Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Viscount Hailsham and Viscount Goschen

Report stage
Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

I do not wish to move the amendment.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think it inappropriate that, although Amendment 14 was not moved, it should be spoken to.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

For the administrative ease of the House, I have not moved Amendment 14, but I do have another amendment in this group, Amendment 21, which I do intend to talk to, if that is in order.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I do not want to intrude unnecessarily, but I did have a brief word to say about Amendments 14 and 21, both of which I welcome very much. This arises from a particular problem I had in my own area. We had a very efficiently run waste disposal area, which was closed—and the consequence was that we had a lot of fly-tipping. The advantage of Amendments 14 and 21 is that they would impose on the waste disposal authority certain obligations: obligations to pay and obligations to clear away the mess. The advantage of that is that it may make the waste disposal authorities much less willing to close sites. If the sites remain open, the prospect is that fly-tipping will not be as great. I was going to support Amendments 14 and 21, because what they would do is valuable, in the sense that it would encourage waste disposal authorities to keep sites open, and not to close them.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend.

This is an important issue. I have campaigned for many years around fly-tipping and the importance of having a stronger regulatory settlement, so I very much support my noble friend’s amendments in this group. It is a very large-scale problem: the noble Lord, Lord Katz, I believe, referred at an earlier stage to an estimate of some 1.15 million fly-tipping events reported to local authorities. That is a huge number, and I expect that that thoroughly underreports the true scale of the problem.

The noble Lord, Lord Katz, was kind enough to write to me in response to a question I raised on 17 November in Committee, when I inquired as to the number of cost recovery orders that had been successfully made by the courts. It appears that the Government do not hold that information. I looked at the manifesto, about which we have heard an awful lot in this Parliament, and indeed today, and there was a commitment to make the fly-tippers pay for the clear-up, yet the Government do not hold the statistics. I am slightly puzzled as to how the Government are going to make progress on that without holding the relevant information. The noble Lord, in his letter to me, did say that 1,378 fines had been made in respect of fly-tipping. That is a tiny number: it is 1 in 1,000, or 0.1%. It is quite clear —the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in response to a question about the Kidlington outrage, agreed—that the current regulatory position is not working. This is a particular issue in the countryside, where there is a heavy burden on farmers, as we have heard. Here, I declare an interest of sorts, as the owner of a farm.

I have Amendment 21 in this group. Its effect is simple: it would place a duty on local waste authorities to remove waste and then to attempt to pursue cost recovery from the culprits. It builds, really, on Amendment 13, in my noble friend’s name, which seeks to amend the guidance. Both have a similar intent. In my view, it is simply unfair that the victim of the crime should be responsible for clearing it up. There are many factors that drive this crime, but at least two are within the direct control of public authorities as a whole—namely, the pricing of the landfill tax and, as my noble friend referred to, the accessibility of waste disposal facilities, and the Environment Agency and police enforcement effort.

My noble friend referred to the incident reported of a farmer who recently had 200 tonnes of rubbish dumped on his land. This is a perfect illustration of the problem that landowners, and indeed community trusts and others—for example, sports grounds and football clubs and so forth—can face. This individual faced a bill for some £40,000. Now, I understand that the council and the police had failed to identify the culprits and had failed to protect him after repeated previous incidents. Indeed, he alleges that he had also been the victim of intimidation. Why should he face financial ruin for the failures of public authorities to protect him from the actions of a criminal gang?

I would argue that it is simply not realistic, nor is it fair, to expect landowners to take on the role of detective to identify offenders and then to pursue them for the recovery of costs. They do not know how to make the various agencies involved work more effectively, they are vulnerable to intimidation and they do not have the resources.

The time has now come for the responsibility for protection, clear-up, investigation and prosecution to sit with the appropriate and relevant public agencies. To my mind, the arguments for doing this are clear, as it would create a complete system where public sector agencies control landfill pricing, access to legitimate waste disposal sites, identification and prosecution of culprits, and recovery of costs. This would incentivise the Environment Agency, the police and local waste authorities to be much more proactive in pursuing the culprits, facilitating their prosecution and recovering their costs. It would allow for faster removal, which is a very important factor. With waste lying around on farmland, private land or any open ground, one thing follows another, and more suddenly turns up. It would also give much fairer treatment to landowners.

It is clear that the current system is not working. On the one hand, we have had a member of the public being fined for pouring the dregs of her cup of coffee down the drain, but, on the other hand, no one seems to have noticed or done anything to stop at least 300 heavy goods vehicles dumping upwards of 10,000 tonnes of rubbish illegally in Kidlington. How can that possibly have happened? How can we have confidence in the system? If it cannot catch 300 trucks, what chance does the poor landowner have in this type of situation? This is a failure of the whole government system in the broadest sense of the term—central agencies and local—to protect victims. They now need to take responsibility.

I support my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower’s other amendments, all of which are designed to strengthen the regulatory settlement to tackle fly-tipping. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Viscount Hailsham and Viscount Goschen

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with Amendments 346C and 481. I start from the premise of not seeking further reviews, but I am a bicyclist. I bicycle very regularly in London; I did so this very morning from King’s Cross to here on an electric bike, and that is my new usual means of transport when I come from Lincolnshire.

I think, in fact, that there are two quite distinct problems that need to be addressed. One is the simple behaviour of bicyclists on the road. There are already many regulations that apply, such as not to ride on pavements, to have batteries of an appropriate kind, to comply with traffic signs and all that. One thing that one sees all the time is an extraordinary denial of the law by riders. That is a matter of enforcement. I think it is very difficult to enforce, because, frankly, the police have better things to do with their time. I have some sympathy with that view. That is one discrete problem.

A much more worrying problem, which has been alluded to by my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Shinkwin, is about the relationship between the delivery companies and the delivery riders. That relationship is worth looking into carefully. It is right to inquire about the following: what is the nature of the employment; by whom are the bicycles provided; what steps are taken to ensure that the riders comply with the law; and where does the liability to pay compensation arise? If the riders are regular employees, the ordinary principles of vicarious liability arise; if they are sort of independent contractors, presumably the delivery companies are not liable to pay compensation.

These are the sorts of questions that I think could sensibly be addressed by either the Department for Transport or the Home Office. I am not sure I want to see a review of a formal kind, as it takes a very long time, but I do think that there are issues seriously to be addressed about the relationship between the riders and the delivery companies.

With regard to Amendment 416K, tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, while again I have sympathy with the point that he is seeking to make, I cannot support what he is proposing, for two reasons. The first is a technical one: if you look at his amendment, the liabilities ultimately on the company arise out of the bad and dangerous driving of the rider. On any ordinary view, the company itself is not directly responsible for the criminal act of the rider, so we would be taking a vicarious liability rather too far, in my opinion.

Secondly, and quite differently—and I say this with some diffidence in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe—there are no circumstances in which I would give the police the power to levy an unlimited fine. We have had far too many anxieties about the police—on occasion, the noble Lord himself has identified some—and, for the sake of preserving civil liberties, there is no way that this House should do that.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments, which very neatly follow on from the discussions we had on Monday, when there was a great deal of consensus around the Committee on the degree to which there is a problem, particularly with delivery riders on illegal e-bikes and delivery riders riding e-bikes illegally.

On my way back from your Lordships’ House on Monday, I saw a delivery rider riding the wrong way down Jermyn Street, about half a mile from here, doing about 20 mph. It is a one-way street and he was driving down it the wrong way. That is one anecdote, but walking here this afternoon, I saw a number of similar offences.

A number of different approaches to this problem have been suggested. The first is the major initiative that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, would like to see—the registration of all cycles. There was some feeling that that would be difficult and perhaps a bit of a sledgehammer to crack quite a large nut.

The issue we have is that these delivery riders are flying under the flag, and are de facto commissioned contractors of, large companies whose agents, for want of a better term, are acting illegally. They are using illegal vehicles and are riding them illegally—the whole time. It is removing the incentive for those who seek to ride legal vehicles.

My noble friends are quite right to put the emphasis on those who can do something about this—the large companies that are commissioning these individuals to utilise these vehicles. They have to take responsibility for the actions of their agents. My noble friend Lord Hailsham may well have said that this goes beyond the law as it stands, but we are Parliament; we are here to change the law where we think that a change in the law will make a specific difference.

I have only one point, which is to urge the Ministers on the Government Front Bench, who have been diligent throughout the Bill and no doubt will be in the weeks to come, not to look too closely at their folders. I have not had a peep but I dare say the words are along the lines of, “Yes, isn’t it awful? There is a real problem. But it’s all very difficult to do something about”. This is the opportunity to do something about it, and I believe the Committee will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response, because we can all see illegal activity and people flouting the law.

The law is being brought into disrepute. There is almost no enforcement at all on this. Yet the Government, in the form of the Minister, say, “Well it’s very difficult but I’m not sure that any of the solutions that have been proposed will make any sort of difference”. If the Government do not like the amendments that my noble friends have proposed, fair enough, but let us hear their initiatives.

I feel that, if we do not get a satisfactory response, the House should not let this opportunity pass, when we have a Bill with clauses that deal directly with the issue of illegal cycling and sanctions. We need to do something about it. This is our moment. We look forward to a substantive response from His Majesty’s Government.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Viscount Hailsham and Viscount Goschen

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I will just say a word about Amendment 213. I shall come back more fully to a discussion of the principles in the fifth group of amendments, but there is a danger that a range of agricultural and gardening tools will be caught. I have in mind, for example, machetes, bill-hooks and hand scythes—all of which will be found in various parts of my house. I think it is a very good thing that we should make the exemption clear.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the points made and the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, supported by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. We are in the territory of unintended consequences. The Committee needs to take a pragmatic approach. Where there are lacunae and mishaps in complex swathes of legislation, with many successive Acts on knives and similar offensive weapons, we need to take the opportunity to correct those. I certainly support the derogation for agricultural, gardening or conservation purposes, and for weapons of historical importance, collectables and so forth. These seem to be very pragmatic measures, which I support.

I am not knowledgeable on the subject of truncheons. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, even with his experience did not use his. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, at Second Reading saying that he made “liberal use” of it in an arrest with the result of blood “being spattered” onto his uniform. I guess experience varies, but I support the noble Lord’s efforts today.