Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord Jackson, especially around people stealing mobile phones. However, when I read proposed new subsection (2), about people covering their face to stop identification, I thought that the problem about that was the same as my noble friend Lord Pannick mentioned. I used to cycle a great deal and I always wore a scarf, partly because of fumes, as he said, but because I seemed to be ingesting a vast number of insects and found this really rather objectionable, whether I had had lunch or not. For that reason, I am rather worried about this amendment.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 385 is the face covering amendment, in which I note that motorcyclists strangely are not covered but scooter riders are. I am not sure I see the need for a new general stand-alone police power to require someone to stop, and I see real dangers in requiring someone to remove a face covering.

The police already have, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to, a discretionary power under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to require any motorist or anybody propelling a mechanical vehicle or a cycle to stop—and a mechanical vehicle would include motor scooters and motorcycles. That power is very wide. It is generally considered to be directed to enable the police to conduct traffic checks. That is perceived as part of the compact between Governments and road users: if you use the roads, the corollary is that police officers can require you to stop as part of performing their function of regulating the traffic. An extra power to stop is entirely unnecessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has rightly drawn attention to the specific case of mobile phone theft, reckless riding, riding on the pavements and so forth, but his amendment does not refer to the need for a reasonable suspicion that anyone required to remove a face covering is committing a crime. It seems to me that that was the point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and ought to be an essential part of any new offence. As has been pointed out inventively, lots of people wear face coverings on cycles or scooters. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, referred to the need to keep warm, and others referred to the need to avoid fumes.

In terms of wearing helmets which conceal identity, there is the safety aspect. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, considered the avoidance of germs, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, had additional and inventive reasons for wearing face coverings, including the avoidance of ingesting insects. However, the serious point is that there can be dangers and there can be fear caused by people nefariously covering their faces. If there is a reasonable suspicion of crime, then that may be a reason for taking action. Without that, this amendment is hopeless. For my part, I am not happy when delivery drivers call at people’s homes completely covered up, because you never know whether their purposes are honest or not. At least a home owner can refuse ingress, but I would not support a general power to prevent people from wearing face coverings or a power to stop that was specifically directed at that.

On Amendment 386, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, it may have surprised some of us that police officers do not have a power to ensure that keys are taken out of ignitions, and that this amendment was directed at keyless or driverless cars. I should have thought, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that it was sensible for police officers to ask people to get out of cars if they think that the cars that they have already stopped under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act ought to be vacated in the interests of public safety and the avoidance of crime. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that sometimes it is sensible not to get them to get out of the car if they look particularly big or threatening; nevertheless, I see the reason for this amendment, but I would have thought it goes wider than driverless or keyless cars.

As to Amendment 387A from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I suspect that the whole House has a great deal of sympathy with her speech about organised criminal networks and driving unacceptable businesses from our streets, villages and towns—she even covered the quiet lanes in our villages—but her amendment, on which I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is not directed to anything that would necessarily achieve a great deal in respect of driving that kind of illegitimate or non-tax-paying business from our streets. The amendment is limited to extending the existing periods of closure notices and closure orders. For my part, before that amendment could be approved, I would want to see serious evidence that it would have some impact on these offences. I would also like to hear the Government’s view. At the moment, there is very little evidence as to why the existing periods for closure notices and closure orders are insufficient.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and also addressing the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I am concerned that the noble Lords feel, “What’s the point?” That is one of the reasons we are where we are in this country, which is in a terrible place. What I am suggesting is a small amendment that would make it a bit more of a deterrent to these guys; to start making life more difficult for them; to extend these closure orders so that we are being a little more efficient about use of police time and our courts. We are hearing that we are going to lose our juries because of lack of court time. This is an example where, if we had longer periods of closure, it would allow our enforcement agencies to actually start doing something other than just the few attacks that Machinize has carried out so far. We need to find as many opportunities as possible within the criminal justice system to start taking this on. What message will it send to the public if we do not bother to do some of the easy bits to get this going?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will just say that was quite a long intervention, particularly for Report stage.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I will answer very briefly, and perhaps on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as well, because I suspect that what we are saying is roughly the same. I am entirely with the noble Baroness on the question of juries, and on the question of needing to do something to reduce the kind of crime, particularly by organised criminal gangs, happening in our villages, towns and streets. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the need for more resources for policing. But the problem with the noble Baroness’s amendment is that there is no evidence that I can see, or that has been shown to us, that extending these periods would do anything significant to reduce crime.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lord Bailey of Paddington and Lady Buscombe for their amendments.

Amendment 385 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Jackson today, would, as we have heard, grant the police powers to stop a person riding a bike and wearing a face covering, and then require them to remove that. The context of this is the epidemic of phone theft. The United Kingdom now accounts for almost 40% of Europe’s phone thefts despite being only 10% of the market. In London, there is one mobile phone theft every seven and a half minutes. It is to that issue that my noble friend Lord Jackson is directing his amendment. He has pinpointed what I think we all accept is a very serious issue: the actions of intimidating masked cyclists stealing mobile phones. He set out ably the rationale for his amendment, although when doing so he indicated that he did not intend to test the opinion of the House.

Amendment 387A from my noble friend Lady Buscombe seeks to amend powers relating to closure notices and closure orders. As other noble Lords have recognised, the character of our high streets has changed dramatically over the past decade. Alongside the pressures of online retail and the economic challenges facing traditional business, we have seen the proliferation of premises that appear at best dubious and at worst directly connected to organised criminal activity. The scale of the problem should concern us all. We all know the types of shops at issue here; they appear almost overnight in our cities and towns’ prime retail locations, often with few customers but somehow able to sustain some of the highest rents in the country. Investigations by local authorities have uncovered counterfeit goods, illegal tobacco, unregulated vapes and sometimes sweets containing additives banned under UK food standards.

The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Buscombe proposes to alter the powers contained in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 by extending the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to seven days, and the maximum period for closure orders from three months to 12 months. As my noble friend said so powerfully this afternoon, there are many institutions in support of this, notably the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, which has been calling out for greater powers to tackle rogue retailers.

The present legal framework provides tools to deal with such premises, but in practice the existing time limits are often insufficient. A closure notice lasting only 48 hours may simply delay the problem rather than solve it. Criminals can wait out short closure periods, reopen under an altered business name and transfer activities elsewhere before enforcement agencies have time to complete the necessary investigations. Similarly, a closure order lasting a maximum of three months may be inadequate where organised criminal networks are involved. By the time the order expires, the underlying criminal structure remains intact, ready to resume operations.

I fully recognise that the current periods were set out by the previous Conservative Government in 2014, but the passage of time—12 years since then—has demonstrated that more needs to be done to restore our high streets and communities, and to end the scourge of criminality blighting them both. Surely the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Buscombe is a step in the right direction and if she wishes to divide the House, she will have our full support.

As we have heard, my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington’s Amendment 386 addresses a practical and important issue. It has arisen from the evolution of modern vehicle technology and the difficulties police officers face on the front line. As he said, modern vehicles can remain powered even when drivers exit. The absence of a physical key means that officers cannot rely on the traditional safeguards that once existed. My noble friend’s amendment would provide officers with a clear statutory basis to direct drivers to exit the vehicle and remain outside while the stop is dealt with. It would also allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance or codes of practice to ensure that power is exercised consistently and appropriately.

For these reasons, I hope that the Minister gives careful consideration to that amendment and to all amendments in this group. I look forward to his response.