of the problems and the history of this massive unfairness; it is a real human disaster. I suspect that it goes back to what I have seen for many years as the institutional racism of the Home Office.

My noble friend Lord Foulkes talked about the work that the Guardian has done in reporting on about 1,000 wrongful immigration offence reviews not being started for two years, and a backlog of 3,720 since the scandal was uncovered. Has the Home Office really changed its spots, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, suggested?

I recall that an early draft of the Williams report called the Home Office institutionally racist, and reckless in developing a defensive culture around immigration policy. Of course, you do not often get away with criticising the spoon that feeds you, as I found with my HS2 report. Has the Home Office really changed its spots?

I recall the immigration Bill, which I think has now been withdrawn. Like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I have to question how our hospitals would survive without immigrants. How would the academic world survive without the movement of world-beating academics? The hospitality sector is in very serious trouble, as I spoke about last week. Then, of course, there are the fruit and vegetable pickers; we now have to fly them in from Bulgaria, forgetting all about social distancing, which seems not to matter. We are in a worse state than Germany, where the chairman of the German fruit growers’ association was reported as saying that Germans are the wrong shape for picking fruit and do not like bending down. I think that applies to the UK as well.

The Home Office needs to change its spots and get rid of this dogmatic and unfair approach, which will do nothing to help our economy recover. Will the Home Office reflect fully on the Williams report and its recommendations? Will the Minister support the excellent suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, of an independent review? That is a great idea, but it must be truly independent, and preferably not led by the Home Office.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think that we may have the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. No, we have no luck there. We will move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

EU Citizens in the UK

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in this debate and support the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is absolutely right. The situation of the citizens of other EU member states in the UK is now getting very serious, whether they are here for five, 10 or 15 years or for a few months. As he says, the problem is the uncertainty. I have been talking to my many friends who fall into this category, including people working in the public sector, local authorities, manufacturing—there is a big story to tell there—and the health services, as the noble Lord said. I was with a hospital consultant last night who does a lot of research into children’s diseases and treatment across the EU, who was saying, “What do we do? Is everybody going to leave?”. Lots of people here from the EU work in the health service, and that applies to many other fields of research too. I declare an interest as a trustee of Plymouth Marine Laboratory. It gets quite a lot of money from the EU for research, and a lot of people come from the EU to work there and gain experience. That goes two ways of course, as I will come on to.

We all know about the need for workers in the agriculture, hotel, catering and entertainment sectors, but we should not forget the arts. There have been a few comments recently from orchestra players feeling that they cannot stay here any more because they are worried about the long term. We need both communities to work together and to learn from and benefit each other. There are of course people who are married to or have a relationship with somebody from a different member state. I know many of them, and they are very upset, because of the uncertainty. This idea that came out in the debate for Brexit about everybody sponging from the state is a total load of rubbish. Most of these people work very hard and some of them send money back—I suggest that we need them. Now that the Prime Minister has, rightly, said she is going to take the negotiations slowly, that will merely delay the uncertainty unless something is done.

The same comments apply in the other direction, to UK nationals working in other member states. Some noble Lords may have received a very interesting email about a week ago from somebody who is representing more than 200 people who had got together, listing all the things that made them very worried and need sorting out. We could have a debate on each one, and all of them apply both ways. The first one is obviously residency. I will not go into each one, because there is nothing like enough time for that, but healthcare is another. What happens to the E111 and everything else if we leave? How does health insurance work?

What about property ownership? Many people own property in France and other member states, and that works the other way too. Will that be affected, for example in relation to property tax? Then there are bank accounts, loans, mortgages and everything that everybody takes for granted now. What happens to pensions, whether private or state? We do not know; they do not know. Then there is education: university fees, British teachers abroad, children in local education in the country of residence et cetera. I am only reading out the headlines here, but it goes on for another page. What about the pet passport? I do not keep a dog myself but for some people that is very important.

The right to work is fundamental, because many of our UK nationals work on the continent for very good reasons. Will they still be allowed to? We talk about the single market and manufacturing, which are obviously big issues, but there are also small businesses. Will EU nationals be able to run their businesses in a different member state? There is also income tax, double taxation, benefits, wills and inheritance, passports, driving licences, ID cards, vehicles, customs and excise, and border controls. That is just a small list of things that are going to go wrong unless the Government recognise this and do something about it. I know that they are setting up Brexit committees or groups of officials in each department of state to work these things out, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that, while it is all going on, it is going take a very long time—whether two years or three, we do not know. The uncertainty is having a very serious effect on people, financially as well as socially. They are frightened; their lives have been plunged into uncertainty.

Ministers have so far refused to make any commitment until new Ministers are in place. Perhaps it is a bit soon to talk about this today, but I urge the new Ministers to say that there is a red line, and that we think it right that EU nationals—and, in the other direction, UK nationals—who are here at the moment should have the right to remain. That could easily be set as a red line for the start of negotiations. I suspect that our friends on the continent with whom we will be negotiating would welcome that as being perfectly reasonable.