Crime and Policing Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the introduction of her Bill, which has much to commend it. Earlier this year, I indicated that I would retire in the spring. However, I am a politician, and I did not say which spring. I really do want to retire, but I have one last parliamentary task to deal with.

When I arrived at your Lordships’ House in 1992, one of my areas of expertise was in road haulage operation, including abnormal load movements. In the late 1990s, the late and much missed Lord Mason of Barnsley worked tirelessly on seeking to replace the police with the private escorting—or rather, self-escorting—of abnormal loads. This was because it was not a good use of police time, and in some cases the police were not very good at it—although forces such as the Met were, and still are, excellent.

A large part of the problem was police priorities causing abnormal loads to have to wait a long time for a police escort, which was expensive for industry. At this point I should declare an interest, as I operate a tank transporter for the REME Museum. I have given the Minister full details of this interest. We succeeded in about 2002, when the then Minister of State for policing, John Denham, changed UK policy, and thenceforth the police would not routinely escort abnormal loads unless they were particularly large, or traffic rules would have to be contravened. By and large, this policy change worked well and I am proud of it.

About three years ago, however, some police forces decided to take a very close interest in heavy haulage operations. It is not clear why, because my understanding, based on discussion at retired senior traffic commissioner level, is that operators who conduct heavy haulage work are generally regarded as responsible, compliant hauliers who want to do it right, despite the many challenges they face. There will, of course, be a small proportion of heavy hauliers identified who do not comply, just as there are always hauliers in all sectors who will not comply, but these are the exception and not the rule. With regard to the few forces involved, the most appropriate term would be “persecution and harassment”, even of the largest and most professional operators in the land. I have emailed a report to many of your Lordships about my investigations and I urge your Lordships just to read page 3.

Noble Lords often ask me what is driving this behaviour. The short answer is money. Often, the police officers who decide whether the load needs a police escort are the same ones who will pick up the overtime payments. Furthermore, over the last five years, the income for West Midlands Police, for instance, has increased somewhat: year one, £15,000; year two, £39,000; year three, £36,000. Are your Lordships sitting down comfortably? Year four, £855,000; and year five, projected using the 2023-24 figures, £1.1 million. So we have gone from £15,000 to £1.1 million. The income profile of many other police forces has remained steady, so, for other comparative police forces, you are looking at about £30,000 a year. Some police forces, such as Thames Valley, do not make any charges at all.

We have regulations about how much the police can charge for issuing a firearms certificate—and basically, we screw down the amount the police can charge, so they cannot do a proper job—but none about charges for escorting an abnormal load. There is NPCC guidance, but it is predicated on policing events such as football matches. The police forces involved are charging for a minimum six-hour shift but using the same team to escort several loads within that shift. This cannot be right. It should be noted that a lot of the money eventually comes from government-funded projects such as HS2. I will be tabling amendments about this, and quite a few others about abnormal loads, because relevant STGO legislation is no longer fit for purpose.

Crime and Policing Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. While I entirely understand the motivation behind the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I am not entirely sure that it is necessary. As the noble Lord said, there is no limitation for the bringing of this particular Section 9 offence.

I do not wish to get into my anecdotage, but I remember that, as a law officer, one very often had to deal with historic offences whereby a mature person, in their 50s, 60s or 70s, was being indicted or prosecuted for an offence they committed many years ago against a minor. Had the problem existed that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, envisages through her amendment, that would have been a matter we would have had to consider. As the Minister will no doubt tell us from her experience as someone who worked at a senior level in the Crown Prosecution Service, you have to consider whether there is an adequacy of evidence and whether it is in the public interest to bring that person to trial. The age of the offence might be considered by the prosecutor, but there is no time bar, as I understand it. While I may well be corrected for being out of date and ignorant, I certainly do not think that there is a need for this amendment, although it is well motivated.

I have a suspicion that I have got this entirely wrong and that the Minister is going to tell me that it would have been better if I had kept to my place, but there we are. There are plenty of things that we could do with the Bill—make it shorter, for example—but I am not sure that this amendment is one that we need to add to it.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in strong support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I do not know whether it is necessary. I declare an interest as a victim. My concern about the historic sex offences is the prison population. We have large numbers of historic sex offenders in prison. It creates great problems for the Prison Service. However, a custodial sentence is the only sensible disposal. We need to work out what to do with historic sex offenders within the prison system.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Brinton has made a powerful case for removing the limitation period. The Government have already signalled a willingness to act, so objections are likely about timing rather than policy—at least, I hope that is the case.

The amendment would align the law with what Parliament has already accepted, which is that child sexual abuse is distinct from other offences. This is a crime defined by secrecy, grooming and a stark power imbalance. We know that victims often take decades to come forward, so allowing offenders to shelter behind time would reward fear and coercion.

Amendment 293 provides clarity for all parties—victims, police, prosecutors and, indeed, defendants. It removes the scope for technical argument about whether a particular course of conduct falls outside time and instead focuses everyone on the core question, which is whether the evidence available can support a fair trial. It also brings coherence. Across the system, we are rightly moving away from arbitrary cut-offs that prevent past abuse ever being heard in court. The amendment is a modest step in the same direction in accordance with the recommendations of inquiries and the expectations of survivors.

There must be no time bar on prosecuting sexual activity with a child. If we are serious about saying that such conduct is never acceptable, surely we should also be serious about saying that it is never too late to pursue justice for it. The amendment achieves that and warrants the support of the Committee and the Government.

Crime and Policing Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

While we all might very well wish that prostitution did not exist, it does. We need to provide the best protections we can, at the same time as perhaps supporting more useful programmes that help women to leave prostitution altogether.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the explanations of their amendments. I support the Government’s Amendments 308 and 309 for reasons that will be explained by the Minister. I go further and support the Amendments 312 and 313, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. It must be so difficult for social workers and charities to steer sex workers away to a better life if they have to admit to these offences when seeking legitimate or conventional employment, when they have not even been found to be dishonest. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, in her Amendment 316B for the reasons that she explained. This is yet another online problem.

I am afraid that I cannot support Amendments 310 and 311, which seek to make buying or organising the provision of sexual services illegal. I come at this from a similar position to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone.

In the recent past, and for centuries before, we erroneously thought that we needed to stamp out gay sex because we did not like it. Thanks to the effort of great campaigners, people like me now recognise that the policy was absolutely bonkers. We made otherwise law-abiding citizens out to be criminals, we turned patriots into security risks, and we made sure that around 5% of the population could never reach their full potential—and we hurt them. We made sure that gay people could not have stable relationships, which then caused a variety of health issues for both the gay and the straight communities. We do much the same with prostitution.

We have an especially nasty name for sex workers—we call them prostitutes or worse. However, quite a lot of people, mainly men, are happy to use them for a variety of reasons—some understandable and some not so good. We do everything that we can to make it a dirty, horrible, seedy, disgusting business, in the vain hope that doing so will reduce the problem. It does anything but.

We ensure that only criminals can engage in managing the paid-for sex business, just like the drug trade. Worse still, and just like homophobia, we create a health problem with sexually transmitted diseases, when we could minimise the problem if we so desired. The noble Baroness explained the logic behind her amendments. If the policy were successful, there is no doubt that it would be a great moral success. However, to be successful, the police would have to devote huge resources to absolutely stamp out prostitution in the UK, and I am not confident that they can.

I see considerable problems with these amendments. The first is around the safety of sex workers, and the noble Baroness touched on this. I would imagine that, very often, appointments are made via an ordinary mobile phone. If something goes horribly wrong with the encounter, no doubt the police can access the mobile phone records and use relevant detection techniques. Sex workers can currently identify regular, and therefore safe, clients. If these amendments became law, clients would not use their main mobile; they would surely use burner phones, regularly change them and turn them on only at railway stations and the like. Of course, this activity would no longer be a red flag; it would be quite understandable. If the booking is online, clients would use a website that might be far away from the UK, in authorities such as Russia or the Far East. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, talked with great knowledge about this issue. It would lead to significant cyber and espionage risks compared with sex workers using certain well-known UK sites.

One would hope that someone who acquires a sexually transmitted disease would be honest with the health professionals seeking to identify the source of the infection, particularly if it were hard to treat. If the amendment is accepted, very few clients would agree to reveal that they have paid for sex, where and with whom.

I can understand why the noble Baroness has sought extraterritorial jurisdiction. If she did not, we would be exporting our problems—if they are problems—to another country, which might be as close as Germany, for instance, which has for many years done what I am about to propose. If the police are given concrete evidence that this offence has been committed somewhere on the continent, are they going to go in hot pursuit? I am not sure that the police in Berlin, for instance, would be very helpful, given that it is not an offence there.

When certain state employees are security vetted, it is necessary to understand the applicant’s sexuality because it could obviously be a major vulnerability, but there is never a problem if the applicant is honest and candid, and the vetting team is not easily shocked. However, it would be a problem if the applicant admits to serious criminal offences. If they successfully lie to the vetting team, they make themselves a security risk.

Unlike the online problems that we have been discussing, we are talking about the world’s oldest profession. If we think that we have stamped it out, we may only have driven it deep underground, as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. Those seeking paid sex would have to use dangerous IT solutions, which would leave them, and possibly their employers, much more vulnerable to cyber attacks and blackmail. The sex workers involved would be involved in a very serious criminal undertaking—not just, as at the moment, perhaps three girls setting up a flat together.

What is to be done to address the ills that the noble Baroness has so skilfully articulated? I do not disagree with her analysis of the problem and the evils. Hitherto in the UK, we have taken a priggish and prudish attitude to these matters and made things far worse, just as we did with gay people. The answer is that we should regulate, license and tax this activity, just as we do with alcohol. We should license establishments, whether large or small—the larger establishments could be discreetly located so that they do not interfere with the local community. We should ensure that sex workers never again have to give the majority of their earnings to an immoral criminal who will abuse them if they do not. The economics of the profession would be favourable for sex workers if there were no immoral parasites involved. We should ensure that criminals are not able to be involved in the business at all. We should license sex workers to ensure that they have not been trafficked and are not being coerced into the business. This policy would make it far more difficult to force people into the business and would drastically reduce the risks for sex workers.

If we went down this route, there would be significant benefits apart from the tax take, which would be significant. We could require regular health checks and make sure that any drug dependencies were properly managed. We could make this a condition of the personal licence. It is reasonable to argue that sex workers would not have to entertain so many clients in a day, and in any case, as I have suggested, it would be a far less sordid activity for all. If the Minister is cautious in his response to these amendments, I will gladly support him.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been a thoughtful and at points sobering debate on this group of amendments. Each amendment has been brought forward with a genuine desire to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society, a shared goal among all of us.

On Amendments 308 and 309 in the name of the Minister, I of course understand and respect the intention that lies behind them, which is to ensure that individuals who were exploited as children, often in circumstances of profound vulnerability, are not burdened in adulthood by convictions or cautions that arose from their victimisation. We share the Minister’s desire to protect children from such exploitation and absolutely recognise that those under 18 involved in prostitution can very often be victims.

The amendments as drafted would create an automatic disregard or pardon for every offence of loitering or soliciting committed under the age of 18. Will the Minister explain whether a blanket approach of this kind is the right mechanism? Young people under 18 can be convicted of a wide range of offences, many of which the law rightly considers on a case-by-case basis with great care and nuance. It is not immediately clear why this category of offence should be given automatic treatment when others are subject to a case-by-case consideration. I totally accept that that is a difficult question. While we are very sympathetic to the concerns that underpin the amendments, we hope to hear from the Minister a more detailed rationale for them.

Amendments 310 and 311, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, raise significant issues about the role of those who enable, promote or profit from prostitution, including through online platforms, and about the criminal liability of those who pay for sexual services. Again, we absolutely support the underlying principle that exploitation, whether offline or online, must be robustly tackled and that those who profit from the abuse or commodification of vulnerable people should face meaningful consequences. The growth of online facilitation has created new and disturbing avenues for exploitation, and we support efforts to ensure that our legislative framework keeps pace with these developments.

However, the approach that the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, has suggested through these amendments, which is effectively to repeal the current offences in the Street Offences Act and replace them with the new offences in her amendments, is a very wide-ranging change to the law. Such a sweeping and significant alteration to our legal framework should not be undertaken, in our view, without a serious consideration of the impact and should be the subject of a serious examination, consultation with the police and other groups and the publication of proposals by the Home Office. It is not a change that we can simply make on a whim.

Finally, Amendments 316A and 316B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, concern the rapidly evolving landscape of online sexual exploitation. We share the noble Baroness’s concern about the ways in which digital platforms can facilitate harmful or coercive practices and about the need to ensure that those who profit from the exploitation of vulnerable individuals are held to account. We recognise the seriousness of the issues that she has raised this evening and the need for continued work to ensure that offenders cannot simply exploit technological advances to evade scrutiny or sanction. I hope the Government will consider these amendments very carefully.

There is clear recognition of the need to strengthen protections for vulnerable people and to ensure that those who exploit them, whether in person or online, are met with the full force of the law. I look forward to continuing discussions with the Government as the Bill progresses and to hearing from the Minister tonight so that we can ensure that the legislation is robust and proportionate and delivers the protections that victims so clearly deserve.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the problem of prostitution has been around since biblical times. I can understand why the noble Lord might not be very supportive of Amendments 310 and 311, but does my noble friend on the Front Bench not offer any solution to the problem of prostitution?

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I thank the noble Earl for that question. I have made the position of the Front Bench clear and think it is now for the Minister to answer such a testing question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will reflect on that, but, as I said, the disregard and pardon will be automatic, so it will happen if the Bill receives the support of both Houses and Royal Assent. I will reflect on what the noble Lord said, because there may be an opportunity to consider that. However, I do not want to commit to it today, because we do not necessarily know where someone who was that age in 1995 is now—the address, contact details and so on might all be different. The key point is that this is an automatic disregard for those individuals, so if publicity is given to this new clause and the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will potentially lift a burden for those who were under 18 at the time.

The Government cannot share in the support for repeal of the Section 1 offence for those over 18, and I can give reasons for that. We will consider in future, if the Section 1 offence is repealed in its entirety, whether the disregard and pardon should be extended to adults, because that is a separate issue. However, today I wanted to focus on those under 18.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

Will the Minister consider separating the disregard and the pardon?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am trying to think how that would impact upon the issue we are talking about today. In effect, the disregard and pardon will be automatic for people under the age of 18. I will look at what the noble Earl said and discuss it with Home Office colleagues in that context.

As I have rejected the amendments in the name of my noble friend, I reassure her that there is a range of ongoing work to tackle sexual exploitation, and our intention is to continue working with the police, charities and those affected to ensure that we take action. It is important that we draw attention—as the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, did—to online platforms’ legal duties under the Online Safety Act 2023, which came into play on 17 March. That Act sets out priority offences that platforms must take additional steps to tackle. In addition, I hope it will help my noble friend Lady Ritchie to know that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence to cause, incite or control prostitution for gain. Those offences, together with human trafficking offences, are priority offences under the 2023 Act.

As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, indicated, platforms should now already be completing risk assessments and implementing measures to mitigate against the risk of their services being used for illegal activity and having illegal content present. Ofcom is providing recommended measures for compliance through the illegal content codes, and platforms must be able to demonstrate the measures they have taken to comply with their duties. Very significant fines of 10% of global revenue are in place, or, in extreme cases, business disruption measures.

To show that we are not ignoring the issues my noble friend has raised, I also point out that we have introduced provisions in Schedule 13 that will enable law enforcement agencies to apply to the courts to temporarily suspend for up to 12 months IP and domain names used for serious crimes such as sexual exploitation. We are also working closely with the police and other law enforcement partners to ensure that the laws we already have are effectively enforced.

Through our law enforcement partners, we are running a pilot whereby adverts are referred to the Home Office- funded Tackling Organised Exploitation Programme to consider if offences have been committed on adult service websites. In addition, as my noble friend has mentioned, our law enforcement partners are working closely with Ofcom on the issue of adult service websites to ensure that the right measures are put in place to identify and remove illegal content and safeguard people from sexual exploitation.

It may help my noble friend to know that we are providing £450,000 to the National Police Chiefs’ Council this year to pilot a national law enforcement intelligence and investigation hub for sexual exploitation, collating information on victims and perpetrators. We are also providing £475,000 to Changing Lives to provide support to those affected by sexual exploitation.

I hope the Committee can reflect on this difficult and challenging topic. I commend Amendments 308 and 309 to the Committee. I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed—

Crime and Policing Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I hear that they can be fitted in an hour for under £200.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 398 in this group. I will first address my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 345. My noble friend Lord Blencathra expertly articulated it, but I fear that I did not find it convincing. As I understand it, he is really proposing a function that should be undertaken only by a police officer or the police. The power to detain a vehicle is a significant one and should not be undertaken lightly. I am not in favour of this amendment, and I hope that the Minister will speak in similar terms.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is a tireless advocate of road safety; if she had not tabled her amendment, I would be worried for her. Had she run out of steam? Apparently not. I agree with much of what she said about the harm that alcohol can cause and will not repeat what she said so skilfully. While we are closely aligned, we part company over what is an appropriate blood alcohol concentration, or BAC. The Committee will recognise that the Grand Rapids study showed that the standard of driving deteriorates rapidly once a blood alcohol concentration of 80 milligrams is reached, and that is why our drink-drive limit is set at that level. However, I agree that there is no safe limit for driving a vehicle and that any alcohol will cause a deterioration in the standard of driving.

I suggest to the Committee that there are three broad classes of drink-driver offenders. I accept that there is a small cohort who regularly drink sufficient alcohol to take them to, or over, the limit. The next is a group who make a horrible mistake and, for one reason or another, unusually find themselves driving over the limit. I will not rehearse all the reasons why this may happen, but there is no excuse; they are relatively easily caught by a skilled traffic police officer. This is partly because they give themselves away with their style of driving. This offence is no longer socially acceptable and we rightly have severe minimum penalties in place.

I contend that the real problem lies with unregulated drinkers who are usually clinically dependent on alcohol, have no idea how much alcohol they have drunk and pay absolutely no attention to what the law says. Lowering the BAC will have no effect at all on them. The bad news is that their driving tends to be very fluid, so it is hard for the traffic police to detect them from their driving alone, and they often drive only short distances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 416B, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, which concerns the issue of uninsured drivers and to which I have added my name, as this is a serious crime. I declare my interest as an insurance broker with Marsh Ltd.

Within the motor industry, it is a regrettable truth that a significant number of vehicles on our roads are being driven without insurance. The Motor Insurers’ Bureau estimates that between 300,000 and 450,000 vehicles fall into this category. That figure alone should give us pause for thought. It represents not merely statistics but a vast unknown risk to every law-abiding citizen. When accidents occur involving these vehicles, there is no third-party insurance to provide protection or compensation. Instead, the burden falls upon the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, which must step in to provide cover where none exists. Sadly, we read of such occurrences all too often, particularly in the local press.

The scale of this problem is stark. The bureau receives a claim arising from an uninsured driver every 20 minutes. Every week, at least one person is killed as a result of uninsured driving and, every single day, another individual suffers injuries so severe that they require lifelong care. This is not a marginal issue but a persistent and devastating reality.

The financial consequences are equally sobering. The bureau spends approximately £400 million annually on claims, with its 2024 annual report noting reserves of around £3 billion. It estimates that uninsured driving costs the UK economy £1 billion each year and adds £260 million to motor insurance premiums. These figures are not abstract. They translate to an additional cost of around £15 on every policy paid by law-abiding drivers. In effect, responsible motorists are subsidising the reckless and the negligent. Anecdotally, when police apprehend uninsured drivers and ask who is their insurer, the response is simply, “The MIB”—the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. This casual reliance on the bureau underscores the inadequacy of current deterrence.

At present, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has explained, the penalties stand at £100 for keeping an uninsured vehicle and £300 plus six penalty points for driving without insurance. These sums are significantly lower than the average premium of £550 and far below the £1,000 often paid by younger drivers. This disparity is glaring. The penalty for breaking the law is cheaper than the cost of compliance. It is little wonder, then, that uninsured drivers persist at such scale. Ideally, we would strengthen the financial penalties to reflect the gravity of the offence. However, as these measures have been ruled out of scope, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned, this amendment offers a practical and proportionate alternative. It would empower authorities to confiscate uninsured vehicles and, if insurance is not secured within 28 days, to have them permanently removed from the road. That, to you and I, means crushed—gone. This is not punitive for its own sake: it is a necessary step to protect the public and to uphold the principle that motor insurance is mandatory for the benefit of us all.

Uninsured driving is not a victimless crime. The law-abiding majority should not be asked to carry the burden of those who flout their responsibilities. Amendment 416B is a measured and effective response to this scourge and I commend it.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, just briefly, in 2011, I went out with Hampshire traffic police who were demonstrating ANPR systems to me. We detected an uninsured motorist and they relieved the motorist of the car. I absolutely agree with my noble friend about the problem he describes.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 416C in my name, but before I do that, I give my unequivocal support to my noble friend Lord Ashcombe’s amendment. We really need to take into account the confusion this causes for poor communities, because people will sit around and make a direct calculation about what is cheaper, and unless we send a very strong message about which is riskier, these numbers will continue to grow. As motoring becomes more expensive, insurance will become optional for many communities, whereas if you are involved in an accident, it will be anything but optional, so I really support the amendment.

I speak to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, as someone who last had a drink, I think, when I was 17 years old—I do not drink at all—but I deal with young people regularly and have been doing so for over three decades now. What is important about a limit is how easy it is to detect in the moment, so although the noble Baroness would lower it to 50, I think we should lower it to zilch, to nothing, to nada, because when you are out with your friends and you are 18, 19 or 21 and the night is going your way, you will not make that adjustment. To ask, “Have I jumped 50, have I done 80?” probably will not happen: you will take the risk. Young people are full of energy, they are risk takers and it is too much estimation, so I support the noble Baroness’s amendment as it stands but we should probably be going to zero, so that people have no confusion when they are out of a night enjoying themselves, particularly young people.

On my own amendment, this is a requirement for occupants to leave their car once they have been stopped on a traffic stop by a police officer—so that police officers have that power. There is a gap in the current law: the Road Traffic Act 1988 does not currently have powers for an officer to request that vehicle occupants exit the vehicle during a traffic stop. This leaves officers vulnerable to attack and ambush, particularly in the light of modern vehicles. If you are a police officer and you stop a vehicle, you may want to listen to the engine, but now electric vehicles can run silently and their ability to accelerate is unbelievable. They weigh more, so they tend to be more deadly when used in an attack, and I think we need the law to respond to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I support Amendment 416B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and signed by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe. There is no real justification for any vehicle to be on the highway and uninsured. There will be a variety of reasons for it be uninsured—car insurance is very expensive, and the like—but, in reality, there is no excuse. Therefore, this is a sensible measure, recognising that a number of public bodies have the power to not only seize vehicles but crush them instantaneously. As a consequence, this seems like a modest measure to allow people 28 days, or four weeks, to make sure that the car has been insured.

As an aside, I should perhaps approach my noble friend because my car insurance went up massively this year. Perhaps I need to come and find him to discuss this. I am not quite sure what has happened in my life. Joining the House of Lords seems to have massively increased the risk, apparently.

That said, I am not as convinced by a number of the other amendments, although I understand the seriousness of drink-driving and the impact it can have. My noble friend Lord Attlee talked about the evidence, and the balance regarding whether the limit is 50 or 80. All the evidence so far has shown there is a massive distinction, so it not only covers England, but Wales and Northern Ireland. I appreciate that Scotland has gone to 50, recognising some of the other measures they have introduced in order to tackle the consumption of alcohol, such as minimum alcohol pricing. However, I am not convinced that this is the reason why.

I am not trying to advocate drink-driving at all, but I think of rural pubs and the like, where people believe that they can probably have a pint of beer and be able to drive their friends or family home safely without needing to make a calculation. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is trying to do in attempting to address something from the 2006 Act, but there is a reason why, 19 years on, it still has not been put into place. The evidence has shown it just has not been needed in that regard.

I was struck by what my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington said about the drive-away. I was genuinely interested in trying to understand where he was going with his amendment, and whether this was really an issue. I was struck by the number of significant accidents in that regard. It is worth considering whether this is an issue solely for the Met, in London, or whether it is an issue elsewhere, before the Government consider making any further changes.

I understand where my noble friend Lord Attlee is heading with the random breath test, but I take a different perspective. I am not sure of the best way to say this, other than to say that I do not want the police to have a reason to stop people for just anything. They should have a real reason to stop people going about their everyday lives. I understand what he is trying to achieve in his amendment, but we need to make sure that when the police use their already extraordinary powers, it is because they believe that somebody is genuinely doing something wrong. Therefore, the current position is sufficient. I hope that my noble friend, with whom I do not disagree very often, will understand why I disagree with him on his amendment tonight.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, to make a counterargument, I absolutely understand my noble friend’s concerns, but the fact of the matter is that if the police want to stop someone, they can.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments looks at illegal vehicles on our streets, enforcement and guidance. Amendment 345 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks guidance on enforcement in respect of illegal vehicles. However, having looked into this, my understanding is that a range of powers exists to enable the police to deal with these offences. The College of Policing already produces authorised professional practice on roads policing that sets out the existing powers and their operational application in detail. We therefore do not think the amendment is needed.

Amendments 350 and 356G, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on drink-driving, are very important. The first, as we heard, seeks to reduce the drink-driving limit so that it is in line with most other countries. The second is about alcohol ignition interlocks, which are in use in many jurisdictions.

As we have heard, drink-driving remains a major but preventable cause of death and serious injury on our streets. Reducing the drink-drive limit is one step in trying to tackle that, but it would need to go hand in hand with a publicity and enforcement campaign for maximum effect. When I was younger and learning to drive, it was absolutely drummed into us that we never went out and drank and drove. One person would be the designated driver, or we would use public transport or a taxi, or we would persuade someone’s parents to come and pick us up. This message needs to be amplified—as well as for drug-driving, which I have raised in this Chamber before, and which seems to be a growing trend. This needs to come as a package.

Alcolocks, which we have discussed, are an important development in trying to reduce drink-driving and people reoffending. It is a simple breathalyser linked to your ignition, which means that, if you are over the limit, you simply cannot start your vehicle. There was a drop-in, only a couple of weeks ago, in Portcullis House in which this was all demonstrated to us, and I thought it was a fantastic invention. As we have heard, it is already used in many EU countries, New Zealand, Australia and the United States. Given that around 260 people are killed in drink-driving collisions every year, and that drink-driving accounts for around 16% of all UK road deaths, this is an important yet simple development that has been shown to work successfully and to reduce repeat offending internationally. Why would we not want to bring it in here? We fully support this amendment and hope that the Government will respond positively. I note that a Minister from the other place also came to the drop-in, so I hope that the Government might be moving in that area.

On the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that, without suspicion, having random breath tests is not proportionate. Therefore, we on these Benches do not support it.

Amendment 416C, from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, highlights a potential loophole, which he outlined; it is interesting to consider given that technology has moved forward. Amendment 416B, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, makes a strong point about uninsured vehicles. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to these and the other issues raised in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am at no greater advantage than other Members of your Lordships’ House regarding what will be in the road safety strategy. There is a good reason why these amendments are grouped together: they all raise issues which will be covered in some way by the road safety strategy. As I said to my noble friend Lady Hayter, there could be things in the strategy that do not require changes to the guidance, or action in primary or secondary legislation that allows us to act quickly. However, I would be speaking well beyond my responsibilities in speaking for the DfT, for which I have absolutely no responsibility.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister understands that he speaks for His Majesty’s Government and not the Home Office.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Of course I do—I slightly misspoke there. All I can say is that while I have been slaving away over the Crime and Policing Bill, I have not been slaving away over the road safety strategy. I can provide only so much clarity and guidance on the progress of that piece of work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes his point well. I am sure that it is a point that has been noticed and, indeed, there have been representations made to the DfT in the process of developing the road safety strategy. Once it is published, there will be a consultation and further opportunities for representations by organisations such as the ABI. I am sure that, as part of the process of preparing the new strategy, the DfT will be poring over the Hansard for this evening’s Committee to understand the debate and the issues raised.

Finally, turning to Amendment 416C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, the Government are well aware of tragic instances where police officers have been injured by drivers during traffic stops. I thank him for speaking about and raising the tragic death of PC Harper, which demonstrates the real dangers that our police put themselves in every day of the week, doing something that you would think was quite humdrum and as everyday as attending to a vehicle that they had stopped. We are always right to remember the vital contribution they make to our safety by putting themselves in danger.

This behaviour is unacceptable, and we are determined that all such drivers are caught and punished. We are determined that police officers can do their vital jobs in as safe an environment as possible. As I said in response to a previous amendment, the Government are considering concerns that have been raised by the Police Federation on this issue and will look to address them in the road safety strategy.

In conclusion, I have sympathy for many of the points raised in this debate by noble Lords. We all want to see our roads safer for all road users, as well as the police in their vital role in enforcing our road traffic laws. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, for this to be effective, it needs to come as a package. We need the right laws, the right enforcement and the right awareness and education. Again, I would encourage all noble Lords to examine our forthcoming road safety strategy and respond to the associated consultations. Given the imminence of the strategy, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I think all noble Lords can agree that we have had a fabulous debate which we can be proud of, but can the Minister explain why he is considering lowering the blood alcohol level when the Scottish experiment shows that it does not work?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Without going into the detail of the Scottish experiment, I will say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that for the road safety strategy to do a complete job, it is going into the exercise while keeping options on the table. I am not going to prejudge what it is going to say, but it would ill-behove it to rule everything out, just as we are not ruling out the potential measures on alcolocks or those on insurance. I will simply say—I feel a bit like a broken record in responding to this group of amendments—watch this space.

Crime and Policing Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 370 would create an offence of intentionally causing disruption to road traffic infrastructure where the action in question affects multiple individuals or organisations. The amendment originates from the growth, in recent years, of protests designed to cause maximum public disruption to further narrow ideological ends. Activist groups comprising self-aggrandizing ideologues began to realise that, by taking part in large-scale obstructions that affected the law-abiding public, they could get their causes into newspaper headlines and Twitter feeds. The consequence was that groups such as Just Stop Oil became household names through their disruptive tactics. They targeted the lives of everyday people, disrupting people’s livelihoods and hampering the functioning of society.

The most damaging of these protests has become the disruption to road traffic. Protesters sit on busy roads and grind traffic to a halt. People are late for jobs, emergency services are delayed and police time is wasted, and it is the public who, ultimately, must pay the price. In 2022, Just Stop Oil shut down the M25 for four successive days, causing more than 50,000 hours of vehicle delay to over 700,000 vehicles. This cost the public over £700,000, and the cost to the Metropolitan Police was over £1.1 million. Despite 45 people engaging in the protest, only five organisers were arrested and held in custody. If we do not punish those who cause such obscene disruption, we leave the public vulnerable to further disorder.

The Government have taken forward several measures from our previous Criminal Justice Bill, including the provisions to ban possession of pyrotechnics at protests, the new offence of concealing one’s identity at a protest and the prohibition on climbing on specified memorials. However, it is a shame they have neglected to carry forward this particular measure to prevent serious disruption on roads. Avoiding prosecuting disruptive individuals ultimately comes at the expense of the public. I hope the Government can recognise this and will reconsider the amendment.

My further two amendments in this group respond to a stark reality. We have seen successive waves of disruptive protests that have strained our communities, stretched the capacity of our police forces, and left the public questioning whether the law was operating as intended. It is abundantly clear that undue weight has too often been placed on the rights of disruptive activists at the expense of the rights, well-being and interests of the wider public.

Take, for example, the recent Palestine-related demonstrations. The Metropolitan Police has stated that the costs of policing these protests in London between October 2023 and June 2024 were £42.9 million. Some 51,799 Metropolitan Police officers’ shifts and 9,639 police officer shifts from officers usually based outside the Metropolitan Police area were required. Further, 6,339 police officers have had rest days cancelled between October 2023 and April 2024, all of which will eventually have to be repaid to those officers. Such demands on police capacity inevitably divert resources away from policing crime and protecting vulnerable communities.

It is against this backdrop that Amendment 382A seeks to empower chief officers to act decisively. By way of background, Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 currently permits the chief officer of a police force to apply to the local council for an order to prohibit the holding of all demonstrations in a particular area for a period of up to three months. The threshold, as it currently stands, is that the chief officer of police reasonably believes that the powers in Section 12 of the Act—that is, the power to impose conditions on protests—are insufficient to prevent serious public disorder.

However, this threshold of “serious public disorder” overlooks a number of further factors. It does not consider the potential for property damage, the impact on the rights of others not involved in those protests, or the demands placed on police resources. My amendment would replace Section 13(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 to introduce the ability for the relevant chief officer to consider the risk of

“serious public disorder … serious damage to property … serious disruption to the life of the community”

and

“undue demands on the police”.

There is precedent for this. Section 11 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 permits the police to prohibit processions if they believe that the protest would place undue demands on the police or military forces. Although I recognise the unique historical context of public processions and assemblies in Northern Ireland, there is no reason why, with modern protest tactics, police forces in England and Wales should not also be able to consider the cost and burden on the police imposed by the policing of the protest.

On Amendment 382C, the existing six-day notice period for marches under Section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986 simply is not fit for modern policing needs. When tens of thousands of officers must be mobilised at short notice to manage demonstrations that may span multiple days and locations, six days’ advance notice does not provide sufficient time for intelligence assessment, resourcing and engagement with organisers. Extending this to 28 days would acknowledge the complexity and scale of contemporary protest events. It is a proportionate adjustment that gives police forces the lead-in they need without unduly restricting peaceful protest.

I emphasise that these amendments support peaceful, lawful expression, which is a cornerstone of our democracy. They do not, and are not intended to, curtail genuine dissent. They do, however, ensure that, in protecting the ability to protest, we do not trample the rights of those affected by serious destruction.

We are often reminded that the right to protest must be balanced with the rights of others. I put it to noble Lords that these amendments deliver that balance. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend on the Front Bench. I think we grossly underestimate how much damage to the UK economy is caused by stopping motorways, particularly the M25. I have not seen authoritative figures for how much it costs to block a motorway, which happens with road traffic accidents. Years ago, I saw a figure of £0.75 million per hour. I do not know whether the Minister has a figure for how much it costs when the M25 or another important motorway is closed. It is not just the effect on motorists; it is the effect on industry, transport and supply chains, and the need to build in extra float in the transport system to allow for that. So, I strongly support my noble friend in everything he said.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, some months ago I was trying to get to Oxford Street and at Oxford Circus a large number of people were sitting on the ground, making it impossible for either end of Regent Street or Oxford Street to move. I believe they were there for several days. All I can say is that, as an ordinary member of the public, I found it extremely irritating, so I am very sympathetic to Amendment 370.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for his Amendment 370 seeking to update public order legislation. For the benefit of any doubt, let me echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Atlee, that this is a serious disruption to key infrastructure caused by protest tactics, and I understand the difficulties and challenges met by those types of protests. The amendment seeks to criminalise acts that cause serious disruption to road transport infrastructure. I say gently to the noble Lord that our view is that, under Section 6 of the Public Order Act 2023, there is an offence already on the statute book of obstructing major transport works, and Section 7 makes it an offence to interfere with key national infrastructure, including roads and other transport infrastructure, as defined by Section 8 of that Act. Introducing a new offence that closely mirrors existing provisions risks unnecessary duplication. It could create confusion for police and prosecutors and it could add complexity where clarity is needed. That does not take away the disruption that can be caused, even the occasional minimal disruption where an individual might be stopped by an ambulance, for example. Those are real key issues, but I suggest that existing legislation covers those proposals.

Amendment 382A seeks to amend Section 13 of the Public Order Act to enable a chief officer of police to consider serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community, and the demands on police resources when determining whether to apply for an order prohibiting public processions. Section 13 of the 1986 Act already rightly sets a high threshold for considering whether public processions should be prohibited. It is one thing to place conditions on protests, as provided by elements of the 1986 Act, to enable them to take place peacefully and with minimum disruption; it is quite another to ban processions altogether. I find myself at one with the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, on these matters. On occasion, I can reach out with the hand of friendship to him, as well as to other Members of the House.

It is important that all public order legislation continues to be compatible with Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR, and Section 13 of the 1986 Act allows for the banning of a protest only where it is necessary to prevent serious public disorder. Widening the scope of the power to include taking into account police resources would risk undermining the right to peaceful protest and the legislation becoming incompatible with the obligations that we seek to maintain under the ECHR.

Finally, on Amendment 382C, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, takes this in the best way possible, but I agree with him again on the matter of the requirement to increase the notice period for a protest from six days to 28 days. Six days is an adequate time for the police to be able to determine whether a protest should occur. As the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, said, there are occasions where protests flare up because of incidents that have occurred. Guidance to police already provides the necessary operational flexibility to allow forces to work with organisers planning protests to ensure that the conditions imposed are necessary and proportionate. I say regretfully to the noble Lord that I believe increasing the statutory notice period is unnecessary, and the following is an important point. Sometimes I come to the House and say that the police have requested matters and that is why I am bringing them forward. We have had no requests from the police to look at increasing the number of days from six to 28.

Having said all that again—and I know the House will become tired of the record that I am playing this evening—all matters of public order legislation fall within the terms of reference of the review from the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. If his review brings forward issues that need to be examined, we will examine them and consider the findings and recommendations very carefully. But, at the moment, with regret, because he has been so supportive this evening on some other matters, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that I cannot accept his amendments tonight, although I do understand his references and those of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to the disruption these matters can cause. We believe it is covered by existing legislation and I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I have been in your Lordships’ House for 33 years. I have lost count of the number of times that Ministers have said that an amendment is unnecessary, and I have used the same argument myself. That being the case, how is it that we saw the M25 being blocked?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have had 30 years in Parliament, not all in this House, and I have used it occasionally and had it used against me occasionally. It is unnecessary given that we have had the legislation on the statute book to date. The noble Earl asks the quite reasonable question of how the M25 gets blocked. I put it to him that this House, this Government, this Parliament and any other parliament passes legislation. It is not for Ministers to implement that: it is for the local police, at a local level, to take a judgment on the legislation at that time. In the cases where there is legislation on the statute book, the police could exercise that legislation. They may or may not choose to do so, because it may inflame the situation or not. It is a matter for judgment by the local police. I simply say to him that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, are already in place. For that reason, I ask him to not to press them.

Crime and Policing Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. The Minister is clearly getting to the end of what he has to say. What raised my eyebrows reading Clause 129 is the fact that these powers have been given to the service police in the first place. What is the rationale for them having these powers in particular, how much mobile phone theft are the service police dealing with, and why are we putting them on all fours with the civilian police? The Minister will have noticed that I have not tried to amend Clause 128; all my focus is on the service police. If a military policeman turned up on my doorstep and asked to check out my house, I certainly would be rather concerned, hence the need for safeguards. But there seems to be no rationale for the service police being brought into this and being given these pretty extensive powers.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the bad news is that not all service personnel are absolute angels: it could be one junior soldier stealing a mobile phone from another junior serviceman. These arrangements are very sensible, and I agree with everything that the Minister has had to say. My only question for him, while I am on my feet, is this: is there any evidence that the service police make mistakes on the procedures when they are exercising their powers? I am not aware of any problem.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will take the last one first. I am not sure there is any evidence; I would have to look into that. To answer the more substantive intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as to why service police need the powers to deal with electronically tracked stolen goods, while service police deal with crime in the defence context, it is important that they are equipped to respond effectively to current and future trends in criminal behaviour. Obviously, the provisions in the Bill help to ensure that service police can respond with lawful, fair and proportionate action, now and in the future, to the full spectrum of criminality that threatens the cohesion and operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces. These new powers will give officers more chance of quickly finding and retrieving stolen items that are electronically tracked at premises, and reduce the risk they are lost or moved on. Maybe put it down to an overabundance of caution but also an acknowledgement that crimes that affect and have to be investigated by civilian forces can also affect and be investigated by the Armed Forces.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

403: After Clause 144, insert the following new Clause—
“Traffic Regulation Dispensation Order(1) The Chief Officer of police may, on receipt of a notification of a proposed movement of a vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions, grant a Traffic Regulation Dispensation Order (the Order) to an operator engaged in the movement or the escorting of the vehicle or trailer.(2) The Order can permit designated traffic regulations to be disregarded for the purposes of allowing the vehicle or trailer to negotiate the notified route.(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations designating which traffic regulations the Chief Officer of Police can relax.(4) The Chief Officer of Police may relax a traffic regulation for the whole of the movement or only at a specific point in the journey and different relaxations can be made for different traffic regulations.(5) The Order may impose conditions including the number of escort vehicles and attendants required, if any.(6) When considering whether or not to grant an order and the extent of the Order, the Chief Officer of Police may take into consideration the operator’s experience, resources and capability(7) The Chief Officer must link the Order to a specific notification of the movement of a vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions but the Order can cover several movements under one notification(8) In this section “vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions” means a vehicle or trailer the use of which is authorised by an order made under section 44(1)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.(9) In this section “operator” means the person who is remunerating the driver of the vehicle carrying the load.”Member's explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to allow the police to authorise an abnormal load driver to break normal traffic rules in order the negotiate the chosen route for the load (for example, crossing double white lines and passing a traffic island on the wrong side).

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, as well as moving my Amendment 403, I shall also speak to my Amendments 403A, 404, 413, 416D and 416M. We now come to amendments concerned with abnormal load movements and how the police manage them. At Second Reading, I outlined the problem, which is partly about certain officers taking unnecessary steps to justify their existence but mostly it is about the money. I understand that the video clip of my Second Reading speech has been shared through industry social media at least 15,000 times.

I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hanson and Lord Katz, for organising a meeting with the policy-determining Minister at the Home Office and appropriate officials and police representatives next week. This will be very helpful. This means that I can avoid wearying the Committee with several highly technical groups of amendments and instead have only one group.

I remind the Committee that I own and operate a tank transporter on behalf of the REME Museum; Ministers have full details. I have not been personally affected by the problems that I will seek to address.

Before going any further, I would like to say a word about traffic officers. We should all be really grateful to these officers, who work tirelessly to improve road safety. I have never been proceeded against for a traffic offence, but I can understand how irritating that must be. However, prosecutions and enforcement action are necessary to reduce casualties on the road. We must also remember that it is traffic police officers who have to attend the scene of devastating road traffic accidents.

There are 43 police forces in England and Wales, and my amendments concern only about eight, which I will politely describe as being errant. The 35 others operate the legislation known as the special types general order—SDGO—as intended. They are not a problem, and they should be proud of their work. The legislation is fit for purpose so long as all involved act in good faith.

Guess which police force does not do so and seeks to lead the others astray? As I explained at Second Reading, West Midlands Police—WMP—has increased its income from escorting abnormal loads from £14,000 to £1.1 million in five years. Not surprisingly, West Midlands Police is stalling on FoI requests from industry, as is West Yorkshire Police. WMP and about seven others are persecuting and harassing the heavy haulage industry when it is not necessary or proportionate. If it were, we would see the excellent commercial vehicle unit of the Metropolitan Police adopting the same tactics and policies. We do not. The Met’s income from escorting abnormal loads has remained static and modest.

The tactics employed by West Midlands Police are the ones that you would expect to see used by a corrupt police force in a slowly developing country. These include seeking unnecessary technical details that can later be checked for preciseness, deliberately misquoting or misapplying regulations, and prohibiting vehicle movements when there is no power to do so. By unnecessarily insisting that each abnormal load notification refers to only one vehicle registration number, the number of abnormal load notifications, but not movements, has increased by about 100% nationally. The regulations have not changed; this is purely the result of a few junior police officers screwing up the system.

I produced a report—it was dated 10 May 2024, so I am not jumping on the bandwagon—in which I stated, on my personal honour as a Member of your Lordships’ House, that I personally witnessed officers of the West Midlands Police harass drivers and crew of one of the most professional heavy haulage companies in the land. They did this by checking every conceivable document and measuring and examining everything possible. I knew that they would be doing this, because I was told that they had done it on each of the preceding three days.

Such excessive and overzealous checks are interfering with the smooth running of the heavy haulage industry, which is racking up significant extra costs in all the wasted time spent responding to these demands. Some businesses are having to take on extra staff just to deal with the bureaucracy generated by these police forces. I look forward to the contribution of the noble Lord, Faulkner of Worcester. As I said, these repetitive checks are largely unnecessary and serve only to justify the productivity-reducing activities of the police officers involved.

The Committee may ask itself why the industry does not just complain to the IOPC. I am sorry to say that the IOPC is not well placed to understand these technical issues. Furthermore, for reasons of resources and practicality, the IOPC has to refer relatively minor matters back to the professional standards department of the police force that gave rise to the industry complaint.

It is obvious that such a complaint being referred back to West Midlands Police would have no effect, as that police force is hopelessly compromised by the amount of money involved, and, as we have seen recently, it is dysfunctional. I am sure that I do not need to remind your Lordships that, in addition to my concerns, we have all seen this week that the Home Secretary has lost confidence in the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, and I support her.

Even at the highest level, West Midlands Police officers appear to be unable to separate fact from fiction. In my dealings with the Assistant Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, Mike O’Hara, it appears that he has done nothing about the documentary evidence that I presented to him setting out that something is going very seriously wrong with its internal procedures. I can privately share the evidence with your Lordships.

The Committee may also ask why the industry does not resort to judicial review. The answer is that it did about 12 months ago. Unfortunately, as the Committee will understand, the judicial system is collapsing, because both this Government and the previous Government have not properly resourced it. It also appears to be overwhelmed by numerous people-type cases, often involving convention rights. As a result, JRs of a commercial nature are not being considered by the court with any great priority.

I now turn to the issue of police escort charges. There are no regulations about how much a police force can charge for providing a police escort and in what circumstances. Nearly every day, West Midlands Police will charge several different heavy hauliers for a minimum six-hour shift, even though the actual time spent escorting the load could be as short as 30 minutes. It will use the same team of officers for each job. The charge is £2,500 per time, which far exceeds the total cost of the heavy haulage itself, which commands only about £2,000 per day. My Amendment 413 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about charging for police escorts, and it is expected largely to deal with the behaviour issues. It is very strongly supported by the industry.

If the Minister wants to claim that this is an operational matter for the police, surely the same should apply to firearms licensing fees. That is what is behind my probing Amendment 414, which I hope that the Minister will not accept.

In most police forces, the officers or officials who make the decision about whether a load needs to be escorted by the police are not the ones who pick up the overtime payments. In West Midlands Police, they very much are. My Amendment 416M would prevent this.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

403A: After subsection (7), insert—
“(7A) An Order granted under subsection (1) must be considered a “lawful authority or excuse” under section 137(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (penalty for wilful obstruction).”

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

I beg to move.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on tabling these important amendments, on working so hard on this clause over many years and on speaking so persuasively about it tonight. I have added my name to Amendment 413, as has his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, who unfortunately cannot be here today.

A sector that makes particular use of abnormal load road movements is that of our heritage railways. I remind the Committee of my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association. The movement of most heritage rolling stock between railways, whether historic steam or diesel locomotives or vintage carriages, is undertaken by road on low-loaders. Most commonly, this takes place in connection with gala events featuring visiting locomotives, but it also occurs when items of rolling stock are transported for specialist maintenance or overhaul.

Such road movements, classified as abnormal loads, are undertaken by specialist haulage contractors, sometimes accompanied by an escort vehicle. A number of police forces, though not all, as the noble Earl explained, but particularly the Staffordshire, West Midlands and West Yorkshire forces, now make charges for escorting abnormal loads within their constabulary area. These are typically between £2,500 and £5,000 per trip, but they can be higher and exceed the haulier’s charges, with some charges in excess of £7,000. Charges are also levied in Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and parts of Scotland. This is seriously disrupting the business activities of heritage railways and adding significantly to their costs in an already challenging economic and business climate.

The reasons for the escort charges do not appear to have ever been explained and there is widespread inconsistency, with some forces making charges and others not. Most determine whether a police escort is required based on weight—say, a gross weight of 80 to 100-plus tonnes—though some determine it on length: for example, 28 metres from the front to the rear of a lorry. Crucially, no national policy or framework regulates how or when police forces may charge for escorting or authorising these essential movements. This inconsistency results in these arbitrary and often excessive fees in certain police force areas. In some cases, an escort is required only for a few miles to a county boundary, with the rest of the journey then being unescorted. To avoid charges, some hauliers are now having to take massive detours around a police force area, which of course adds mileage and cost, and increases the negative environmental impact.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council has issued guidance that, while intended to provide consistency and clarification, still leaves decisions on the provision of escorts and charging to individual forces, as police forces are autonomous bodies. Several heritage railways and their haulage contractors have written to those police forces that make charges, but no changes to their charging regimes have been forthcoming. I could quote many examples but, given the lateness of the hour, I do not intend to mention more than one.

This is evidence from Noel Hartley, the operations manager of the Keighley & Worth Valley Railway. He says:

“The KWVR is suffering significantly from movements out of Ingrow—


that is the intermediate station on the line—

“in West Yorkshire and is deciding not to run certain events or we are no longer able to make enthusiast events a gold standard because we simply can’t justify the charges … For a return movement of a visiting loco it’s nearly costing five and a half thousand pounds on top of the movement costs. For an event with gross revenue of £80 or £90,000 it just isn’t feasible to stand these sort of costs which can wipe out a significant amount of the profit … In addition to the facts of police charges, the hauliers are trying to mitigate the costs of charges by avoiding the routes where they are charging—

which I referred to a moment ago. He continues:

“This means that some lorries can be diverted up to 100 miles to avoid these areas. This means that the police charges are avoided but there is still an impact on costs due to additional fuel required”.

West Midlands Police, about which we have heard a lot from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—and a force which is much in the news this week for other reasons—is the main culprit, which hauliers avoid, because it charges for escorts on so-called straight-line routes.

Mr Hartley points out that the areas particularly affected are railways in West Yorkshire and the Midlands —that includes Kidderminster, Burton, Ecclesbourne and Chesterfield—but south Wales and east Lancashire are also affected by having to make huge detours to avoid travelling within the territory of the least helpful and most expensive police forces.

The lengths to which hauliers are having to go to in order to avoid charges mean that there is an impact on the amount of emissions produced from road transport. This could be avoided; it amounts to thousands of additional and unnecessary miles per year.

At a time when the heritage railway sector is struggling with increases in costs, not only from general utility increases and staff costs—plus the tripling of the cost of coal—these police escort charges are compounding the problem and sometimes making it impossible for railways to provide that unique visitor experience for which our country is admired all over the world.

Overall, these excessive and inconsistent charges create uncertainty, delays and significant financial pressure for heritage railways, which, as I have said many times in your Lordships’ House, are a key part of the UK’s visitor economy and in many cases are the primary, anchor tourist attractions within their areas, generating significant economic and employment benefits for their regions. I congratulate the noble Earl, and I support his amendment.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly to the amendment that my noble friend Lord Attlee spent about 15 seconds talking about; that is, his Amendment 414. At the outset of his remarks, I was worried that he might be positively going to support his own amendment, but he very quickly said that he hoped that the Minister would not accept it, and so do I.

If one looks at the draft of Amendment 414, one sees that it is designed to allow chief officers of police to set and vary any fee payable for shotguns and firearms. It is not quite clear from the draft of the proposed new clause whether this would, if enacted, cover just England and Wales, or whether it would cover England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. If the latter, that would be 45 separate chief officers of police who may well decide to set separate fees for each of the 45 police territorial areas; if it is only England and Wales, there would be 43, and that is bad enough.

I declare an interest as a holder of a shotgun certificate. While I admire, in every possible way, the chief constable of my own police area, I do not wish him to have the ability to set the level of the firearm certificate fee. It is a tax, and if it is not a tax, it is a fee that should be set by one person who is accountable to Parliament; namely, the Secretary of State. I think I need to say no more, not least because my noble friend Lord Attlee encouraged me greatly by saying precisely very little about the amendment himself.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the only purpose of Amendment 414 is to stop the Minister saying it is an operational matter for the police. If police charges for abnormal load escorts are operational matters for the police, surely firearms licensing charges are. We have been screwing down the cost of a firearms certificate, which means that police forces are not able to do as good a job as they would like. The cost of a firearms certificate is less than the cost of the visit to the dentist.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, and having said all this, I, together with the Policing Minister, Minister Jones, look forward to the further meeting that we are having next week with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the NPCC lead on this to discuss these issues ahead of Report. For now, I ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

I am grateful for the response of all noble Lords, including the Minister. On the NPCC guidance, a lot of work was done by Chief Superintendent Marc Clothier of the National Police Chiefs’ Council. He has done a great job and is highly regarded in industry. There is a lot of collaboration with industry and about 35 police forces are strictly adhering to the guidance. The problem is that a few are not, and the Minister, as he admitted, has no power to tell police forces what they should be doing. The only way the Minister can do it is by agreeing my Amendment 413.

The Minister said, quite correctly, that we can amend STGO—the 2003 order—if necessary, but that order is made under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act and all it does is allow the Minister to make an order to allow the movement of a load that cannot comply with the construction and use regulations. It will not allow the Minister to make an order about charging regimes or the relaxation of traffic regulations.

The Minister thought that my Amendment 413 would have no flexibility. It actually has a provision for flexibility where, if it is necessary in certain circumstances to diverge from any regulations, you can go back to the Secretary of State—in other words, a Home Office official—and get permission to do something slightly different. But I am very grateful for the Minister’s response and I hope we can have a successful meeting next week. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 403A (to Amendment 403) withdrawn.