House of Lords
AI: Labour Market Changes
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to expedite the AI Security Institute’s research into threats to economic stability arising from changes in the labour market.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise that, while AI creates immense opportunities, it also transforms the workplace. To ensure continued access to meaningful employment, we are planning for all possible outcomes. We have launched the AI and the Future of Work Unit, a cross-governmental initiative supported by the AI Security Institute. This unit monitors labour market impacts in real time, accelerating vital research to anticipate disruption and protect the UK workforce.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply and welcome the industrial strategy, as well as the launch of the AI and the Future of Work Unit. My concern is that we do not appear to have tested a scenario in which AI-driven displacement materially outpaces job creation. With estimates of net employment losses of around 8%, and AI capability in some domains doubling roughly every eight months, might it now be prudent to stress-test our underlying assumptions to ensure that they remain robust?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend is right to bring up these concerns. Like all technologies, AI will reshape our world of work. We must accept that. We must embrace the new roles and opportunities that the transition brings. This is why we are committed to equipping 10 million workers with essential skills to develop and adopt AI. Furthermore, our Future of Work Unit will provide robust evidence to co-ordinate a proactive national response to these rapidly advancing capabilities, ensuring that no worker is left behind.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the AI Security Institute was established primarily with a focus on frontier AI safety risks. Does the institute have the expertise and the dedicated resource to assess these systemic AI risks? What consultation is it carrying out with unions, business and trade bodies? Is it actively building on the substantial international work of the OECD, IMF and ILO on labour market risks?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord knows that we work globally with our international partners, as I said when I responded to his question a few weeks ago. The Future of Work Unit serves as a government centre of expertise on how AI is changing jobs and work. The unit works with businesses, academics and social philosophers to understand how this technology will impact the workplace and also how it will impact socially. The AI Security Institute is well placed to work with this unit.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, the Government recently attended the India AI summit, with its focus on international collaboration. We know that AI works across geographies and that the impact on the labour force will be across geographies. What discussions were had around how the new Future of Work Unit and the institute will work with India or other geographies in looking at labour market disruption?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the recent India AI summit concluded with the adoption of the New Delhi declaration on AI impact, endorsed by nearly 90 countries. The declaration promotes international co-operation on its benefits, including equitable, enhanced trustworthiness and security, and on expanding access to AI for social and economic growth. We are also signing a leader statement in support of India’s agenda this year. So we are working with India and acknowledging that we have to come together globally to address this issue.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I welcome the new institute, the announcement and the individuals involved. I want to ask a question about the values that the Government will take forward in thinking about this area. What practical steps are they taking to ensure that humanity is at the centre of people’s experience of work, that we are not working for algorithms, and that work is at the centre of humanity and society?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, that is an excellent question. Let me set out the Government’s position here. Let me also say that technology has impacted us for the last 50 years and we have risen above it. We have embraced technology in the way that we work, do business, access financial information and so on. Technology will always be here and there will be challenges, but we have to rise above them. All of us know that we have this telephone in our pockets or our handbags, and the phone is more powerful than the computer that sent men to the moon. We have the power to reach the stars and we have to do it; we have to embrace AI in all our future considerations and ensure that it is safe for everybody.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the launch of the AI and the Future of Work Unit is of course very welcome, but how will it account for the varied AI growth opportunities around the country, which might be very different from place to place? It is important that we ensure that everyone can be supported into better, tailored jobs, and they need to be relevant to their local economy. We do not want a plan that is one size fits all when it needs to be varied around the regions.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for all the work she did when she was a Minister at DSIT, especially in this whole area of AI. The AI and the Future of Work Unit is designed to ensure that AI adoption strengthens rather than fragments local economies. Working with mayoral combined authorities, local enterprise partnerships and skills providers, the unit will tailor programmes to regional strengths, whether in advanced manufacturing, financial services, life sciences or the creative industries. By aligning AI skills, business support and innovation funding with local growth strategies, we will unlock productivity gains and high-quality employment across every nation and region of the country.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, the misguided use of AI in the recruiting marketplace is deeply and unnecessarily disruptive. Mass automation of largely synthetic job applications means that there are far too many applications for most jobs, often by tens of thousands. These applications are, in turn, assessed often only by AI agents, with the result that the marketplace for jobs has become slow, inefficient and ineffective. Does the Minister agree that fixing the recruiting marketplace may be the quickest way to increase employment prospects and productivity for everyone, and can he outline what steps the Government plan to take to do so?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his long-standing work in this field and for the consistent attention that he has brought to this very important matter.
We have published the Responsible AI in Recruitment guidance, which sets out good practice for procuring and deploying AI systems for HR and recruitment. This guidance highlights the mechanism that can be used to ensure the safe and trustworthy use of AI in recruitment. As highlighted in the AI Opportunities Action Plan: One Year On, where we have achieved some 38 out of 50 commitments that we set ourselves, we have taken steps to build the AI assurance ecosystem that underpins safe and responsible use of AI. I will reach out to the noble Lord and meet up with him, together with my officials, to explore this further.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend’s response to this last question was important and welcome. But can I refer him to the remarks of Dex Hunter-Torricke, the former Google executive, from a few days ago? He talked about the devastating impact that AI is now having on young people in terms of recruitment and said:
“The displacement has already begun. Entry-level roles in law, consulting, and software engineering are contracting. Graduates face a labor market narrowing faster than new roles are opening. Workers in middle-income jobs are training their AI replacements right now”.
I urge the Government to think carefully about what impact this is now having on young people in this country and what we are going to do about it, and what we are going to do with employers. This is urgent.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My noble friend is right. We will not stand by but will look proactively at the evidence of impacts on the workforce. Yes, we acknowledge that some work will be replaced by AI, but, at the same time, new jobs will be created and we have to ensure that our workforce right across the country adopts new AI skills. That is why the Government are going to upskill 10 million people right across all sectors to ensure that they have the basic skills to incorporate and use AI to improve their productivity and so on. At the same time, we are also looking at the curriculum: AI will be taught in schools, so that, when children finish school, they will be better equipped for the new work environment.
Cyclists: Safety
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Krebs
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of which safety measures for cyclists are the most (1) effective, and (2) cost-effective, for reducing (a) accidents, and (b) injuries.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, well-designed infrastructure, particularly of the kind that provides protection from motor traffic, can improve both safety and perceptions of safety for cyclists. In addition to our £626 million investment in active travel infrastructure that we announced last year, we have now also published our road safety strategy. This sets an ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads, including cyclists, by 65% by 2035.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. The Government have said that they want cycling to be a safe, healthy, green and accessible option for everyone. However, 4,000 cyclists were killed or seriously injured on our roads in 2024. Cycling is nearly 10 times as dangerous as driving. Potholes and poor road surfaces are a major hazard, and a recent survey suggests that 88% of cyclists find these a danger and that 22% have been injured as a result. I cycle daily in Oxford, and the potholes are getting worse, not better. The extra funds allocated are not sufficient. Industry experts tell me that there are better ways of repairing potholes than slapping down a patch of cold asphalt that comes out after a few weeks. Are the Government encouraging councils to use the latest and best technology for repairing our roads?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My department supports innovation in the local highways sector by creating conditions that enable the safe, evidence-led adoption of new products and approaches, while leaving decisions on individual technologies to local highway authorities. This includes providing record long-term funding for highways maintenance, with a proportion of funding linked to the demonstration of best practice, including the adoption of innovative techniques. The Government require each local authority to publish annual transparency reports to help local people understand what action is being taken to improve their roads. Oxfordshire County Council is no exception: its recent report highlights that it works closely with its supply chain to trial new materials in highways maintenance, including graphene asphalt, which it claims has been successfully used to enhance the durability of road surfaces.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I am a regular cyclist. I suggest that the wearing of helmets and high-vis jackets and, in urban areas, the provision of cycle-only tracks is the most effective way of reducing injuries.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Viscount is certainly right that the segregation of cyclists, where it can occur, is a good thing. The Government recommend the use of helmets and high-visibility clothing. He is absolutely right to emphasise those things, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was asking particularly about road surfacing, which is important. The Government take it as important to improve the surfaces of roads for both cycling and driving.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, countries such as the Netherlands continue to lead the way in quality transport infrastructure. Around 72% of secondary school children walk or cycle to school there, whereas in the UK that figure is only 38%. What will the Government do to make it easier and safer for children to walk and cycle to school?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The £626 million investment over four years in active travel infrastructure is designed to do precisely that. The noble Baroness is completely right; we want people to walk and cycle, and we want kids to do that as a matter of habit. That is why the Government are investing so much money. Before Christmas, we consulted on the third cycling and walking strategy. I anticipate that that too will have something to say in the direction that she wants us to go in.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister please tell us what action the Government are going to take to make cyclists more aware of their responsibilities towards pedestrians? All too often, cyclists show a complete disregard for the Highway Code and the safety of pedestrians.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The behaviour of cyclists is a concern to pedestrians, vulnerable people and, indeed, motorists. The road safety strategy covers the full range of road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. It is important that everybody using our roads behaves in accordance with the Highway Code and the law but, as my noble friend will know, the enforcement of laws in relation to traffic, cycling and motoring is the business of chief police officers.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservative Benches, if they can make their mind up.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, the safety of cyclists is critical, as is the safety of all road users. To that end, will the Minister consider reviewing the recently published guidance on so-called floating bus stops, which does not deliver safety for cyclists, pedestrians or, indeed, anyone? It fails on being inclusive by design, on safety and on inclusion for all members of society. To put it another way, as a blind person put it to me: “How can I get a job when, as a consequence of these discriminatory changes, I can’t even get a bus?”
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have great respect for the noble Lord’s views on this. He will know that, as the debate on the then Bus Services Bill went on, my ministerial colleague took decisive action to stop one particular design and review the standards. That is what we have to do, because there is not unlimited space on roads and pavements. We have to find a safe way for people to board buses, for disabled people to be able to navigate pavements, and for cyclists to cycle. We are doing our best at that. The noble Lord will know that we have put a lot of effort into floating bus stops, and that has not finished yet.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, does the Minister have any idea how to combat the negative view of cyclists from so many people here in your Lordships’ Chamber? Could we have some sort of educational programme to help them understand?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Self-education is not a bad thing sometimes. I know that the Mayor of London is making strong attempts to improve the behaviour of cyclists. It is a concern that people feel able to cycle through red lights and across zebra crossings when people are on them. It is dangerous not only for pedestrians, disabled people and other road users but for cyclists themselves. I am very pleased to see that the Mayor of London is running that campaign and I hope that other local highway authorities do so as well.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that some real problems can be caused by Lime bikes and rental bikes? If a cyclist causes an accident or injury and the person using the bike is underage or the bike is stolen, there is no insurance cover and the companies refuse to take responsibility for the accident. Will the Minister look at what can be done to rectify this matter? It has caused some real problems, particularly here in the capital, and these companies need to take responsibility.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There certainly is an issue with illegal or underage use of hire bikes. I take what my noble friend says with great seriousness. We are considering what else to do about this matter.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, coming back to the perennial topic of floating bus stops, when we debated the Bus Services Bill, the Government gave an undertaking through an amendment that they would review the design of those bus stops. That new design has now been published. Is the Minister not the slightest bit embarrassed that the new design looks almost exactly the same as the old one?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
No. The reason for that is that a bus stop looks like a bus stop, as the noble Lord will know, and it is pretty hard to make it not look like a bus stop. The serious point at issue is that some detailed design features need to be carefully considered. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, says with great seriousness because he makes the point passionately and from experience. I believe that the department has done better and I think it will evolve. I also believe that we have done what we said we would do. I am not in the least bit embarrassed about improving something a bit because that is all you are likely to do at one time.
British Military Equipment: Chinese Components
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Goldie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the extent to which British military equipment contains components made in China or is reliant on rare earth minerals from China.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government and the Ministry of Defence welcome foreign trade where it allows us to provide our Armed Forces with the equipment they require, but the Government will not compromise our national security or our stringent legal and regulatory requirements or conflict with the objectives of our defence industrial strategy. The Government are working at pace to diversify the UK critical mineral supply chain and reduce reliance on any single source.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the chilling reality is that we are living in an age of cyber and data espionage and sabotage, whether from the use of SIMs, cellular IoT modules and everyday domestic components or wilfully directed malign activity by agencies hostile to western values and the UK. Can the Minister confirm to this House in more detail what protective measures the MoD is urgently deploying in respect of our defence supply chain to avoid our defence capability being unacceptably compromised?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The Government introduced a new critical minerals strategy—which is part of what the noble Baroness is asking about—that set an ambition for 2035 to reduce our reliance, and we are engaging with our partners on this. We also signed an MoU on critical minerals in Washington DC. She asked me specifically about the approach of the MoD. The MoD is working hard to think about ways of stockpiling critical components and critical minerals for the UK defence sector and to improve recycling and the circular economy. I want to stress the recognition of the point that the noble Baroness makes and the need for a much wider approach, as identified in the strategic defence review and the national security strategy. We do not in any way underestimate the persistent challenges in this space, and we will do all in our power to use the powers we have to deal with them.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, a typical high-end, Chinese-made electric and semi-autonomous vehicle will have up to a dozen cameras, radars and laser sensors collecting images of everything around it. Cyber security is at best opaque, and a Norwegian researcher recently reported that 90% of the data that was collected by his car was sent back to China. What is the Government’s view on visitors with Chinese cars coming to MoD sites? You would not allow someone from the People’s Liberation Army to stand there with a video camera, and you would not allow a drone to fly over your site. But how do you monitor, police, and manage foreign Chinese cars coming on and off MoD facilities?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The first thing I should say is that we focus on all vehicles coming to MoD sites, not just Chinese vehicles. All modern electric vehicles have surveillance components which we should be careful about, so I want to be completely clear with the noble Lord and the House that that is our approach. With regard to the question he asked, however, we are aware that individual defence organisations may have stricter requirements relating to electric vehicles on some sites, but, obviously, we do not provide specific details for security reasons, as I am sure the noble Lord will understand. We have made a lot of progress since the previous Administration instructed all government departments to cease deployment of surveillance equipment. My right honourable friend the National Security Minister made it clear in November 2025 that all sensitive government sites originally identified with such equipment—that is CCTV equipment manufactured in China—have now finished their replacement work.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that China has systematically and strategically got a grip and a monopoly on the refining of critical minerals. The effect of that has been demonstrated only this week, where China has cut off Japan from critical minerals over a political issue. First, what help are we and our allies giving to Japan in this important crisis? Secondly, what are we going to be doing in the future in order to secure our own supply chain to make sure we do not suffer from this dependence on China?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My noble friend raises a very important point, which is the basis of a very live and active discussion within government at the moment. I have already mentioned the launch of the critical mineral strategy. I want also to draw attention to the urgency and the energy with which this problem is being addressed. The UK and the US signed an MoU on critical minerals in Washington DC on 4 February, only three weeks ago, and this will help secure supply in the mining and processing of critical minerals. I also want to address my noble friend’s question about our work with partners and allies. Our long-standing and trusted relationships with our partners and allies around the world, including Japan, are one of our strongest—both hard-power and soft-power—assets. We are engaging very actively with Australia, including early discussions on collaboration on its critical mineral strategic reserve project. We are also working, as I think my noble friend would expect, with NATO, Five Eyes, AUKUS, Canada and France.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the fact that 85% of all drone components worldwide come from China illustrates the urgent need for a more resilient supply chain. The development of such a supply chain depends on the placing of orders in the appropriate industries to build up their capacity. In the UK’s case, the placing of such orders seems to depend on the defence investment plan. When are we going to see this elusive document?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I think my noble friend Lord Coaker has run out of ways to say, “It’ll be along soon”, so perhaps I should just say, “It’ll be along soon”. On the wider question that the noble and gallant Lord raises, it is absolutely true that these components are central, not just to defence industries, as he knows, but to the whole economy—to phones, laptops and all sorts of things. That is why the Government are putting such effort and such energy into a more resilient and sustainable supply chain. I can say, even in advance of the defence investment plan, that we have committed to public investment in the national critical mineral strategy. We are not just relying on the markets and private investment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Conservative Benches. If they can make their minds up, someone can ask a question.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, under the Washington declaration of 2023, we were promised by the then American Administration that all electric vehicles, military and civil, exported from this country, provided that they contained critical minerals or rare earths mined either in America or here, would be subject to the same subsidy as American vehicles were to be given anyway, under the American Government plans. What happened to that deal? Is it still outstanding?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I do not know the specific answer to that, but I will be very happy to come back to the noble Lord. I would stress that we are working very closely with the Americans on this whole question of critical minerals. The noble Lord often asks about the Commonwealth. I should say that we are working closely with our Commonwealth partners on resolving these issues and having a common approach.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, surely the best way to protect the defence supply chain is to have a short supply chain. Does the Minister agree that the best way to do that is to support out indigenous industries here in the United Kingdom—right across the United Kingdom—particularly to use the expertise that is on display? I am thinking of the Cyber Security Centre in Belfast, for example.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness on that point. As she knows from previous answers that I have given from this Dispatch Box, the defence industry in the UK generally, and in Northern Ireland specifically, is enjoying a great renaissance; that has a great deal to do with government investment. That is something to which we are committed, and we are already seeing the benefits.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, it is my great privilege to serve in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, as do many other noble Lords. I was recently provided with a uniform for a trip to the Falkland Islands. I was somewhat surprised to see that that uniform was made in China. Is it beyond our allies in NATO to be able to manufacture our own uniforms?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I dare say it is not. Procurement of clothing is one of the many things that we are working on. On the wider question of procurement from China, we do not at all underestimate the challenge of that, and we will continue to work on it.
Imran Khan: Imprisonment
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Pakistan regarding the imprisonment of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, particularly with regard to his access to medical care.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, while Pakistan’s judicial processes are, of course, a matter for Pakistan, we are clear that the Pakistani authorities need to respect fundamental freedoms, including the rights to a fair trial, due process, humane detention and access to appropriate medical treatment. This applies to Imran Khan as it does to all Pakistan citizens. Ministers and officials have regularly raised with Pakistani counterparts the need to uphold Pakistan’s constitution and international human rights obligations, including with respect to Imran Khan.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. As she will be aware, there are a number of parliamentary Questions outstanding on this matter, given the deterioration in Imran Khan’s health recently. I am aware that the FCDO has been particularly responsive to the case of Jimmy Lai and his family. In that context, it would be helpful if my noble friend would commit to meeting with Imran Khan’s family and specifically raising his case with the Government of Pakistan.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. Obviously, there is an important difference between the cases of Jimmy Lai and Imran Khan, because Jimmy Lai is British. We have specific responsibilities and obligations towards our citizens that, whatever else we might think about these cases, do not apply in the same way when we are talking about someone of a different nationality. However, I assure my noble friend that Ministers and officials have raised, in the appropriate way, as she would want them to do, our concerns about cases when we need to, including the case of Imran Khan.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I think anyone who is paying attention understands that Imran Khan has been denied access to lawyers and to his family, including his two sons, who are my nephews. He has been denied access even to doctors. We understand that he has spent much of his time in prison in solitary confinement, and his health is deteriorating rapidly. Does the Minister agree that now is the time for us to reconsider our aid contributions to Pakistan—Pakistan is often at the top of the list of recipients of UK aid—until that country’s Government demonstrate a clear, unambiguous commitment to the Commonwealth Charter that it signed up to, which commits it to an independent judiciary and the rule of law?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is important—and we maintain this position for all those held in prison—that people get access to healthcare and to their families. We have made that case, because that is consistent with the position of this Government and the previous one, and we will continue to do so. The noble Lord asks about our development spending. As he knows, we made a decision around this time last year to cut our development spending by around 40%, and we will be making further announcements shortly about the detail of that—what will be happening in which countries, and what it will be spent on.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, in addition to the health concerns of Imran Khan, the Pakistan Government also prosecuted and sentenced many opposition figures who demonstrated against the Government, and there is significant worry about the extent of the state capture of the Pakistan economy by the military. In the UK-Pakistan trade dialogue that was announced in July last year, there was, regrettably, no reference to human rights. Can the Minister reassure the House that we are recognising human rights as a critical part of our trading relationship, and that we are not offering preferential market access to the very military enterprises that are committing human rights abuses?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have very real concerns about the inappropriate use of military courts and the lack of transparency in the way they operate. We discuss this, as the noble Lord would want us to do, with Government of Pakistan. Having a flourishing trading relationship is helpful when it comes to being able to raise these matters effectively. I take on board completely his point about our need to make sure that human rights are integral when we make these decisions.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we have plenty of time. We will hear first from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and then we will come to the Labour Benches.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip. Following on from the question from my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, specific facilitation can be done. The Minister—for whom many in the House, if not all, have great respect—can practically help to facilitate access for British citizens. Sulaiman and Kasim, the sons of Imran Khan, are British citizens. I ask the Minister please to use her best offices to facilitate the two sons meeting their father, particularly as he is now receiving the acute and important medical treatment he needs, on the decision of the courts of Pakistan, to ensure that that medical attention is supported by family access of his own two sons.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We want those imprisoned, particularly when they are undergoing such intensive medical treatment, as I believe has happened—I think a successful operation took place in January, and there has been further treatment since—to have access to family members, whether through visits or other means. That is important at times like these. This is slightly complicated by the fact that, as the noble Lord will appreciate, decisions about the Pakistan immigration system are controlled by the Pakistani Government, but we make the general case that we would want to see access to family for anyone held in such circumstances.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, successive Governments show selective outrage at repression by authoritarian states such as China, Iran, Russia and North Korea, but offer very soft criticism when identical acts are committed by trade and defence partners. The Government have the tools: they can exert pressure on the army generals controlling Pakistan by ending aid and imposing trade sanctions, but they have not. Can the Minister refer me to any moral principle guiding the Government’s foreign policy?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not think it would be the right thing to do to end all aid to Pakistan. That is not the Government’s position, and that is my view. I say that because the need is there, because British interests are there, because the climate impact is there, and because of the counterterrorism issues that we work alongside the Pakistani Government to tackle, which I would say is absolutely in the interests of this country.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, Pakistan has a history of imprisoning its former Prime Ministers, whether the late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was imprisoned and ultimately hanged, or Nawaz Sharif, who also served time in prison. In November 2019, the UK Government allowed Nawaz Sharif to come to the United Kingdom to receive medical treatment. If the family and the party members of Imran Khan were to put a similar request in, what would His Majesty’s Government’s response be?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am not able to answer that question today. That, obviously, would be a question that the Home Office would want to consider according to our immigration policy. But I just remind noble Lords, in case anybody gets the idea that Pakistan is the only country in respect of which we have concerns about the rule of law and democracy, and that we do close business with, that there are many places, sadly, where former leaders find themselves imprisoned. We do not condone it, but we have a relationship with Peru, for example, for many important reasons to do with security and the environment. We are not in a situation where we conduct international relations only with countries that adhere completely to our values and that are run in the way we would like to see ours run.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is, of course, quite right that Imran Khan is not a British subject, despite his long and deep connections to this country. None the less, I do not think that any British Government can be indifferent to the fate of Pakistan, a Commonwealth ally to which we are intimately linked—there are nearly 1.5 million Brits of Pakistani origin. The reason why Imran Khan is in prison is that he would win a free election, and Pakistan cannot begin to have stability and the investment that would flow from that until there is a restoration of democracy. Will the Minister set out some kind of timetable whereby we encourage the authorities in Pakistan to allow a free and inclusive election, maybe not tomorrow but within a reasonable timeframe, which will allow the return of democratic stability and the economic revival of that country?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have concerns, which I know the noble Lord shares, about the election in 2024 and we raise these with the Government of Pakistan. But one of the reasons why it is important to keep our trade and development relationships with Pakistan thriving is so we can work specifically on these issues of democratic engagement, inclusive politics and the rule of law. These things matter a great deal to us, and we are able to work through civil society organisations and directly with regional governments to try to improve the situation, for the very reasons the noble Lord articulated so effectively.
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, NHS staff told us through the 10-year health plan engagement that they were crying out for change. This Bill is but one step in delivering that change. It will ensure a more sustainable and resilient medical workforce. It will ensure that we make the best use of the substantial taxpayer investment in medical training, and it will give our homegrown talent a clear path to becoming the next generation of NHS doctors.
The issue of bottlenecks for postgraduate medical training has been growing since the removal of the resident labour market test in 2020. I am most grateful to Parliament for expediting the passage of the Bill to tackle this problem, while giving it the careful scrutiny it deserves. I express my gratitude to noble Lords across the House for their constructive engagement throughout its passage. I wish to thank and credit noble Lords for passing the Bill unamended. My thanks are also due to officials and leaders from the devolved Governments for their support and commitment to ensuring we have a process that works for all of the United Kingdom, and for their determination to ensure that all legislative requirements were met within what was, and is, a challenging timeframe. I thank my officials in the department, as well as our lawyers, for their tireless work over these past few months.
We are clear that this Bill does not and cannot resolve all the workforce issues within our National Health Service. It sits alongside a range of action that the Government are taking to ensure that the NHS has the right people in the right places, with the right skills to care for people when they need it. The changes that the Bill introduces for foundation specialty training are a crucial step forward and will lead to a more sustainable medical workforce that can meet the health needs of our population.
I again thank all noble Lords who contributed their knowledge and insight during the Bill’s consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, although this was emergency legislation, we have had detailed and constructive debates on prioritisation. We have also had the opportunity to debate some of the deeper issues around the supply of medical specialty training places, and I am grateful to the Minister for her letter. We will continue to hold the Government to account on the delivery of these places over the coming years. As we have said previously, the Bill is not a complete solution to the problem, as the Minister graciously acknowledged. We accept that it is a step forward.
During our debates, we touched on a number of issues, including whether UK citizens who are graduates of UK medical schools should be given first priority. We discussed the issue of international medical graduates who chose to contribute to the UK system of healthcare rather than go to another country, but who may now find themselves at the back of the queue. We discussed graduates of overseas branches of UK medical schools, some of which follow the same curriculum as UK medical schools, and whether some could be granted so-called grandfather rights. We also pressed for secondary legislation to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We understand why the Government have come to their position and why Ministers have not been able to take action on these points in this emergency legislation. However, given more time, I hope Ministers will continue their work to resolve these concerns, which were eloquently set out by a number of noble Lords from all Benches.
There was some debate about whether this was really emergency legislation or whether, in reality, it was simply giving the Secretary of State a bargaining chip in negotiations with the BMA. That may be no bad thing in itself, but the question remains of whether emergency legislation should be used to give Ministers bargaining chips.
Before I sit down, I thank the Minister and her officials for all their engagement throughout the Bill. As His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, we look forward to working closely with the Minister as the Government press ahead with its implementation.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
My Lords, I know it is not normal to speak at this stage, so I will be brief. I thank the Minister and everyone who has worked on this Bill, but I want to raise one or two anxieties which have already been touched on.
I believe that the Bill fundamentally challenges one of the principles that I have always held dear, which is fairness. It is unfair to international medical graduates, who we have entreated to come to this country for the last two decades—we have even paid for them to come —to work in hard jobs, in places where UK graduates did not want to do them. Now that we have more people than places, we are basically pulling the rug from under them. We are jeopardising their careers, their futures, their families and their visas.
It is also unfair to those UK nationals who chose, again in good faith, to study overseas and now have been treated like international medical graduates, when they are not. Finally, it is unfair to the commitment that the Department for Education has made around transnational undergraduate and postgraduate education. This Bill, I am afraid, takes away that commitment and says that we do not really mean what we say.
However, I look forward to working with Ministers and officials to see whether we can address some of what I fear will be the unintended and, I suspect, intended consequences of this Bill.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking Adam in the Lib Dem office for his help and support, and my good and noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for his support in guiding and helping me navigate around this Bill. As we have heard, this is emergency legislation and there are question marks on whether it should have been, given the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised.
I put on record my thanks to the Minister for her engagement during the course of the Bill, finding time to speak to us individually not only before the Bill arrived here but since, and even on the very last day, at the beginning of this week.
Many issues were raised during the passage of this Bill. The Minister was right to point out that this is not the silver bullet that will deal with the workforce issues. I and my colleagues from this side of the House will be keeping a close eye on the progress of this Bill, particularly when it comes to the issue of Queen Mary University and the medical school in Malaysia linked to Newcastle University.
As the Minister says, there is an issue here and the Government have now come forward with a possible solution. We had some alternatives, but clearly, in a democracy, we did not win on this occasion. We wish the Bill well. More importantly, to those students who have been watching our debates, I wish every one of them all success in their future careers.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:51 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 86 / Noes: 178 - Amendment 1 disagreed.
17:03 - Division on Amendment 7 - Ayes: 205 / Noes: 188 - Amendment 7 agreed.
18:37 - Division on Amendment 13 - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 150 - Amendment 13 agreed.
19:03 - Division on Amendment 18 - Ayes: 59 / Noes: 152 - Amendment 18 disagreed.
19:27 - Division on Amendment 27 - Ayes: 172 / Noes: 148 - Amendment 27 agreed.
Baroness Doocey
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the test for imposing a respect order to require the court to be satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate to make the order for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the House; I was not ready, but it is worth waiting for. This amendment would change the legal test for imposing a respect order, requiring the court to consider this step “necessary and proportionate”, and not merely “just and convenient”, in preventing a person engaging in anti-social behaviour. This small, targeted change would ensure that the test is more proportionately aligned with the potentially serious consequences of these quasi-criminal orders, since a breach can result in up to two years’ imprisonment. It would also better reflect the Government’s stated intention that these orders should be used to tackle the most persistent cases of anti-social behaviour.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, noted in Committee, these cases would be adequately covered by a “necessary and proportionate” framework. The Minister says that judges must already take necessity and proportionality into account under the Human Rights Act. If that is so, I struggle to see why that very safeguard cannot be placed transparently in the Bill. This is a critical point, given the well-documented failures of previous anti-social behaviour powers. The evidence shows that, in practice, vague legal tests not only lead to inconsistent decisions: they sometimes deter the courts from using orders.
A more rigorous test would also address concerns about systemic bias. Existing anti-social behaviour powers continue to fall more heavily on minority-ethnic and other disadvantaged groups. Without stronger safeguards, this will almost inevitably be repeated by respect orders. Tightening the test is a modest way to reduce that risk, and will provide greater clarity for all concerned—judges, counsel and victims—as well as those made subject to these orders. It also better aligns the order with the risk assessment duty already outlined in new Section J1 inserted by Clause 1.
In Committee a number of Peers expressed concern about judicial overreach, particularly with tools so sweeping that they can order somebody to do anything described. But the current broad and vague test will do nothing to solve this. In fact, it will make matters worse. The quasi-criminal nature of these orders will invite legal challenge, causing delay in already backlogged courts, potentially clogging the system with marginal cases while doing little for victims of persistent and ongoing anti-social behaviour. A clear necessity and proportionality requirement would sharpen the law, focus efforts on the worst cases and help ensure that respect orders become the tool of choice for serious or repeat anti-social behaviour, rather than just another broad but inconsistently used power added to an already confusing landscape.
I have one final point. In Committee we welcomed the Home Office’s plan to pilot these orders, only to be told that the Government had decided that this was no longer necessary. On that occasion, the Minister informed me that things change. However, since then things appear to have changed again: the latest policy paper says that respect orders will now be piloted before being rolled out nationally. That is obviously very welcome, but I hope that today the Minister can reassure the House that—in this matter, at least—there will be no further changes. One change I strongly advocate is that outlined in Amendment 1. If it sharpens the law, improves enforcement and offers greater protection against injustice for the price of a modest drafting alteration, why resist it? I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I agree with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. As I understand the Government’s position, they accept that it would not be appropriate to impose such an order unless it is necessary and proportionate, and indeed that is the test applied by the European Convention on Human Rights, so the only question is whether the language of the Bill, and the Act that it will become, should reflect the true test. It seems to me, as it seems to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, highly appropriate that what is in the legislation should set out the true test. This has to be applied not just by judges but by police officers, local authorities, communities and everyone who is responsible for considering and enforcing this legislation. Let us put the true and proper test on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there is a lot in this group. The Government are undoubtedly sincere in wanting to use the Bill to further tackle anti-social behaviour, and such moves to take on this blight on communities will certainly be popular. However, we have to pause a moment and say that there is already a plethora of tools on the statute book designed to tackle anti-social behaviour, and yet it does not seem to be improving. This is the group in which we need to ask why. Perhaps anti-social behaviour orders and injunctions in all their various guises, from community penalty notices to public spaces protection orders, are just not fit for purpose.
I fear that, instead of tackling this, the Government are taking an easy and performative route and affording the state even more of the same—with more draconian powers—under a different label, that of respect orders. They are doing all this with little clarity or evidence of efficacy. That is what the amendments in this group are designed to tackle. By and large, I support them all.
I tabled Amendment 6, which calls for an independent —I stress the word “independent”—review of existing powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which should be published prior to the commencement of Sections 1 and 2 of the Act. As legislators, we have an obligation to take responsibility for assessing the impact of, and the evidence about, laws that we made in the past before we duplicate their weaknesses. We need to understand the pros and cons.
This review would look at solving the evidence gap. It is extraordinary that there is significant variation in data captured across relative authorities. Because ASBIs are locally administered in a patchwork of varied use, there is a worrying variation in the types and quality of data collected, the location of that data and the ability of that data to be extrapolated and shared internally or with relevant agencies where appropriate. This is surely a slap across the face of evidence-based policy-making, because without data it is not possible to adequately assess the effectiveness of behaviour orders and to fully understand any trends arising out of their imposition, enforcement or breach, including disproportionate impacts.
That is why Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who is not in her place, which would require the Home Office to publish quarterly data, is so important, as well as Amendment 12 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, which calls for an annual report. Both amendments positively try to tackle the limits of the availability of the evidence base, without which I do not know how we can make informed policy decisions.
At present, all the critiques of present behaviour orders are invaluably brought to us from sporadic academic research, FoI-based research led by the likes of Josie Appleton and her team at the Campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life, and the excellent campaign group Justice. They want their work to be made redundant by the Government; they want the Government and officialdom to do their work instead. If the Home Office does not understand its own legislative tools because it does not have the data, the misery of anti-social behaviour will remain untouched while the statute book grows.
I hope the Minister will listen to the front-line workers who have to implement and use these orders and who, reasonably, bemoan the lack of proper consultation with those who understand the ASBI regime in real life. I note the government amendment on consultation, which is welcome.
The majority of practitioners who Justice consulted believe that the new respect orders are unnecessary and replicate flawed laws already available. Only 6% conclude that they will improve outcomes for victims; 82% of respondents to the practitioners survey have called for the review of the existing 2014 Act and of existing powers prior to respect orders being introduced. There was unanimous agreement that the Government should address problems inherent in existing injunctions and orders before creating more, and that failure to properly consult has meant that opportunities to resolve problems with the way orders operate in practice, not on paper, and to increase their effectiveness have been missed. Surely the Minister will want and feel the need to understand why research shows that a significant proportion of CPNs and PSPOs are, for example, being overused for trivial activities, such as feeding the birds, honking horns, gathering in groups or idling in your car, or imposed in inappropriate circumstances against, too often, the homeless and the mentally ill, where the behaviour complained of falls far below the threshold of antisocial behaviour that the public are concerned about and that the 2014 Act was envisaged to tackle.
All that we are asking in these amendments is for the Minister to look at what has gone wrong so that we can improve it. Surely the Government are worried about the vastly varied use of existing orders, which creates a postcode lottery for victims and means that British citizens do not know what is allowed from one town to another. Conduct that is totally lawful in Lincoln might be subject to state sanction in Leeds. Surely such a differential variation in the volume of orders imposed, the type of orders imposed, the conditions imposed, and so on, undermines the rule of law that I know this Government strongly support. It makes enforcement dependent on the victim’s location, rather than circumstances, or on the perpetrator’s location, rather than precisely how they are behaving badly. This makes a mockery of the notion of all of us being equal under the law. A review would look at these problems and recommend practical solutions.
Amendments 1 and 3, especially, are important in relation to ensuring that respect orders are used only when necessary and in a proportionate way. We have already heard about that. I think this is very helpful, particularly in creating a right to appeal. I am worried that the statutory test and the language used for imposing these new respect orders are so broad that, rather than capturing behaviour that is serious and persistent in nature, they will criminalise more trivial behaviour. That these orders can be imposed on individuals without their knowledge and, most egregiously, for an indefinite duration—for example, until further notice—is why we need this appeals process. How is it fair or proportionate that an individual who has never been found guilty of an offence is required to comply with serious restrictions on their liberty and personal life indefinitely, yet someone convicted of an offence by the criminal justice system is at liberty and free of prohibitions once they reach the end of their defined term of sentence, or even sometimes before that these days? This is reminiscent of that stain on our justice system, the abolished and abominable IPP indefinite sentence, which caused such a scandal. Why would the Government now create these new, oppressive orders that flout the important principle that if individual lives are subject to state interference, they need to know how long the interference will last and when it will end?
Finally, I have added my name to Amendment 7, an excellent contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on fixed-term penalty notices, based on the work of the Campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life. This, I hope, will ring true with any Labour Government, because ensuring that private companies dishing out on-the-spot fines for antisocial behaviour, and doing so to profit financially, is surely something that offends the Government’s values. There are concerns that antisocial behaviour orders have been corrupted for income generation and commercial purposes. With fines increasing so much under this Bill, surely that tendency will be turbocharged. I think it is something that the Government will want to tackle, because all the orders in Clause 4 being issued at such a low benchmark are likely to result in fines going up. I am worried that this will encourage councils to become trigger-happy with orders and so on.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, will remember, as I do, the scandal of Kingdom Security in north Wales in, I think, 2019, when councils including Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Gwynedd and Anglesey outsourced the collection of their on-the-spot fines to a private security group, Kingdom, which illustrated that the behaviour of the enforcers could well be seen as being far more anti-social than any of the behaviour of local residents for which they were supposed to be fining them. A grass-roots campaign attracted 8,000-plus members to its Facebook page and led to numerous protests all over north Wales, with the security group’s wardens accused of threatening, bullying and even stalking north Walians, following dog walkers and smokers at a distance just so they could catch them out and fine them. They expressly targeted the elderly and women and children; the tissue of one 95 year-old lady blew from her wheelchair to the ground, and she was fined.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendment tabled in my name. As noble Lords know, I am terrible with the billion rules that we have in this place, so bear with me. This amendment would make a small change that would make a big difference to many residents around the country.
I shall try not to rehearse the arguments that I have made before, but we now need to reflect the reality of the housing situation in this country. With the Government’s mission to build 1.5 million homes, this reality will only become bigger—that many of our housing providers in the social sector are for-profit companies. It is a matter of fairness to make sure that the vulnerable residents that they are responsible for have the same access to the law that any resident would have, regardless of the legal structure of their landlord. To make that happen, I have proposed small changes to remove the particular words “non-profit private”. That would make a massive difference to these companies’ ability to keep people safe.
The law is at its best when it is clear and coherent. Good law should be comprehensive and unambiguous. If Parliament intends these powers to apply to housing providers, as I say, it should apply to all of them. This amendment would not alter the policy intent of the Bill but strengthen it, reinforcing the simple principle that tenants’ safety and accountability must be the same, regardless of where you live in the country. I recommend the amendment to the Government and ask for this tiny change to make sure that we can deliver safety for all our residents countrywide.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in my noble friend Lady Doocey’s name and mine, which seek to ensure that the Government’s new anti-social behaviour powers are grounded in evidence, proportionality and democratic accountability, as well as to other amendments in this group.
On these Benches, we do not dismiss the misery that persistent anti-social behaviour causes, but we remain deeply unconvinced that layering yet another complex civil order on to an already confused ASB framework is the right approach. As Justice has highlighted, respect orders risk duplicating existing powers, come with limited evidence of effectiveness and lack basic procedural safeguards. They rely on a weak civil standard of proof, yet they impose severe restrictions and carry a potential two-year prison sentence upon breach.
First, in Committee, we warned that the threshold of “just and convenient” is far too low for an order that can deprive a person of their liberty and exclude them from their home. I very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, had to say in his observations on the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, defended that language as “familiar” to the civil courts. However, he offered a chink of light, agreeing to examine the arguments for the wording in Amendment 1, “necessary and proportionate”, to ensure strict alignment with the Human Rights Act. I very much hope that his reflections have led him to accept this higher and safer threshold today, ensuring that these orders are not used merely for administrative expediency. We need an answer to the pilot or not-pilot question raised by my noble friend.
Secondly, I return to the issue of democratic accountability. Our Amendment 2 requires that the terms of respect orders and PSPOs must be subject to a full council vote. In his follow-up letter to me, following Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, rejected this, claiming that it would introduce delays and unnecessary bureaucracy. But democratic scrutiny of civil liberties is not an administrative delay; it is a constitutional necessity. The Government’s resistance to this directly contradicts the Local Government Association’s own statutory guidance, which recommends as best practice that final approval of a PSPO be undertaken at cabinet or full council level, to ensure openness and accountability.
Currently, research by the Campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life, formerly the Manifesto Club, shows that nearly half of all PSPOs are signed off by a single, often unelected, council officer, without any democratic vote. This lack of scrutiny has led to absurd and stigmatising orders banning innocuous activities. If full council approval is already recommended as best practice by the LGA, standardising it in legislation would not be an arduous delay; it would simply force all councils to meet the standard of transparency that the Government’s own guidance expects.
As regards Amendment 3, as I highlighted in Committee and in correspondence with the Minister, there is currently no formal means to directly appeal a PSPO FPN. Citizens feel pressured into paying unjust fines to avoid financial ruin. The Government’s move to increase the maximum fixed penalty notice for PSPO and CPN breaches to £500 is highly dangerous without statutory safeguards. In Committee, the Minister suggested that, if individuals feel a fine is unreasonable, they can simply make representations to the issuing agency. This is totally inadequate; there should be a formal right of appeal.
I turn to Amendment 7 in my name, which concerns fixed penalty notices for public space protection orders and community protection notices. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her support in this respect and for her very extensive unpicking of these ASB powers. Under Clause 4, the Government are pushing ahead with a 400% increase to the maximum FPN for these breaches, raising it from £100 to a punitive £500. Without statutory safeguards, this will simply supercharge a system that is already widely abused. This new clause addresses the deeply concerning practice of fining for profit. It stipulates that neither an authorised person nor their employer may retain any financial benefit from the fixed penalty notices that they issue.
The Campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life’s Corruption of Punishment report exposes the grim reality of the modern enforcement market. Environmental and ASB enforcement is increasingly seen as a business. Local authorities are entering into contracts with private companies, boasting of “zero financial risk” while sharing the “surplus revenue” generated by fines. Guidance and formal representations are entirely inadequate when faced with the modern enforcement market. As the Campaign for Everyday Freedom’s research also highlights, 66 councils currently employ private companies to issue FPNs, and the standard model is that these companies retain a percentage of the income, often up to 100% until costs are recovered. This creates a direct perverse financial incentive to issue as many tickets as possible for innocuous actions.
As I have pointed out to the Minister, Defra has already issued strict guidance stating that private firms enforcing littering should not receive greater revenue from increasing the volume of penalties. It is entirely illogical not to apply the same statutory prohibition to anti-social behaviour enforcement. We must ban fining for profit in the Bill. It is a time to a put a statutory end to the revenue collection system masquerading as justice.
Finally, in Amendment 12, we have proposed an annual report on the use of these ASB powers, for all the reasons I have stated that were so well expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I entirely understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is trying to achieve something very similar in her amendment. We are all aiming for much greater transparency in the use of these ASB powers, and I very much hope that the Government will go for at least one of the proposals.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the Minister that these Benches maintain our opposition to the Government’s respect orders. We have heard, in Committee and today, many concerns about the new regime. Our concerns are slightly different from some of those expressed by other noble Lords, in that we oppose them because we view them as simply unnecessary.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower asked the Minister what the true difference would be between respect orders and the current anti-social behaviour injunctions. The response confirmed that, in the Government’s view, the only difference is that breaching a respect order will be a criminal offence, whereas breaching an injunction is not a specified criminal offence. That may seem tougher on the surface, but, in reality, it will not make any difference. A person who breaches an ASB injunction can be prosecuted for contempt of court, as they have defied an order of the court; in addition, the power of arrest can be attached to the injunction under Section 4 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Where that is the case, a police officer may arrest a person without warrant for breaching the terms of their injunction under Section 9(1) of that Act. Furthermore, an arrest warrant may be made by the court if the person who applied for the injunction believes the person has breached that injunction.
For all those reasons, therefore, a number of avenues exist for enforcement of these injunctions. But, even if the Government believe that creating a specific criminal offence is necessary, why not simply amend the ASB injunction regime to create that offence? Why introduce an entirely new regime? Having said all that, we are where we are. In Committee, the Minister responded to my noble friend’s criticism by stating that it was a manifesto commitment. I do accept this, and that is why I suspect they will pass today unhindered.
I turn briefly to some of the other amendments in this group. I have a rather specific concern about the requirement in Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that a respect order may be applied for only if the local authority has agreed to do so at a meeting of the full council. Subsection (8A) in his amendment states:
“A relevant authority may not make an application for a respect order … unless the relevant local authority has complied with the requirements … in subsection (8B).
However, the definition of relevant authority in new Section B1 includes
“the chief officer of police for a police area … the chief constable of the British Transport Police”,
and a number of other authorities, such as Transport for London. What this means is that, should the police wish to apply for a respect order, they must first seek the approval of the local council. I do wonder whether this might create an overly burdensome and time-consuming requirement.
Amendment 7 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is, however, something I do have sympathy for. In 2024, a record 14.4 million parking fines were issued, representing a 13% increase from the previous year. There are widespread concerns about unclear parking signage, faulty machines and companies using quotas to increase the number of fines they collect. Parking firms and, indeed, councils using fines based on spurious violations simply to make money is surely not right. Where a person has violated the rules, of course the use of penalty charge notices is justified, but we should not allow them to unfairly issue fines to those who do not deserve it.
Finally, and having been somewhat critical of respect orders, I say to the Minister that I welcome his Amendment 4. As much as I may think that respect orders are unnecessary, if we are to have them, it is welcome that the Secretary of State will be required to consult on the guidance they issue.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
It is good to be back, is it not? It feels like we have been away for ages and now here we are again, back for another session of interesting amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, recognised, respect orders are a Labour manifesto commitment. They are made for securing action on anti-social behaviour in our town centres across this country. We secured a mandate to implement them. I welcome the amendments and we will discuss them, but this is a core element of Labour government policy.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Would the Minister accept that it is very difficult ever to think of circumstances in which it would be appropriate for a court to impose a respect order, with all the implications that has for an individual, unless the court is satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has made his point. I am trying to give the defence from the Government’s perspective. That is our view. He has made a reasonable point, but that is our view and I hope he accepts our comments on those issues in good faith.
On Amendment 2, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, will understand when I say that I agree with the points that he made. Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is rather bureaucratic, in that the council must carry out a full public consultation prior to any application to the court for a respect order to be made.
I was leader of a council for some years. We had six or seven meetings per year. Does the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, really expect, in the event of this legislation becoming law, that the council would consider respect orders and agree them on a six or eight week basis, six times per year, before the police could go? I am with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on this one. Some areas undertake this as a matter of course as part of local practice, but there is no requirement for a public consultation prior to a public spaces protection order being implemented. It is certainly my and the Government’s view that such requirements would add an inappropriate and disproportionate barrier to respect order applications and delay important relief for ASB victims. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will agree with His Majesty’s Opposition and me. He may not, but I put that point to him for his consideration.
Amendment 3, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would add a provision for a respondent to appeal the making or variation of a respect order. I hope I can assure noble Lords that there are express provisions in the Bill that provide for an application to be made to vary or discharge a respect order. The ordinary rules of appeal will apply to decisions to grant a respect order or a refusal to vary or discharge an order. To be absolutely clear on this issue, decisions to grant or vary respect orders, as well as decisions not to grant or vary one, will be appealable through the usual avenues under Civil Procedure Rules. I hope that assists.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, for his Amendment 5. I know that he wished to speak to that in Committee. He seeks to add for-profit registered social housing providers to the list of relevant agencies that can apply for a respect order. I recognise the importance of relevant agencies having the tools to tackle anti-social behaviour, but we should exercise caution before extending these powers without more consideration. I say that in the spirit of friendship and co-operation with the noble Lord. The Home Secretary has a power to amend the list of relevant authorities that can apply for a respect order. If it is considered appropriate to add a for-profit registered social housing provider to the list then we can do that via secondary legislation after the Bill has achieved Royal Assent, but I would like to give more consideration to this point. This is not a “no”; it could be added later with more consideration. I hope that will at least help him in the discussions that he has had today.
Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, would require the Home Secretary, within six months of the Bill becoming law, to commission an independent review of the existing powers under the 2014 Act prior to introducing respect orders, housing injunctions or youth injunctions as a whole. Again, I go back to what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. It is a manifesto commitment that we fought the election on to improve anti-social behaviour responses, and one such response that we specifically put in the manifesto at the general election was respect orders. So, the idea that we wish to—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I rise just to clarify and to help the Minister. I would not want in any way to stop the Government implementing their manifesto promises. The aim of the review was not to stop respect orders; it was to suggest that the anti-social behaviour on the statute book was reviewed before respect orders were brought in, because the Government cannot learn what has gone wrong with the previous anti-social behaviour orders if they never review them. The review aimed to help the Government make sure their manifesto promise on respect orders was effective rather than just a piece of paper.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am always grateful for the noble Baroness’s help on these matters. It is as rare as hen’s teeth normally, but I am always grateful. I still say to her that the implementation of respect orders is crucial to ensuring that we tackle anti-social behaviour effectively. I put it to her gently, as I know she is keen on reducing bureaucracy and the cost of government et cetera, that this would be a very costly, unnecessary review of all ASB powers, when we already know that we agree with those powers, and it would cause unacceptable delays to the rollout of the orders promised in our manifesto.
We are already 19 months into our Labour Government term and people are impatient for change. One of the changes we want to make is in tackling anti-social behaviour. So, I say to the noble Baroness that the respect order, housing injunction and youth injunction are not novel; rather, they replace and improve upon an existing order, the civil injunction order, which has been in place since 2015. We are committed to ensuring that the powers to address anti-social behaviour remain effective, and we will routinely engage with practitioners across the board. Given those comments, I hope that the noble Baroness will reflect on her amendment.
Amendment 7 seeks to provide that any accredited or authorised person working on behalf of a local authority may not profit financially from the issuing of fixed penalty notices for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection orders. I point out to those noble Lords who tabled the amendment that the Bill makes it clear that the fixed penalty notices that can already be issued for breaches of these orders are still in place, and that we have increased only the upper limit of the fine. It is expected that the figure issued will be based on the individual circumstances and severity of the case.
As of now, local agencies are expected to ensure that fixed penalty notices are issued only in circumstances where it is considered proper and appropriate. I recognise that there are some concerns. The noble Baroness referenced her home area of north Wales, where an excessive and unreasonable number of fixed penalty notices have been issued. I fully accept that point, but I put it to her again that contracting enforcement to third parties is a common arrangement. Councils will not do it all themselves in-house; they do some of it contractually.
There is statutory guidance, which all relevant agencies have a legal duty to have regard to, which underscores the importance of applying the new fixed penalty notice limits in a proportionate and balanced way. I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who has cosigned this amendment, the importance of the proportionate use of the new thresholds, and that local authorities and agents acting on their behalf should not be issuing fixed penalty notices to generate profit. We will be consulting on the revised guidance, and I will undertake to share a copy of that guidance with the noble Lord and any other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, should she so wish, before any action is taken to implement any proposals passed by Parliament. That statutory guidance will be implemented, and I hope we can examine it in due course.
I turn now to Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who was not able to speak to it today. Amendment 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament an annual report on the operation of respect orders. Amendment 24 would require the publishing of quarterly data. I recognise that information held by central government on anti-social behaviour is, in some areas, limited. I want to see that improved, because that helps the Government understand the causes of anti-social behaviour.
Clause 7 provides for the provision of information about anti-social behaviour to the Secretary of State. Subsections (1) to (7) list the range of matters on which the Secretary of State may wish to collect information. The extent to which data will be reported and published will be confirmed after consultation with relevant agencies.
The Home Office publishes data on the use of stop and search powers, including the number of stop and searches conducted, arrests following a search, and demographic data. It includes information broken down by community safety partnerships as well as by police force areas.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Nobody doubts or questions that addressing anti-social behaviour is a manifesto commitment; that is taken as read. However, if it is a manifesto commitment, it must be put in words that clearly describe what the Government are trying to say. I find it quite baffling that in their first amendment, the Government prefer the words, “just and convenient”. What is convenient in there? Why are the Government dressing it up? I would have thought that the normal language of “necessary and proportionate” is much easier to understand. Why are the Government rejecting words that will help deal with anti-social behaviour, and instead fishing for other words that make no sense? Can the Minister try to make sense of it for me? I was given an explanation, but I was not persuaded, and I am sure I am not the only one. The words that we know in the Human Rights Act—necessary and proportionate —would ease the fear that the police will go on a spree and do a number of things because they judge it to be “just and convenient”.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As ever, I am genuinely sorry that I have not been able to persuade the noble and right reverend Lord of the Government’s case. We have taken the view that “just and convenient” mirrors the civil injunction regime of the 2014 Act, passed by a Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government. They are not words from a Labour Minister but from an Act passed in 2014 that we are mirroring in the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce respect orders. I am sorry that I cannot convince the noble and right reverend Lord of that, and that I have not persuaded him accordingly. We may—although I do not know—very shortly have an opportunity to see whether anybody else is persuaded.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am afraid that I remain unpersuaded. The Minister keeps mentioning the manifesto commitment, but the manifesto makes no mention of the liability threshold for a respect order, so it is surely perfectly legitimate to question the basis on which the respect order the Government are introducing is based.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The basis on which the respect order is introduced, and the phraseology used, is the phraseology his and His Majesty’s Opposition’s Government put in place for previous orders. I am not changing the wording of anything that, presumably, at some point in 2014 he and other Liberal Democrat Peers walked through a Lobby to vote for.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has got me there. Let me rephrase my challenge. The noble Lord did not support it, but the coalition Government he supported passed the 2014 Act. I like to be accurate in my barbs at noble Lords, and I hope that accuracy persuades him that, even if he did not vote for it, some of his noble friends in the coalition Government of the time did—a coalition that our side of the House did not look too favourably upon. I accept his personal position, but if there is division of opinion in this House and we test it, I shall move Amendment 4. I hope that other noble Lords will not press their amendments, but if I have not convinced them, they will put them to the test in the House.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as a final throw, I wonder whether the Minister remembers how the Labour Benches voted in respect of those orders at the time.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It was 12 years ago. Although I was a Member of the House of Commons at the time, I would probably have done whatever my noble friend the then Chief Whip asked me to do.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I am very grateful for all the support that I got. I am disappointed, but not at all surprised, by the Minister’s response because, in my experience, the Minister is good at listening but not particularly good at hearing. I think we have done everything we can to put the case, both in Committee and tonight on Report, so I do not really see any point in examining the arguments any further. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(2A) Before issuing or revising guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(2B) Subsection (2A) does not apply to revisions that the Secretary of State considers are not substantial.(2C) The requirement in subsection (2A) to consult before issuing guidance may be satisfied by consultation carried out wholly or partly before this section comes into force.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a consultation requirement to section M1, inserted into the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 by clause 1 of the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones
“(5) For the purposes of this section, any authorised person or company issuing fixed penalty notices under the provisions listed in subsection (6) must not receive, directly or indirectly, any financial benefit that is contingent upon—(a) the issuing of a fixed penalty notice, or(b) the number or value of fixed penalty notices issued.(6) The provisions are—(a) section 52, and(b) section 68,of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (fixed penalty notices).(7) For the purposes of subsection (5), a financial benefit includes, but is not limited to—(a) any commission, bonus, incentive payment, or performance-related remuneration;(b) any benefit provided under a contract, arrangement, or understanding that links remuneration to enforcement outcomes;(c) any financial profit accrued by an employer;(d) any non-monetary benefit prescribed by regulations. (8) Any employer or person found to be in breach of subsection (5) may have their arrangements, accreditation or authorisation revoked by the chief officer of police or relevant local authority.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that any accredited or authorised person, and their employer, may not profit financially from the issuing of fixed penalty notices.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am afraid that it is no cigar again for the Minister on this amendment. On his promise of consultation on statutory guidance and so on on the question of fining for profit, I really do not think that is going to cut the mustard. On these Benches, we want to put a marker down that fining for profit, using contractors to enforce these powers, must end. We want to test the opinion of the House, so I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
“(1A) Section 104 (review of response to complaints about anti-social behaviour) is amended as follows.(1B) In subsection (2)(b), after “published” insert “in their entirety”.(1C) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The relevant bodies in each local government area have a duty to promote awareness of the case review and review procedures.(2B) The relevant bodies in each local government area have a duty to publish the provision for victims dissatisfied with how the local bodies have dealt with or carried out the case review as per Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraph 3 (dissatisfaction with ASB case reviews).”(1D) In subsection (3)(b), after “area” insert “, and(c) specify the threshold for the case review including any timeframes and additional requirements which apply to that threshold.”(1E) In subsection (4)(b), omit “(or, if a different number is specified in the review procedures, at least that number of)”.(1F) In subsection (5)—(a) for “may” substitute “must”;(b) omit “any of”;(c) for “adequacy of the response to that behaviour” substitute “vulnerability of the victim(s)”.(1G) In subsection (6), after “decision” insert “, and, where the threshold is not met, they must—(a) provide that information in writing, and(b) with reference to review procedures specify the reason(s) for their determination that the threshold is not met.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Lord Russell of Liverpool, seeks to establish a statutory threshold for convening an Anti-Social Behaviour Case Review, that considers the victim’s vulnerability and removes discretion for authorities to apply additional caveats.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 8, 9 and 10 in my name, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is outside the Chamber at the moment—I think she is talking to the other Minister—has kindly added her name. I thank the Minister and his officials for the meetings that we have had since Committee to discuss these issues.
The three amendments could be called the Newlove and Waxman amendments, because, in effect, they articulate the views and concerns of the late lamented Baroness Newlove and her successor as Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, about the issues that people on the ground experience in dealing with anti-social behaviour, most particularly the experience of victims.
Amendments 8 and 9 seek to improve the accessibility of the ASB case review by removing local discretion over thresholds and the definition of a qualifying complaint, which currently are creating unnecessary barriers for victims. The anti-social behaviour case review was established as a mechanism that allows victims to trigger a multi-agency resolution-focused review of their case, as in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which set out a threshold for when a case review could be activated; it said three—or a different number, as set out under local review procedures —or more qualifying complaints within a six-month period.
However, the existing framework gives local organisations enormous discretion in setting local procedures, including defining the number of ASB complaints required and what constitutes a qualifying complaint. Consequently, authorities are able to add their own caveats, which creates yet another postcode lottery for victims. It creates inconsistencies in access to support and it delays intervention in situations where harm is escalating. For example, some authorities refuse to initiate a case review while an investigation is ongoing.
Similarly, the 2025 Local Government Association survey found that 62% of respondents applied additional local caveats, such as, as I mentioned, not allowing applications while an investigation is ongoing; requiring applications to be submitted within one month of the last reported incident; refusing a case review if one has already been conducted for behaviour of a similar nature; or rejecting complaints deemed to be “frivolous”, whatever the local authority’s definition of frivolous happens to be. This range of caveats presents a serious barrier to victims being able to seek timely relief.
Conditions such as prohibiting applications during ongoing investigations, imposing narrow time limits for reporting or refusing repeat applications, even where the behaviour is continuing, place the burden on the victim rather than on the system designed to protect them. Investigations can take months, during which victims may experience continued harm without any mechanism available to them to trigger a multi-agency response. As I mentioned, “frivolous” introduces subjective judgments that risk undermining victims’ credibility and, in particular, undermining confidence in the process. Collectively, this results in inconsistent access and contributes to the postcode lottery.
The Government’s response to these amendments in Committee referenced their newly launched ASB statutory guidance. While the Home Office’s updated guidance encourages a threshold of three complaints in six months, it is not legally binding and does not prevent authorities introducing additional conditions. Therefore, without legislative change, inconsistency and local caveats will continue. These amendments are designed to close these loopholes and establish firm national standards that the system currently unfortunately lacks.
Amendment 10 seeks to support the identification of gaps and barriers that victims face in the ASB case review process by ensuring what is surely a no-brainer: the consistent collection and publication of data. In this sort of situation, data really is king. One is flying slightly blind if one tries to make judgments about what is and is not going on if the data which one is relying upon to make those judgments are themselves seriously flawed and, as we have seen, open to individual interpretation to a significant degree across multiple local authorities.
In Committee, in response to the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I put forward on anti-social behaviour, the Government said they wished to see how the new ASB guidance beds in before considering further legislation. This was the position also on the proposals to require independent chairs for case reviews and to ensure that victims are able to attend, or at least have their views represented.
We accept that the guidance needs time to take effect. Guidance is one thing, but if you do not have any meaningful way to monitor whether that guidance is being applied consistently, how it is being applied and what effect it is having then it is quite difficult to judge whether the guidance is doing what you want it to do.
Currently, data collection on the ASB case review is sparse, inconsistent and fragmented. There is a patchwork of information and no adequate national oversight. The original legislative framework for the case review requires local bodies to publish the number of case reviews they conduct and refuse each year. However, this information is somewhat meaningless if we do not know the reasons why an application for review was refused. In particular, as we have heard before, local bodies can set their own parameters for qualifying incidents and set caveats on the thresholds.
I recognise that the Government have introduced Clause 7 on the provision of information to the Secretary of State, whereby authorities may be required to provide
“reports of anti-social behaviour made to the authority … responses of the authority to anti-social behaviour, and … ASB case reviews carried out by the relevant authority”.
However, this merely outlines the types of information that the Secretary of State could require from local bodies, which, in the view of the Victims’ Commissioner, does not go far enough. Without proper data, it is not possible to assess whether the guidance is working in practice.
In responding to this group, we would be enormously grateful if the Minister could tell us whether the Government will commit to ensuring that the relevant authorities are required by regulations to collect and provide to the Secretary of State the data points as in Amendment 10. Specifically, this would mean information in relation to: first, where local bodies determine the threshold for the case review was not met, by reference to the local review procedures, and the reasons why they made that determination; secondly, the number of case reviews carried out that were chaired by an independent person; thirdly, the number of reviews where the victim or their representative was given the opportunity to attend; and, finally, the number of reviews carried out where the victim or their representative attended the review in person.
I hope that we will have a positive response from the Government. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to this. I know that everything cannot be done simultaneously, but the case for more consistency, as required in the first two amendments, and for providing meaningful, useful data to judge whether the new guidance is working is important enough that I hope the Government will give this some serious attention. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I signed the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell. He spoke eloquently to the detail and, indeed, during the debate that we had in Committee on them. I want just to summarise the key reasons.
We understand why the Government want to see their guidance bed in, but we are already picking up concerns about some of the detail. The point of these three amendments is to set very clear ground rules for each of the stages, partly to make the data reliable but also partly to give absolute clarity about what happens at each stage of the review.
The first amendment is about the threshold for the case review, the second is about the nature of the ASB and whether that is a qualifying complaint, and the final one concerns collection and review of the data. The first two are important because we have already heard that local authorities respond very differently. Finally, as the noble Lord said, data is vital. If certain characteristics about each case review are published, having that collection of data would be extremely helpful. Then, by reviewing the data by authority and elsewhere, it would become very easy to see how the case reviews are happening nationally.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for his work on these amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her contribution to the debates on anti-social behaviour reviews, both today and in Committee. It is an important issue that touches on how our system responds to persistent harm affecting families and communities. We on these Benches are very sympathetic to these amendments.
In Committee, noble Lords rightly underlined that anti-social behaviour is rarely about a single, isolated incident, but often results in repeated conduct that causes cumulative distress and disruption. The ASB case review—previously known as the community trigger—plays a very important role as a safety net. It is designed to bring agencies together to ensure a joined-up response where local action alone has not resolved the problem. Its predominant purpose is to give victims an early opportunity to have their situation collectively reviewed when they have reported multiple qualifying incidents over time.
The amendments in this group seek to strengthen that mechanism by bringing into statute some elements that are currently left to local discretion. A statutory threshold for convening a case review—removing caveats that frustrate victims—would provide clarity and consistency across the country, ensuring that victims do not face a postcode lottery when accessing this right. In Committee, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott echoed this point, noting that a statutory threshold would streamline the process and prevent agencies imposing additional barriers that can deter applications. That would depend, of course, on where exactly the threshold was set.
These amendments also include measures targeted at transparency. They would require authorities to publish the reasons why they determine that a threshold has not been met, and to publish data on independent chairing and on victim attendance. That increased transparency would build confidence in the process and assist in identifying patterns of variation between areas. However, as was raised in Committee, it is important to balance those laudable aims with the need to avoid imposing disproportionate bureaucracy on bodies that are, perhaps, already under pressure. The Government explained that updated statutory guidance has been published, as we have heard, to strengthen awareness of the case review mechanism and to help agencies guide victims through the process. We should therefore reflect on whether mandating every procedural step in statute will, in practice, make the process smoother or potentially risk diverting resources from handling the underlying behaviour. None the less, this group of amendments is rooted in a shared desire to ensure that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour are heard, supported and treated fairly. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for his amendments, and for the opportunity to meet and discuss them in person. I am also acutely aware that he developed and examined the amendments with the late Baroness Newlove, to whom I again pay tribute, and with Claire Waxman, the current Victims’ Commissioner, and indeed with the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We have had, I hope, a fruitful discussion, during which I have given the Government’s view both in Committee and in our head-to-head meetings.
The noble Lord’s Amendments 8 and 9 aim to limit the relevant bodies’ discretion to set criteria to underpin an application for a case review. Amendment 8 would also require the relevant bodies to provide more transparency as to their reasoning, but also to promote awareness of the case review and publish the provision in place for situations when the victim is dissatisfied about how the case has been handled. I am aware that the noble Lord knows this, but it is worth putting on record: an individual may currently apply for a case review after making three qualifying complaints. We updated the statutory guidance in September last year, and it already dictates that the relevant bodies involved in these reviews may, where appropriate, set different thresholds from those described, provided that they do not make it more difficult for the victim to make a successful application. The Government maintain that the ability to set different local thresholds is important to allow flexibility in handling each case, particularly where agencies may want to add caveats to make the threshold for a review lower in cases of high harm or those involving vulnerable adults.
It is also important that noble Lords examine the provision in Clause 6, which gives powers to police and crime commissioners to set up a route for victims to request a further review when they are dissatisfied with the outcome of their case review, including when the relevant bodies determine that the threshold was not met for the initial case review. That adds a further safeguard to the case review process to ensure better victim outcomes.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the Minister for his response, which was much as anticipated—so no surprises. I think we all understand the underlying issues and some of the bad things that victims are currently experiencing.
These three amendments come from a period during which the Victims’ Commissioner office has been scrutinising in detail the new guidance delivered last September. They were brought forward in the direct light of and in response to that new guidance. That is not to say that the new guidance is not welcome, but the experience of the Victims’ Commissioner and her office is that to understand whether the guidance is working as intended requires a level of data that is deeper and more detailed than is currently outlined in what the Government intend to get and what is covered in Clause 7. The concern is that while the guidance is very welcome, we will be unable to understand how effectively it is working to the level of detail that will be helpful to the Victims’ Commissioner, to victims and, thirdly, to the Government themselves.
After the Bill is enacted, it is certain that there will be meetings in the diary with the Victims’ Commissioner and her team, and they will be scrutinising the effects of the new guidance and the degree to which, from their observations, it is being implemented. I ask that the Government are open to having a constructive, interactive dialogue if the data raises more questions than it answers—which is, I think, what the Victims’ Commissioner anticipates may be the case—and that, if need be, they listen and adjust if the data is not telling us what we need.
I again thank the Minister and her team. I forgot to mention Andy Prophet, the ASB lead for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, who has been extremely helpful and supportive. His successor, Cath Akehurst, who I think takes over next week, is also very actively involved in this. We are trying to work with the police, the Victims’ Commissioner, the ASB charities and the Local Government Association to come up with solutions that work for victims and are enactable and enforceable in law and guidance. In that spirit, I withdraw the amendment.
“(6A) The requirement in subsection (6) may be satisfied by consultation carried out wholly or partly before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment to section 105A of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (inserted by clause 7 of the Bill) allows pre-commencement consultation to satisfy the requirement on the Secretary of State to consult on regulations about information about anti-social behaviour.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s amendments in this group all relate to certain of the delegated powers in the Bill. In the main, they respond to recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee in their reports on the Bill. I am very grateful to both committees for their scrutiny of this legislation. Your Lordships’ House will be pleased to hear that I will not repeat all the arguments made by the Government. Instead, I point noble Lords to the responses to each of the committees’ reports, which are available on their respective web pages. However, let me briefly explain the various government amendments that address the committees’ concerns.
First, Amendments 15 and 25 to Clauses 9 and 24 provide that the guidance on fly-tipping enforcement and the new civil penalty regime, in respect of a failure to remove illegal online content relating to knives and offensive weapons, are subject to the negative procedure. I stress to noble Lords that the Government’s general position remains that it is not necessary or appropriate for the generality of statutory guidance to be subject to any parliamentary procedure. However, there are limited exceptions to that general rule, and we agree that the guidance provided for in Clauses 9 and 24 should be two such exceptions, as per the DPRRC’s recommendation that in both cases the guidance should be subject to the negative procedure.
Secondly, Amendment 382 to Clause 154 provides for driver information regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure, in line with a recommendation by the Constitution Committee.
Thirdly, the amendments to Clauses 85, 129 and 134 narrow the scope of the regulation-making powers provided for in those clauses.
Fourthly, Amendments 415, 416 and 417 to Clause 196 ensure that all iterations of the guidance in respect of youth diversion orders are laid before Parliament, including in cases in which revisions are insubstantial.
Finally, Amendments 11 and 381 do not stem from a committee recommendation. Rather, they simply provide that pre-commencement consultation on the regulations relating to the provision of information about anti-social behaviour and the code of practice about access to driver licence information satisfies the requirement to consult under this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we have come to the first of two groups containing a large number of government amendments. I find myself having to express my strong frustration and disappointment with the number of government amendments that have been brought to this Bill on Report. As we broke up for recess, the Government tabled 243 amendments to the Bill. Then, on Monday, two days before the first day of Report, they tabled a further 73 amendments. This completely flies in the face of the accepted norms and conventions whereby the Government are supposed to table amendments a week before.
Most concerning is the introduction of entirely new amendments that have not previously been discussed, most notably the Government’s amendment relating to aggravation of offences. We will spend much time debating that amendment later, but suffice it to say that it is a very wide-ranging and incredibly worrying matter—never mind the fact that the amendment has not been debated in Committee in this House, nor in the other place, and as such will not receive the proper scrutiny it deserves.
Having said that, I do welcome some of the changes the Government are making. Amendments 15, 16, 17, 25, 26 and 267 all enhance the ability of Parliament to scrutinise some of the regulation-making powers granted to the Home Secretary. Requiring the draft guidance to be laid before Parliament for a period of 40 days is welcome and, we hope, will ensure that Parliament can diligently hold the Government to account. On Amendments 362 and 363, I am naturally cautious about the Government granting themselves more powers via secondary legislation, which in this case permits them to specify different articles that may be considered as “SIM farms”. My concern is slightly allayed by Amendments 364 and 365, which do place limitations on the Secretary of State’s power, but it would be useful to know what types of devices the Government envisage being brought into the scope of Clause 129.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful, to an extent, for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. The vast majority of the Government amendments that have been laid before your Lordships’ House are either in response to issues raised through discussion in Committee, or subsequent to that discussion, or, as I said in my opening remarks, in response to the issues raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee. It is also important to say—and we will come to this in a large group coming up shortly—that they are large in number but they are all, in a sense, because of the nature of the legislation, making the same changes around devolution to many parts of the Bill. This is how the issues were understood and discussed. It followed discussion in Committee on that group, when the Opposition Front Bench presented their rationale for opposing this. We decided not to move the Government amendments that were tabled in Committee at that time.
This is an iterative process. I think it fair to point out that the point of Committee is for the Government to hear concerns and to be able to respond to them. I think there will be many areas where we will table Government amendments throughout Report stage of the Bill, not least the ones we are discussing in this group right now. I am grateful for the words of welcome for these Government amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. Concerns were raised by both committees about our approach to statutory guidance and secondary legislation, so we have responded to them.
The Government’s new clause on aggravated offences, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, referred to, as well as delivering on a manifesto commitment, responds directly to the debate on the issue in the other place. It was touched on in your Lordships’ House at Second Reading and in Committee, where we reiterated the Government’s intention to bring forward an amendment on Report. Moreover, the issues raised in the Government’s new clauses do cross over to those raised in what are now Clauses 122 to 124, which were thoroughly debated in Committee. I would be happy, in addition to this, to carry on the conversation, if the noble Lord is happy to do so, by writing to him on the specifics he raised concerning Clause 129. But, given that explanation, I reiterate my moving of Government Amendment 11.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, to move Amendment 13. I must advise that if it is not moved, I cannot call Amendment 14.
Clause 9: Guidance on fly-tipping enforcement in England
Amendment 13
Lord Davies of Gower
“(1A) The guidance issued about the enforcement of offences under section 33 must ensure that, where a person is convicted of a relevant offence, they are liable for the costs incurred through loss or damage resulting from the offence.(1B) The guidance must also ensure that it requires the waste regulation authority to engage with the local police force to take all reasonable measures to ensure that the landowner, or community, responsible for the land upon which the relevant offence occurs, is not liable for the costs incurred resulting from the offence.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State’s guidance on fly-tipping makes the person responsible for fly-tipping, rather than the landowner or community, liable for the costs of cleaning up.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the amendment in my name relates to fly-tipping and measures that can and should be taken to combat it. Fly-tipping is a serious and growing blight on society. In 2023-24 local authorities in England had to contend with approximately 1.15 million fly-tipping and litter incidents, an increase of 6% on the previous year. It is even worse in rural areas. Rural fly-tipping has increased by 9% over the past year, with one farmer saying that relentless fly-tipping happens almost every week. Last week it was reported that an elderly Hertfordshire farmer was facing a £40,000 clean-up bill after almost 200 tonnes of waste was fly-tipped on his land.
There is a significant disparity between the offences and the enforcement, which sends the signal to offenders that they are unlikely to face any consequences of their actions. Amendment 13 would seek to address this inequity. The Government propose to issue guidance relating to fly-tipping. Our amendment would ensure that guidance makes it clear that where a person is convicted of fly-tipping, they, not the victims, are liable for the costs incurred as a result of their offence. It would further require engagement between waste authorities and the police to ensure that the landowner or community upon whose land the dumping occurred is not left footing the bill.
Amendment 19, also in my name, proposes that a person convicted of fly-tipping should receive three penalty points on their driving licence for their offence. It seems self-evident to say that much fly-tipping is vehicle-enabled. Vans and cars are used to transport waste far from the original site and dump it illegally. For many offenders, particularly those operating for attractive profit margins, a fine alone may be viewed as a calculated business risk, and a price worth paying. The prospect of licence endorsement, however, introduces a personal and escalating consequence.
Amendment 20, which has been signed by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would add fly-tipping to the list of offences for which vehicles may be seized under Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002. If a vehicle is reasonably believed to have been used in connection with fly-tipping, the police should have the powers to act decisively. Removing the instrument of the crime is one of the most effective deterrents available, and this amendment would disrupt organised dumping activity and reinforce the seriousness with which we should treat environmental crime. I hope the Minister is listening, and I have to say to the House that if he will not accept my amendments in this group, or give assurances as to the Government’s intent, I may well seek to divide the House.
Amendment 14 (to Amendment 13)
Viscount Goschen
“(1C) The guidance must specify that reasonable measures under subsection (1B) include requiring the waste collection authority to collect all waste resulting from the offence.”
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I do not think it inappropriate that, although Amendment 14 was not moved, it should be spoken to.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
For the administrative ease of the House, I have not moved Amendment 14, but I do have another amendment in this group, Amendment 21, which I do intend to talk to, if that is in order.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I do not want to intrude unnecessarily, but I did have a brief word to say about Amendments 14 and 21, both of which I welcome very much. This arises from a particular problem I had in my own area. We had a very efficiently run waste disposal area, which was closed—and the consequence was that we had a lot of fly-tipping. The advantage of Amendments 14 and 21 is that they would impose on the waste disposal authority certain obligations: obligations to pay and obligations to clear away the mess. The advantage of that is that it may make the waste disposal authorities much less willing to close sites. If the sites remain open, the prospect is that fly-tipping will not be as great. I was going to support Amendments 14 and 21, because what they would do is valuable, in the sense that it would encourage waste disposal authorities to keep sites open, and not to close them.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend.
This is an important issue. I have campaigned for many years around fly-tipping and the importance of having a stronger regulatory settlement, so I very much support my noble friend’s amendments in this group. It is a very large-scale problem: the noble Lord, Lord Katz, I believe, referred at an earlier stage to an estimate of some 1.15 million fly-tipping events reported to local authorities. That is a huge number, and I expect that that thoroughly underreports the true scale of the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Katz, was kind enough to write to me in response to a question I raised on 17 November in Committee, when I inquired as to the number of cost recovery orders that had been successfully made by the courts. It appears that the Government do not hold that information. I looked at the manifesto, about which we have heard an awful lot in this Parliament, and indeed today, and there was a commitment to make the fly-tippers pay for the clear-up, yet the Government do not hold the statistics. I am slightly puzzled as to how the Government are going to make progress on that without holding the relevant information. The noble Lord, in his letter to me, did say that 1,378 fines had been made in respect of fly-tipping. That is a tiny number: it is 1 in 1,000, or 0.1%. It is quite clear —the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in response to a question about the Kidlington outrage, agreed—that the current regulatory position is not working. This is a particular issue in the countryside, where there is a heavy burden on farmers, as we have heard. Here, I declare an interest of sorts, as the owner of a farm.
I have Amendment 21 in this group. Its effect is simple: it would place a duty on local waste authorities to remove waste and then to attempt to pursue cost recovery from the culprits. It builds, really, on Amendment 13, in my noble friend’s name, which seeks to amend the guidance. Both have a similar intent. In my view, it is simply unfair that the victim of the crime should be responsible for clearing it up. There are many factors that drive this crime, but at least two are within the direct control of public authorities as a whole—namely, the pricing of the landfill tax and, as my noble friend referred to, the accessibility of waste disposal facilities, and the Environment Agency and police enforcement effort.
My noble friend referred to the incident reported of a farmer who recently had 200 tonnes of rubbish dumped on his land. This is a perfect illustration of the problem that landowners, and indeed community trusts and others—for example, sports grounds and football clubs and so forth—can face. This individual faced a bill for some £40,000. Now, I understand that the council and the police had failed to identify the culprits and had failed to protect him after repeated previous incidents. Indeed, he alleges that he had also been the victim of intimidation. Why should he face financial ruin for the failures of public authorities to protect him from the actions of a criminal gang?
I would argue that it is simply not realistic, nor is it fair, to expect landowners to take on the role of detective to identify offenders and then to pursue them for the recovery of costs. They do not know how to make the various agencies involved work more effectively, they are vulnerable to intimidation and they do not have the resources.
The time has now come for the responsibility for protection, clear-up, investigation and prosecution to sit with the appropriate and relevant public agencies. To my mind, the arguments for doing this are clear, as it would create a complete system where public sector agencies control landfill pricing, access to legitimate waste disposal sites, identification and prosecution of culprits, and recovery of costs. This would incentivise the Environment Agency, the police and local waste authorities to be much more proactive in pursuing the culprits, facilitating their prosecution and recovering their costs. It would allow for faster removal, which is a very important factor. With waste lying around on farmland, private land or any open ground, one thing follows another, and more suddenly turns up. It would also give much fairer treatment to landowners.
It is clear that the current system is not working. On the one hand, we have had a member of the public being fined for pouring the dregs of her cup of coffee down the drain, but, on the other hand, no one seems to have noticed or done anything to stop at least 300 heavy goods vehicles dumping upwards of 10,000 tonnes of rubbish illegally in Kidlington. How can that possibly have happened? How can we have confidence in the system? If it cannot catch 300 trucks, what chance does the poor landowner have in this type of situation? This is a failure of the whole government system in the broadest sense of the term—central agencies and local—to protect victims. They now need to take responsibility.
I support my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower’s other amendments, all of which are designed to strengthen the regulatory settlement to tackle fly-tipping. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the intention and spirit of Amendment 13. Fly-tipping shows a shocking disregard for other people, the local community, society and the environment. It is not right that the cost of removing the consequences of it fall on the victims, as has been said, at huge expense.
My point is a technical one about the way that this amendment is drafted. I do not think that imposing this liability in guidance is the right way to go about it. Guidance is not normally legally binding. Those to whom it is addressed have to have regard to it, simply—even if it is laid before Parliament with a stronger procedure, as I think the Government are proposing. In my view, the right way to do it is by an amendment to Section 33(8) and (9) of the Environmental Protection Act, where the penalties for the offence are set out. That would be the correct place to put it. That is the approach taken in Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. While I strongly support the amendment, and would vote for it in any Division, I think the way it is drafted is not quite right.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of a farming company that is regularly the victim of fly-tipping of various scales.
I agree absolutely with every word that the noble Viscount shared with us a little while ago. I would add that the waste, often toxic waste, piled up on land is getting into the watercourses. This is a serious issue. Very often, landowners, even if they have the wherewithal to finance its removal, which many of them do not, do not have the technical expertise to deal with toxic waste. I spoke about this in Committee, so I am not going to go on in great detail, but it is a huge problem and every day it is getting worse.
The current legislation, which I have probed through Written Questions, is absolutely clear that the local authorities have no responsibility currently to do anything to assist, either through punitive legislation, assisting in the clean-up or by financially supporting those who are trying to do the clean-up. There is no support at all. We cannot allow this to continue. These amendments are a good start in the right direction.
To illustrate that, I will share one experience that I had. On a farm track, a large amount of building materials and other unpleasant items was tipped out of a truck. The perpetrators were so confident of not being caught or punished that they even threw on the pile the parking ticket that they had got earlier that day with the registration number. I called the police, who, to their credit, came out; we looked at it together, and afterwards I spent the weekend clearing it up. I showed the parking ticket to the policeman, who said, “Yes, that’s all very helpful, but I am not going to tell you whose vehicle it is in case you do something. I can assure you that, if we were to contact the people whose vehicle this is, they will simply say, ‘A lot of people drive that truck; it wasn’t me. I don’t know who it was; all sorts of people drive it’, and nothing will happen”. No further action was taken. That is one tiny example of the sort of things that people in rural areas face with waste, which is mainly generated in cities and simply taken out into the countryside and dumped with complete impunity.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 20, to which I have attached my name. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the exemplary speech made by my noble friend Lord Goschen.
I have a more positive story that I read in the Times—I think noble Lords will also have read it—about a very public-spirited parish councillor in the Cotswolds, I think in Gloucestershire, who picked up a McDonald’s paper bag that contained a receipt, again, for a purchase of a McDonald’s meal. This very public-spirited and diligent parish councillor went to McDonald’s, which was able to use its CCTV coverage to identify the car and the driver. To their credit, Gloucestershire Police fined that gentleman £500. The slight downside for the public-spirited parish councillor was that that gentleman was one of his village neighbours, so conversations at the pub were probably quite awkward from thence on.
But seriously, I am delighted that there is a debate on this issue. Litter picking and fly-tipping used to be quite a niche issue. It is now considered a much more serious issue, as it should be, and I am pleased that my own Front Bench and Government Ministers are taking it seriously. As alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, in 2022-23, clearing up serious instances of fly-tipping cost local authorities £50 million. That does not sound like a lot of money, but it is £50 million not spent on other services. As the noble Lord quite rightly said, fly-tipping often involves hazardous materials, such as asbestos, tyres and chemical waste that contaminate not just water but air and farmland generally.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I am very grateful for the kind things that the noble Lord is saying. To clarify, local authorities will clear up fly-tipping that is on the verge of the highway. Although it is not anywhere in law, if it is beyond 10 metres from there, it is your problem and they will not clear it up.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right and that point was very strongly made in trenchant remarks by my noble friend about the issue in Kidlington. He is right that fly-tipping disproportionately affects farmland and farmers have, as he knows, very little legal recourse. It also affects deprived urban areas. I believe that, in bringing forward action in primary and secondary legislation, we need to stigmatise those who would despoil the land.
I am a regular cyclist, and it is quite dispiriting and depressing to cycle around the rural parts of the city of Peterborough and south Lincolnshire and see the exponential growth in piles of fly-tipped material on farmland and at the fringe of roads and waterways—the River Welland and the River Nene being two rivers in our area. It is very depressing, but it is a growing phenomenon, and it relates to the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Hailsham with regard to the availability or otherwise of municipal facilities for the disposal of often significant amounts of building material.
The other thing, of course, is that this is very much linked, increasingly, to organised crime. Criminal gangs operate illegal waste operations, undercutting legitimate licensed waste contractors. Tough sanctions, particularly those that target the proceeds of such activity and can confiscate vehicles and even imprison ringleaders, are something that we should seriously think about and that have been pursued in other jurisdictions.
To finish, I will very briefly—I know this is Report, but now we have the opportunity to talk about these issues—acquaint your Lordships’ House with the fly-tipping action plan that Keep Britain Tidy brought forward and published at the end of last year. Its recommendations for tackling waste crime are to shut down rogue operators by introducing tamper-proof licensing; to have taxi-style licence plates and a central searchable register; to strengthen enforcement, with tougher sentencing, which of course these amendments would facilitate; to support councils with intelligence-sharing platforms and stronger representation in the joint unit for waste crime; and, finally, to make it easier for the public, with a national awareness campaign and mandatory retailer take-back schemes for bulky items such as sofas and fridges. They all seem to be sensible proposals that would not necessarily cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money.
This is a very serious issue. These amendments are proportionate and sensible and would not be overly burdensome financially on the taxpayer. On that basis, I strongly support them and I hope the Minister will perhaps address some of the specific issues I have raised in his response.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, broadly, I support these amendments. I would have thought the Government would welcome all of them, because they seem quite common sense. They are quite tactical at times, and I would just say that two strategic things need to be considered. One is the charging regime for businesses attending recycling sites. If the charges are set too high, it encourages people to find alternative arrangements. We might condemn it, but it is a bit like smuggling tobacco—when we set the tax wrong, the smuggling of tobacco from France increases exponentially. Getting that balance right is not easy, but if you look at where you can get rid of a fridge and what charge you will make if you are a business, that really is the context in which these offences have been committed. I am not trying to provide a defence for the people involved; it just seems to me that that is one of the things causing it.
The second thing is that it is a business, so they are doing it for money. I know that there are later amendments about it being an organised crime, but obviously you have to go after the assets ruthlessly, so that when you get them you go after their home or the business. That really starts to make an impact when they realise that their life will not continue in the way that it has. I am not sure we collectively—I include the police and the Environment Agency—have had that determination.
On the amendments, for me, Amendments 13 and 21 are vital. It seems bizarre that the person who suffered once would suffer twice when they have to pay to remove the problem, unless of course they are being paid to store it or have not taken reasonable steps to make sure it does not continue, such as calling the police, the Environment Agency or anybody else to try to help make sure that it does not happen again. Fundamentally, it cannot be right if a victim is asked to pay to remove a problem they did not arrange. It seems to me that at the moment it is being treated as a civil wrong when in fact we all agree that it is a criminal wrong. This shift of culture is vital.
The best people to try to help clear the problem—forget about whose fault it is—are the local authorities. They are the ones with the equipment, the people who are skilled, and, frankly, the recycling places and the tips to get rid of it now. The consequences are that we are seeing around the country health hazards growing: sometimes toxic waste; sometimes just rat infestations. We are seeing these things growing very near to where people are living with children or anybody. That cannot be right. Something has to be done, in the sense that somebody has to act quickly to remove the pile of stuff and make sure, so far as possible, that it does not return.
The other two amendments that I support are Amendments 14 and 20, which are two sides of a similar coin. They propose giving points on licences to offenders or taking their vehicles. We have seen that they have been effective measures. It does not necessarily stop people driving, but it restricts their mobility for a while. They can still drive, but the police have now got an opportunity to lock them up because they are driving while disqualified, so it is starting to inhibit their mobility. The second thing is, obviously, to take the vehicles. A large vehicle can be worth £20,000, £50,000 or £100,000. This starts to make a difference in their business model and that, it seems to me, is vital. Of course, the side benefit is that, where vehicles are seized because they have no insurance, no tax or no test, the police can do one of two things: they can either crush them and sell the scrap and get back any tax that remains on the vehicle, or they can sell the vehicle itself, so, actually, the money that is taken from the offender is then applied straightaway to law enforcement.
The Government might want to consider whether money taken in this respect is applied either through the Environment Agency or through other bodies to make sure that it enhances their ability to reduce the amount of organised crime involved in this horrible thing that is causing such misery around the country. Therefore, if a vote is called, I will certainly support Amendment 13, but I also support the other amendments because I think they are things that could work.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of these amendments. In particular, as a landowner and someone who has had fly-tipping on their property, I can say that it is extremely dangerous, even with small amounts of fly-tipping, whereby you have the fridges and the small amounts of wood or timber, particularly where you have livestock and machinery and where you have children. It brings disease and all sorts of trouble. So, there is that small level of fly-tipping, but then we also have the larger waste crimes, which are carried out by criminal gangs.
I know that, in Northern Ireland, we had a huge site at Mobuoy, outside of Londonderry. Two criminals have been prosecuted and jailed: one got 21 months and one got one year. Between them, however, their criminal gangs and their businesses are believed to have benefited to in the region of £33 million from that dumping and that waste disposal on to individual people’s land. It is absolutely criminal and we need to do more to clamp down on this, otherwise it is going to expand. Obviously, in Northern Ireland we suffer as well from cross-border fly-tipping and people coming across the border to tip their rubbish in Northern Ireland. But in general, it is something that really needs to be clamped down on, simply because there are not enough convictions and there are not enough people being caught.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise to respond from our Bench to this group of amendments. Fly-tipping is anything from the illegal disposal of rubbish from the back of a car boot to the more serious organised dumping of rubbish. There is no doubt that it is a growing problem that is out of control and harming our communities, damaging our environment and having a disproportionate impact on our rural communities. All too often, it is farmers and innocent landowners who end up paying the cost for other people’s criminality; the criminals all too often go undetected and unpunished.
The Government’s own statistics show that around 20% of all our waste generated ends up being illegally managed. Government figures released just this morning show that, for the year 2024-25, local authorities in England dealt with 1.26 million incidents—an increase of 9% from the 1.15 million incidents reported in 2023-24. This highlights the absolute scale of the problem, which is relentless and is only growing worse. While profits can range up to £2,500 per lorry load, this is low risk and high reward.
We have a lot of sympathy and general support for the amendments, but we do not feel that any of them, in and of themselves, offer the appropriate solutions. Amendment 13 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron, seeks to ensure that the state’s guidance on fly-tipping makes the person who is responsible, rather than a landowner or the community, liable for the cost of clearing up the mess. We entirely understand and share the concerns that this amendment seeks to address, but this is not a workable answer. The blight of fly-tipping and illegal waste dumping causes immense frustration for communities —especially innocent landowners who find themselves facing significant costs through no fault of their own. It is wholly right that those responsible for such environmental harm bear the financial burden for their actions. We fundamentally support the “polluter pays” principle.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The argument could be summarised as letting perfect be the enemy of good. I am trying to suggest that seizing vehicles, making the polluter pay, if you can catch them, and putting points on their licence are steps towards solving the problem. They are not the silver bullet—there is not one. This will need a range of measures, including the issues around waste tips.
This would also give an incentive to the victims to actually collect evidence, sometimes at great personal risk. If you know that you can provide evidence and that there is a route for the police to prosecute these people and recover costs, it is an incentive to do something about it. At the moment, in rural areas, there is simply a belief that nothing is going to happen, so you might as well clear it up yourself or just leave it there. With these large waste dumps, you have no choice but to leave it there. I ask the noble Earl to consider that these are small steps that should be encouraged.
Earl Russell (LD)
To be clear, I do not disagree with the noble Lord—they are small steps and welcome. I am not against them as small steps; they will help. There is a bigger, broader problem out there that also needs tackling.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Does that mean that the noble Earl will support the amendment in the Lobby?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, for setting out the case for these amendments. I am also grateful for the comments made in support from the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Elliott, among others. I will refer to other colleagues in a moment.
I think that we can all agree that fly-tipping blights communities, adds to the burdens on local authorities and there is a need to take action on this. I welcome the fact that my colleague, Mary Creagh MP, in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as referenced by a number of noble Lords, has this very day issued a press release urging councils to crush more fly-tipping vehicles. She also issued new guidance for local authorities to crackdown on waste crime and ensured that we have our first overview for councils, offering clear instructions on the identifying, seizing and disposing of vehicles and strengthening deterrents. She also gave guidance for maximising public awareness and ensuring that the Environment Agency has new technology and boosted funding to put more waste crime officers on the ground. By happy coincidence, that happened this very morning, ahead of our debate here today. The statutory guidance in Clause 9 will help in that regard.
I will now comment on the amendments before the House, starting with Amendment 13. I note the technical issue mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. I would have referred to it had he not done so. I endorse that. I also note the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the issue in Amendment 13.
I recognise the financial burden that clearing fly-tipped waste places on landowners. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that, currently, where there is sufficient evidence, as per the point made by the noble Earl, fly-tippers can be prosecuted. On conviction, a cost order can be made by the court so that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. If sufficient evidence is not available for a successful prosecution—this is, again, a point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—there will not be sufficient evidence to force a fly-tipper to take responsibility for the clean-up either. If there is a prosecution, the clean-up can, in effect, be added to the sentence. It is therefore unclear how Amendment 13, by addressing this in statutory guidance, would help, when a criminal prosecution is already the best route for the desired outcome.
I note that Amendment 21, which was moved in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and had the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, seeks in effect to place a duty on waste authorities to clear up waste left by fly-tippers. Again, I fully understand and share the sentiment behind the amendment. It is legitimate to ask why a farmer, landowner or occupier of any land should be liable for clean-up costs. As I have said to the House, where there is a conviction, the courts currently have the necessary powers to make the offender meet the clean-up costs. We encourage local authorities to investigate all incidents of fly-tipping, and the guidance today is clear evidence of the Government’s willingness—
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Would the Minister be good enough to focus on this argument? If a burden were placed on the waste disposal authority, either by being liable to clear up the mess or by having to pay for it, it would be much less willing to close waste sites, and if waste sites are kept open then fly-tipping is likely to diminish.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Viscount tempts me down the path of the direct responsibility of local councils, but that goes slightly wider than the amendments before us today. My point is that if there is already a conviction of someone for fly-tipping then the courts have the power to make the offender meet the clean-up costs. We encourage local authorities, as again by today’s guidance, to investigate all incidents of fly-tipping, including those on private land.
We also want to make good the enforcement powers, as I described. Defra is talking to a number of groups, such as the National Farmers’ Union and the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, to promote and disseminate good practice. However, the problem I come to again is that, where there is no prosecution and conviction, the long-established position currently is that local authorities are responsible for cleaning up fly-tipping on public land, while the landowner is responsible where the offence is committed on private land. I accept that that is unfair, it is a challenge and it is a cost to local taxpayers and landowners alike, but it would be a fundamental shift of responsibility for cleaning up waste on private land to hard-pressed local authorities, from the position where the local individual landowner themselves currently provides that.
Again, I want to put on the record that the Environment Agency does not have a responsibility to clear illegal waste sites, but it does so where—to go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said—there is a potential risk of fire, there is a risk of impact on the watercourse or there are other environmental factors. I come back to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said: prevention, better enforcement, and the provisions in this Bill and other actions the Government are taking forward, are the way forward on these issues.
Amendment 19 sought to ensure that penalty points would be added to the driving licence of an offender for fly-tipping. Again, I hope I can help the noble Lord by saying that the Government are currently considering the benefits of adding penalty points to driving licences for fly-tipping offences. I noted the questions from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on that, but there is still potentially a benefit in this area. However, I cannot accept the amendment at the moment, not least because any amendment would have to be considered under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which deals with driving licence enforcements, as opposed to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, the Government are looking carefully and quickly at the issue of penalty points and, although I cannot accept the amendment today, we will have to look at how we can put that principle into practice in due course.
Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord Davies, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would add the offence of fly-tipping to the list of offences for which vehicles may be seized. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment but, as I have said, local authorities already have the power to seize vehicles linked to waste crime under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and vehicles can be kept, sold or disposed of by local authorities.
I will refer to today’s press notice, which is available on GOV.UK. It says that the new guidance published today
“will provide the first comprehensive overview for councils, offering clear instructions on identifying, seizing, and disposing of vehicles involved in fly-tipping, as well as advice on taking cases to court and securing convictions against vehicle owners”.
I think that best practice is intended to provide, not replace, statutory documentation. It is therefore an important matter to my colleagues in Defra to ensure that we bring forward that statutory guidance on fly-tipping to examine the case for penalty points and how we deal with those matters in due course.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, may I ask him a question? I am sure that Defra issuing guidance on best practice for fly-tipping will strike fear, terror and a sense of repentance into fly-tippers. That slightly cheeky comment aside, if he will forgive me, I believe that the Environment Agency going on to land where there has been toxic fly-tipping will simply mean advising the landowner that if they do not deal with it, they will face a penalty themselves. I think that is going to be the case much more commonly than the agency coming on and clearing it up for them.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the first instance, the noble Lord commented on the proposals announced today. This Government are advising on a range of issues, through Defra today, about how we take action on fly-tipping. It is all very easy to be cynical about that and say that it will not work or stop the criminals. Any action that any legislation takes will not stop determined criminals, but it is important that the Government try to ensure that we deal with this effectively. Irrespective of the debate we are having, coincidentally, Defra has taken issue with that today and is trying to strengthen the response. I would rather welcome that than take shots at it. I say that in a friendly way to the noble Lord, but it is an important issue that we need to act on and the approach we are trying to take is important.
The noble Lord mentioned the waste management issues and difficulties in Kidlington. Again, I say to him that, in that instance, a criminal investigation ongoing and a total of four arrests have been made to date. As I said in response to the debate earlier, if those arrests end up with a criminal conviction against an individual proved in court, then that individual can have a cost element put against them to ensure that the costs of that clean-up are put to the individual or organisation concerned. That is an important mechanism which, again, the amendments are trying to examine, but that mechanism is there now.
Let us judge what happens in Kidlington and whether the investigation leads not just to further arrests but to convictions. That will be a matter for responsibilities which are not mine, but it is important to say that there is a mechanism to do that. Given the current debate around Kidlington, the figures we have produced today show that there were 1.26 million incidents of fly-tipping last year, which is quite simply unacceptable. Those figures and the Kidlington incident have focused the Government’s mind on this, and we are trying to respond responsibly. I hope noble Lords will accept the offer I have tried to give on penalty points, look at what I have said, and not press the amendment on the basis of the correspondence and the discussions we have had today.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate; I hope they will not be offended if I do not name them personally. However, I want to single out the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his example of what amounts to, as he said, rural crime. I was somewhat disappointed in the Liberal Democrat response. In particular, I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was somewhat contradictory in his response to Amendment 13.
I thank the Minister for what he said. I am not entirely sure that a press notice will address this situation, nor am I convinced that the long-winded process of convicting somebody and then pursuing them for costs is satisfactory as it stands. I do not need to reiterate the appalling impact that fly-tipping has on communities, in particular rural communities up and down the country. The only measure in the Bill related to fly-tipping is the Secretary of State’s guidance to be issued under Clause 9. That is not good enough. The British people are tired of seeing verges, lay-bys, farmland and residential streets turned into dumping grounds. If we are truly serious about tackling fly-tipping, we must ensure that enforcement is credible and that the costs of criminality fall where they belong: on the perpetrator. If the Government are unwilling to take the necessary action to tackle this scourge, I am afraid I have to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(3A) A draft of any guidance or revised guidance proposed to be issued under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires draft guidance to be laid before Parliament.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 9, page 17, line 32.
“(5) The Secretary of State must not issue guidance or revised guidance under this section until after the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft was laid before each House of Parliament, or if it was laid on different days, with the later day.(5A) If, within that period, either House of Parliament resolves that the guidance or revised guidance should not be issued, the Secretary of State must not issue it.(5B) In calculating any period of 40 days for the purposes of subsection (5), no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.(5C) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance issued or revised under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the negative resolution procedure to apply to guidance under this section laid before Parliament.
Earl Russell
“Waste crime: NCA priorityIn section 3 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Strategic Priorities), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) When determining the strategic priorities of the NCA under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must determine that serious and organised waste crime is a strategic priority for the NCA, or any successor body, and ensure that it is included as a strategic priority for the agency when it issues its annual reports.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State, when setting strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency under section 3 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, to include serious and organised waste crime as one of those priorities.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, in opening this group on waste crime, I thank my noble friend Lady Doocey for her support. Serious and organised waste crime is now a multi-billion-pound scourge on our economy, countryside, environment and communities. It is out of control, and it is only getting worse. Figures released this very morning show an 11% rise in large-scale fly-tipping: some 52,000 tipper lorry load incidents in 2024-25, up from 47,000 incidents in 2023-24. Defra estimates that this alone will cost local authorities £19.3 million. From Hoad’s Wood to Kidlington to Wigan, serious organised criminal networks are leaving a trail of environmental and economic damage across our country. The Government’s own data suggests that up to a fifth of all waste may be passing through criminal hands.
The national cost in lost revenue, redemption and enforcement runs between £1 billion and £4 billion each year. One site alone, Hoad’s Wood, cost £15 million to clear. That single clear-up equalled the Environment Agency’s entire annual waste crime budget, draining funds intended for flood defences from the Environment Agency.
New illegal sites continue to emerge almost daily. Since the Environment and Climate Change Committee, of which I am a member, published its report last October, more large-scale waste dumps have been discovered than the agency itself had previously known existed. That should worry and alarm this House in equal measure.
Our systems are broken, and broken systems are creating broken outcomes. The fear of uncovering the true scale, or of bearing the financial consequences, has allowed the crisis to fester and to grow, to the organised criminals’ advantage. My amendment responds by proposing to make serious organised waste crime a statutory priority for the National Crime Agency. It would require the Secretary of State, when setting the National Crime Agency’s priorities under Section 3 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, to include the threat and to ensure that it features in the National Crime Agency’s annual reporting.
That simple amendment would move waste crime from operational consideration to unequivocal accountability. I came across the issue through Hoad’s Wood, an ancient woodland and SSSI, where a vast illegal dump was allowed to accumulate, prompting a ministerial direction and a clear-up. That episode revealed a much wider criminal enterprise: sophisticated networks, often linked to drugs, firearms, and modern slavery, exploiting waste crime because it offers high-profit and low-risk reward.
Our enforcement architecture is simply not fit for purpose. Intelligence still vanishes in what has been described as a Bermuda triangle between various agencies. Local councils face clean-up bills that they cannot meet; communities endure polluted landscapes, falling property values and long-term health risks. Most sites are never cleared; prosecutions are rare, and often overly lenient when handed out; and proceeds of crime are seldom, if ever, recovered.
The Environment Agency, as a regulator, cannot fight these criminal cartels alone. Its dual role, licensing legitimate operators while tackling organised gangs, leaves it underresourced and overstretched. A mere handful of staff in the Joint Unit for Waste Crime cannot match adversaries with the capacity to purchase land, create fake companies and launder millions of pounds through waste crime.
Elevating waste crime to the National Crime Agency’s strategic priorities would change all of that in an instant. It would bring forensic accounting, integrated threat assessments, and co-ordinated operations linking the National Crime Agency, the Joint Unit for Waste Crime, the Environment Agency, HMRC, the police, and Border Force agencies. We have seen this model work against trafficking and cyber crime, with combined intelligence, freezing assets, and dismantling networks.
That would also strengthen parliamentary oversight. Ministers would be accountable for performance and resourcing, as they are for the National Crime Agency priorities. Waste crime would no longer be seen as an environmental issue on the margins but recognised as part of our national security infrastructure. The Government’s forthcoming White Paper and the new national police service provide a perfect and timely opportunity to rewrite this fight against the waste criminals to make it fit for the 21st-century threats we face.
Waste crime fits that description: national, organised, profitable and currently evading fragmented local resources. By hardwiring it into the National Crime Agency priorities now, through the Crime and Policing Bill, we can ensure that it receives the strategic response it demands.
Serious organised waste crime demands a serious organised response. This amendment is precise, proportionate and necessary. It would ensure that, when national priorities are set, serious and organised waste crime cannot be ignored. I urge Ministers to seize this opportunity for systematic reform. I beg to move.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, serious and organised waste crime—fly-tipping on an industrial scale—is poisoning our soil and waterways and, at least until fairly recently, was a largely hidden scandal costing billions of pounds in environmental and clean-up costs. Desecration of the land is not a local nuisance; it is now a significant part of the organised crime playbook, along with drugs and trafficking. The scale of this problem means that the Government need to show leadership now and act without delay. The new guidance that the Government propose in this Bill is welcome, but it falls dangerously short of what is needed. Reminding councils of the powers that they already have is simply not good enough. Minds need to be focused; communities up and down the country are crying out for real enforcement. I urge the House to support Amendment 18.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, we support the principle underlying this amendment. Serious and organised waste crime both is an environmental nuisance and has real consequences for communities and the taxpayer. As we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the Government’s own estimates say that around 20% of waste in England may be illegally managed at some stage in the supply chain, and that over a third of waste crime is linked to organised crime groups. These figures underline that waste crime is not simply limited to opportunistic fly-tipping; in many cases it is co-ordinated criminal activity driven by profit. It is therefore entirely understandable that noble Lords wish to see it recognised as a national strategic priority.
However, we have some reservations about placing such a requirement in statute. Under Section 3 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the Secretary of State already determines the NCA’s strategic priorities following consultation. At present there is no fixed statutory list of priorities, and to single out one specific crime type in primary legislation would be unusual. The question, therefore, is not whether waste crime is serious but whether this is the right legislative mechanism. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that serious and organised waste crime receives a sustained and meaningful focus.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I too have concerns about this amendment. Nobody could dispute that waste crime is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed. But as I understand it, the NCA’s strategic priorities at the moment—whether they are required by the Secretary of State or otherwise—focus on degrading the highest-harm organised crime groups, with a particular emphasis on tackling drugs, online fraud and organised immigration crime. There may be others. The NCA surely cannot treat all serious matters as a priority. The whole point of a priority is that it focuses on the most serious criminal offences that our society faces. I am not persuaded that identifying this very real problem as a strategic priority is going to assist.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment. As he explained, it would allow the Secretary of State to include serious and organised waste crime as a strategic priority for the National Crime Agency. We have all agreed that waste crime blights local communities, that it damages the environment and that serious organised crime—which is on the rise—is a factor in that. The Environment Agency is now regularly alerted to new illegal waste sites.
As evidence for the noble Earl that the Government take this matter seriously, the Environment Agency’s additional waste crime enforcement budget for 2025-26 has been increased by more than 50% to £15.6 million, a £5.6 million increase on the previous year. That is because we recognise that there is a potential area of concern here. It has allowed the Environment Agency to increase its front-line criminal enforcement resource by 43 full-time staff in the Joint Unit for Waste Crime and area environmental crime teams, as well as bringing additional staff for enforcement duties under our major waste reforms.
The Environment Agency works closely, as the noble Earl mentioned, with the National Crime Agency and the Joint Unit on Waste Crime. There are multi-agency prevention and disruption tactics taking place, as well as investigatory activities to impact successfully on criminals. Between the organisations, they have developed enhanced intelligence-sharing and an enhanced approach to targeting organised criminal gangs. We are looking, with other law enforcement bodies, at recommending and introducing new technical capabilities to look at how we can, through an agreed strategy, target waste crime.
Therefore, there is a role for the National Crime Agency but, as the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Pannick, alluded to, the National Crime Agency is not the lead agency for tackling waste crime. That is the Environment Agency. Under the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency need to reflect changing threat levels in respect of different crime types. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, here, who would have been lead Minister on the 2013 Act that established the National Crime Agency. I served as a shadow Minister at the time, when dealing with that Bill. Section 3 of that Act is deliberately silent on types of organised crime because it does not want to fetter the National Crime Agency—the very point the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made in relation to the Home Secretary’s discretion to skew the National Crime Agency’s priorities. Therefore, to insert a crime type, however well-meaning or needed, would be to undermine the principles of Section 3 of the 2013 Act.
In short, the Government fully agree with the sentiment underpinning the amendment. We take waste crime extremely seriously; the increase in the budget is evidence of that, as is the co-operation between the NCA and the Environment Agency. I hope that with those comments, the noble Earl will agree that his approach of tying the National Crime Agency to specific targets would not be as helpful as he had hoped and that he can withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and thank everyone else who has spoken in this debate. This might be an unusual move but the truth is that waste crime is out of control. It is interlinked and intertwined with all these other serious forms of crime. Under the 2013 Act, it may be under the Home Secretary’s priority to deem waste crime as coming under the National Crime Agency. If the Minister had said to me that the Home Secretary will do that, I would absolutely have withdrawn the amendment. The truth is that that is not the case. The problem continues to grow and is out of control.
I very much welcome everything that is being done in this space. I recognise the work that the Environment Agency is doing. I am thankful to its staff who are working to clear up Kidlington and other sites. I also welcome the extra budget and new technology. I know the Government announced just last week that drones will be used, but frankly, they should have been used all along. If waste crime were dealt with as a serious organised crime issue, these matters would be intertwined and done already. I therefore have no choice but to test the opinion of the House on this matter because waste crime is a serious issue. It is not being addressed and is not part of the responsibility of the National Crime Agency.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Points on driving licence for fly tippingIn section 33(8) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (unauthorised disposal of waste: offence), at the end insert—“and in either case is also liable to the endorsement of their driving record with 3 penalty points.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to add penalty points to the driving licence of a person convicted of a fly-tipping offence.
“Seizure of vehicles in connection with a fly-tipping offenceIn section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance), after subsection (1)(b) insert—“(c) is being used or has been used in connection with an offence under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (prohibition on unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste),”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds the offence of fly tipping to the list of offences for which vehicles may be seized.
Viscount Goschen
“Fly tipping: English waste collection authority dutyWhen an offence of fly-tipping has been committed, the local waste authority must collect all waste resulting from the offence committed and then seek to recover the costs from the offender.”
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(3) A draft of any guidance proposed to be issued under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament. (4) The Secretary of State must not issue guidance under this section until after the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft was laid before each House of Parliament, or if it was laid on different days, with the later day. (4A) If, within that period, either House of Parliament resolves that the guidance should not be issued, the Secretary of State must not issue it.(4B) In calculating any period of 40 days for the purposes of subsection (4), no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.(4C) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance issued under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for guidance under clause 24 to be laid before Parliament before being issued and to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
“(6) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this section.(7) Subject to subsection (8), subsections (3) to (5) have effect in relation to any revised guidance.(8) Subsections (3) to (4B) do not apply to revised guidance if the Secretary of State considers that the revisions are not substantial.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment at clause 24, page 27, line 8.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum sentence for the new offence of possession of an offensive weapon with intent to use unlawful violence.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 27 in my name and in the name of my noble friend, Lord Davies of Gower, would increase the maximum sentence for the new offence of possession of an offensive weapon with intent to use it to commit unlawful violence from four to 10 years. The Bill rightly introduces this new offence to bridge a gap in existing law. At present, the maximum custodial sentence for offences such as carrying a bladed article or offensive weapon in public is up to four years on indictment, whether or not the person has intent. The new offence, as currently drafted, reflects a more serious scenario: possession with the intention to cause harm. However, this new offence carries the same maximum penalty as the existing offence, meaning that the additional element of meaning to commit damage or harm is not reflected in the prescribed punishment.
In Committee, many noble Lords highlighted this very real concern. I observed that the offence as drafted differentiates between simple possession and intentional violence. I posed a simple question to the Government: why is the maximum sentence the same for both? If the law is to distinguish between those who might cause harm and those who intend to do so, that distinction should be mirrored in sentencing as a matter of logic. Similarly, my noble friend Lord Blencathra emphasised that possession of an offensive weapon with intent to use it to commit violence or to cause fear is a profoundly serious act. He noted that:
“Such intent demonstrates a premeditated willingness to inflict harm, intimidate or destroy property”.—[Official Report, 17/11/25; col. 655.]
When these concerns were raised in Committee, the Government expressed opposition on the grounds of proportionality in raising the maximum sentence. The Minister said that four years aligns with maximum penalties for existing weapons-related offences, and that the offence sits logically between simple possession and actual use or threat. Yet this rationale effectively treats two objectively different states of mind and conduct as of equivalent seriousness in law: possessing without harmful intent, and possessing with the intent to unleash unlawful violence.
This amendment does not advocate arbitrary maximums or mandatory sentences. In fact, we have met the Minister half way in a spirit of compromise and lowered our original proposed threshold of 14 years to 10 years. I also respectfully remind your Lordships’ House that we are advocating a 10-year ceiling, not a default outcome; it is a maximum sentence only. Sentencing of course remains a matter of discretion for a court in an individual specific case. A higher maximum sentence would not mandate a longer sentence in every case. Amendment 27 would simply give the courts the discretion to impose sentences that more appropriately reflect the gravity of offences involving violent intent. This would enhance judges’ ability to differentiate between levels of culpability and send a clearer signal that society treats premeditated threats of violence more seriously than mere unlawful possession. If the Minister will not accept this amendment, I am minded to divide the House. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I rise to express the support of these Benches for Amendment 27, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, which seeks to increase the maximum sentence for the new offence of possessing a weapon with intent. We entirely support the creation of this new offence, which rightly bridges the gap between the simple possession of a knife in public and actually using it to threaten or harm someone. Creating a separate category for those who carry weapons with violent intent is the right approach, to target the most dangerous individuals in our society. However, as my noble friend Lady Doocey made clear in Committee, if we are to treat carrying an offensive weapon with violent intent as a distinctly more serious crime than simple possession, that distinction must logically be reflected in the punishment.
As the Bill is drafted, the new law carries the exact same maximum four-year sentence as the blanket offence of carrying a bladed article. This fails to give the courts the means to sufficiently differentiate between those who might pose a threat and those who actively intend to inflict damage or harm. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, stated, this is not merely a theoretical sentencing debate. We agree with the stark assessment made by Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, in his review following the horrific Southport attack. He made it clear that four years in prison is simply insufficient when there is clear evidence of an intention to cause mass fatalities. He recommended substantially tougher maximum penalties for possessing a weapon with intent to use unlawful violence, using the Southport attack as a case study. In his March 2025 independent review on the classification of extreme violence used in the Southport attack, Mr Hall argues that where someone arms themselves with a weapon intending serious violence, this is properly comparable to terrorism-style preparatory conduct, and that the maximum sentence should be very significantly higher than existing norms for simple possession offences.
In short, post Southport, Mr Hall has been arguing that possession with intent to use a weapon in serious violence should carry far higher maximum penalties than the traditional four-year ceiling, and that a new preparation for mass killing offence, up to life, is needed to close the pre-attack gap. By raising the maximum penalty to 14 years, this amendment would provide a ceiling, not a mandatory minimum—and we would, of course, expect the Sentencing Council to issue clear guidance around how to categorise levels of seriousness, to guard against general sentence inflation. Nevertheless, the court must have the full weight of the law behind it in those, hopefully rare, cases where a lengthy sentence is deemed absolutely necessary for public protection. We cannot treat violent premeditated intent as a mere secondary factor. The punishment must be reflective of the severity of the crime, so we welcome this amendment to give the judiciary the vital tool that they need.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for tabling the amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for moving it. I do believe that sentences should be proportionate to the offence. That is why the maximum sentence for the new offence of possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon with intent to use unlawful violence has been set at four years’ imprisonment. That, I have to say to the House, is in line with penalties for other weapons offences.
Such offences currently carry a maximum penalty of four years, including other more serious offences, such as threatening with an offensive weapon and repeat possession of offensive weapons. It is also worth noting that even though the maximum penalty is four years, the courts—judges in court after trial—are currently not giving sentences anywhere close to the upper range on the sentencing scale, which seems to indicate that judges view the maximum penalty of four years as adequate. A maximum penalty of 10 years for the possession with intent offence would therefore, in my view, be out of line with other possession offences and potentially disproportionate, given where we are.
This is not meant to be a tennis-ball political point, but I say to the noble Lord that the new offence was included in the previous Conservative Administration’s Criminal Justice Bill, and the then Policing Minister, who is now the shadow Home Secretary, spoke eloquently in Committee on that Bill in support of the four-year maximum penalty. So there has been a change; that might be legitimate and right, but the Member for Croydon South, Chris Philp, spoke in favour of the four-year penalty that the Government are seeking only a couple of years ago. That is an interesting fact, but not one that I am intending to use aggressively; I simply want to put it on the record.
The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has given a recommendation, which the Government have accepted, in his review into the Southport attacks: that the penalty for new possession offences at Clause 27 be kept at four years if the Government consider introducing a new offence of planning a mass-casualty attack. Let me reassure noble Lords that we are considering how best to close the gap identified. However, I do not believe that there is a case for increasing the maximum penalty for the offence in Clause 27 as proposed by the amendment.
I hope the noble Lord will agree with what the Conservative shadow Home Secretary said when he was the Policing Minister and will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am especially grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and his citation of Mr Hall on the tragic events in Southport.
I have no doubt that all noble Lords understand the seriousness of knife crime and weapon-related violence. As I have previously stated, we support this new offence. However, my amendment acknowledges that there is a meaningful moral and legal difference between someone who unlawfully carries a weapon and someone who carries it with the intent to cause harm. If the maximum sentence remains the same as that for simple possession, the differentiation risks being more symbolic than substantive. A person who arms himself with the purpose of inflicting violence presents a far greater and more immediate threat than someone who does not. Our sentencing framework should reflect that reality. It is a sincere shame that the Government will not accept this amendment. We stand by it, and for the reasons I have outlined I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Local Government Reorganisation
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government have sown confusion and imposed unnecessary costs upon the taxpayer by cancelling local elections, only to reinstate them weeks later and then seek to distance themselves from the consequences. What was presented as a firm and settled judgment has unravelled in short order, leaving uncertainty in its wake. That matters, because it is not an isolated U-turn or rethink or change of position; it joins a growing catalogue of reversals, each compounding doubt and carrying a financial price.
Stability in public administration is the foundation upon which local authorities plan, candidates prepare and citizens place their trust. Against that background, it is important to recall how we arrived here. The original decision to cancel these elections was taken by the Secretary of State. He defended it repeatedly in the other place, and the Minister defended it consistently in your Lordships’ House. In the press, the Secretary of State went so far as to describe the elections as “pointless”. Yet what was so confidentially asserted has now been undone.
Two issues now arise. The first is constitutional. Does the Minister accept that there should be strict limits upon the power to delay or disapply elections outside the most exceptional circumstances, such as war or public emergency? If she does, then, in the context of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, will she urge her colleagues to reflect upon the sentiment of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and those in my name, which would limit the power of the Secretary of State to cancel elections by secondary legislation and constrain the power to alter the timings of local polls? It is notable that members of the governing party voted down those safeguards in the Commons.
The second issue is practical and goes to the heart of delivery. Local government is already navigating a demanding programme of reorganisation. Councils are restructuring governance, staffing, finance and service delivery. To remove and then abruptly restore elections in the midst of that process has inevitably diverted senior officers and members from their primary duty, which is the delivery of services to their residents. In other words, reorganisation requires focus, discipline and clarity. Instead, councils have been drawn into administrative uncertainty, legal contingency planning and accelerated preparations at short notice. That is not without consequences. It absorbs scarce managerial capacity and risks delay to the very reforms that the Government profess to champion. If community empowerment is truly the objective, one might expect the Government to strengthen local capacity rather than burden it with unavoidable disruption.
It is precisely because there are constitutional and practical consequences that your Lordships’ House is entitled to transparency on the costs of all this. Can the Minister therefore inform the House of the full costs of this regrettable sequence of events? What have been the expended legal fees on wasted preparation and the emergency arrangements that are now required to conduct elections at short notice? What support is being provided to local authorities required to shoulder these additional burdens? There is talk of £63 million, but is this on top of the already agreed election costs? Has an assessment been made of the impact upon council capacity and service delivery, and if so, will it be published?
The same need for clarity applies to the Government’s approach to election pilots. What is their present status? How many councils that initially indicated they possessed the capacity to participate later informed the department that they did not any longer have that capacity?
Taken together, these questions point to a wider uncertainty. Where does this leave the Government’s much-heralded program of reorganisation? Confidence in reform depends upon steadiness of hand and clarity of purpose. If Ministers will not answer fully and restore transparency, then we feel that serious reflection is required at the highest level. I would suggest that that is not at Secretary of State level, as he has been the person responsible for this unnecessary mess.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, here we are again with a topic we have discussed and debated in different forms several times. I will do my best not to simply repeat the points made previously, particularly as it seems like each time we return to this topic, it is messier and more expensive. Although the outcome in the end is welcome—that all elections will be going ahead in May, as should originally have been the case—I think we can all agree that the route by which we have got here is a highly undesirable one. Therefore, having read the Statement that we are considering this evening very carefully, and having read Hansard for the debate on Monday in the House of Commons about the Statement, I have three particular questions for the Minister.
First, in that debate on Monday, the Secretary of State was asked whether, in the light of the latest legal advice and the Government’s current understanding of the legal situation, the Government believed that the cancellation of elections last May was legal. The Secretary of State was asked that direct question and chose not to answer it. We can all speculate why, but I hope that the Minister will be able to clear that matter up by giving us a direct answer on that.
Secondly, having looked at the reasons the Secretary of State gave in the Statement for cancelling elections, I think that they do not sit easily with what he wrote in the article published in the Times newspaper ahead of the consultation closing on potential cancellations. The Statement that we are considering this evening says that the cancellation of elections,
“should only ever happen in exceptional circumstances”.
That is a sentiment with which I suspect we all agree. But in the article in the Times newspaper, the Secretary of State said:
“They want pointless elections, Labour wants to fix potholes”.
The existence of potholes in need of repair is absolutely not an exceptional circumstance. It is a frustrating daily reality. It is really hard to see how one can reconcile the Secretary of State’s comments about wanting to fix potholes with the claim that these are exceptional circumstances.
Moreover, the Statement we are considering goes on at some length about how the Government were listening and consulting. Again, however, looking back at the article in the Times newspaper, published before the closure of the consultation over elections for this May, we see that it kicks off right from the very first sentence with a very clear steer that the Secretary of State thought that cancelling elections was a good idea. It goes on to make that point repeatedly in the succeeding sentences and paragraphs. So, given that that article, published before the close of the consultation, could be seen both to have prejudged the outcome of the consultation and to have given different reasons for cancelling elections than those considered in the consultation—all of which potentially would result in some legal issues about the validity of the decision—I wonder whether the Minister could again clarify matters by letting us know if the Secretary of State’s comments, both in that Times newspaper article and elsewhere, were a factor in the change in legal advice being given to the Government about the legality of the cancellation of elections.
Thirdly, turning to perhaps a more positive aspect, I absolutely welcome the comment in the Statement that the Government are willing to think again—particularly in the context of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I am sorry: the phrase is that the Government are “reflecting carefully”, which I hope means “thinking again” as well, about the amendments that have been tabled, such as by myself and by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the powers and the circumstances in which elections might be cancelled in the future. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to tell us whether those reflections will be carried out involving a degree of cross-party discussion. Will they be carried out in time so that, if the outcome of those reflections by the Government is to decide that changes to the law are appropriate, we can do that on Report of that Bill?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions and comments on the Statement. Your Lordships have now heard in full the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place, and the House has raised a number of thoughtful and serious points about process, legality and democratic principle, which I appreciate.
I wish now to draw together the key arguments and restate clearly why the Government acted as we did, in answer to the questions that I have been asked, and why we have now changed course. First, as noble Lords will know, this sits in a much wider programme of reform. The Government are determined to fix local government through a fairer funding settlement based on need, through devolving power out of Whitehall and into the hands of local leaders and through reorganisation designed to deliver stronger, more sustainable unitary authorities and better services for residents.
It was in that context that the original decision was taken, and the Government were guided by two clear principles. First, the postponement of elections should occur only in exceptional circumstances. I repeated a number of times in this House that it would be only in exceptional circumstances and only where there is compelling evidence-based justification. Secondly, as a Government committed to devolution, we should be guided by local leaders themselves. Following extensive engagement with councils in the areas concerned, a number from across the political spectrum expressed serious anxiety about their capacity to run elections while simultaneously undertaking structural change. They warned of duplication, uncertainty, additional cost and the risk of impeding the reorganisation process at a critical phase.
On the basis of those representations and on the legal advice then available, the Secretary of State concluded that statutory tests were met in 30 cases. An order was therefore brought forward using powers provided by Parliament that had been exercised by previous Governments in comparable reorganisation contexts. However, as is entirely proper, the legal position was kept under review and further legal advice was subsequently received. At that point, the responsible course was clear and the proposal was withdrawn.
After reconsideration, the conclusion was that elections in the affected areas should proceed as scheduled in May 2026. A further instrument has been laid to give effect to that decision. I recognise, as the noble Lords have said, and as our friends in the other place said, that this has been a significant change for councils, and it will of course mean some additional pressures for them in making sure they are ready for elections. That is precisely why the Government acted swiftly once the new advice was received so that clarity could be provided as early as possible. We are working very closely with returning officers, suppliers, the Electoral Commission and sector bodies to ensure that elections are delivered safely and effectively.
Local authorities have a strong track record of administering polls within compressed timeframes—as I know only too well from my experience—including snap general elections and by-elections, and we are confident in their ability to do so again. At the same time, our focus remains firmly on supporting reorganisation itself. Last week the Secretary of State announced up to £63 million in additional capacity funding—to answer the comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—building on the £7.6 million previously provided to develop proposals. That is substantial support, and no previous Government have provided dedicated capacity funding for reorganisation on this scale. This funding is there to help councils manage both the transition and service delivery sustainably. We will continue working hand in hand with councils across the 21 reorganisation areas to progress toward unitarisation. As has been made clear, subject to Parliament, for Surrey there will be elections to the new unitary councils as planned this year.
Noble Lords also raised the question of ministerial powers over the timing of local elections, and both the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, asked me a specific question about the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. As the Secretary of State set out in his Statement, our Bill provides an opportunity to look again at the statutory framework, and the Government are reflecting seriously on the amendments tabled and the concerns expressed by noble Lords. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, we will do that as quickly as possible. Reforming local government is not optional. Councils are the front line of the state; they shape whether communities feel they are thriving or falling behind. The public are entitled to expect better local services, and rightly so.
When we received the legal advice, the Government acted swiftly. I do not pretend that this has been easy for the councils concerned—I spoke to many of them—and nor do I dismiss the disappointment that has been expressed, but responsible government requires that when the legal position changes, we respond accordingly. Elections will go ahead in May 2026. Reorganisation will continue, and we will proceed in a way that upholds both democratic accountability and the long-term sustainability of local government. I hope I have picked up the noble Lord’s questions as I have gone through.
On the election pilots, as far as I know, only one council has pulled out of the pilot, but for a reason that has nothing to do with reorganisation and is a specific local issue. If that is not correct, I will respond to the noble Baroness in writing.
On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, about last May’s election, there are legal powers to cancel elections. Each situation is taken on its merit. I do not have any detail, and I could not give legal detail because this year’s is privileged information, so I do not know what the difference is.
On prejudging the outcome in a Times article, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, that the Secretary of State, other Ministers and I received many representations from councils about the possibility of cancelling elections, so it may be that the Secretary of State was reflecting on that rather than prejudging the extensive consultation that we carried out.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we now move on to a maximum of 20 minutes of Back-Bench contributions. The key is Back-Bench and we want questions, not speeches. This is set out at point 6.7 in chapter 6 of the Companion.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the powers. They come out of Section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000. In its present form, those powers have existed for more than 25 years. Custom and practice and advice have been consistent throughout, so what was this new legal advice to suggest that this blanket postponement, and particularly the double postponement, would have been possible? Why did the Secretary of State not pay some attention to the Electoral Commission and question this advice? It has taken a junior Minister only a little bit of time to look at the advice and come to the conclusion that most people in that office would have come to, which is that this was not right. Am I being unfair to the Government in agreeing with Jonathan Carr-West, the chief executive of the Local Government Information Unit, when he said that the Government are
“reckless … to play fast and loose with the foundations of democracy”?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have the greatest respect for Jonathan Carr-West and have worked with him on many occasions, but he has not seen the legal advice. It is a long-standing principle, as the right honourable Gentleman James Cleverly said at the other end—I could quote him if I had the quote in front of me—that the Government do not comment on or publish legal advice.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, one of the concerns expressed to me by colleagues in local government has been about the cost of preparing submissions and scoping work for local government reorganisation. My noble friend talked about the £63 million of additional funding that will go to local government to support it going forward. Can she give reassurance to those in local government that the £63 million will meet the costs that they are going to incur? As I say, some of the concerns expressed to me have been that previous government tranches of money have not met all the costs incurred.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I can reassure my noble friend that an unprecedented amount of funding has been provided to support the capacity that local councils will need to help them as they go through this transition process. It is important that we have also been working closely with those councils. I have done much of the engagement myself, and Minister McGovern has done an awful lot of engagement with councils as well. Our officials in the department have been hugely supportive to local government as they have gone through this process, so it is right that we provide some funding to support that as well. The £63 million is to undertake that reorganisation to support the implementation, and it will include those councils that have been impacted by the changes that were made on Monday.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to add to the embarrassment that the Government must be feeling about the U-turn on the election cancellations, but I am grateful that the Secretary of State is going to look at some of the amendments, including those in my name, that would extend the cancellation to PCCs and mayors. Now is the time to look at what the cost of LGR may be, not only to the individual but in terms of council tax. Those who said LGR would save money now say it will not. We know that there will be about a billion pounds-worth of pension strain costs from those retiring on efficiency grounds. We know, from arithmetic, that nobody will pay less council tax as a result of this, but 50% will pay more, and there will be more layers of local governance, each able to raise council tax without limit. What assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of all this? When will the Minister honestly explain to the electorate that LGR is going to cost them more? They have been kept in the dark, but at least they will have an opportunity to express their views at the ballot box in May.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is a shame that the noble Lord has not had a chance to look at the proposals as I have. They set out very clearly the anticipated savings. More importantly, they provide a much more cohesive form of local government for those who will be on the receiving end of these services. Taking out layers of chief executive and finance director salaries all helps to push money back to the front line, where it is needed to deal with much-needed services such as filling in potholes, looking after vulnerable adults and children, and making sure that our environment is taken care of. All the things that local councils do so well will be done more effectively and the public will understand where to go to, instead of having two councils responsible for their area.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of MHCLG. Can my noble friend the Minister remind the House of the original purpose of local government reorganisation? It is surely not just for the sake of it but for a wider purpose. Does she think it is a coincidence that, with the exception of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, all other areas of England that have pioneered regional devolution arrangements have been in areas with only one tier of local government? Does she agree that two-tier areas can struggle to align strategic combined authority-wide ambitions with fragmented delivery arrangements, and often lack the bandwidth and staffing capabilities to deliver ambitious combined authority-wide programmes at pace and at scale? Furthermore, does she share my concern that a failure to address the inefficiencies of the two-tier system in this context creates unnecessary complexity and delays in delivering this Government’s ambitious devolution agenda?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend—of course I do—that driving forward the strategic ambitions of our country and our Government, to ensure not only that we see the economy grow in the way we all want and get the housebuilding that we need to deal with the housing crisis but that the key public services that are so needed by vulnerable adults and children are taken forward efficiently and effectively, required us not just to tinker at the edges but to do the most radical reorganisation of local government for at least half a century, which is what we are doing. This has been kicked into the long grass nearly all the time that I have been in local government. I think there have been some four attempts to do this and they always stopped short of doing what is needed, which is to create local government that will drive the economy of our local areas and support the public services that people deserve.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, Conservative county councillors in Norfolk have no fear of democracy, and in fact are very much looking forward to these elections in 74 days’ time. It is worth pointing out that the elections will be conducted by the district and borough councils. Certainly, the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk is incredibly professional and competent at handling those elections; it will take this in its stride and deliver a professional service.
The Minister did not reply to the point put forward by my noble friend a moment ago. This legal case cost a lot of money. She said herself that front-line services are under a lot of pressure. It was egregious that this case ever took place. Can she tell the House what those legal costs were?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for recognising the way in which local government responds to things such as this—and I know that colleagues in electoral services and on the political side of local government will do what they need to do and be ready for these elections. As I said, they are more than used to responding to very short-notice elections, including snap general elections; they work very well in those circumstances. In my experience, councils’ electoral services departments are extraordinarily efficient and effective, so I welcome his comments in that regard.
The costs are now being assessed, although I cannot give the noble Lord a figure at the moment. I am afraid that that will have to wait.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
I declare an interest as the head of the Labour office at the Local Government Association. As my noble friend will know, councils of all colours have worked together with communities to put forward proposals, knowing the opportunities and benefits that local government reorganisation will bring. Whatever the outcome of the elections in May, can my noble friend the Minister provide reassurance to those councils and communities on the timeline of the local government reorganisation?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There is no dimming of the Government’s ambition around devolution and local government reorganisation. We are pushing on with the agenda. I thank my noble friend for recognising how well councils have worked together. I have been in meetings with many groups of councils, and they have said to me that this has got people talking together. They may have had a falling out 20 years ago and they could not even remember what it was about, but having to sit around the table and work on these proposals has been a really positive experience right across local government. I welcome that and think that it bodes well for the future. Certainly, the Government’s intention is to carry on with both the local government reorganisation and the devolution process.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said that she recognised the value of the electoral returning officers. I absolutely agree with that, but the fact is that they are always looking at the next set of elections, so the fact that they stood down some elections would have caused a difficulty. The Minister said that the Government got legal advice before they proceeded to cancel the elections. If they did, what changed in that legal advice to make the change to reinstate them?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is usual practice continually to review legal advice. The legal advice came forward and, as I have said before, there is a long-standing convention not to reveal the content of or publish legal advice, so I cannot enlighten the noble Baroness any further on that. When the legal advice was received, the Government took a very prompt decision to withdraw the cancellation of the elections, because we knew how important it was for local authorities to deal with this promptly.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Would my noble friend agree that, although the proposal to cancel the elections has been dropped, the Opposition have no basis to complain about such proposals because they have done this themselves? I bear personal witness to this, as I was a member of the Greater London Council—I am always grateful for the opportunity to remind people of that. I was due to stand for re-election, and the elections were cancelled by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. So both parties do this, and on both occasions it was probably a reasonable thing to do, but to make the criticism is really a bit thick.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right. There is precedent for cancelling elections. We have seen it done because of reorganisation and for other reasons. However, we have the opportunity, during the process of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, to look at that, which we will continue to do.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, local government reform is essential and should have happened years ago. That is why I am delighted to hear the Minister say tonight that it is the Government’s intention to carry on with it. I hope that it is at the same speed that they have shown so far.
I am from Leicestershire. The settlement that was reached 50 years ago was monstrously unfair to a number of cities—my own, Leicester, but other cities too—which were not given special status and their boundaries were kept the same. It is almost impossible for those cities to provide the services that they are duty bound to provide on the present boundaries. I hope that it is still very much in the Government’s mind that some of those cities need their boundaries redrawn so that they are fair and do justice to their citizens.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It would not be appropriate for me to comment specifically on any of the proposals that have come forward at this stage—I would get myself into very hot water indeed. However, we are looking closely at all the proposals. The priority programme has now completed its consultation, and Ministers are reviewing all the responses to it. The other proposals are out for consultation. No doubt we will receive some very robust feedback, as we have on the priority programme, but my noble friend is quite right. We have attempted partly to respond to the issues that he raises in the fair funding formula. We have completely changed the funding system for local government. Those areas that were least able to raise the revenue they needed to provide good services to their citizens were also penalised through the funding system. We have changed that, to be much more closely linked to the indices of multiple deprivation. I do not know whether he has had a chance to talk to Leicester City Council yet, but I hope that this has provided some additional revenue to enable all councils to deliver their services properly.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
The current Secretary of State was held in quite high regard across the whole of the sector before we started this. Let us not allow him to take the blame for this. It was not the department’s idea to cancel the elections but No. 10’s—and it was No. 10’s decision to reinstate the elections. Can I tempt the Minister to agree with me that perhaps the blame for this should lie with somebody sitting in No. 10 rather than with MHCLG?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I simply say in response that I hold the Secretary of State in the highest regard. I have known him for decades. We were deputy leaders together when the noble Lord was the chairman of the LGA and were deputy leaders of the Labour group at the same time. He is determined to carry on with this devolution programme and with local government reorganisation and has a passion for local government. I am delighted that he is now our Secretary of State in the department. I am sure that he will progress this with the passion that I know he feels for localising services and making sure that decisions are taken by people who have got skin in the game out there—like most of us I see around the Chamber who have been involved in local government. We want to make sure that the people who take the decisions are those closest to the communities they affect. I know that is the Secretary of State’s mission.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I am quite heartened that the questions from across your Lordships’ House have not descended into an attack on local authorities’ electoral registration officers and their ability to carry out these elections. Many of us in the House tonight have spent years working with those officials and have seen them turn around elections quickly, whether by-elections or snap general elections. The fact that that has not been called into question heartens me.
I want to take my noble friend the Minister back to the guiding principle that has got a bit lost but deserves to be pulled out, which is the devolution aspect of what His Majesty’s Government, through the Secretary of State and the ministerial teams, are looking to do. Can I tempt the Minister to talk a bit more about the principles of devolution and the move away from those centralised powers down to local levels and more local decisions affecting the daily lives of local communities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There are strong guiding principles here that have been part of the core mission of this Government. Our belief is that, to drive the economic growth we want, decisions have to be taken at local level, where people understand the economies, the base of the workforce and skills, and the way that they can shape the economy in their local area.
With regard to the delivery of public services, back in 2015, I did a report with another member of my ministerial team and other people, including the leader of Manchester City Council and the then mayor of Hackney, which talked about making sure that we start tackling public services from the prevention point of view, which is much better done at local level than at national level, and that we deliver services properly. These key services—adult care, children’s services and, to some extent, community safety services—are delivered much better at local level. The result of all that is that we get economies and local services that are tailored to local need far more effectively and efficiently. That is our mission. That is what we want to do. Britain has been one of the most centralised countries in Europe for as long as I can remember, and it is time that we turned that around. That is the mission of this Government, and it will be good for the country and for the communities that we all serve.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:46 - Division on Amendment 179 - Ayes: 43 / Noes: 131 - Amendment 179 disagreed.
Lord Hanson of Flint
(i) obtained from the buyer a copy of an identity document issued to the buyer in a physical form and a photograph of the buyer, or(ii) took such steps to verify the buyer’s age as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a requirement to section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for a passport or driving licence used as proof of age on a remote sale of a knife to be a physical version, and allows the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification (such as digital ID).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group in my name are substantially the same as those that I tabled in Committee. As the House may recall, I withdrew those amendments following concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but today I am reintroducing them for the House’s consideration. The amendments relate to the provisions in Clauses 31 to 35, which introduce stricter two-step age verification checks for the sale and delivery of knives and crossbows bought online.
For the House’s convenience I will recap: Clauses 31 and 32, on knives, and Clauses 33 and 34, on crossbows, will require at the point of sale, or point of sale or hire, for crossbows, specific checks to include photographic identity plus a current photograph; and, at the point of delivery, photographic identity checks; and they will create a new offence of delivering a package containing a knife or crossbow to someone other than the buyer—if the buyer is an individual, as opposed to, for example, a company—so that knives and crossbows cannot be left on doorsteps or with neighbours.
These amendments clarify that the passport or driving licence required as proof of age for a remote sale of a knife, or for a remote sale or hire of a crossbow, must be a physical version. We are also again adding provisions that will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations, subject to—I hope this helps the House—the affirmative procedure, prescribing an alternative process for age verification, such as digital ID. These amendments are required to ensure that a digital ID can be used as evidence of identity wherever the physical ID is accepted.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised concerns that the use of digital ID would be mandatory. However, I assure him that this is not a blanket requirement mandating the use of digital ID to purchase knives or crossbows; it is simply making provision for alternative forms of ID, digital or otherwise, to be used. This is to ensure that the legislation keeps pace with future potential developments in digital ID. I know that the Benches opposite have concerns about the Government’s plans for digital ID, but we have been clear that under those plans it will not be mandatory to have a digital ID. I hope that that helps the noble Lord. These provisions are about giving people a choice in how they verify their identity. It will continue to be possible for the purchaser to present a physical passport or driving licence, where they have one, as an alternative to a specified digital ID.
Furthermore, with the permission and support of the authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland, these amendments also extend these clauses to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We are amending the legislation to ensure that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for age and ID verification on delivery of bladed products and crossbows to residential premises. This is to account for situations where the delivery company engaged by the seller to deliver the bladed product sub-contracts the delivery to other companies. We believe that it is essential that all companies in the chain are responsible for ensuring that age and identity are verified before the package is handed over to the buyer; otherwise, regulations made under the Bill would be meaningless.
I hope that, having reflected on the debate in Committee, and given the changes and the clarification I have given, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be content with these government amendments. There are other amendments in the group. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will, if he so wishes, move Amendment 177. I will respond to the noble Lord once I have heard his speech. For the moment, I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am not sure whether I am in order. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Katz, who is nodding, which is good news. I thank him; it is much appreciated. There is nothing worse than writing a speech and being unable to deliver it.
I welcome the government amendments in this group, brought forward by the Minister, concerning the remote sale and delivery of knives and bladed articles. As I noted in Committee, we on these Benches fully support the intent behind the Government’s measures in this area. We must strengthen accountability for businesses and sellers in tackling online knife sales. We welcome the robust two-step age-verification checks being implemented. It is entirely right that we ensure a consistent UK-wide approach by extending these provisions, including those relating to crossbows, to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is vital that the law across the home nations is exactly on the same footing, so that criminals cannot exploit cross-border differences to acquire lethal weapons.
I also welcome the amendments that clarify the rules around identity documents. The requirement for a physical identity document to be shown upon the delivery of a bladed product provides a necessary safeguard. Furthermore, we acknowledge the provisions allowing the Secretary of State to prescribe alternative age-verification steps such as digital ID.
As I made clear to the Minister previously, there is no Bench more strongly against compulsory digital ID than the Liberal Democrats’, so we remain highly supportive of the assurance that analogue physical forms of identity will continue to be accepted alongside any new digital alternatives. Embedded among these amendments, however, is our Amendment 177, referred to by the Minister, on the remote sale of knives. This amendment requires that regulations mandate the reporting of bulk knife sales to the police
“in real time, or as soon as is reasonably practicable”.
In Committee, the Minister stated that he was sympathetic to the overall aim of this amendment but argued that the current duty in Clause 36 was sufficient and that exact timeframes would be handled later in regulations, following consultation. Sympathy does not intervene in a crime. We have seen cases where young people effectively act as arms traders, buying huge numbers of illegal weapons online for community distribution. If the police are to effectively track and intercept these bulk purchases, they need that intelligence immediately, not days or weeks later when the weapons are already on the streets. Amendment 177 would ensure that operational effectiveness is guaranteed in the Bill, turning bureaucratic compliance into actionable, life-saving intelligence.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, in Committee, I asked the Government to withdraw their amendments that permitted them to require by regulations the use of digital ID for age verification for the online sale of knives and crossbows. My concern was that permitting this would be the first legislative step towards mandating digital IDs. Since then, of course, the Government have conceded that digital IDs will not be made mandatory and, while I still harbour some reservations, I am now content for the amendments to be made to the Bill.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. If I may, I will address the points from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and thank him for returning to the issue of fixed-penalty notices with his Amendment 177.
We are clear that, in order for the reports on bulk sales of knives or other bladed articles to be a useful tool for the police to prevent knife crime, they must be sent to the police in a timely manner. I say to the noble Lord that we are working with the police on the details of a reporting system, and I want to reassure him that the points he has raised both in Committee and in his amendment, and during the debate today, will be taken into account when drafting the regulations. I do not believe there is any difference of substance between us on that; it is just that we are of the view that the timeliness of reports is best left to regulations, rather than primary legislation. We will be bringing those regulations forward, and I hope he will be able to support, comment upon and discuss them at that time. I hope the noble Lord will be content not to move his amendment.
Before I finish on this it is worthwhile, both in the context of this debate and the previous group, to place on record that while overall knife crime was previously climbing, since the start of this Parliament knife homicides have fallen by 27% and knife-enabled offences have recorded an 8% decrease. The latest admissions data for NHS hospitals in England and Wales also shows a 10% fall in admissions for knife assaults. Now, I am not complacent and will not stop pressing on this, but those results demonstrate progress. Given the measures in this Bill, and the measures we may have on digital and non-digital ID two-step verification, I hope we will further reduce those figures in the coming months. In the meantime, having moved my Amendment 28, I will beg to move the other amendments and hope that the noble Lord will be content not to move his.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 31, page 36, line 23.
“(10A) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under subsection (4)(a)(ii) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations prescribing the steps that may be taken to verify a buyer’s age to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 31, page 37, line 6.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Remote sale or letting of knives etc: Scotland(1) Section 141C of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (remote sales and lettings of knives) is amended as follows.(2) For subsection (5) substitute—“(5) Condition A is that, before the sale or letting on hire—(a) the accused either—(i) obtained from the recipient a copy of an identity document issued to the recipient in a physical form and a photograph of the recipient, or(ii) took such steps to verify the recipient’s age as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, and(b) on the basis of that copy and photograph or those steps, a reasonable person would have been satisfied that the recipient was aged 18 or over.(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5) an “identity document” means—(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle—(i) granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)), or(ii) issued in the form of a photocard by a member State;(d) any other document specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers.”(3) In subsection (6)(b) for “a person aged 18 or over” substitute “the recipient”.(4) In subsection (7) for “a person aged 18 or over” substitute “the recipient”.(5) In subsection (9) omit “or a person acting on behalf of the recipient” in both places it occurs.(6) After subsection (10) insert—“(11) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (5)(a)(ii) are subject to the affirmative procedure.(12) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (5A)(d) are subject to the negative procedure.(13) For the meaning of “affirmative procedure” and “negative procedure” see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10).”(7) In section 141A(4B) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (sale of knives to persons under 18: Scotland) for paragraphs (a) to (b) substitute—“(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);(aa) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation; (b) a licence to drive a motor vehicle—(i) granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)), or(ii) issued in the form of a photocard by a member State;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision for Scotland equivalent to that made for England and Wales by clause 31 (as amended by my amendments to that clause).
“Remote sale of knives etc: Northern Ireland(1) Article 54A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)) (remote sale of knives) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (4) substitute—“(4) Condition A is that, before the sale—(a) the seller either—(i) obtained from the buyer a copy of an identity document issued to the buyer in a physical form and a photograph of the buyer, or(ii) took such steps to verify the buyer’s age as may be prescribed in an order made by the Department of Justice, and(b) on the basis of that copy and photograph or those steps, a reasonable person would have been satisfied that the buyer was aged 18 or over.(4A) For the purposes of paragraph (4) an “identity document” means—(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)) or Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988;(d) any other document specified in an order made by the Department of Justice.”(3) In paragraph (5)(b), for “a person aged 18 or over” substitute “the buyer”.(4) In paragraph (6), for “a person aged 18 or over” substitute “the buyer”.(5) In paragraph (8), omit “or a person acting on behalf of the buyer”, in both places it occurs.(6) In Article 57 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)) (rules and orders)—(a) in paragraph (1) after “54(3)(c)” insert “, 54A(4A)(d)”;(b) in paragraph (2) after “Article” insert “54A(4)(a)(ii) or”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision for Northern Ireland equivalent to that made for England and Wales by clause 31 (as amended by my amendments to that clause).
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(1A) In section 38 (delivery of bladed products to residential premises)—(a) omit subsection (4);(b) in subsection (8)—(i) in paragraph (b) omit “Scotland or”;(ii) after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine or to both.”(1B) In section 39 (delivery of bladed products to persons under 18)—(a) in subsection (1), for paragraphs (c) to (e) substitute—“(c) before the sale, the seller entered into an arrangement with a person (“the contractor”) by which the contractor agreed—(i) to deliver bladed products for the seller, or(ii) to arrange the delivery of bladed products for the seller,(d) the contractor was aware when they entered into the arrangement with the seller that it covered delivering, or arranging the delivery of, bladed products, and(e) pursuant to that arrangement, the bladed product is finally delivered to residential premises by the contractor or a person acting on the contractor’s behalf.”;(b) omit subsections (2) and (3);(c) for subsection (6) substitute—“(6) The contractor commits an offence if, when the bladed product is finally delivered to residential premises by the contractor or a person acting on the contractor’s behalf, it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(a) is aged 18 or over, and(b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.(6A) A person acting on the contractor’s behalf commits an offence if—(a) the bladed product is finally delivered to residential premises by that person or another person acting on the contractor’s behalf, and(b) it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(i) is aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.(6B) For the purposes of this section, a person acts on the contractor’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the bladed product pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) the contractor, or(b) a person who acts on the contractor’s behalf.(6C) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale of the bladed product by which the person agreed to finally deliver, or to arrange for the final delivery of, bladed products (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered bladed products).”;(d) in subsection (7)—(i) for “subsection (6)” substitute “this section”;(ii) in paragraph (b) omit “Scotland or”;(iii) after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other of my amendments to clause 32, extend the provision made by that clause to Scotland and Northern Ireland and make related drafting changes. It also ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for age and ID verification on delivery of bladed products to residential premises.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“(3A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 39(6) or (6A) to show that the delivery conditions were met.(3B) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 39(6) or (6A) who did not finally deliver the bladed product to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.(3C) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 39(6A) to show that the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that what was delivered was a bladed product.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“(a) the person finally delivering the bladed product—(i) was shown by the person (“P”) into whose hands it was finally delivered an identity document issued to P in a physical form, or(ii) took such steps to verify P’s age and identity as may be prescribed in regulations made by the appropriate national authority, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that an identity document shown to a person delivering a bladed product must be a physical document. It also allows regulations to be made prescribing an alternative process for identity verification (such as digital ID).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 32, page 37, lines 31 to 33.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my second amendment to clause 32, page 38, line 10, provide for EU driving licences to count as an identity document in Scotland.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“(5A) In subsection (5)(c) “relevant driving licence” means—(a) in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1));(b) in relation to Scotland, a licence to drive a motor vehicle—(i) granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)), or(ii) issued in the form of a photocard by a member State.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 32, page 38, line 6, provide for EU driving licences to count as an identity document in Scotland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provisions that are no longer needed because the matters are dealt with in the new section 40E inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 43, line 14 and the new section 42A inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 45, line 19.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provisions that are superseded by my new amendments to section 39 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 (see my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11).
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting change for consistency.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a provision that is no longer needed because the matter is dealt with in the new section 42A inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 45, line 19.
“(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine; (b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provisions that are no longer needed because the matters are dealt with in the new section 40E inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 43, line 14 and the new section 42A inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 45, line 19.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
(ii) to arrange the delivery of bladed products for the seller,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“(2A) A person who acts on the contractor’s behalf commits an offence if they, or another person acting on the contractor’s behalf, deliver the bladed product to a collection point.(2B) For the purposes of this section, a person acts on the contractor’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the bladed product pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) the contractor, or(b) a person who acts on the contractor’s behalf.(2C) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale of the bladed product by which the person agreed to deliver, or to arrange for the delivery of, bladed products (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered bladed products).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a provision that is no longer needed because the matter is dealt with in the new section 42A inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 45, line 19.
“(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provisions that are no longer needed because the matters are dealt with in the new section 40E inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 43, line 14 and the new section 42A inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 45, line 19.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a drafting change.
(a) gives the bladed product to a person collecting it, but(b) does not give it”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that section 40D(4) applies where a bladed product is given to the person collecting it by a person acting on behalf of the operator.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting change.
“(a) the individual giving the bladed product to the person (“P”) collecting it—(i) was shown by P an identity document issued to P in a physical form, or(ii) took such steps to verify P’s age and identity as may be prescribed in regulations made by the appropriate national authority, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that an identity document shown to a person handing over a bladed product must be a physical document. It also allows regulations to be made prescribing an alternative process for identity verification (such as digital ID).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 32, page 42, line 34.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a provision that is no longer needed because the matter is dealt with in the new section 42A inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 45, line 19.
“(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“40E Further defences to offences under sections 38 to 40DThe appropriate national authority may by regulations provide for other defences for a person charged with an offence under any of sections 38 to 40D.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provisions that are no longer needed because the matters are dealt with in the new section 40E inserted by this amendment and the new section 42A inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 45, line 19.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“(d) in subsection (3), for “40” substitute “40D”;(e) in subsection (4) for “40” substitute “40D”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“(a) in subsection (1) for paragraphs (c) to (e) substitute—“(c) before the sale, the seller entered into an arrangement with a person (“the contractor”) by which the contractor agreed—(i) to deliver bladed articles for the seller, or(ii) to arrange the delivery of bladed articles for the seller,(d) the contractor was aware when they entered into the arrangement with the seller that it covered delivering, or arranging the delivery of, bladed articles, and(e) pursuant to that arrangement, the bladed article is finally delivered by the contractor or a person acting on the contractor’s behalf.”;(b) omit subsections (2) and (3);(c) for subsections (4) to (9) substitute—“(4) The contractor commits an offence if, when the bladed article is finally delivered by the contractor or a person acting on the contractor’s behalf, it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(a) is aged 18 or over, and(b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.(4A) A person acting on the contractor’s behalf commits an offence if—(a) the bladed article is finally delivered by that person or another person acting on the contractor’s behalf, and(b) it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(i) is aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.(4B) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (4) or (4A) to show that the delivery conditions were met.(4C) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (4) or (4A) who did not finally deliver the bladed article to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.(4D) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (4A) to show that the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that what was delivered was a bladed article.(4E) For the purposes of this section a person acts on the contractor’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the bladed article pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) the contractor, or(b) a person who acts on the contractor’s behalf. (4F) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale of the bladed article by which the person agreed to finally deliver, or to arrange for the final delivery of, bladed articles (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered bladed articles).(4G) In this section the “delivery conditions” has the meaning given by section 40(4).”;(d) in subsection (10)—(i) for “subsection (4)” substitute “this section”;(ii) in paragraph (b) omit “Scotland or”;(iii) after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.””Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“(9A) After section 42 insert—“42A Interpretation of sections 38 to 42(1) This section applies for the interpretation of sections 38 to 42.(2) A person (“A”) is not in the presence of another person (“B”) at any time if—(a) where A is an individual, A or a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time;(b) where A is not an individual, a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time.(3) A person other than an individual—(a) is within the United Kingdom at any time, if the person carries on a business of selling articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time;(b) is outside the United Kingdom at any time, if the person does not carry on a business of selling articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time.(4) The “appropriate national authority” is—(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.(5) A person charged with an offence is to be taken to have shown a matter if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“(c) in subsection (3)—(i) omit “, 40(10)(c)”;(ii) after “is” insert “, and regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under section 40(5)(d) are,”; (d) in subsection (4) for “40(13)” substitute “40(4)(a)(ii), 40D(8)(a)(ii), 40E”;(e) in subsection (6) after “Act” insert “, except for regulations under section 40(5)(d),”;(f) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Regulations made by the Department of Justice under section 40(5)(d) are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.””Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(2A) After section 1 insert—“1ZA Defence to offence under section 1: England and WalesExcept where section 1B applies, it is a defence for a person charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 1 to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.”.(2B) In section 1A (defences: Scotland)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) for “It” substitute “Except where section 1B applies, it”;(ii) after “charged” insert “in Scotland”;(b) in subsection (3) for paragraphs (a) to (b) substitute—“(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971),(aa) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation,(b) a licence to drive a motor vehicle—(i) granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)), or(ii) issued in the form of a photocard by a member State, or”;(c) for the heading substitute “Defence to offence under section 1: Scotland”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendments to clauses 33 to 35, extend to Scotland the amendments made by those clauses to the Crossbows Act 1987, and make related changes.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
(i) obtained from B a copy of an identity document issued to B in a physical form and a photograph of B, or(ii) took such steps to verify B’s age as may be prescribed in regulations made by the relevant national authority,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a passport or driving licence used as proof of age on a remote sale or letting of a crossbow to be a physical document, and allows the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification (such as digital ID).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 33, page 46, line 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my second amendment to clause 33, page 46, line 25, provides for EU driving licences to count as an identity document in Scotland (for consistency with the existing provision in section 1A(3) of the Crossbows Act 1987).
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(5A) In subsection (5)(c) a “relevant driving licence” means—(a) in relation to England and Wales, a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1));(b) in relation to Scotland, a licence to drive a motor vehicle—(i) granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)), or(ii) issued in the form of a photocard by a member State.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 33, page 46, line 21, provides for EU driving licences to count as an identity document in Scotland (for consistency with the existing provision in section 1A(3) of the Crossbows Act 1987).
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(c) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine (or both).”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
(i) was shown by the person “(P)” into whose hands it was finally delivered an identity document issued to P in a physical form, or(ii) took such steps to verify P’s age and identity as may be prescribed in regulations made by the relevant national authority,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a passport or driving licence used as proof of age on delivery of a crossbow to be a physical document, and allows the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification (such as digital ID).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 34, page 48, line 12.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
(ii) to arrange the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows for A,” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1E, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1E, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that inserted section 1E(1)(e) applies to deliveries by a person acting on C’s behalf.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision that is no longer needed because the point is now dealt with in section 1J(2A) (general interpretation) as inserted by my amendment to clause 35, page 54, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that inserted section 1E(3) applies to deliveries by a person acting on C’s behalf.
(a) the crossbow or part of a crossbow is finally delivered to residential premises by that person or another person acting on C’s behalf, and(b) it is not delivered.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1E, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1E, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
“(5A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) or (4) who did not finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1E, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1E, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1E, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
“(6A) For the purposes of this section a person acts on C’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the crossbow or part of a crossbow pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) C, or(b) a person who acts on C’s behalf.(6B) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale or letting on hire of the crossbow or part of a crossbow by which the person agreed to finally deliver, or to arrange for the final delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered crossbows or parts of crossbows).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1E, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(c) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(c) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.” Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
(ii) to arrange the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows for A,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1G, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to collection points can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1G, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to collection points can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that inserted section 1G(2) applies to deliveries made by a person acting on C’s behalf.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(2A) A person acting on C’s behalf commits an offence if, pursuant to the arrangement, that person or another person acting on C’s behalf delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a collection point.(2B) For the purposes of this section, a person acts on C’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the crossbow or part of a crossbow pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) C, or(b) a person who acts on C’s behalf.(2C) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale or letting on hire of the crossbow or part of a crossbow by which the person agreed to deliver, or to arrange for the delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered crossbows or parts of crossbows).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1G, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to collection points can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1G, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to collection points can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(c) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a drafting change.
(a) gives the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a person collecting it, but(b) does not give it”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that section 1H(4) applies where the crossbow or part of a crossbow is given to the person collecting it by a person acting on behalf of the operator.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting change.
(i) was shown by P an identity document issued to P in a physical form, or(ii) took such steps to verify P’s age and identity as may be prescribed in regulations made by the relevant national authority,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a passport or driving licence used as proof of age on collection of a crossbow to be a physical document, and allows the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification (such as digital ID).
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 34, page 52, line 36.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(c) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
(ii) to arrange the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows for A,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1I, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1I, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that inserted section 1I(1)(e) applies where a person delivers the item on C’s behalf.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out provision that is no longer necessary because the point is now dealt with in section 1J(2A) (general interpretation) as inserted by my amendment to clause 35, page 54, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that inserted section 1I(3) applies where the item is delivered by a person acting on C’s behalf.
“(4) A person acting on C’s behalf commits an offence if— (a) the crossbow or part of a crossbow is finally delivered by that person or another person acting on C’s behalf, and(b) it is not delivered”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1I, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(c) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1I, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
“(6A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) or (4) who did not finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1I, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1I, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1I, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
“(8) For the purposes of this section a person acts on C’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the crossbow or part of a crossbow pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) C, or(b) a person who acts on C’s behalf.(9) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale or letting on hire of the crossbow or part of a crossbow by which the person agreed to finally deliver, or to arrange for the final delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered crossbows or parts of crossbows).” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1I, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(1A) “Relevant national authority” means—(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(2A) A person other than an individual—(a) is within the United Kingdom at any time, if the person carries on a business of selling or letting on hire articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time;(b) is outside the United Kingdom at any time, if the person does not carry on a business of selling or letting on hire articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines when a person is within or outside the United Kingdom for the purposes of the crossbow provisions.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations made by the Secretary of State prescribing the steps that may be taken to verify a buyer’s age (as well as regulations under the provisions already specified in inserted section 6A(2)) to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 35, page 55, line 6.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 35, page 55, line 6.
“(4) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under this Act, other than regulations under section 1B(5)(d), are subject to the affirmative procedure.(5) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under section 1B(5)(d) are subject to the negative procedure.(6) For the meaning of “affirmative procedure” and “negative procedure” see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10).”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(4) In section 66(2) of that Act (guidance by Scottish Ministers), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) any of sections 1 to 3 of the Crossbows Act 1987 as they have effect in relation to Scotland,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Remote sale and letting of crossbows: Northern Ireland(1) The Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/794 (N.I. 5)) is amended as follows.(2) In Article 3 omit “, unless he believes him to be eighteen years of age or older and has reasonable ground for the belief”.(3) After Article 3 insert—“Defence to offence under Article 33A. Except where Article 3B applies, it is a defence for a person charged with an offence under Article 3 to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.Defence to offence under Article 3: remote sales etc(1) This Article applies if—(a) a person (“A”) is charged with an offence under Article 3, and(b) A was not in the presence of the person (“B”) to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire at the time of the sale or letting on hire.(2) It is a defence for A to show that the following conditions are met.(3) Condition 1 is that, before the sale or letting on hire—(a) A either—(i) obtained from B a copy of an identity document issued to B in a physical form and a photograph of B, or(ii) took such steps to verify B’s age as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Department of Justice, and(b) on the basis of that copy and photograph or those steps, a reasonable person would have been satisfied that B was aged 18 or over.(4) For the purposes of paragraph (3) an “identity document” means—(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)) or Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988;(d) any other document specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice.(5) Condition 2 is that when the package containing the crossbow or part of a crossbow was dispatched by A, it was clearly marked to indicate— (a) that it contained a crossbow or part of a crossbow, and(b) that, when finally delivered, it should only be delivered into the hands of B.(6) Condition 3 is that A took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that, when finally delivered, the package would be delivered into the hands of B.(7) Condition 4 is that A did not deliver the package, or arrange for its delivery, to a locker.(8) Where the crossbow or part of a crossbow was dispatched by A to a place from which it was to be collected by B, references in paragraphs (5) and (6) to its final delivery are to be read as its supply to B from that place.(9) In paragraph (7) “locker” means a lockable container to which the package is delivered with a view to its collection by B, or a person acting on behalf of B, in accordance with arrangements made between A and B.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about crossbows for Northern Ireland similar to that made by clause 33 for England and Wales.
“Delivery of crossbows: Northern IrelandIn the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/794 (N.I. 5)), after Article 3B (inserted by section (Remote sale and letting of crossbows: Northern Ireland)) insert—“Offence of seller etc delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to residential premises(1) This Article applies if—(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets on hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”), and(b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale.(2) A commits an offence if, for the purposes of supplying the crossbow or part of a crossbow to B, A—(a) delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises, or(b) arranges for its delivery to residential premises.(3) A commits an offence if, for the purposes of supplying the crossbow or part of a crossbow to B, A—(a) delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a locker, or(b) arranges for its delivery to a locker.(4) In paragraph (3) “locker” means a lockable container to which the crossbow or part of a crossbow is delivered with a view to its collection by B, or a person acting on B’s behalf, in accordance with arrangements made between A and B.Defences to offences under Article 3C(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under Article 3C(2)(a) to show that the delivery conditions were met.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under Article 3C(2)(b) to show that—(a) the arrangement required the person with whom it was made not to finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow unless the delivery conditions were met, and(b) the person charged with the offence took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the crossbow or part of a crossbow would not be finally delivered unless the delivery conditions were met. (3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under Article 3C(3) to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.(4) For the purposes of this Article the delivery conditions are that—(a) the person finally delivering the crossbow or part of a crossbow—(i) was shown by the person (“P”) into whose hands it was finally delivered an identity document issued to P in a physical form, or(ii) took such steps to verify P’s age and identity as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Department of Justice, and(b) on the basis of that document or those steps, a reasonable person would have been satisfied—(i) that P was aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire was an individual, that P was that individual.(5) “Identity document” has the same meaning as in Article 3B(4).Offence of contractor delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to residential premises on behalf of UK seller(1) This Article applies if—(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets on hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”),(b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale or letting on hire and A is within the United Kingdom at that time,(c) before the sale or letting on hire A entered into an arrangement with a person (“C”) by which C agreed—(i) to deliver crossbows or parts of crossbows for A, or(ii) to arrange for the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows for A,(d) C was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered delivering, or arranging the delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows, and(e) pursuant to that arrangement, the crossbow or part of a crossbow is finally delivered to residential premises by C or a person acting on C’s behalf.(2) C commits an offence if, when the crossbow or part of a crossbow is finally delivered to residential premises by C or a person acting on C’s behalf, it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(a) is aged 18 or over, and(b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.(3) A person acting on C’s behalf commits an offence if—(a) the crossbow or part of a crossbow is finally delivered to residential premises by that person or another person acting on C’s behalf, and(b) it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(i) is aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (2) or (3) to show that the delivery conditions (within the meaning of Article 3D(4)) were met. (5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (2) or (3) who did not finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.(6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (3) to show that the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that what was delivered was a crossbow or part of a crossbow.(7) For the purposes of this Article a person acts on C’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the crossbow or part of a crossbow pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) C, or(b) a person who acts on C’s behalf.(8) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale or letting on hire of the crossbow or part of a crossbow by which the person agreed to finally deliver, or to arrange for the final delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered crossbows or parts of crossbows).Offence of UK seller delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to collection point(1) This Article applies if—(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets on hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”), and(b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale or letting on hire and A is within the United Kingdom at that time.(2) A commits an offence if, for the purposes of supplying the crossbow or part of a crossbow to B, A—(a) delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a collection point, or(b) arranges for the crossbow or part of a crossbow to be delivered to a collection point.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (2)(a) to show that—(a) when the package containing the crossbow or part of a crossbow was delivered to the collection point, it was clearly marked to indicate that it contained a crossbow or part of a crossbow and should only be given into the hands of a person who—(i) is aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual, and(b) the person charged with the offence took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the package containing the crossbow or part of a crossbow would be given into the hands of such a person.(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (2)(b) to show that—(a) when the package containing the crossbow or part of a crossbow was given to the person with whom the arrangement was made, it was clearly marked to indicate that it contained a crossbow or part of a crossbow and should only be given into the hands of a person who—(i) is aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual, and (b) the person charged with the offence took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the package containing the crossbow or part of a crossbow would be given into the hands of such a person.(5) “Collection point” means a place—(a) from which the crossbow or part of a crossbow may be collected by the person to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire or a person acting on that person’s behalf, and(b) where on collection the crossbow or part of a crossbow is given by an individual to the person to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire, or a person acting on that person’s behalf.Offence of contractor delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to collection point(1) This Article applies if—(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets on hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”),(b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale or letting on hire and A is within the United Kingdom at that time,(c) before the sale or letting on hire A entered into an arrangement with a person (“C”) by which C agreed—(i) to deliver crossbows or parts of crossbows for A, or(ii) to arrange the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows for A, and(d) C was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered delivering, or arranging the delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows.(2) C commits an offence if, pursuant to the arrangement, C or a person acting on C’s behalf delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a collection point.(3) A person acting on C’s behalf commits an offence if, pursuant to the arrangement, that person or another person acting on C’s behalf delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a collection point.(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Article to show that—(a) when they delivered the package containing the crossbow or part of a crossbow to the collection point or a person acting on C’s behalf, the package was clearly marked to indicate that it contained a crossbow or part of a crossbow and should only be given into the hands of a person who—(i) is aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual, and(b) they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the package containing the crossbow or part of a crossbow would be given into the hands of such a person.(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Article to show that the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that the product was a crossbow or part of a crossbow.(6) For the purposes of this Article, a person acts on C’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the crossbow or part of a crossbow pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) C, or(b) a person who acts on C’s behalf.(7) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale or letting on hire of the crossbow or part of a crossbow by which the person agreed to deliver, or to arrange for the delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered crossbows or parts of crossbows). (8) “Collection point” has the meaning given in Article 3F.Offence of handing over crossbows or parts of crossbows at collection point(1) This Article applies if—(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets on hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”),(b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale or letting on hire and A is within the United Kingdom at that time,(c) the crossbow or part of a crossbow is delivered to a collection point, and(d) condition A or condition B is satisfied.(2) Condition A is that—(a) the delivery is pursuant to an arrangement entered into before the delivery by—(i) the person operating the collection point (“the operator”), and(ii) A or the person delivering the crossbow or part of a crossbow to the collection point, and(b) the operator was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered the delivery to the collection point of crossbows or parts of crossbows.(3) Condition B is that A is the operator.(4) The operator commits an offence if the operator (or a person acting on the operator’s behalf)—(a) gives the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a person collecting it, but(b) does not give it into the hands of an eligible person.(5) A person acting on the operator’s behalf commits an offence if they—(a) give the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a person collecting it, but(b) do not give it into the hands of an eligible person.(6) “Eligible person” means a person who—(a) is aged 18 or over, and(b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.(7) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (4) or (5) to show that the collection conditions were met.(8) The collection conditions are that—(a) the individual giving the crossbow or part of a crossbow to the person (“P”) collecting it —(i) was shown by P an identity document issued to P in a physical form, or(ii) took such steps to verify P’s age and identity as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Department of Justice, and(b) on the basis of that document or those steps, a reasonable person would have been satisfied—(i) that P was aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire was an individual, that P was that individual.(9) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (4) or (5) to show that the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that the product was a crossbow or part of a crossbow.(10) In this Article—“collection point” has the meaning given in Article 3F;“identity document” has the meaning given in Article 3B(4). Offence of contractor delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows on behalf of non-UK seller(1) This Article applies if—(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets on hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”),(b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale or letting on hire and A is outside the United Kingdom at that time,(c) before the sale or letting on hire A entered into an arrangement with a person (“C”) by which C agreed—(i) to deliver crossbows or parts of crossbows for A, or(ii) to arrange the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows for A,(d) C was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered delivering, or arranging the delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows, and(e) the crossbow or part of a crossbow is finally delivered by C or a person acting on C’s behalf.(2) C commits an offence if, when the crossbow or part of a crossbow is finally delivered by C or a person acting on C’s behalf, it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(a) is aged 18 or over, and(b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.(3) A person acting on C’s behalf commits an offence if —(a) the crossbow or part of a crossbow is finally delivered by that person or another person acting on C’s behalf, and(b) it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(i) is aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (2) or (3) to show that the delivery conditions (within the meaning of Article 3D(4)) were met.(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (2) or (3) who did not finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.(6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (3) to show that the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that what was delivered was a crossbow or part of a crossbow.(7) For the purposes of this Article a person acts on C’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the crossbow or part of a crossbow pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) C, or(b) a person who acts on C’s behalf.(8) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale or letting on hire of the crossbow or part of a crossbow by which the person agreed to finally deliver, or to arrange for the final delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered crossbows or parts of crossbows).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about crossbows for Northern Ireland similar to that made by clause 34 for England and Wales.
“Sale and delivery of crossbows: Northern Ireland: supplementary provision(1) After Article 3I of the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/794 (N.I. 5)) (inserted by section (Delivery of crossbows: Northern Ireland)) insert—“Interpretation of Articles 3A to 3I(1) This Article applies for the interpretation of Articles 3A to 3I.(2) A person (“A”) is not in the presence of another person (“B”) at any time if—(a) where A is an individual, A or a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time;(b) where A is not an individual, a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time.(3) A person other than an individual—(a) is within the United Kingdom at any time if the person carries on a business of selling or letting on hire articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time;(b) is outside the United Kingdom at any time, if the person does not carry on a business of selling or letting on hire articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time.(4) “Residential premises” means premises used solely for residential purposes.(5) The circumstances where premises are not residential premises include, in particular, where a person carries on a business from the premises.(6) A person charged with an offence is to be taken to have shown a matter if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.Power to create other defences by regulations3K. The Department of Justice may by regulations provide for other defences for a person charged with an offence under any of Articles 3C, 3E, 3F, 3G or 3H.”.(2) In Article 8 of the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/794 (N.I. 5)) (punishments)—(a) in paragraph (1) for “this Order” substitute “Article 3, 4 or 5”;(b) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) A person guilty of an offence under Article 3C is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).(1B) A person guilty of an offence under Article 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H or 3I is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”(3) After Article 8 of the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/794 (N.I. 5)) insert—“Regulations(1) Regulations made by the Department of Justice under Article 3B(4)(d) are subject to negative resolution.(2) Regulations under any other provision of this Order may not be made by the Department of Justice unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”.(4) In section 66(3) of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 (guidance on offences relating to offensive weapons etc), after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) any of Articles 3 to 3I of the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/794 (N.I. 5)) (sale etc of crossbows),”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about crossbows for Northern Ireland similar to that made by clause 35 for England and Wales.
Lord Katz
“Application of Firearms Acts to sound moderators etc(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.(2) After section 2 insert—“2A Possession of a sound moderator or flash suppressor(1) Subject to any exemption under this Act, it is an offence for a person to have in their possession a relevant accessory unless the person holds a firearm certificate or a shot gun certificate.(2) “Relevant accessory” means an accessory to a firearm to which section 1 applies which is designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the firearm.”(3) In section 57 (interpretation)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) omit paragraph (d);(ii) in the words after paragraph (d) omit “, and accessories to,”;(b) in subsection (4)—(i) after the definition of “registered” insert—““relevant accessory” has the meaning given in section 2A;”(ii) in the definition of “shot gun”, omit the words from “and any” to the end.(4) In Schedule 6 (prosecution and punishment of offences) after the entry for section 2(2) insert—
“Section 2A | Possession of relevant accessory without certificate under this Act | Summary | A fine of level 3 on the standard scale”. |
This amendment removes sound moderators and flash suppressors from the definitions of “firearm” and “shot gun” in the Firearms Act 1968 and creates an offence of possessing a sound moderator or flash suppressor without having a valid firearm or shotgun certificate, or without an exemption applying.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, will recall that he tabled an amendment in Committee which sought to deregulate devices known as sound moderators and flash suppressors. These items are subject to control by virtue of the fact that they are included in the statutory definition of a firearm, set out in Section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to thank the Ministers on the other side of the House. I am very grateful that they have accepted what I think was an entirely common-sense case, which the Government had already accepted in a report that was previously published. I would just say that, in what I think is now my 29th year in Parliament in one House or the other, the number of occasions when Governments and Ministers accept entirely common-sense arguments from the other side of the House and respond is so small that I cannot think of many others, so I really am grateful. It will help the police and reduce the bureaucratic burden on them. It will reduce costs for a lot of people and does not pose any harm whatever, so thank you.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Government’s amendments in this group, which deliver on the commitments made by the Minister during our debate in Committee. As I noted at the time, townies such as myself were being educated during the passage of the Bill on what these items were. However, the logic of this measure was immediately clear when the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, introduced his amendments, and we were very pleased to support them when he first championed the cause. We are delighted that the Government have accepted his amendments.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. These measures were rightly pressed for in Committee by my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham, so I am glad the Government have taken his points on board and are now implementing them. These amendments will remove an administrative burden currently placed on the police—something we all support—and will pose no threat to the public. They are wholly reasonable, and we support them.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, it is very rare to have both unanimity and common sense break out across the Chamber. I thank all noble Lords for their comments, including those among townies—I associate myself with the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as a fellow townie. It was an education and I have learned an awful lot. I thank everyone for their support.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I would say to the noble Lord before he sits down that unanimity and common sense do not always go together.
Lord Katz (Lab)
That is the point that I was struggling to make, which is put more eloquently by the noble Lord.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that low-value shoplifting is to remain as a summary only offence, so as to not introduce greater burdens for the Crown Court.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, as in Committee, these Benches oppose Clause 40 standing part of the Bill. I will briefly remind the House of the background. Clause 40 repeals Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, which was inserted into that Act in 2014. Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act provides that, where a person is charged with a shoplifting offence but the value of the stolen goods is under £200, the offence is triable only summarily. Accordingly, low-value shoplifting cases will be heard only before a magistrates’ court and will not go before the Crown Court. That is the current position.
The Government now propose to do away with this and make low-value shoplifting triable either way. In its criticisms of the status quo before the general election in 2024, the Labour Party suggested that the status quo had created,
“effective immunity for some shoplifting”.
That was the wording in the Government’s manifesto.
As I have said previously, this is incorrect. There never has been effective immunity for any shoplifting offences. If making an offence a summary offence is akin to granting immunity, then it follows that we have given immunity to anyone who commits common assault, battery, theft of a car, drunk driving, dangerous cycling, being drunk and disorderly, and harassment, to name but a few offences. The truth is that there are hundreds of summary-only offences. Do the Government think that they create immunity and should become triable either way too?
There are two other matters that demonstrate further the contradictory and, indeed, damaging consequences of this clause. Essentially, the question hinges on the interaction between this clause and two other measures that this Government are pursuing with perplexing enthusiasm: their Sentencing Act and their proposed court reforms.
In the Sentencing Act, the Government have introduced a presumption of a suspended sentence where the sentence is less than 12 months. I know that the Government do not like these Benches making an ongoing critique of their sentencing reforms but, given their negative future impact, we shall continue to do so.
The average custodial sentence for shop theft is two months, meaning that, in future, it is likely that all shoplifters will be spared prison time. If you wanted to look for effective immunity, this is where you will find it. Permitting those charged with low-value shoplifting to seek a Crown Court trial may very well lead to a collapse in the prosecution of those offences, as the CPS will determine that prosecution is simply not worth it.
Coupled with the presumption of a suspended sentence order for all sentences under 12 months, there is a significant likelihood that, under this Government, the vast majority of shoplifters will avoid prison entirely. Furthermore, the Government’s court reforms will see more cases moved away from the Crown Courts, the curtailing of jury trials and an increase in the sentencing powers of magistrates’ courts.
The Government say that this is necessary to tackle the backlog. They have argued that offenders are trying to game the system by electing for Crown Court trials, knowing that they will take longer to go to trial and that the case may collapse. So, on the one hand, they are reducing the number of either-way offences because the Crown Courts are overwhelmed and yet, on the other hand, they are making low-value shoplifting triable either way. This makes no sense whatever.
If the Minister will not listen to my arguments, she might perhaps listen to those of her own colleague, Sarah Sackman, the Courts Minister, who is quoted in a Guardian article as asking:
“Do we think that someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky from a minimart should receive the right to trial by jury?”
I quite agree with Sarah Sackman. I do not think that a person who steals a bottle of whisky should go before the Crown Court, but that is exactly what could happen if Clause 40 becomes law.
For all these reasons and, essentially, because in our view the Government’s position here is completely contradictory, I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 40 delivers on a manifesto commitment made by this Government. I am very happy to note that I and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies of Gower, share the same overall objective: to reduce the backlog in the Crown Court by reserving jury trials for the most serious cases. I am delighted to hear that they agree with the Government, so I look forward to their support for our proposals to do exactly this when your Lordships’ House considers the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which was introduced in the other place earlier today.
The low-value shoplifting provision was always a curious beast and quite unlike other criminal offences because shoplifting was, and still is, charged as theft, which is always a “triable either way” offence. This meant that, although there was a presumption that if the goods were valued at less than £200 the case would remain in the magistrates’ court, a defendant who wanted a jury trial could still choose—or “elect”, to use the formal term—trial in the Crown Court. It is nonsense to say that this keeps it in the magistrates’ court, because Section 22A still allows defendants to elect trial in the Crown Court if they want to do so. The reality is that hardly any of them did; I will return to this shortly.
This was an administrative provision designed to reduce the burden on the Crown Court. In reality it had very little impact on that, but it did have a very undesirable effect that was entirely unintended. Although multiple factors have contributed to rising retail crime, one persistent issue is the perception in many quarters that low-value theft has no real consequences. Some regard it as having been, in effect, decriminalised. It does not matter whether that is in fact true; it is the perception that is damaging.
Section 22A created the perception that those committing theft of goods worth £200 or less will escape any punishment. Clause 40 rectifies that—and it really matters. Evidence from the Association of Convenience Stores shows that only 36% of retail crime is even reported. Many retailers choose not to do so because they think it is a waste of time; they believe that the police will not do anything. Once again, it does not really matter whether they are right about that; that is what they believe.
This underreporting masks the true scale of the problem and leaves businesses vulnerable. We must act decisively to support retailers facing this growing challenge and scourge of shoplifting. Clause 40 does exactly that. It closes a critical gap by sending a clear and unequivocal message: theft of any value is a serious criminal act and will be treated seriously.
I hope noble Lords will accept that probably no one is more concerned than I am—as one of the only people who has actually lived through what it has meant in practice, when I sat as a circuit judge—about remedying the position of the backlog in the Crown Court. As I have already said, jury trials for these cases are a very small proportion of the Crown Court’s workload. In the year ending in September 2025, almost 50,000 defendants were prosecuted for shoplifting goods valued at £200 or less, but only 1.3% of those cases were committed for jury trial in the Crown Court. The vast majority of them had been sent there by the magistrates, with only a very small proportion of defendants electing trial themselves.
Returning the situation to the previous law, where the offence is triable either way, therefore carries no greater risk to the Crown Court than already exists under the existing provision. But it sends a clear message to perpetrators and would-be perpetrators: this crime will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate punishment. We are signalling to retailers that we take this crime seriously, that they are encouraged to report it and that the police will take it seriously.
The happy news for the noble Lords who tabled this amendment, and any others concerned about the backlog in the Crown Court, is that once we pass the Courts and Tribunals Bill, low-value shoplifters will no longer be able to game the system by choosing jury trial because in all cases the decision on venue will be made by the magistrates’ court, not by defendants. As I have already said, I look forward to the noble Lord’s support on this. In the meantime, given that this is a manifesto commitment, I make it absolutely clear that the Government are determined that it shall pass. I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but I am afraid I am not quite persuaded. The Government have been attempting to appear tough in a so far unsuccessful attempt to demonstrate that they are cracking down on crime. Yet, as we know from the latest crime statistics, in the year ending September 2025 there were 519,381 recorded incidents of shoplifting, which is a 10% increase on the previous year. To make matters worse, they are now proposing measures that will not see a soul go to prison for shoplifting and, via Clause 40, will allow offenders to string out their trials through the Crown Court, all while they pursue the polar opposite outcome for other offences through their court reforms. If this is the policy of a Government who are serious about tackling shoplifting, they have a strange way of showing it. We are not prepared to allow shoplifters to go unpunished, and I therefore have no option but to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is made for the purposes of my amendment at line 19.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, on this occasion, I hope I can be accused of listening and hearing in order to assist the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. These amendments to the child criminal exploitation offence will, in cases involving children aged 13 or over, remove the requirement that a perpetrator did not reasonably believe the child was an adult. In bringing forward these amendments, I am directly responding to concerns raised in debates in the House, having listened in particular to the cogent arguments put forward in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Russell of Liverpool, and my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top. Indeed, arguments were made in the House of Commons for the same.
We maintain that reasonable belief in age would not be a simple loophole for perpetrators and that it is a precedented and long-standing legal test. The CPS and courts are experienced in dealing with such an element. However, having reflected further, and acknowledging that there is a heightened risk of teenage Black males, who are overrepresented in the cohort of children vulnerable to child criminal exploitation, being wrongly perceived as older, we will not risk perpetrators being acquitted because of how society misperceives children as appearing older than they are in this context.
Adults who draw children into committing criminal activity should always be convicted of this offence, regardless of how old the perpetrator believed the children were. These amendments send a clear message that responsibility for involving children in crime, which is always bad and harmful, rests with the adult. I commend the amendments to the House.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments. We wholly support the intention of Clause 41, which introduces the offence of child criminal exploitation, but I have several concerns regarding the amendments, which I hope he will be able to allay.
First, is the original crime being brought forward to highlight and punish exploitative behaviour? An adult will perhaps get a 12 year-old to shoplift or deal drugs because they are less conspicuous and have less chance of being caught. That type of coercion is what is being targeted here. I am not so sure that this is always the case when it comes to older teenagers. When the child is 16 or 17, it is often far more of a voluntary decision, based on a mutual understanding, to commit a crime. While there may be exploitation, the offender may not be enticing them towards crime because they are a child. That is a subtle but important difference in intention. Introducing strict liability up to 18 removes the discretion that courts often exist to provide.
That brings me to my second concern, which is that this may end up being used to absolve fully complicit young offenders of criminal responsibility. The Government have made it clear that they see 16 to 18 year-olds as adults, and the law already provides them with many legal rights that 15 year-olds do not have. The Government will soon give them the right to vote. Is the Minister really arguing that personal volition never plays a part in crimes committed by young people? Of course there will be cases of exploitation, but I am sure that your Lordships’ House will agree that there will also be cases where that is not the case. Introducing strict liability will open the door to others already implicated in the crimes committed by the teenager being rendered wholly liable for a crime that somebody else was a part of.
I understand the Government’s intentions with this updated measure. It involves a different principle from child sexual assault, but just as that crime includes a condition that factors in intent, so should this crime, on the part of those under-18. Obviously, there should be an arbitrary cut-off, as the original measure suggests, but we have a criminal age of responsibility of 10 and we are giving 16 year-olds the vote; to suggest that 16 to 17-year olds involved in a crime with an adult can always claim that they were exploited and coerced is not consistent. I hope that the Minister will be able to address these points.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. I was just checking with another Member of your Lordships’ House before I started my winding-up speech. My apologies for not attracting his attention.
We welcome the Government’s decision to address child criminal exploitation. The range of measures in the Bill are certainly a start and address the growing concern about children being exploited into criminality. I particularly welcome the Minister’s letter, dated a couple of weeks ago—about 15 February—explaining that the amendments laid address a highly specific concern about the requirement for the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator did not reasonably believe the child was aged 18 or over, if the child was aged 13 or over. We thank him for that.
However, from these Benches we urge the Government to go further in the longer term in ensuring that all children are safeguarded from exploitation. This needs to be recognised as a form of exploitation. Along with a number of organisations, we think that this should be done through a statutory definition in Parliament, partly because that will guide the services but also because it would make it very clear where the boundaries are on CCE.
Hand in hand with this is the whole issue of cuckooing, which we will come to in the next group. That is equally important. It is one of the newer, more virulent ways of coercively controlling children. We welcome the amendment, wish it had gone further, and look forward to discussions in the longer term about how that can be remedied.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords and will try to respond briefly. I remind the House that we are responding to requests from noble Lords, and in addition from partners in children’s charities, law enforcement and Members of the House of Commons, to make a change to ensure that the child criminal exploitation offence works as intended to protect the children most at risk of being targeted.
As both the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, have said, boys aged between 15 and 17 and, very often, Black and other minority children are commonly overrepresented in those figures. They are the same children at risk of being wrongly perceived as being older, and therefore not protected. We have tried to ensure that we place the responsibility for any criminal activity firmly where it belongs in this case, which is with the adult who is effectively trying to groom, encourage, lead—however we wish to describe it—the child under the age of 18. For the purposes of this legislation, a child is dealt with as being under the age of 18.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised again his concerns about voting at 16. That is an issue for debate, and it is a Labour manifesto commitment, but it is not an issue for debate today.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord says it is a comparison. I accept that, but for the purposes of this legislation, we are saying that individuals aged 15 to 17, particularly, are vulnerable. This goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Requiring the courts to consider what age the perpetrator reasonably believed the child to be by reference to their appearance or behaviour risks, in my view, reinforcing the injustices we have and risks somebody who has undertaken child criminal exploitation getting off because they believed that that person was older than they actually were.
That is a line we have drawn and an argument we have made, and it is in the legislation. I am not the Minister responsible for this, but I would still be happy to have a discussion with the noble Lord at some point about why votes at 16 is important. If he wants to do that, we will find an opportunity, I am sure, if it relates to a Home Office Bill at any time in the future.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(a) D engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child (C), and(b) D does so with the intention of—(i) causing C to commit an offence,(ii) causing C to do anything outside the relevant part of the United Kingdom which would constitute an offence if done in that part, or(iii) facilitating the causing of C, in future, to commit an offence or do anything outside the relevant part of the United Kingdom which would constitute an offence if done in that part.It is irrelevant whether or not D knows or suspects that C is a child.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the requirement that the child is under 13 or the person does not reasonably believe them to be aged 18 or over, and spells out that the person’s state of mind in relation to whether the other person is a child is irrelevant.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“ScheduleSound moderators etc: exemptionsFirearms Act 1968
1 (1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.(2) In section 7(1)—(a) the words from “a firearm” to the end become paragraph (a);(b) at the end insert—“(b) a relevant accessory.”(3) In section 8—(a) in subsection (1) for the words from “, have” to “ammunition” substitute—“(a) have in their possession, purchase or acquire, a firearm or ammunition, or(b) have a relevant accessory in their possession,”;(b) in subsection (1A)—(i) after “ammunition”, in the first place it occurs, insert “, or the possession of a relevant accessory,”;(ii) for “or ammunition”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “, ammunition or relevant accessory”;(iii) after “of, or” insert “firearm or ammunition is”.(4) In section 9(1) for “or ammunition” substitute “, ammunition or a relevant accessory”.(5) In section 11—(a) in subsection (1) for “or ammunition”—(i) in the first place it occurs, substitute “, ammunition or a relevant accessory”;(ii) in the second and third places it occurs, substitute “, ammunition or relevant accessory”;(b) in subsection (4)—(i) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (a);(ii) at the end of paragraph (b) insert“and(c) a relevant accessory,”.(6) In section 11A at the end insert— “(7) Where a rifle is borrowed on any premises in reliance on subsection (1), the borrower may, without holding a certificate under this Act, borrow and have in their possession on those premises a relevant accessory for the period for which the rifle is borrowed.”(7) In section 12(1) after “firearm” insert “or relevant accessory”.(8) In section 13(1)—(a) in paragraph (a)—(i) for “or ammunition”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, ammunition or a relevant accessory”;(ii) for “or ammunition therefor” substitute “, or ammunition or a relevant accessory therefor,”;(b) in paragraph (b)—(i) for“or ammunition”, in the first place it occurs, substitute“, or ammunition or a relevant accessory”;(ii) for“or ammunition”, in the second place it occurs, substitute“, or ammunition or relevant accessory”;(iii) omit the “and” at the end;(c) after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) having obtained a permit under paragraph (c), remove any relevant accessory from or to a ship, aircraft or aerodrome, to or from the place specified in the permit.”Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988
2 (1) The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 is amended as follows.(2) In section 15—(a) in subsection (1) for “and ammunition” substitute “, ammunition and a relevant accessory”;(b) in subsection (2) for“or ammunition”substitute“, ammunition or relevant accessories”.(3) In section 16A(1) for “and ammunition” substitute “, ammunition and a relevant accessory”.(4) In section 16B(1) for “and ammunition” substitute “, ammunition and a relevant accessory”.(5) In section 17 after subsection (1) insert—“(1ZA) The holder of a visitor’s firearm permit may, without holding a firearm certificate, have in their possession a relevant accessory.””(6) In section 25(4) (interpretation), for “or ammunition” substitute “, ammunition or relevant accessory”.(7) In paragraph 1 of the Schedule, in sub-paragraphs (2)(a), (3) and (4) for“and ammunition”substitute“, ammunition and relevant accessories”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Schedule adds sound moderators and flash suppressors to exemptions from the requirement in the Firearms Act 1968 to hold a firearm or shot gun certificate.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to ensure children are not held criminally responsible for cuckooing or coerced internal concealment offences.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, like other noble Lords here this evening, I am quite keen to get home, especially as I will have to stay up all night tomorrow night reacting to the Gorton and Denton by-election, which is going to be very exciting. I hope the Minister expresses the same sort of support for these amendments—well, obviously he will not, but perhaps somebody else will—because I am concerned that Labour has promised something that these clauses will not actually deliver. Perhaps I can explain.
I want to thank the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Randall of Uxbridge, both of whom signed these amendments, although the former’s name is not on them. Amendment 195 and the related amendments seek to ensure that children are not held criminally responsible for the offences of cuckooing or coerced internal concealment where those acts arise from exploitation. These amendments come from joint work by the Children’s Society, Action for Children, ECPAT UK, Catch 22, the Alliance for Youth Justice, the NSPCC, Barnardo’s and other academics.
The Government’s decision to introduce the offence of CCE, alongside new offences addressing cuckooing and coerced internal concealment, demonstrates a genuine commitment to closing gaps, increasing justice and ensuring that those who exploit children are held to account. Taken together with the new preventive orders and the strengthened safeguarding orders elsewhere in the Bill, this represents real progress.
However, there is a troubling inconsistency at the heart of the legislation as drafted. Children being exploited by adults, whether forced to take over another person’s home or to facilitate internal concealment, could be criminalised. While the offence of child criminal exploitation applies only to adults, Clauses 58, 61 and 62 bring children under the age of 18 within the scope of the new offences of cuckooing and coerced internal concealment. That means children who are themselves being exploited by adults could, in law, be treated as perpetrators rather than victims. This directly contradicts the Government’s stated intention to address the imbalance of power exercised by adults who use children to commit crime. It also risks undermining the very purpose of the new offences by re-criminalising children through the backdoor.
We know from the National Crime Agency that child exploitation is a defining feature of cuckooing linked to county lines activity. Police forces report children as young as 14 being found in properties that have been taken over for criminal purposes. This clearly is a legal point, and I am not a lawyer; I very much hope the Government’s lawyers can look at this and see that I am right and perhaps tighten up the Bill as drafted. Children subjected to violence, grooming, intimidation and control cannot meaningfully refuse adults who demand their help. They cannot consent and they should not be punished for crimes that arise directly from their exploitation. This Bill really has the potential to mark a genuine shift in how we respond to child exploitation, and these amendments could help ensure that children are victims and not offenders, and that the law reflects that without any sort of ambiguity.
Amendment 198 concerns Clause 62 and the provision of statutory guidance for agencies responding to child criminal exploitation. Again, it comes from the same child action networks I mentioned before. As I have said, the creation of new offences and preventive orders in this Bill is welcome, but legislation on its own is a blunt instrument and its success will depend entirely on how it is implemented on the ground by the wide range of statutory agencies that come into contact with children at risk of exploitation. Child criminal exploitation is complex, hidden and constantly evolving. It cuts across policing, social work, education, health, youth justice, housing and safeguarding partnerships. We have to have a joined-up, consistent, well-informed response; otherwise, it is pointless putting any of this into the Bill. Support and guidance must extend to all public authorities with statutory responsibilities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, because without comprehensive multi-agency guidance we will continue to see uneven responses, confusion over roles and responsibilities, and children falling through the cracks.
Elsewhere in the Bill, in Clause 99 in Part 6, the Secretary of State is rightly given powers to issue multiagency statutory guidance on the new stalking offence. That recognises that identifying victims, managing perpetrators and preventing harm requires co-ordinated action across multiple agencies. Child criminal exploitation is no less complex and, in many cases, far more so, and the same approach should apply here. Amendment 198 would ensure that statutory guidance is issued to all agencies operating under Section 16E of the Children Act 2004, reflecting their safeguarding activities and duties.
I realise it is very difficult for the Government to react to all the amendments that we put in. I am feeling a bit lonely on these Benches, actually—I do not know if everybody else has gone home already; I am quite jealous. My ambition is to ensure that the provisions in this Bill are supported by the clear, authoritative, multiagency guidance necessary to make them work in practice, and to make sure that we can see they are working in practice. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has outlined the amendments and their importance in detail. I want to echo her last point about the need for proper guidance to set out exactly what the many agencies that should be involved need to do. The group of charities that have written to us propose that this should
“Provide clear advice on the complex and evolving nature of CCE”,
including cuckooing;
“Clarify the roles and responsibilities of all relevant partners”
and “Emphasise transitional safeguarding”, ensuring that young people do not suddenly get pulled out of somewhere and have absolutely no resource to face a new life. They add that it is important that this is not just the obvious agencies; it needs to include those concerned with slavery and trafficking and the police specialists working in child abduction, and it needs to extend to care orders, secure accommodation and deprivation of liberty orders.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling these amendments, and I fully appreciate that they are concerned with the protection of children and young people. The amendments would restrict the new offences of cuckooing and coerced internal concealment so that they applied only to those aged 18 and over, and they would require the Secretary of State to issue statutory safeguarding guidance in connection with these provisions.
Let me say at the outset that we all recognise the deeply exploitative nature of cuckooing and forcing or coercing individuals, particularly vulnerable people, into internally concealing drugs or other items. The purpose of these new offences in the Bill is precisely to target that exploitation, and we on these Benches have a lot of sympathy for that principle. The clauses are designed to disrupt organised criminal activity that so often preys on the vulnerable.
However, we cannot support the amendments in this group. They would, in effect, create a blanket exemption for 16 and 17 year-olds from criminal liability for these offences. In this country, the age of criminal responsibility is 10. Parliament has long accepted that young people under 18 can, in appropriate circumstances, be held criminally responsible for serious criminal conduct. To carve out a specific exemption here would create inconsistency in law and risk signalling that certain forms of serious exploitation-related offending are less culpable when committed by older teenagers.
That is not to deny that many young people involved in such activities are themselves victims. The courts already have extensive powers to take age, maturity, coercion and vulnerability into account at charging and sentencing. Prosecutorial direction and the youth justice framework provide mechanisms to distinguish between a hardened exploiter and a child groomed into criminality; a blanket statutory exclusion would go too far.
As for the proposed requirement for additional statutory guidance, safeguarding responsibilities are already embedded in existing legislation. Public authorities with safeguarding duties are well aware of their obligations, and we should be cautious about layering further statutory guidance unnecessarily. We must ensure that exploiters are prosecuted, victims are protected and the law remains coherent. For those reasons, while I very much respect the intentions behind these amendments, I cannot support them.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate. I start with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—and I start by welcoming her genuine recognition of the progress that we are making through this legislation by introducing the new child criminal exploitation and cuckooing offences in this Bill. We are grateful for that. As she explained, her Amendments 195 to 197 seek to restrict those who commit the cuckooing and internal concealment offences to those aged 18 or over.
The Government fully recognise that children, particularly those exploited by county lines gangs, are often used to carry out cuckooing activity or to persuade others to internally conceal items such as drugs for a criminal purpose. The act of turning these children into exploiters themselves is particularly appalling and is why this Government’s work to target child criminal exploitation is so important. I think that everyone across your Lordships’ House recognises that. While I appreciate the spirit of these amendments and believe that it is absolutely right that children, when they have been exploited and groomed into criminality, should be protected as victims, this does not in itself override the age of criminal responsibility, where the law holds children over a certain age responsible for their actions. It is possible for a child to commit cuckooing or internal concealment without having been exploited to do so.
Let us be clear that decisions as to whether to charge someone should be taken on a case-by-case basis. As with all offences, the police exercise operational judgment when investigating and gathering evidence to establish the facts of a case, and the Crown Prosecution Service’s public interest test will of course apply. This includes consideration of the child’s culpability and whether they have been compelled, coerced or exploited to commit any potential crime of cuckooing or internal concealment. We will also issue statutory guidance to support implementation of the cuckooing and internal concealment offences, including on how the police should respond and identify exploitation when children are found in connection with cuckooing or internal concealment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, posed the question why we are not creating a statutory defence for children against their prosecution for crimes, including cuckooing and internal concealment, committed as a result of effectively being a victim of child criminal exploitation. When a victim of proposed child criminal exploitation offences also meets the definition of a victim of modern slavery, they may retain access to the statutory defence contained in Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Many victims of CCE will continue to be able to access the Section 45 defence, as they do now. However, we consider that creating an additional stand-alone statutory defence for victims of child criminal exploitation beyond that which already exists in Section 45 of the 2015 Act for victims who are also victims of modern slavery and/or human trafficking could have unintended consequences, given the breadth of the proposed offence. The child criminal exploitation offence is to address the imbalance between children and those individuals who criminally exploit them.
I add that we are working with partners in the criminal justice system to improve awareness and understanding of the Section 45 defence, which will support the early identification of potential victims of modern slavery and prevent criminal proceedings being brought against victims. It is intended that guidance on the potential availability of the Section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for victims of child criminal exploitation will be included in the statutory guidance that will accompany the new offence.
I turn to Amendment 198. We similarly sympathise with the intention behind the amendment to introduce statutory guidance for multi-agency partners. It is essential that agencies work together to safeguard and protect children and vulnerable adults from criminal exploitation. However, statutory safeguarding responsibilities are already set out in statutory guidance, principally in Working Together to Safeguard Children, which includes guidance on child criminal exploitation. To supplement this, we will issue non-statutory guidance for partner agencies on the child criminal exploitation offence and orders and on cuckooing and internal concealment to support them to identify these harms and recognise how their statutory responsibilities apply. Issuing separate statutory guidance with additional legal burdens for safeguarding partners on these specific crime types alone risks duplication and a siloed approach to protecting children and vulnerable adults—something that I am sure we would all wish to avoid happening.
More broadly, the Government are taking a range of actions to strengthen child protection through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will introduce new multi-agency child protection teams in every local authority in England. This will ensure stronger join-up between police, health, education and children’s social care when responding to harms such as child criminal exploitation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned stalking offences, which are committed mainly against adults, so it is appropriate to have bespoke guidance. Here we are talking about safeguarding children where the DfE guidance will apply, so it is appropriate that we take this approach, given the range of agencies involved for children. I hope that, given those assurances, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I said in my contribution that I hoped that the agencies might extend beyond the usual ones, and the Minister certainly named the usual ones. Would it, for example, include working with the local gangmaster operations as well?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I will not speculate. I suspect that would be the case, but I had probably best undertake to write to the noble Baroness to confirm that detail.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for his answers. I recognise the points he made, and those made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but quite honestly, when you have so many children’s organisations saying that the Government have got something wrong, the Government ought to listen. Although I am not going to push this to a vote, I feel like tackling the various Ministers in the corridor sometime and making sure they understand the depth of my care and passion about this. We all want to protect children, and the Government will be responsible if there are gaps. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.