Media Bill

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I will just speak briefly, because I know that we want to get to Front-Bench spokesmen. A lot of detailed arguments have been advanced by those who have tabled amendments in this group and I think they reflect the detailed nature of the measures proposed. I have listened to those arguments and also heard some of the examples of people who have had bad experiences of the media. I sympathise with a lot of what has been said but, when it comes to matters of principle—and I believe that freedom of the press is a matter of principle—I also have the view that there are some circles that cannot be squared.

It is worth us just remembering that, only a couple of months ago, when we were debating foreign power ownership, Lord Ashcroft did a poll which showed that two-thirds of British people do care about freedom of the press. I think we can all agree that people might not always love or approve of everything done in or by the British media, but the principle of a free press, free from government interference, is something that matters to them. I believe it is a principle that serves the public interest and therefore one that Parliament must uphold. For that reason, I cannot support any of the amendments in this group and I will support my noble friend the Minister in resisting them.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by saying that, while I disagree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, I agree entirely with him in his view that this Bill is not the right place for discussing Section 40. I am enormously grateful for the best wishes for a speedy recovery that have been passed to my noble friend Lord McNally and I know that he is bitterly disappointed that he cannot be here. He would have been proposing a very simple way forward —that Clause 50 should not stand part of the Bill. The implication of that would, of course, have been that Section 40 would have continued to be on the statute book. But he would have gone a stage further and argued that it would be certainly the view of these Benches that it should not only be retained on the statute book but also should have been implemented.

There have been all sorts of debates about and criticisms of the proposal that came from Sir Brian Leveson. We should accept that a great debt needs to be paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for the way in which she has forensically gone through many of those criticisms and debunked them. The one criticism that has not been debunked by her is that it is no longer necessary to have protection of the type that was proposed by Leveson because there is not really a problem now with what the press is doing. I think the noble Lord, Lord Watts, put it very clearly: there are still many examples of wrongdoing by the press. We need to be well aware of the implications of removing Section 40. There would be virtually no access to justice for victims of press wrongdoing. Ordinary people who find themselves defamed, have their privacy invaded or their grief intruded on by wealthy and powerful newspapers in search of higher circulation or clickbait will find themselves virtually helpless.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, may well be right that the degree of wrongdoing has reduced. That does not alter the fact that it still exists and there needs to be a mechanism to help in particular those who do not have deep pockets to ensure that they can get justice. Therefore, it requires the Government—were they to be continuing—to make very clear what their alternative is to provide the protection for those very people. There may not now be the opportunity, given the announcement about the forthcoming election.

We have heard many alternative solutions put forward in the various amendments before us today. There is not now time to go through all the detail. So, on these Benches, we are very clear that the best way forward now would be for the Government to accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Black, that this is not the right place for a discussion of Section 40, that Section 40 should remain on the statute book and that a future Government—whichever party is in charge—should have an opportunity to discuss the right way forward to continue to provide the protection that is still going to be needed. I give way.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Baroness Stowell of Beeston

Monday 11th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I back up the call from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to try to persuade the Government to find a way to include e-bikes and e-scooters in the Bill. Like many of the pedicabs that we are dealing with, e-scooters and e-bikes are powered by lithium ion batteries which, incorrectly used, can cause huge damage. In fact, the number of fires that have taken place in London from lithium ion batteries powering light forms of mobility has been growing dramatically and, since 2020, has cost millions of pounds-worth of property damage, and caused many injuries and, tragically, the loss of 13 lives.

Incorrectly used, a lithium ion battery can develop a fire of over 600 degrees that is almost impossible to put out using any of the current known technology. We also know that it sends out huge amounts of really toxic gasses. So we need regulation around the lithium ion batteries that are used in all forms of light powered mobility, including pedicabs. I prepared a Private Member’s Bill that covered these issues, although it sadly did not come up in the ballot; I had enormous support on this issue from Electrical Safety First, which has worked on this for many years.

It is interesting to note that the London Fire Brigade said that it had had more fires up to the beginning of September than in the whole of the previous year—the number of fires is growing. Even more recently, on 11 September, a London coroner took the unusual step of calling for tougher legislation on e-bike batteries after the death of a father of two. We need action and this Bill provides an opportunity to do something about it.

I have raised these issues on a number of occasions. Several months ago, in June, I asked a Question in your Lordships’ House on the Government’s action. The noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, who responded on that occasion, told me that his officials were

“proactively seeking the input and expertise of stakeholders”.—[Official Report, 27/6/23; col. 569.]

He also talked about work that was “under way”. However, much more recently, at the end of last month, I took part in a debate on light powered vehicles. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, responded to my points, particularly in the letter that he subsequently wrote to those who participated in the debate. In it, he drew our attention to annexe IV of EU Regulation 3/2014; incidentally, that was not at all helpful because it talks mainly about avoiding electric shocks from big electric cars—but never mind. The Minister went on to say:

“Fire prevention, fire detection and fire fighting in connection with electric vehicles is a developing area and the government reviews its guidance and regulations in step with the development of best practice”.


We seem to be going backwards: in June, I was told that work was under way but we are now told that guidance may come out in due course.

I hope that the Minister will take note of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and recognise that he will not get new legislation in, but there is some here and he could use it as a vehicle for addressing these particular issues. I hope he does.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, as the Committee knows, I am supportive of this Bill because it brings in provision for the regulation of pedicabs. I will leave it to my noble friend the Minister to respond on why it is not possible to include e-scooters and e-bikes; I guess that it is probably because the Bill is called the Pedicabs (London) Bill and the Government would not be able to cover them in it. However, I share a lot of the concerns raised about e-scooters and e-bikes. Although I did not say anything in support of those who made these points at Second Reading, that was probably because this issue started getting raised after I spoke. I am pleased that we have pedicabs legislation, which has always been my focus.

I want to raise e-scooters with my noble friend. Because there has been no legislation, as has been pointed out, I am really alarmed that the Government are extending their trial of rental e-scooters for a further two years, to May 2026. What really concerns me about this—I have raised it on several occasions in different contexts and debates—is that, at the moment, it is illegal for private e-scooters to be on our roads outside those rental schemes. The longer this trial goes on, the more the take-up increases. I do not think I have ever seen anyone tackled. As I have said before in this Room, I have even witnessed somebody come on to the Parliamentary Estate on an e-scooter, past the policemen on the gate, and not be challenged at all. When I asked a police officer on the gate, “Why haven’t you stopped that person riding a vehicle that’s not permitted on the road?”, they shrugged their shoulders at me.

If this is to continue, something has to be done about enforcement around these vehicles. They cause so much distress to people, as has been described, and are dangerous because of the batteries used. It is not good enough for a lack of parliamentary time to be raised as an excuse when the use of them, in a legal fashion, is growing all the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 17 and 18, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra, both of which relate to noise. I add that I am sympathetic to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 26 and the points she raised about cab ranks—I do not mean those to do with Hammersmith Bridge specifically. She makes an interesting argument about the provision for ranks for pedicabs.

As I said on the other group, I am grateful to my noble friend for his letter to all Peers. In Transport for London’s note, which was attached to his letter, it was encouraging to see that it proposes to introduce regulations that will cover, as part of the conduct of drivers, the playing of loud music and causing a disturbance. As I said at Second Reading, the loud music played and amplified by pedicabs is the greatest concern that gets raised by business owners and residents—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is right about that.

I was a little concerned that, in the note TfL prepared, it suggests that some noise offences are already covered by existing legislation. When I read this, I thought that, in that case, either the existing laws are inadequate, or—to return to enforcement—the enforcement of them is not good enough. I acknowledge that, in his letter, my noble friend pointed out that Westminster City Council and the Metropolitan Police have issued penalty notices that have raised around £30,000 in fines over the last two years.

However, I am concerned that the focus on noise will be about night-time noise. It is not only at night that pedicabs and the playing of loud, amplified noise is a problem; it is a serious problem during the day as well. In my noble friend’s opening speech at Second Reading, he referred to the problem of

“blasting loud music at all hours of the night”.—[Official Report, 22/11/23; col. 768.]

In his closing remarks, he referred to the fines issued by the Metropolitan Police or Westminster City Council, saying specifically that these were for the playing of music “after 9 pm”.

One of the reasons I am keen to see noise added to the relevant clause in the Bill is that noise and the playing and loud amplification of music is the most significant concern that people have about pedicabs, as I said at Second Reading. I am also concerned to ensure that TfL will take an approach that ensures that the loud amplification of music will not be allowed at all hours, not just after 9 pm. I would be grateful for my noble friend’s response to that.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I will pursue some of the issues I raised in the debate on a previous group of amendments about the safety of the lithium ion batteries that power many pedicabs, including those that have loudspeakers to provide the noise we have just heard about.

Many noble Lords may not be aware that a fully charged lithium ion battery contains as much energy and potential energy as the equivalent of six hand grenades. If something goes wrong, it can lead to a thermal runaway, which can lead to temperatures reaching over 600 degrees centigrade, as I mentioned earlier. It can release toxic gases that can seriously damage a human’s lungs. The fires are very difficult to put out because they create their own oxygen, which means that special techniques have to be used.

Having said all that, a properly designed and constructed lithium ion battery is inherently pretty safe, unless people do stupid things with it, such as charging it with the wrong charging system, banging it and not being concerned about any damage that they might see, and so on. That is the problem. I do not want to say that lithium ion batteries are bad because, frankly, we desperately need them for many of the developments in transportation and other areas. It is therefore vital that we think about regulations for how we use them, to avoid those problems occurring. Although it is not covered in these amendments, I also hope consideration is given to how we dispose of them when they are no longer in use.