House of Lords

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Monday 17 November 2025

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Dyscalculia

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked by

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they recognise dyscalculia as a learning difficulty, and what plans they have to support children who have it.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, we know that some children face real challenges in maths, particularly those with dyscalculia and other special educational needs. That is why we are supporting schools through our national RISE maths hubs, helping teachers deliver effective, inclusive lessons. Our Curriculum and Assessment Review is tackling attainment gaps for pupils with SEND, and in the new year we will publish a White Paper to build a system where every child receives early support so as to thrive.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. For the edification of the House, dyscalculia is a specific difficulty in understanding numbers and number processes. It is 130 years since the term dyslexia was coined. In 1978, Baroness Mary Warnock was told by an education civil servant that she should not suggest that there is a special category of learning difficulty called dyslexia. Her report on special educational needs, of course, transformed that view. I rather hoped it would not take quite so long for the Government to properly recognise and integrate SEN support for the 6% of the population with dyscalculia. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that having children and young people struggling with numbers and maths is a huge problem for them as they become adults and seek work, and for future economic growth dependent on technology and innovation? Why would the Government take the risk of not recognising this as a learning difficulty and giving it the proper treatment it deserves?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much recognise what my noble friend says about the challenges that children with dyscalculia have in relation to their maths. Probably where we differ is on whether it is necessary to name those things in order to make sure that children get support: we do not believe that a child should need a diagnosis of a condition to get support. While diagnoses and labels can be useful for some children, whether a child has secured a diagnosis should not determine the support they get. A child with dyscalculia needs more support to master concepts in maths, so the support that we offer will be the same as for others facing difficulties with maths—that is better scaffolding, more effective use of representation and careful sequencing of learning. We are taking action to ensure that children who have difficulties with maths, including those with dyscalculia, will get the support they need.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the answer that the Minister has just given shows why we need a name. She gave a long description of a term that can have one name, which means that the teachers, the parents and the child can understand it. One word is better than many for this, even if it happens to be a Greek one.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think I said that I completely understand that children who have difficulties in maths, including those with dyscalculia, will need support. My emphasis was on the action that the Government are taking to support those children, which is, I suspect, where both noble Lords are in asking this question.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to understand from the Minister what steps are being taken to make sure that the conception of dyscalculia does not become far bigger than it should. We now know that much dyslexia was in fact the outcome of faulty early reading teaching. What efforts are being made to make sure that the emphasis is first and foremost on making sure that the curriculum and teaching are as good as they should be before anybody risks going near labelling a child and giving them a damaged conception of themselves?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have just faced two questions that suggest I am avoiding the difficulties that might occur with labelling. I fall somewhere between these two points: I think it is important to be able to identify as early as possible children who have difficulties with maths, but it should not be necessary to name that or to get a formal diagnosis to make sure that the support the Government are putting in place, some of which I have already described, is available for that child as quickly as possible.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, in 10 years of teaching I had not heard of dyscalculia until last year, and I could not pronounce it until about last week. It is okay supporting the children, but if the teachers do not know about it, how can they support the children? Can we please get more of this discussion, whether it is dyscalculia or whether it is just children finding it very difficult, into teacher training?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point about how we need to support the workforce in schools to meet the needs of children. These children deserve cutting-edge pedagogy that is rooted in evidence. That is why, for example, we introduced a new national professional qualification for SENCOs in 2024 and why, when we recently reviewed the initial teacher training core content and the early career framework, we introduced significantly more content on adaptive teaching and supporting pupils with SEND. That started in September 2025 and is now being delivered for teachers. We supplement that core offer with further SEND-specific training that is easy to access at any point in a teacher’s career, through the universal SEND services contract. Having teachers who understand the support that children need is fundamental, and that is what this Government are putting in place.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, given the current pressures on SEND, I understand why the Government are wary of another classification and assessment, which would be very difficult to meet. I ask the Minister whether Ofsted, in its future programmes, is going to look at identifying some of the issues on maths teaching, which might at least support the kind of changes that she has referred to.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In the new framework that has been set out, we are expecting Ofsted to place more emphasis than has been the case previously on the extent to which schools are achieving the type of inclusive practice that will benefit all pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, including those with dyscalculia. Alongside assessing the extent to which schools are doing that, we are also putting in place the support for the workforce that I have talked about, as well as evidence of, and development of, best practice in inclusive schools to ensure that all children can make progress.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Curriculum and Assessment Review made a recommendation for a diagnostic maths test in year 8; my understanding is that the Government have not accepted that. Can the Minister explain why?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The Government will be introducing a reading assessment in year 8, on the basis that we think reading is the thing most likely to open up the rest of the curriculum and the ability to succeed in assessment. We will also make sure that schools have the support to use a range of methods of assessing progress in both maths and writing in year 8. Other changes we are making in response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review will make sure that the sequencing of maths learning enables students, including those with special educational needs, to build up their core understanding in a way that is more likely to support success.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I first came across dyscalculia as a young dad in school reports 25 years ago, when one of my children had an issue with mathematics. I noticed that his 2s, 3s, 5s, 7s and 9s were all the wrong way around. Is that not a very early and obvious sign to teachers that there is an issue?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I suspect it is, as other things would also be. The noble Lord makes an important point, which goes to the point I made in my first two responses. It is important that we identify all pupils who have challenges with maths—including those with dyscalculia—as early as possible, and put in place support, structure in the curriculum and training for teachers to enable those students to succeed, whatever is causing the problems with their maths learning.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, a number of people in my family have a whole variety of learning difficulties and have been successful despite that. There is a huge difference in being able to name the difficulty. Children who are not doing well find another single word if they do not get a diagnosis, usually “stupid” or “lazy”. To have a proper diagnosis makes a significant difference.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I partly accept the noble Baroness’s point, but there is a problem with suggesting that it is not possible for students who have problems with maths to get support unless they have had a diagnosis and have a single name for the issues that are causing challenges. Sometimes it is precisely the waiting for the assessment, rather than the action on the difficulties the child had, that causes the problems in our special educational needs and disabilities system. We need to identify where children have problems with learning and take action immediately, not wait for diagnoses.

Artificial Intelligence Legislation

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:47

Asked by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they will publish the consultation on artificial intelligence legislation, and when a bill will be introduced.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare my relevant interest, as set out in the register, as an adviser to Endava plc and to Simmons and Simmons LLP and as a member of the technology and science advisory committee of the Crown Estate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

I appreciate the significant interest in the Government’s intentions for AI legislation, and I thank the noble Lord for his valuable contributions on the issue. The Government do not speculate on legislation ahead of future parliamentary Sessions, and I cannot confirm the timing of any such Bill. However, we will keep Parliament updated on the timings of any consultations ahead of bringing forward any legislation. We have remained committed to ensuring the UK and its laws are ready for the changes AI will bring.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, when it comes to AI legislation, the position of the previous Government was largely “wait and see”; so it is with this Government. But what is really required if you are an innovator, investor, citizen, creative or consumer is clarity, consistency and certainty. Further, the excellent Ada Lovelace Institute recent research showed that 72% of those surveyed said they would feel more comfortable with AI were it specifically regulated. Would the Minister not agree that, to deliver that clarity, consistency, certainty, comfort and confidence to act, we need a cross-sector, cross-economy, right-sized AI regulation Bill right now?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I remind the House that AI is already regulated in the UK and we regulate on a context-specific approach. Our regulators can take account of the developments in AI, which are indeed rapid, and ensure that they are tailored. In addition, as noble Lords know, we have got various regulators undertaking regulatory sandboxes and the new proposal for the AI growth lab, which will look across all sectors and allow regulators to collaborate on this quite rapidly changing technological development.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare in interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society and as a consultant to DLA Piper on AI policy. The first meeting of the rather grandly named Lords’ AI and copyright parliamentary engagement group takes place tomorrow. Would it not be extraordinary if the Government did not bring forward a Bill in the face of that engagement group’s conclusions and those of the industry working groups? Would any of those discussions not be rendered meaningless without a Bill next year? If a Bill does not come forward, would that not demonstrate the influence of big tech and the major technology companies on the Government?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The issues to which the noble Lord refers have, of course, been extensively debated here. One outcome of conversations during the passing of the data Act was a commitment to have these discussions. I also think it would be premature to decide the nature or timing of legislation until those discussions are completed. Like the noble Lord, I highlight the importance of the parliamentary consultations, the first of which with Peers is indeed happening tomorrow, with the two Secretaries of State.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, given the concerns that exist about the misuse of AI by pernicious actors, can my noble friend the Minister reassure the House that the Government are regularly stress-testing these threats, that we are preparing robust answers to them and that we will not therefore have any catastrophic incidents in this country? Will the lessons from the stress testing, if they exist, inform any future legislation?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her interest in this area. I can highlight that the AI Security Institute was established to provide the Government with exactly this kind of evidence and respond effectively to emerging AI risks. It has tested more than 30 frontier models, including OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Anthropic and others, and works closely with security experts across government, including the National Cyber Security Centre and Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. This is to ensure the institute’s work informs the preparations against AI-related incidents. We are committed to ensuring the UK is prepared for the changes AI will bring, and the institute’s research will continue to inform our approach.

[Lord Tarassenko (CB)]

My Lords, several European countries, including Italy, the Netherlands and Switzerland, have recently launched their own sovereign large language models to reduce dependence on models from the US and China. Now that hardware compute capabilities are no longer an issue in this country, is it not time for the UK to start developing its own sovereign large language model?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks a very good question about our sovereign capabilities. The Sovereign AI Unit’s remit spans the full AI stack, including large language models. Our priority is to secure UK access to the best models, including by deepening strategic partnerships and remaining open to backing UK companies to compete. However, we are focusing our efforts where there is greater opportunity for the UK to advance its strategic position in AI, looking across the value chain. This could mean supporting companies developing narrow models in high-impact sectors in which the UK has strengths, such as defence or drug discovery, or backing paradigm-shifting approaches in computing that can outperform incumbents.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, in September the Government announced plans for a national digital identity system—a policy that will have very profound implications for the safe use of AI, particularly agentic AI. Can the Minister confirm that the interaction between the Government’s digital identity scheme and AI systems will be explicitly included within the scope of the consultation? If not, can the Minister commit to ensuring that it is?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Viscount asks about digital ID, as he highlights a proposal which was announced a few months ago. Digital ID will help make it easier for people to access the services they are entitled to and prevent illegal working. It will streamline interactions with the state, saving time and cutting frustrating paperwork. A public consultation on the digital ID will launch in the coming few weeks, to ensure the system is secure, trusted and inclusive. I will take back his specific question on the coverage of the consultation coming up.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the Cross Benches next, then we will go to the Labour Benches.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord. The World Economic Forum has said that dis- and misinformation is the number one threat to economic stability. Generative AI has hugely increased the scale of that threat. There is concern from AI safety groups that companies are not adequately tackling the problem. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government will take this as seriously as they do cyberattacks?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount for his question. Strengthening media literacy education is incredibly important: it helps people navigate the growing presence of AI-generated content and it is important in schools and further than that. Noble Lords will remember that we have welcomed the report of the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review, which recommends that children in schools should be taught how to spot fake news and disinformation, including AI-generated content, and help develop critical thinking skills to protect themselves online.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the meeting that is taking place tomorrow, which came out of the commitments made by the Government during the passage of the data Bill. However, I understand that, notwithstanding the fact that the Government are not going to say what legislation they are introducing at this point, they are discussing the principles by which they will go forward. Can the Minister commit to the House that one of those principles, given the discussions we had in this House, will be that access to data, particularly around the creative industries, should be with the active consent of creators and rights holders?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My noble friend highlights one of the important points made during the passage of the Bill. The whole swathe of those discussions, both at technical level and with parliamentary colleagues, is intended to have the views of rights holders and other actors on the table, so that we can work through these at the same time as the AI developments are happening in real time.

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, I note my register of interests, specifically as an adviser to SMEs in AI—VED 3, Automated Analytics and Scrumconnect—and as part of the AI APPG. Let me bring some good news to the House: the UK AI sector is booming. Nearly half of UK businesses’ resilience budgets are now going on AI, agentic AI and technology. This investment been supported by the UK Government’s sector-led, principles-based approach to AI regulation, designed to foster innovation and ensure safety. As the Minister confirms, I hope this flexible model will continue and be central to our strategy. Is the Minister aware that recent analysis shows that the EU’s AI Act has contributed to a 20% decline in AI formations in the region, and up to a €500,000 annual compliance cost for high-risk systems, disproportionately affecting SMEs and deterring investment—outcomes the UK has wisely avoided?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely good point about the way in which we regulate. The UK has a bespoke approach. It is obviously important that we continue to work with other countries, as AI development is not something that happens only in the UK. Therefore, there is an element of needing to talk to the US and the EU, for example, about the developments. The noble Lord is absolutely right that our approach here is designed to safeguard security, build trust and get the economic benefits for the people of the UK.

Inheritance Tax: Pensions

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:58

Asked by

[Baroness Altmann]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on bereaved families, confidence in pensions and future levels of pensioner poverty of proposals to impose inheritance tax retrospectively on unused pensions and death benefits.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government continue to incentivise pension savings for their intended purpose of funding retirement. Most unused pension funds and death benefits payable from a pension will form part of a person’s estate for inheritance tax purposes from 6 April 2027. This removes distortions resulting from changes made over the last decade, which have led to pensions being openly used and marketed as a tax planning vehicle to transfer wealth, rather than to fund retirement.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer, but my Question was whether the Government have actually properly considered the real-world impact of these unworkable proposals. With its aim to hit the minority of wealthy pension owners, this policy could actually damage millions of less well-off families who will see a 40% cut in death benefits, especially if they are in a defined contribution scheme, much less so in defined benefit. A single parent with a house and children will lose out significantly. Does the noble Lord recognise that this retrospective confiscation without transitional protection undermines confidence in long-term planning, reduces long-term investment and will lead to more people rushing to take money out of their pensions quickly, just in case they may face the inheritance tax? This is especially the case if they can take out thousands of pounds a year at just 20%, which will mean more pensioners in future in poverty, despite the Government’s aim to get more people saving for a good pension.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question; I think the short answer is no. Let us be very clear: this is not a retrospective policy change. It takes effect for deaths on or after 6 April 2027, so that is in no way retrospective. As for the examples that the noble Baroness gives, it is important to be very clear that estates will continue to benefit from all the normal nil-rate bands, reliefs and exemptions available. An estate can pass on up to £1 million with no inheritance tax, and spouses are fully exempt from inheritance tax. More than 90% of UK estates will continue to have no inheritance tax liability following these changes.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

May I welcome my noble friend’s clear statement that the purpose of a pension fund is to provide pensions and not to assist the better-off in estate planning? Does he agree with me, given the frequent press comment that inheritance tax is, in many senses, a voluntary tax, that anyone will be able to avoid paying the higher rate of tax with a modicum of planning?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I very much agree with the first part of my noble friend’s question. It is very important to state that the intended purpose of pension savings is to fund retirement. The Government continue to incentivise pension savings, with tax relief on both contributions to pensions and the growth of funds held within a pension scheme. These tax incentives are very significant, costing taxpayers £78 billion a year. It is therefore right, as my noble friend said, that it is important to ensure that these tax reliefs are being used for encouraging savings for retirement, rather than ordinary taxpayers subsidising the wealthy to pass on their wealth free of inheritance tax.

[Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is an important principle of the tax system that tax reliefs, and therefore tax expenditures, should be tightly drawn? Does he also agree that the point of pension relief is to provide a pension in retirement, and therefore that pension savers should draw down their pension, rather than using it as a device to avoid inheritance tax and to improve the lot of their descendants, rather than themselves?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do agree with everything the noble Lord said. I enjoyed discussing these matters with him when he was a Treasury official and I was a special adviser. I probably learned a lot of this from him then, so I completely agree with what he said. To repeat, the purpose of pension savings is to fund retirement. If taxpayers are spending £78 billion a year on that, it is very important that it is used for its intended purposes rather than for estate planning, as the noble Lord says.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that in real life, many people restricted their lifestyles, spending and gifting in order to build a sufficient defined contribution pension that could pay, if needed, for years in a care home—not knowing how long they would live or their health condition—and because they did not want to burden the state or their children? They now see that they were being gullible in believing the assurances that anything unused could go to their loved ones free of inheritance tax, and that the Government simply regard their sense of responsibility as rather stupid. What would the Minister say to those people?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

More importantly, what would I say to the noble Baroness? I would say that she is saying things that are completely misleading. As I have said already, estates will continue to benefit from all the normal nil-rate bands, reliefs and exemptions available, so an estate can pass on up to £1 million with no inheritance tax, and spouses are fully exempt from inheritance tax. It is also important to say that we have equal treatment here. There is equal treatment for inheritance tax purposes between pension and non-pension assets, and I think that is perfectly fair within the system.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I speak as someone whose relatives have struggled for years, rather than months, in coping with the probate system, partly because of the problems caused by the inefficiencies of the probate office. Executors will not be able to deal with the extra complexity of adding pensions to IHT, particularly those with lots of small pension pots. My noble friend Lady Altmann, in her submission to our Finance Bill Sub-Committee, has suggested a simpler mechanism for dealing with this and raising the necessary revenue. Will the Government examine this sympathetically?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I presume the noble Baroness is referring to the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for a flat tax, and it is very interesting that she raises that. Currently, fewer than 10% of estates will have an inheritance tax liability. If you put a flat tax on all pensions, you are asking 90% of estates to pay more so that 10% of estates can pay less. I do not consider that to be fair.

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

My Lords, interest charges for late payments of tax are charged at 8% per annum and apply to estates after six months. Does the Minister agree that, given potential complications in finalising and executing wills, six months is rather short and that a longer grace period of at least one year should apply before interest charges are levied?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I understand the point that the noble Lord raises. As I understand it, six months is standard within the tax system.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister may recall that this time last year I asked a Question about pensioners who are coming up to the time when their pensions are ready to be drawn down, and they are looking forward to the 25% tax-free lump sum. Despite the noble Lord’s reassurances, thousands of pensioners took their pension early. Can the Minister reassure pensioners waiting to draw down their pension that there will be no changes to the 25% tax-free lump sum?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I remember the noble Lord’s Question last year. As he knows, I will not speculate on the next Budget now or comment on individual tax measures ahead of time.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept the principle that it is wrong to raise any tax of any kind on people who do not have the cash to pay it?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As I say, given that all the normal nil-rate bands will continue to apply, an estate can pass on up to £1 million with no inheritance tax. If you are leaving £1 million, you probably have the cash to pay the tax.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord that pension funds should be used to fund retirement. The point is that this is a retrospective tax, because people have already put the money in and made long-term plans, of which now a significant proportion, and sometimes the majority, is being confiscated by HMRC if they are unlucky enough to die before they draw down. The worry is about people who are younger, not those who are deliberately avoiding taking their pensions. People die unexpectedly young, and their families will lose out and their death benefits will be cut. These are people who have made long-term plans. I am concerned about the impact on future pension savers, who will think, “The Government might just come and take this money away from me. I’m not going to invest it for the long run—pensions is just not something I want to bother with”, even if they would not eventually pay IHT. That is the problem and why I was suggesting a flat-rate levy, which can recover some of the tax relief given on unused pensions but still not impact the future confidence in pensions.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

All the points that the noble Baroness raises have been covered in previous conversations. It is clearly not a retrospective tax because it takes effect for deaths on or after 6 April 2027. I have also dealt with the fact that a flat-rate tax would mean that 90% pay more so that 10% can pay less, and that an estate can pass on up to £1 million with no inheritance tax due.

Teachers: Music, Drama, Art and Design, and Dance

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:09

Asked by

[Baroness Keeley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they will take to support an increase in the numbers training to be teachers of music, drama, art and design, and dance.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, we are working with the sector to re-establish teaching as an attractive profession across all subjects, including the arts. That is why this Government have increased teacher pay by almost 10% over two years and are providing bursaries this year worth up to £10,000 for trainees in art and design and in music. We are already seeing a positive impact. The number of new trainees and teachers has increased significantly in art and design and in music over the past year.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer. The undervaluing of music in state schools by successive Conservative-led Governments since 2010 led to the loss of over 850 full-time equivalent music teachers since 2011; high vacancy rates and poor retention rates of music teachers, with only two-thirds of those who qualified five years ago still teaching; and music teacher recruitment targets being missed 11 times in 12 years. There is a great deal for the Labour Government to do. Sustained bursary funding for initial teacher training has shown more stable recruiting. Can my noble friend look at reinvesting in the music teacher training bursary and then sustaining it for a number of years? That must be backed by Ministers who emphasise the central place of that music teacher training bursary rather than just those for science and maths.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that we have to deal with the previous Government’s underinvestment in teachers and the narrowing of the curriculum, which limited students’ ability to study music and art and design courses. However, I am pleased to say that we are making good progress on our pledge to deliver 6,500 more teachers. The workforce has grown by over 2,300, and we have a near-record low of teachers leaving the profession. When thinking about the additional funding that we provide for bursaries, we must consider the current position around recruitment. The good news is that we have seen a 53% increase in people starting postgraduate music teacher training in the past year. For that reason, we have decided not to continue the bursary this year. However, we are optimistic, given the figures that we have already seen and will publish in December, that course acceptances indicate that this improved recruitment will be at least maintained.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, the previous Government and this Government have recognised the problem that we have in getting teachers—for music in particular and for the arts generally. Therefore, it is very disappointing that the bursary for people wanting to train as music teachers has been cut to zero. For young people to follow on from people such as the Beatles, who have brought a huge amount into the economy, we need to invest in the next generation. That means teaching them to play instruments and to become the musicians of the future.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord. That is why, as well as investing in all teachers and seeing the results of teachers coming into the profession, we are making specific contributions by funding the over 40 music hubs, which exist across the country to support the very best teaching of music, and the music opportunities pilot. That will ensure that more young people, particularly those who are disadvantaged or who have special educational needs and disabilities, will be able to play an instrument or sing to a high standard.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, when discussing the Curriculum and Assessment Review last week, the Minister highlighted that creative subjects will no longer be the privilege of the lucky few. Rural and smaller schools often struggle to attract specialist teachers in creative subjects. How will they deliver a full, high-quality creative curriculum?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That is precisely why we need the 6,500 new teachers in secondary and special schools to which the Government have committed. By not only committing to but investing in the profession, we are already delivering results through the increased numbers of teachers that we are seeing. Through the music hub programme, which I discussed previously, we also need to ensure that there are opportunities for teachers to understand the best way both to teach music and to enable their students to have the joy that comes from understanding and enjoying music and either playing instruments or singing.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, we know that the great majority of teachers in arts subjects—for example, in music and in art and design—in primary schools, where it all starts, do not have specialist knowledge in those areas. What importance do the Government attach to having specialist arts teachers in primary schools? Do they think that gathering statistics on the numbers involved—these figures do not currently exist—would be helpful in getting to grips with this area?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As the noble Earl says, in primary schools, teachers will often have a range of areas that they will teach. What is important is that teachers have access to the best understanding of how to teach music, with support from the music hubs. We will develop their understanding of best quality, excellent arts teaching through the new centre for arts and music education. They must also be supported—for example, through the pay increases that we have put in place—to enter the profession and stay in it.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will follow on from the question from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. Before I do so, the Minister was very quick, as ever, to criticise the previous Government and come out with various statistics. However, she omitted to mention that teacher numbers were at an all-time high when we left office. On specialist teachers in art, music, drama or the other subjects that have been mentioned in this Question, one way to get the specialism to which the noble Earl referred would be to allow those without qualified teacher status to continue to deliver that teaching and to bring with them their specialism in these areas. Would the Minister reconsider that in the context of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I believe that good teachers bring specialist knowledge as well as the particular skills that teacher training and qualified teacher status bring alongside that. That is why pupils have an entitlement to ensure that those teaching them have both the knowledge specialism and the teaching specialism in order to give them the best possible opportunities. That is the reasoning behind this Government’s determination that all pupils should be entitled to have a qualified teacher in the classroom in front of them, because, as we know, the quality of teaching is the single most important determinant in pupils’ success in school.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Does the Minister accept that the most important driver in this area would be every primary and secondary school having access to a professional music teacher, whether full-time, part-time, peripatetic or through distance learning? If that were to happen, it would create the demand for teachers, which would lead to the necessary supply. I draw attention to my interest in that my wife is a harp teacher.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord’s wife is doing an enormously important job in developing an interest in harping in the pupils whom she teaches. We need to ensure that we have qualified teachers with access to the support for their specialisms—which, for example, the Government aim to provide through the new national centre for arts and music education—to ensure that all children, not just fortunate children, have the opportunity to benefit from arts and music. That is what this Government are putting in place.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recruitment of qualified teachers is clearly essential, and that the Government have made great strides in that the picture of recruitment looks much better this year than it has done in the past 10 years? Does she also agree that the retention of mid-career teachers is equally important? The report of the Teaching Commission, which I chair, entitled Shaping the Future of Education, revealed that it now takes 10 newly qualified teachers to replace every seven more experienced teachers who leave teaching before retirement. Does the Minister agree that this trend must be reversed if we are to maintain educational standards and a broad and balanced curriculum, including for the arts?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right, and I thank her for the work she has done to support teachers throughout her career and continues to do now with the work to which she alluded. We need not only to get teachers into the classroom but to keep them there. I am pleased that this Government’s investment in teachers, through pay as well as broader support in the classroom, has not only brought new teachers to the profession but reduced the number of them leaving it to one of the lowest ever levels.

Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:21

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 September be approved.

Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.

Motion agreed.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

3rd reading
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh legislative consent granted. Relevant document: 10th Report from the Constitution Committee

15:22

Motion

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Bill do now pass.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we conclude the Lords stages of the Bill, I wish to express my deep sadness following the news last week of the passing of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. On behalf of the Home Office, I praise her dedication and her work in supporting victims, drawing on her personal experience, as Victims’ Commissioner. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending condolences and thoughts to her family and friends.

The Bill has been subject to many hours of debate across this House, and I thank all Peers for their contributions. It was introduced in the House of Commons back in January and is part of a serious and credible plan to protect the UK’s border security that sees the Government working very closely with our international partners and with colleagues across the country, so that we can ensure law enforcement and have the powers and tools that we need to identify, disrupt and dismantle organised crime.

The Bill is about protecting those who need it, swiftly removing those with no right to be here and cracking down on criminal gangs. It establishes landmark new offences which deliver our manifesto commitment on counterterrorism powers that will give law enforcement the ability to tackle those involved in putting lives in danger and threatening border security. It also establishes the new Border Security Commander, about which we have had much discussion.

During debate in this House, the Government have also introduced a new offence to criminalise those who advertise illegal migration services online and through social media. We have listened to your Lordships’ House, and to the Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and amended the new offences in the Bill where appropriate. These proposals, alongside the asylum policy statement being announced today by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, are important matters. I thank all noble Lords who have tabled and spoken to amendments during the passage of the Bill.

I also thank the Ministers in the Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh Governments, who have seen and supported the relevant provisions in the Bill. We have had legislative consent from each of the relevant Parliaments and Assemblies. I also thank the Bill team, without whom this Bill would genuinely not be possible, and officials in my private office.

The passage of the Bill by this House is an important step to develop and strengthen the UK’s border security. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the Minister’s thanks to the Bill team. I also thank him, because I cannot recall the number of meetings he has held with officials and Members who have raised issues during the passage of the Bill. That does not mean that those meetings resulted in satisfaction for all those who made those comments, but I think the fact that we were given those opportunities is respected across this House.

It would be foolish to say that the Bill marks the passing of an endpoint for the immigration and asylum services of this country. We are told that we are to have two Statements, one today from the Home Secretary and one on Thursday, which will take this matter further forward. It is rather like having the London bus come along, then suddenly you have more than one. This will probably end up becoming an annual event: a new immigration Bill. We expect that to happen.

Many of the issues that have been raised in the background to the Statement that is going to be made in the other place in, I think, a few minutes’ time have been raised in the debates on the Bill, so I ask the Minister: will any amendments be attached to this Bill on the questions that are being raised in the two Statements, to give some speed to its passage? I hope the answer is no and that we have dealt with the Bill before us in the proper manner.

I think we can safely say that three distinct approaches have been set out on the Bill. From the Labour Government, it is pragmatic, law enforcement-led control; the Conservative Opposition demand a policy of absolute deterrence based on previous legislation; and we on these Benches seek to balance necessary enforcement with safe, legal and humane routes, ensuring that international obligations are fully codified and respected—in essence, a policy of control and compassion, which I think go together.

At the outset of the Bill, we laid out our concerns that it dealt only with the supply side—the smugglers. As long as the smugglers have customers, that is the problem which this side of the equation deals with, but our belief—I hope that it will be proven with Thursday’s Statement, rather than today’s—is that the demand side also needs to be looked at appropriately. We are told that the proposals to be outlined today are that if you are harsher on those making irregular routes, this will stop people taking the dangerous journeys. That is what this Bill has been about: trying to reduce and put a stop to the dangerous journeys that people are taking. That debate will now proceed, because there are now points around the demand-side issues that I understand the Government are going to make.

In passing this Bill, it seems appropriate that we have all had learning experiences which are going to be useful for at least the next 12 months as we proceed to the next stage. Perhaps the Minister will say, but are we going to have one in the year after as well? I hope, given the strength he has demonstrated, the amount of time he has put in, and the amount of time he is having to put into another Bill, that at least he will have some respite over Christmas.

I also thank those on my side who have been helpful to us in making sure that the Bill has been debated fully: my noble friends Lady Brinton, Lady Hamwee, Lady Ludford and Lord Oates, and Elizabeth Plummer in our office here in Parliament. With that, I thank the Minister and the team behind him for the helpful way they have dealt with this Bill.

15:30

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a long time since the Bill was introduced in the other place and since then much has happened. The Government have brought forward the immigration White Paper detailing changes to the Immigration Rules. They have established a one-in, one-out agreement with France which has so far returned just over 100 migrants. Meanwhile, since that deal was announced on 10 July, almost 18,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats.

We know that the Government are now bringing forward new measures relating to the asylum system. We will have the opportunity to debate those once the Home Secretary has announced the full details today in the other place, but many of the plans have been trailed already and it is evident that new legislation will be required to implement a number of those changes. The point is that events have moved at such a pace that this Bill feels out of date before it has even become law. The Prime Minister’s “smash the gangs” pledge has fallen so flat that the Government appear to have ditched the slogan. But as we have consistently said, simply going after the gangs will not work. What is required is a credible deterrent but, unfortunately, as we know, this Bill repeals the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.

We put our plan to the House, and it is a shame that the Government and the Liberal Democrats appear unwilling to take the action necessary to put an end to the small boats crisis. That said, I am pleased that we were able to amend the Bill in a positive manner. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who is not in his place today, sadly, has been pushing for the Home Office to release data on overseas students for a long time now. His successful amendment to the Bill requiring the publication of those statistics is welcome and I hope the Government will finally listen and agree to publish that data. It is also welcome that the Government agreed with me that the new offences in Clauses 13 and 14 contained gaps as originally drafted. They did not cover possession with intent to supply an article for use in immigration crime, nor handling by third parties, and I am very pleased the Government took this on board and brought forward their own amendments.

I thank the Minister. I do not share his enthusiasm for the Bill, but I know how hard he has worked to steer it through your Lordships’ House with his willingness to meet Members of this House privately. I extend my thanks to the Bill team and to all noble Lords who contributed, particularly my noble friends Lord Harper, Lord Murray of Blidworth, Lady Lawlor, Lord Goschen and Lady Maclean of Redditch. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who supported our amendments both in Committee and on Report, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

To conclude, the Government had the opportunity with this Bill to take serious steps to fix the crisis in the asylum system. They could have banned illegal migrants from getting asylum. They could have committed to detaining and removing anyone who enters illegally. They could have committed to deporting all foreign criminals. Unfortunately, they have not, and we will have to wait to see what new ideas the Government bring forward and whether they will have any real impact, because the Home Secretary was right when she said that illegal migration is tearing this country apart. It is well past the time to take the comprehensive action necessary to protect this country’s borders.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for their contributions to this debate. We have had some differences but I think both noble Lords will accept that the Government have a plan to try to deliver on our manifesto commitments. Additional proposals are being discussed, and they will be outlined shortly in another place, that will form an answer to the proposals by the noble Lord, Lord German. They are not part of this legislation, but I will be outlining further the Government’s approach once my right honourable friend has made her Statement. I thank both noble Lords from the Front Benches for their contributions; they have helped generate discussion on the Bill.

As well as the Bill team and my private office, my two colleagues on the Government Bench today from the Whips’ Office have provided stalwart support. I also place on record my thanks to the Chief Whip for ensuring that only one defeat of the Government took place on the Bill, which on an issue as contentious as immigration is a matter of some joy for the Government and of some frustration, undoubtedly, for the Opposition. I commend the Bill to the House.

15:35

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Employment Rights Bill

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Amendments and Reasons

Relevant documents: 20th and 29th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, 7th Report from the Constitution Committee

15:35

Motion A

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.

1C: Because it would weaken workers’ rights to guaranteed hours.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak also to Motions C and C1. In this group, we will be debating the amendments relating to zero-hours contracts and seasonal work.

Amendment 1B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period, explaining their right to receive the guaranteed-hours offer and giving them the option to accept or decline. I take this opportunity once again to thank the noble Lord for his contribution throughout the Bill. We agree on many of the fundamentals relating to the security of work, and we have commonality in wanting to protect workers from precarious employment.

I recognise that the intent and sentiment behind the amendment is to ensure a balanced and practical approach, and I share the noble Lord’s desire for the Bill to work for businesses and workers alike. I look forward to further conversations with him on this matter and beyond, when we will continue our programme of consultation to ensure that the Bill’s measures are delivered effectively and proportionately for business.

However, the amendment as drafted would alter fundamental aspects of the Bill. We are building an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers and a fair reward for hard work. We need to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts that leave some staff unable to plan their working lives or manage their family finances, and the provisions in the Bill do that. We appreciate that some groups value the flexibility that zero-hour contracts can provide. Those workers will be able to decline a guaranteed-hours offer and remain on their existing arrangements if that works best for them. I hope noble Lords agree that ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most is imperative.

Motion C relates to Amendment 48B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are fully aware that work in certain sectors fluctuates throughout the year, and we recognise the importance of those sectors. That is why consideration of seasonal work is built into the right to guaranteed-hours provisions. There are several ways in which an employer could approach seasonal demand. One approach would be to use annualised-hours contracts, which allow employers to vary the number of hours worked at different times of the year. Some businesses already use these contracts, ensuring that they can account for fluctuating demands in work when planning, while enabling workers to plan for household budgeting. Additionally, the Bill already allows guaranteed-hours offers to take the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable. The Bill also provides powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as needs evolve.

We will consult with employers, trade unions and stakeholders before making regulations. It is paramount that stakeholders are engaged with before we make these necessary decisions. Through the introduction of the new right to guaranteed hours, work will become more secure and predictable. It will leave workers in some of the most deprived areas less exposed to the hidden costs of insecure work, which can add up to as much as £50 a month for some, while strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

The Minister’s enthusiasm got the better of her but I had not actually put the Question that the amendments and reasons be now considered. I hope the House will take it that we did so do, even though we did not say it.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 1B.”

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Deputy Speaker for his expert guidance. Your Lordships could be excused for a sense of déjà vu, perhaps because we are back in your Lordships’ House with the same issues we discussed on 28 October. They remain unresolved and, indeed, not addressed in any meaningful way.

Since the last very similar session of ping-pong, I have had an engaging meeting with the Lords Ministers and their officials, and I thank them for that meeting. The prospect of that meeting gave me a sense of anticipation. I expected some sort of legislative rabbit to be pulled out of the Government’s hat at that point, but no—there was nothing. At first, I thought something substantive was being concealed for tactical reasons, perhaps ready to be flourished in some dramatic prestige at the moment that pleased the Ministers. But it has become increasingly clear that not only is there no rabbit in the care of the Benches opposite but there is actually no hat. If there is a hat, it exists elsewhere, and for that I have some sympathy for the Ministers opposite, because they sit bare-headed at the moment, with nothing to offer.

Time has passed, however, and, if the Government’s position has not changed, what has? Well, the business environment has got worse. September saw negative growth in GDP, per capita productivity fell in the last quarter and unemployment rose to 5% as recruitment cooled. Yet this ping-pong represents a doubling down—but for what? The Government’s manifesto vowed to “make work pay”, and we agree with that. None of these amendments confound this. My Motion A1 does not in any way dent the worker’s right to convert zero hours to guaranteed hours. What it does is streamline the administration of that right. I explained last time that Motion A1 merely avoids unnecessary work, helping SMEs that have limited administrative capacity to get on with focusing on growing their business and, hopefully, creating more jobs. But, in the absence of an amendment in lieu today, I will insist on this.

Moving on to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—Motion C1—we have consistently raised concerns about seasonal work. I welcome the Minister’s careful description of the issues in the current legislation—the problem being, of course, that there is outstanding consultation and outstanding details that make it difficult. We are not 100% happy with the noble Lord’s drafting, but we feel that it is a starting point for further conversations of the nature the Minister just brought up. We will support Motion C1 if it is voted on. Sorting the impasse on these Motions and those in subsequent groups requires political gumption. In the end, I suppose it will be up to No. 10—I understand that it might be preoccupied with other issues at the moment.

I close with one last statistic, this time from the Work Foundation at Lancaster University. There are now 1.79 million people out of work and looking for a job. With economic inactivity stable at a staggering 21%, the number out of work appears to be rising not due to increasing inflow but rather due to limited outflow caused by difficulties in finding work. That is 1.79 million people. The Government did not address the arguments we put two weeks ago, and therefore they deserve the same response as last time. I beg to move Motion A1.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, here we are, back again.

In the ping-pong debate last time, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, stated:

“The Government have engaged extensively with stakeholders on their make work pay reform since August 2024. A major part of this engagement has been to seek the varied views of SMEs. As of 15 October, we had engaged directly with more than 250 stakeholders. This included 139 businesses, of which 75 were SMEs. This approach to engagement will remain throughout the various consultations”.—[Official Report, 28/10/25; col. 1246.]

15:45

I do not know whether the noble Baroness was serious in her comments or trying to assure your Lordships that the Government were listening—or was even, in the vernacular, “having a laugh”. She said that His Majesty’s Government have consulted 75 SMEs. Has she any idea how many SMEs there are in the UK? If not, I can assist her. There are some 5.5 million. I do not know which 75 SMEs she consulted—perhaps a random, or very selective, group. Every SME I have spoken to has many objections to the Bill. In fact, I have not spoken to one that is happy with the Bill, in part or in whole.

Certainly, one SME that the noble Baroness did not consult was that of a Mr Dunham, who I have never met, but who wrote to me on an unsolicited basis about the Bill. He wrote in his letter that Dunhams Washroom Systems is a third-generation, family-run manufacturer, based in Norfolk, which employs many local people, most of whom live within his community. He manufactures washroom systems for schools, public buildings and commercial clients across the UK and is proud to be a British manufacturer. He says:

“The Bill in its current form would impose unsustainable costs and compliance pressures that SMEs cannot absorb. It would reduce flexibility, make day-to-day operations harder, and force us to reconsider employment numbers and future job creation”.

In respect of Motion C1, he continues:

“For businesses like ours, which operate in the education sector with heavily seasonal demand during summer refurbishment projects, flexibility and temporary labour are essential. These proposals will make it harder to manage staffing and maintain employment during quieter periods. … We are also deeply concerned about the introduction of union involvement in SMEs. Our success depends on direct, open relationships with staff, built on trust and mutual respect. Imposing union structures into small businesses risks creating unnecessary conflict and breaking down these relationships. For SMEs like ours, this is not just an administrative burden”—

as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to—

“it fundamentally changes the culture that allows us to succeed and support our employees. … Finally, these changes will discourage hiring, particularly for young people and those without prior experience. Recently, we hired a teenager with no sales experience because he showed great attitude and potential. Under the proposed day-one unfair dismissal rights, we would not have taken that risk. These measures will make it harder for SMEs to offer opportunities to young people starting out in their careers”.

He speaks on behalf of many, if not all, SME owners and directors when he points out that the Employment Rights Bill threatens competitiveness and could even drive offshoring of labour abroad.

The Minister is closely associated with Sir Tony Blair and, I believe, served on The Tony Blair Governance Initiative. Labour’s plans to strengthen workers’ rights risk harming jobs and hurting growth, as Sir Tony Blair has personally warned. His former think tank said that the controversial day one protections against unfair dismissal would make it more expensive and riskier to hire workers. The Tony Blair Institute said that the “extreme”—its word, not mine—reforms threaten to undermine the critical strength of the British economy. It says that they would erode business confidence to hire and ultimately undermine growth. It is not too late. I urge the Government to reconsider.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Motion C1—but before I do so, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that I am in complete agreement with the speech that he made on Motion A1. To recall the words that he used before, the Government were put on notice that they needed to come forward with a solution, but solution there is none. Requiring all businesses to offer guaranteed hours to every worker, including those who do not want them, imposes an unnecessary administrative burden, and one that falls, as my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has just pointed out, particularly heavily on small businesses. It also sits uneasily with the Government’s stated intention to reduce the regulatory load on businesses by 25%. Should the noble Lord, Lord Fox, choose to test the opinion of the House, he will have our support.

On Motion C1, the Government have to recognise that seasonal work is fundamentally different in nature from permanent or year-round employment, and defining it clearly in statute will ensure that this Bill, as well as any future legislation, properly reflects the realities faced by seasonal industries. Seasonal businesses operate within narrow windows of opportunity; their labour needs rise sharply and predictably at various times of the year, then fall away again. Without a clear and credible definition, there is a risk of uncertainty both for employers trying to comply with the law and for workers trying to understand their rights.

We on these Benches have spoken to many seasonal businesses, large and small, and they remain concerned about the potential impact of the Bill and the absence of a framework that recognises the specific characteristics of seasonal labour. If the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment, we will test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today. Let me start by recapping the reason for this measure.

There is a moral case to press ahead with ending exploitative zero-hour contracts. We aim to rebalance the scales so that all the risk associated with insecure work is not placed on workers. By our doing so, work will become more secure and predictable, saving workers in some of the most deprived areas up to £600 in lost income, strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy and increasing productivity, rather than the obverse.

On business engagement, we have indeed engaged with businesses and consulted them, both directly and through federations that represent a large number— hundreds and thousands—of small businesses. We will continue to do so as we implement all the measures in the Bill. We are committed to full and comprehensive consultation with businesses big and small and will arrange focus sessions with SMEs specifically to look at the practical implementation, understand any challenges and make sure that we give the right guidance.

I want to reflect on the point about business regulation and the 25% target. We have established a baseline for the administrative burden; the 25% target is about ensuring that regulation is proportionate and efficient and works for business. It is not about blocking regulation that is needed to deliver the Government’s priorities. We want to implement the Bill in a way that delivers the intent as efficiently as possible. For example, the fair work agency will consolidate the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement into a single body, so we are reforming as we go ahead with all these measures, and we believe that, fundamentally, this is about balance.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of seasonality. Let me reassure noble Lords that the Government are fully conscious of the need to take account of fluctuations in seasonal demand, while ensuring that workers are not left holding all the risk. Under the Bill, there are several ways that an employer could approach seasonal demand while upholding the new rights, depending on circumstances. I set out some of those in my opening speech, but they could be limited-term contracts or guaranteed hours in various ways, such as an annualised hours contract. We think it is important to continue to consult on seasonality.

On growth, we have seen huge progress in foreign direct investment and trade agreements. We are very keen to continue to promote the economic prospects of the country, which is fundamental to improving the productivity of the labour market. In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and I look forward to further discussions on these issues.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, she said that she had consulted representative bodies of industry and commerce, by which I assume she means the FSB, the IoD and the CBI. Can she give us a flavour of those conversations, and identify any organisation that has given wholehearted support to the Bill?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Of course, we have had many discussions and there have been amendments during the passage of the Bill as a result of some of the consultation we have had with all social partners. We made amendments to the Bill on Report in respect of fire and rehire and the school support staff negotiating body—all sorts of changes or amendments have been made through the consultation process. We have also set out a clear plan for implementation, so that each milestone is there and there is a consultation before that, so that all businesses, large and small, can have the right amount of time to prepare and to get the guidance they need to implement these measures.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I very much welcome the objective that she set out of reducing red tape. I remind her that the Bill contains 170 statutory instruments. In my experience, every statutory instrument leads to at least one regulation, so perhaps when next she stands up, she can commit to retiring at least one regulation, if not two, for each one that the statutory instruments bring in on the tail of the Bill, if indeed it ever becomes an Act.

The Minister also talked about a moral duty in respect of zero hours. I share that moral duty. Nothing in Motion A1 resiles from that moral duty, and on that basis, I would like to test the will of the House.

15:58

Division 1

Ayes: 296

Noes: 147

16:10

Motion B

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E in lieu of Lords Amendments 23 and 106 to 120.

120C: Schedule 3, page 189, line 14, for “(3)” substitute “(6)”

120D: Schedule 3, page 191, line 13, at end insert—
“(6) Before making—
(a) the first regulations to be made under subsection (4), and
(b) the first regulations to be made in reliance on subsection (5)(b),
the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.””

120E: Schedule 3, page 191, line 27, at end insert—
“(5C) Before making the first regulations to be made in reliance on subsection (5A), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.””

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion B and I will also speak to Motions E, E1, F and F1. In this group, we are debating amendments relating to unfair dismissal, trade union industrial action, ballots and political funds. These are areas clearly linked to our manifesto commitments, which the Government have an electoral mandate to deliver. I thank all Members of the House for their engagement on these areas throughout the passage of the Bill. We have listened carefully to the concerns raised and in response, wherever possible, we are offering amendments in lieu that we believe strike a fair and workable compromise to the amendments made to the Bill. It may not be the rabbit that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, expected, but I would like to make it clear to the House that none of the amendments tabled by the Government will compromise the fundamental principles of the Bill, nor their intended impact, which is, I repeat, a commitment made in our manifesto.

On Motion B, relating to Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E tabled by the Government in the other place, we remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections, ensuring that around 9 million employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years are protected from being arbitrarily fired—that is the principle we are addressing. The Government have listened to stakeholders and tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place which ensures that the Government consult on key aspects of the framework. This will ensure that there is direct input from both employers and employees, enabling businesses to shape the legislation and ensure that it is practical and proportional.

To reiterate what was said in the other place, day-one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the ability of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or pass a probation period, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal in which hard-working employees are sacked without good reason. That is what this Bill is about. A six-month qualifying period threshold still leaves employees exposed to arbitrarily being fired during the early months of their new job.

As we have said from the start, the implementation of day-one unfair dismissal rights will be done with a light touch. There is a power in the Bill to modify the test when employers can fairly dismiss employees during the statutory probationary period for specific reasons related to performance and suitability. The Government will consult on our approach to ensure it has maximum flexibility so that the new framework works effectively for employers and employees in terms of the cost of its implementation and operation.

Motion F and Amendment 62C, tabled by the Government in the other place, relate to the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, unnecessary red tape on union activity works against the core negotiation and dispute resolution that we all seek. Bureaucratic hurdles do not prevent strike action; they only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining that settles disputes—and that is our commitment in this Bill in terms of ensuring the promotion of growth. The repeal of the 50% turnout threshold also aligns union democracy with other democratic processes, such as parliamentary votes and local elections, and we should not forget that.

16:15

However, we recognise concerns on turnout, and I am grateful for the conversations I have had with noble Lords opposite, including, of course, my noble brother. It is absolutely right that we address those concerns. That is why we tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place which will require the Secretary of State to have regard to any effects of the introduction of non-postal balloting, such as electronic balloting, and the proportion of those entitled to vote in industrial action ballots who actually do so. That will be the test of removing that 50% threshold, and I hope the noble Lord opposite will understand our commitment to ensure there is effective turnout.

Motion E and Amendment 72C tabled by the Government in the other place relate to political funds, and Motion E1 relates to the amendment in lieu of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I start by thanking the noble Lord for his engagement with me on this area, particularly in ensuring that we both understand our respective positions. However, I think I made it clear to him that we cannot accept his latest amendment in lieu, which effectively retains something similar to the arrangements in the 2016 Act, as members will be deemed to be a contributor to the political fund only if they opt into making these contributions, forcing members to make a choice to either opt in or opt out on the application forms, otherwise preventing them from joining a union if they do not do so. That is an additional burden on unions. In the Bill, we are simply returning to the situation as it was prior to the Trade Union Act 2016. The noble Lord’s amendment would also block the Government’s delivering on the commitment to repeal that Act. We are reinstating the long-standing practice that existed for 70 years before the passage of the 2016 Act, including that operated during the Thatcher and Major Administrations.

I reiterate, as we have in previous debates, that we are not removing choice. New members who opted in are doing so on the basis that they are actively joining a voluntary organisation that has structures to determine policy and action, and a political fund that has already been established via a democratic ballot of its members. Once part of the union, these members have control over how the political fund is used through the same democratic structures, including on questions of union affiliation or financial support to political parties. That is absolutely clear. We have been very clear, too, to be careful to draft the Bill to ensure that, at the point of joining, every new member will be clearly informed on their application form that they have the right to opt out of contributing to that political fund.

They can do this when joining or at any time afterwards. The same form will make it plain that opting out has no negative bearing whatever on any aspect of their union membership. These requirements for application forms must be set out in the rules of the unions that operate a political fund, and union rules are subject to approval from the certification officer. Exercising the right to opt out will not be onerous. The Bill specifies that union members will be able to provide an opt-out notice in various forms, including by post, email and completion of an electronic form—all the modern, speedy ways of communication that we now expect. These options for opting out must also be included in the rules of the union.

The Government also tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place, which takes into account how opt-out notices would take effect to ensure that unions can process these opt-out notices as quickly as possible. Under Amendment 72C, an opt-out notice will now have effect either on 1 January of the year after it has been provided or on a day specified or determined in the rules of the union, whichever of these dates comes first. This provides unions with flexibility under the legislation to act more quickly and process a member’s request to opt out, without having to wait until the subsequent 1 January to do so. We are committing to engage with unions directly to continue to make clear our expectation that opt-out notices will be honoured as swiftly as practically possible. I beg to move Motion B in the name of my noble friend Lady Lloyd.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for outlining the government amendments and for the noble Lords opposite’s willingness to meet. But to say that the amendments that have been offered are inadequate would be something of an understatement. In essence, they oblige the Secretary of State, before making regulations, to

“consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.

Who might those persons be? That really is the extent of the amendment. We already know that, so far, government consultations with business on this Bill have been desultory at best. I do not believe that the amendment even qualifies as a bunny, never mind a rabbit.

The chorus of disapproval for this proposed legislation has now been joined by Labour’s most successful ever Prime Minister, Sir Tony Blair. As my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley pointed out—and to expand on my noble friend’s remarks—in its report Tony Blair’s institute said:

“At present, employees gain protection from unfair dismissal only after two years—one of the longest qualifying periods in the OECD. The bill would move to the opposite extreme, granting such rights immediately. This would raise employment costs by increasing the legal and procedural risks attached to every new hire and discourage firms from recruiting—a concern already raised by some of the UK’s largest business groups, which have urged the government to amend the bill”.


Addressing the Government’s intention to introduce regulations allowing an initial probationary period, during which an employee could be dismissed under a light-touch process, the institute said that

“uncertainty over what rights apply during probation will do little to reassure employers nervous about taking on staff. Introducing a six-month qualifying period for unfair-dismissal protection, which is more typical among advanced economies including across much of Northern Europe and Australia, is more likely to balance fairness with flexibility”.

Meanwhile, billionaire Labour backer John Caudwell put it rather more succinctly. He said this will make Britain “less investable”. He continued:

“It’s not good for Britain, it’s not good for workers”.


Spot on.

To summarise, we have multiple business groups against this, and perhaps we should recap who they are: the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, Make UK, the ADS Group, the British Retail Consortium, Care England, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Family Business UK, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and UKHospitality. The British Chambers of Commerce contacted me after the last debate to explain that it would have signed the letter but had been too late.

Academia has added its voice to the chorus of disapproval. Professor Jonathan Haskel of Imperial College, and a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, said:

“Using the OECD index of employment regulation, there’s a negative relationship which is that more employment regulation means less intangible investment. My best prediction is that the employment rights bill is a rise in uncertainty for firms. The reason is that these employment rights are set out in broad outline in the bill but will then end up being interpreted by the courts”.


Those are all joined by the Government’s favourite think tank, as we discussed last time: the Resolution Foundation. Lest we forget, its former chief executive now sits in the Treasury. I have to say, looking at the Benches opposite, that they are also joined by quite a lot of Labour Peers, whose facial expressions the Minister cannot see.

The Government will of course say, “Business would say that, wouldn’t they?”, but that is to miss the point. These are the people who make hiring decisions, who decide whether to offshore because it is cheaper and causes them fewer HR headaches, whether to downsize, and whether to just close down completely, as we just heard so powerfully on the last group from my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley and his correspondent—I think it was Mr Dunham.

Remember that the impact assessment says the measure is likely to have a disproportionate impact on small and micro-businesses. Additionally, following the decision by the Government to double the conciliating period to 12 weeks for ACAS to resolve disputes, the Employment Lawyers Association has said:

“We are apolitical but the fact is that Parliament can pass all the reforming legislation it wants, but unless those laws can be enforced, with cases heard within a reasonable time, its laws are placed over the horizon, de facto out of sight to both workers and employers alike”.


These are the people who might be expected to benefit from the 10,500 increase in claims forecast to go before ACAS in the Government’s own impact assessment. Instead, they are expressing despair at the broken employment tribunal system.

As we saw last week, unemployment is rising and stands at almost 2 million, and it was reported yesterday that half the 170,000 jobs shed since Labour came to power are from the under-25s. Everyone who knows anything at all about wealth creation, about private sector hiring and about employment law says that the Bill will make it worse.

I need to refer back to the Tony Blair Institute, because it was very explicit about discouraging from hiring and I noticed that the Minister did not engage with that particular point in his introduction. This debate is about the people the party opposite claim to want to help. It is about a young person trying to find a job, a long-term unemployed person trying to rejoin the workforce, a woman wanting to return to work after having children, and somebody recovering from a long-term health issue getting back on their feet. The Bill should be about helping them; it is doing the complete opposite.

The last time we debated this, the Minister constructed a tortuous analogy and said that I and my party were on some sort of journey. If we are, our destination is common sense, and the Government need to listen to the wise voices on their own side and to join us.

On Motion F1, all I will do is quote what the Health Secretary said last week, that

“to be out on strike, setting back the NHS, because you don’t think we’re going fast enough, and because the leadership of your union are not honest enough that some of this change takes time, is extremely irresponsible. It is extremely unnecessary”.

He said that the BMA

“is no longer a professional association, and it is engaged in cartel-like behaviour”,

and that:

“The BMA’s leadership appear more interested in grandstanding and causing pain to patients than improving the lives of frontline resident doctors”.


Those are fairly damning words.

According to the Government’s own analysis, the full-time basic pay of resident doctors is expected to reach £54,300. This is where the farce becomes almost theatrical, because recently we heard that the Treasury considers that anyone earning above £45,000 a year is not a working person.

It appears that the Government have achieved something truly novel. They are actively creating a category of “non-working people”—not my phrase but the Chancellor’s own definition—and then showering them with no-strings-attached pay rises. Meanwhile, the BMA, emboldened by these spineless handouts, continues to abuse its influence, holding our NHS hostage while the Government wave through concessions without so much as a performance requirement or reform condition attached. The 50% threshold is not some sort of draconian barrier but a bare minimum, a line of defence against precisely this kind of chaos. Removing it will only accelerate the downward spiral that the Government have set in motion with their desperate, unconditional giveaways. The union bosses, entirely predictably, have now turned on them the moment it suited their agenda. I beg to move.

16:30

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, I support Motion B1. As the Minister has set out, the Government wish to go back to an arrangement where all new members automatically pay the contribution to the union’s political fund unless they take the initiative of opting out.

My own view is that it should be equally easy for a person to choose to contribute or not to contribute to the political fund at the point of applying to join the union. That is what my amendment seeks to do. The alternative approach supported by the Government is to have arrangements designed to minimise the number of new members who will exercise their legal right not to contribute to political funds. They want to do this by requiring action to opt out but not requiring any action to opt in, but, surely, an equal choice can be given only by respecting people’s personal preference.

Clearly, the Government wish to reduce the number of people exercising their right not to contribute. As one Labour Member in the House of Commons stated when opposing my amendment, they aim to avoid

“a reduction in the ability of working people to speak with a collective voice”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/25; col. 975.]

That is a wonderful euphemism for putting barriers in the way of people exercising their true preference.

I accept that opting out has been the dominant arrangement for political funds since 1945. However, as I said last time, the rest of the world has moved on. Technology and widespread use of online applications and communications have made it much easier and less burdensome for members of an organisation to make a clear and convenient choice. Additionally, the standards that are now accepted for dealing fairly with people exercising their choice have changed significantly. Active, explicit consent has become the accepted standard.

I have examined the existing application forms for five unions which have political funds and whose application forms are easy to access without having to initiate the online application process myself—which I thought would be a rather risky thing to do. Two forms stand out. The version of the UNISON form, which I have seen, already provides a clear choice. There are two parts to the fund, one for the benefit of the Labour Party and another for general campaigning. Applicants are asked to tick their preference between the campaign funds, Labour Link, and “no thank you”. The GMB form, which I have also seen, offers a clear choice in response to the question:

“Do you want to opt-in to the political fund?”


There are two boxes. Applicants are asked to select the “yes” or “no” box. The other three application forms simply ask whether new members wish to contribute to the political fund. However, importantly, all of them have clearly decided that it is in their own interests to ask applicants to opt in at the point that they apply to be members—I will come back to this in a moment.

My goal remains to find a solution that provides genuine freedom of choice, avoiding the need for repeated arguments with each change of government. My amendment requires all unions to adopt the approach taken by the GMB and UNISON unions under the present law. It would give members a clear and transparent choice when joining a union that gets away from a focus on opt-in or opt-out. Under the amendment, all applicants to join a union with a political fund would be required to answer a simple question: do they wish to contribute to the political fund or not? It is an equal choice with no bias. That question will be on the application form.

I worry that this amendment, as it is set down on the amendment paper, may seem rather lengthy and complicated, but the essence lies in Amendment 72D—the remaining amendments are all subsidiary to the key provision of that amendment.

In rejecting my previous amendment, the Minister in the House of Commons stated, and we have heard it from the Minister in this place again this afternoon, that reinstating automatic contributions to the political fund, unless members choose to opt out, would

“restore balance and fairness in union operations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/25; col. 958.]

But what could be more balanced and fairer than the present UNISON and GMB forms, where applicants have a clear choice which they exercise at the time that they apply to join?

The Minister further claimed in the other House that the current opt-in system did not improve transparency or strengthen members’ choice, but how can that possibly be true of the amendment I put forward today? What could be more transparent or strengthen choice more than presenting two options side by side, along with the case for having a political fund, and allowing members to choose between them?

The Minister in the House of Commons, and the Minister this afternoon, have emphasised that under the proposed arrangements in the Bill, members will be informed on the application form of their right to opt out of contributing to the political fund and that opting out will have no impact on other aspects of their membership. However, I notice that there has been no commitment to being able to exercise a choice to opt out by ticking a box on the application form. Perhaps the Minister could explain why this simple option was not mentioned and apparently will not be required. Even under the opt-out system proposed by the Government, it would improve transparency and strengthen choice if members could exercise their choice not to contribute on the application form. If they are required to apply subsequently for an opt-out form to complete, does this improve transparency? Does it strengthen choice? Of course not.

I have had very helpful conversations with the Minister, and I must say I am very sorry to find myself in dispute with the Government on this. I have no political interest in this debate but continue to press the issue because this is not the way we expect organisations to operate today. It is a step backwards from the hard-fought cross-party compromise of 2016, and it is a stark reversal of everything we have learned in recent years about making choice more transparent and ensuring that decisions better reflect people’s true preferences.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I want to speak to Motion B1. Like, I think, many noble Lords, I start to become a bit uncomfortable when we have multiple rounds of ping-pong; and I generally hesitate to vote against the Government in more than one round, but I am expecting to make an exception in this case, for four main reasons.

First, I firmly believe that introducing day-one unfair dismissal rights will cause real and permanent harm to young people and others who are seen as higher-risk hires, such as those who have been on benefits for a long period, ex-offenders and people who have had long career breaks, perhaps because of parental or other caring obligations. When I say permanent, I mean that; if you are unemployed for a year, it becomes considerably more difficult to get on to that ladder and to make a success of your career. This is really important.

I am supported in that belief by every business group. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has listed many such groups; I would add another: the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I am a member. There is the Resolution Foundation, the Tony Blair Institute, and perhaps most importantly, the Government’s own impact assessment, which is very clear on this. I would love to hear the Minister’s views on his own impact assessment—he has never actually addressed that point. None of the several Ministers in this place or the other place has made any coherent argument to the contrary. So I put the question very simply to the Minister: will restricting the reasons that may be used to dismiss someone during a probation period, and thereby opening up the risk of an employment tribunal from day one, make it more or less likely that an employer, especially a smaller employer, will take a risk on, or give a chance to, a young person with no experience? Is it more or less likely? It is very simple. I think most of us know the answer to that. Is he going to argue that his own impact assessment is wrong?

Secondly, this measure directly contradicts other government policy. The Government’s youth guarantee, something I am strongly in favour of, will offer every eligible young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months guaranteed paid work. To do that, you need employers who are willing to give them a job and to take that risk. Why would an employer do that if they can be taken to the employment tribunal from day one if the employment does not work out? It does not make sense.

Thirdly, despite, frankly, the clear harm that this will do, the Government have not provided any evidence that the change will create any material tangible benefits for workers. No evidence has been provided to show that the qualifying period is being abused or is causing actual harm. There is no evidence provided in the impact assessment; there is evidence that doing this will cause harm, but none about the harm we are trying to solve. No evidence has been provided in this or the other place.

The Resolution Foundation is also very clear: if we are going to harm the life chances of young people, which is what the Government confirm in their impact assessment, we must have real evidence that there is a genuine greater benefit, not just the usual statement that it cannot be right that someone can ever be dismissed for no reason.

Fourthly and finally, I want to look more closely at the claim that this is a manifesto commitment. It is in the manifesto, but it is part of a wider commitment that includes the explicit commitment:

“We will consult fully with businesses, workers, and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation is passed”.


We have heard several times today that the Government will consult afterwards. They might argue that that is because the rules for the probationary period will be in a statutory instrument.

Let us unpick this light-touch probationary period the Government are talking about. The problem is that the Bill expressly and specifically sets out the reasons why someone can be dismissed from day one during that probationary period, meaning that it is not genuinely a probationary period. Under the Bill, it cannot become a light-touch probationary period; that is simply impossible, given the way the Bill is drafted. I would love to understand more about the light-touch probationary period because we have had no detail about what it really means. However, the employer is obligated by the Bill—the Act, should that come to pass—to give specific reasons which are limited by the Bill. It cannot be light-touch, so I would like to understand better what the Government mean by that.

There is a possible way forward, however, which is where I start, perhaps, to part company with the Opposition. It is because the Bill sets out that there have to be specific reasons for dismissal that is the problem—that is what allows the employment tribunal to get involved during a probationary period and all the rest of it. I wonder—I am thinking aloud—whether there is a solution to the problem by taking that element out.

For those reasons, I am inclined to support the Opposition on Motion B1. I urge the Minister to take this seriously. As the Resolution Foundation put it so well, let us not

“needlessly put employers off hiring”.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we have heard four very good speeches, and I do not intend to repeat them. I listened very carefully to the Minister and, unusually, I will read what he said in Hansard rather than just saying I will, because there was some interesting stuff there. I picked out the phrase, “We will not compromise on the fundamental principles of the Bill”. It would help if those could be set out because they are currently in the eye of the beholder.

The Minister also raised the notion that someone who had worked just less than two years should not be unfairly dismissed. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, recognises that point fundamentally but there are 730 days between day one and two years. We do not have to go from 730 to one; there are stages. We may disagree on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, pulled out the issue of light-touch rules and the criteria for fair dismissal in the Bill. I have some problems with the noble Lord’s suggestion, because if it is not in primary legislation, it will come as secondary legislation. We all know that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition never kill secondary legislation—I am looking at them. We would like to from time to time because it should happen; there should be a sense of jeopardy in secondary legislation, which currently there is not. Without that sense of jeopardy, I am not happy with taking things out. However, if it is in primary legislation, the consultation is not worth anything because it is already there, so we might as well forget about that.

16:45

As we know, as drafted, the Bill would abolish a qualifying period altogether. The rationale behind that is clear and we will support the noble Lord in the event that that Motion is put.

We also heard a compelling speech from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that I will not attempt to improve on, but the Minister should listen to what he said about bringing this back into the political arena, because once the political pendulum is pushed, it can swing back. That is worth bearing in mind.

Finally, Motion F1 reinstates the requirement that industrial action can proceed only if at least 50% vote. This is something we have supported in the past and we will continue to.

I return very briefly to Motion B1. To make jobs pay, as we have said, there need to be jobs. We learn that half the jobs lost since this Government came to power were for workers under 25—the very people who the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Sharpe, talked about. Their future will not be helped—indeed, it will be hindered—by the Bill, nor will the millions on benefits the Government seek to move into employment. That is the 21% inactive that I talked about in the first group. I hope that noble Lords can help common sense prevail by voting today and supporting these amendments.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise: I wanted to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke, but he went far too quickly and never looked in my direction.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, a former Lord Chief Justice and the first President of the Supreme Court, asked a question: would you employ somebody with a criminal record without the qualifying period? He was never answered. Like a gramophone where the needle has stuck, I am stuck in that groove, so I will ask a second time: would you employ somebody without any qualifying period if they have a criminal record? I will add another category. Say somebody graduated from university and could have worked because they are not unwell, but they have not worked for 30 years and they want to go back to work: would you employ them without any probationary period? The serious issue here is like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said: going from two years to just one day—24 hours and you are in.

There is another thing that worries me. We tend to describe employers as if they are all rogues. There are some bad employers, but the majority abide by the law. Today, they go before a tribunal if there is an unfair dismissal, so most people do not do it, but they want to have the security of knowing, when someone comes in, that there is a period of six months, say, during which they find out how that person plays in the firm and whether they are going to be loyal and faithful.

This probationary period is not a bad thing; most of us have been through it. I was a deacon for one year, and if they had discovered that I was no good, that would have been the end. The bishop would not have made me a priest; he would have said, “I will leave you as a deacon, and somebody, one day, may use you”. That sort of thing is discussed in relation to people in the Army. For example, a gentleman might want to become a commanding officer, and his trainer puts on his report, “Men will follow this gentleman, out of nothing”—or, in other words, “Do not take him”. Those reports are still being written.

Let us not deny employers who like to take on young people who have done some kind of mentoring work. I took on some, and that period was very useful. Quite a number ended up being ordained. We are discussing one day—24 hours—in which someone cannot be dismissed. I reckon that that is not how the world works. We want to protect workers’ rights but let us do it properly.

Finally, although this is a manifesto commitment, there is always a hurdle to turning a manifesto commitment into legislation. For me, the law is a public statement of policy; it is not just a manifesto commitment. Will this country go awry because we are so keen to protect workers’ rights—which we all want to do—without any qualifying period? I support Motion B1.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I cannot resist telling the House the following. Immediately after secretarial college, I had a job for a fortnight. On the last day, my employer said to me, “What are you really wanting to do?”, and I said, “Be a barrister”. He replied, “Thank goodness. You would never make a career as a secretary”.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We have had many days of debate in Committee and on Report, so I want to bring matters to a conclusion. Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. The Government will ensure that employers can operate a statutory probationary period to assess new hires. That is exactly what will be in the Bill and what we will consult on. We are committed to consulting on the light-touch approach to the probationary period, and we have made that clear at each stage of the Bill.

Our reforms to the labour market are critical for growth, because low productivity is our biggest problem in this country. How do we ensure that we motivate good employers? I have correspondence from think tanks, such as the Tony Blair Institute, on protecting workers from unfair dismissal from day one of employment. They say that employers could respond to this by improving their people management—a vital ingredient to productivity—which could boost labour productivity. This must be one of the benefits that comes from job mobility. These are issues that we discussed in Committee, so I do not want to go on.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, raised the issue of convictions. I have repeatedly said that, currently, having a spent conviction is not a proper ground on which someone can be dismissed, unless it is from one of the roles listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The two-year qualifying period applies, making it an unfair dismissal claim in those circumstances, which is what the Conservatives have put.

I appreciate, as I said to the noble Lord opposite before, that the Conservatives have been on a journey from day-one rights to six months, 12 months and two years—and they are now back to six months. I urge them to think about going that one step further. Most employment law has been subject to those statutory instruments and codes of practice, because we do need to respond to them. It is incredibly complicated, and we cannot simply put it in the Bill.

The impact assessment is there. If nothing else happens then of course there will be a danger, but the point I am making is that this is about creating a fairer and better workforce, where we encourage employers to set the best practice so that we have a situation where productivity is increased. What are we afraid of? I believe that no one in this Chamber supports unfair dismissal. We are talking about is ensuring that everyone who is employed can have that basic human right. Therefore, it is absolutely important.

The whole point—I will repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—is that, as we have said from the start, the implementation will be done with a light touch. There will be a power in the Bill to modify the test for when employers can fairly dismiss employees during the statutory probationary period. In response to all the issues that noble Lords raised in Committee and on Report—such as whether we are getting rid of the probationary period or, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked, whether we are inhibiting employers—the answer is no; we just want it done properly and fairly. That is not an unreasonable demand in this modern age.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that there has indeed been a burden on the tribunal system because of unfair dismissals, as we have seen the cost of that. We recognise the volume of cases going to both ACAS and the employment tribunal, and the Government will extend the ACAS early conciliation time from six weeks to 12 weeks from 1 December, to allow it to manage and deal with the demand for early conciliation services. DPT is also providing additional financing immediately to recruit 29 additional conciliators, ensuring that ACAS can deal with that. Therefore, we are responding to those issues.

The BMA strike ballot was under the conditions that the noble Lord talked about, but that has not stopped the dispute. What will stop it is having proper negotiations, and that is what the Health Minister is focused on ensuring happens. Legislating to somehow undermine ballots is not the answer. We want to ensure that unions are representative and that their ballots are too. We want to ensure that they have a modern way of balloting, to ensure that we increase participation. That will be the key to future fair and open collective bargaining.

I turn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on political funds. He knows—I have incredibly strongly made this point to him—that a trade union is not a company and is not offering services. It is a democratic body. There are collective decisions. If a trade union makes a resolution at its conference to support X or Y policy, that is the collective decision. People can opt out of that collective decision by leaving the trade union—and many do. If a union starts spouting things that are not representative of its members, then the members will walk. It is not compulsory to be a member of a trade union. However, it is a collective body making collective decisions.

The noble Lord said, “We want to avoid pendulum swings”. I admire the work that he did on his committee, which ensured that there was a soft landing for a decision made by the then Government in 2016 to break a consensus that had been in existence from 1945. We are trying to return to that consensus, in order to recognise that trade unions are an important part of our democracy. I have said before that the most important ingredient of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society. We all need to be challenged, and that is what this is about—collective decisions.

Whether the noble Lord thinks so or not, the fact is that his current amendment basically maintains the processes of 2016. I have engaged in discussions with him. I think most trade union leaders recognise that the world has changed. When I first joined a trade union, in the early 1970s, it required us to write a letter. The only information about contracting out was contained in the rulebook. Not many people read the rulebook. We now have online facilities—email—and the possibility of someone exercising their right to opt out. Of course, the reasons for opting out are not just political; they can be religious. That has been part of the consensus since 1945.

17:00

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has a strong view about this, but, if we can make progress in the future, it will be on the basis of understanding that collective responsibility and ensuring that people’s ability to opt out—to contract out—is properly transparent and acted upon speedily, which is why we put that amendment down in the other place.

I hope the noble Lords will understand that we have tried to respond to the cases. On the threshold, it is very clear, and I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing his Motion—and indeed all his Motions. We have said that we will not implement that change without absolutely ensuring that the issue of turnout is properly addressed through members being able to vote not just by post but through other methods. I have banged on long enough, so I hope we can respond to this.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but he has yet again failed to answer the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. We know that you cannot use a spent conviction as a reason for a dismissal, and that is entirely appropriate. The point is that there will not be anybody with a spent conviction in work, because no one will employ them. That is what the noble and right reverend Lord was asking, and yet again the Government have failed to answer what is a very straightforward question. They also failed entirely to address the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, highlighting the difficulties young people are likely to face, and indeed are facing in the current workplace, because of this Bill.

I am afraid that the answers have not alleviated our concerns on these Benches. We entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns. It is not just the noble Lord who is obsessed with this; I think the whole House is. If he wishes to press his Motion, we will support him, but, in the meantime, I commend Motion B1 to the House.

17:03

Division 2

Ayes: 309

Noes: 150

17:15

Motion C

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 48B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48C.

48C: Because the amendment is unnecessary.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 48B.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I beg to move Motion C1.

17:16

Division 3

Ayes: 298

Noes: 157

17:28

Motion D

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 60B and 60C, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 60D and 60E in lieu of Lords Amendments 60B and 60C.

60D: Page 60, line 23, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance about the employment of children on heritage railways
(1) The Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive, acting jointly, must, before the end of the relevant 12-month period, prepare and publish guidance setting out circumstances in which a child carrying out activities for the purposes of a heritage railway in Great Britain is, or is not, to be regarded as employed in an industrial undertaking for the purposes of section 1 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 (restrictions on the employment of children in industrial undertakings).
(2) The Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive, acting jointly—
(a) may from time to time revise guidance published under this section;
(b) must publish any revisions of that guidance.
(3) In this section—
“heritage railway” means a railway which—
(a) is operated for the purposes of—
(i) preserving, recreating or simulating railways of the past, or
(ii) demonstrating or operating historical or special types of motive power or rolling stock, and
(b) is exclusively or primarily used for recreational or educational purposes;
“railway” includes a tramway;
“the relevant 12-month period” means the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

60E: Clause 156, page 150, line 13, at end insert—
“( ) section (Guidance about the employment of children on heritage railways) (guidance about the employment of children on heritage railways);”

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for their engagement on this issue.

The Government’s amendments, which were tabled in the other place, build on the previous amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, placing a statutory duty on the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to produce guidance supporting 14 to 16 year-olds volunteering on heritage railways. This guidance will offer a clear benchmark for reasonable activities and assist inspectors in enforcement decisions. The Government are committed to this work, with publication targeted for 31 March 2026.

By working with the regulators, as well as heritage railways that are already operating successful volunteering programmes for children, there can be clear and practical guidance to protect the health, safety and well-being of young people interested in volunteering on heritage railways. This collaborative approach will provide practical guidance that empowers children to engage safely and meaningfully in heritage railway volunteering. In turn, it should provide the necessary bodies with reassurance.

It is of utmost importance that young people get the opportunity to learn new skills and gain confidence, as well as to help their community—all while ensuring that high-risk activities are not carried out and only appropriate activities are undertaken. I beg to move the Motion.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. The House has heard me speak on this subject a number of times over the past 10 years, ever since the counsel’s opinion came through that the engagement of young people on heritage railways and tramways was illegal under the 1920 Act. The government amendment, which bears a remarkable resemblance to the one that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and I discussed with Ministers during the process of the Bill’s consideration, removes that threat from heritage railways provided that they follow the guidance which the ORR and the Health and Safety Executive lay down for them. I am grateful to them for their willingness to undertake the consultation which will produce that guidance, we hope by 31 March. Meanwhile, heritage railways are now able to recruit youngsters legally and, I believe, successfully to be involved in the running of the railway, and thereby provide some certainty that the heritage railway movement will continue. I will of course support the Motion that my noble friend has moved.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I will be briefer still. I renew my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and the Government for listening on this issue and my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has campaigned on this issue for many years. This compromise from the Government, which the noble Lord very kindly outlined to us before the tabling of the Motion in another place, puts beyond the uncertainty of recent years an issue that has prevented young people from gaining skills and opportunities in volunteering on heritage railways, which are often considerable employers in their local areas and the linchpin of the visitor economy. This is a measure which will help growth and employment, as well as extending opportunity.

As it happens, when the Government were inserting these new words into the Bill in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I were both at the Heritage Railway Association’s annual conference in Southampton where the Government were rightly getting the plaudits that they deserve for moving on this issue, so I am very grateful that they have done so.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I add my support and thanks to the Government for this amendment.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their very kind words. I thank my noble friend Lord Faulkner and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for their engagement with the Government, myself and my colleagues. This amendment is good news to the thousands of volunteers working in heritage railways up and down the country, who will not have to worry about breaching any legislation. That said, let us choo-choo along and I beg to move.

Motion D agreed.

Motion E

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 61 and 72, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 72C in lieu of Lords Amendments 61 and 72.

72C: Clause 59, page 87, line 10, after “case,” insert “the earlier of—
(i) a day specified in, or determined in accordance with, the rules of the union, and
(ii)”

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E, and I beg to move.

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

Moved by

[Lord Burns]

Leave out from “disagreed” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 72C in lieu of Lords Amendments 61 and 72; and do propose Amendments 72D to 72H in lieu—

72D: Clause 59, page 86, line 24, leave out from “fund),” to end of line 25, and insert, “for subsection (1)(ca)(i), substitute “a requirement for the person to make a choice (without which the application to join the union cannot be processed) between being a contributor to the fund or not being a contributor to the fund, and””

72E: Clause 59, page 86, leave out from beginning of line 28 to end of line 9 on page 88, and insert—
“84 Contributions to political fund from union members
(1) It is unlawful to require a member of a trade union to make a contribution to the political fund of a trade union if the member has not chosen to become a contributor.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a member of a trade union is deemed to have chosen to become a contributor to the political fund of the union if they—
(a) are an existing contributor to the political fund immediately before the date on which section 59 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 comes into force,
(b) have chosen to be a contributor under the provisions of section 82(1)(ca)(i) or subsection (5), or
(c) have chosen to become a contributor at a later date by submitting a political fund contribution change form under subsection (8).
(3) A trade union must give a political fund contribution consent form to each member of the union within the period of eight weeks beginning with the day after the day on which a political resolution is passed by the members of the union under section 73.
(4) A “political fund contribution consent form” is a form which requires the person to make a choice between being a contributor to the fund or not being a contributor to the fund.
(5) Any member who is issued with a political fund contribution consent form under subsection (3) shall only be deemed to be a contributor if they have returned the form indicating that they wish to be a contributor.
(6) A member of a trade union may change their choice about whether to contribute to the political fund at any time.
(7) A member of a trade union may change their choice about whether to contribute to the political fund by completing a political fund contribution change form provided by their union and—
(a) delivering it (either personally or by an authorised agent or by post) at the head office or a branch office of the union;
(b) sending it by email to an address that the union has told its members can be used for sending such notices;
(c) completing an electronic form provided by the union, and sending it to the union by electronic means in accordance with instructions given by the union;
(d) by such other electronic means as may be prescribed.
(8) A political fund contribution change form takes effect at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is given.
84A Information to members about changing their choice on contributing to political fund
(1) A trade union must give a political fund contribution change notice to each member of the union within the period of eight weeks beginning with the end of—
(a) the period of one year beginning with the day on which a political resolution is passed, and
(b) each successive year,
unless during that previous year the political resolution is rescinded or otherwise ceases to have effect.
(2) A “political fund contribution change notice” is a notice stating that—
(a) each member of the union has the right to change whether they are a contributor to the political fund of the union, and
(b) a member may exercise that right by completing a political fund contribution change form under section 84.
(3) A political fund contribution change notice must be given in accordance with rules of the union approved for the purpose by the Certification Officer.
(4) In deciding whether to approve those rules, the Certification Officer must have regard in each case to the existing practice and character of the union.”

72F: Clause 59, page 88, line 25, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“(4) The amendments made by subsection (3) apply only after the end of the transition period.
(5) In subsection (4) “the transition period” means a period of not less than 12 months, starting on the day on which this section comes into force, specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made by statutory instrument.
(5A) Before making regulations under subsection (5) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Certification Officer, and
(b) all trade unions that have a political fund.
(5B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

72G: Clause 59, page 89, line 2, leave out “84(1)” and insert “84(2)”

72H: Clause 59, page 89, line 6, leave out paragraph (b)

[Lord Burns (CB)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

17:35

Division 4

Ayes: 302

Noes: 135

17:47

Motion F

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 62, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 62C in lieu of Lords Amendment 62.

62C: Clause 156, page 151, line 6, at end insert—
“(5) In deciding whether and when to make regulations under subsection (3) bringing section 65 (industrial action ballots: turnout threshold) into force for any purpose, the Secretary of State must have regard to what effect any provision made after this Act is passed for industrial action ballots to be conducted otherwise than by post has had, or is expected to have, on the proportion of those eligible to vote voting in such ballots.
(6) In subsection (5) “industrial action ballot” means a ballot for the purposes of section 226 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (ballots on industrial action).”

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.

Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 62, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 62C.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I beg to move Motion F1.

17:49

Division 5

Ayes: 295

Noes: 150

Crime and Policing Bill

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Committee (2nd Day)

Northern Ireland legislative consent granted, Scottish and Welsh legislative consent sought. Relevant documents: 11th Report from the Constitution Committee, 33rd Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

18:00

Amendment 40

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

40: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Forfeiture of vehicles under the Environmental Protection Act 1990In section 33C of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (section 33 offences: forfeiture of vehicles), omit subsection (7).”Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove some of the issues a court has to consider before granting a forfeiture order for someone convicted of fly tipping controlled waste, and ensures that the innocent landowner must not bear the cost of removal.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for the delay; the lift was delayed, so I just made it.

In moving my Amendment 40, I will also address Amendment 42. Amendment 40 suggests omitting subsection (7), on the forfeiture of vehicles, from the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The first question is: what does subsection (7) say? To start with, this part of the 1990 Act deals with the criminal act of illegally fly-tipping and the massive amounts of rubbish dumped in the countryside, including controlled waste. We saw an example of that at the weekend at Kidlington, where an enormous amount was illegally dumped there. Section 33 deals with a forfeiture of vehicles and rightly gives the appropriate authority, which may be a local authority or the Environment Agency, power to ask the court to take possession of the vehicle used in the commission of the crime and dispose of it—excellent law, in my opinion.

Regarding subsection (7), the point of my amendment is to remove a few hoops which the court has to consider before making the order—in my opinion they are not necessary—and make it more difficult to penalise the organised crime rackets behind most of the worst illegal dumping. Thus, subsection (7) says:

“In considering whether to make an order under this section a court must in particular have regard to … the value of the vehicle … the likely financial and other effects on the offender of the making of the order (taken together with any other order that the court contemplates making) … the offender’s need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes”


and

“whether, in a case where it appears to the court that the offender is engaged in a business which consists wholly or partly in activities which are unlawful by virtue of section 33 above … the making of the order is likely to inhibit the offender from engaging in further such activities”.

I say to these caveats that the value of the vehicle is irrelevant. If the criminal uses it to commit a crime, too bad. Whether it is a 20 year-old clapped-out van or a new Mercedes-Benz Sprinter, if it is used in a crime, he loses it, whatever the value. As for the likely financial effects, what should we care if it has financial effects on the criminal? I would hope it would—that is the point of confiscating the implement he uses to commit the crime.

Then the court has to consider the criminal’s

“need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes”.

I have no doubt that he will tell the court that he needs it to transport meals on wheels or medical supplies and give any number of bogus excuses. If a criminal uses a vehicle for criminal purposes and has made a lot of money by doing so, he should forfeit the vehicle, even if he can no longer use it for the school run.

Let us not be naive. We are not looking here at a householder who drives in his Volvo to the countryside to dump a bag of garbage but at serious and organised criminals, using their three-tonne tipper trucks—or, as we saw recently, their 30-tonne tipper trucks—to dump thousands of tonnes of controlled waste, including asbestos, chemicals and other building rubble. It is estimated, according to our House of Lords Select Committee report of two weeks ago, that the organised gangs make about £1 billion per annum from illegal dumping of controlled waste. As I said in a debate last week, the only thing that hurts these criminals is not a fine, which they might not pay, but depriving them of their property. We should not have any get-outs, as we have in subsection (7); instead, we should confiscate any and all vehicles used in their criminal waste-dumping activities.

I will not speak to Amendment 42, since my noble friends on the Front Bench put down their own amendment before mine and will make a better argument of it than I can. All I say is that I apologise that my explanatory statement is wrong here; I inadvertently attached the same one as for Amendment 40. However, going back to Amendment 40, I beg to move.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly support my noble friend. He has done the Committee a great service by bringing forward these amendments. The Bill is indeed very broad, and the question of fly-tipping falls very squarely within its auspices.

This is a very serious issue indeed, and it is undertaken by a range of criminals, from small one-man bands to large, organised gangs, and everything in between. The fact is that we still have a really serious problem, which is not taken sufficiently seriously by law enforcement. Therefore, we have to bring forward measures that the criminals will be frightened of and will not just consider as a cost of business of being in that field. They must be concerned about the potential loss of their vehicles and the potential removal of—or, at least, adding of points to—their driving licenses. I could not agree with my noble friend any more; he has absolutely hit the nail on the head.

There is another very important measure, on which we will hear from my noble friends on the Official Opposition Front Bench in a few moments, around equity. It is inequitable that the person who is the victim of this crime must be responsible for clearing it up—that is just completely wrong. I have never understood why that should be the case.

I declare an interest of some description in that I have a small farm in Devon. I really feel for landowners and those who have responsibility for land. They go into their fields to tend their stock and then see massive piles of waste that could contain everything from biowaste to asbestos, to building products, and so forth, and then somehow it becomes their problem to find the means to clear it up. This is wrong, so we ought to use the Bill, in a very positive way, to remove that burden on the victims of crime and put it on the perpetrators, with support from local authorities.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will respond briefly to this group of amendments. Fly-tipping is out of control and a very serious problem. As we have heard, farmers and innocent landowners often end up paying the cost for other people’s criminality. The Government’s own statistics show that around 20% of all waste generated ends up being illegally managed. These figures highlight the absolute scale of the problem. With profits being up to £2,500 per lorry, if you start driving 30 lorries a day, the profits soon add up. So this is no longer a small matter of rural dumping but a major criminal enterprise—it certainly spreads into major criminal enterprises—which damages our ecosystems, undermines legitimate businesses and leaves legitimate legal landowners with responsibilities.

We on these Benches start from the position that prevention is better than cure and call on the Government to make rapid reforms and approaches to these issues through a lens of fairness, proportionality and effective enforcement. We stand firmly behind innocent landowners and want to see progress made on these matters. The law needs fundamental and major reform. We would like to see that happen.

Amendment 40 concerns the forfeiture of vehicles under the Environmental Protection Act. We can see the logic in removing Section 33C(7), strengthening the ability to confiscate vehicles used for fly-tipping offences. Its removal concerns the offenders’ need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes—well, they should have thought about that before they started using it for illegal ones. However, enforcement agencies must ensure that these powers are used proportionately if the Government agree to them.

Amendments 41 and 42 relate to landowners and the bills that they are facing from others’ criminality. We support the principle that the polluter should pay and that those who dump waste should be caught and prosecuted. However, we have some concerns about these amendments. This is a complicated matter and the truth is that most of these criminals are not caught. Convictions are often far too lenient. Often, when people are caught, the authorities lack the financial capability to track down sufficient funds to meet clean-up costs. This can all take considerable time, during which there is ongoing environmental damage.

Amendment 42 comes as a package deal with Amendment 41. It states categorically:

“Any guidance issued under this section must state that the costs of removal of illegally tipped refuse will not fall on the landowner on whose property the refuse was dumped”.


The trouble is that it does not say who does pick up the cost. It raises a lot of questions without providing enough answers. In some cases, we are seeing criminals even buying land specifically for the purposes of dumping waste—it is so profitable to do so. I am worried about the nuance of the law in this. I fully recognise that the law needs full reform. I have every sympathy with what the noble Lords are trying to do. I am just not certain that, as drafted, these amendments would do what the noble Lords intend.

Amendment 46 seeks to add a penalty point to driving licences of those convicted of fly-tipping. This is about creating a potentially powerful deterrent. This policy was a hangover from the last Conservative Government which was not legislated for. Fly-tippers depend on their vehicles to carry out their criminal activities. This is an amendment that we generally welcome and support. I would be interested in the Government’s response to it.

Amendment 47 goes further by seeking to amend the Police Reform Act to allow vehicles used in fly-tipping to be seized. Local authorities already have a lot of these powers to seize vehicles. This amendment would take it further. I am interested in the Minister’s response to this amendment. Separate to these amendments, I ask the Government to go further and consider giving local authorities greater powers to stop vehicles that are suspected of taking part in fly-tipping and to create greater co-operation and intelligence sharing between local authorities and the police.

Some of the answers to these questions revolve around our policy of a national fund to support innocent landowners who fall victim to this, rather than this approach and these amendments. We call for that fund to be enacted from levies on waste carriers and for that money to help innocent landowners who find themselves the victims of others’ crime.

18:15

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group address the very serious blight that is fly-tipping. The issue lies at the heart of community life. It is vital that we make every effort to ensure environmental protection and community confidence in law enforcement.

The scale of fly-tipping in the UK should not be understated. Between 2023 and 2024, local authorities in England dealt with around 1.15 million incidents, a 6% increase on the previous year. The majority of these cases involved household waste, sometimes dumped in bulk. Unfortunately, the absolute number of prosecutions is tiny in relation to the problem. There were only 1,598 prosecuted actions in that same year. Fly-tipping is organised crime, but it is local councils and private landowners who often bear the cost of clearing up the mess.

The amendments tabled in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Davies and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen seek to protect local communities from the destructive practice of fly-tipping by providing for harsher penalties and giving the police more powers to act. Amendment 41 amends Clause 9 so as to ensure that the Secretary of State’s guidance on fly-tipping makes the person responsible for the fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, liable for the costs of cleaning up. It is wrong that this is currently left to judicial discretion—that risks inconsistent outcomes. The amendment does identify the person responsible, who in this case is the convicted offender.

My Amendment 46 introduces a further enforcement tool. Where a person is found to have committed a fly-tipping offence, authorities would have the power to add three points to their driving licence. Rather than simply compelling fly-tipping offenders to pay a fine, which they may deem a worthy risk when compared with the profits of their actions, this measure places at risk the offenders’ ability to drive. By threatening points on driving licences, repeat offenders will be less likely to fly-tip as their licences will be in jeopardy.

I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his Amendment 42, which seeks to ensure in statute that the cost of cleaning up fly-tipping should not fall on to the landowners. In many ways, this amendment seeks to achieve the same outcome as my Amendment 41. I therefore welcome it and hope that the Government will pay it due regard.

I also thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his Amendment 40, which seeks to remove the provision of third-party protection for seizure of vehicles in respect of fly-tipping, which he spoke to most compellingly just now. This would mean that offenders cannot escape punishment by using someone else’s vehicle and that local authorities are better equipped to tackle fly-tipping. Again, I look forward to hearing the Government’s position on this proposal. If we are to tackle fly-tipping seriously, it is important that police are well equipped to act.

My Amendment 47 seeks to amend Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 so that the police can seize a vehicle which they reasonably believe has been used in association with fly-tipping offences. It empowers the police, not just local authorities, to take action.

In conclusion, these are practical, targeted interventions with a clear principle: those who dump waste illegally should be held to account and local communities should not be left footing the bill. I hope that all noble Lords recognise the importance of holding those who dump waste to account and protecting communities from the blight of illegal dumping. I earnestly hope that the Government will consider carefully the practical measures proposed by me and my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the broader structural steps proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in the amendments in the next group. Together they form a system for tackling fly-tipping. I look forward with interest to the Minister’s response.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, we are debating again the Crime and Policing Bill—the second day in Committee—which has as its core purpose making our communities safer, protecting victims from harm and ensuring that they secure the justice they deserve, so it is fitting that I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Hanson earlier today, when he spoke on the border security Bill, by paying my own tribute to that doughty campaigner for victims’ rights, Baroness Newlove. Her tireless campaigning on behalf of victims and the bereaved was truly inspirational. Like other Members of your Lordships’ House, I was deeply saddened to hear of her most untimely passing. She will be much missed, and I am sure all noble Lords will join me in passing on our condolences to her family and friends.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Davies of Gower, for setting out the Opposition’s position on Clause 9 and fly-tipping more generally. Fly-tipping is a serious issue, as both the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. It is environmental vandalism, and you have only to consider the enormous pile of illegally dumped waste by the A34 and the River Cherwell in Kidlington, to which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred, to see that this is a very real problem, which the Government are absolutely committed to tackling.

On that particular, egregious example of fly-tipping, noble Lords will, I hope, be pleased to hear that the Government are engaging with the Environment Agency on this specific case. I understand that an investigation is under way. An Environment Agency restriction order has been served to prevent access to the site and further tipping, and the local resilience forum has been notified to explore opportunities with multi-agency support.

In 2023-24, local authorities in England reported 1.15 million fly-tipping incidents and 60% of fly-tips involved household waste. Fly-tipping is not only an eyesore, blighting our streets and open spaces, it can pose a serious public health hazard when not effectively dealt with. It really impacts the quality of life in communities across our land, often the most deprived areas, urban and rural, and that is why we as a Government are committed to tackling it.

The current waste carriers, brokers and dealers regulatory regime is not fit for purpose and the Government have announced plans to reform this regime and move the regulation of waste management and transport from a light-touch registration scheme into environmental permitting. We committed in our manifesto to forcing fly-tippers to clean up the mess that they have created, as part of a crackdown on anti-social behaviour, and will provide further details on this commitment in due course. We are also carrying out a review of local authority powers to seize and crush vehicles of suspected fly-tippers, to identify how we can help councils make better use of this specific tool.

We want to see an effective enforcement strategy at the centre of local efforts to combat the problem, which makes full and proper use of the available powers. I stress that we think that this is appropriately done at the local level, because it is local people, local communities, and indeed local councillors, who are elected to represent those communities, who are best placed to understand the specific needs and issues in those areas. Clause 9 will help achieve that by placing a legal duty on councils across the country to have regard to forthcoming guidance on fly-tipping enforcement.

I recognise the significant burden that clearing fly-tipping waste places on landowners. However, I do not believe that Amendment 41 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and Amendment 42 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, are the right way to tackle the issue.

Through Section 33B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, where local authorities prosecute fly-tippers, a court can mandate that a costs order be made on the convicted person in order that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. Such a cost order is a criminal penalty and, as such, is properly imposed by the independent judiciary under the relevant provisions of the 1990 Act. Where there is sufficient evidence, fly-tippers can be prosecuted and, on conviction, a costs order can be made by the court so that those landowners’ costs can be recovered.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister help the Committee by telling us how often such an order has been imposed?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am afraid I will have to write to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, with that detail. But I stress that there is no statutory limit on the amount of compensation that may be imposed for an offence committed by an offender aged 18 or over. However, in determining whether to make a compensation order and the amount that should be paid under such an order, the court must take into account the offender’s means. If they are limited, priority must be given to the payment of compensation over a fine, although a court may still impose a fine. I suppose 20% of something is better than 100% of nothing, if I can put it that way.

Having said that, guidance on presenting court cases produced by the National Fly-tipping Prevention Group, which is a group chaired by Defra that includes a wide range of representatives from interested parties—central and local government, enforcement authorities, the waste industry, police and fire services, private landowners, and the devolved Administrations—sets out that prosecutors should consider applying for compensation for the removal of waste. Defra will consider building on this advice in the statutory guidance that will be issued under Clause 9 once the Bill becomes law.

Noble Lords will also be interested, I hope, to hear that local authorities can already issue fixed penalties of up to £1,000 to fly-tippers, the income from which must be spent on clean-up or enforcement. Local authorities issued 63,000 fixed penalty notices in total for fly-tipping during 2023-24, and these were the second most common enforcement action, according to Defra data.

I fully understand the sentiment behind these amendments and entirely accept the principle that the polluter should pay but the Government believe that the sentencing framework, as set out in primary legislation, is the proper place to deal with this issue. I recognise, however, that there may be benefits in providing the court with an alternative disposal relating to penalty points, as proposed in Amendment 46 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Defra remains committed to considering such a move and will provide an update in due course.

I also stress, and in response to Amendment 47, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, noted, that there is an existing power for local councils and the police to seize a vehicle where there is a reasonable belief that it is being used or had been used for fly-tipping, which can lead to the vehicle being sold or crushed if it is not claimed. If the vehicle is claimed, the council can prosecute and a court can order that ownership rights are transferred to the council, under which it can keep, sell or dispose of the vehicle. There were nearly 400 vehicles seized in 2023-24 as an enforcement action.

When such an order is being considered, it is appropriate that the court must consider certain factors that Amendment 40, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to remove. The duty on the courts to consider these factors, such as the financial impacts of the forfeiture or the offender’s need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes, embeds principles of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of—our friend—the European Convention on Human Rights. This entitles a person to a peaceful enjoyment of their possessions but allows the state to enforce laws to control use of that property when it is in the general interest. Any such interference with this right must be lawful for legitimate aim and be proportionate. Amendment 40 would remove these safeguards, and we should always tread lightly when considering long-held rights regarding property, something I am sure I would not have to tell the Benches opposite.

In light of my explanations, I hope the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response and to all those who have spoken in this short but interesting debate. I start with the problem: fly-tipping does not sound as bad as the crime actually is. Many people say, “Oh, fly-tipping, that is just dumping a mattress or a fridge in the countryside”, but as we have seen recently, there are 30,000 tonnes of contaminated garbage in Hoads Wood, with probably around 900 or 1,000 tonnes left at the weekend. It is not fly-tipping: it is rubbish racketeering. I am not going to suggest an amendment to change the title of it, but we really need to take it seriously.

Now, the other point that my noble friend on the Front Bench and I—and, I think, nearly all of us—agree on is that, ideally, the landowner should not have to pay the cost of clearing it up. He or she is the victim by having it dumped on their land in the first place, and then they are the victim the second time around in having to pay for clearing it up. But it should not be the ratepayers who pay for it either.

Ideally, of course, it should be the people who do it, but in many cases, we cannot catch them; we do not know who they are. In those circumstances, it seems grossly unfair that the landowner then has to bear the cost of doing that. We may discuss this in the next group of amendments, but I would hope that on, say, the Kidlington thing, a couple of forensic experts can crawl over that and find something. There must be addresses; there must be some data—that rubbish has not come from 200 miles away. There must be intelligence to pin down who has been doing it and then we should hit them hard.

I do not accept that the European Court of Human Rights would say that we need all those safeguards before taking away the vehicle of someone who has been involved in heavy crime. I challenge the Minister on that. I like the idea of three points on the licence, although I would go slightly further and make it three points for every load the person has dumped, but there are various penalties we can add there as well.

So I think we are all on the same side here—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel on the Front Bench, myself and the Minister—and we are all searching for slightly tougher penalties. I hear what the Minister said, but perhaps if all of us on this side of the House could agree some simple, concerted amendment for Report where we can toughen up on this a bit, maybe adding the penalty points thing, maybe finding some way to make sure that the landowner does not pay and some way to penalise the organised crime behind this, it may be worth while coming back on Report. But in the meantime, in view of what the Minister said and his assurances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 40 withdrawn.

Clause 9: Guidance on fly-tipping enforcement in England

Amendments 41 and 42 not moved.

Clause 9 agreed.

18:30

Amendment 43

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

43: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Serious and organised waste crime: national action plan(1) The Secretary of State must regard serious and organised waste crime as a strategic priority threat.(2) In furtherance of the strategic priority in subsection (1), the Joint Unit for Waste Crime (JUWC) must follow an approach based on reducing serious and organised waste crime.(3) The JUWC must establish a national action plan to further the priorities of—(a) reducing the impact of waste criminality where it takes place,(b) preventing people from engaging in serious and organised waste crime,(c) protecting the UK’s critical infrastructure, environment, and communities, and(d) prosecuting and disrupting people engaged in serious and organised waste criminality.(4) JUWC partners must use all their relevant specialist skills, experience and investigative and intelligence in furtherance of the priorities in subsection (3).(5) A relevant person must, so far as appropriate and reasonably practical, cooperate with the JUWC to further the priorities in subsection (3), including by— (a) sharing intelligence on waste crime, (b) reporting incidents of waste crime, and(c) sharing connections between waste crime and other forms of serious and organised crime.(6) The national action plan may include a single point for receiving and disseminating reports of waste crime.(7) In this section—(a) “JUWC partners” means—(i) Environment Agency;(ii) National Resources Wales;(iii) Scottish Environmental Protection Agency;(iv) Northern Ireland Environment Agency;(v) His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;(vi) Police;(vii) National Fire Chiefs Council;(viii) British Transport Police;(ix) National Crime Agency;(x) Revenue Scotland;(xi) Welsh Revenue Authority;(xii) Environmental Services Association;(xiii) Chartered Institute for Waste management.(b) a “relevant person” means—(i) regional organised crime units,(ii) local police forces in England and Wales, and(iii) local authorities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment takes forward recommendations of House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee. It requires the Secretary of State to designate serious and organised waste crime as a strategic priority threat. It also requires the Joint Unit on Waste Crime to establish a national action plan and places a duty on relevant persons to cooperate with the JUWC in furtherance of the plan’s priorities.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 43, I shall speak also to Amendments 44 and 45, all on serious and organised waste crime. By chance, I found myself involved in this since those from the save Hoads Woods campaign came to me. That resulted in a ministerial direction and resulted in the clean-up of Hoads Wood at a cost of £15 million to the taxpayer, equivalent to the Environment Agency’s annual budget for fighting waste crime. It also led to the Environment and Climate Change Committee conducting a short inquiry into these matters, which has reported in the last couple of weeks. My amendments deal with some of the key findings from that report.

I do not wish to jump the gun, but some of these matters are clear cut; they are urgent, and I want to keep up the pressure. The Bill represents a vital opportunity to make progress, and it is progress that I do not want to be missed. I know that the Government have inherited broken systems and are committed to making reforms, particularly on the broker and dealer regulations, which I welcome and thank them for doing. The work done by the committee clearly shows that all parties recognise that this is a problem and is out of control. The findings paint a picture of fundamentally broken systems, where criminality is endemic in our waste sector. The key is to treat it as an organised crime problem and provide the right tools with which to fight it. We need to fight fire with fire.

While we sit with bits of paper that are easily forged, criminal networks buy land under false ID, using the dark web and secret apps to communicate with each other. I have no wish to blame individuals, but broken systems are creating broken results. This is a £1 billion a year problem. These criminal organised gangs are also involved in drugs, firearms, money laundering and modern slavery. There is the sheer scale: 38 million tonnes—enough to fill Wembley stadium 30 times over—is believed to be illegally managed every year.

We need look no further than the devastating environmental catastrophe that is unfolding in real time in Kidlington, Oxfordshire, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which came to light just this weekend. My heart sank when I saw this, because this dump—150 metres long and 6 metres high—threatens to become an environmental disaster, with toxic leachate running into the River Cherwell, which is only metres away. It feels like Hoads Wood has been allowed to happen all over again. I do not understand how, for months and months, lorries were allowed to dump this stuff and nothing has been done. I ask the Minister seriously to consider meeting the costs and to work with local residents and the council to ensure that that clear-up takes place. That is extremely important.

Without swift and decisive action, we will continue to draw ever more sophisticated criminal networks into the UK waste sector. The National Crime Agency warns that this is now a strategic threat. Beyond financial losses, this is not a victimless crime; there are damaging consequences for public health and the natural environment, and we, the taxpayer, are left to pick up the bill.

We welcome the Joint Unit for Waste Crime, but it has only 12 individuals and has no statutory footing or clear strategic direction. There needs to be better co-operation between partners. The committee heard witnesses say that this is the Bermuda triangle of intelligence—information is simply lost between partners and falls between the cracks. Amendment 43 would require the Secretary of State to take serious and organised waste crime as a strategic priority threat and to mandate the Joint Unit for Waste Crime to establish a comprehensive national action plan. That would focus on prevention, protection and prosecution, underpinned by effective intelligence sharing. It would place a duty of co-operation on all relative public bodies and enforcement agencies, ensuring that intelligence and expertise flow across the system. The national action plan would create a single point for receiving and disseminating waste crime reports.

Members of the public report this and get rightly frustrated when nothing happens. The need is clear: these issues are falling between organisations and jurisdictions, and all the while it is the criminals who are benefiting. Amendment 44 calls for greater transparency and accountability. Openness and accountability are key to understanding the causes and the scale of organised waste crime. A lack of transparency benefits only the criminal networks.

When the Environment Agency was asked by the Environment and Climate Change Committee how many sites of a similar size to Hoads Wood existed, the answer given was six. However, since then Sky News has reported a site in Wigan and, as we have heard, there is the site in Kidlington which was publicised in the press at the weekend. It is not clear whether those two sites are additional, but time will tell, and we need to know the true scale. We cannot effectively fight that which we do not know. More than numbers, it would require location, sizes, types of waste and what action is being taken to clear up these tremendous, huge waste piles. This amendment is also essential; these matters need to be legislated for as otherwise they will not be properly reported.

Amendment 45 is the linchpin of the committee’s recommendations. It would establish a root-and-branch review of serious and organised waste crime which would be independent of Defra, the Environment Agency and HMRC. The committee found multiple failures by the Environment Agency and criticised the regulators for being slow to respond. Despite receiving over 24,000 reports of waste crime in three years to March 2025, the EA opened only 320 criminal investigations. HMRC has achieved zero criminal convictions for landfill tax fraud, despite the tax gap being estimated at £150 million annually. The independent review scrutinised the egregious events at Hoads Wood, the fact that they were reported for years and that it took until January 2024 for the EA to obtain a restriction order. Clearing up the six sites that are already known about could cost close to £1 billion if the cost is similar to that of clearing Hoads Wood.

These are very important issues. Critically, we want to see a change in the financial rules set by the Treasury that prevent the Environment Agency diverting income derived from environmental permits on legitimate businesses towards dealing with criminal activity. Additional funding provided to the Environment Agency for 2025-26 should be maintained.

To conclude, I recognise that the Minister has not had long to consider the committee’s report, and that a formal response is not due until the start of December. My hope is that there is time for a formal response to the committee’s report prior to the Bill’s Report stage. I hope that the Government are minded at least to take an initial look at the amendments. If it is helpful, I am fully prepared to work and co-operate with the Government in any way I can. I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

May God and my noble friends forgive me, but I think our Lib Dem Peers have a good point, particularly with regard to the new clause proposed in Amendment 43. I will not repeat what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, but the letter from our chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee is absolutely spot on. The crime is massive—costing the country £1 billion per annum—and the environmental damage is enormous. I was not aware that our committee had carried out a short investigation, and I had not focused on Amendments 43, 44 and 45 until I saw the horrendous photos and videos last Friday and Saturday of the hundreds, possibly thousands, of tonnes dumped on that back lane in Kidlington, just six yards from the River Cherwell. The local MP and others have called it an environmental catastrophe, and that is no exaggeration.

This criminality is happening all across the country. I was on the board of Natural England when our SSSI at Hoads Wood was destroyed by 30,000 tonnes of illegal waste, dumped over a period of many months before the Environment Agency was aware of it. The agency then issued a notice barring further access to the site and is now spending £15 million to clean it up. The cost of cleaning up the Kidlington dump is estimated to be greater than the local authority budget.

Many have criticised the Environment Agency but I will not slag it off—at least, not too hard. Its main response is to issue a notice stopping further dumping, but inevitably that is weeks or months too late and the criminal gangs will have found new sites by then. This level of mega organised crime is way beyond its capability. It is a licensing organisation. It can do criminal investigations, but not of this complexity. It is easy for it to investigate a leak into a river from a factory, or prosecute a farmer who illegally dredged the River Lugg, but this level of organised crime is way beyond its capacity to investigate.

Conclusion 2 in the letter to the Defra Secretary of State from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, is so right. She says:

“What we do know, however, is that criminality is endemic in the waste sector. It is widely acknowledged that there is little chance of criminals being brought to justice for committing waste offences—the record of successful prosecutions and other penalties is woeful. Organised crime groups, including those involved in drugs, firearms, money laundering and modern slavery, are well-established in the sector. They are attracted to the low-risk opportunity to make large sums of money and commit crimes from coordinated fly-tipping to illegal exports and landfill tax fraud”.


When I was on the board of the Food Standards Agency until 12 months ago, I had responsibility for the National Food Crime Unit. We found that the gangs involved in recirculating condemned food back into the food chain, usually to the catering sector, were also involved in moving stolen high-value cars, JCBs, drugs, mobile phones, et cetera. They were simply movers and distributors of all high-value stolen property or illegal items. If you have the network to move stolen vehicles then you have the network to dump thousands of tonnes of rubbish also.

How much money do these organised crime teams make from illegal dumping? The cost of legally disposing of mixed waste is up to £150 per tonne, and up to £200 per tonne for hazardous waste. A legal company would have to charge that fee, which includes the landfill tax of £94 per tonne. All these crooks have to do is put in a bid slightly below £150 and they would probably get the contract, including from possibly legitimate companies that did not know that they were dealing with crooks—it is possibly more likely that they would know, but they take the cheaper option and deny responsibility. The crooks who dumped at Hoads Wood probably made away with about £4 million: 30,000 tonnes at a profit of £130 per tonne. At Kidlington, let us say that they dumped 10 loads of 30 tonnes each day for 30 days. That is 900 tonnes, or £120,000 pure profit—dirty profit, to be more exact.

Although Amendments 44 and 45 are okay, they are not the important ones in this group. Of course there is no harm in more data, but we already know how serious the problem is, as our Lords inquiry has shown. Conducting a review to report by 2027 sounds a bit like that wonderful line from Sir Humphrey Appleby in the “Yes Minister” episode “Doing the Honours”, when he said,

“I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference, so that at the end of the day, we’ll be in the position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long-term considerations rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and possibly ill-conceived action which might well have unforeseen repercussions”—

to which Hacker says: “You mean ‘no’?”

However, the new clause in Amendment 45 has one good gem in it—namely, proposed new subsection (2), which says that the review must consider

“the extent and effectiveness of integrated working between the Environment Agency, HMRC, the National Crime Agency, local police forces in England and Wales, and local authorities”.

That leads me on to the noble Earl’s Amendment 43, which has a very sensible key suggestion: beefing up the Joint Unit for Waste Crime. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, whom we all respect, said in answer to an Oral Question in this Chamber on 15 October that Defra had increased the budget for the EA to use on the joint unit by 50% and that the number of staff had doubled. I have no real criticism of Defra, but that will still not work because the Environment Agency is the wrong organisation to lead it.

We are talking about massive, organised crime of £1 billion. There is only one organisation capable of leading a multiagency task force on that, and that is the National Crime Agency. I urge the Minister to take this back to the Home Office, discuss it with Defra, the EA and the NCA, and, without changing everything, give the National Crime Agency the lead in tackling this. As I and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, have pointed out, these same criminals are involved in high-value stolen goods such as mobiles, construction equipment, drugs—all stuff way out of the league of the EA but bang in the bailiwick of the NCA. If the noble Earl, Lord Russell, can come back with a simpler amendment on Report on something like that, then I would be minded to support him.

18:45

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendments. As he said, they include requiring the Secretary of State to designate serious and organised waste crime as a strategic threat; to create a national action plan to collect and publish quarterly information on waste crime; and to provide for an independent review of serious and organised waste crime.

On the strategic priority designation and the national action plan, of course I support taking fly-tipping and organised waste much more seriously. Fly-tipping goes far beyond simple domestic waste and is a widespread practice of criminals; I point to the comments I made in the preceding group. I earnestly hope that the Government take this amendment seriously and I look forward to hearing their thoughts on a national action plan.

On the publishing of quarterly data, we on these Benches are always sympathetic to the principle of transparency, which in turn drives government accountability. More granular and consistent data assist the Government in formulating their efforts to tackle fly-tipping.

On the third and final amendment, although I recognise the noble Earl’s thought process behind an independent review and the importance of scrutiny, my one worry is that it may divert scarce government resources away from tackling the problem at hand. Too large a focus on reviewing may unduly delay action. In our view, this Government are already all too keen to launch a review to solve every problem that comes their way. We do not need to give them any more incentive to do so. It is our priority to give the police the power to act as soon as possible. None the less, I hope the Government take all the noble Earl’s amendments seriously.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained, the purpose of these amendments is to take forward some of the recommendations of your Lordships’ House’s Environment and Climate Change Committee to tackle serious and organised crime in the waste sector. At this point, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the work of her committee, not just in their detailed examination of the issue but in the whole way their report has raised the profile of this important issue.

I am glad we have had an opportunity to discuss waste crime in the round. As we have noted, and I think we are all in accord across the Chamber, this is a serious issue. At the end of the debate on the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mooted that perhaps we need to rebrand fly-tipping to make people take it more seriously. From reflecting on this debate, nobody can be in any doubt, as the committee’s report demonstrated, that this is a serious business—and it is a business. It incurs huge costs in terms of the damage done. It is obviously a very profitable business to those who engage in it and I think we are all determined to tackle it. We argue that there are certainly provisions in the Bill, as well as other government actions, that will help to address this.

As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, waste crime costs the economy an estimated £1 billion annually. We are determined to tackle it, why is why we are preparing significant reforms to the waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime and to the waste permit exemptions regime. Bringing waste carriers, brokers and dealers into the environmental permitting regime will give the Environment Agency more powers and resources to ensure compliance and to hold operators to account. Changes will make it harder for rogue operators to find work in the sector and easier for regulators to take action against criminals. Our planned reforms will also introduce the possibility of up to five years’ imprisonment for those who breach these new laws.

We are also introducing digital waste tracking to make it harder than ever to misidentify waste or dispose of it inappropriately. By digitising waste records, we will make it easier for legitimate businesses to comply with their duty of care for waste and reduce the opportunities for criminals to operate. Furthermore, better data will help us manage resources more sustainably, reduce waste and protect the environment for future generations.

As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, noted, the Government have also increased the Environment Agency’s funding, including the amount available to tackle illegal waste operators. This year, we have raised the budget for waste crime enforcement by over 50% to £15.6 million. The Joint Unit for Waste Crime, which is hosted within the Environment Agency, has nearly doubled in size thanks to that extra funding. Overall, the EA has been able to increase its front-line criminal enforcement resource in the Joint Unit for Waste Crime and area environmental crime teams by 43 full-time equivalent employees. They will be targeted at activities identified as waste crime priorities, using enforcement activity data and criminal intelligence. That includes tackling organised crime groups, increasing enforcement activity, closing down illegal waste sites more quickly, using intelligence more effectively and delivering successful major criminal investigations.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, touched on the terrible incident at Kidlington, which we discussed in the previous group. All I can do is repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. The Government are engaging with the Environment Agency on the case with the utmost seriousness. An investigation is underway, and an Environment Agency restriction order has been served to prevent access to the site and further tipping. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra; it is bad now, but at least this way it cannot get any worse. The local resilience forum has been notified to explore opportunities for multi-agency support. Noble Lords may be aware that there was an Urgent Question in the other place this afternoon asked by the local MP Calum Miller; I believe that my honourable friend the Minister Mary Creagh offered to meet with Mr Miller to discuss this further. This is an issue that we are taking very seriously.

As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will appreciate, the Environment and Climate Change Committee wrote to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as recently as 28 October, to set out the conclusions of its inquiry into waste crime. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that it will necessarily take a little time to consider fully the Government’s response. Having read the letter that the committee sent this morning, I know that it is a complex letter that raises many points, and rightly so. Notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, offered from the annals of classic British comedy, we do not want to rush our response, and it certainly would ill behove me to shoot from the hip in my response when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will respond to it. I assure the Committee that the Secretary of State is carefully considering the report and will respond in due course.

Noble Lords will be aware of two facts, and I will put it no more strongly than this. First, the committee asked in its letter for a response by 9 December. Secondly, we are due to continue in Committee on this Bill until the end of January at the earliest—

[A noble Lord]

Hooray.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Hooray indeed. I will not commit any more strongly than that. I will let noble Lords come to their own conclusions about the ability to take on those considerations ahead of Report.

In the light of the action that we are taking already to tackle waste crime, and without pre-empting the response from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State Emma Reynolds to the Environment Committee’s report, I hope the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

Before the noble Earl responds to the debate, I ask the Minister: when he comes back to the Committee with an update on the Kidlington issue, will he explain how it unravels in open sight? As we have heard, there must have been hundreds of lorry loads and, no doubt, many complaints and missives to the police, the Environment Agency and the other bodies responsible. To the man and woman in the street, it seems that if we cannot deal with something as enormous and obvious as this, what hope is there for smaller fly-tipping incidents?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, for that point. I appreciate what he is saying. I am not aware of the events that led up to the time it took to issue this enforcement action, and it would be wrong for me to speculate. I am afraid I have not yet had the time to review the Hansard report of the Urgent Question, but I suspect we may have some of the answers to that question if we review the Commons Hansard report of the Urgent Question that Calum Miller asked of the Government today.

I understand the point the noble Viscount is making, and in the future should I be in the position to report back, I will offer more information. All I will say is that one would hope—I am not speaking out of turn, I simply do not know the facts—that there would be community action and community reporting of this in strength. The Environment Agency only has so much resource; it cannot be all-seeing and so it cannot take enforcement when it does not know the action there. I am not suggesting that that was the case in this situation in Kidlington, but it is important for us to take wider societal responsibility to address these issues.

I am fortunate that the London Borough of Camden, my home borough, has an app through which I can always report fly-tipping, which is nowhere near on the scale of Kidlington. I am an avid user, and therefore I take responsibility. My kids hate me stopping to take pictures of rubbish when I am walking along with them, but I use it because that means that the offence is noted and recorded, and then action is taken. In tribute to Camden, it is usually taken quickly.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank all those who have spoken in this group and the Minister for his response to my amendments. I recognise that the Government have inherited this problem, and I recognise that they are putting more resources into it through the plans for brokers and dealers and through digital waste tracking, which I hope are brought forward as soon as possible. That will start to make some concrete changes to these issues.

That said, however, this problem is out of the Government’s control and more needs to be done. It is not acceptable that these serious organised criminal gangs are exploiting loopholes in the system, destroying our countryside and leaving a mess behind them. Therefore, I want to see action on that.

I fully recognise that the Select Committee report came out only two weeks ago and that the Government are not due to respond until 9 December, as the Minister said. I am sure that the Minister also recognises that, if I did not raise these points in Committee, I cannot bring them back at Report. I think there is a commonality here on the need to address these issues, and I hope that between now and Report we can have further conversations and co-operate on these issues.

Returning to Kidlington, I know there was an Urgent Question. I had an opportunity to have a word with my honourable friend on that prior to the Statement. It is important that this site is cleared up and that the Government help meet the costs for that. I encourage the Minister to consider using a ministerial direction, if needed, to make sure that that happens. That said, I hope that, when the response to the committee’s report comes, the Government recognise that it is a serious job of work and that it takes a unique and forward-thinking perspective on genuinely trying to find ways to address and resolve these problems. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 43 withdrawn.

Amendments 44 to 47 not moved.

Clause 10: Offence of trespassing with intent to commit criminal offence

Amendment 47A

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

47A: Clause 10, page 18, line 19, at end insert “or the gardens and grounds of a private dwelling”
Member’s explanatory statement
Anyone trespassing in the gardens or grounds of a private house must be assumed to be targeting the private residence and should be guilty of the same offence as if the tresspasser had entered the physical building and there should be a minimum penalty as well as the scope to have a larger maximum.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 47B.

Amendment 47A is to seek clarification that the definition of “premises” as

“any building, part of a building or enclosed area”

will include gardens and grounds associated with private dwellings. The phrase “enclosed area” is a key part of the statutory definition. Gardens and grounds of private dwellings are typically surrounded by fences, walls or hedges, marking them as distinct and separate from public areas. I hope that the intention behind the word “enclosed” here is to extend the definition beyond the physical structure of the buildings to include spaces that are set apart for private use. Therefore, I suggest that gardens and grounds, by virtue of their possible enclosure and association with the dwelling, fulfil the criteria set out in the definition.

19:00

The purpose of including “enclosed area” in the definition is to ensure that areas integral to the use and enjoyment of the dwelling would be afforded the same legal protection as the building itself. Gardens and grounds are not merely decorative; they serve as extensions of the home, providing space for recreation, privacy and domestic activities. To exclude them from the scope of “premises” would be to ignore their functional role as part of the private dwelling.

UK courts have interpreted “premises” broadly in various contexts. In cases relating to trespass, burglary and other offences, the courts have recognised that the protection of the law extends to driveways, front and back gardens and other external parts associated with a dwelling. This judicial approach underscores the recognition that the boundaries of a home are not limited to its external walls but encompass its immediate surroundings.

From a policy perspective, I suggest to the Minister that it is logical and just to include gardens and grounds as premises because these are often areas where children play and families gather, and individuals expect privacy there too. If they were excluded inadvertently from the legal definition, that would create loopholes, undermining the protection that the law seeks to provide to those within their own homes. For example, in cases of trespass or unauthorised entry, it would be unreasonable to require that an intruder must enter the building itself before the law was engaged. If someone has a criminal intent to enter a property, he must have that same criminal intent in mind when he enters the gardens or the driveway of the property. In summary, gardens and grounds of a private dwelling should be considered as premises under UK law and in the Bill. This interpretation aligns with the plain meaning of “enclosed area”, the purpose and spirit of legal protection for dwellings, judicial precedent and sound policy considerations.

My Amendment 47B would simply increase the level of the fine. The clause as drafted says “not exceeding level 3”, meaning a maximum of £1,000. But by the time the—in my view, discredited—Sentencing Council pronounces on it, no one will get near that level; they will water it down as they usually do, so it will apply to very few trespassers.

I am a great supporter of minimum sentences—prescribed, of course, by Parliament—so I suggest in this case that the minimum fine for someone illegally on a property with the intent to commit crime should be £500, which I think is level 1, with a maximum fine of £2,500. Now that I have said it out loud, £500 seems ridiculously low for trespass with criminal intent, so never let it be said that I am too harsh on criminals.

Of course, the Minister will say, “We do not set minimum sentences but leave it to the courts’ discretion”. I could go along with that, but the courts have lost their discretion because of the interference of the Sentencing Council. Therefore, in this case I want Parliament to dictate the minimum level of fines, and I cannot see anything constitutionally or morally wrong. It would give the courts great flexibility to fine from £500 to £2,500 for people who enter premises with criminal intent. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and read the Member’s explanatory statement on these two amendments. I will be brief.

I can remember, as a child, signs indicating the barriers and limits of public access to certain parcels of land. Across the field, there was a substantial area of public allotments with a wide footpath running through the middle to an empty field beyond, which had public access. Nevertheless, there was a large hand-painted black sign at the start of this footpath that read, “Trespassers will be prosecuted”—not that as a child I understood what that meant, except to say that I could not use the footpath to access the field beyond but would have to walk a long way round to access the field, which was public open space.

Trespass is a crime that has been with us for decades but not always understood. At a time when Governments are trying to open up the countryside to those who have previously had limited access, extending trespass to private gardens and grounds needs careful consideration. Of course, if someone enters your property uninvited, even if the front door is temporarily open, they are trespassing, but those who are not intent on committing a crime—stealing the owner’s valuables, or helping themselves to the contents of the fridge—might have strayed there by accident. That is extremely unlikely. Strangers will generally enter a private property uninvited only if they have some nefarious project in mind.

However, that is unlikely to be the case in respect of grounds and gardens. Public footpaths are not always clearly signposted. The map that the walker may be following might be inaccurate or out of date. Some footpaths may have been temporarily diverted due to the lambing season or some other stock grazing in the area. Stiles and bridges may have fallen into disrepair, causing walkers to look for an alternative route to complete their walk. Is the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggesting that these unwitting miscreants should be dealt with in the same way as those who have deliberately set out to commit a crime?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My amendment refers specifically to gardens and grounds of houses, not to farmers’ fields with a footpath wandering through them. Even if a garden has a footpath going through it, people have the right to use that footpath and it would be difficult then to prove that someone had criminal intent, but if someone enters the grounds and gardens of a private residence, we must assume they have the same criminal intent as if they want to enter the person’s house. It has nothing to do with farmers’ fields or footpaths.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s interjection and for that clarification. However, as somebody who lived for 35 years with a footpath running through their garden, I have to say that I do not really agree with him.

We should be very careful about implementing these two amendments. They smack to me of the landed gentry attempting to keep the ordinary man and woman from enjoying the countryside. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it would not be an easy task to prove that deliberate trespass had occurred over land and grounds or gardens with the intent of causing harm or wanton damage to those grounds.

In respect of Amendment 47B, I do not support increasing the fee should an offence be proved. I am nevertheless keen to hear the Minister’s views on the amendment, but at the moment I am not inclined to support the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for tabling these amendments. The case he set out seems clear and obvious. His amendment would ensure that the offence of trespassing with intent to commit an offence extended to people’s gardens and grounds, and it goes no further than that. Any intrusion into those grounds or gardens with mal-intent should be reflected in the level of criminal fines.

My noble friend’s amendments simply proceed on the assumption that gardens or grounds, in their simplest terms, should be treated the same in legislation as residences and buildings. Private property does not stop existing once you step out of a physical doorway; the grounds or gardens surrounding buildings are extensions to them, to be bought and sold just as freely. I think the word “curtilage” often appears—certainly in the law, but often more widely—to describe the land or garden around someone’s house. Indeed, there may be even as great a need to create an offence for this as there is for trespassing on a property with intent. I can imagine criminals using back gardens to navigate between houses to commit burglary. I can imagine confrontations taking place not inside a building yet still in the garden or grounds owned by a victim. They are just as serious as entering a property to commit a crime.

However, I acknowledge that there is generally a difference between entering someone’s house and entering their garden. The former is in most cases far more intrusive—a far greater infringement of someone’s right to a private property. It therefore follows that entering a house should regularly carry a harsher sentence than merely entering the grounds, but that can be the case while ensuring that both are offences. We do not have to disapply the latter simply because it might carry a lower fine than the former.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 47B provides for this, as he set out. It seeks to give the court the discretion to alter the fines levied on an offender based on the seriousness of the offence, creating a higher maximum fine to be used for the most serious offences. Additionally, creating a minimum fine will ensure that any form of trespassing with the intent to commit another offence is dealt with to a minimal acceptable standard.

Whatever form it takes, trespassing in order to commit crime is incredibly invasive and often traumatic, and it is right that this is acknowledged in the range of the fine level. I hope the Minister has listened to these points, and I look forward to his response.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for tabling the amendments. I hope I can half help him today and, in doing so, assist the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

I confirm that the Government will repeal the outdated Vagrancy Act 1824. In Clauses 10 and 11, the Government are legislating to introduce targeted replacement provisions for certain elements of the 1824 Act, to ensure that the police have the powers they need to keep our communities safe. Those targeted replacement measures include a new offence of facilitating begging for gain, which we will come on to shortly, and an offence of trespassing with the intention of committing a crime. Both were previously provided for under the 1824 Act, and the police have told us that it would be useful to retain them.

I hope this helps the noble Baroness, because the new criminal offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence recreates an offence that is already set out in the 1824 Act. It does not add to it; it recreates it. As is currently the case, it will be an offence for a person to trespass on any premises—meaning any building, part of a building or enclosed area—with the intention to commit an offence, and that is currently in the legislation.

Amendment 47A from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to ensure that trespassing in gardens and grounds of a private dwelling is captured by the replacement offence. This is where I think I can half help him by indicating that gardens and grounds would already be included in the definition of “premises” in the 1824 Act, so, in essence, that is covered already.

His Amendment 47B would introduce a minimum level 2 fine and increase the maximum level fine from level 3 to level 4 for this offence. Again, the measure in the Bill replicates entirely—going back to the noble Baroness—the maximum penalties currently set out in the existing legislation that we are repealing, but replacing in part, through the clauses addressed by these amendments. I agree with the noble Baroness on the proportionality of the current level of the fines. I say to the noble Lord what he anticipated I would say to him: sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary, and we need to afford it appropriate discretion. Parliament rarely specifies minimum sentences, and this is not an instance where we should depart from that general principle. I know he anticipated that I would say that—as the good old, former Home Office Minister that he is, I knew he would clock that that was the potential line of defence on his amendment.

It is important to say that the penalties set out in the current legislation, which we are replicating, are considered appropriate and proportionate to the nature of the offence. Therefore, with what I hope was helpful half clarification on grounds and gardens, and with my steady defence on the second amendment, which the noble Lord anticipated, I ask him not to press his amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, half a loaf is better than no bread, of course. All I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, is that she has got totally the wrong end of the stick. I will not go into more detail to argue against her, except to say that I too had a footpath right across the middle of my garden in Cumbria, and I had no problem with it at all. However, that is quite separate from the guy who, in 2000, threatened to burn down my house because he did not like my view on hunting. That is quite a different matter. He committed an offence on my driveway, as opposed to the thousands of people who used the footpath, which I built special turnstiles at either end of for them to use.

I accept entirely what the Minister said and am delighted to see that grounds and gardens of public dwellings will be included in the definition—that is the half I am very happy with. I knew he would not accept my amendment on the penalties. He said that it is up to an independent judiciary—I wish we had one, without a Sentencing Council tying its hands, but that is a matter for another debate. With the Minister’s courteous remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 47A withdrawn.

Amendment 47B not moved.

Amendment 48 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Clause 10 agreed.

19:15

Amendment 49

Moved by

[Baroness Whitaker]

49: After Clause 10, insert the following new Clause—
“Repeal of offence for unauthorised encampment in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows.(2) Omit section 60C (Offence relating to residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle).(3) Omit section 60D (Offence under section 60C: seizure of property etc).(4) Omit section 60E (Offence under section 60C: forfeiture).(5) In section 61 (power to remove trespassers on land)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) in paragraph (a), omit sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), and(ii) at the beginning of paragraph (b) omit “in either case,”,(b) in subsection (4)(b) omit “prohibited period”,(c) omit subsection (4ZA),(d) in subsection (9), in the definition of “land”, in paragraph (b)—(i) in the words before sub-paragraph (i), omit “in Scotland”, and(ii) insert—“(i) a highway unless it falls within the classifications in section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic or road used as a public path) or is a cycle track under the Highways Act 1980 or Cycle Tracks Act 1984; or”, and”,(e) omit subsection (10).(6) In section 62 (powers to seize property related to offence under section 61)—(a) in subsection (1)(b), omit “prohibited period”;(b) omit subsection (1A).(7) In section 62B(2) (failure to comply with direction under section 62A: offences), for “twelve” substitute “3”.(8) In section 62C(2) (failure to comply with direction under section 62A: seizure), for “twelve” substitute “3”.(9) In section 68(5) (offence of aggravated trespass), omit paragraphs (a) and (aa).(10) Omit section 62F (guidance).”Member’s explanatory statement
This would repeal amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made in 2022 in respect of unauthorised encampments, including those on which the High Court has made a Declaration of Incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 49 in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—for whose wide-ranging support I am most grateful—would right an acknowledged wrong: the declaration of incompatibility with human rights of part of Part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The right reverend Prelate regrets he cannot at the last minute attend, but he hopes His Majesty’s Government will help. The amendment also tackles the whole of that discriminatory part of the 2022 Act. I will not rehearse again the full range of unfair disadvantage which has resulted from these provisions, which I set out at Second Reading. I will briefly describe what our amendment would achieve, to correct a manifest unfairness which harshly criminalises, and confiscates the caravan homes and domestic possessions of, a small number of families whose nomadic way of life is recognised in law.

I should first of all say that it is the shortage of authorised sites which is the underlying problem. That is why that minority of Gypsies and Travellers who live in that way have often no other choice than to park their family home on an unauthorised site. This is where the judge found race discrimination. He said that

“it means that Gypsies will no longer be able to avoid the risk of criminal penalty by resort to transit pitches. The position might be different if transit pitches were readily available … But the evidence shows this is not the position”.

The amendment simply returns the situation to what it was before the cruel and discriminatory provisions of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act were enacted. It in no way reduces the ample powers the police already had in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to oblige unauthorised trespassers to leave if there had been threatening behaviour or damage—previous case law has included “squashed grass” in this category—to issue temporary stop notices and injunctions to protect land, to direct unauthorised campers to an alternative site, and to prevent them returning within three months. Our amendment’s main provisions are: the elimination of the power of a landowner to command eviction on a subjective reason of being caused distress, and a return to 12 months as the interval within which the travelling family cannot return to the land—from three months, which was the discrimination that the incompatibility declaration captured.

I need hardly remind the Committee that our Gypsy and Traveller population already suffer a degree of prejudice which has substantially contributed to the worst life chances in health, employment, education and well-being of any minority ethnic group in our country: the attitudes and conduct enabled by the provisions we seek to repeal can only further encourage that prejudice and disadvantage. Can your Lordships imagine how it feels to have hanging over your head, when you cannot find an authorised site, the fear that your family home might be impounded, with all that is in it, and your family turned out, homeless, to find shelter—all on the say-so of a member of the public who feels “distress” simply at the presence of a travelling family? Not the least of your fears will be that your children cannot get to their school, or that the medical regime of an elder in your family has to be abandoned.

I urge the Minister to heed the widespread condemnation of the provisions we seek to repeal by our Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Committees on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and fulfil this Government’s acceptance of the obligation to comply with the court through our amendment. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, Manchester’s famous Christmas markets are now in full swing. If you’re visiting my city any time in the next few weeks, until the last few days before Christmas, you are most welcome to patronise them. However, that was not the case for a number of young people from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller backgrounds this time last year. They were turned away by police at the railway station on the supposition that they must have come to commit crime. Children were seen being forced on to trains heading to unknown destinations, separated from family members, and subjected to physical aggression. That included shoving, hair-pulling, and handcuffing. Several individuals reported officers making disparaging remarks about their ethnicity.

It is a sad fact that in 2025, it remains acceptable in our society to treat Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people in ways that seek to drive them to the margins of society. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which amended the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act in respect of unauthorised encampments, included changes in respect of which, as we have just been reminded by the noble Lady, Baroness Whitaker, the High Court has made a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Police powers were expanded beyond the original provisions of the CJPO Act, allowing officers to arrest, seize vehicles, and forfeit property if individuals failed to leave when directed. The PCSC Act also extended those powers to cover land on highways, increased the no-return period from three months to 12 months, and broadened the types of harm that justify eviction, removing the previous need to demonstrate threatening behaviour or damage.

I opposed those changes in your Lordships’ House then, and I do so still. The overwhelming reason why illegal encampments take place is simple. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has just reminded us, it is down to the continuing failure of local authorities across the nation to provide sufficient legal sites. There are few votes for local councillors in providing Traveller sites; alas, there are many more votes for those same councillors in closing or refusing permission for them. That is a direct consequence of the same prejudiced attitudes against the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community which underlay the distressing treatment of the young people in Manchester last year. Amendment 49 can be a first step towards rectifying that institutionalised injustice.

I hope that in responding to this debate, the Minister, can give us some indication of how His Majesty’s Government intend to legislate, both in this Bill and elsewhere, to tackle the persistent levels of discrimination against the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and thank her for tabling this important amendment. The noble Baroness has laid out the arguments extremely carefully and clearly. Romany and Traveller people experience stark inequalities. They are subject to a wide range of enforcement powers against encampments. Part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, introduced in 2022, created a new criminal offence relating to trespass and gave police tougher powers to ban Gypsies and Travellers from an area for up to 12 months, alongside powers to fine, arrest, imprison and seize the homes of Gypsies and Travellers.

This draconian amendment was tabled and supported by the previous Conservative Government. It took no account of whether elderly relatives or children were on site, or whether a woman might be in the late stages of pregnancy. It was a broad, sweeping power which the police had not asked for; nor did they want it.

On several occasions I called on the previous Government to require all local authorities to provide adequate permanent sites for Romany people and Traveller people, as well as temporary stopping sites to accommodate the cultural nomadic lifestyle—but to no avail. His Majesty’s official Opposition prefer the scenario where, due to the absence of authorised stopping places or sites, illegal camping is dealt with in a draconian manner. The Gypsies and Travellers are evicted and thrown in prison; their caravan homes and vehicles are seized; and their children are taken into care—all a burden on the taxpayer, with no thought to the humanitarian impact on the Romany people and Travellers themselves. Making a nomadic, cultural way of life a criminal activity was and is appalling and is out of all proportion, and it is in breach of Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

In Somerset there was previously adequate provision of both temporary and permanent sites for the Traveller community. I am pleased to say that I worked very hard to get those sites up and running, against huge opposition. Some of those sites have since been closed. I now live in Hampshire, where I am to all intents and purposes surrounded by Traveller sites. They live round the corner; they live at the bottom of the road I live in; their children go to the local schools, both primary and secondary; their babies are baptised in the church. One baby girl was baptised yesterday, surrounded by over 100 well-wishers from her extended family. We bought our logs from the man who lived down the road. Sadly, he died earlier this year, and we now buy from his grandson, who has taken over his grandfather’s business. There is nothing but good will and respect between the Travellers and the rest of the community.

There will, of course, be those who live close to very large, unmanaged, sprawling Traveller sites. I have some sympathy with those people. However, if their local authority had made adequate provision in the first place, with sites having adequate toilet and water facilities, maybe they would not be in the current unfortunate circumstances we hear about.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for reminding us how Gypsies and Travellers are still treated. It is a disgrace. It really is time that proper provision be made for those who have a culture different from those of us living in bricks and mortar. Now is definitely the time to ditch the legislation of 2022. It was not needed then, and it is not needed now. I fully support this amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise with pleasure to join the three other proposers of Amendment 49. I apologise for not taking part at Second Reading. As my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb said then, there are two specific issues that we will be dealing with, and this is one of them. The case for the amendment has already been overwhelmingly made, so I will not repeat what has already been said. However, I will take your Lordships back to December 2021, when I called for a vote in the House on whether Part 4 should be part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, as it became in 2022. I said then that this was a moral issue: to have legislation explicitly targeting Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people, given what it was doing to them, was such a moral issue that it could not be allowed to drift by. I note that first on the list of the people supporting me in that vote was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. There were four Cross-Bench Members who supported me, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady O’Loan. There were nine Labour Members who supported me in that vote, and 54 Liberal Democrats. I thank all of them for supporting me then and for hearing the strong words from the noble Lady, Baroness Bakewell, now.

It is worth looking back to that debate. At Second Reading, the then Conservative Minister said, in effect, “We have to have this; we are delivering on a manifesto commitment.” I believe and hope that maintaining Part 4 of the Bill was not a Labour manifesto commitment. This is an opportunity for Labour to undo something the previous Tory Government did, and which absolutely should be undone. That could be achieved very simply, as shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who is such a champion of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller issues in your Lordships’ House over such a long period, and who leads all of us who follow that path so well. This is a chance simply and clearly to do something that needs to be done.

I will also go back to the discussion around that time. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs—who is not in his place, unfortunately—wrote a very powerful piece for the Independent opposing Part 4, which is what we are essentially undoing here. Like the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who, of course, is a Kindertransport survivor, was thinking of the situation of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children, who

“could see their worldly possessions wheeled away, their warmth and shelter seized, their parents potentially imprisoned”.

That is what this part of the Bill, which we seek to remove, actually does.

19:30

I point out that, in April, a coalition of 22 civil society groups including Amnesty International, Liberty, Quakers in Britain, Homeless Link and, of course, Friends, Families and Travellers, wrote to the Policing Minister in the other place calling for what this amendment does, essentially. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has already made these points, but it is worth noting that the High Court has previously ruled that parts of this Act to which this amendment relates are incompatible with the Human Rights Act. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have all raised concerns or made formal recommendations to the UK Government.

This is a very simple, clear and effective mechanism by which the Government can do the right thing. Surely, they will seize this chance to do that, if not from the Dispatch Box this evening, then before we get to Report. However, if it gets to Report, we will have to bring this issue before the House again to make a decision, because it is simply unconscionable to leave it in the Bill.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for her amendment. Contributions have been thoughtful, and they have certainly highlighted some of the issues that certain communities face. There is no doubt at all that we are united in the belief that all communities should be treated with dignity and fairness, and that these considerations should guide interactions between them and local authorities.

However, I respectfully state that we on these Benches cannot support Amendment 49. The effect of this amendment would be to repeal the provisions introduced by the previous Government in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. That Act created the offence relating to unauthorised encampments and the accompanying enforcement powers. Those powers were introduced by a Conservative Government, after much consultation and representations from local authorities and members of the public, who repeatedly expressed concern about the impact of unauthorised encampments on local communities.

The provisions that this amendment seeks to remove were designed to address situations where unauthorised encampments caused significant harm, such as damaging land, obstructing highways and shops or creating fear and distress in local neighbourhoods. We are not talking about minor inconveniences; we are talking about serious damage and disruption. In many cases, these provisions have provided clarity and reassurance, enabling the police to respond more proportionately and local authorities to act more swiftly while still supporting negotiated stopping and offering lawful sites wherever possible.

The noble Baroness deployed the argument that these provisions have been declared incompatible with the Human Rights Act, but I do not think that is an overwhelming argument for repealing legislation passed by this Parliament.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but does he accept that there is no definition of “alarm and distress”, and that it is in fact a subjective view on the part of the landowner? Does he also accept that majority of the police did not want this provision when consulted?

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I think the point is that the lack of a definition gives the police the ability to act within their discretion.

As for the issue of incompatibility, it is worth noting that, when a declaration of incompatibility is made by the courts, such a declaration is not a strike-down power; it is not a mandate for immediate legislative repeal. It will come as no surprise that we on these Benches believe that there have been too many instances of judicial overreach, as to justify a repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the ECHR. If we cannot prevent unlawful encampments by people with no right to reside on the land, which is, in our view, an absolutely legitimate aim, that is an indication that the Human Rights Act and the ECHR are not fit for purpose.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He speaks about so-called judicial overreach, but building on what the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, in a consultation in 2018, 75% of police said they did not want these extra powers and 85% said that they did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments. This is across the justice system; it is not just what the judges are doing.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

That may be the case in the year the noble Baroness cited, but the fact remains that these provisions have been brought into force, have been effective and have responded to representations from local authorities and members of the public, who have repeatedly expressed concern about the impact of unauthorised encampments on their community. I earnestly believe that repealing these measures entirely would remove essential tools for managing the real and sometimes serious harms experienced by communities across the country. For those reasons, these Benches cannot support the amendment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for tabling the amendment. She has obviously secured widespread support—from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

As my noble friend explained, the High Court ruling in May 2024 found that the specific changes made by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 relating to Traveller sites were incompatible with convention rights. This is where I am going to depart from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, because the Government respect the decision of the court. The Government—I hope that this is helpful to my noble friend—are working now on a response to that court judgment. I want to make it absolutely clear that I recognise the High Court ruling, and the response is needed. I hope I can help my noble friend by saying that I can undertake to update the House ahead of Report on this matter. We are not able to finalise the exact response as yet, but I hope that is helpful to my noble friend.

I cannot support my noble friend’s amendment today, but it is important that we signal to her that this matter is one we have to resolve speedily. In considering the court’s judgment, the Government will carefully balance the rights of individuals to live their private lives without discrimination, while recognising the importance of protecting public spaces and communities affected by unauthorised encampments. That balance will be made, and I hope to be able to resolve that issue by Report, as I have said.

A number of noble Lords and Baronesses have mentioned the question of the shortage of unauthorised sites available to Gypsies and Travellers, and that is an important point. Local authorities, as Members will know, are required to assess the need for Traveller pitches in their area and must plan to meet that need. These decisions are made locally; they reflect specific circumstances in each area and operate within the national planning policy for Traveller sites, which is set by the Government. We aim to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of Travellers, while respecting the interests of the settled community.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

Does the Minister accept that, aggregated across the country, the effect of lots of local decisions by local authorities is that there is a calamitous shortage of legitimate sites for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people? If so, what do the Government plan to do about that, rather than simply saying that it is up to each local authority?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The position of the Government is that it is up to each local authority. I understand the right reverend Prelate’s point, but there is overarching guidance in England, provided by the National Planning Policy Framework, which basically indicates that local authorities are required to assess the need for Traveller pitches in their area. That is a conflict; there is a shortage, there is always a debate on these matters, there is always opposition, there is always discussion, but, ultimately, local councils have to settle on sites in their areas and I cannot really help the right reverend Prelate more than that. There is guidance and a process to be followed.

Issues around the proportionality of enforcement action were also mentioned in passing today. Again, our laws are designed to address unlawful behaviour such as criminal damage or actions that cause harassment, alarm or distress, rather than to criminalise a way of life. This distinction is central to ensuring fair and proportionate policing. Harassment, alarm and distress are well established within our legal framework, so there is a careful balance to be achieved. The response to unauthorised encampments, locally led, involves multi-agency collaboration between local councils, police and relevant services. This approach supports community engagement and ensures that responses are tailored to local needs.

My noble friend’s amendment goes slightly further than the court’s judgment: she seeks to repeal the offence of residing on land without the consent of the occupier of the land, as well as the power for police to direct trespassers away from land where they are there for the purpose of residing there. I just say to my noble friend that those are matters the court did not rule on, and the Government still consider these to be necessary and proportionate police powers, but I give her the undertaking today that I did in my earlier comments, that we hope to be able to bring forward solutions by Report. In the light of that undertaking, I hope my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, in particular my cosignatories, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, but also the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who spoke tellingly about recent experience. I thank warmly my noble friend the Minister for being the first Minister to offer a way through. The sites issue will, all the same, be pursued, but then there are other routes to pursue that with areas that are not within Home Office responsibility.

I simply make one point: the 1994 Act does give the police powers to remove people when there is damage caused. It is the criminalisation element of Part 4 of the 2022 Act which is so discriminatory, but we shall discuss these aspects before Report, I hope, including the way through that my noble friend the Minister outlined. I hope we shall have the opportunity to talk about that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 49 withdrawn.

Clause 11 agreed.

Amendment 50

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

50: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Removal of power of entry under Part 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003In the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, omit section 74 (power of entry in relation to complaints about high hedges).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would repeal provisions of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 that permit the local authority to enter a person’s property without their consent to investigate complaints about high hedges.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to repeal provisions of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 that permit the local authority to enter a person’s property without their consent to investigate complaints about high hedges. I entirely accept that this is a somewhat niche and technical amendment, but it is nevertheless an important one. The 2003 Act established a regime whereby individuals can make a complaint about their neighbour’s high hedge. This provision made its way into the Act after amendments to the Bill in your Lordships’ House during its passage in 2003.

The intention was understandable, but it is one thing to give people the ability to complain about their neighbour’s high hedge and another matter entirely to grant the state the right to enter a person’s private property without their consent simply to measure that hedge. Such a power is and must always be exceptional. It should be tightly drawn and robustly justified. We submit that the matter of high hedges, however irritating or capable of provoking neighbourhood disputes, simply does not meet that threshold. Section 74 was conceived at a time when the framework for powers of entry was far less coherent than it is today, and since then, Parliament has rightly legislated to reduce, rationalise and strengthen oversight of such powers. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in particular represents a significant step towards rebalancing the relationship between citizens and the state. Yet the power preserved in Section 74 stands out as an anomaly, disproportionate in nature and insufficiently justified in practice.

19:45

Nothing in this amendment removes the ability of local authorities to investigate complaints about high hedges; those mechanisms remain entirely intact. What this amendment does is require them to do so without resorting to an intrusive power that in most cases is wholly unnecessary. Local authorities already have ample means to assess complaints—photographic evidence, site visits with permission, communication with affected neighbours and, where appropriate, the use of warrants if there is truly a pressing need.

We know that the existence of a power of entry, even one rarely used, changes the character of the relationship between citizen and authority. At a time when public confidence in local decision-making is precious and when we should be looking to promote proportionate approaches to neighbourhood disputes, this is precisely the kind of redundant power that ought to be removed from the statute book. It is not only a matter of principle, although principle is certainly at stake; it is a matter of clarity and good governance. In pruning back this outlier power, we would produce a statute book that is more coherent and consistent with long-established protections for private property. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I listened attentively to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and I am inclined to agree with him—in part. I start by declaring my interest as the part owner of a property that has high hedges on both sides of our home. One side is higher than the other: approximately four to five metres high. It may well keep the sun out of our neighbour’s front garden in winter when the sun is low in the sky, but since it is where they park their cars and it is their hedge, they are not that worried. We cut our side of the hedge and bought a special three-legged ladder to ensure that this was conducted safely and my husband did not break his neck. I stress that neither hedge is Leylandii.

The right to light is something that many of us take for granted. However, travelling to Waterloo on the train every day, I can see that many of those who live towards the bottom of high-rise flats have little or no right to light. I understand and sympathise with those who live close to a property which has a high hedge obscuring the sun from their house and garden.

While good hedges and fences make for good neighbours, excessively tall and untidy hedges may not. It is always better if neighbouring properties can come to some accommodation about what is acceptable as the height of a hedge. Where this is not possible and communication has broken down, there must be some recourse for those suffering from being on the wrong side of a very high hedge. In the first instance, this will be the local authority.

Currently, local authorities have the right to enter a property without the owner’s consent to investigate a high hedge complaint. Given the current budget restrictions on local authorities, I cannot imagine that many officers will pitch up unannounced at a property to investigate. They would much rather not have a wasted journey, and hope to solve the problem easily—that is, unless they have previously been threatened when visiting the hedge.

The problem with the hedge will depend on what is growing in it. Leylandii causes a significant problem, being dense and fast-growing, enabling a hedge to reach unsatisfactory heights in a relatively short time. If there is a considerable problem with such a hedge, then just how is it to be resolved if local authorities are not involved in finding a solution? Will one party continue to have the disadvantages of living with the high hedge and all that involves while the owner of the hedge remains intransigent and deaf to their protests?

This is unacceptable. I have sympathy with those who suffer from high hedges and am keen to find a solution. The legislation in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 was introduced not on a whim but in a serious attempt to tackle unpleasant situations arising between neighbours. While the best solution is for difficulties to be sorted out between the interested parties, that is not always possible. In those cases, the local authority should have the power to intervene. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for tabling what he termed a niche amendment today—there is nothing wrong with a niche amendment; it has generated discussion. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has just said, this puts the focus back not on the legislation or even on the enforcement but on whether, when discussions between parties break down, the local authority should be and is the arbiter of the dispute and, in order to be the arbiter of the dispute, whether the local authority can have access to the property.

It is important to say that, when assessing a complaint or appeal, issuing a remedial notice to an individual or assessing whether an individual has taken the necessary action, entering a property to assess the hedge in question surely is not a niche issue; it is part of the role of the local authority to be able to assess that issue. The Government believe that local authorities are best placed to consider unresolved disputes on high hedges; the procedures are set out in national guidance.

On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has mentioned, I note that the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 enables local authorities to intervene, as a last resort. It should be for neighbours to try to sort these matters out, but there are opportunities for people who are unhappy with the council’s decision to have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State in cases in England. The power of local authority officers to enter someone’s property is an important part of ensuring such disputes are resolved and any remedial action is taken.

I assure the noble Lord that the power of entry is a power to enter a “neighbouring land” to carry out functions under Part 8 of the Act. The term “the neighbouring land” means the land on which the high hedge is situated—effectively someone’s garden. A local authority must give 24 hours’ notice of its intended entry and, if the land is unoccupied, leave it as effectively secured as it was found. I stress to the noble Lord that there is clear guidance on GOV.UK for local authorities in exercising their powers. The Government will keep this guidance under review.

In the absence of disputes being resolved by neighbours themselves—as the noble Baroness has said—amicably between the parties, it is possible that there are remedial powers to step in and require the offending property owner to take action. Where they fail to do so, it is also right that the local authority should be able to undertake the remedial work itself and charge the householder concerned. To do this, it is necessary to undertake the niche point of entering someone’s garden to examine the fence or hedge or to erect a platform on the highway to do the same.

If we accepted the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, today, I do not know how local authorities would be able to assess in terms of the legislation under the Act. If he says he does not believe the legislation under the Act is appropriate, and we should not have high hedges legislation, that is a different point. If we do have that legislation, then we need a mechanism whereby the local council can enter a premises. There might well be occasions where the local council must do that because relations have broken down to such an extent that only the local council can resolve it, and therefore it must undertake entry into a person’s garden or erect a platform to assess the issue in the first place. That is not a gross invasion of a householder’s property; it is a sensible resolution by a third party—given the powers to do so under the 2003 Act—to resolve an issue that neighbours have not been able to resolve.

The local council may resolve the complaint in favour of the complainant or in favour of the person with the high hedge; that is a matter for them. But if the council does not have access to the property to do that, then the niche discussion will be about not being able to resolve the problem, so I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank those in your Lordships’ House who have spoken in this debate. I am delighted to have a degree of support from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who, as she recounted, has had some personal experience of this issue. I reiterate to the Minister that it seems entirely disproportionate for local authorities to be able to enter a person’s private property without their consent to investigate this issue—that is what underpins this amendment. I do not want to beat around the bush any more, and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 50 withdrawn.

Amendment 51

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

51: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Gang-related graffiti(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) the person defaces a relevant surface with graffiti, and(b) the graffiti is gang-related.(2) Graffiti is gang-related if—(a) the graffiti contains any symbol, sign, mark or slogan that is associated with, or is an identifiable marker of, a gang or gang activity,(b) the graffiti contains any symbol, sign, mark or slogan that a reasonable person would associate with a gang or gang activity, or(c) the person who defaced the relevant surface with the graffiti is part of a gang.(3) In this section a “relevant surface” is any of the following surfaces, whether internal or external or open to the air or not—(a) the surface of any street or of any building, structure, apparatus, plant or other object in or on any street;(b) the surface of any land owned, occupied or controlled by a statutory undertaker or of any building, structure, apparatus, plant or other object in or on any such land;(c) the surface of any land owned, occupied or controlled by an educational institution (including its governing body) or of any building, structure, apparatus, plant or other object in or on any such land.(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.(5) In this section –(a) “gang” means the activities of a group that—(i) consists of at least three people, and(ii) has one or more characteristics that enable its members to be identified by others as a group;(b) “graffiti” includes painting, writing, soiling, marking or other defacing by whatever means.”

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, this group speaks to the two amendments in my name and in the names of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. They seek to address the long-standing problems of gang involvement in our cities and to probe the Government’s approach to this. I am grateful to the Minister for approaching me recently to discuss the issue, and I hope that we can continue that conversation.

Gangs are groups of people whose entire identities are founded on the control of a territory through the means of violence. They are established to exert power, maintained through the coercion and grooming of the youth, and exist to establish themselves over their counterparts by any means. They are exploitative organisations. The very idea that groups of young men should be able to gain de facto control of large parts of our cities through intimidation and aggression is one that should have been stamped out long ago. Unfortunately, we have let them fester. The result is that the Metropolitan Police believes there are 102 active gangs in London, each vying for their own share of the territory that is not, and cannot become, theirs. They commit a litany of crimes, with the most horrific reports suggesting that they keep scoreboards of the number of rival gang members they either stab or kill. This is not unique to the capital; it is the norm across many of our major cities.

Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to legislate against gang involvement before a crime has taken place. They are uncodified organisations, and attempting to break them up would require a large infringement on every citizen’s right to associate freely. But that does not lessen the need for legislative steps to be taken. Amendment 52 would implement, in our view, the next best thing by creating the aggravating factor of committing an offence in connection to the activities of a gang. This would disincentivise group-based crime and would mean that criminals identified as gang members would be able to be imprisoned for longer.

Similarly, it is well known that gangs often leave tags to mark their territories. This graffiti comes at enormous cost to either the taxpayer or private businesses. Small local businesses can see the fronts of their stores defaced, leaving them to choose between forking out repair costs or seeing customers potentially put off by the vandalism. Councils are faced with even more bills as they are forced to pay for the upkeep of their local areas. It is entirely unfair on the law-abiding communities that are burdened with this.

Gang-related violence does not end at the physical crime committed; it extends to the psychological. There is also the problem of the tone that gang-related graffiti sets. It is bad enough seeing your neighbourhood vandalised by gangs, but it is far worse when it is vandalised by a violent group marking their territory. It sends a signal to locals that their community is not, in fact, their shared property but that it belongs to a small group of individuals with scant regard for the law. It alarms them that these people live among them; it causes fear, distress and alarm. It is an act of intimidation which makes society feel less safe.

On the subject of graffiti, I do not know whether noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches are aware, but my right honourable friend the shadow Lord Chancellor has received a letter from one of their colleagues, the honourable Member for Cheltenham, Max Wilkinson. In his letter, he said that our amendments would see anyone who paints a St George’s cross on a public surface jailed for up to two years. I was rather baffled when I saw that; the subject matter of Amendment 51 is, in explicit terms, gang-related graffiti. The amendment would criminalise graffiti that uses gang signs, symbols or slogans that is committed in the course of gang activity. It uses the same definition of “gang” as Section 51 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. In our view, a person who simply paints a cross on a public building is very clearly not in scope of this new offence.

20:00

This is also an opportunity to clarify that this is not a group of amendments seeking to unfairly penalise innocent groups of people. The amendments are specifically targeted at people and symbols that are unquestionably identifiable as gang related. They create separate laws for a specific form of crime and go to the heart of one of the main issues making our cities unattractive and unsafe. Gangs, as I have said, are intimidating; they prey on the weakest in our communities, recruit them for their own ends, encourage violence and increase lawlessness. We believe that these amendments are necessary steps that must be taken to curb the issue. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments. Every week, coming from the north of England to this House, I see literally miles and miles of repulsive gang graffiti. On the outskirts of every station, walls and buildings are plastered with it. At Crewe and near Euston, hundreds and hundreds of goods wagons are covered in it, and even the walls of residential buildings. We see it everywhere, so why worry about it? It is unsightly and destroys any beauty that may be left on the approaches to cities by rail, but it is much more insidious than that, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has pointed out.

Gang-related graffiti, which we see in all urban areas, is often seen as both a symptom and a catalyst of criminal activity. I suggest that there is sufficient evidence available to conclude that gang graffiti leads to increased crime in affected neighbourhoods and that it instils fear among local residents. Gang graffiti typically consists of symbols, tags or messages used by criminal gangs to mark their territory, send warnings or communicate with other gangs. It differs from other forms of graffiti, such as street art, due to its association with organised crime and territorial disputes.

Several studies and reports indicate a correlation between the presence of gang graffiti and higher rates of crime, particularly violent offences. Gang graffiti is often used to demarcate territory, which can lead to turf wars and retaliatory violence. Areas marked by gang symbols may experience an increase in robberies, assaults and drug-related crimes as gangs seek to assert dominance. A study published by the Journal of Criminal Justice found that neighbourhoods with visible gang graffiti reported higher levels of gang-related crime and violence, suggesting that graffiti serves as both a warning and an invitation for conflict. Police departments in cities such as London and Manchester have noted that the appearance of new gang graffiti often coincides with spikes in criminal activity, particularly when rival gangs respond by marking over existing tags.

Crime prevention experts argue that gang graffiti is not merely a symptom but a tool used to intimidate, recruit and claim control, thereby fostering an environment conducive to criminal behaviour. Although correlation does not necessarily imply causation, the consistent association between gang graffiti and increased crime rates supports the argument that graffiti can contribute to localised crime.

The visual presence of gang graffiti can have a significant psychological impact on residents and visitors, as my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel said. Research conducted by community safety organisations has shown that people perceive areas with gang graffiti as less safe, which can lead to heightened anxiety, avoidance behaviours and reduced community cohesion. Surveys by our local councils in the UK reveal that residents often cite gang graffiti as a major contributor to their fear of crime, even if they have not personally experienced gang violence.

Our own British Crime Survey found that the visibility of gang markers and threatening messages increases the perceived risk of victimisation, causing some individuals to alter their daily routines or to avoid certain neighbourhoods or streets altogether. Community leaders report that gang graffiti can erode trust in public institutions as residents feel that the authorities are unable to maintain law and order and prevent criminal groups operating openly. In summary, gang graffiti acts as a visual clue that can frighten people, negatively impact mental well-being and discourage positive social interaction within affected communities.

Last year, the Metropolitan Police estimated that there were 102 active gangs in London engaged in violence and robbery, and they were responsible for a significant amount of serious violence, including half of all knife crimes with injury, 60% of shootings and 29% of reported child sexual exploitation. I think those 102 gangs equate to about 4,500 individuals. It is not just London; the same is happening in all our major cities. Let us be clear: gang-related graffiti is not some kids with aerosol cans spray-painting walls for a bit of fun. Gangs are making powerful statements to their allies and enemies that this is their criminal territory. Therefore, the solution has to be the prompt removal of graffiti, expensive though it is, and that has to be part of gang prevention strategies. However, we also need increased penalties, as suggested by my noble friend in his Amendment 51.

I do not need to speak in support of Amendment 52; I think I have just made the point that gangs are highly dangerous organisations and there should be tougher sentences for any crimes that have gang connections.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, everyone is concerned about gang activity. The dark web means it has never been easier for people to source and buy drugs independently, contributing to the emergence of more loosely organised micro-gangs, as once an individual has a large supply of illicit drugs, they need to recruit others to help distribute them. I am sympathetic to the intentions behind the tabled amendments.

On Amendment 51 on graffiti, I entirely agree with some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that this usually relates to gangs marking territory or expressing group affiliation. It can result in public spaces feeling unsafe, and the fear is that it could fuel turf wars between rival gangs. To many it is also an unsightly nuisance, with the clean-up cost high for home owners, businesses and local authorities. However, we remain unconvinced that this amendment is the way forward.

Graffiti without the property owner’s permission is already a criminal offence, classified as vandalism or criminal damage, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment. I am also concerned that measures such as this risk embedding racial bias in law enforcement and disproportionately affecting minority and marginalised communities. The courts have already found that using graffiti as a marker of gang identity can result in the unjust targeting of marginalised groups, especially people of colour.

In 2022 a legal ruling forced the Metropolitan Police to admit that the operation of its gangs matrix was unlawful, breached human rights and had a disproportionate impact on black people. The matrix used factors, including graffiti, to label people as gang members, leading to life-changing consequences for those who had been wrongly included. Over 1,000 individuals assessed as low risk subsequently had to be removed from the database. This demonstrates the danger of conflating graffiti, gangs and criminality. While I understand the intention behind this amendment, the risk of unintended consequences is clear.

The definition of a gang in Amendment 52 feels worryingly broad, so we cannot support it. As drafted, it raises significant concerns that outweigh its intended benefits. Prosecutors are already cautioned not to use the term “gang” without clear evidence because, used inappropriately, it can unfairly broaden liability for an individual’s offending while disproportionately affecting ethnic minorities.

This proposal also feels overly prescriptive. It is important that the courts retain discretion and the law allows for nuanced sentencing; for example, when someone was plainly being coerced, groomed or manipulated into gang activity.

On these Benches, we believe that sentencing must account for individual circumstances and be based on specific individual criminal behaviour. Simply being in with the wrong people is not the same thing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, for tabling Amendments 51 and 52. These amendments are proposed and supported by three Members of your Lordships’ House who, between them, have considerable experience in what might loosely be called the law and order space. They are, in rugby terms, a formidable front row and, as such, I have considered what they proposed with care.

I reassure the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Blencathra, and indeed your Lordships’ House, that this Government are definitely against gangs and absolutely against graffiti. That said, we do not believe that these proposals are needed, primarily because the activities criminalised in these measures are already covered by existing legislation.

The intended effect of Amendment 51 is to criminalise the kind of graffiti which gangs use to mark what they feel is their territory and/or to threaten rival groups with violence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, this criminal behaviour is already covered by the existing offence contained within Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Section 1 is broad enough to cover graffiti because case law establishes that the damage does not have to be permanent, and it catches behaviour such as using water-soluble paint on a pavement or smearing mud on the walls of a police cell. In addition, Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act has a higher maximum penalty than the proposed new offence, being punishable in the Crown Court by a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

Not only is the proposed offence not needed, there are very real problems with the structure of what is proposed; I will mention three, but there are others. First, this amendment creates an offence of strict liability. That means that the prosecution is not required to prove intention, recklessness or even knowledge. The result is a criminal offence which could be committed by accident. The criminal law does not like strict liability offences, and they are very rare in our jurisprudence. The reason is simple: we do not usually criminalise people who are not even aware that they were doing anything wrong.

Secondly, whatever the intention behind the drafting of this proposed criminal offence, in the way it is drafted, the definition of “gang” is so broad that it would capture both the Brownies and the Church of England, as well as football teams, drama societies and many other groups not normally regarded as criminal. I do not think that the noble Lords intend that a Christian cross chalked on a fence could potentially be prosecuted as a criminal offence.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I apologise for standing up a bit late but I want to go back to an earlier comment that graffiti could happen by accident. How on earth can graffiti artists spray a wall with gang tags by accident?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The difficulty is that if somebody were to put something on a fence, for example, and they were not aware that this was associated with a gang, they would potentially be criminalised by it.

Thirdly, the requirements of the proposed new offence mean that expert evidence would need to be adduced in order that the jury or magistrates could decide whether the prosecution had proved to the criminal standard—that is, beyond reasonable doubt—whether the graffiti is gang-related within the meaning of the section. Most judges, magistrates and juries are unlikely to understand the significance of particular names, symbols or tags—this is not just the Sharks and the Jets that we are talking about, but rather most abstruse versions. Then the requirement that a trial be fair would require that the defence would also have to be able to instruct an expert, usually at public expense. Your Lordships’ House is well aware of the difficulties the criminal courts already have with delay. The idea that these existing challenges should be added to by numerous “battle of the expert” trials about graffiti is as unpalatable as it is unnecessary, given that the conduct is already captured by the Criminal Damage Act.

Amendment 52 seeks to make gang involvement a statutory aggravating factor in the sentencing for any criminal offence; thus, it is very wide indeed. The definition of “gang” is once again so broad that it would capture a number of wholly innocuous groups, and this is not a mere drafting issue. It encapsulates the fundamental problem with this provision, which is the difficulty of defining the conduct which it seeks to condemn with sufficient precision to make it workable. Again, evidence might be needed at the sentencing stage.

20:15

At present, Chapter 3 of Part 4 of the Sentencing Act 2020 creates only 11 statutory aggravating factors which a sentencer must bear a mind when considering the seriousness of the offence. These statutory aggravating features include umbrella issues, such as whether the offence was committed while on bail or whether the offender has previous convictions. However, it also includes some offence-specific ones, such as involving a minor child in the supply of controlled drugs. This amendment would create a 12th.

The Government are satisfied that a further statutory aggravating factor is not needed. This is because the sentencing guidelines already require a sentencer to consider additional, non-statutory factors, and these include where the offence has been committed as part of a group, or there is evidence of community or wider impact, and that list is not a closed one. The kind of gang-related activity which is of concern to all right-thinking people can and should be taken into account by sentencers. My own recent experience as a judge sitting in a central London Crown Court is that judges would, and do, already treat gang issues, where clearly proved, as an aggravating factor in terms of sentence.

Put simply, I am satisfied that the courts already have the tools necessary to respond robustly to serious gang-related offending. For that reason, I consider both amendments unnecessary. However, if there is something particular that they seek to address and to which I have not spoken, I invite noble Lords to meet with me to discuss it. Notwithstanding this offer and for the reasons I have set out, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and I thank the Minister for her kind comments at the start—they were slightly undeserving in my case, given her own experience. I listened carefully to what she said.

There were a couple of points I would like to come back on. Painting a St George’s cross, a saltire or whatever symbol might be chosen, would not and would never be caught by this, because it is not “gang related”. In addition, it is not too difficult for juries to understand the concept of something that is gang related.

On the issue of defining a gang, a point made both by the Minister and by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the definition of a gang is the same as the one used in Section 51 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. It is the accepted definition. In that respect, I would not accept that it is too broad.

Underpinning these amendments is something that we all want to see: clean, happy cities that do not face the persistent threat of crime of any form. Unfortunately, a large part of the urban crime we currently face is the product of gang-related feuds and violence. The Centre for Social Justice has estimated that 60% of all shootings are gang related. Other reports suggest that they are responsible for as much as half of all knife crime. If we are serious about tackling crime, especially knife crime, we must do all we can to punish criminal gang members and disincentivise those who have not yet joined a gang. It is for that reason that we have put forward these amendments: to make gang-related offences specific and for them to require specific treatment in our law.

I could say much more about the amendments—and I am very grateful for the comments from all noble Lords, particularly for the support from my noble friend Lord Blencathra—but for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 51.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

Amendment 52 not moved.

Amendment 53

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

53: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Offence of engaging in nuisance begging(1) A person aged 18 or over who engages in nuisance begging commits an offence.(2) Where a constable has reasonable cause to believe that a person is engaging or has engaged in nuisance begging, the constable may require the person to leave a relevant location as soon as reasonably practicable.(3) Where a person has been required to leave a relevant location by a constable, the person commits an offence if the person does not comply with the requirement.(4) A person who commits an offence under subsections (1) or (3) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.(5) For the purposes of this section, a person engages in “nuisance begging” if subsections (6) or (7) applies.(6) This subsection applies if the person begs—(a) on public transport,(b) in a station or any form of public transport, or at an entrance to or an exit from any such station,(c) at a bus stop, tram stop or other place where members of the public get on to, or alight from, any form of public transport,(d) at a taxi rank,(e) on a carriageway or cycle track,(f) in any area outside business premises (whether or not the area forms part of a highway) where people are consuming food or drinks supplied by the business,(g) within 10 metres of an automated teller machine or night safe, (h) within 10 metres of a ticket machine, a vending machine or any other device through which members of the public obtain goods or services by making payments,(i) in, or within five metres of, the entrance to, or exit from, retail premises, or(j) in the common parts of any building containing two or more dwellings,(7) This subsection applies if the person begs in a way that has caused, or is likely to cause—(a) harassment, alarm or distress to another person,(b) a person reasonably to believe that—(i) they, or any other person, may be harmed, or(ii) any property (except property belonging to the person begging) may be damaged,(c) disorder, or(d) a risk to the health or safety of any person except the person begging.(8) In this section—“carriageway” and “cycle track” have the meaning given by section 329(1) of the Highway Act 1980;“distress” includes distress caused by—(a) the use of threatening, intimidating or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or(b) the display of any writing, sign, or other visible representation that is threatening, intimidating or abusive;“relevant location” means a location where the person is engaging or has engaged in nuisance begging;“retail premises” means premises used wholly or mainly for the purposes of the sale of anything by retail.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce the offence of nuisance begging and permit a constable to move on a person engaging in nuisance begging.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments require a little bit of legislative background to be given. In 2022, the Government accepted an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824. Section 81 of the 2022 Act containing the repeal has not yet been commenced.

The previous Government stated their intention to commence the repeal of the Vagrancy Act only once appropriate replacement legislation was put in place. The replacement legislative framework was included in the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, after which the current Bill is modelled. While almost one-third of the clauses of the Criminal Justice Bill have made their way into this Bill, the provisions to replace the Vagrancy Act have not. This amendment is intended to ascertain why.

The Criminal Justice Bill proposed to create a new framework of nuisance begging and nuisance rough sleeping, as well as creating three new related criminal offences. I entirely accept that the Government have carried forward the offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence and the offence of arranging or facilitating begging for gain, but we do not see anything relating to nuisance begging in the Bill. My question to the Minister is simply: why? Do the Government believe that the police will have sufficient powers to deal with anti-social begging once the Vagrancy Act is repealed? It appears somewhat counterintuitive for the Government to seek to criminalise the facilitation of another person’s begging but not to criminalise nuisance begging. Do the Government believe there is such a thing as nuisance or anti-social begging?

Regardless of the Government’s response to that, it appears to us that there will be a legislative gap if the Vagrancy Act is repealed and nothing is put in place to substitute it. My Amendment 53 therefore mirrors the proposals from the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill. It would create a very narrowly defined offence of nuisance begging and would equip the police with a proportionate and practical tool—namely, the power to require an individual to move on from a relevant location where disruptive or unsafe behaviour is occurring.

This amendment does not criminalise poverty, homelessness or the simple act of asking for help. It does not target those who are vulnerable or down on their luck, nor does it seek to sweep such people out of sight. It draws a clear distinction between legitimate, peaceful begging on the one hand, and conduct which crosses into harassment and intimidation—with danger both to the public and often to the person begging themselves—on the other.

We believe that the public have a right to move through stations, transport hubs, shopfronts and busy pavements without being impeded, threatened or placed at risk. Likewise, those who beg have a right to be treated with dignity. But it is precisely because dignity matters that we must address those situations where begging is carried out in a manner or in locations that create real harm.

The amendment identifies particular locations: public transport; station entrances; ATM machines; business forecourts; taxi ranks. These are points where there is little practical ability for a member of the public to avoid unwanted confrontation. They are places where one cannot simply walk around a challenging encounter. A narrow station staircase is not somewhere to negotiate past an insistent or aggressive request for money. These are the very locations where nuisance behaviour has taken root and where the police currently lack a clear and effective mechanism to act.

The amendment would set a threshold based not on the mere presence of a person asking for money but on conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress, fear of harm, risk to health or safety, or disorder. These are long-established, widely understood standards in public order law, and they ensure that the power is used only when behaviour becomes unacceptable.

The move-on power in subsection (2) is at the heart of the proposal. It is preventative rather than punitive. It would give a constable the ability to intervene early, to de-escalate situations and to protect all involved before matters deteriorate. For the individual concerned, it would avoid immediate criminalisation; it would give them an opportunity to comply and move on without penalty. Only wilful refusal to comply would constitute an offence.

For all those reasons, and with the balance that this amendment strikes so carefully, in our view, I commend it to the Committee, and I urge noble Lords to lend it their support. I beg to move.

Amendment 53A (to Amendment 53)

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

53A: After subsection (6)(j) insert—
“(k) outside any residential building.”

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, as well as moving Amendment 53A, I will also speak to my Amendment 53B in this group. I completely support the comments of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel on the Front Bench, and I support his amendments.

I encounter this every day coming to this House, where beggars lie on the pavement, half blocking it. Possibly they think they are less frightening sitting down than standing up, but the nuisance is the same, as is the chant asking for money. I have not seen them for some months now, but for a couple of years we had different beggars every day; then I realised it was the same dog they had. I presume that the dog got passed around between them, since the public are possibly more sympathetic to the dog than to the beggar— a kind of Dogs R Us.

There was another one who, when I first encountered him, was really scary. He was a beggar, but he was shouting and screaming—not at the public, I realised, but more to himself or to the ether than anything else. Clearly, he had a mental health problem. After I saw him a couple of times, I had no problem; I just did not make eye contact. However, people who had never met him before, such as women coming out of the shops, were terrified of him. It was nuisance begging, but clearly there was a health problem behind it.

My Amendment 53A would merely add a little tweak to my noble friend’s new clause by adding “outside any residential building” to the list in subsection (6). In this Westminster area, I have seen them sitting not on the doorstep but right beside the entrance to a residential block of flats. Frankly, I think that is intimidating, and residents should not have to face that fear, whether misplaced or not, that they may face beggars as they come and go from their own property.

My Amendment 53B would amend my noble friend’s amendment after subsection (7), by inserting:

“The judgement that the begging satisfies the conditions in (a), (b) and (d) is one to be made by the person who is the victim of the begging”.


So what does subsection (7) say? It says:

“This subsection applies if the person begs in a way that has caused, or is likely to cause … (a) harassment, alarm or distress to another person, … (b) a person reasonably to believe that … they, or any other person, may be harmed, or … any property … may be damaged, … (c) disorder, or … (d) a risk to the health or safety of any person except the person begging”.


In other words, the purpose of my amendment is that I do not want a police officer to come along and say, “Oh no, guv, that’s not harassment or causing alarm. What are you worried about? There’s no risk to your health and safety”. I suggest that the judgment be made by the person who is the victim of the nuisance begging. Some people will not be worried or alarmed, as I was not worried after I saw that chap with the mental health problem a few times, but others may be.

I came across this in an accusation about bullying in the Civil Service. If a civil servant believes that someone is bullied, that is taken for granted because one person felt it even though others might have felt differently. I dealt with that in my capacity of serving on an ALB.

In conclusion, I want to make it clear that, if a person feels that begging is causing him or her alarm, distress or harassment, or is a risk to health and safety, then it is the victim’s view that must be considered, not that of anyone else applying their own test for what that alarm might be.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, there is a genuine problem around aggressive begging and the involvement of organised criminal gangs. That is why we support Clause 11, which rightly focuses not on individuals who are begging but on those who are orchestrating and profiting from this practice.

Lots of things in life are a nuisance, but that does not mean we should criminalise them. Where begging is causing a genuine nuisance, police already have a range of powers to deal with it under anti-social behaviour legislation. We think this amendment is the wrong solution at a time when charities such as Crisis say that the number of vulnerable people on the streets who survive by begging, including women and first-time rough sleepers, is rising. In these circumstances, we should be looking at how we can better reach and support those in such straitened circumstances. By contrast, criminalising begging would push people away from support, and it will not solve the problems of poverty, homelessness, addiction or exploitation.

20:30

For all these reasons, we cannot support this amendment. Indeed, I share the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones previously in Committee that the anti-social behaviour powers in the Bill already fall disproportionately heavily on those without a home. The Bill should at the very least update statutory guidance to confirm that anti-social behaviour powers must not be used against people simply because they are homeless or sleeping rough. It should be clear that neither sleeping rough nor begging in themselves amount to anti-social behaviour.

I also take this opportunity to raise the calls of Crisis for repeal of the Vagrancy Act to be matched by proper investment in housing support and homelessness provision. It is absolutely right. In recent years, police intervention has become the default for dealing with societal problems such as homelessness—issues that are far more about social care and social support, which should not be confused with criminality. They need to be more effectively addressed not by the police but by other agencies with greater expertise.

As I said at Second Reading, if the Bill is to deliver real change, we must resist continually expanding police responsibilities and instead back evidence-based, effective solutions. It is for this reason, I suspect, that some police forces have said they want guidance on the use of respect orders in relation to street homelessness. In responding to this group, can I ask the Minister to offer a clear timetable for issuing this guidance?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his Amendment 53, which, as he explained, would introduce a new offence of nuisance begging and permit a constable to move on a person engaging in this behaviour. Failure to comply with the notice would constitute a criminal offence. I note also Amendments 53A and 53B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which seek to further extend what constitutes nuisance begging under the proposed new offence.

I start by saying to noble Lords that the Government do not wish to target or criminalise individuals who are begging to sustain themselves or rough sleeping because they have nowhere else to go. That is why we are committed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned, to repealing the outdated Vagrancy Act 1824, and why we will not be introducing measures that target or recriminalise begging and rough sleeping. It is also—for the very reason the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned—why the Government have invested more than £1 billion in homelessness and rough sleeping services this year, which is up £316 million compared to last year. So there is an increase in support to tackle the very issues that the noble Baroness mentioned.

However, we are legislating in the Bill to introduce targeted replacement measures for certain elements of the 1824 Act to ensure—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will welcome this—that police retain the powers they need to keep our communities safe. These targeted replacement measures, in Clauses 10 and 11, include a new offence of facilitating begging for gain and an offence of trespassing with the intention of committing a crime, both of which were previously provided for under the 1824 Act.

As noble Lords mentioned, begging is itself a complex issue, it can cause significant harm or distress to communities and local areas need appropriate tools to maintain community safety. But where I come back to in this debate is that there are powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which many police forces use effectively to tackle anti-social behaviour in the context of begging and rough sleeping—for example, the very point the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned, where an individual may be harassing members of the public on a persistent basis, including potentially outside their own home, as in his amendment.

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides for current statutory guidance. I hope that it partly answers the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, to say that we will update that anti-social behaviour statutory guidance. This will ensure that it is clear to agencies how ASB powers can be used in the context of harassment and this type of begging, if an individual’s behaviour reaches a threshold that will be set in the ASB statutory guidance.

Existing criminal offences can also be applied where the behaviour crosses the current criminal threshold. I expect the updating of the guidance to take place very shortly after Royal Assent is given to the legislation passing through the House of Lords. In the light of the assurances that we take this issue seriously, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will not press his amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is somewhat mollified that there are powers in place to deal with the issues that he has raised.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am grateful for what the Minister said. I admire his style at the Dispatch Box; he is courteous and thorough in giving his answers. In view of his assurances that this is really covered by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 53A (to Amendment 53) withdrawn.

Amendment 53B (to Amendment 53) not moved.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate, and I thank all those who contributed. I listened very carefully to the Minister and his indication that the Government believe that they have all the necessary tools to prevent anti-social begging.

Underpinning these amendments is that those who work daily in town centres, transport networks and retail spaces consistently report situations where members of the public feel frightened or cornered. The law does not provide a consistent, targeted response to those problems. That is the basis of this amendment, which seeks to ensure clarity for the public and the police. The amendment is carefully drawn, limited, balanced and rooted in the principle that no one should be made to feel unsafe when going about their daily business.

We cannot ignore the reality that some forms of begging today bear little resemblance to what many of us have known in the past. We now see behaviour that is aggressive, persistent and sometimes strategically targeted at locations where people feel trapped. However, having listened very carefully, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 53 withdrawn.

Amendment 54

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

54: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: amendment(1) Schedule 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) After paragraph 1(3) insert—“(3A) A detention order must be made in relation to a person between the ages of 14 and 18 who has been in breach of three injunctions.(3B) A person subject to a detention order under sub-paragraph (3A) must be detained in youth detention accommodation as defined by paragraph 14(3).”.(3) After paragraph 2(7) insert—“(8) Any person subject to a supervision order under this paragraph is eligible for an electronic tag.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Blencathra add a power of detention for 14 -18 year olds who have a record of breaching inunctions.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, in moving my Amendment 54, I will also speak to my Amendment 55. Amendment 54 seeks to amend Schedule 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The relevant section says that:

“A youth court, if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person aged under 18 is in breach of a provision of an injunction under section 1 to which he or she is subject, may make in respect of the person—(a) a supervision order or (b) a detention order”.


Dealing with the detention provisions first, the court “may” make a detention order. My amendment seeks that it “must” make such an order, tying the court’s discretion, if a person between the ages of 14 and 18 breaches three or more injunctions.

As the Minister knows—indeed, as we all know—the problem with juvenile crime is habitual offenders. None of us want to lock up little kiddies who make a couple of mistakes or commit minor crime—of course not. However, before any juvenile gets an injunction, the anti-social behaviour has to be reasonably serious. This is what the College of Policing says on the grounds for an injunction:

“A civil injunction is issued on the balance of probabilities. It must be just and convenient to grant the injunction to prevent anti-social behaviour, and the respondent must have engaged in or threatened to engage in either: conduct that has or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress … or conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”.


The College of Policing states that a civil injunction is used for

“drug/alcohol-related ASB … harassment … noise (tenure-neutral)”—

whatever that means—“vandalism” and “aggressive begging”. Therefore, I submit that if a juvenile between the ages of 14 to 18 breaches three of those, we have passed the stage where the court may—I stress “may”—make a detention order. Anyone who has breached three injunctions is rapidly heading to becoming a habitual offender. If he does not get a detention order after all that behaviour, what signal will that send to him and his mates? It will signal that you can get away with it, and nothing will happen but another appearance before the court, a rap on the knuckles and being told to be a good boy. As parliamentarians, we owe it to innocent members of the public to protect them from habitual trouble-makers, and my amendment would do just that.

The court also has a discretion on whether to make a detention order when a juvenile breaches one or two injunctions. I am happy with that. I submit that we only remove that discretion when the offender breaches three or more.

I will move on to supervision orders. The court could order a supervision order instead of detention. Such an order could impose one or more of three requirements: a supervision requirement, an activity requirement or a curfew requirement. We do not need to go into what each of those requirements can do or the obligations they might impose. My amendment simply seeks to add an additional power, so that:

“Any person subject to a supervision order … is eligible for an electronic tag”.


Note my wording: it states that they would be “eligible” for an electronic tag; I am not tying the court’s hands here to make it compulsory.

One of my reasons for attaching electronic tags to juveniles under court-imposed supervision orders is the enhancement of accountability. Electronic monitoring provides a reliable, objective mechanism for tracking the whereabouts of young offenders. This not only helps to ensure compliance with curfews and exclusion zones stipulated by the court but gives our Prison and Probation Service immediate insight into any breaches. The knowledge that their movements are being monitored can act as a significant deterrent against further anti-social or criminal behaviour.

I suggest that electronic tagging offers reassurance to communities affected by persistent anti-social behaviour. Enabling authorities to monitor offenders more closely would reduce the risk of reoffending while under supervision. This is particularly pertinent in cases where the offence involves intimidation, vandalism or harassment in a particular locality. The visible commitment to monitoring can help rebuild public confidence in the justice system’s capacity to protect communities.

I have no doubt that some will argue that tagging for a juvenile is punitive, but I suggest it can also help with rehabilitation. Electronic monitoring allows for greater flexibility compared with secure detention, enabling juveniles to remain in their communities, continue education and maintain family relationships. The structure imposed by tagging can help young people develop routines and take responsibility for their actions, while still being held accountable. For many, this balance of liberty and oversight provides a constructive framework for positive behavioural change.

As we all know—the Minister knows this, and he knew it from his last experience in the Home Office—for many young offenders, early intervention is critical to prevent escalation into more serious criminal behaviour. Electronic tagging, as a clear and immediate consequence, can serve as a wake-up call, highlighting the seriousness of continued non-compliance. This timely intervention can disrupt cycles of offending and encourage reflection, potentially diverting young people from the future of criminality.

I will not speak to my Amendment 55, since I think I have a bit of inadvertent duplication here. I was drafting an amendment to the Act and then one to Schedule 2, and my Amendment 55 is my first draft, which I should not have sent to the Public Bill Office by mistake. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment 54.

20:45

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, we recognise the legitimate concerns about persistent anti-social behaviour. Repeat offenders represent a significant challenge; within many communities there is a small core of individuals creating a disproportionate amount of misery and distress to victims. However, the Liberal Democrats remain sceptical about the approach taken by Amendment 54. On these Benches, we believe that youth incarceration should be a last resort, not an automatic consequence. Mandatory detention after three breaches not only removes judicial discretion, it risks criminalising young people for behaviour which is below the criminal standard.

The evidence shows that detention is largely ineffective and often counterproductive. In reality, it increases the likelihood of future offending. Indeed, a chief constable I spoke to told me that short-term sentences simply equip people to be better at crime. The aim of these measures may be to help victims, but the risk is that they could ultimately result in the creation of more of them.

We believe that the key to tackling persistent anti-social behaviour is properly funded community policing. There are about 10,000 fewer police and PCSOs and neighbourhood teams now than in 2015. More than 4,500 PCSOs have disappeared, and their loss is continuing. Some forces simply do not have enough personnel in neighbourhood teams to actively address anti-social behaviour. In his response, will the Minister say what is being done to reverse the exodus of community officers?

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the contributions we have heard demonstrate the seriousness of the issue and highlight why communities and victims need reassurance that persistent anti-social behaviour will be confronted robustly and effectively. I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for bringing forward these amendments. They provide a welcome opportunity to examine whether the current response to repeat breaches of injunctions is sufficient.

It goes without saying that ongoing and persistent anti-social behaviour has a profound impact on the lives of ordinary residents, including the feeling of individual safety and a wider sense of cohesion in our neighbourhoods. Amendment 54 seeks to provide that if someone under 18 breaches three injunctions of supervision orders, they must be given a detention order. It seems likely, to me at least, that someone who has broken three such injunctions is plainly on the path to becoming an habitual offender. Repeated breaches should not simply be met with ineffective sanctions—communities have to know that the law has teeth and that those who repeatedly defy court orders will face meaningful consequences. The amendment seeks to reinforce that principle and to signal clearly that a cycle of breach, warning and further breach is unacceptable.

I hope that the Government give the amendment the thought and time that it deserves, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for Amendment 54 and for fessing up to Amendment 55, which we will accept as an honest mistake. I welcome his honesty in raising the issue.

There is a recognition that Amendment 54 still wants to provide for minimum sentences for persistent breaches of youth injunctions. I emphasise that the Government do not want to criminalise children unnecessarily, an aspiration we share with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. That is why the new respect order in the Bill will not apply to those under 18. However, we know that in many cases the behaviour of offenders under 18 requires a more formal deterrent and intervention. That is why we have retained the civil injunction as is for those under 18. Practitioners have told us that it is a particularly helpful and useful tool to tackle youth anti-social behaviour and to ensure that their rights and the safety of the community are upheld.

Youth injunctions are civil orders and fundamentally preventive in nature, which again goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. It is more important to intervene to prevent than it is to punish afterwards, particularly when young people are the individuals who are causing those challenges in the first place.

The important point about youth injunctions, which, again, goes to the heart of the noble Lord’s amendment, is that if the respondent abides by the terms of the order, they will not be liable for any penalties but, self-evidently, where a respondent does breach an order there needs to be some action. The noble Lord has suggested one course of action. I say to him that the courts already have a range of responses, including supervision orders, electronic tagging, curfews and, in the most serious cases, detention orders for up to three months for 14 to 17 year-olds.

I hope there is a common theme across the Committee that detention of children should be used only when absolutely necessary, and that courts should consider the child’s welfare and other risks before imposing such a response. This should be on a case-by-case basis, and the prescribing of a mandatory minimum sentence, even for repeat offenders, would both undermine the ability of the independent judiciary to determine the appropriate sentence and potentially be disproportionate. There is a place in our sentencing framework for mandatory minimum sentences, but I submit that this is not it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, is quite right again that one of the best preventive measures we can have is to have large numbers of boots on the ground in neighbourhood policing. She will know that the Government have a manifesto commitment to put 13,000 extra boots on the ground during this Parliament. In this first year or so, the Government have put an extra 3,000 in place. We intend, where we can, to increase the number of specials, PCSOs and warranted officers to replace those who were lost between 2010 and 2017. When I was Police Minister in 2009-10, we had 20,000 more officers than we had up to around 2017. That is because they were hollowed out and taken out by the two Governments who ran the Home Office between 2010 and 2017.

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that visible neighbourhood policing is critical to tackling anti-social behaviour, but the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to provide minimum sentences, which I do not think will achieve his objective. It does not have my support either. I hope he will withdraw the amendment, having listened to the argument.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, once again, I am grateful to the Minister for his courteous and detailed answer. I did not realise that electronic tagging was already an option and it is very important that it is applied in appropriate cases. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that I am not creating a new criminal offence here. The power of detention already exists to be used by the court when it thinks fit.

On the general principle of minimum sentences, why do we fetter a judge’s discretion by having a maximum sentence? If we want proper judicial discretion, we should say that the judge can sentence anything he likes, but we do not—and I am glad we do not. We say that Parliament cannot set a minimum. Why is it appropriate, in a democracy, for Parliament to set a maximum sentence but not a minimum? I knew that the Minister, in his courteous way, would say that we would fetter judicial discretion, but I have suggested three breaches of injunctions. When can a court say, “You’ve done six now”, or, “You’ve done 10, Johnny”, and impose a sentence of detention for continued breaches of injunctions? As a democracy, it is perfectly legitimate for us as parliamentarians—and Members in the other House, whose constituents are suffering—to say that judges will have a discretion to impose orders of detention up to a certain level, but once the breaches of injunctions go past a certain threshold, Parliament demands that they impose a level of detention, whatever that level may be.

I have made my point. The Minister will probably hear me make a similar point about minimum sentences at various other points in the Bill but, in view of his remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 54 withdrawn.

Amendments 55 and 55A not moved.

Clause 12 agreed.

Clause 13: Coordinating officer

Amendment 55B

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

55B: Clause 13, page 20, line 7, at end insert—
“(3) The coordinating officer need not be a constable but must be someone versed in the internet and online sales and purchases.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that the police and NCA appoint a person as the co-ordinating officer who is the most qualified about the internet and online sales and need not be a person who has qualified as a constable.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

The House will be relieved to know I will be mercifully brief on this occasion. Until 1968 the Met and other police forces used CID officers to do SOCO work—that is, collecting forensic evidence at the scenes of crimes. For many it was not their speciality and they often damaged vital evidence. Police forces realised that teams of dedicated civilians who specialise in gathering evidence at crime scenes could do a better job. Naturally, the Police Federation opposed any civilians being brought in to do it. Now, civilians do command and dispatch—which used to be done by serving officers—investigation support, and crime analysis. Over the years the police service has had to recognise, reluctantly in my opinion, that a constable of whatever rank may not be the best-qualified person to undertake increasingly complex tasks. We see credit card fraud going through the roof because there is practically no one in any police force capable of investigating it. Goodness knows who could do it —forensic accountants, perhaps.

All I am seeking here is an assurance from the Minister that this important co-ordinating role will not go to an inspector or a superintendent unless he or she is an absolute expert on the internet and online sales. This requires a switched-on internet geek, and not necessarily a uniformed bobby. Can the Minister assure me that the police will recruit for this role the best-qualified person, from wherever that person comes from, provided that he or she passes all the integrity tests, and that the guidance envisaged in the clause will say so? I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I must say, I admire the range of interventions made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I do not want him to fall back on his seat, but on this occasion, we have some sympathy with the two amendments he has put forward. This group addresses the establishment of the new civil penalty regime for online advertising, a measure which we on these Benches support for its goal of strengthening accountability for online platforms. The introduction of civil penalties in this part of the Bill is intended to tackle the online grey market that facilitates the sale of illegal weapons, enabling earlier intervention and prevention of offensive weapon crimes. We must ensure that the framework we establish is not only robust legally but operationally effective in the digital age.

Amendment 55B tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, concerning Clause 13, focuses specifically on the essential role of the co-ordinating officer. Clause 13 mandates that the Secretary of State designate a member of a relevant police force or a National Crime Agency officer as the co-ordinating officer for this chapter. The amendment proposes that:

“The coordinating officer need not be a constable but must be someone versed in the internet and online sales and purchases”.


We on these Benches recognise that 21st-century crime fighting is no longer solely about boots on the ground. It relies heavily on specialised digital expertise to effectively police online marketplaces and hold search services and user-to-user services accountable. The designated officer must possess deep knowledge of digital platform sales techniques and online advertising mechanisms, as the noble Lord indicated. By explicitly allowing this officer to be a non-constable professional and expert, we would ensure that law enforcement can deploy the most qualified individuals to secure content removal notices and apply civil penalties. In our view, this pragmatic approach would ensure efficiency and maximum efficacy against technologically sophisticated platforms.

Amendment 55F in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, relates to Clause 24, which governs the guidance issued by the Secretary of State regarding the operation of this new regime. All new intrusive powers, especially those concerning online services, require clear, precise guidance to avoid unintended consequences and ensure fairness. Proper statutory guidance is the mechanism by which the principles established in the Bill should be translated into proportionate and actionable requirements for online service providers.

In short, in our view these amendments seek to guarantee that the architecture of this new regime is built on technical expertise and clarity, both those pillars being essential in ensuring that our online crime-fighting tools are fit for purpose. As such, we support them.

21:00

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I hope to be as brief as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra when introducing these amendments.

There is an urgent need to ensure that the mechanisms we put in place under the Bill are both workable and effective. My noble friend’s amendments seek to ensure that the person appointed as the co-ordinating officer is simply the most qualified regarding the internet and online sales. There seems to be broad agreement that those responsible for enforcing penalties for illegal online sales must have the right skills. Whether or not such individuals wear a uniform is less important than whether they understand the digital channels through which harmful goods are marketed and moved, and criminals should not be able to exploit technological advantage to stay one step ahead of enforcement. I therefore hope that the Government take these amendments seriously as practical suggestions to help tackle a serious problem.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his amendments to the clauses that implement this Government’s manifesto commitment to hold senior managers of online platforms, be they social media platforms, online marketplaces or search engines, personally liable for the failure to remove illegal online content relating to knives and offensive weapons. His Amendment 55B would require the co-ordinating officer—that is, the person appointed by the Home Secretary to administer these new powers—to have the necessary internet and online sales experience and skills, stating that they need not be a warranted officer. Amendment 55F would make these criteria explicit in the statutory guidance for these measures.

I agree with the sentiment behind the amendments. It is of course important that the co-ordinating officer responsible for the administration of these powers be suitably experienced. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are providing £1.7 million for a new national police unit to tackle the illegal online sale of knives and weapons, including the issuing of content removal notices. The unit will be dedicated to co-ordinating investigations into all aspects of online unlawful knife and offensive weapon sales, and to bringing those responsible to justice. It will also improve data collection and analysis capability in order to expand police understanding of the knife crime problem and how enforcement activities can best be targeted. The intention is that a senior member of this specialist unit will be appointed as the co-ordinating officer, and they will have the necessary skills and resources to administer the powers.

Whoever is appointed as a content manager must be experienced in both aspects of the problem we are trying to tackle. They should have experience not only of online sales but of the investigation of illegal online sales of knives and weapons—that is, they must be able to understand the investigatory and evidential process as well as having experience of the internet. This will, to paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, not be any old bobby with a warrant card but someone highly experienced in internet sales and the investigatory and evidential role. That is why, in short, we feel that the role must be held by a warranted officer. It is a police role. They will be issuing enforcement notices and, as part of the criminal process, they need to have that experience as well as the essential online experience that all noble Lords who spoke in the debate mentioned; we agree that that is necessary.

Given the assurance that we are not neglecting the online side of things, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will be sufficiently reassured and is content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, first let me say that I am almost overcome with deep emotion, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the Lib Dems have supported a Blencathra amendment—I wonder where I have gone wrong.

I say to the Minister that I am not totally reassured. I was not suggesting any old bobby; I was afraid that the police would automatically look for someone of senior rank: inspector, superintendent or chief superintendent. But the absolutely crucial thing is that that person must be fully qualified on internet sales and online stuff. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, set it out with rather elegant detail; I called the person a computer geek. If that superintendent is a senior investigating officer and he or she is a computer geek, then I am satisfied. I do not suggest that I will take this back on Report, but the Minister’s answer did not totally satisfy me that the best person will necessarily be recruited for the job. Yes, of course the person must have an understanding of investigation techniques, but that does not necessarily mean that it has to be a high-ranking police officer. The police already have civilians investigating things that do not require an officer.

As I say, I am slightly equivocal about the Minister’s answer. It is slightly disappointing that the Government will not countenance the possibility that this person may not be a warranted officer. It is quite simple: if you recruited the right computer geek, you make him or her warranted officer—you can do it that way. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 55B withdrawn.

Clause 13 agreed.

Clauses 14 to 17 agreed.

Clause 18: Failure to comply with content manager requirements: civil penalty

Amendment 55C

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

55C: Clause 18, page 22, line 24, leave out “an amount not exceeding £60,000” and insert “a minimum of 500% of the value of the illegal goods advertised”
Member’s explanatory statement
A fine is based on a judgement of the seriousness of the crime and is subjective. My amendment ensures that the penalty is based on the actual value of the illegal knives and the profits from their sale.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 55C, I will speak also to my Amendments 55D and 55E. My three amendments here are all similar, as I argue that a value-based penalty is more effective than a maximum fixed fine. The issue of illegal knife sales on the internet is a matter of serious public concern. It is big business with big consequences when those knives—machetes and zombie knives—are used to kill and maim, as is increasingly the case.

The proposals in the Bill to fine individuals and businesses up to £60,000 for selling illegal knives online seem hefty at first glance. However, the effectiveness and fairness of such a fixed penalty are questionable. A more effective approach would be to impose a fine equal to 500% of the total value of all the illegal goods advertised. I want to convince the Minister that a proportional penalty is, in some cases, superior to a subjective fixed maximum fine.

First, there is the subjectivity of the fixed maximum fine. Setting a maximum fine of £60,000 for selling illegal knives leaves the final penalty to the discretion of the court. This introduces subjectivity into the process, as judges must determine what amount is appropriate in each case. The outcome may vary significantly depending on the judge’s interpretation of the offence’s severity, the defendant’s circumstances and other factors. Consequently, similar offenders could face vastly different penalties, undermining the consistency and predictability of the law. Then, of course, I come back to my favourite organisation, the Sentencing Council, advising that the £60,000 fine should never be imposed—but let us leave that aside for the moment.

Moreover, a fixed cap may not reflect the true scale of the illegal activity. For example, a small-scale individual seller and a large business operation could both face the same maximum penalty, despite the latter potentially profiting far more from illegal sales. This lack of proportionality can result in fines that are either too lenient or excessively harsh, depending on the specifics of the case.

In contrast, my suggestion of a fine set at 500% of the value of all illegal knives advertised is directly linked to the scale of the offence and the profits. This proportional penalty approach ensures that the penalty increases in line with the seriousness of the crime. Large-scale operations, which are likely to profit more and cause greater harm, would face correspondingly larger fines. This not only achieves greater fairness but strengthens the deterrent effect. As we have said on many occasions, criminals are primarily motivated by profit. If the financial penalty reliably exceeds any potential gains—by a factor of five in this case—the risk heavily outweighs the reward. I suggest that that creates a strong disincentive for individuals and businesses to engage in illegal knife sales.

The proportional system also ensures that penalties remain meaningful, even as the market or profitability of legal knives fluctuates over time. The proportional penalty system is more likely to deter criminal behaviour, because it removes ambiguity and subjectivity from sentencing. Offenders know in advance that any profits from illegal activity will be entirely wiped out and replaced by a substantial loss. That clarity and certainty are crucial in discouraging would-be offenders. Furthermore, tying the fine to the value of the legal goods ensures fairness across all cases. Small-time offenders are punished proportionately for their actions, while major players face penalties commensurate with the harm they cause and the profits they make. That upholds the principle that the punishment should fit the crime.

In summary, I submit that a fixed maximum fine of £60,000 for selling illegal knives online introduces subjectivity and inconsistency—whereas a penalty of 500% of the value of all illegal goods advertised is fair, more predictable and far more likely to deter criminal activity.

I do not need to speak to my Amendment 55E; it is the same concept but suggests a mere 100% proportional penalty for a lesser offence. I urge the Minister to consider adopting a proportional penalty system to effectively combat the sale of illegal knives over the internet. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has so concisely described—he gets more concise as the evening goes on—this group deals with the sanctions applied under the online weapon advertising regime.

We very much welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability for businesses and sellers who facilitate the online sale of knives. However, if the penalties imposed are too small, they merely become a tolerable cost of doing business for large, wealthy online service providers. As the noble Lord explained, the Bill proposes maximum civil penalties for service providers of up to £60,000 for failing to comply with content manager requirements or for failing to comply with a content removal notice. His Amendments 55C and 55D directly challenge that maximum limit by proposing that the penalty for a service provider’s non-compliance should instead be a minimum of 500% of the value of the illegal goods advertised.

In our view, that proposal shifts the focus decisively towards financial deterrence—although I hate to agree with the noble Lord twice in one evening. The argument embedded within these amendments is sound: fines should reflect the scale and profitability of the illegal advertising business they enable. By linking the minimum fine directly to five times the value of the illegal goods advertised, we ensure that the penalty scales proportionally with the volume of the illicit trade facilitated by the platform, making it financially unsustainable to turn a blind eye to illegal weapon content.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 55E applies this same principle to the penalties imposed on the service provider’s content manager. Clause 23 currently sets the maximum penalty for the content manager at £10,000. Amendment 55E seeks to replace that cap with a minimum penalty of 100% of the value of the illegal goods advertised. That would ensure that the individual responsible for overseeing compliance within the organisation also faces a penalty that reflects the seriousness of the content they failed to manage or remove, particularly where that content is tied directly to the advertisement of unlawful weapons.

These amendments force us to consider how we can make our laws genuinely tough on organised online crime. In our view, legislation must be proportionate; and proportionality, in the face of corporate digital crime, means that penalties should meaningfully exceed the profits derived from facilitating criminal activity. The amendments rightly push us to consider the financial consequences that would truly deter platforms from risking public safety for private gain.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for these amendments and offer support from the Front Bench for them.

The three amendments by my noble friend all have the same aim: to tie the level of financial penalty directly to the value of the illegal knives being advertised and the profits generated from their sale. The logic behind them is obvious—and they also raise an important point. Fines that merely represent a modest operational cost to criminals will do little to deter those who deliberately trade in dangerous and illegal weapons. If the economic reward remains greater than the economic risk, the deterrent effect is minimal. Therefore, it seems prudent to put into statute appropriate provisions to ensure that that never is the case. The purpose of penalties must be both to punish wrongdoing and to disrupt the business model that makes it worth pursuing.

21:15

Knife crime and its associated sales should be thought of not as back-alley transactions conducted by a small handful of criminals but instead in the more accurate context of modern supply chains, marketing strategies and online commercial structures that enable weapons to reach young and vulnerable people. The digital world has dramatically shifted the landscape of enforcement. As we know, criminal enterprises operate across borders and platforms, and enforcement agencies must be equipped with powers and sanctions. I hope that the Government will reflect thoughtfully on the arguments raised.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his explanation of the amendments in this group. As he said, Amendment 55C would set minimum fines for companies that fail to comply with an appointment notice that requires them to designate an executive to be held liable for failing to take down illegal knife and weapons content. Amendments 55D and 55E would set minimum fines for companies and liable executives that fail to take down illegal content when requested to do so. As he explains, his proposed minimum fines are proportionate for companies; they are set at 500% of the value of the knife or the weapon for companies, and 100% of the value for individuals.

I hate to disappoint the Committee or to ruin the spirit of accord that has broken out across the Benches opposite, but while the logic of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is good, I am afraid it does not reflect the actual behaviour and experience of the marketplace. If I can, I will try to explain why it would not be as effective or as impactful as he no doubt intends.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I hate to interrupt the Minister—well, I do not really—but can he explain what he means by that about the market? I did not grasp what he meant by that.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Well, that is a very good segue into the words that are just following—I was about to get there.

Many knives and weapons that are sold illegally are sold relatively cheaply, in the order of tens of pounds. Some sellers who sell knives and weapons over social media tend to hold and advertise small stock numbers. Therefore, we contend that the suggested minimum penalties are simply too low to incentivise the prompt removal of illegal content. The independent review of online safety of knives shows a case study as an example where an individual bought 30 knives to sell illegally over social media for under £50 each. Should the social media company not take the illegal content down, the proposed minimum fine under these amendments would be £1,500 for the executive and £7,500 for the companies. Those penalties, as I am sure noble Lords would agree, would be too low for large tech companies and executives to be worried about at all. Not having a minimum penalty will leave full discretion to the police, who specialise in investigating illegal knife sales online. This will allow them to use their judgment to issue fines that are commensurate in each case.

The penalties for failing to comply with these are, as already noted, issued in the form of civil penalty notices by the police. They can be up to £60,000 for companies and £10,000 for individuals. I remind noble Lords that these penalties are for single violations and will add up if companies and executives repeatedly fail to comply with removal notices. The measure is intended not just to punish companies but to facilitate behaviour change. I trust that the police administering these measures will issue fines of an appropriate level to incentivise the prompt removal of illegal content.

I note the experience, which I found instructive, of the independent review of the online sale of knives, that a lot of the activity is undertaken through very small stocks that are cheaply sold. If we used the regime of a proportionate measure, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, we simply would not generate enough. Noble Lords may not think that £60,000 is worth much, but we certainly would not generate anywhere near £60,000 in those examples.

It is worth bearing in mind that a lot of the grey market sellers do so over social media websites. The recipient of the fine is the tech company that does not take down the illegal material, rather than the person selling the knives or the weapons. We understand the intended recipient of the punishment—the fines—which is why we think that having the £60,000 or £10,000 level is appropriate, because that is for single offences. Any time a company fails to remove the content for which they have received a notice, the fines will add up and accumulate, which will make an impact—and we would all agree that that needs to be done.

In response to another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, we feel that the Sentencing Council is unlikely to comment on the level of a civil penalty. That may be a little speculative from my perspective, but I think that it is probably what the experience bears out.

Given this explanation and the clarification of our view of how the environment—I should not have used the word “market” earlier—in which these sales take place, I hope that the noble Lord is sufficiently assured that these penalties will have an impact in the way they are set out in the Bill and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I almost had palpitations for the second time tonight when the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, supported my amendment.

I hear what the Minister has to say. I had not intended for the 500% penalty to apply to just two or three individuals selling a few knives; I intended that it would apply to the supply of the whole shooting match. The individuals who are selling a few knives have got them from somewhere: there is a supplier or a big source making these by the thousand. For someone at the centre who has a warehouse with £100,000 worth of knives, a penalty of £500,000 would clean them out completely, whereas a penalty of £60,000 would still leave them with £40,000 profit. However, I accept the point that, if the case involves small-scale individuals, the 500% penalty might not be as great as the penalty in the Act. I wonder whether it is worth looking at the possibility of offering “either/or” as an option—I think that is a possibility for the future.

I will make another general point. I woke up about a week ago at 2 am and thought of this proportional system. It may not be perfect for knives, but I think there is some merit in this concept of proportionate fines for certain offences, whereby rather than having a maximum penalty imposed by law, the penalty is a percentage—100%, 200%, 300% or 1,000%—of the value of the goods being advertised or sold.

Bearing in mind what the Minister said, we would like to look again at the possibility of offering a fine and some proportional penalty. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 55C withdrawn.

Clause 18 agreed.

Schedule 4 agreed.

Clauses 19 to 22 agreed.

Clause 23: Failure to comply with content removal notice or decision notice: civil penalties

Amendments 55D and 55E not moved.

Clause 23 agreed.

Clause 24: Guidance

Amendment 55F not moved.

Clause 24 agreed.

Clauses 25 and 26 agreed.

Clause 27: Possession of weapon with intent to use unlawful violence etc

Amendment 56

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

56: Clause 27, page 31, line 16, leave out “4” and insert “14”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would increase the maximum sentence for the new offence of possessing a weapon with intent.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 56 in my name seeks to increase the maximum sentence for the new offence of possessing a weapon with intent, where conviction is conviction on indictment, from four to 14 years. The principle behind a new offence of possessing a weapon with intent to use violence is well intentioned. It is one that we support. We are living through an epidemic of knife crime, and the level of general offensive weapon offences has shown no signs of declining over the past decade.

I appreciate that the Government are taking some of the necessary steps to attempt to curb this situation and this new offence is one of them. Creating more offences to eliminate the problem at source is the right approach, in our view, while introducing additional measures that target the most dangerous in our society is also necessary. This Bill creates a separate category for those who have violent intent, which, in principle, should achieve the latter. But it is worth implementing this offence only if it is accompanied by sufficient corresponding punishment. The Bill as it stands does not achieve this.

There is, of course, the current law that prohibits the carrying of a bladed article in public. That offence carries a maximum sentence of four years. It is a blanket offence which does not consider additional factors; it treats offenders the same regardless of whether they hold some kind of ill intent. This new law, conversely, will consider intent. Violent intent will become an additional factor to be considered, and rightly so, because the extra element of meaning to commit damage or harm makes it a worse crime than simply carrying a weapon. It will differentiate between those who might and those who intend to cause a threat to society. In essence, the question behind this amendment is: why then is this not reflected in the punishment? Why does the new law carry the same maximum four-year sentence?

This law should work to do two things. It should allow the justice system to differentiate between those who pose intentional threats and those who may not. It should deter those who have intent from leaving the house with a weapon in the first place. If the penalty does not differ from the current law, it will do neither. If the maximum sentence remains identical, the courts will not have the means to sufficiently differentiate criminals who have been convicted. The criminals themselves will not be deterred in the first place, as there will be no greater threat of repercussion than that which already exists.

If we are to treat carrying an offensive weapon with violent intent as a separate, more serious crime, it must be reflected in the punishment. It is an incredibly serious offence that someone should not only break the law by carrying an offensive weapon but do so with the intent to inflict damage or harm. It self-evidently threatens the safety of our citizens and shows complete disregard for the functioning of society. Sentencing these criminals as if their violent intent is merely a secondary factor that does not deserve consideration will not do, in my respectful submission.

Amendment 56 seeks to solve this disparity. It increases the maximum sentence to 14 years. It is a maximum sentence, a ceiling, not the sentence to be imposed whenever. That, in our view, is the right thing to do. It will give the courts the means to reflect this in practice. There is no reason why the Government should not wish to achieve both these things, but the punishment must be reflective of the crime. I look forward to the Government’s response on this. For those reasons, I beg to move.

21:30

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I align myself with my noble friend on his remarks and the question he put to the Minister. I do not understand the situation, so I would very much appreciate an explanation from the Minister. What is the logic of having the same maximum penalty for both the existing offence of carrying an offensive weapon and the new offence of carrying an offensive weapon with intent to commit harm or violence, and so forth?

My mild concern, which I am sure the Minister with his usual skill can allay, is that if we have the four years maximum penalty for the new aggravated offence of having intent to commit harm, is there not a danger that that could diminish the seriousness of the existing offence if it is not possible or likely to prove the intent to commit violence or the other provisions of the new section? I absolutely support what the Government are trying to do here; we are all on completely the same side. It would be very helpful for the Minister to explain how these two offences would differ in their application in practice and therefore the implications for the maximum sentences.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I rise for the final time tonight—the Committee will be pleased to know—to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel. I wish I had put down my own amendment to Clause 27 to draw attention to what I think is the complete disconnect between subsections (1) and (3) in the new section.

The Bill in its current form proposes in subsection (1) of the new section that it shall be an offence for any person to possess an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon with the intent

“to use unlawful violence against another person, … to cause another person to believe that unlawful violence will be used against them”

and others, or

“to cause serious unlawful damage to property”.

That is fairly serious stuff.

However, the penalties in subsection (3) of the proposed new section, with a maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment in a magistrates’ court and up to four years on indictment, are insufficient given the gravity of the offence. I support the argument for a substantial increase in sentencing powers to reflect the seriousness of the conduct involved.

Possession of an offensive weapon with intent to use it for violence or to cause fear is a profoundly serious criminal act. Such intent demonstrates a premeditated willingness to inflict harm, intimidate or destroy property. It is not a spontaneous or lesser form of criminality but rather a calculated and dangerous escalation. The mere possession of a weapon with such intent poses a direct threat to public safety, undermines community trust and creates an atmosphere of fear and insecurity.

As the Minister will know, offences involving offensive weapons are often precursors to more serious crimes, involving grievous bodily harm right up to homicide. I maintain that actions that create an imminent risk of serious harm should be met with robust deterrence and sentencing. Allowing relatively lenient penalties for those caught with weapons and with criminal intent fails to deter potential offenders and signals a lack of seriousness in addressing violent crime. The psychological impact on victims—those who are threatened or believe they are at risk of violence—can be profound and long-lasting, as many reports say, even if no injury actually occurs.

When compared with other offences of similar seriousness, the proposed penalties appear disproportionately low. For instance, offences such as aggravated burglary or possession of firearms with intent to endanger life attract significantly higher sentences, often exceeding a decade in custody. This clause is about people going out with vicious knives or machetes, intending to use unlawful violence against another person—in other words, to attack them and possibly kill them. Why on earth should there even be a summary trial for that sort of offence? That is why I wish I had put down my own amendment to delete from the new section subsection (3)(a), which provides for trial in a magistrates’ court.

Of course, we must not look at this Bill in isolation; we have the Sentencing Bill coming along, which will aim to ban anyone—if I understand it correctly—going to prison for a sentence of 12 months or less. If one of these cases goes to a magistrates’ court, and the magistrates impose the maximum sentence of 12 months, it will be automatically suspended and the perpetrator will get away with it. What signal does that send? If these criminals were going out with a knife to scratch cars or vandalise property, summary might be appropriate, but they are going out with knives to attack people and possibly kill them. That is why, in my opinion, it has to indictable only and a 14-year maximum sentence—which, as we know, will end up as seven in any case, with automatic release at half-time. I believe the current proposal for a maximum of four years on indictment is markedly out of step with comparable offences and the seriousness of potential offences in subsection (1).

The criminal justice system must not only punish offenders but deter would-be offenders and reassure the public that their safety is paramount. Inadequate penalties such as this one risk undermining public confidence in the legal system. A more severe sentencing framework would send a clear message that society will not tolerate the possession of weapons in the street with intent to commit violent acts or grievous bodily harm to people. It would also be a stronger deterrent to those contemplating such conduct.

In conclusion, I believe the Government are absolute right to introduce this new power, but they have the penalties wrong since they are disconnected from the seriousness of the offence. Given the potential for severe physical and psychological harm, the premeditated nature of the crime and the need for effective deterrence, I also submit that the maximum penalties should be increased. Of course, this is not tying the judge’s discretion; I am suggesting no minimum sentence but a sentence of up to 14 years.

I should add that I have exactly the same view on the suggested penalties in the next massive group of amendments, but I have made my arguments here and I will not repeat them when we come to that group on Wednesday.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, nearly half the murders in the UK over the last three years are due to knife crime, so we recognise the vital importance of equipping police with the necessary tools to intervene when there is clear evidence of intent to commit serious violence. We give Clause 27 our full backing.

Before I turn to the amendment, I want to make a couple of points around the new offence. Will the Government ensure that robust guidance and oversight are in place to prevent unjustified or discriminatory use of this power? That needs to be accompanied by improved training for police and judiciary. The reality is that young black men are already significantly overrepresented in knife crime prosecutions, and we must be careful not to compound that position. Discrimination and justice are opposites.

I hope this may also help stem the rising number of incidents in which people suffer life-changing injuries after being attacked with acid or other corrosive substances. Reports of such offences increased by 75% in 2023, including 454 physical attacks. Half these victims were women, with attacks often occurring in a domestic abuse context, but only 8% of these cases resulted in a charge or summons, partly due to the victim’s fear of reprisal. The hope is that this new offence may allow prosecutions to be brought before harm is inflicted, since proving intent would not necessarily require the victim to testify. Can the Minister say how the Government intend to use the offence to this end?

On Amendment 56, the Liberal Democrats agree with Jonathan Hall that four years in prison in insufficient when there is clear evidence of the intention to cause mass fatalities. The court must have the full weight of the law behind it in the hopefully rare cases in which a lengthy sentence is thought necessary for public prosecution. I would expect the Sentencing Council to issue guidance around how to categorise levels of seriousness, and I hope this will guard against sentence inflation. Nevertheless, we are minded to support this amendment and I urge the Government to look again at the maximum penalty.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his amendment, which, as noble Lords will know, increases the maximum penalty to 14 years for possessing a weapon with intent. I happen to think that sentences should be proportionate to the offence, and that is why the maximum sentence for this offence has been set at four years. This is in line with other weapons offence penalties, such as that for possession of a bladed article. To set the sentence for this offence at 14 years would be disproportionate.

The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked legitimate questions about the difference between existing offences and this new proposed offence. It is already an offence to carry a bladed article in public without good reason. It is also an offence to then threaten a person with a bladed article or weapon. Under Section 52 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, it is an offence to intentionally threaten someone with an offensive weapon in public or in private.

The introduction of this new offence bridges a gap, which I believe is there, between being in possession of a knife or other offensive weapon in public or on education premises, and it being used to threaten or harm anyone. This offence will target those who equip themselves with bladed articles with the intention to endanger life, cause serious harm or fear or violence, but are intercepted by the police before they have had the chance to carry out any attack on the intended victim. It will therefore empower the police to bring charges against those individuals, which, in my view, is a differentiation which I hope has been clarified for the noble Viscount. He shakes his head.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

The issue is not the Minister’s explanations. I will have to think carefully about this. If the police can already stop someone and already have an easier test to make an arrest and prosecute that individual for the carrying of a knife, how does the carrying of the knife with the intent to commit harm make that easier to do? Surely, it makes it more difficult, because not only do you have to show that the person was carrying the knife, but you also have to prove their intent. I am not criticising the Minister’s intention here; I just do not understand.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble Viscount can examine Hansard tomorrow. The maximum sentence is the same, but the intention will be reflected in the courts being able to give a penalty close to the top end of the range, whereas a simple possession offence is likely to attract a sentence close to the bottom end of the range. Therefore, again, this is for judicial interpretation, but it gives a flexibility within the proposed clause that allows for a potentially different level of maximum sentence within the four-year range that we have.

We believe that 14 years is disproportionate, which is where we have a difference with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and I cannot support that amendment for this reason. However, we have introduced this new power, which will be of additional benefit for police forces to examine and work with at a local level.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned the report by Jonathan Hall, KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, which followed the Southport attack in July 2024. He has indicated that he wants us to examine creating a new offence, proposed by the independent reviewer. He said in his report:

“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”.


We are currently considering his recommendations and examining them with operational partners. We want to look at how we can close that gap, but, as yet, we are not in a position to make a further announcement on this issue. However, as I have said, the maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment is consistent with maximum penalties on other knife-related possession offences. To answer the noble Viscount’s point, it gives greater flexibility to police forces to take action under Clause 27, if the Bill becomes law in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, took a wide view, perfectly legitimately, on the issue of knife crime. We have a clear government objective to reduce knife crime—to halve it—and we are trying to do that. There is an awful lot of work going on with my colleagues in the policing side of the Home Office on how to ensure we tackle some of that disproportionality, focusing on young black men particularly. Ultimately, we want to focus on all individuals who are victims of knife crime. There is a range of public education work being done at the moment, and a range of new resilience measures are being talked about, as well as support for neighbourhood policing. This is part of the back-up we will have to support individuals through highly visible policing, looking at issues such as stop and search, which are still valuable in identifying and collecting weapons.

21:45

Coupled with the measures in the Bill, we are seeking to do what I hope all noble Lords and the noble Baroness wish, which is to send signals that there are significant penalties for carrying a knife and for possessing a weapon with intent. We think that the proposals in the Bill are proportionate. There is a difference between us on that. If the noble Lord remains unsatisfied, I am sure we can examine those issues further on Report, but that is the view of the Government. That is a firm commitment. It is new legislation and I hope it is welcomed; if he wishes to pursue the issue of a higher penalty, we can discuss that and, no doubt, vote on that on Report.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Goschen and Lord Blencathra, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for their support for this amendment. I really hope that the Minister will reflect on the support for it from different quarters of the Committee.

I particularly want to comment on the speech of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, in which he pointed to the 12-month summary conviction, because under the Government’s Sentencing Bill, that sentence would be suspended. A convicted criminal, having just been proven in court to hold violent intent, will not go to prison, but will instead be released back into the public. I really hope that the Minister reflects on that specific point, as well as the more general one, which is that it is self-evident that legislation must give the courts the necessary flexibility to account for different levels of crime. If we cap the maximum sentence at four years, which is the same as for the lesser crime of carrying a bladed article, we risk not effectively penalising those planning to commit the worst possible crimes.

As the Minister said, it is a differentiation, this new offence. It is a more serious offence, and it must be sufficiently different from the existing law: that difference must continue through to a different level of sentence. It is consistent that the maximum punishment is increased to reflect this additional consideration, but the Bill does not yet do this. The maximum sentence remains at four years, even though it is for a more serious crime. Therefore, I really hope that the Minister reflects on everything that has been said tonight and that he looks again at Amendment 56 in my name.

It is an amendment that solves these issues: it gives the courts ample room to adapt their sentences, based on the severity of a crime; it gives the judiciary the discretion to issue longer sentences than it is currently able to do; and it is a maximum—I say again, it is a maximum—sentence. It is a ceiling. It would allow the justice system to effectively deal with criminals who pose a tangible risk to their fellow citizens, and act as a great deterrent. We all want a system where the worst criminals are proportionately punished and the courts are able to adapt to achieve this. Although I listened very carefully, I am not convinced that the legislation as it stands achieves this, and I really hope that the Government reconsider this. For the time being, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56 withdrawn.

Clause 27 agreed.

House resumed.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with reasons and amendments.

House adjourned at 9.49 pm.