Crime and Policing Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 1st April 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 1 April 2025 - (1 Apr 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please will everyone switch electronic devices off or to silent? I am afraid that no food or drinks are permitted in the sittings, except for water, which is provided. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or pass their written notes to the Hansard colleague in the room, to my left.
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. The purpose of grouping is to limit, in so far as that is possible, the repetition of the same points in debate. The amendments appear on the amendment paper in the order in which they relate to the Bill.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first or, in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing—please do bob, because if you do not, I will not see you. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment, or new clause or new schedule, again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote—that includes grouped new clauses and new schedules—the Member needs to let me know.
I remind Members of the rules on the declaration of interests as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 1
Respect orders
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “18” and insert “16”.
This amendment would lower the age to 16 at which a court can impose a respect order on a person to prevent them from engaging in anti-social behaviour.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
We welcome this Bill, the many of the last Government’s measures it takes forward, and the opportunity to constructively debate and potentially improve it in the coming weeks.
The clause establishes the legal framework for courts to impose respect orders on individuals aged 18 or older who have engaged, or threatened to engage, in antisocial behaviour, where the court considers it just and convenient to make such an order for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour has serious and far-reaching consequences. It can fracture communities, erode trust among neighbours and make people feel unwelcome or unsafe in their own local areas. For women and girls, it can create a climate of fear, making something as simple as walking home at night a distressing and dangerous experience. It also takes a significant toll on businesses, discouraging customers from visiting high streets and town centres, and ultimately harming local economies and livelihoods. Left unchecked, antisocial behaviour can strip communities of their vibrancy and sense of security, turning once thriving areas into places that people avoid.
We must do everything we can to tackle antisocial behaviour, and the proposed respect orders can be a useful tool. Past Governments have made many and varied efforts to tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour. Both respect orders and antisocial behaviour orders aim to prevent antisocial behaviour that causes harassment, alarm or distress to others. The Bill defines antisocial behaviour for respect orders, in proposed new section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as
“conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.”
That mirrors the definition for ASBOs under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In some ways, ASBOs were effective in targeting repeat offenders, providing a quicker alternative to prosecution and offering communities reassurance. However, their breach rates—as high as 50%—suggested that they lacked deterrent power, with some offenders even seeing them as a badge of honour.
The civil injunctions introduced by the 2014 Act also target antisocial behaviour. They use a similar definition, but have a broader scope, including, for example, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance in housing contexts. Civil injunctions have been more successful than ASBOs in reducing breaches, likely due to their more tailored restrictions and integrated support options. Unlike ASBOs, which often acted as punitive measures, injunctions take a preventive approach by aiming to stop antisocial behaviour before it escalates. They also incorporate positive requirements, such as attending rehabilitation programmes, which help individuals address the root causes of their behaviour rather than simply penalising them.
Many would argue that that shift towards early intervention and rehabilitation contributed to the greater effectiveness of civil injunctions in managing antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour can be committed by young teenage offenders, and while some cases are minor, others can have a serious impact on communities and make lives a misery for residents, denied peace in their own homes and communities. Just look at Witham library in Newland Street, which has reportedly hired a private security guard owing to a rising number of incidents, which have been blamed on local teenagers. Now, Essex county council is considering stepping up its response by issuing bodycams to librarians to deter antisocial behaviour further.
I draw attention to proposed new section A1(3), which requires that prohibitions and requirements avoid interference with the respondent’s work or education. Will the Minister outline how courts are expected to strike a balance between preventing antisocial behaviour and ensuring that individuals can continue their employment or studies? What factors will be taken into account when determining the appropriate restrictions, and how will the courts ensure that any conditions imposed remain proportionate and effective in addressing antisocial behaviour while safeguarding access to work and education?
Proposed new section A1(8) of the 2014 Act, alongside proposed new section 1A(9) introduced by schedule 1, provides that an application for a respect order may be treated as an application for a housing injunction and vice versa. That appears to be a sensible addition to allow the court flexibility. However, it would be useful for the Minister to clarify whether the Government expect one of the tools to be used more frequently than the other. Additionally, will the “harassment, alarm or distress” threshold allow the orders to be applied sufficiently broadly among housing providers?
Proposed new section B1 sets out the relevant authorities that can make applications for respect orders to the High Court or county court. Those include local authorities, housing providers, the chief officer of police for a police force area, or the chief constable of British Transport police and several other appropriate bodies. It is encouraging to see housing providers recognised as registered authorities, in particular when it comes to addressing antisocial behaviour.
The Chair
Order. Forgive me for interrupting, shadow Minister. To be clear, we are talking about amendment 31, rather than the clause as a whole.
The Chair
We will deal with clause stand part later; we are talking about the amendment at this point. That is to save us the repetition, the point that I made earlier. Thank you, shadow Minister.
Matt Vickers
Opposition amendment 31 would lower to 16 the age at which a court can impose a respect order on a person to prevent them from engaging in antisocial behaviour.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Last Thursday, in the evidence session, we heard that a large number of under-18s engage in antisocial behaviour. Does the shadow Minister agree with me and some of the witnesses we heard from that, without the age being reduced to 16, the measure will have less impact, given where a lot of the antisocial behaviour in our communities is coming from?
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend is entirely right. When you speak to some of the people who are at the sharp end of this antisocial behaviour, many of them will tell you that it is inflicted by those under 18. We heard witnesses’ concerns about where the line should be drawn. Obviously, there is a balance with respect to criminalising young people, but there is a point at which there have to be real consequences, and communities need to know that there are consequences, for those youngsters who engage in this behaviour.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
Over the past 14 or 15 years, young people have not had diversionary activities. Youth centres across the country have closed in their tens of thousands. Will the shadow Minister reflect on the fact that young people need diversionary activity, so that they are not lured into antisocial behaviour?
Matt Vickers
With a lot of these things, we need that diversionary activity and to find meaningful things for youngsters to spend their time doing. It is a big, complex mix, and we will probably address this again when we talk about knife crime. It is a big part of what we do, but there have to be sanctions for young people as well. It is not just about the young people committing antisocial behaviour; it is about the communities and the other young people that might have the antisocial behaviour—which often leads to crime—inflicted on them. It is about putting that ladder in there so that people know that, as their behaviour gets worse, the consequences and sanctions get bigger.
This is not just about punishment; but is about intervention, responsibility and, ultimately, protecting both young people and the communities in which they live. At 16, young people can work, pay taxes and make important life decisions. They are entrusted with responsibilities, and it is only right that they are also held accountable for their actions. If an individual is engaging in persistent antisocial behaviour, the courts must have the tools to intervene early, before those patterns escalate into more serious criminality.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Will the shadow Minister clarify whether it is the Conservative party’s position that we should criminalise 16-year-olds but not give them the vote?
Matt Vickers
Well, yes. The Government seem to think that we should not criminalise 16-year-olds but they should have the right to vote. I think it is the other way around: responsibilities come after people show their part in the world. I think we should be voting at 18, which allows people to become informed and knowledgeable about the process and the world around them.
If you go back to families in my constituency, some of the antisocial behaviour that they are suffering at the hands of 16-year-olds has real consequences for them, and there should be real consequences for those who inflict it upon them.
The Chair
Order. I hope Members will forgive me for saying this, but can we try not to use the word “you”? I have heard three different speakers say “you”. All speeches need to come through the Chair, and there is a reason for that—those are the courtesies of the House. Forgive me for saying that, but I think it will help the whole Committee.
Matt Vickers
I am on a mission: there will not be another infringement, Mr Pritchard.
Antisocial behaviour can devastate communities, causing distress and insecurity for residents. We cannot stand by and allow that to continue unchecked. Lowering the age to 16 would mean that we can address these issues sooner and ensure that young people receive the support and guidance—and, potentially, sanctions and deterrents—they need to change course.
Respect orders are not simply punitive measures. They come with conditions that promote rehabilitation, and provide access to education, counselling and the opportunity to turn things around. As the Minister will know, this is as much about deterrence as it is about enforcement. When young people know that there are consequences for their actions, they are less likely to engage in behaviour that harms others. By making the amendment, we would strengthen our communities, support young people and ensure that respect for others remains at the heart of society. During the evidence sessions, we heard the views of witnesses about the 16 to 18 age bracket, and I would welcome further explanation from Ministers on why 18 has been chosen as the minimum age.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
Good morning, Mr Pritchard; it is a pleasure to serve under you today.
The Bill will start to implement our safer streets mission alongside our commitment to the 13,000 additional police officers and police community support officers in our communities. Before I respond to amendment 31, it may assist the Committee if I say a little about why we are introducing respect orders. My doing so now may obviate the need for a separate debate on clause stand part.
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting out the history of successive Governments’ attempts to deal with antisocial behaviour. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a top priority for this Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. Last year, over a third of people experienced or witnessed some form of ASB, and there were 1 million police-recorded incidents. Existing powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 do not always go far enough to tackle antisocial behaviour. That is why we committed in our manifesto to introduce the respect order to crack down on those making our neighbourhoods, town centres and communities feel unsafe and unwelcoming.
The respect order partially replaces the existing civil injunctions power for persons aged 18 or over. It enables civil courts to make respect orders on application from a relevant authority in respect of individuals who have engaged in ASB. Authorities that can apply include the police, local authorities and registered housing providers, among others. Respect orders will contain prohibitive conditions set by the court to stop offenders engaging in a particular behaviour. They can also include rehabilitative positive requirements, such as attending an anger management course, to help to tackle the root cause of offending.
I mentioned that the existing ASB powers do not always go far enough. Breach of a respect order, in contrast to the power it replaces, will be a criminal offence and therefore arrestable. That is not the case for the current civil injunction, which may include a power of arrest only in certain circumstances, where it is specified by the court or where there has been the use or threat of violence or significant risk of harm. I have heard from one local authority of a civil injunction that was breached over 100 times, with the police unable to take quick action to stop breaches because they had to reapply to the courts to arrest the offender. That is not acceptable and the respect order will fix it.
As a criminal offence, breach of a respect order will be heard in the criminal courts. This will allow judges to issue a wider range of sentences—including community orders, fines and up to two years’ imprisonment—than they can currently for civil injunctions. This is an important change. Community sentences enable judges to make ASB offenders repay, often visibly, their debt to their community.
I assure the Committee that there are safeguards in place to ensure that the orders are used appropriately. These are not unilateral powers for the police and local authorities; the terms of an order must be agreed by the courts. For a respect order to be issued, two tests must be met. First, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has engaged in or threatened to engage in ASB. ASB is defined as
“conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress”.
That is a well-established definition. Secondly, the court must be satisfied that issuing a respect order is just and convenient—again, an established test for the courts.
As a further safeguard, we are introducing a new requirement for relevant authorities to carry out a risk assessment checklist prior to applying for a respect order. This will help to ensure proportionate use. We will pilot respect orders to ensure that they are as effective as possible before rolling them out across England and Wales. More details on the pilots and their location will be provided in due course. New part A1 of the 2014 Act, inserted by clause 1, also makes provision for interim respect orders, for the variation and discharge of orders, and for special measures for witnesses in proceedings—for example, to enable them to give evidence from behind a screen.
Amendment 31 would reduce the age at which an offender can receive a respect order from 18 to 16, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, outlined. As I have indicated, the respect order is intended as a powerful deterrent for addressing the most harmful adult perpetrators of ASB. Unlike the equivalent current power—the civil injunction—breach of a respect order is a criminal offence with criminal sanctions, and the Government do not believe that it is right to criminalise children unnecessarily, which is why we committed in our manifesto to introduce respect orders for adults only. However, we know that in some cases tough measures, including behavioural orders, can be useful for dealing with younger offenders.
I absolutely agree with the shadow Minister that there should be consequences for the actions that cause distress and harm to local communities if they are committed by, for example, a 16-year-old. Stakeholders have told us that the current civil injunction can be a very useful tool for this cohort. It enables youth courts to impose behavioural requirements on younger offenders, but without resulting in criminalisation. That is why we have retained that element of the existing civil injunction and renamed it the youth injunction. This will enable youth courts to continue to make orders against younger offenders—aged 10, when criminal responsibility kicks in, to 18—where the court deems it necessary. I am content that this provision covers the need for powers to deal with youth ASB. On that basis, I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 1, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(9) If a court makes a respect order against a person (P) more than once, then P is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”
This amendment means that if a person gets more than one Respect Order, they are liable for a fine.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 32, in clause 1, page 8, line 2, at end insert—
“(4) A person who commits further offences under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).”
This amendment sets out the penalties for repeated breaches of a respect order with a prison sentence of up to 5 years.
Matt Vickers
Amendment 33 would impose a financial penalty on those who receive multiple respect orders. This is about fairness, accountability and ensuring that our justice system is taken seriously.
A respect order is not a punishment; it is an opportunity. It gives individuals a chance to correct their behaviour and change course before more serious consequences arise, but what happens when someone repeatedly ignores that chance? What message do we send if the courts impose an order only for it to be disregarded time and again, with no further repercussions? The amendment would ensure that those who continue to defy the law will face meaningful consequences.
Antisocial behaviour has real victims. It disrupts neighbourhoods, damages businesses and makes people feel unsafe in their own communities. We cannot allow repeat offenders to believe they can break these orders without consequence. A fine is a clear, tangible penalty that reinforces the message that respect orders must be obeyed. We already have fines in place for many other public order offences. They are nothing new. The amendment would bring respect orders in line with other legal measures, ensuring that persistent offenders face escalating consequences.
Crucially, funds from the fines could be reinvested in tackling the very issues that led to the order in the first place, helping communities affected by antisocial behaviour. This is a common-sense amendment. It would give our justice system the tools that it needs to properly enforce respect orders.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that without this amendment the power of a respect order would be greatly diminished? As we have seen with antisocial behaviour orders and convictions for relatively minor offences, repeat offending is the problem. Without the weight of this amendment sitting behind respect orders, they are sufficiently diminished in value as a stand-alone.
Matt Vickers
We saw what happened with ASBOs: people started wearing them as a badge of honour. This amendment could strengthen respect orders, providing real sanctions and consequences for people who fail to engage with what is on offer and with the opportunity to change their behaviour. It is the right thing to do not only by the people who commit offences and need setting in a new direction but for the communities who suffer at their hands. Those communities want to see that there are real consequences for them, and that such people do not think that they are above the law and can get away with anything. It is entirely right to strengthen respect orders further.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that breaches of respect orders will result in a criminal offence that is triable either way is enough of a deterrent? The consequences of breaches will be much greater than they are now.
Matt Vickers
We need to give the justice system and agencies all the powers that they can have, because at the end of the day, it is their discretion that will determine which of these things are applied. If someone breaches an order more than once, and they are subject to several respect orders, which is what the amendment relates to, there should be a stepladder of consequences. We should give the agencies and the Ministry of Justice all the tools and powers that they can use to deter people from committing another offence or indeed being subject to yet another respect order.
This is a common-sense amendment. It gives our justice system the tools that it needs to enforce respect orders properly, protects communities from persistent offenders and upholds the principle that the law must be respected.
Dame Diana Johnson
Amendment 33 would make a person who has been given more than one respect order liable for a fine of up to £1,000. It is unlikely that a person would be given more than one respect order. An order may be given for a specified period of time or may state that it has effect until further notice. In practice, if changes are needed to a respect order after it has been approved, the applicant would return to court for the order to be varied if, for example, it was considered necessary to include additional requirements or prohibitions, or to extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect. However, a person may be given a separate order where they have engaged in antisocial behaviour that meets the legal test for use of another ASB power—for example, a housing injunction or a criminal behaviour order. Respect orders are preventive orders. They seek to prevent further antisocial behaviour by helping to address the root causes of the person’s behaviour.
Harriet Cross
Respect orders are indeed meant to be preventive, and everyone on the Committee wants them to work, but part of prevention is deterrence. Knowing that it will hit them in their pocket if they get a respect order is a huge deterrent for people who otherwise, as the shadow Minister said, wear these things as a badge of honour. It is not that people will receive multiple respect orders at the same time; they may receive them sequentially. They may have had one in the past, but it has lapsed or they have served it—whatever word is used—and then, down the line, they get another one and then another. A fine would ensure that respect orders have a direct financial impact on them, to prevent them from getting into a cycle of receiving one after another.
Dame Diana Johnson
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh pointed out, respect orders deter people from carrying on with their behaviour because a breach can lead to arrest, being brought before a criminal court and, potentially, imprisonment. My expectation is that, if there is a need to make changes to a respect order, the requirements will be changed and the prohibitions will be extended on the respect order that has already been issued, so I am not sure that I take the point about multiple respect orders. What we all want is that, when a respect order is issued, the individual will comply with it and no further steps are necessary by anybody because they will have stopped the antisocial behaviour and dealt with their underlying problems. Simply fining someone for receiving further orders would be a punitive measure and unlikely to help that individual change their behaviour.
Amendment 32 would increase the maximum prison term available for repeated breaches of respect orders to five years. Currently, the maximum sentence for breaching a respect order is up to two years’ imprisonment upon conviction in the Crown court. We believe that is the appropriate level of sanction, and it is in line with the current civil injunction that it replaces.
As I said, respect orders take a fundamentally preventive approach, and it is appropriate that the sentence reflects that. If the offender abides by the terms of the order, there will be no further sanctions. However, it is right that custodial sentences are still available for those who continue to cause havoc to our communities. Other powers, such as criminal behaviour orders, are available on conviction for any criminal offence in any criminal court, and they carry a longer sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment. In the light of that, I hope that the shadow Minister will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for her response. As we know, a small number of people are responsible for the vast majority of crimes. It is right that we put these ladders in place for the communities out there who are frustrated because they do not think the system has consequences for the same young people who are offending again and again, and creating lots of havoc on our streets. We would like to press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matt Vickers
Amendment 32 sets out proposed penalties for repeated breaches of a respect order, with a prison sentence of up to five years. It would strengthen the enforcement of respect orders by introducing clear and proportionate penalties.
The Chair
Order. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but we are meant to be discussing amendment 30. The shadow Minister mentioned amendment 32, which we will vote on later. I just want to make sure he is speaking to the right amendment.
Matt Vickers
Thank you, Mr Pritchard.
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 1, page 2, line 30, leave out from “behaviour” to the end of line 31 and insert
“has the same meaning as under section 2 of this Act.”
This amendment would give “anti-social behaviour” in clause 1 the same definition as in section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
The 2014 definition of antisocial behaviour, as outlined in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, provides a crucial framework for tackling the real, everyday issues that affect communities across the country. It recognises that antisocial behaviour is about not just criminal activity but the negative impact that certain behaviours have on the lives of ordinary people. By encompassing actions that cause harassment, alarm or distress, the definition offers a broad, flexible approach that allows authorities to respond effectively to a wide range of disruptive activities.
The definition also strikes a vital balance between protecting individual freedoms and ensuring the safety and wellbeing of the wider community. It does not overreach, but rather targets conduct that directly harms or threatens public peace, whether it be noise disturbances, vandalism or other forms of nuisance. That makes it a vital tool for local police forces, housing authorities and community groups to act swiftly and proportionately. Rather than offering an overtly wide-ranging definition, it draws a clear connection between antisocial behaviour and housing-related issues. The definition acknowledges the complex nature of the problems. It ensures that disruptive behaviour in homes, whether public or private, is tackled with the same urgency as antisocial behaviour and actions in public spaces.
Dame Diana Johnson
Amendment 30 would expand the legal definition of antisocial behaviour for respect orders, which is currently drafted as behaviour
“that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.”
The amendment seeks to include housing-related definitions of antisocial behaviour, including causing “nuisance or annoyance”, as in section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The test for nuisance and annoyance is a lower level of behaviour than that causing harassment, alarm or distress. That is appropriate in a housing context where a victim cannot easily escape from ASB that is occurring in the area where they live. We know that ASB can have devastating consequences in such situations, undermining the victim’s safety and security in their home. That is why we have retained the test for the new housing injunction in clause 2.
The respect order goes further than the civil injunction, as I have set out, in making a breach a criminal offence and enabling a wider range of sentencing options. It is appropriate that the legal test should be behaviour that is causing, or likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress. It is also important to be mindful that the respect order sits alongside a suite of powers available to the police and local authorities to tackle ASB, which are designed to apply to the different scenarios and harm types that the amendment aims to capture. I hope I have assured the shadow Minister of our reasoning in setting the bar for a respect order at the level of harassment, alarm or distress, and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for her response, but I would like to press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 1, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
“D1 Power to move person down list for social housing
A respect order may have the effect of moving any application the respondent may have for social housing to the end of the waiting list.”
This amendment would mean that a person who receives a respect order would move to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing, if applicable.
Amendment 34 would mean that a person who receives a respect order would move to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing, if applicable. This is a crucial measure that can play an essential role in ensuring that the allocation of social housing is fair, responsible and aligned with the values of respect and community responsibility. The key benefit of the provision is that it provides an additional incentive for individuals to behave in a way that upholds community standards.
David Burton-Sampson
On that point, does the shadow Minister not believe that everybody has the right to decent housing?
Matt Vickers
I do. At the moment there are huge challenges around housing. People who live in social housing want to live next to someone who treats them with the dignity and respect that they deserve. That is fair on the people who might be their neighbours and fair on the other people in that list. There is a list for a reason, and the people who misbehave should feel the consequences of doing so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
As a constituency Member of Parliament, the shadow Minister will have handled cases where people want their neighbours to move because of the neighbours’ antisocial behaviour. Would he be willing to tell his constituents that those neighbours cannot move because they are at the bottom of the list?
Matt Vickers
Well, I will give the Ministers the reasons for it. We are talking more broadly about the powers and sanctions given to help us to tackle antisocial people who create havoc on some estates and cause absolute uproar. No one wants such people to move in next to them. Does the Minister want the empty house next door to be occupied by someone who is committing antisocial behaviour and failing to comply with the responsibility of being a civilised member of society?
Matt Vickers
They are not going to jump the queue ahead of law-abiding citizens who do the right thing. That is what the queue is about, and there is a queue because there is not space.
Matt Vickers
We are saying that they will not get ahead of others. They will join the back of the queue; they will be put down the list. The people who behave, who are responsible, who are fair, and who play by the rules will carry on in their place while others are moved down the list for misbehaving.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The shadow Minister talks about the victims of antisocial behaviour and the offenders. I completely agree with his desire to provide an incentive for those are offending, but offenders often live with their families and children, who are often equally the victims of the antisocial behaviour. Does he agree that to punish offenders’ children and partners in a way that makes their housing situation more precarious and denies them a good home and an aspirational move to a better area, is an inappropriate punishment for an individual and becomes, effectively, a group punishment?
Matt Vickers
In my part of the world, the antisocial behaviour is more often wreaked by young people. Parents should be responsible for those young people, and there should be consequences so that people help their families to fall in line and behave. I think this is the right thing to do. Those on a housing list who play by the rules should carry on, while those who misbehave, who do not play by the rules and cause absolute hell for other people, should be pushed to the bottom of the list. I stand by that.
Luke Taylor
I am not sure that the shadow Minister understands the severity of the difficulties that families find themselves in. I have a certain sympathy with wanting to sound like there is a serious consequence for families and individuals who are breaching orders, but this amendment is an extreme measure that would lead to misery for whole families. It seems an overreaction and an extreme punishment for a whole family to suffer in that circumstance.
Matt Vickers
There are decisions to make about the extremity of the consequences and sanctions, but there is a choice. Is it about the victims who suffer sleepless nights and all this havoc, whose windows have gone through, who are abused and are petrified to live in their own home, or are we on the side of the families who wreak this behaviour and the young people who terrorise others? There is a choice there.
Joe Robertson
Government Members’ interventions suggest that they may have misread and misunderstood the amendment. They seem to think it means that someone with a respect order would be removed from the housing list. That is not what the amendment says; it is about prioritisation within the waiting list. These waiting lists are based on a set of a criteria that lead to a prioritisation. It seems to me uncontroversial—although it is possible to disagree with it, of course—to add another criterion to compiling a housing waiting list: does someone have a respect order? The amendment is not a mandatory provision. It states:
“A respect order may have the effect of moving any application”
down the list. The provision is discretionary, which addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. It may be that an overriding need of the family would mean that the power would not be used. There is nothing mandatory about this. It is entirely consistent with how waiting lists are compiled.
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. The fact that housing authorities are made a relevant authority by the Bill is really powerful. We should give all these agencies—the housing associations, the police and the justice system—all the tools, the carrots and the sticks, that they need to manage and induce the correct behaviour. This measure would do that.
Jess Phillips
How does the shadow Minister not see that, if my neighbour is an absolute nightmare who engages in antisocial behaviour, I would not report them or want them to get a respect order if I thought that would make it less likely that they could move? I would want them to move, so I would not want them to be at the bottom of the social housing waiting list.
Matt Vickers
We have some really good people working in housing authorities across the country who will use all the powers we give them in a meaningful, proportionate and sensible way to get the best possible outcomes for their tenants and communities. This power would be one string on that bow. As we have said, using it would not be mandatory; it would be an option available to them.
I am glad that the Government have said that housing authorities should be a relevant authority that should be able to bring forward orders, including respect orders. That is a really powerful thing, and we should give them all the powers they need and let them get on with the job that they are qualified to do—working hard to deliver for those communities.
Dr Sullivan
To take a slightly different tack, does the shadow Minister recognise that some landlords, social landlords and councils evict tenants who exhibit the kind of antisocial behaviour he describes, which is an absolute travesty and a blight on some communities, but that if they get a respect order and these people are placed at the bottom of the list, they will not be able to be evicted. That will hamper some of our councils from moving tenants on and addressing the various issues he has raised.
Matt Vickers
As I have said, this is not a mandatory measure. It is something that housing authorities and local enforcement agencies would be able to use at their discretion, looking at all of the facts surrounding the case, to try to get the best possible outcome for communities and tenants, many of whom are suffering sleepless nights and are miserable in their own home as a result of the behaviour of some awful people. It is right that there are consequences for these people and that we empower the agencies to deal with them as they see fit.
Jess Phillips
Have any particular social housing providers or local authorities requested the amendment from the shadow Minister?
Matt Vickers
As yet, they have not—I do not know. The Minister is very good at these questions, is she not? She does not like the “name a business” questions, but I suppose we can play it both ways. The reality is that I speak to housing associations that are deeply frustrated about their lack of powers and ability to tackle some of these issues. We would give them and other agencies this power as an option; its use would not be mandatory or stipulated. It is a very sensible thing to do. We should support and empower the authorities and agencies in every way we can.
Jess Phillips
The shadow Minister is right; I am very good at those questions. He made a good point about how we need to trust the experts, and I wondered where this amendment had come from if the experts are not the ones calling for it. I have tabled a lot of Opposition amendments in my time, and I was usually working with a team of experts.
Matt Vickers
How many housing authorities did we invite to the evidence session?
Matt Vickers
We did not invite any to the evidence session. I think the amendment would be welcomed, but I am sure we will hear from the relevant agencies and authorities in due course.
Jess Phillips
When tabling amendments to Government Bills in opposition, I never relied only on evidence given in evidence sessions. I believe the shadow Minister has an email address where those people could have lobbied him—it happens to us all the time. Have any housing or antisocial behaviour experts got in touch with him and said this is an appropriate action?
Matt Vickers
I am sure they will be in touch and can ask them that question, but I think empowering these organisations in this way is really powerful and will really help them to deal with some of the horrific antisocial behaviour their tenants are subjected to.
Harriet Cross
On this amendment and amendment 31, on reducing the age threshold to 16, we heard from the experts and people who gave evidence that we should reduce it to 16 because that is where most of the criminality of the antisocial behaviour comes from. By that same argument, because we are not hearing from housing authorities or experts does not necessarily mean that this is not a good amendment.
Matt Vickers
Some of the real experts in this Bill are the people on housing lists, feeling that they are waiting to get a house while others are getting ahead of them in the queue. This is an essential measure.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I have listened intently to the remarks, and I must say it is astounding to hear the shadow Minister suddenly become a champion for social housing. The problems due to antisocial behaviour in my constituency are, first, that families are stuck next to a problem family and cannot move because the Conservative party sold off so much council housing in my constituency and, crucially, did not replace it with new council housing stock; and secondly, my housing associations do not have enough resources from the local police, because the Conservative party slashed police numbers.
Matt Vickers
Police numbers are at a record level. There are more police on the streets of the UK than ever before. There is more funding going into the police than ever before. We toughened up sentencing for some of the worst offences. I am sure the hon. Member has lots of views on social housing, but in terms of this amendment, I think the right thing to do is to empower the agencies and ensure that some of the frustrated people in his constituency who want to move house can move ahead of those committing antisocial behaviour.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I will just draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that one of my other former roles was as a tenancy enforcement caseworker for a social housing company. I can assure the Committee that I would not be asking for this amendment. I think it would have a detrimental effect, and would actually cause more antisocial behaviour further down the line.
Matt Vickers
I thank the hon. Member for his evidence.
The amendment is a crucial measure that could play an essential role in ensuring that the allocation of social housing is fair, responsible, and aligned with the values of respect and community responsibility. The key benefit is that it provides an additional incentive for individuals to behave in a way that upholds community standards. When someone is found to have caused disruption or engaged in antisocial behaviour that harms others, placing them at the bottom of the waiting list for social housing serves as a tangible consequence of their actions. It encourages personal responsibility and reinforces the idea that those who choose to respect the rules and the people around them should be rewarded, while those who engage in disruptive behaviour should face appropriate consequences.
Moreover, this approach supports the integrity of the social housing system. Social housing is in high demand, and it is vital that we prioritise those who are not only in need, but demonstrate a commitment to being good tenants and positive members of the community. By introducing this measure, we would ensure that social housing was allocated in a manner that rewards responsible behaviour, thus safeguarding the quality of life for everyone in the community. Importantly, it would allow local authorities to manage the housing waiting list in a way that aligns with the broader objectives of social housing policy, promoting both fairness and the values that underpin our society. It is a sensible, measured approach that encourages respect for others and the community as a whole.
Dame Diana Johnson
Well, Mr Pritchard, that was a lively exchange. Clearly the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley, has had her three Weetabix this morning.
We all recognise how devastating antisocial behaviour where you live can be, and I fully understand and appreciate the passion the debate on amendment 34 has prompted this morning. As the shadow Minister pointed out, amendment 34 would enable local authorities or housing providers to move a person who receives a respect order to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing. It is for local authorities to decide who should qualify for social housing. It might be helpful for hon. Members to know that many councils already consider antisocial behaviour or other criminal behaviour before allocating a social home. They may either decide that a person with a history of antisocial behaviour does not qualify to go on the housing register, or accept the person on to the register but award them lower priority.
I note what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, said about the effect that this amendment could have on other family members not associated with the antisocial behaviour. We need to consider the potential consequences of removing access to social housing. The respect order is intended to tackle the most harmful adult perpetrators of ASB, but also aims to prevent further ASB from occurring and help people to address the root causes of their behaviour. That is why respect orders may contain positive as well as prohibitive requirements.
Luke Taylor
To pick up the point on the root cause of antisocial behaviour, does the right hon. Lady agree that being in unsuitable housing, and then being trapped in unsuitable housing through a measure like this, may well make antisocial behaviour even worse, leading to further reactions and disruption within communities?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman has made his point; I am not sure that I will respond to it. However, the point he made earlier about the need to ensure that innocent people are not caught up in this is one that I am willing to accept.
We do not want to create further issues for individuals who have respect orders by removing access to social housing entirely, which may increase the risk of reoffending and reduce the likelihood of rehabilitation. I hope that, as I have explained that there is already the power for local authorities to choose to take into account the antisocial behaviour or criminal records of potential tenants, the shadow Minister will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for her response. I am glad that we provoked a bit of passion and got people engaged in the debate. I would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Diana Johnson
As we have talked at length about the respect orders, I will not say anything further at this stage.
Matt Vickers
It is encouraging to see housing providers recognised as registered authorities in proposed new section B1 of the 2014 Act, particularly when it comes to addressing antisocial behaviour, which continues to plague many residents in housing communities. Registered housing providers, including housing associations and local authority landlords, serve as the backbone of the social housing sector, ensuring that tenants have access to safe, stable and well-managed homes. Their role extends beyond simply providing houses; they are legally and morally responsible for fostering strong, liveable communities where residents feel secure and supported. As designated authorities with specific legal powers, these providers are uniquely positioned to tackle antisocial behaviour head-on. This responsibility is crucial in preventing communities from becoming blighted by persistent nuisance and intimidation or criminal activity.
Rather than leaving tenants to endure these issues alone, or to rely solely on already overstretched police and council services, housing providers have the tools to intervene directly, whether through tenancy enforcement, mediation or legal action. By taking a proactive stance against antisocial behaviour, registered housing providers help maintain the quality of life for all residents, ensuring that social housing remains a place not just to live, but to thrive. Their ability to act swiftly and decisively is vital in upholding community standards and reinforcing the fundamental principle that everyone deserves to live in a safe and respectful environment.
Response times can still lag, and not all providers have the resources or the will to tackle complex cases effectively. Victims of persistent antisocial behaviour often face a daunting process: logging multiple complaints, gathering evidence and navigating bureaucracy. How will the Government ensure that all housing providers have the capacity to utilise these powers effectively?
The Environment Agency is listed as a relevant authority with the power to issue a respect order. Could the Minister clarify the specific role that the agency will play in enforcing these orders? Under what circumstances would the Environment Agency be expected to exercise this power, and what specific outcomes do the Government seek to achieve by including it? Could the Minister provide a concrete example of how the Environment Agency might use a respect order in practice? Proposed new section C1 of the 2014 Act sets out that the respect order
“may have the effect of excluding the respondent from the place where the respondent normally lives”
and that a condition the court considers is that
“the anti-social behaviour in which the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage consists of or includes the use or threatened use of violence against other persons, or…there is a significant risk of harm to other persons from the respondent.”
What implications could that have for respondents who have been issued with an order? Where will they live? What role will their local authority have in supporting them?
David Taylor
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. In Hemel Hempstead, antisocial behaviour is regularly at the top of my inbox. Ahead of joining the Committee, I carried out information-gathering exercises in addition to my regular surgery and casework, including a recent public event alongside the police and the Police Federation. I found that hundreds of people are unable to go about their daily lives because of antisocial behaviour. A rot was allowed to set in by the Conservatives when they were in government, with crime doubling in my constituency between 2014 and 2024. A retired police officer locally has pinpointed the fact that the cuts that were made to neighbourhood policing during that time is having a massive and detrimental effect on policing in Hemel Hempstead.
I have spoken before about a family who live locally who have suffered from terrible antisocial behaviour, and I will refer to them again today. This family, who have a boy, have been harassed for more than two years, including verbal abuse, trespassing, damage to property and their neighbours generally causing them distress. What is really disturbing is that the child does not feel comfortable going out to play in their local neighbourhood because of the impact that the abuse from those terrible neighbours has had on his mental health. The family have recorded these incidents on their Ring doorbell device, and the recordings have been submitted to the police and local authority. However, despite multiple reports to the council, the police and other agencies, no resolution has been reached. They are currently unable to move away to another area because of the lack of social housing, which I mentioned earlier. It is not okay that the son is fearful of going outside, and that the anxiety is so bad that he cannot sleep alone. I have met the family and have had to console them as they have broken down in tears owing to the stress. It is unacceptable.
In reading the Bill, I have been applying a simple test: what will each clause mean for Hemel Hempstead residents? I strongly believe that clause 1 will have a considerable impact on residents. Why? First, unlike previous measures, respect orders come with criminal penalties for breaches, which paves the way for the police to immediately act when individuals are in breach. It will help to ensure that residents such as the family I referenced will not suffer prolonged harm from persistent offenders, and that authorities have the tools to act decisively.
Secondly, residents have informed me that when antisocial behaviour injunctions and other parts of enforcement measures have been applied, they were too slow to be enforced, so lacked any real deterrent. In contrast, the measures introduced in clause 1 simplify the legal framework, providing enforceable rules that local authorities, housing providers and the police can use. Further, one of the problems reported to me by the family is that the neighbours’ drug use is the driver of much of the antisocial behaviour.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is very kind. In my constituency, ASB is conducted by people who have alcohol and drug problems. Does he agree that the fact that the new respect orders have positive requirements, such as attending drug or alcohol support services, will get to the root of the problem?
David Taylor
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have spoken about members of my family who have suffered drug abuse; sometimes that did lead to antisocial behaviour and they suffered the penalties of it. It is right that we need to look at dealing with some of the root causes.
This issue is a scourge in my community and it has been for many years. I recall another couple who came up to me at a community event just before Christmas. They said that they lived on a completely normal street but then, at one point, a house on the street turned into a drug den, where there was a drug dealer. They told me, “It is striking. This is just a normal street and all of a sudden, we are dealing with people coming at all hours of the day, leaving drugs and paraphernalia all over the place. There is swearing and antisocial behaviour.” A neighbour went out to confront the people coming to buy the drugs, and one of them turned on the neighbour and drove at him with their vehicle—that is how bad some of these offences are.
I therefore welcome that the new respect orders allow courts to impose restrictions and positive obligations, which my hon. Friend referenced. As a result, offenders can be required not just to stop harmful behaviour but to engage in programmes of drug rehabilitation, which I hope will get to the root cause of this problem.
The overarching issue with antisocial behaviour in Hemel Hempstead is that it has been ignored in the past, with one resident telling me that authorities do not really think it is that bad. The new respect orders send a strong message that such behaviour will have real consequences, therefore restoring trust in policing and the justice system. I have made the case several times that Hemel would very much welcome being included in the pilot for the new respect orders, should the Bill pass, and I reiterate that today. I thank the Government for taking seriously the plight of antisocial behaviour, as demonstrated by clause 1, and I hope that we can work together to ensure that it is enforceable as quickly as possible, and to bring about real change for residents across our country and in my Hemel Hempstead.
Jack Rankin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. As members of the Committee have said, antisocial behaviour really is one of the scourges of our communities right across the country. Although it might often be described as low-level, compared with more serious crimes, it is deleterious to community cohesion, and it clearly has significant effects on people’s mental health.
I was looking at some YouGov statistics earlier: 28% of people in the country at some point felt unsafe where they live because of antisocial behaviour; 14% said that antisocial behaviour where they live has affected their mental health; and 15% have said that they have been scared at some points to visit their local shop. That is reflected in my surgeries, as I am sure it is in the surgeries of Members across the House.
Last month, I went to Eton town council. Eton is a prosperous place, as people might recognise, but even for Eton as a town, there were two primary issues that the council brought up with me relating to antisocial behaviour. That included from the night-time economy, whether that is shop windows being smashed, indecent exposure or laughing gas. We also have problems with BB guns being shot at swans—indeed, youths not too far in the past killed a swan. What we find, in many instances, is that an incredibly small number of individuals create havoc for a whole town, so I welcome clause 1 and the powers that respect orders will give the authorities. The clause can give them more teeth to get at the repeat offenders who are causing this kind of damage across our town.
I know it is not necessarily appropriate at this point for me to speak to the amendments, but I would like to say two sentences on amendment 31, if you would allow me, Mr Pritchard. I think this behaviour is often done by 16 to 17-year-olds, so it is a bit of a shame that that has been put to one side.
The Chair
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman was seeking advice, so may I kindly offer it? Please stick to the particular issue in the clause.
Jack Rankin
On the more substantive point, there were some missed opportunities to toughen the clause up a bit. The perception of respect orders is that they could become ASBO mark 2. I recognise that they are a little tougher than past measures, but there is bit of a missed opportunity.
David Burton-Sampson
As other Members have said, antisocial behaviour is out of control. Around 35% of respondents to the crime survey for England and Wales in March 2024 said they had witnessed or experienced antisocial behaviour in their area. We must remember that a significant amount of antisocial behaviour goes unreported, so the reports that we get are probably a misrepresentation of the level of antisocial behaviour that is actually out there. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead that it is an indictment of the previous Government’s record that action was not taken on this issue, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Windsor welcomes the respect orders and can see that this Government are starting to take control of antisocial behaviour.
Joe Robertson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Like every Member in the Committee and across the House, my constituency struggles with antisocial behaviour, particularly but not exclusively in towns. Individual instances of antisocial behaviour often are referred to—perhaps correctly—as low-level crime, but the problem is the combination of those activities, the hyper-prolific nature of antisocial behaviour, whereby a few individuals cause a huge amount of the problems, and the knock-on effect for the rest of the people living in those neighbourhoods, who are law-abiding citizens trying to go about their daily lives. Antisocial behaviour also feeds into the fear of crime, which is relevant—not just the level of crime, but fear of it among a given population.
In the town of Sandown in my constituency on the Isle of Wight, antisocial behaviour feeds into a major regeneration issue, as the state of some key buildings, which have been left to deteriorate, attracts antisocial behaviour. That is not to say that there is any justification for criminality or antisocial behaviour, but it would be false to assume that the physical environment in which people live does not have an effect, particularly on younger people who may be struggling to fill their time, as they look for work or further education opportunities.
I welcome the new respect orders, in line with most of the things that have been said today, because of the beefing up of the current rules and the attempt to add weight to the deterrent available to law enforcement. However, as the measure includes criminal sanctions for an offence that can be tried and heard in the Crown court, the Government have to be alive to the potential—indeed, the almost certainty—that it will increase the workload of the courts. It is all very well for Members such as the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh to talk about the previous Government not having done enough, but to assume that words, even good words, in a Bill will solve everything on their own, I suggest might be a little simplistic. The Government will have to do more.
David Taylor
The hon. Member is being a bit unfair. The Bill is not being presented in isolation. As a Government, we are also recruiting 13,000 new officers, a starting point to getting neighbourhood policing back in a fit and proper state. Does he not welcome that move?
Matt Vickers
Recruiting 13,000 police officers sounds really good, but about a third of them will be special constables and about a third redeployed from other parts of the police force. When someone rings 999, because they want that emergency response service, they may wait even longer, because the response police officers will have been moved into neighbourhoods.
Matt Vickers
The Government are redeploying them, so they are taking them from somewhere. We would welcome any information about where the Government will or will not redeploy them from, but this is important. The Government cannot say 13,000 more are arriving, when it is about 3,000 more.
Joe Robertson
My hon. Friend makes a good point. To respond to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, we can debate policing all he likes—indeed, the previous Government increased police numbers—but the point I was making was about the courts, because we are talking about increasing the burden on Crown courts. I am not making a point against him or the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh, but I am sure they would both agree that the Government have to address the pressure on the court system. I support this provision, but although Bills such as this are well intended, they will add pressure to the prison population and the court systems if the Government do not make further provision.
Matt Bishop
Perhaps the hon. Member can offer some thoughts as to why we might have huge backlogs in the court system.
Joe Robertson
I am slightly surprised that such an uncontroversial point is being met with such incredulity and that I am being asked to provide the hon. Member’s Government with solutions. He has to get used to the fact that his Government are in power now. They will have to find their own solutions.
Matt Vickers
I would never seek to defend anything that any Government have ever done—people do get things wrong—but the previous Government were right to toughen up sentences for the worst and most violent offences. It was right that we put people away for longer. It was right that we did not release people during the pandemic, or at anything like the levels that some other countries did. It was right, therefore, that the Government had the biggest prison-building programme since the Victorian era. It is right that we put those people in prison. It is right that in another Bill Committee I have been saying for weeks that foreign national offenders should be removed without the need for a 12-month prison sentence in the meantime. We have got to where we have got to for lots of reasons. I think tougher sentences were a good thing, and that it was right that we did not release people early and that we built more prison places than have been built since the Victorian era.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Order. We need to warm up, because it is cold, so people bobbing up and down is fantastic, but may we stick to what we are supposed to be debating, however excitable the other things make us?
Joe Robertson
Thank you for that advice, Mr Pritchard. I am too generous in giving way, but the shadow Minister put it much better than I could myself.
Matt Bishop
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. To clarify, I did not ask for solutions; our Government have the solutions.
Joe Robertson
I think we will have to leave the debate about which Government have the solutions to another day, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
I repeat my point, which I do not think is controversial and would hope is accepted: the Labour party will have to pay extra attention to court backlogs when provisions such as this, which I support, are introduced.
Dame Diana Johnson
We have had a wide-ranging debate on clause 1, moving from the specifics of the respect order through to policing numbers. I am very proud that we will have 13,000 additional police officers and PCSOs by the end of this Parliament. I have to say that the idea that there was the largest prison-building scheme since the Victorian times under the previous Conservative Government is utter bunkum—they built 500 places. That is why we are in the position we are in at the moment. I know that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East is a new Member, but those of us who have been in the House a little while remember what 14 years of Conservative government have delivered for this country. That is why this Government are determined to start to deal with some of the problems around antisocial behaviour, crime and the fact that we do not have enough prison places.
Getting back to clause 1 of this important Bill, I am pleased that there is acceptance across the House of the need for respect orders and a general welcoming of them. The shadow Minister asked some very detailed questions, which I will come to in a moment, but I want to comment on the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. The horrific case in his constituency of a child who cannot go out to play and the stress that antisocial behaviour puts on the family is clearly totally unacceptable. That is why respect orders will play their part, along with the housing civil injunctions, in tackling some of these problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton made an important point about individuals with addiction problems and how it is absolutely vital that respect orders deal with the requirements to get to grips with antisocial behaviour and whether an addiction issue is driving it. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Windsor talked about the antisocial behaviour that occurs even in some of the more prosperous areas of the country—he talked about Eton. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh made an important point about prevention, the work around youth hubs and the prevention partnerships that we will be introducing.
At the very start of the debate on the amendments, the shadow Minister asked whether respect orders would interfere with individuals’ work commitments. I can reassure him that it will be for the court, which is judicially independent, to set the conditions of a respect order. Courts are well practised in navigating types of circumstances, such as where a person works or lives, and we expect the courts to consider those issues when making respect orders. For example, a court is unlikely to prevent the respondent from entering a defined area if they need to access it to attend work.
The shadow Minister asked how the Environment Agency will use respect orders. The Environment Agency can play a role, particularly where an environmental ASB offence is committed, for example vandalism of local open spaces or parks, or things like that.
The shadow Minister was particularly concerned about without-notice applications for respect orders. We know that courts can issue without-notice respect orders when the matter is urgent—the shadow Minister referred to that. Courts are familiar with doing that and have done it for a very long time with civil injunctions.
The shadow Minister also asked about the burden of proof required for the courts to approve a respect order and how much police will work with communities to ensure that repeated reporting and gathering of evidence has the desired effect. The court must be satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the respondent has engaged in, or threatened to engage in, conduct that has or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The court must also be satisfied that it is just and convenient to grant the respect order for the purposes of preventing the respondent from engaging in antisocial behaviour. That is the same legal test as for the current injunction.
I was pleased that the shadow Minister welcomed the fact that housing bodies will be able to seek orders from the courts; I think that is welcome across the House. Police are just one of the number of agencies, including councils and housing authorities, that can apply for respect orders. It is expected that a multi-agency approach will be taken when applying for respect orders. We are also introducing mandatory checklists for the relevant agency to complete prior to applying for a respect order, to ensure proportionate use.
Dame Diana Johnson
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 2, page 10, line 36, leave out
“Schedule 1 amends Part 1 of”
and insert
“Part 1 of Schedule 1 amends”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 24.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 7 and 8.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 24 to 28.
Schedule 1.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 2 introduces schedule 1, which makes consequential amendments to part 1 of the 2014 Act to provide for youth and housing injunctions. The purpose of the amendments in this group is to retain the existing civil injunction for cases that will not be covered by the respect order, namely those of offenders under 18 and housing-related nuisance ASB. Although in some cases powers are needed to address the behaviour of younger offenders, the Government do not want to unnecessarily criminalise children, as I said previously. Practitioners have told us that the existing injunction can be a useful power for addressing persistent ASB committed by under-18s and so it will remain in place for that cohort, operating in the same way as the civil injunction, although it will be renamed the “youth injunction”.
Harriet Cross
For clarity, will the threshold at which a youth injunction is given be at the same sort of level as for a respect order, but with the age element added in, or will there be a different threshold for the level of antisocial behaviour, or the sort of disruption caused?
Dame Diana Johnson
We are retaining the existing provisions for civil injunctions. As I set out previously, the balance of probabilities, the test and the categorisation of the antisocial behaviour will all remain the same. We are just renaming it a “youth injunction” because we are focusing the respect order on the persistent antisocial behaviour of adults over 18. The youth injunction remains exactly as it is in law now.
I am conscious of the profound problems that housing-related nuisance ASB can cause, as we have heard again in this debate. The housing injunction therefore retains the lower legal threshold of
“conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”
in a housing context—as previously discussed. Again, we heard from practitioners that the existing power is effective and proportionate for housing-related ASB, and the housing injunction therefore retains the effect of the current power in that context.
Government amendments 6 to 8 and 24 to 28 make further technical and consequential amendments to existing antisocial behaviour legislation as a result of the introduction of respect orders. In relation to the 2014 Act, that means ensuring that definitions of antisocial behaviour are captured accurately elsewhere, under the existing powers, to account for the new respect orders and injunctions in part 1 of the Act. Consequential amendments are also needed to the Housing Acts 1985 and 1988 so that the breach of a respect order, a youth injunction or a housing injunction continues to be a ground for possession under those Housing Acts, as is the case with the current civil injunction.
We know that taking possession of a property is an important tool for landlords to use to provide swift relief to victims when antisocial behaviour or criminality has already been proven by another court. It is therefore right to retain that tool with the new respect order. In addition, amendment 28 amends the Localism Act 2011 to ensure that landlords can refuse to surrender and grant tenancies on the basis that a tenant, or a person residing with the tenant, has been issued with a respect order.
Finally, amendment 28 also amends the Police Reform Act 2002 to ensure that constables in uniform can continue to require a person engaging in antisocial behaviour to give their name and address. I commend the provisions to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
Clause 2 amends the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to provide for the granting of youth and housing injunctions; I thank the Minister for outlining that. Clause 2 will limit powers under section 1 of the 2014 Act so that injunctions can be granted only to individuals aged 10 to 17. Will the Minister confirm the rationale behind that age restriction?
The clause also introduces a new type of injunction for adults aged 18 and over, specifically aimed at preventing behaviour that causes nuisance or annoyance related to housing. It shifts the approach to tackling community-specific antisocial conduct, rather than broader public disorder. How do the Government justify treating adult antisocial behaviour differently depending on whether it is housing-related or not? Is the Minister concerned that limiting injunctions for housing-related issues to adults might create enforcement gaps? What mechanisms are in place to ensure that local authorities and housing providers have the necessary resources to enforce housing-related injunctions effectively? Realising that Ministers are keen to hear exactly who wants what measures in the Bill, can she name any housing associations who specifically asked for this measure?
Dame Diana Johnson
A number of the points that the shadow Minister has raised were discussed earlier. We have set out very clearly why we believe that the respect orders should only apply to adults, because we are talking about the most serious antisocial behaviour. We believe that children and young people up to the age of 18 should not be caught by a respect order because of the criminalisation attached—if it is breached, they can be immediately arrested and brought before the criminal courts. That is why we have retained what is working well with the civil injunctions and renamed them the youth injunction and the housing injunction. On the latter, again, we heard very passionate contributions about how antisocial behaviour where people live, next to their home, and caused by neighbours, can absolutely destroy people’s lives, causing stress, distress and mental health issues, as well as sometimes breaking up families. That is why the threshold for the housing injunction is lower than that for the respect order, but for the threshold we are using what is already on the statute books and I think it is right that it is at that lower level.
On the question about whether any social housing authority has supported the plans for housing injunctions, there is a genuine view in the sector that this is a positive step to enable them to deal with the antisocial behaviour that housing authorities often have to deal with. I am very conscious that the antisocial behaviour charity Resolve has much welcomed the work that has gone into the Bill on both the respect orders and the civil injunctions. Resolve would say that there is a general view that this is a positive way forward. The approach that seems sensible is using what works well now, and keeping that—as I have said, that is why the housing and youth injunctions are doing that and are adapting it—while bringing in this tougher response through the respect order, and getting that on the statute books to deal with people who persistently engage in antisocial behaviour, to try to get to the root cause of what they are doing. I hope that deals with the questions posed by the shadow Minister.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendments made: 7, in clause 2, page 10, line 37, leave out “(injunctions)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 11, line 2, at end insert—
“(1A) Part 2 of Schedule 1 contains consequential amendments of other Acts.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 28.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Amendments of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
Amendments made: 24, in schedule 1, page 148, line 4, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
“Part 1
Amendments of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
1 The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is amended as set out in this Part.”
This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 28, makes the existing text of Schedule 1 become Part 1 of that Schedule.
Amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 150, line 4, leave out from “for” to end of line 5 and insert
“‘section 1’ substitute ‘this Part’.”
This amendment ensures that the definition in section 2(1)(b) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as amended by the Bill, applies to applications for youth injunctions as well as applications for housing injunctions.
Amendment 26, in schedule 1, page 152, line 37, at end insert—
“(za) in the words before paragraph (a), for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘this Part’;”.
This amendment ensures that the consultation requirement under section 14(3) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as amended by the Bill, applies to applications to vary or discharge housing injunctions as well as youth injunctions.
Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 153, line 33, at end insert—
“19A In section 101 (the community remedy document), in subsection (9), for the definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ substitute—
‘“anti-social behaviour” means—
(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or
(b) housing-related anti-social conduct as defined by section 2 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section);’.
19B (1) Section 102 (anti-social behaviour etc: out-of-court disposals) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), in paragraph (c), for ‘an injunction under section 1’ substitute ‘a respect order under section A1 or an injunction under Part 1’.
(3) In subsection (6), for the definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ substitute—
‘“anti-social behaviour” means—
(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or
(b) housing-related anti-social conduct, as defined by section 2 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section);’.”
This amendment inserts into Schedule 1 provision making amendments to the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 that are consequential on the amendments made to that Act by clause 1 and by the other provisions of Schedule 1.
Amendment 28, in schedule 1, page 153, line 38, at end insert—
“Part 2
Consequential amendments of other Acts
Housing Act 1985
21 (1) Section 84A of the Housing Act 1985 (absolute ground for possession for anti-social behaviour) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4)—
(a) for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘Part 1’;
(b) after ‘2014’ insert ‘or a respect order’.
(3) In subsection (9), for the definition of ‘relevant proceedings’, substitute—
‘“relevant proceedings” means—
(a) proceedings for an offence under section I1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,
(b) proceedings under Schedule 2 to that Act, or
(c) proceedings for contempt of court;
“respect order” means an order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;’.
22 In Schedule 3 to that Act (grounds for withholding consent to assignment by way of exchange), in Ground 2A, in the definition of ‘relevant order’, for ‘an injunction under section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014’ substitute—
‘a respect order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;
an injunction under Part 1 of that Act;’
Housing Act 1988
23 (1) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 (grounds on which court must order possession of dwelling-houses let on assured tenancies), Ground 7A is amended as follows.
(2) In condition 2, in the words before paragraph (a)—
(a) for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘Part 1’;
(b) after ‘2014’ insert ‘or a respect order’.
(3) In the list of definitions for the purposes of Ground 7A, for the definition of ‘relevant proceedings’ substitute—
‘“relevant proceedings” means—
(a) proceedings for an offence under section I1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,
(b) proceedings under Schedule 2 to that Act, or
(c) proceedings for contempt of court;
“respect order” means an order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;’.
Police Reform Act 2002
24 In section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (persons engaging in anti-social behaviour), for subsection (1A) substitute—
‘(1A) In subsection (1) “anti-social behaviour” means—
(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or
(b) housing-related anti-social conduct, as defined by section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section).’
Localism Act 2011
25 In Schedule 14 to the Localism Act 2011 (grounds on which landlord may refuse to surrender and grant tenancies under section 158), in paragraph 6(4), in the definition of ‘relevant order’—
(a) after paragraph (e) insert—
‘(ea) a respect order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,’;
(b) in paragraph (f), for ‘section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014’ substitute ‘Part 1 of that Act’.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This amendment inserts into Schedule 1 a new Part 2 containing amendments of Acts other than the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in consequence of the amendments made to that Act by clause 1 and by the other provisions of Schedule 1 (which would by virtue of Amendment 24 become Part 1 of that Schedule).
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3
Maximum period for certain directions, notices and orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 3 provides for extensions to the maximum timeframes for dispersal directions and closure orders under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and I will address each of these in turn.
The clause extends the maximum period for which a dispersal order can be in place from 48 to 72 hours and introduces a mandatory review at 48 hours. We know that the dispersal power is an effective tool that police can use in a range of situations to move on individuals who are committing, or who are likely to commit, antisocial behaviour. Despite that, feedback from police and from police and crime commissioners has highlighted operational challenges in implementing this power.
Under current legislation, the police can issue a dispersal order to require a person to leave an area for a maximum of only 48 hours. That makes no allowance or and allows no extensions for weekends or bank holidays, when incidents of antisocial behaviour are often high. The 48-hour window also allows little time for relevant authorities to identify the root causes of the issue in order to implement longer-term solutions. Extending the timeframe of the dispersal power to up to 72 hours will ensure that police can effectively cover these problem periods, such as bank holidays. It will also give local agencies more time to come together to develop long-term solutions to tackle antisocial behaviour.
Harriet Cross
Although I completely agree with the need to extend the power, why was 72 hours chosen? Was there work or analysis behind that figure?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very pleased to hear that the shadow Minister supports the 72-hour limit, because it was in the Criminal Justice Bill that her Government brought forward and that, because of the general election, never got on to the statute books. Work was done with stakeholders on what would be required. Clearly we do not want to extend it too far, but 72 hours seemed to be the best period of time to take into account what I was just saying about weekends and bank holidays in particular.
Let me move on to closure orders. The clause extends the timeframe that the relevant agencies, after issuing a closure notice, can apply to a magistrates court for a closure order from 48 hours to 72 hours. Again, that is based on feedback from practitioners who have noted operational challenges in applying for a closure order. The 48-hour window is not always enough time to prepare evidence and serve it to the courts, particularly on weekends or bank holidays. The closure order is an important power that agencies can use to provide immediate respite to the local community, so we must ensure that it is practicable and viable for practitioners to use.
Extending the timeframe to 72 hours will allow practitioners adequate time to gather evidence and inform interested parties. It also allows respondents more time to seek legal advice, in turn reducing the number of cases adjourned by the courts. In short, the provisions will help to address operational challenges, allowing local agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour more efficiently and effectively.
Matt Vickers
Clause 3 sets out the maximum period for certain directions, notices and orders. On exclusion directions, the Bill amends section 35 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 whereby a police officer could direct a person to leave a specified area for up to 48 hours. The Bill extends this to 72 hours. If an exclusion period exceeds 48 hours, a police inspector must review the direction as soon as possible after the 48-hour mark to ensure its necessity.
Closure notices allow the police to shut down premises that cause nuisance or disorder, and could previously last 24 hours before requiring further action. The Bill extends that to 48 hours. The maximum period for an initial closure notice before a magistrates court order will be required has been extended from 48 to 72 hours. Those efforts will give greater flexibility for police and officers will have more time to manage antisocial behaviour without requiring immediate escalation to the courts. That will allow for a stronger deterrent, meaning that longer exclusion periods and closure notices could have a greater impact in preventing repeated antisocial behaviour.
In 2023, the previous Government ran a consultation on proposals to strengthen powers available to address antisocial behaviour under the 2014 Act. It is true that the Government have opted to reintroduce some of these provisions into the Crime and Policing Bill. However, I would be grateful for an understanding of why certain measures have not been taken forward. For example, provisions to remove the need for authorisation by a senior police officer for a dispersal order have not been reintroduced. Although a Member could argue that a mandatory review by an inspector for exclusion periods of over 48 hours ensures accountability, why was the decision made to require an inspector’s review for exclusion directions only after 48 hours, rather than immediately on extending them?
The Bill also removes provisions to grant senior police officers the power to make public space protection orders, meaning that it arguably becomes harder in certain instances to control disorder. In November 2024, an extraordinary and unprecedented legal order was enacted, imposing a complete closure on an entire housing estate of 376 properties. That sweeping measure was introduced as a direct response to escalating concerns over severe and persistent antisocial behaviour and rampant drug dealing that had reached intolerable levels. The closure order strictly prohibited non-residents from gathering or loitering in key communal areas, including stairwells, landings, bridges and spaces near bin chutes, as well as within open areas adjacent to residential properties. The decision was driven by an urgent need to restore safety and security for the law-abiding residents, whose daily lives had been severely disrupted by the ongoing disturbances. Authorities deemed that intervention necessary to curb the relentless activities of those engaged in criminal behaviour and to ensure that the estate could once again become a liveable and peaceful environment for its rightful occupants.
The Bill has notably failed to carry forward provisions to lower the minimum age for issuing a community protection notice to 10 years old. Why has that decision been made? As the Minister will be well aware, antisocial behaviour is frequently perpetrated by individuals under the age of 18, often causing significant disruption and distress within communities. Local residents, businesses and authorities alike have long struggled with the challenges posed by persistent youth-related disorder. Given that reality, is the Minister fully confident that the removal of this provision will not inadvertently weaken the ability of law enforcement and local councils to tackle antisocial behaviour committed by teenagers? Without appropriate measures in place, there is a real risk that communities will continue to bear the brunt of unchecked disorder and that would undermine efforts to create safer and more harmonious neighbourhoods. What safeguards are in place to prevent these extended powers from being misused or disproportionately applied to certain groups or businesses? What role will local authorities and community organisations play in reviewing the effectiveness of these measures?
Dame Diana Johnson
The shadow Minister asked a number of questions about measures that were in the Criminal Justice Bill and are not in the Crime and Policing Bill. Clearly, what we are referring to was, and it is the same, as I understand it. We carefully considered the merits of all the measures that were in the Criminal Justice Bill on a case-by-case basis, and we reintroduced the ones that we thought had clear operational benefits, would help to cut crime and antisocial behaviour and would rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system.
The shadow Minister asked about the requirement for dispersal orders to be authorised by an inspector. The Criminal Justice Bill included a measure to remove the current requirement for an inspector to authorise a dispersal order. When considering that measure and what it would deliver, we were concerned that restricting people’s freedom of movement is a serious matter and that it is important that the dispersal order is used proportionately and reasonably. Ensuring that that power is authorised by an officer of at least the rank of inspector provides an additional safeguard and ensures that the power is used only to stop activities that are causing antisocial behaviour.
The Criminal Justice Bill sought to reduce the age that someone can receive a community protection notice from 16 to 10. We take the view that the breach of a CPN is a criminal offence and this Government, as I have said a number of times, do not wish to risk funnelling children into the criminal justice system unnecessarily by lowering the age at which someone can receive a CPN to 10 years of age. As we have discussed, the civil injunction will remain in place to be used against those under the age of 16—
Crime and Policing Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 1st April 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 1 April 2025 - (1 Apr 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is slightly warmer in the room this afternoon. The point I was making before the break was that a number of the measures in this Bill were in the Criminal Justice Bill, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, set out in his questioning of me, but that a clause included in that Bill to lower the age at which someone can receive a community protection notice from 16 to 10 has not been taken forward.
I started my remarks by saying that we had carefully considered the merits of each of the measures in the Criminal Justice Bill on a case-by-case basis to see which ones we wanted to take forward according to this Government’s priorities and where we believed there was a clear operational benefit. I set out before lunch that we did not believe that it was appropriate to lower the age for community protection notices from 16 to 10, because breach of a CPN is a criminal offence and the Government do not wish to risk criminalising children unnecessarily.
The other measure in the Criminal Justice Bill that it is worth reflecting on was to extend the use of public spaces protection orders to the police, allowing a greater number of agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour. The responses to the consultation that the Government at the time carried out were mixed, with a significant proportion of respondents opposed to extending PSPO powers to police. PSPOs are generally focused on lower-level environmental ASB in public places, meaning that local authorities are better suited to issue PSPOs than the police are. Given all the pressures we know the police are under and having regard to police resources, we believe that local authorities are still best placed to carry out the administrative elements of PSPOs. That is why that measure is not included in this Bill.
The provisions in clause 3, as we have already said, were in the Criminal Justice Bill and I think they should garner support across the House in this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Fixed penalty notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 4 serves two purposes. First, it extends the remit of the community safety accreditation scheme, to enable accredited officers to issue fixed penalty notices to tackle antisocial behaviour. Secondly, it increases the upper limit for fixed penalty notices from £100 to £500 for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices. Under the community safety accreditation scheme, a chief constable may delegate a range of powers usually reserved for the police to accredited officers involved in a community safety or traffic management role. That includes issuing fixed penalty notices for specific offences. This clause expands the list of offences to allow officers to issue fines for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices as well.
I can assure hon. Members that appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that these powers are used appropriately. To be awarded accredited status an organisation must satisfy strict criteria, and the scheme itself is accredited only through approval from a chief constable. Also, accredited officers must, rightly, undergo strict vetting and be appropriately trained in use of their powers. By expanding the range of agencies that can tackle antisocial behaviour, we will free up valuable police resources to tackle other antisocial issues and other types of crime.
The second element of the clause increases the upper limit for fines issued for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices from £100 to £500. Public spaces protection orders and community protection notices are issued where antisocial behaviour has a detrimental effect on the community’s quality of life. It is right that anyone breaching the orders is met with a proportionate punishment. The current £100 upper limit does not always carry enough weight to stop people committing further antisocial behaviour. We expect that the threat of an increased fine will act as a stronger deterrent, and in many cases will be enough to prevent reoffending.
We are clear that, although we are increasing the upper limit, the police, local authorities and CSAS officers must ensure that fines are reasonable and proportionate to the severity of the behaviour. The statutory guidance will, of course, be updated to reflect that.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Clause 4 increases the maximum fixed penalty notice that can be issued for a breach of a community protection notice or public spaces protection order from £100 to £500. In 2023 the previous Conservative Government ran a consultation on proposals to strengthen the powers available to address antisocial behaviour. That included a proposal to increase the upper limit of fixed penalty notices to £500. Following the consultation, the Government included a proposal in their 2023-24 Criminal Justice Bill to increase the value of fixed penalty notices to £500.
How will the Government ensure that public spaces protection orders and community protection notices are not used disproportionately to penalise minor or everyday behaviours? Can the Minister speak further on what oversight mechanisms and approved standards will be in place to regulate the activities of private enforcement officers issuing fines under those orders? How will the Government respond to concerns that private enforcement officers have financial incentives to issue excessive fines, and what action can be taken if that occurs? How will the Government balance the need for public order with concerns that PSPOs and CPNs might unfairly target individuals for minor infractions? What mechanisms are in place to review or challenge PSPOs and CPNs if they are deemed unfair or excessive, and how will the Government ensure that the measures are not used as revenue-generating tools, rather than as genuine deterrents against antisocial behaviour?
Dame Diana Johnson
As I set out in my opening remarks, there will be statutory guidance on the use of the powers. I hope that provides some reassurance about how they will be used. I also set out the role of the chief constable in authorising officers and extending the powers to them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about local authorities perhaps using pay-by-commission contractors to issue fixed penalty notices and how there will not be abuse of that. To make it clear, it is for local authorities to determine how to operate the powers granted to them in legislation. Only the upper limit is being increased. Local agencies that issue fixed penalty notices can of course issue fines of less than £500 if appropriate, and it is expected that the fines issued will be based on the individual circumstances and severity of the case. Contracting enforcement to third parties is now a common arrangement and it is for the local authority to ensure that the use of powers remains just and proportionate. As I said at the outset, there will also be statutory guidance.
On the other safeguards and preventing the misuse of PSPOs, it is clear from the legislation that the local authority must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to consider a PSPO appropriate and that the legal test is met. Before making a PSPO, the council must consult the police and any community representatives they think appropriate. Before making, varying, extending or discharging a PSPO, the council must carry out the necessary publicity and notification in accordance with section 72(3) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. That includes publishing the text of a proposed order or variation and publishing the proposal for an extension or variation. Anyone who lives in, regularly works in or visits the area may apply to the High Court to question the validity of a PSPO.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Closure of premises by registered social housing provider
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 5 and schedule 2 provide registered social housing providers with the power to issue closure notices and closure orders, to enable them to quickly close premises that they own or manage that are being used, or are likely to be used, to commit nuisance or disorder. Despite registered social housing providers often being the initial point of contact for tenants suffering from antisocial behaviour, the current legislation does not allow them to use closure powers. Rather, they must contact the police or local authority to issue a closure notice and subsequently apply to the courts for a closure order on their behalf. This clause changes that.
Registered social housing providers will now be able to issue a closure notice and apply for a closure order themselves, meaning that the power can be used more quickly to disrupt antisocial behaviour, in turn freeing up police and local authority time. We of course understand that closing a premises is a serious action, so it is important to note that registered social housing providers are regulated bodies, subject to criteria set out in statute before they can become registered, and that they must meet the regulatory standards set by the Regulator of Social Housing. Having those safeguards is necessary to ensure that these powers are used responsibly by providers.
Matt Vickers
Clause 5 amends the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to enable registered social housing providers to close premises that they own or manage that are associated with nuisance and disorder. We very much welcome this measure—it is right that we empower social housing providers to deal with disorder in order to support and protect tenants.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very pleased that the shadow Minister agrees.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 6
Reviews of responses to complaints about anti-social behaviour
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 6 and schedule 3 provide a new duty for police and crime commissioners to promote awareness of the antisocial behaviour case review in the police force area, and provides a route for victims to request a further review where they are unsatisfied with an ASB case review outcome. As well as tackling the causes of antisocial behaviour, we know that much more must be done to help victims. The ASB case review is an important tool that gives victims of persistent antisocial behaviour the ability to request a formal case review.
As we know from the Victims’ Commissioner’s report, “Still living a nightmare”, published 6 September 2024, the case review is not always used as effectively as it could be to support victims. We want to improve resolutions for victims involved in these case reviews. Of course we hope that a resolution is found before there is a need for a case review, but it is important that this option is available, as there is currently no formal process for victims to appeal the outcome of a case review, even in situations where the review has not addressed the antisocial behaviour that the person is complaining about and experiencing.
This clause gives victims the right to request a further review of their antisocial behaviour case review by the police and crime commissioner where they are dissatisfied with the original outcome. It also allows victims to request a review by the PCC where the relevant agencies determined that the threshold was not met for the initial antisocial behaviour case review. In turn, the PCC will be able to override original case review recommendations and make new ones where they consider further action could have been taken.
Although local agencies will not be mandated to implement the recommendations, they will need to demonstrate consideration. To ensure that victims know where to access the right support, PCCs will also be required to promote awareness of the antisocial behaviour case review and the process for when victims are dissatisfied with the outcome.
Matt Vickers
Clause 6 and schedule 3 enable local policing bodies—police and crime commissioners and their equivalents—to conduct reviews into how authorities in their area have handled reports of antisocial behaviour. Someone could request a local policing body case review if they were dissatisfied with the outcome of an antisocial behaviour case review conducted by another agency, such as the local police force.
Proposed new section 104A of the 2014 Act requires local policing bodies to publish data on LPB case reviews, including the number of applications, the number of reviews conducted and their outcomes. As the Minister knows, it does not specify how that data should be published, which raises questions about delivering an inconsistent approach to publishing data on ASB case reviews. Without a clear specification on publication methods, does the Minister believe there is a risk that data could be inaccessible or difficult to compare across different areas? Will there be any independent oversight or monitoring to ensure that local policing bodies comply with the new transparency requirements?
Clause 6 also modifies schedule 4 of the 2014 Act to mandate that local policing bodies actively raise awareness of antisocial behaviour case reviews within their respective police areas. How does the Minister foresee each force undertaking that work, and will she work with forces to ensure that good and accessible awareness is not a postcode lottery?
Dame Diana Johnson
We have obviously been working closely with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners on how these provisions will work, to ensure that PCCs feel comfortable about what is expected of them and that there is clear guidance in place on what the provisions will actually mean. The legislation clearly sets out minimum requirements that PCCs must comply with when they are setting up and carrying out the PCC case review, including, as I have said, publicising the complaints procedure, consulting with key agencies and setting up the process. We will continue to work with the APCC to develop guidance and best practice to support PCCs in making effective use of the PCC case review.
I fully understand that the data issue is a challenge. It is clear that most partners are collecting data on antisocial behaviour. There are sometimes issues with being able to share that data effectively, and information on how data can be used by all the partners who need to see it will certainly be part of the guidance.
On the whole, however, I think this provision, which supports victims by giving them the right to a further review through the PCC, is the correct approach. I know that the Victims’ Commissioner is keen to see more use of the review procedure. One of her big complaints in the document she produced last year was that the procedure is not well known. We certainly want PCCs to ensure that information about the further right of appeal is given out as clearly as possible to the victims of antisocial behaviour.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 7
Provision of information about anti-social behaviour to Secretary of State
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
The clause introduces a power for the Home Secretary to make regulations requiring key local agencies to report information about antisocial behaviour to the Government. Regulations will be laid at a later date to specify the information that agencies must provide.
Information held by central Government on antisocial behaviour is, in some areas, limited. Despite non-police agencies, such as local authorities and housing providers, playing a crucial role in the response to antisocial behaviour, there are currently no requirements for those agencies to share information about ASB with the Government. That has resulted in a significant evidence gap in the national picture of antisocial behaviour, particularly around how many reports of antisocial behaviour are made to non-police agencies, how they are responded to, and how many antisocial behaviour case reviews they conduct.
Clause 7 takes steps to address the gap by requiring agencies to report that information to the Government. As it is a new duty, I reassure the Committee that we have considered possible new burdens on local agencies, and we have been engaging with local authorities and social housing providers to understand what information they already hold, and the impact that the requirement may have on them. We will ensure that any new requirements will be reasonable and proportionate. By collecting the information, we will be in a much better place: able to get a more accurate and granular picture of antisocial behaviour incidents across England and Wales, as well as the interventions used to tackle it. That, in turn, will help to inform future local and national activity so that we can better tackle antisocial behaviour.
Matt Vickers
Clause 7 grants the Secretary of State the authority to determine through secondary legislation the specific data on antisocial behaviour that local agencies are required to provide to the Government. At its core, the provision is about understanding the problem better. It allows the Government to demand reports on antisocial behaviour incidents, details of how authorities respond, and records of case reviews where communities hold those responses to account.
The idea is simple: if we know more about graffiti spoiling our streets, noise disrupting people’s sleep or disorder plaguing our neighbourhoods, we can do more. The Secretary of State could use that data to spot trends, allocate resources or craft policies that hit the mark. But let us not view the clause through rose-tinted glasses; it raises serious questions we cannot ignore. How much information will be demanded and how often? Will small councils, already stretched thin, buckle under the weight of collecting, creating and analysing data? How much detail will they be asked to provide? Will it be every caller, incident log, or every follow-up? How often will it be—daily updates, weekly summaries or monthly deep-dives?
Police forces, especially in rural and underfunded areas, are already juggling tight budgets and rising demands. Could the burden of gathering, generating and sifting through antisocial behaviour data pull officers away from the streets where they are needed most? A Government armed with better information could target support where it is needed most—perhaps more officers in high-crime areas or funding for youth programmes to prevent trouble before it starts. I am interested in the Minister’s view on how this will be balanced.
Dame Diana Johnson
I listened carefully to what the shadow Minister said, and in my remarks I also indicated that we wanted to be proportionate in the information we will request. It is clear that tackling antisocial behaviour is a top priority for this Government, and many of our partners, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the ASB sector, have called for better data on antisocial behaviour. Our engagement indicates that the majority of relevant agencies already have access to this data, but are not sharing it. That is the key point.
Requiring agencies to share that information with Government will enable the significant benefit of a national dataset on non-police ASB incidents and interventions, which will mean that we are then in a much better position to produce policy that fits with the issues that communities are facing up and down the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Seizure of motor vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 30—Seizure of motor vehicles: driving licence penalties—
“(1) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 59 (Vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance), after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) A person who is convicted of repeat offences under subsection (6) will have their driving licence endorsed with penalty points up to and including the revocation of their driving licence.’”
This new clause would make a person guilty of repeat offences of using vehicles in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance liable to penalty points on their driving licence or the revocation of their licence.
New clause 36—Removal of prohibition on entering a private dwelling to confiscate an off-road bike—
“(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 165A, after subsection (5)(c) insert—
‘(5A) In exercising their powers under subsection (5), a constable may enter a private dwelling house for the purposes of seizing an off-road bike’.
(3) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.
(4) In section 59(7), at end insert ‘, except where the intention is to seize an off-road bike.’”
This new clause would remove the prohibition on the police entering a private dwelling to confiscate an off-road bike that is driven without a licence, uninsured, or being used illegally.
New clause 37—Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance—
“(1) The Road Traffic Accident Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 165A, omit ‘within the period of 24 hours’.”
This new clause would remove the 24-hour time limit for the seizing of vehicles where a person has failed to produce a licence or evidence of insurance.
New clause 39—Duty to destroy seized off-road bikes—
“(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 165B(2), at end insert ‘;
(g) where the seized motor vehicle is an off-road bike, to ensure its destruction by the police’.
(3) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.
(4) In section 60(2), at end insert ‘;
(g) where the seized motor vehicle is an off-road bike, to ensure its destruction by the police.’”
New clause 40—Registration of off-road bikes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue a consultation on a registration scheme for the sale of off-road bikes.
(2) The consultation must consider the merits of—
(i) requiring sellers to record the details of buyers, and
(ii) verifying that buyers have purchased insurance.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on a registration scheme for the resale off-road bikes.
Dame Diana Johnson
We all accept that antisocial behaviour is unacceptable, which is why the Government are undertaking this ambitious programme of work to tackle it, including the proposals that we have discussed in Committee today. The antisocial use of vehicles, such as e-scooters and off-road bikes, causes havoc in local communities. It is not, as it has perhaps been described in the past, low-level behaviour. It leaves law-abiding citizens feeling intimidated and unsafe in their town centres, local parks and neighbourhoods, and it happens across the country.
I fully understand the strength of feeling among the public and Members, and their desire for the Government to take swift action. We will treat antisocial driving as the blight on society that it is. That is why we are making it easier for the police to seize offenders’ vehicles and dispose of them. Clearly, the Bill will strengthen the law so that vehicles being used antisocially can be seized by police immediately without the need to first provide a warning.
Matt Vickers
I rise to speak to clause 8 as well as new clauses 30 and 36, 37, 39 and 40, which were tabled by the Opposition. Clause 8 relates to the seizure of motor vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance. It will omit section 59(4) and (5) of the Police Reform Act 2002, removing the requirement to first issue a warning prior to seizing a vehicle being used in an antisocial manner.
This issue is of particular concern to me, and many hon. Members across the House. The Opposition welcome this measure to enable police to remove bikes without warning when using this power. Off-road bikes, e-bikes and other non-road-legal bikes are a huge concern to local communities across the country. The issue has been raised time and again in this place, with increasing regularity, in Westminster Hall debates, parliamentary questions, and private Member’s Bills, which have shown the huge and increasing impact it has on communities in different parts of the country, represented by MPs of different political parties.
The antisocial use of motor vehicles is a growing concern across the UK. When vehicles are driven recklessly, dangerously or in a disruptive manner, they can cause significant harm—both physical and psychological—to individuals and the wider community. The consequences of such behaviour range from increased public fear and distress to serious injury, and even loss of life.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
This is about the impact on not just communities and individuals but on farmers, livestock and rural businesses. In many cases people are seeing their livelihoods disrupted and their livestock injured or, at worst, killed by these bikes. What are the shadow Minister’s views on the need to tackle that?
Matt Vickers
This huge problem has many different faces in many different communities. Sometimes the problem is antisocial behaviour, and sometimes it is outright crime. We should be doing more, in terms of sanctions, to get these bikes off the streets.
One of the most immediate and severe dangers posed by antisocial use of motor vehicles is the threat to public safety. Reckless driving, illegal street racing and the misuse of off-road vehicles in pedestrian areas create an environment where accidents are not just possible but inevitable. Instances of vehicles being driven at high speed through residential streets or public spaces increase the likelihood of collisions with pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users. Children, the elderly and individuals with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to such risks. Parents often express concerns about their children’s safety when motorbikes or modified cars are recklessly raced through parks and playgrounds: areas that should be havens for relaxation and recreation.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that such antisocial behaviour is particularly intimidating because noise travels, creating the perception of vehicles going at speed and the fear of accidents? Even if there is no intent to cause antisocial behaviour or injury, the fact that reckless use of these vehicles can lead to accidents makes them menacing, particularly in the minds of older and more vulnerable people but also, frankly, for any resident in the vicinity.
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a sliding scale. There are people who use these things to intimidate and cause fear: driving around with a balaclava on their head, making as much of a racket as possible, and driving as close to people as possible in what should be a normal residential street, where families should be able to grow up. There is also the other extreme, where green spaces are torn apart by people recklessly creating a lot of havoc. But my hon. Friend is right: this behaviour intimidates and causes fear even where there is no intention to do so.
Even in cases where reckless driving does not result in physical harm, the psychological impact on communities cannot be overestimated. The noise and unpredictability of vehicles, especially motorbikes and modified cars, being misused can create a climate of fear. Residents often report feeling unsafe in their own neighbourhoods, deterred from using local parks or walking near roads where such behaviour is common. For many elderly individuals, loud and erratic vehicle activity can be particularly distressing. The sound of revving engines, screeching tyres and aggressive acceleration, especially at night, can cause severe anxiety, disrupting sleep patterns and diminishing overall quality of life for those affected.
Joe Robertson
It sounds as though my hon. Friend may have a greater problem with this sort of antisocial behaviour in his constituency, but that is not to say that, in constituencies such as mine where there is a problem, that problem will not get worse if these powers are not made available to the police. It is much harder to remove and stop a type of behaviour that has set in than to stop it ever happening in the first place. I hope he agrees that the powers will help all constituencies across the UK, regardless of the extent to which they are perceived to have a problem at the moment.
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend makes a good point. In my constituency, the problem has spread. It started on estates; people may make assumptions about where it might have started. But it is now everywhere. Areas filled with old people, and normal, quiet and well-heeled streets are now being tortured by it. It is also enabling crime on a massive scale, including drugs, child exploitation, theft and offences against the person.
Balaclavas and the speed of the vehicles are being used to evade detection and capture, and the teenagers are sometimes actively goading law enforcement. We have heard some of the public debate about direct contact to take people off the bikes, and we have also seen the tragic consequences when young people lose their lives as a result. While I welcome the change, I feel that we need to go much further in order to grip the problem. We cannot wait for another person to lose their life, or indeed for yet more people in communities across the country to lose their quality of life.
The problem is continuing to grow month on month. If anyone thinks I am being over the top, they can think again, or they could speak to a couple of MPs whose constituencies are affected. The problem is growing on a huge scale. Over recent years and, particularly, recent months, it has increasingly spread across my constituency. The police have been innovative in their efforts to tackle the issue of off-road bikes. Some forces have deployed officers on off-road bikes; others have used drones and other technology to trace where bikes are being held. All forces use an intelligence-led response and the powers they have to safely seize bikes when they are not being ridden.
I have spoken to many police officers, in my locality and across the country, about the issue. All are frustrated by the challenges of trying to deal with the problem. One such officer is neighbourhood police sergeant Gary Cookland, from my local police force in Cleveland, who submitted written evidence to the Committee. Gary is an incredibly hard-working police officer, who spends a large amount of time dealing with antisocial behaviour and, in particular, off-road bikes.
Gary explains that tackling the bikes is a high priority for all the communities he serves. He describes the bikes’ role in criminal activities and the misery they cause for so many families. He says that many of the vehicles are not roadworthy and not registered vehicles. The vehicles are sold without any restrictions and are readily available to any person who wishes to purchase one; they do not even need a driving licence. That has caused an influx of dangerous imports, a high number of which are afflicting our streets. He urges the Government to amend the Bill to include some form of regulation, and to include the need to supply the name of the owner, as well as an address and driving licence, at the point of sale.
Gary explains the ridiculous situation in which some of the bikes seized by police are then resold by them and returned to the streets. He talks about the fact that in some cases, when vehicles are deemed roadworthy, they can be reclaimed by people without relevant documentation such as an accurate or up-to-date registration. He points out that section 59 recoveries do not currently need all of those documents to be in order—only proof of ownership and payment of recovery fees. Sergeant Cookland puts forward a number of suggestions to help tackle the issue, including restrictions on fuel stations selling to vehicles that are clearly illegal and driven by people without helmets or driving licences. He also talks about restricting the use of balaclavas, which is now at epidemic levels in many communities and cause huge fear among law-abiding citizens.
Gary very much welcomes the change being put forward by the Government, as do I, but we need to think about the scale of the impact it can have. The clause changes just one piece of legislation used to seize the vehicles, but in practice the police use different powers within existing legislation. In this case, we are amending section 59 of the Police Reform Act, but many seizures are made under section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988—the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 revision, which I believe does not require notice or warning as it stands. It allows for the seizure of vehicles with no insurance. Obviously, many of the offending vehicles are not road legal anyway, so by default, they cannot be insured for use in public spaces. As I understand it, there are no records of what powers police forces are using to seize bikes, and to what scale. Therefore, it is difficult to determine with any confidence the scale of any impact the measure in the Bill will have. I am keen to hear from the Minister the size or scale of the impact that she anticipates it might have.
While it is a positive move, the provision is unlikely to have a sizeable impact on the problem. Therefore, informed by conversations with many on the frontline, I have tabled a number of new clauses on the subject in the hope that the Government might consider going further. I was certainly not afraid to question Ministers on this subject when my party was in office. I hope that my new clauses might be accepted as constructive suggestions to help solve what is a huge problem in so many areas across the country.
New clause 36 would remove the prohibition on the police entering a private dwelling to confiscate an off-road bike that is being driven without a licence, uninsured or being used illegally. Bizarrely, police officers are not able to seize these bikes under either the Road Traffic Act 1988 or the Police Reform Act 2002. A person can terrorise people, cause untold misery to local communities and use such a vehicle to evade law enforcement, but law enforcement cannot come into that person’s house and seize their off-road bike using existing powers. I hope people will see this as a logical measure; in fact, it was previously put forward by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), a Labour Member.
New clause 37 would amend section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to remove the 24-hour time limit for the seizing of vehicles where a person has failed to produce a licence or evidence of insurance. This is a simple change suggested by the neighbourhood police sergeant that could make a real and meaningful difference, helping those on the frontline to seize bikes with less restriction.
Harriet Cross
Earlier, we considered extending timelines from 48 hours to 72 hours to take in, for example, weekends and bank holidays. The new clause fits quite nicely with that, and would make sure that wherever we are in the week or year we are tackling this issue effectively.
Matt Vickers
Very much so. We can end up in a perverse situation where someone who has been seen riding one of these bikes just hides it for 24 hours, knowing that the police will have a scrap to go and recover it on that basis. At the time the provision was written, I do not think it would have been foreseen that this was where things would end. We did not write the Road Traffic Act with a view that we would need to seize bikes within 24 hours. It just was not a thing at the time. When that legislation was put forward, the problems with off-road bikes would never have even been considered. The new clause would bring the measure up to date and make it relevant to the challenges faced by modern policing. It would also prevent those who know the law from hiding a vehicle away for a period before returning to their illegal activity.
New clause 39 would amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Police Reform Act 2002 to create a duty to destroy seized off-road bikes. As frontline police officers have said, all too often they go to great lengths to seize these bikes, only to then see police forces sell them back on to the streets, often landing straight back into the hands of those from whom they were removed. Police forces use this as a form of revenue, but it is hugely damaging for the morale of many officers and hugely counterproductive in tackling the problem.
New clause 40 would invite the Secretary of State to issue a consultation on a registration scheme for the sale of off-road bikes. It would consider the merits of requiring those selling off-road bikes to record the details of those buying them and verify that they have any relevant insurance. Schemes exist for the registration of farm plant equipment. Crikey, we even have to register the likes of Microsoft Windows and various apps. Why should we not look at the merits of registering the sale of these dangerous bikes, which, when misused, are now enabling crime and causing misery in our communities?
New clause 30 would amend the Police Reform Act and make a person guilty of repeat offences of using vehicles in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance liable to penalty points on their driving licence or the revocation of their licence. This is not only a matter of enforcement; it is a matter of public safety, community wellbeing and ensuring that those who repeatedly flout the law face appropriate consequences. For too long, communities across the country have suffered from the reckless and inconsiderate use of motor vehicles. Whether it is illegal street racing, off-road bikes terrorising neighbourhoods or aggressive driving that endangers pedestrians and cyclists, the misuse of vehicles is a persistent issue that affects both urban and rural areas. The current legal framework allows for vehicle seizure, but does not go far enough in deterring repeat offenders. By introducing driving licence penalties, we send a clear message that persistent antisocial behaviour involving motor vehicles will have lasting consequences.
This new clause will support our police forces, who often already struggle to tackle the volume of complaints regarding reckless vehicle use. It presents an additional tool to discourage repeat offenders without having to repeatedly seize vehicles, which is often a short-term fix. I think most Members in the room would agree with that a driver facing potential disqualification is less likely to engage in dangerous behaviour than one who simply risks losing a single vehicle.
I hope that the Minister might consider these measures before the Committee comes to vote on them later, and would welcome any reflection she might have on them. Are the Government considering any other measures to tackle the problem, and is any financial support being offered to forces to help them to make the best use of technology in this area?
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I find myself agreeing with the shadow Minister on the menace that unauthorised, misused motorised vehicles cause to our society. Untaxed bikes are roaring through our housing estates. Just this weekend, I was taking my dog for a walk and three untaxed motorbikes were roaring up and down the road, where there were young children and families walking along. My dog got scared every time they went past.
These vehicles are a real menace. Illegal e-scooters whizz along the pavements. In Basildon, in south Essex, two young people were killed on an illegal e-scooter only recently. That is really sad: two young children had their lives ended on one of these illegal e-scooters. Modified electric bikes are also being dangerously driven on our roads. In my constituency, this is very much an urban problem, but the problem exists in different forms in rural areas. It affects all communities in one way or another.
There is also the issue of crime associated with illegal bikes and illegal e-scooters. The shadow Minister has lots of ideas on how to solve this problem, but during the last year of the Conservative Government, there were an average of 214 snatch thefts, often facilitated by e-bikes and e-scooters, every day on our streets in England and Wales. That was a 150% increase on the previous year. That shows the former Government’s massive disregard for law and order. The Conservative party now comes here with ideas for improvement, but we are actually taking action to stop this problem.
The fact that a warning is needed before these ridiculous illegal vehicles are seized creates an element of immunity for users—if they are going to get a warning, they will keep trying to push their luck—so I welcome the removal of that requirement. It is time to get tough in this area and give the police the powers they need to act promptly.
Harriet Cross
I completely agree that it is time to get serious about this issue. Will the hon. Member support our new clause that would give police the power to confiscate these vehicles from people’s houses?
David Burton-Sampson
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, but the key is to get these vehicles as soon as they are spotted on the streets.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Where the community comes in is a game changer, because it is all about intelligence. What will make the difference in seizing these off-road bikes is the police working with our local authorities and communities.
David Burton-Sampson
Absolutely. I could not have said it better myself.
We need to get this provision into law as quickly as possible, as part of this whole raft of changes. The police need to be able to act promptly when they see these ridiculous vehicles causing so many problems on our roads and in our communities.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
These vehicles are also having a huge impact in Riverview and Coldharbour, in my community. The police have been doing some good work with drones to follow these people to their home addresses. With the change in the law to allow police to seize the vehicles straight away, does my hon. Friend think that such interventions could support the police and communities in cracking down on the problem?
David Burton-Sampson
I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. Over the past couple of weeks, Essex police has focused particularly on using similar techniques to drive down the use of illegal e-scooters.
It is time to get tough. We need to act promptly when we come across these perpetrators and get these vehicles off the road. I am pleased with the change to the law that will be made by clause 8.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
First, I express general support for the clause. I welcome the measures to combat this menace in our communities, which we have heard about in the room here today and also in the Chamber on Second Reading. We have not only the risk of the antisocial behaviour itself, but the enabled crime that it is linked to such as phone snatching and similar offences. Again, it is welcome to try to reduce those incidents where possible.
This weekend, I was in a discussion with a resident who talked about the impact of illegal off-road bikes in Overton Park in my constituency. They talked about their fear that if one of those vehicles hit their child—they are often not even full-sized off-road vehicles, but small, children’s off-road bikes—it could cause serious injury. There is a real fear among residents.
We also have an issue around illegal e-bikes being driven on our high streets, often in zones shared between pedestrians and cycles. Heavier, illegally modified bikes are used often by food delivery companies that absolve themselves of any responsibility because the bikers are all independent contractors or independent riders. The companies take no responsibility and have no interest in cracking down, so enforcement is left to the local police. They have problems spotting whether the vehicles are illegally modified and then there is the issue of police resources. Many of us sound like a broken record on this: the powers are all very well, but the challenge is actually having the resources in our neighbourhood policing units to enforce them.
I have a concern not only linked to the manpower required to police the bikes, but on some of the details and practicalities of the powers, so I would welcome further details from the Minister. Will there be any process of appeal for the individual if the bike or vehicle is taken away in the first instance without a warning? Would it just be down to a single officer who says a particular offence is antisocial? I have had people contact me with concerns because they have been stopped in a vehicle for fast acceleration or for driving in a particular way on a single occasion. They worry that under the powers granted in the Bill their vehicle could be immediately confiscated. They feel that the powers might be misused by individual police officers, so there is a concern over that process, and how the power given to a police officer can be used in a single instance.
Would vehicles be fully traced and tracked to see whether they are stolen? We should ensure that we do not crush or dispose of vehicles that can be returned to their owners. Would the powers be enforced on the owner alone? If a vehicle had been taken without permission or was being used without the knowledge of the owner, would there be a process to ensure that the vehicle was not used again without the understanding of the owner? The removal and disposal would seem to be an overreach in that circumstance.
On the timescale of disposal and how that would be done, I heard the concerns about the immediate re-selling of vehicles back to the wrong ’uns they were taken off in the first place. It is a valid concern. Will that disposal mean cubing it and putting it in the recycling, or does it mean selling it on? What constraints will be put on the police to deal with vehicles that are taken?
My understanding of the current guidance is that warnings are necessary only where repeated tickets are impractical. Can the Minister talk about where the existing description of “where impractical” is insufficient for police officers? In discussions with the police, I imagine that the phrase “where impractical” has been identified as problematic. Can we draw out a bit why it is causing issues?
There is a question around whether the powers would apply to problem areas, particularly in central London where high-powered, very expensive vehicles have been reported as causing noise nuisance and alarm to local residents. We have all read stories of vehicles being imported from the middle east by foreign owners, and these vehicles causing noise nuisance in central London, in the Kensington and Chelsea areas. Would the powers allow those vehicles, which are often very high-value vehicles, to be taken without a warning in the first place? I think there is an appetite from many for that to be the case, but there would be concerns over the sheer value of those vehicles and how the police would deal with that.
I find some of the new clauses interesting and there is actually a lot of sense in many of them. Again, I would be interested to hear the Minister explain why each power they provide for is either undesirable or already covered in the Bill.
Joe Robertson
It is good to hear that there is a universal view—at least among those who have spoken—about the intimidating nature of driving motor vehicles in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance. I am pleased that the Bill does not require that to be the intent of the use of the vehicle; if there is flagrant disregard for others, that behaviour is captured here and could and should lead to the seizing of that vehicle. There are clearly issues with existing law that are improved here, not least seizing a vehicle without warning. Plainly, people who use vehicles in this way are likely to be quite clever at avoiding the system taking their vehicle when they are warned that they are being watched and have been seen. Removing the necessity for a warning is welcome.
There are a number of issues that are not dealt with in the Bill. I will not repeat the words of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, but I wish to highlight the inability to seize a vehicle once it has entered the home. Again, the sorts of people who are using vehicles in this way will be quite clever about protecting their property when they see the police coming. Can the Minster help with this idea of the home; if a bike is removed into a garage, for example, can it still be seized? Does it matter if that garage is integral to the home or separate from it? Any loopholes that can be closed for those driving their vehicles in this way to avoid having them seized would be welcome.
The shadow Minister and the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, both referred to the idea of a vehicle being seized and then resold—and possibly sold back to the perpetrator of the antisocial behaviour in the first place. That is plainly ridiculous. Crushing these vehicles, with all the caveats around ensuring that the vehicle belongs to the person who had been using it in that way—that they were not joyriding, leading to somebody else’s property getting crushed—is a sensible way forward.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I want to make a brief point about the noise nuisance of vehicles. We are rightly focusing a lot of remarks on how dangerous these vehicles are for ordinary citizens trying to go about their day, but to reinforce a point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, about modified exhausts, I will share mine and my constituents’ annoyance at these things. It is unreasonable that someone in their own house with their windows closed should have to listen to a vehicle going by. Someone going for a walk on a nice sunny day has to listen to this antisocial behaviour, which has no benefit at all, as far as I can tell, in terms of the quality of the vehicle.
Harriet Cross
If one way to help reduce the likelihood that someone in their private house with the windows closed would not have to listen to these vehicles—as no one should—was to have powers to seize them from inside someone’s house, would the hon. Member support that?
David Taylor
I am not convinced. I am primarily talking about big vehicles such as SUVs and other cars, which are not often inside garages—not many people have garages these days.
I really hope the Bill enables, and gives confidence to, the police to take more action against modified exhausts because, unfortunately, they do not always prioritise this particular nuisance.
Dame Diana Johnson
The shadow Minister and other members of the Committee have set out clearly how concerned we are about the antisocial use of vehicles and the real problems they are causing communities all around the country. I think we can all identify with the menace they cause in our parks, on our pavements and in our streets and neighbourhoods. Certainly, as the nights get lighter, the problem seems to get worse. In Orchard Park in my constituency, we seem to be plagued by mini motos causing noise nuisance and intimidating local people, making the situation really unpleasant for people trying to enjoy the good weather as we move into spring and summer. I fully appreciate all of that, and as the shadow Minister pointed out, there are also real issues about the way vehicles are used for crime—drugs, theft and everything else.
It is absolutely right to say that the police have been as innovative as they can be in the use of drones or off-road bikes. The police may, where appropriate, pursue motorbikes and off-road bikes being ridden in an antisocial manner and may employ tactical options to bring the vehicles to a stop. The College of Policing’s authorised professional practice on roads policing and police pursuits provides guidance for police taking part in such pursuits. However, the APP makes it clear that the pursuit should be necessary, proportionate and balanced against the threat, risk and harm of the pursuit to the person being pursued, the officers involved and others who may be affected.
Luke Taylor
Has the Minister considered additional funding and support for the police? The suggestion is that those actions—the pursuit and physical taking of the vehicle—would require more resource and training, and that is a point that I will make repeatedly. Does the Minister agree that that is important and that support will be provided?
Dame Diana Johnson
An additional £1.2 billion is going into policing—from today, actually—for this financial year. So there is a clear commitment from the Government to fund police forces. I understand that the police face many challenges, but financial support is certainly going in. The work of the College of Policing in setting out best practice—that authorised professional practice—is really important in giving police officers confidence to take the steps they need to in order to deal with antisocial behaviour.
The other point I wanted to make is that work is being undertaken by the Home Office and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory to progress research and development on a novel technology solution to safely stop e-bikes and enhance the ability of the police to prevent them from being used to commit criminal acts.
Matt Vickers
Of course we want more resources—we will not play politics and debate that—but using direct contact to get someone off one of these bikes comes with huge consequences for the police officers who take that risk. There are parts of the country where young people have lost their lives—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam talked about “wrong ‘uns” riding these bikes, but they are often somebody’s son—so this comes with a huge risk and a huge life cost. Of course police officers want to bring that to an end, but the solution is usually an intelligence-led response that means that bikes are picked up when they are parked in a garage or—well, not parked in somebody’s house.
Dame Diana Johnson
The shadow Minister makes an important point. This must be about intelligence-led policing, but there will be circumstances in which police officers find themselves having to pursue an individual. There is clear guidance from the College of Policing on how police officers should do that. It should be necessary, proportionate and balanced. Of course, we want to keep police officers safe and make sure that the person being pursued is not at risk of being injured or losing their life, as in the very sad cases the shadow Minister mentioned.
It is worth pointing out the powers available to the police to tackle the misuse of off-road bikes and other vehicles. The Police Reform Act 2002 provides the police with the power to seize vehicles that are driven carelessly or inconsiderately on-road or without authorisation off-road, and in a manner causing, or likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance. Section 59 of the Act enables the police to put a stop to this dangerous and antisocial behaviour. The seizure depends not on prosecution for, or proof of, these offences, but only on reasonable belief as to their commission.
Under section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the police are also empowered to seize vehicles driven without insurance or a driving licence. Under section 165B, they have the power to make regulations regarding the disposal of seized vehicles. The police can also deal with antisocial behaviour involving vehicles, such as off-road bikes racing around estates or illegally driving across public open spaces, in the same way as they deal with any other antisocial behaviour.
A number of questions were asked, but I want to deal first with the issue of when a vehicle is seized and what happens to the owner. When the police seize a vehicle, they will not immediately crush it. They need to spend time finding the registered owner in case the vehicle was stolen. Before reclaiming a vehicle, the individual must prove that they are the legal owner of the vehicle. They may be asked to prove that they have valid insurance and a driving licence. We will be consulting in the spring on proposals to allow the police to dispose of seized vehicles more quickly.
I will now turn to the constructive suggestions in the shadow Minister’s new clauses. New clause 30 would render antisocial drivers who fail to stop liable to penalty points on their licence for repeat offending. It is an offence under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 for a driver using a vehicle carelessly or antisocially to fail to stop when instructed to do so by a police officer. Offenders are liable for fines of up to £1,000, which we believe is a more effective deterrent. The police may also, where appropriate, issue penalty points for careless or inconsiderate driving or speeding, so antisocial drivers may already be liable for points. I entirely agree with the shadow Minister that the behaviour of antisocial drivers should not be tolerated. That is why we are making it easier for the police to seize their vehicles, and we will consider how to make it easier for seized vehicles to be disposed of, which we believe will be even more of a deterrent.
New clause 36 would permit the police to enter private dwellings to seize an off-road bike where it has been used antisocially or without licence. As I have already set out, the Government are keen to make it as easy as possible for the police to take these bikes off our streets. We do not, however, believe that giving the police powers to enter a private dwelling for the purpose of seizing an off-road bike is necessary or proportionate. The bar for entry to private dwellings is, rightly, extremely high. Police currently have a range of specific powers to seize vehicles being used antisocially or without a licence or insurance, and can already enter property, including gardens, garages and sheds, which is where they are most likely to be store, to seize them.
The police also have a general power of entry, search and seizure under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That means that when police are lawfully on the premises, they may seize any item reasonably believed to be evidence of any offence, where it is necessary to do so. That would include, for example, off-road bikes believed to have been used in crimes such as robbery. Magistrates may grant warrants to search for evidence in relation to indictable offences, and police may in some circumstances enter properties without a warrant being required—for example, to arrest someone for an indictable offence.
Later on in our deliberations, we will come to clause 93, which sets out the right of the police to enter a premises containing electronically tagged stolen goods when the GPS shows that that equipment—or whatever it is, and that includes a bike—with that electronic tag on it is in there. Police officers will be able to search without a warrant, on the basis that that is a stolen item. That is something to think about when we debate clause 93.
Having said all that, we believe that the measures we have brought forward to make it easier for the police to seize off-road bikes at the point of offending, as a number of my hon. Friends have discussed, are a better deterrent. That is intended to suppress the offending immediately, before it escalates, and to deliver swift justice.
New clause 37 would remove the 24-hour limit within which the police may seize an unlicensed or uninsured vehicle. Currently, the police may seize a vehicle that is being driven without a licence or insurance, either at the roadside or within 24 hours of being satisfied that the vehicle is unlicensed or uninsured. The point of that seizure power for uninsured vehicles is to instantly prevent the uninsured driver from driving. There is a separate penalty for the offence: if the vehicle is still uninsured after 24 hours, the police can seize the vehicle and give the driver a second uninsured driving penalty.
New clause 39 would expressly permit the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to ensure that the police destroy any off-road bikes they have seized. Currently, the police may dispose of seized vehicles after holding them for a certain period, but they are not required to destroy any off-road bikes. We are considering how we can make changes to the secondary legislation to allow the police to dispose of seized vehicles more quickly—to reduce reoffending and prevent those vehicles from ending up back in the hands of those who should not have them. However, we do not believe that we should restrict the ability of the police to dispose of off-road bikes as they see fit. They may, for example, auction them off to recover costs, which would not be possible under the terms of new clause 39.
Finally, new clause 40 would require the Government to consult on a registration scheme for the sale of off-road bikes, requiring sellers to record the details of buyers and to verify that they hold valid insurance. Of course, antisocial behaviour associated with off-road bikes is completely unacceptable and, as I have set out, we are taking strong measures to deal with this menace. The police already have a suite of powers to deal with those who do not use their off-road bikes responsibly. It is an offence to use an unlicensed vehicle on a public road, or off-road without the permission of the landowner, and the police can immediately seize vehicles being used in that way.
As the Committee will know, the police are operationally independent, and the Government cannot instruct them to take action in particular cases of antisocial vehicle use, but I hope I have been able to set out, and to reassure the shadow Minister, how seriously we take this unacceptable behaviour and how much we value the role the police have in tackling it.
I would also like to recognise the strength of feeling in the Committee and outside about this behaviour and the disruptive effect it has on communities. I recently met the Roads Minister and we agreed our commitment to a cross-Government approach to tackling this unacceptable antisocial use of vehicles and of course to improving road safety. I am really keen to take forward considerations about how we can go further, outside of the scope of this Bill.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move amendment 35 in clause 9, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
“(c) section 33B (Section 33 offences: clean-up costs).”.
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State’s guidance on flytipping makes the person responsible for fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, liable for the costs of cleaning up.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 18, line 5, at end insert—
“(5A) Within a month of any guidance, or revised guidance, issued under this section being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must ensure that a motion is tabled, and moved, in both Houses of Parliament to approve the guidance.”.
Clause stand part.
New clause 24—Points on driving licence for fly tipping—
“(1) The Environmental Protection Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section 33, subsection 8(a) at end insert—
‘and endorse their driving record with 3 penalty points;’.”
This new clause would add penalty points to the driving licence of a person convicted of a fly-tipping offence.
Matt Vickers
The clause seeks to address a scourge that affects all communities across Britain and all our constituencies. Fly-tipping is an inherent problem, and I welcome any provisions to help tackle this costly and environmentally damaging issue.
The clause is a step in seeking to combat this growing issue. It has been a persistent problem in the UK, causing environmental damage, undermining public health and placing an economic burden on local authorities, which are responsible for cleaning up illegal waste. Empowering local councils to take more immediate and decisive action against fly-tipping is key to making enforcement more efficient and consistent. With more resources, authority and tools, councils will be better equipped to prevent fly-tipping, address existing problems and ensure that offenders are held accountable.
Although fly-tipping is largely seen as a waste disposal issue, it is also an environmental one. Waste that is illegally dumped has far-reaching effects on local ecosystems, water sources and wildlife. Existing laws do not always capture the broader environmental harm caused by fly-tipping. Previous Governments have looked to make progress on tackling fly-tipping by increasing the fines and sanctions available to combat it.
In the evidence session, there was some criticism of the measure in the Bill, with the suggestion that it was just guidance and could be considered patronising by some councils. Although I understand that view, doing more to ensure that local authorities are aware of their responsibilities and the powers available to them by providing meaningful guidance can only be helpful.
I am sure we can all agree that fly-tipping is a scourge and a blight on our communities. Many of us will have some fantastic litter-picking groups in our constituencies —I know I do. I thoroughly enjoy getting out with the Thornaby litter pickers, who do an amazing job. It is great to see people coming together to better their communities, but it is a sad reality that more and more groups of selfless volunteers need to form because people are sick of the endless amounts of rubbish strewn in our streets and by our roads.
Britain has a long-established record of trying to tackle fly-tipping and litter. Keep Britain Tidy was set up as a result of a conference of 26 organisations in 1955. Today, it continues that hard and important work.
Fly-tipping is a significant financial burden on local councils. The annual cost of clearing up illegally dumped waste in the UK is estimated to be more than £50 million. That includes the direct costs of waste removal, disposal fees and the administrative costs involved in managing fly-tipping incidents. According to data for 2019-20 published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in that year alone local authorities in England spent approximately £11 million on clearing up over 1 million reported fly-tipping incidents. That money could be better spent on frontline services such as filling potholes, or on providing community services. Instead, it is used to clean up after those who have no respect for others. The Opposition have tabled amendment 35, which I hope the Committee will support, to complement and strengthen the Bill. Fly-tipping, as defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, is the illegal disposal of waste on land or in public spaces, but some types of fly-tipping are defined less clearly. For example, small-scale littering, such as dumping a few bags of rubbish on a roadside or on private property, may not always be captured by existing laws.
Amendment 35 seeks to define some of the guidance that the Bill will require the Secretary of State to set. The Opposition believe it is important that the heart of the legislation’s approach should be make the person responsible for fly-tipping liable for the costs of cleaning up, rather than the landowner. The amendment would require that to be a feature of the guidance, making it loud and clear to all our local authorities that such powers are available to them.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that this might be important for rural communities, and particularly for farmers? Farmers in my constituency tell me that they struggle with being responsible for clearing up after other people’s fly-tipping, for which they have to use their own time and resources.
Matt Vickers
I completely agree. Many farmers in my patch would say exactly the same. When rubbish is dumped in a park or local authority area, it gets cleaned up, at huge cost to the taxpayer, but when it is dumped beyond the farm gate, or in a field owned by a farmer—or anyone else with any scale of land in a rural area—too often they have to pick up the cost, and all the consequences beyond cost.
Currently, fly-tipping offences typically result in a fine and, in some cases, a criminal record. However, repeat offenders are often penalised in a way that does not sufficiently discourage further violations. The fines can sometimes be seen as a mere cost of doing business, especially by individuals or companies who repeatedly dump waste, often for profit. The Opposition’s new clause 24 proposes adding penalty points to the driving licence of any individual convicted of a fly-tipping offence. It is a significant proposal that aims to deter people from illegally dumping waste by linking that to driving penalties, which would impact an individual’s driving record, and potentially their ability to drive. Our new clause shows that we are serious about tackling the issue of fly-tipping. By linking fly-tipping to driving penalties, the new clause would create an additional layer of consequence for those involved in illegal dumping. People with driving licences may be more cautious if they know that their ability to drive could be impacted.
I note amendment 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, but it is unclear what that amendment would achieve. I am concerned that it would not complement clause 9, and would be counterproductive. The requirement for parliamentary approval of guidance within a month could lead to delays in the implementation of important policies or updates, particularly if there are disagreements or procedural delays in Parliament. I would not want anything to impede, by overreach, our ability to tackle and curtail fly-tipping.
Luke Taylor
We welcome measures to combat fly-tipping. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset has already mentioned, the problem is particularly concerning for rural landowners and farmers, who often have to deal with the cost of this environmental crime on their land. Amendment 4 intends to give parliamentary oversight and democratic control over the guidance. That is a good thing, which we should all support. However, I understand the concerns about delays. I think there is a balance between accountability, parliamentary approval and delays. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I am glad to see clause 9 because, as several hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have mentioned, fly-tipping is a particular problem in many rural constituencies. In Berkshire, where the majority of my seat lies, there were 7,700 instances of fly-tipping in 2023-24. We are a small county, but that is 20 reports a day. In the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, where most of my constituency is, the figure rose to 1,902 in the past year, which is up 52% on the year before, when we had 1,249. The issue is of greater prevalence than in the past, and I welcome the Government including clauses to try to make a difference.
We have also seen a change in the nature of fly-tipping. Two or three years ago, in Berkshire, most of it was on council land, in car parks or parks, in the hope that the local authority might pick it up, but now we see what might be called smaller-scale highways incidents, with the dumping of waste on public roads, pavements or grass verges. In the past year, 778 of the 900 instances in the royal borough consisted of what were described as a car boot or less. To me, that indicates a prevalence of individuals or waste from small-scale dumpsters, perhaps from small businesses—perhaps we are seeing fewer large-scale illegal waste operations. I put that very much in the bucket of antisocial behaviour.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West and the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said, that is a particular concern to local farmers. I will quote Colin Rayner, a constituent of mine and a farmer. I will first declare an interest, that Colin is a personal friend and the president of Windsor Conservatives, but he is well placed and I pick him for his expertise rather than my relationship with him. To quote the Maidenhead Advertiser, he said that
“the family farms have incidents of fly-tipping every day, from a bag of garden waste to lorry loads of waste…‘We have made our farms into medieval forts to try to reduce large loads of waste been tipped on the farms’.”
He has also spoken to me about the cost to his business of extra security and, indeed, of the cleaning up.
That last point is why I welcome the amendment moved by the Opposition to make the cost sit with the offender and not with the landowner. It is not appropriate that Mr Rayner and his companies pay; the person who is offending should. Also, new clause 24 on driving licences, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, seems to be a way to get at just such small-scale operations. That might be something that is tangible and real to a small business or an individual doing the fly-tipping. I absolutely welcome the amendment and the new clause.
When the guidance comes forward, I encourage the Minister to be as tough as possible—which I think is her intent, but perhaps she will speak to that in her wind-up. We should use the power to search and seize vehicles in the case of persistent offenders. I want to see serious fixed penalty notices for people caught fly-tipping, and I want extra powers of investigation and prosecution. I will welcome the Minister’s comments.
Dr Sullivan
Fly-tipping is a blight on our communities—I think we all share that view. The misconception is that fly-tipping is small scale, but it is committed by criminals and unscrupulous small waste-removal businesses that can have links to organised crime. It is a huge money-making machine. It is an issue that local authorities have had to grapple with for many decades. In many cases, it has been worsened by environmental measures and stronger recycling and waste collection rules.
I pay tribute and give credit to my local authority, Gravesham borough council. In 2019, it set out a bold antisocial behaviour strategy, which looked at fly-tipping at its source and at its heart. In 2020, the council set up the environment enforcement team, which has used a variety of different techniques to prevent, to tackle, to educate and to prosecute. Since then, 386 community protection warnings, 50 fly-tipping fines and 12 duty-of-care fines for waste carriage breaches have been issued, as well as 39 cases resulting in successful prosecutions in court.
The council and its media team work closely with Kent police to raise awareness and deter potential offenders. I would like to put on record my thanks to its team. The council was able to take that action because of past legislation, including the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. I could go on, but there are now many legislative options for local authorities to tackle the issue and take people to court. Where fines are handed out, there is an issue with the backlog in the courts, but I know that the Minister is looking at streamlining some of those court issues, which arose from the neglect of the last 14 years.
Harriet Cross
I welcome the intention of the Bill to tighten up regulations for fly-tipping, which is such a blight in our communities up and down the country. I know that the Bill refers directly to England, but up in my constituency of Gordan and Buchan, in Aberdeenshire, it is just as prevalent. It is a growing concern across the country. As the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor said, it has both an environmental and antisocial impact, but the impact on community cohesion is particularly important. It can be seen as a gateway, as once there are instances of fly-tipping, they escalate and escalate.
There is an example from my constituency that always sticks in my mind. There are quite a few mountain passes in and around my area. One day, I drove over one and there was a bath at the top. The next time I drove past, there was a bath and a sofa, and then it was a bath, a sofa and a bike. Eventually, I could have probably furnished a house and garden after just a few trips up and over this pass. That is how this escalates. Once incidents start happening, people think, “It’s there already, so I’ll just keep adding to it.” We must crack down on it.
We must also recognise the impact on landowners and farmers. It cannot be fair that someone who farms land has to deal with fly-tipping, on top of everything else. This is not to conflate two issues, but we have heard a lot in the last year about how farming is low on profits, at about 1%. We cannot expect farmers to bear the burden of having to put some of that money into clearing up someone else’s mess. That is why I welcome amendment 35, which seeks to ensure that, where and when perpetrators of fly-tipping are identified, they are made to pay the cost of clearing it up. That is not a burden that anyone other than the perpetrator should have to face.
Will the Minister say what conversations have been had with the devolved nations? If people are putting waste into the back of a van and driving it around, the borders are no barriers, whether they are on one side of the Scottish or Welsh border or the other. This is a cross-border issue. What implication might this have, and what conversations has the Minister had with her Scottish and Welsh counterparts to tackle this across the board?
Joe Robertson
A lot of good comments have been made on this provision in the Bill, which I do not wish to repeat. I note the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan about consistency with the devolved nations and how people seeking to dump do not recognise borders. I can probably assure her that fly-tippers on the Isle of Wight are not likely to reach her constituency in order to perpetrate their dumping, but if the law in Scotland is not equally as strong, who knows what lengths people will go to? I want to reinforce that point, and I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept this amendment to make the guidance as strong as possible around the fly-tipper being the payer. Clearly, we are all victims of fly-tipping, but the landowner in particular is a victim. It is completely unacceptable to any right-minded individual that the landowner should pay the costs of being a victim of a crime. I urge the Government to accept amendment 35 and make the guidance as strong as possible on that point.
Dame Diana Johnson
This has been an interesting debate. We have been up mountain passes, we have been on the Isle of Wight and we have had the shadow Minister out with the Thornaby litter pickers. This debate has been very visual. Fly-tipping is a really serious crime that is blighting communities. It is placing a huge burden on taxpayers and businesses, and it harms the environment. Unfortunately, it is all too common, with local councils reporting 1.15 million incidents in 2023-24.
I want to address the issue of what we are doing in rural areas and on private land. Through the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Countryside Alliance and local authorities to share good practice on tackling fly-tipping on private land. Where there is sufficient evidence, councils can prosecute fly-tippers.
In relation to the issue of serious and organised waste crime, the Environment Agency hosts the joint unit for waste crime, which is a multi-agency taskforce that brings together His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency, the police, waste regulators from across the UK and other operational partners to share intelligence and disrupt and prevent serious organised waste crime. Since 2020, the joint unit for waste crime has worked with over 130 partner organisations, and led or attended 324 multi-agency days of action resulting in 177 associated arrests.
On the issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, we have engaged closely with the devolved Government across the Bill. As she will know, fly-tipping is a devolved matter in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so accordingly this provision applies only in England.
We want to see consistent and effective enforcement action at the centre of local efforts to combat the issue of fly-tipping. That will ensure not only that those who dump rubbish in our communities face the consequences, but that would-be perpetrators are deterred. Councils currently have a range of enforcement powers. Those include prosecution, which can lead to a significant fine, community sentences, or even imprisonment. They can also issue fixed penalty notices of up to £1,000 and seize the vehicles suspected of being used for fly-tipping.
The use of those powers, however, varies significantly across the country, with some councils taking little or no enforcement action at all. Indeed, just two councils—West Northamptonshire and Kingston upon Thames —accounted for the majority of vehicles seized in 2023-24. DEFRA also regularly receives reports of local authorities exercising their enforcement powers inappropriately, for example against householders who leave reusable items at the edge of their property for others to take for free. Through the Bill we intend to enable the Secretary of State to issue fly-tipping enforcement guidance that councils must have regard to.
I want to be clear that the guidance is not about setting top-down targets. We want to empower councils to respond to fly-tipping in ways that work for their communities, while making Government expectations crystal clear. The guidance, which must be subject to consultation, will likely cover areas such as policy and financial objectives of enforcement, how to operate a professional service, the use of private enforcement firms, and advice on how to respond in certain circumstances. Local authorities will, of course, be key stakeholders in the development of the guidance; after all, they are on the frontline in the fight against fly-tipping, and we want to ensure that the guidance provides them with the advice that they will find most helpful.
Amendment 35 aims to ensure that the person responsible for fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, is liable for the costs of cleaning up. I recognise the significant burden that clearing fly-tipped waste places on landowners. It is already the case that, where a local authority prosecutes a fly-tipper and secures a conviction, the court can make a cost order so that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. That is made clear in section 33B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, although sentencing is of course a matter for the courts. Guidance on presenting court cases produced by the national fly-tipping prevention group, which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chairs, explains that prosecutors should consider applying for compensation for the removal of waste. We will consider building on that advice in the statutory guidance issued under clause 9. We also committed, in our manifesto, to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess that they create. DEFRA will provide further details on that commitment in due course.
Amendment 4 would introduce a requirement for any fly-tipping guidance issued under clause 9 to be subject to parliamentary approval. I do not believe that there is any need for such guidance to be subject to any parliamentary procedure beyond a requirement to lay the guidance before Parliament. That is because the guidance will provide technical and practical advice to local authorities on how to conduct enforcement against fly-tipping and breaches of the household waste duty of care. The guidance will not conflict with, or alter the scope of, the enforcement powers, so I do not believe that it requires parliamentary oversight.
The requirement to lay the guidance before Parliament, without any further parliamentary procedure, is consistent with the position taken with the analogous power in section 88B of the 1990 Act and the recommendation of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the then Environment Bill in the 2021-22 Session. We will, of course, consider carefully any recommendations by that Committee in relation to this clause.
New clause 24 seeks to add three penalty points to the driving licence of a person convicted of a fly-tipping offence. As I have said, fly-tipping is a disgraceful act and those who dump rubbish in our communities should face the full force of the law, which could include spot fines of up to £1,000, prosecution or vehicle seizure. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, will appreciate that sentencing is a matter for the courts and that to direct them to place penalty points on the driving licence of a convicted fly-tipper would undermine their ability to hand down a sentence proportionate to the offence, but I will ask my DEFRA counterpart who is responsible for policy on fly-tipping to consider the benefits of enabling endorsement with penalty points for fly-tippers.
I also stress that there is an existing power for local councils to seize a vehicle suspected of being used for fly-tipping. If a council prosecutes, the court can order the transferral to the council of the ownership rights to the vehicle, under which the council can keep, sell or dispose of it.
I hope that, in the light of my explanations, the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Sutton and Cheam will be content to withdraw their amendments and to support clause 9.
Matt Vickers
It would be remiss of us to have this debate today and not mention that the Great British spring clean is happening at the moment, thanks to Keep Britain Tidy. I thought I would just put that out there; the Minister need not respond.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 10, page 18, line 38, leave out “4” and insert “14”.
This amendment would increase the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four to 14 years. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation recommended an increase in his review following the Southport attack.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 9.
Clause stand part.
Clause 11 stand part.
New clause 44—Individual preparation for mass casualty attack—
“(1) A person commits an offence, if, with the intention of—
(a) killing two or more people, or
(b) attempting to kill two or more people,
they engage in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to their intention.
(2) A person found guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.”
This new clause would allow the police to intervene early to prevent attacks, like in terrorism cases, without causing unintended consequences for wider counter-terrorism efforts. It gives effect to a recommendation by the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation following the Southport attack.
Matt Vickers
Clause 10, which creates new section 139AB of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, makes it illegal to possess a bladed or offensive weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence, cause fear of violence, inflict serious damage to property or enable another to do so. A “relevant weapon” for the purpose of the clause includes a bladed article covered by section 139 of the 1988 Act or an offensive weapon within the meaning of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. Additionally, the clause amends section 315 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to bring the offence under the mandatory minimum sentencing regime for repeat offenders, ensuring consistency with existing laws on knife possession and threats involving weapons.
Clause 11 amends the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to increase the maximum penalty for manufacturing, selling, hiring or lending prohibited weapons. In England and Wales, those offences are currently summary-only, which means they can be tried only in the magistrates court. The Bill makes them triable either way, meaning they could be tried in either the magistrates court or the Crown court.
Offensive weapons, in particular bladed articles and corrosive substances, have become one of the most pressing concerns in our fight against violent crime. The alarming rise in the use of these dangerous items in criminal activities has not only led to an increase in injuries and fatalities, but instilled fear and a sense of insecurity in communities across the country. The harm caused by these weapons, from knives to acid, is devastating; victims of attacks are often left with life-altering injuries and long-term psychological trauma.
I am sure that all Members, regardless of their party, are united in their determination to ensure that the strictest rules are in place to limit the use of such weapons and ensure that those possessing them feel the full force of the law. It is crucial that we ensure the provisions in the Bill are fair, effective and targeted. The Opposition amendments propose key constructive changes that would strengthen and complement the Bill by ensuring that it is balanced, focused and respectful of individual rights, while still taking robust action to combat the possession and use of offensive weapons in our communities.
Offensive weapons, including knives, blades and corrosive substances, have become tools of shameless violence, often used in serious criminal activities that devastate individuals and communities. We cannot help but remember the countless victims of stabbings in recent years. They are all too many and all too tragic—from PC Keith Palmer, who died in the line of duty protecting Members in this place, to Sir David Amess, one of the gentlest and most genuinely kind individuals you could ever wish to meet, who was barbarically murdered. Those two brave men were murdered not simply by evil and vile terrorists, but by evil and vile terrorists wielding bladed weapons.
I know that tragic instances of stabbing have taken place in the constituencies of many Members, with young lives extinguished or endangered by these weapons. Just recently, a group of individuals armed with knives forcibly entered a private event at Elm Park primary school in London. The assailants assaulted and robbed attendees, and a 16-year-old boy and a 19-year-old man were hospitalised after being stabbed. Twelve individuals were arrested in connection with the incident. One of the most shocking facts is that the youngest of those arrested was just 12 years old.
Already in 2025, there have been far too many cases involving knives and the extinguishing of young lives. In February, a 15-year-old boy was fatally stabbed at All Saints high school in Sheffield. He was attacked three times on his way to lessons—attacks that were witnessed by other students. The emergency services were called and, although the boy was taken to hospital, he succumbed to his injuries shortly afterwards. A fellow 15-year-old student was arrested on suspicion of murder and is in police custody.
Our aim with amendment 39 is not to obstruct but to help strengthen the Bill, so that such cases can never be repeated. The Bill includes several provisions to criminalise the possession of these items in public spaces and introduces serious penalties for individuals caught with them. The goal is to deter violent crimes and reduce the risk posed by such weapons on our streets. The amendment would make a crucial change to clause 10 by increasing the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four years to 14 years. The amendment is not only justified but necessary to ensure that our laws properly reflect the severity of such offences.
The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation recommended an increase in the maximum sentence following the Southport attack. It is clear to many that the current four-year maximum does not adequately address the serious threat posed by individuals who arm themselves with the intent to cause harm. By increasing the penalty to 14 years, we would send a clear and unequivocal message that such dangerous behaviour will not be tolerated, and that those who pose a risk to the public will face appropriately severe consequences.
Weapons in the hands of those with violent intent represent a grave danger to both individuals and society at large. The possession of a weapon with the clear purpose of causing harm, whether in a terror-related incident, gang violence or a premeditated attack, is an extreme and deliberate act. It is right, therefore, that the law provides sufficient deterrence and punishment. A 14-year maximum would better reflect the devastation that these crimes can cause and align sentences with those for similarly grave offences such as attempted murder and serious violent crimes.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
I rise in support of clauses 10 and 11 and to speak against amendment 39 and new clause 44, well-intentioned though I am sure they are. The shadow Minister mentioned Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. I want to focus briefly on his March report, to which I believe the shadow Minister was referring.
The explanatory statements to amendment 39 and new clause 44 state—I paraphrase—that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation recommended an increase in sentence in his review following the Southport attack. His report, titled “Independent Review on Classification of Extreme Violence Used in Southport Attack on 29 July 2024” and dated 13 March this year, is one that I am sure many colleagues across the House have read. I put on the record my sympathies to everybody involved in that heinous attack and to the victims of the other attacks that the shadow Minister mentioned—and, of course, we think of Jo Cox, a friend much missed and loved in all parts of the House.
There is a risk of misunderstanding in the amendments, albeit I am sure they are well-intentioned. If one looks at Mr Hall’s quite lengthy report in detail, it says a number of things about what is proposed in clause 10. He states that the new offence that we propose to create here
“appears to fill an important gap”.
He goes on to say that
“where a killing is contemplated, the available penalty appears too low for long-term disruption through lengthy imprisonment.”
He concludes by recommending that the Government bring forward legislation to create a different, new offence,
“where an individual, with the intention of killing two or more persons, engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to this intention. The maximum sentence should be life imprisonment.”
Importantly, he says:
“If this offence is created, then there is no need to reconsider the maximum sentence for the proposed offence of possessing an article with violent intent under the Crime and Policing Bill.”
I pay tribute to Mr Hall for his work. The Prime Minister and the Government have committed to acting urgently on the points that he has identified, and to considering the new offence that he references at the end of his report. Given the complexity and the interplay between terrorism and non-terrorism legislation, which Mr Hall acknowledges, they should do so with great care and in consultation with appropriate stakeholders such as the Law Commission. That must be done, in order to ensure that whatever new offence is arrived at is practical, workable and absolutely unimpeachable. That work must continue and conclude, but in the interim, clause 10 does the job.
I point out to Opposition Members that the Bill does not just create a new offence in clause 10, which in itself is sufficient, but does much on youth diversion orders—we will come to those when we debate clauses 110 to 121—and, in clause 122, on the banning of dangerous weapons such as corrosive substances. In written evidence to the Committee, Jonathan Hall himself broadly welcomed those additional measures. For the record, the written evidence reference is CPB 02. He states that youth diversion orders are “extensions” to his original recommendations and that they “are justified”. In respect of clause 122, he states that this is gap that he has previously recommended filling and that the power is much needed. Of course, the Government have done other great work, often with support from both sides of the House. On the statute book right now is Martyn’s law, which will better allow venues to tighten counter-terrorism measures.
There is a package of measures—some already on the statute book, and other important measures, which we are discussing today, that we will hopefully get on the statute book without undue delay. I therefore submit to the shadow Minister that, while they are no doubt well-intentioned, amendment 39 and new clause 44 are not needed at this time. Let the work that I have referenced, and that the Government have committed to, get under way, so that that can be done properly, in line with, and not in contradiction to, what Mr Hall has said, and let us proceed with clauses 10 and 11 as they stand.
Jack Rankin
Clause 10 introduces a new offence of
“possessing an article with a blade or point or offensive weapon with intent to use unlawful violence…to cause another person to believe that unlawful violence will be used…or…to cause serious unlawful damage”.
The introduction of this new offence bridges the gap between being in possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon and threatening somebody with a bladed article or offensive weapon. I commend the intent of the clause wholeheartedly, and thank the Government for it.
I do, however, support amendment 39 and new clause 44, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, although I do thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West for his thoughtful interaction, which has given me pause to consider how these might interact. Perhaps in his summing up the Minister could comment on where, between the two of us, the truth lies.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff West mentioned, the two measures that have been tabled by the Opposition attempt to bring forward some of the recommendations from the report by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, following the heinous Southport attack—and I would like to associate myself with hon. Members’ comments of sympathy with those families. I have had cause to read that report, which I had not done ahead of this Bill Committee. I will quote relatively extensively from page 27, which I think is appropriate given the serious nature of these matters. Paragraph 5.25 says:
“Firstly, possession of an article in private where it is held with intent to carry out a mass casualty attack or other offence of extreme violence. Aside from firearms, it is not, with some limited exceptions, an offence to possess a weapon in private…One can envisage a scenario in which the police, acting on intelligence, find a crossbow, notes about a proposed attack, and material idolising the Columbine killers. At present, the defendant might be arrested on suspicion of terrorism but could not be prosecuted for this conduct. The government is proposing an offence of possessing an offensive weapon in public or in private with intent for violence, with a maximum of 4 years imprisonment in the Crime and Policing Bill.”
As the hon. Member for Cardiff West also quoted, the report goes on to state:
“This offence appears to fill an important gap, although where a killing is contemplated, the available penalty appears too low for long-term disruption through lengthy imprisonment.”
From my understanding, in changing that maximum sentence from four to 14 years, the Opposition’s amendment 39 seems to be an expert-led example of where we are trying to constructively add to the Government’s legislation.
New clause 44 seeks to fill a gap, given the need for a more general offence on planning mass casualty attacks, outside of terrorism legislation. Again, I will quote from Jonathan Hall KC’s report. He says on page 28, in paragraph 5.26:
“The law is flexible where multiple individuals are involved. It is therefore an offence for two individuals to make an agreement (conspiracy to murder), for one individual to encourage or assist another, or for murder to be solicited, even though the contemplated attack is never carried out. But it not an offence to prepare for an attack on one’s own unless sufficient steps are taken that the conduct amounts to an attempt. This means that no prosecution would be available if the police raided an address and found careful handwritten but uncommunicated plans for carrying out a massacre.
By contrast, under terrorism legislation it is an offence to engage in any preparatory conduct with the intention of committing acts of terrorism. This includes making written plans. The fact that the prosecution must prove terrorism, not just intended violence, is some sort of safeguard against overbroad criminal liability.”
It seems to me that new clause 44 is an attempt to close that gap. I welcome clause 10, but our amendment and new clause simply reflect the suggestions of the KC, who wrote quite a considered report. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
Something that I think we in this House agree on, that I know the police agree on, and that I think the wider public agree on—hon. Members might hear me say this a lot in Committee—is that prevention is always better than detection. I rise to speak having lost, in my previous career, a close colleague and friend to a crime involving an offensive weapon. I only wish we could have prevented that incident.
In essence, the clause is about preventing violence before it occurs. It strengthens penalties for repeat offenders, and aligns with the Government’s broader goal of making communities safer by addressing growing concerns around weapon possession and use in violent crimes. Given the increasing prevalence of offensive weapons such as knives, bladed articles or even corrosive substances, the Bill updates the law to better reflect modern threats. By including a broader range of dangerous items and increasing the focus on intent, the Bill addresses the changing patterns of criminal activity.
I am particularly pleased that the intent provision covers the possession of a corrosive substance, given the rise in acid attacks across the UK. This change is crucial to addressing the growing threat of individuals carrying dangerous substances, such as acid or other corrosive materials, with the intention to cause harm or instil fear. The reference to intent highlights the Government’s commitment to protecting citizens. By targeting the intention to cause harm before it escalates, the clause will help to prevent violent crime and make communities safer.
Clause 11 is vital in addressing the growing severity of offences relating to offensive weapons, including the possession, sale and manufacture of dangerous weapons. By increasing the maximum penalty from six months’ to two years’ imprisonment, the clause will significantly strengthen the deterrence against these crimes and ensure that offenders face stringent consequences. The introduction of either-way offences—allowing cases to be tried in either magistrates courts or the Crown court—will provide the police with additional time to investigate and gather sufficient evidence. That will improve the effectiveness of the justice system in tackling weapon-related crimes, reduce the availability of dangerous weapons and, ultimately, enhance public safety. It will also give police confidence in the laws that they are trying to uphold.
Finally, I broadly support the intent and understand the sentiments behind new clause 44. However, having sat on the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill Committee, which dealt with Martyn’s law, I believe that this issue has been covered elsewhere, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West said. I therefore do not think it is needed.
Anna Sabine
Broadly speaking, we welcome any effort to reduce knife crime, which is obviously a terrible and growing problem. We note Chief Constable De Meyer’s comment, in the oral evidence last week, that the police felt that the measure would allow them to deliver more sustained public protection, which is a good thing, and to have more preventive power. That is all great.
I have two specific questions for the Minister. The first concerns the offence of possessing an article with a blade or an offensive weapon with the intent to use unlawful violence. I represent a fairly rural constituency that comprises some market towns and a selection of villages. Even there, local headteachers tell me that a growing number of schoolchildren, usually boys, are bringing knives into school, because they wrongly think that bringing a knife will somehow defend them against other boys with knives. How do we ensure that no other schoolchildren will get caught up in an offence aimed at the kind of people we might think of as bringing a knife with the aim of committing an unlawful action?
My second question relates to the National Farmers Union’s evidence from last week. The NFU talked about the challenge of catapults often being used not just in wildlife crime but in damaging farming equipment. It said that it understands that it is an offence to carry in public something that is intended to be used as an offensive weapon, but with catapults, it is particularly difficult to prove that intent. It wondered if more consideration could be given to listing catapults as offensive weapons.
David Burton-Sampson
We all know that knife crime ruins lives—for the victim, their family and friends, the perpetrator’s family, and even for the perpetrator. My constituent Julie Taylor is the grandmother of a knife crime victim. On 31 January 2020, Liam Taylor was murdered outside a pub in Writtle—a pleasant place that not many would associate with violent crime. Four individuals approached Liam and three of them attacked him, resulting in Liam being stabbed to death and his friend receiving a serious injury. The attack came in retaliation for an earlier incident, which neither Liam nor his friend were involved in.
Since Liam’s murder, Julie has become an amazing campaigner in the battle against knife crime. She regularly visits schools, universities, colleges, football clubs, scout groups and the like to share Liam’s story and highlight how knife crime destroys lives. She has placed over 500 bleed control bags and 26 bleed control units in key locations across Essex. Sadly, 12 of those have already been used to help 13 people—yes, there was a double stabbing. Her work is all voluntary; she does it in her free time. That is how passionately she feels about the issue. When we met last week, Julie told me:
“All I want is to stop these young people carrying weapons as I can tell you once you lose a loved one to any violent crime, your family is never the same again.”
I shared with Julie the Government’s plans to tackle knife crime through the Bill, and she was delighted. She told me that clauses 10 and 11—and, if the Committee will indulge me, clause 12—are what campaigners have been calling for for so long.
With 1,539 knife crimes taking place in Essex in the year to March 2024 alone, tough action is needed now. These clauses, alongside other measures, will help with the Government’s goal of halving knife crime over the next decade. We must take a truly multi-agency approach, working with the police, charities, young people, victims’ family members, like Julie—they have a real part to play—and businesses, tech companies and sports organisations. I thank the Government for introducing the clauses; they have my full support.
Joe Robertson
I find myself again speaking after a number of others who have spoken eloquently, and broadly with consensus, about the direction of travel of this provision. I obviously support amendment 39 and new clause 44. Knife crime and the way it destroys lives is such a specific and horrific problem for law enforcement. The hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh gave a good summary of those affected, including young perpetrators and their families. Through using knives at a young age, those perpetrators often get swept into the worst of criminality. Once they are in that world, it is incredibly difficult for them to be brought out of it. Of course, there can be numerous innocent victims, who might stand in the way and get hurt too. I urge the Government to understand that the best possible way of tackling this is to ensure that the courts have the strongest possible sentencing powers. Clearly, 14 years for possessing an offensive weapon would not be appropriate in all cases, but there are cases where it would be—and if the courts do not have those powers, they cannot sentence people to 14 years.
Harriet Cross
I will comment briefly on clause 10, which is on the possession of a weapon with the intent to use it unlawfully for violence. The provision is much needed and, if implemented properly, would be welcome. I have a couple of questions for the Minister, though. First, how does the clause differ from existing legislation with respect to intent to cause harm or carrying an offensive weapon? Are there any nuances specific to knife crime, outwith those covered by existing legislation?
More generally, the Bill is restricted to the clauses before us, but we know that knife crime is multi-faceted—there are an awful lot of reasons why people get involved. As has been said, some feel that they need protection themselves and others do it to fit in, while for others it is to do with the environment in which they grow up. We welcome that the Government have banned zombie knives—the Conservative Government started on the road to that ban and we are glad to see that it has been implemented—but those knives are only responsible for about 3.5 % of knife attacks; every house in the country has a kitchen with knives in. What more are the Government doing, either in this Bill or outside it, to reduce knife crime by tackling the manner in which knives can be accessed and used?
The Government are setting a lot of store by the use of youth hubs to address knife crime, young offending and antisocial behaviour. Although the principle of youth hubs is admirable—and I do mean that—I have heard concerns from Members outwith this room, but certainly invested in this matter, that they may have unintended consequences. For example, where will the hubs be located? Could they entrench more turf wars? Will there be more of an impact if one is located on one gang’s land or another’s? Will some people be completely excluded simply because of their location? I ask these questions to be constructive, because I want the hubs to work for everyone. Similarly, if many different people come to the hubs—for rehabilitation reasons or if we use them to keep people off the streets for many other reasons—what is it that will prevent them from being a recruiting ground for other types of crimes? I reiterate that I am asking these questions to be constructive; I want the hubs to work, but I also do not want anyone to be pulled into more crime as a result.
Dame Diana Johnson
This has been a really useful debate. It has highlighted the problems that society is facing with the epidemic levels of knife crime that we have seen in recent times. It was absolutely right for my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh to mention Liam Taylor and his grandmother, Julie. Liam is sadly no longer with us, but I pay tribute to Julie for her sterling work in trying to ensure that what happened to her grandson does not happen to anybody else. I also commend her work on the bleed control kits.
I have come across so many families who have lost a loved one through knife crime and want to ensure that it does not happen to anyone else. We need to pay tribute to those families, including those who have joined the coalition to tackle knife crime, which the Prime Minister set up soon after the election last July. They will hold this Government to account in doing what we have said we will, which is halve knife crime over the course of the next decade. I pay tribute to Julie and all the other families working in this space to protect young people and make sure that no other family has to suffer the loss of a young person.
Dr Sullivan
A recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs heard from young St John’s Ambulance volunteers. They told us that many of the young people they work with want first-aid training and help with the kits so that they know how to stop bleeding. Is that not an awful indictment of the society we are in, but also a positive thing, in that young people want to be part of the solution?
Dame Diana Johnson
I agree with both those points. It is appalling that we are in that situation, but I pay tribute to St John’s Ambulance for its amazing work, and appreciate that young people want to engage and help to protect life.
The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset asked about young people who feel they might keep themselves safe by carrying a knife. That is clearly not the case: if they carry a knife, they are more likely to be involved in a knife attack. We need to get the message out that it will not protect them.
The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan referred to early intervention. We want to get in early and do all the preventive work that has, sadly, not happened over the past 14 years. We want to invest in youth hubs, reach young people, give them meaningful activities and instil in them key messages about how to keep safe and what good relationships look like. As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley will know, there is more to do on tackling violence against women and girls, because we want to halve that in a decade as well. We have lots of messages and work that we need to do with young people.
On the issue of young people getting involved in knife crime, the prevention partnerships will identify young people who are at risk of getting involved in crime or carrying a knife and try to work intensively with them. Early intervention to divert them from carrying a knife is important. We also have a manifesto commitment to ensure that any young person caught with a knife will be referred to a youth offending team, and there will be a plan of action for how to support them. No more will a young person caught with a knife just get a slap on the wrist and be sent on their way. We will get alongside them and deal with it; otherwise, it could turn into something really dreadful.
I am happy to look at the issue of catapults, which a number of hon. Members raised. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean who, as usual, gave very wise counsel about his experience as a former police officer and how important preventive work is.
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting out clearly amendment 39 and new clause 44. As he said, they draw on a recommendation by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, following his review of the appalling attack in Southport. Like all Members, I express my condolences to the families who lost their beautiful little girls, and to all those who were injured and affected by those events.
Before I respond to the amendment and new clause, let me explain the rationale for clause 10, which introduces a new offence of being in possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon with the intention to use unlawful violence. As I said, the Government are determined to halve knife crime in the next decade. Legislation has to play a part in delivering for our safer streets mission, ensuring that the criminal law and police powers are fit for purpose. This work sits alongside what I just said about the coalition for tackling knife crime holding the Government to account, and the ban on zombie knives. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan was right that the previous Government brought in that provision, but we have actually made it happen. We will bring in a ban on ninja knives too, as part of Ronan’s law.
On the issue of kitchen knives, I take the hon. Lady’s point that in every house there is a drawer containing knives. There are now calls for us to consider whether in the domestic setting we should have knives that have a round rather than pointed tip. I have certainly been willing to consider that and look at the evidence. It is something we would have to do in consultation with the manufacturers of domestic knives. The Government are open to looking at anything that will start to tackle the problems with knife crime.
It may be helpful if I briefly outline the existing legislation in relation to the possession of offensive weapons. It is currently an offence to be in possession of a bladed article in public without good reason or lawful authority. It is also an offence to be in possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon and to threaten somebody, either in public or private. All those offences are serious. This new office will close a gap in legislation. The provision will equip the police with the power to address situations in which unlawful violence has not yet happened but where there is an intent to use unlawful violence, an intent to cause someone to believe unlawful violence would be used against them, or an intent to cause serious unlawful damage to property, as well as in situations in which a person enables someone else to do any of those things.
The offence may be committed in either a public place or a private place. There will be situations in which the police come across individuals with a knife or offensive weapon on the street and there is evidence that there is an intent to the weapon for unlawful violence. For instance, were an intelligence-led operation conducted on a motorbike ridden by two males in an urban area, who attempted to escape but were stopped, and both were detained, arrested and searched, and both were found to be in possession in public of a knife, the only offence available to the police would be possession in public of a knife or an offensive weapon. We do not believe that would reflect the seriousness of the offending behaviour and their intention.
The proposed new offence is necessary to bridge the gap between possession in public or private and the intention to threaten another person. We also believe that such serious offending behaviour needs to be reflected better in the offence that individuals are charged with, so that a successful prosecution attracts a sentence that more closely aligns with the violent intent and facts of the case. The offence will carry a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.
Joe Robertson
I thank the Minister for setting out her position. Does she not accept, however, that without amendment 39 the maximum sentence of four years for carrying a knife with intent is a serious mismatch with the sentence had the knife been used and somebody was severely injured? That mismatch means that the only way of getting someone sentenced appropriately is to have an injured person at the end. That cannot be right. If someone is carrying a knife, they intend to seriously injure someone. It should matter not whether they have actually done it. The court’s sentencing powers need to be greater than four years in some circumstances.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am going to come on to amendment 39 which, as the hon. Gentleman says, seeks to increase the maximum sentence for the offence to 14 years’ imprisonment. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West for his excellent contribution, which explained the background. The intention of the amendment is to implement the recommendations from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation following the horrific attack in Southport. I fear that, as my hon. Friend said so eloquently, amendment 39 takes aspects of Jonathan Hall’s report out of context.
Matt Vickers
We have heard from all parties and all corners of the country about the need to tackle the issue and about the horror that such weapons can cause. Clearly, we all wish the Government well in delivering on their knife crime ambition. We have mentioned knives more than corrosive substances, but they can have equally horrific results, so I am glad to see them included.
Solving the problem is not easy, of course, and it is not all about sanctions: there is a role for education, policing, social media, culture, stop and search, and even technology, which could revolutionise our ability to identify those carrying a knife. The horrific loss of young lives—of young people whose families would give the earth to see them again—continues. To many of the communities torn apart and forever scarred, increasing the maximum sentence available to a judge to 14 years makes nothing but sense. We will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 12 provides for a new power for the police to seize, retain and destroy any bladed article held in private, when they are on the private premises lawfully and have reasonable grounds to suspect the item is likely to be used for unlawful violence. Clause 13 provides the same power to the service police. Before I turn to the specifics, it may assist the Committee if I set out the context and rationale for the introduction of the measure.
Currently, the police may enter premises and seize items only in particular circumstances—for example, where they have obtained a warrant to search premises for specific items. They have no power to remove weapons from individuals unless they can be used as evidence in an investigation. Therefore, even if the police come across several machetes in a private property while they are there with a search warrant for an unrelated matter—for instance drugs—the only way they can legally remove those machetes is if they are to be used as evidence in the investigation. That is even the case if they suspect that the bladed articles in question will be used unlawfully.
I would like to share a case study to illustrate the need for this measure. Police officers investigating the supply of illegal drugs effected entry to the home address of a person linked to the supply of class A drugs, under the authority of a warrant under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He was on a suspended sentence for supplying drugs and had previous convictions for offences of violence, including grievous bodily harm and possession of a knife. Upon search of his bedroom, officers found a 44 cm machete. He was charged with drugs offences, but the police had no powers to seize the machete. For the weapon to be removed from the property under existing law, it would have to have already been used unlawfully, either to hurt somebody or to damage property.
That is why we are legislating to introduce a power for any police officer to seize, retain or destroy an article with a blade or point, when they are on the premises lawfully and have reasonable grounds to suspect the relevant article is likely to be used in connection with unlawful violence. It is important to note that the police cannot seize any bladed article they see in the property arbitrarily. They will need to justify any seizure they make, not on the basis of a mere suspicion, but because they have reasonable grounds to believe that the article is likely to be used in connection with unlawful violence. If a person believes that their property has been seized in error, they will be able to make a complaint to the police, as with any other police matter, if they so wish. If the owner of a seized article believes that it has been seized in error, they may apply to a magistrates court for an order that the article be returned.
To be clear, there is no power of entry associated with the new seizure power. The police will need to be in the property lawfully already—for instance, executing a search warrant as part of an investigation for an unrelated matter, or because they have been called and invited into the property. We will therefore amend PACE code B, which governs the exercise of powers of entry, search and seizure, to include this new power, which will ensure that the police use the powers fairly, responsibly and with respect for people who occupy the premises being searched. We believe that having that power will enable the police to remove dangerous knives if they believe they will be used in connection with unlawful violence. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
As mentioned earlier, we are united in the aim of rooting out knives and knife crime from our society. Ensuring that our streets and constituents are safe is of primary importance to us all. Clause 12 introduces a new police power to seize bladed or sharply pointed articles, referred to as “relevant articles”, under specific conditions. A police constable may exercise that power if they are lawfully on premises and find a relevant article, with reasonable grounds to suspect that it could be used in connection with unlawful violence, including damage to property or threats of violence, if not seized.
This provision gives police officers the authority to remove dangerous weapons from potential misuse, enhancing public safety and reducing the risk of harm in situations where there is a credible threat of violence. Clause 13 would create similar powers for armed forces service police. Unlike clause 12, the power for armed forces service police would apply across the UK.
We face a tragedy that continues to unfold in our streets, communities and homes: a tragedy that sees young lives cut short, families shattered and entire communities left in mourning. Knife crime has become a scourge on our society, robbing us of the future doctors, teachers, engineers and leaders who should have had the chance to fulfil their potential. Instead, too many parents now sit by empty chairs at the dinner table, their sons and daughters stolen from them by senseless violence. Every single child lost to knife crime is a story of devastation.
Broadly, clauses 12 and 13 offer great powers to our law enforcement, which of course should be welcome. We cannot ignore the role that stop and search plays in tackling this crisis. In London alone, that policing tool has taken 400 knives off the streets every month, preventing countless violent attacks. Over the past four years, 17,500 weapons have been seized as a result of stop and search, including at least 3,500 in 2024—weapons that would otherwise have remained in circulation, posing a deadly risk to communities. Nor is it is just a London issue: in 2023-24, stop and search led to more than 6,000 arrests in the west midlands and 5,620 arrests in Greater Manchester.
We must, of course, ensure that these powers are used fairly and proportionately, but we cannot afford to weaken a tool that has saved lives. Every knife seized is a potential tragedy prevented. We must stand firm in supporting our police, ensuring that they have the powers they need to keep our community safe. However, I urge caution with some of the provisions and ask the Government to look at some of them and some of the issues that they may lead to.
Clause 12 grants police officers the power to seize bladed articles found on private premises when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the item will be used in connection with unlawful violence. While the intention of this clause, to prevent violence by removing weapons before harm can be done, is clear, there are some concerns over the impact that the clauses could have. The provision in clause 12 allows for the seizure of bladed articles based on what the police deem to be reasonable grounds to suspect.
The phrase “reasonable grounds” is inherently subjective and open to interpretation, which could lead to inconsistent enforcement and, in some cases, potential abuse of power. Many individuals legally possess knives for legitimate purposes, such as work. Some might argue that this clause could inadvertently criminalise those who have no intention of using their blades for unlawful purposes. The law needs to ensure that the people who possess knives for legitimate reasons are not unjustly targeted or treated as criminals.
Clause 12 empowers the police to seize items from private premises. While there is a clear and overriding public safety rationale, the intrusion into individuals’ privacy could be seen by some as excessive. We must consider how this power might be exercised in a way that balances safety with respect for personal rights. While public safety is paramount, we must not lose sight of the importance of protecting individual freedoms. Some would argue that these clauses, although well intentioned, could pave the way for broader surveillance and unwarranted searches. It is essential that we have guidance within our police forces to create consistency of approach.
Finally, while the clauses provide the police and armed forces with significant powers, we must ask whether they address the root causes of knife crime. This is a reactive measure, seizing weapons after they have been identified as a threat. We need to ensure a comprehensive approach, including education and support, to reduce violence and prevent knife crime from occurring in the first place. I am sure I speak for all Members across the House in our desire to combat knife crime and violence on our streets.
Dame Diana Johnson
I gently point out to the shadow Minister that the clauses in the Bill before us today are exactly the same clauses that were in the Criminal Justice Bill, which obviously, as a Member of Parliament at that point, he would have supported.
Matt Vickers
I would not say I was not supportive of the clauses; I am saying that we need to continue to look at the guidance that we give police officers on the powers, particularly as we extend them.
Dame Diana Johnson
Of course we keep all such matters under review. I am just pointing out that these are exactly the same clauses that the shadow Minister voted for in the Criminal Justice Bill.
On the point that the shadow Minister made about the reasonable grounds for suspecting, which a police officer must have in order to seize the weapon, the knife or bladed item, there is not an unlimited power for the police to seize any article they may wish to take away from the property. They will have to provide reasons why they are seizing the article and, as I said in my remarks, they will have to return the item if a court determines that they have seized it in error.
On the shadow Minister’s final point, this of course is only one measure. There is a whole range of other things that we need to do, particularly in the preventive space, to deal with the issue of knives. However, this measure will give the police, as I am sure he would agree, one of the powers that will help in dealing with the problems we face with knife crime today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Before the Whip moves the Adjournment, I just want to say that I will not be chairing this Bill again until much later on and so I would like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their attendance and attention today and for putting up with the room’s chilly interior—though hopefully not with a chilly Chairman. I also thank the Clerks, our excellent Doorkeepers, Hansard, the broadcasting team and, of course, the Home Office officials. Thank you all and have a great evening.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)