Crime and Policing Bill
Debate between Lord Katz and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, so aptly put it, cycling is one of the issues that your Lordships’ House likes to debate at length. It is an important issue and I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate: the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Blencathra, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Davies, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady McIntosh and Lady Pidgeon. Some of them, though not all of them, were a very interesting supporting cast at a meeting in which I very much played junior partner to my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill. I also thank them for that. There, we had a helpful discussion about some of the wider issues about the way that we frame some of the vehicles we have been talking about this afternoon.
We can all agree on the need for all cyclists, as with motorists, to obey the rules of the road so that our roads and pavements are safe for all users. As the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, put it, we can all say—at least, I hope we would—that we are pro-cycling but anti-lawbreaking. The issue is whether the proposals in these various amendments are workable, proportionate and do not have the unintended effect of deterring cycling and other forms of micromobility.
I will address the amendments in turn. Amendments 318 to 325 and Amendment 333, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would allow for persons to be disqualified from cycling upon conviction of any of the offences in Clause 121. As we made clear in Committee, our fundamental concern is that such a disqualification could not be adequately enforced without some form of licensing for cyclists. Licensing for cyclists would be both costly and complex, and would mean the majority of law-abiding cyclists would face additional costs and barriers to cycling. It is a disproportionate response, given that these new offences are to deal with those rare cases in which cyclists have caused the death or serious injury of another road user.
I do not accept that the cycling disqualification would be an effective deterrent without effective enforcement. Moreover, it would place an unreasonable burden on the police or, alternatively, raise unreasonable expectations if your Lordship’s House were to give the courts the power to impose a disqualification without an accompanying effective enforcement mechanism. It may well be the case that the only way the police could identify whether such a disqualification was in force would be if the person was found to have breached it after being involved in a subsequent incident. This would entirely defeat the purpose of the disqualification and would not have prevented another incident. It would, in fact, likely be discovered only after another incident has occurred.
I turn to Amendments 326 to 332 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, starting with the amendments that would enable a person to receive up to 12 points on a driving licence upon conviction of any offences in Clause 121. Reaching 12 points on a driving licence would result in a person being disqualified from driving a motor vehicle. Section 163 of the Sentencing Act 2020 provides a general power for the criminal courts to impose a driving disqualification on an offender convicted of any offence. In addition, Section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2026 provides courts with the power to impose a driving prohibition requirement as part of a community sentence or suspended sentence. I hope these go some way to meeting the noble Lord’s objectives.
Amendment 343, again in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, would create a registration scheme for the purpose of enforcing the new offences in Clause 121. Although I accept that a registration scheme for cycles would make enforcement of offences easier, the absence of a registration system does not, of course, make enforcement impossible. As the noble Lord will know, the police would be expected to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry open to them. As he said in his own contribution, there are some forces that are very effective at this, in particular the City of London Police, which he has direct experience of.
As with the example of licensing for cyclists that I referred to earlier, we cannot escape the likely significant cost and complexity of introducing a registration scheme for cyclists. Around 1.5 million new cycles are sold every year. No data is collected on this, but some estimates say that over 20 million cycles are in existence. It would therefore be a gargantuan task to introduce such a registration scheme, or indeed a licensing scheme. It would, for example, require all existing cycle owners, potentially including children, as well as those making new purchases to submit their information to some form of central database, and for some form of registration plate to be produced and affixed to each individual bike. Even if that were deemed proportionate, it is not realistic to suggest that detailed regulations could be delivered on this within six months of Royal Assent, as the noble Lord’s amendment proposes.
Amendment 341, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the misuse of e-scooters, including their impact on safety and an assessment of the appropriateness of the legislation within 12 months of Royal Assent. At this point, as others have, I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness has done previously in this area. The safety of all road users is, of course, an utmost priority, and no one should feel unsafe on our streets. It is essential that new transport technology works for everyone. That is why we must crack down on those using e-scooters irresponsibly and in an anti-social way.
However, I do not believe that, after more than five years of running e-scooter trials, the Government should tackle that issue by undertaking yet a further review. I remind noble Lords that private e-scooters remain illegal to use on public roads, cycle lanes and pavements. Rental e-scooters can be used only as part of the Government’s national rental e-scooter trials. Last year, we announced an extension to the rental trials until May 2028, to ensure we have the best possible evidence base to inform any future legislation. We have collected some evidence, but it is still relatively new technology and there remain things we need to learn. We will use this additional time from extending the review to supplement our evidence and draw on further experience.
As I mentioned in Committee, the Department for Transport has already announced that the Government will pursue legislative reform for micromobility vehicles. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, we want to pursue a joined-up approach. We will pursue legislative reform for micromobility vehicles, which will include e-scooters, when parliamentary time allows. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, tempted me to go down a path of speculating what might be in a forthcoming King’s Speech, which is several rungs above my pay grade. I am afraid I cannot do that but, as I said, this is something we wish to pursue when parliamentary time allows.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. I find it a little concerning that he does not agree to a review but the Government have now extended their own review for another four years. We had a very useful meeting with him and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. We are approaching Report on the English devolution Bill. When are we going to get a definition of micromobility vehicles?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I again thank the noble Baroness for the meeting, which I found useful. On the definition of micromobility, I will take that back and write to her on where it will come during the passage of the English devolution Bill, because I am not sufficiently across the details now. I will get back to her on that. I can confirm that, as was mentioned in the noble Baroness’s amendment, the Department for Transport will consult on any new regulations before they come into force, so that all interested parties will have a chance to shape any new regime on micromobility.
Amendment 342, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the number of people charged with dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, as provided for in Clause 121. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s concerns about the extent to which the police act on cycling offences—indeed, those concerns were expressed by many noble Lords today—but I reiterate that the offences in the Bill are the most serious in nature, including where a cyclist’s actions have resulted in the death or serious injury of a person. In such cases, we should expect the police to pursue them to the fullest extent possible.
I highlight to the noble Baroness that the Government already publish a range of statistics on criminal offences, notably the quarterly and annual reports on criminal justice system statistics, alongside annual statistics setting out information on those killed and seriously injured on our roads. That provides breakdowns by road user as well as some of the contributory factors such as speeding, the presence of drink or drugs, and non-seat-belt use. As this information is already available in the public domain, we are not persuaded on the merit of producing such a report for cycle offences.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am so sorry. I have just received from the Library the figures to which the Minister referred. There is not a separate category for e-scooters, which I find quite scary. There is a global category of “motorcyclists”. Does that embrace e-scooters or not?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I will have to go back to check the definitions. We spent some time in our meeting discussing these categories and definitions. As I understand it, that category does include e-scooters, but I want to go back to confirm that for the noble Baroness. As I said, these statistics are produced regularly. That does not mean that any future work on micromobility cannot allow for greater granularity in those statistics, if they are collected in a way that would permit that.
Finally, Amendment 344, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would allow for food delivery companies to receive an unlimited fine should their riders be convicted of any offence under Clause 121 and where those companies do not have sufficient procedures to prevent those offences occurring. Amendment 344A would require the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of any such procedures within one year of Clause 121 coming into force. Although I absolutely recognise the very real concerns that we heard both in Committee and today about the rogue behaviours of food delivery riders, we need hard, documented evidence to understand this in detail. I understand the straw poll point that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, made, but, with the greatest respect, I am not sure how it would hold up in terms of statistical reliability.
Independent Water Commission
Debate between Lord Katz and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to introduce legislation giving effect to the recommendations of the Independent Water Commission chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have carefully considered the Independent Water Commission’s final recommendations and will respond in a forthcoming White Paper. A new water reform Bill will then follow, during this Parliament, to bring forward root-and-branch reform that secures better outcomes for customers, protects the environment, stimulates investment and restores trust and accountability. Together with steps already taken by the Government, this will mark the most fundamental reset to our water system in a generation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, among the recommendations made by Sir Jon Cunliffe were proposals to have mandatory statutory provisions for sustainable drains and the end to the automatic right to connect to main sewers. Given the outage and the water leaks in Kent and Sussex, whereby tens of thousands of homes have been without water, have the Government made an assessment, given that that area has had the most dramatic housebuilding development, of whether the fact that there are no statutory provisions for SUDS or end to the automatic right to connect to main sewers has contributed to the loss of water in those cases?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I know that the noble Baroness has taken a long interest in SUDS, and I want to reassure her and the House that the Government are strongly committed to improving the implementation of sustainable drainage systems. In December 2024, we made changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to support increased delivery of SUDS; the new planning policy framework now requires all developments to utilise SUDS where they could have drainage impacts appropriate to the nature and scale of the development. In June last year, the Government introduced new national standards to make clear that SUDS should be used to cope with the change in climatic conditions and deliver wider benefits. We are now consulting on a revised National Planning Policy Framework, including for flood risk and sustainable drainage systems, and separately on proposals to increase the adoption of shared amenities with guidance to ensure lifetime maintenance.
As the noble Baroness has raised the current situation on the ground in Kent and parts of Sussex, I want to make it clear that restoring supply must be the company’s priority and every possible measure must be taken to protect vulnerable customers and ensure that those affected receive decent and proper compensation. To that extent, Defra Ministers are meeting daily with the chief executive of the water company and local MPs to reinforce the fact that this level of service failure cannot continue.
Small Farms
Debate between Lord Katz and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. He is right to say that the Government are committed to farming, food security and nature recovery through a number of different environmental and land management schemes, including the sustainable farming incentive. He will be aware that the current scheme was closed last March, but it is fair to say that all agreements agreed to under previous iterations of the scheme are still live. It pays farmers to adopt and maintain sustainable farming practices that can protect and enhance the natural environment, alongside food production, and support farm productivity. We are determined to get this right. It is worth noting that only 40,000 of a potential 100,000 farming businesses took up the scheme under previous iterations, so it is really important that we get it right. We are determined to ensure that every farmer takes a look at the new scheme when we do, and we will obviously keep the House updated as to its publication.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the noble Lord share my concern that, on the figures I have, 6,365 agriculture businesses have closed in the last year? That is the highest number of businesses to close in farming since 2017. Will he bring forward SFI to new entrants as a matter of urgent priority? Payments under the basic farm payment scheme in England are going down much faster than anyone envisaged, and this is causing real hardship for those who farm in the hills and dales of northern England.
Lord Katz (Lab)
Of course, the Government share concern when any farming business closes, which is why we are backing farmers to be more profitable and unlocking the full potential of the rural economy, making sure there is business stability and clarity so that they can invest with confidence. That is why we very much welcome the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, did on profitability. We will align that with other strategies, such as the land use strategy, as we unveil this once-in-a-generation farming road map that should cover the next 25 years of agriculture. It is important to understand that over half of England’s farmland, more than 50,000 farm businesses, are already benefiting from our investment in environmental land management schemes, not just SFI but the Countryside Stewardship and landscape recovery schemes. It is important that we get the balance right between restoring nature and having productive farming.
Water Companies: Private Ownership
Debate between Lord Katz and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Lord Katz (Lab)
I agree completely with the noble Lord. Efficient, precise and forensic regulation is needed in this sector. That came across very clearly in the report of the Independent Water Commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe. In response to his report, we have already committed to establishing a single regulator for water and to introduce a regional element within it so that, working with local communities, local businesses and water companies, the needs of an area, whether agriculture or the built environment, are taken account of in determining water company action.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Cunliffe review does indeed refer to the need for a single regulator. It concludes in recommendation 16 that this regulator
“should combine the functions of Ofwat, DWI, and water functions from the EA and NE”.
Natural England is being given a very big role in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and I just wonder how this fits with what the Government are proposing if they fulfil the recommendations of the Cunliffe review. Will we have to rewrite the planning Bill when the next water Bill comes along?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question and indeed her interest in this area and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I do not think anybody in your Lordships’ House would really like us to go through the pain of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill again. That is not what we are going to do. It will be helpful for the House to set out that we have already announced five commitments in response to the Cunliffe review and Sir Jon’s report. We will be publishing a White Paper and hope to have a water reform Bill in the next Parliament.