Lords Chamber

Wednesday 25th February 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:06
None Portrait Oral questions: AI Security Institute’s research into threats to economic stability arising from changes in the labour market
-

First First Oral First Oral Question First Oral Question Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town.
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
None Portrait Oral questions: Which cyclist safety measures for cyclists are the most effective for reducing accidents and injuries
-

Second Oral Question Lord Krebs. standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
None Portrait Oral questions: Discussions with the government of Pakistan regarding the imprisonment of former Prime Minister Imran Khan
-

Fourth Oral Question Baroness Alexander of Cleveden.
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:50
15:51
15:52
15:53
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
The question is this bill do now pass? pass? >> My Lords, while this was emergency legislation, we have had detailed and constructive debates detailed and constructive debates on prioritisation. We have also had the opportunity to debate some of the deeper issues with the supply of medical speciality training of medical speciality training places, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness Vere 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, something which the noble Lady, the Minister, graciously acknowledged. We accept that it is a step forward now. During our debates, we touched on a number of issues, including whether UK citizens who are graduates of UK medical schools should be given a first priority. We discussed the issue of international medical graduates who chose to come 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 also 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. Now we understand why the government has come to its position, and why Ministers have not been able to take action on these points with 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.

My Lords, there was also some debate about whether this was really emergency legislation, and whether in reality it was simply giving the Secretary of State a bargaining chip in negotiations with the BMA. Now, 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 would like to thank the Minister and the officials for all their engagement throughout the Bill and as His Majesty's loyal opposition, we look forward to working closely with the noble Lady, the Minister, as the government presses ahead with implementation of this bill.
15:55
Baroness Gerada Portrait Baroness Gerada (Crossbench)
-
-
I know it's not normal to speak >> I know it's not normal to speak at the report states. I'll be very brief. I'd like to thank the Minister and everyone who's worked Minister and everyone who's worked on this bill, but I just want to raise just 1 or 2 anxieties which have already been touched on. I believe that this bill fundamentally challenges one of the principles of what I've always held, which is fairness. I think this is unfair to those international medical graduates who for the last two decades, we've we've entreated them to come.

We've even paid for them to come to this country, to work in hard jobs in places that the UK graduates didn't want to do. And now that we have more people than places, we're basically pulling the rug away from them. We're jeopardising their careers, their futures, their families and their visas. I also think it's unfair to those UK nationals who chose, again in good faith to to study overseas and now have been treated like international medical graduates when they are not.

And finally, my Lords, I think it's unfair to the commitment that the Department of Education has around transnational under and postgraduate education. And this bill, I'm afraid, takes away that commitment and says that we don't really mean what we say. But I look forward to working with Ministers and with officials to see if we can address some what I fear are going to be the unintended and I suspect, intended consequences of this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I start firstly by thanking Adam in the Lib Dem office for the help and support and also the support of my good friend Lord Clement-Jones in terms of guiding Clement-Jones in terms of guiding me and helping me navigate the around this bill. As we've heard earlier, this isn't emergency legislation. They are question legislation. They are question marks. Whether they should have been emergency legislation, given the issues that the noble Lord, the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Carmel raised is here.

All I will say to the Minister is that during the course of this I won't. I would like to put on record my thanks for your engagement in terms of not only finding time to speak to us individually before this bill arrived here, but also since and even on the very last day beginning of this week, all I will say is there's many issues that were raised during the passage of this bill. And I'm you're right to point out that this is not the silver bullet that's going to deal with the workforce issue.

So all I will say to the Minister is that 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. But like you say, there is an issue here. The government has now come forward with a possible solution. We did have some alternatives, but clearly in a democracy we didn't win on this occasion.

So we wish this bill well. And more importantly, those students that have been watching our debates, I have been watching our debates, I wish every one of those all the success in their future careers.
15:58
15:59
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
sorry I wasn't ready for. Of course it's worth waiting for. My Lords, 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 inconvenient, in preventing a person from engaging in anti-social behaviour. This small, targeted change ensures the test is more proportionately aligned with the potentially serious consequences of these crazy criminal orders, since 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 at committee, these cases would be adequately covered by necessity and proportionate framework. My Lords, the Minister says that under the Human Rights Act, judges must already take necessity and proportionality into account. If that is so, I struggle to see why that very safeguard cannot be placed transparently on the face of 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 was also addressed. 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 aligns the order much better with the risk assessment duty already outlined in section J1 of clause one. In committee, a number of peers express concern about judicial overreach, particularly with tools so sweeping 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 antisocial behaviour.

My Lords are 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. One final point in committee, we welcome the Home Office plan to pilot these orders, only to be told that the government had decided this was no longer necessary. On that occasion, the Minister informed me, things change.

However, since then things appear to have changed again, with the latest policy paper saying that respect orders will now be piloted before being rolled out nationally. That is obviously very welcome, but I hope that the Minister can reassure the House today that in this matter at least, there will be no further changes. My Lords, one change I do, however, strongly advocate, is that outlined in amendment one, if it sharpens the law, improves enforcement and offers greater protection against injustice for the price of a modest drafting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

alteration, why resist it? I beg to move. Yes. Amendment. Proposed. Clause one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment. Proposed. Clause one, page two. Line four. Leave out just and convenient and insert necessary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and proportionate. With everything that's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Been said by Baroness Doocey. As I understand the government's position, it accepts that it would position, it accepts that it would not be appropriate to impose such an order unless it is necessary and proportionate. And indeed, that is the test that supplied by the
16:04
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
European Convention on Human Rights. So the only question is whether the So the only question is whether the language of the bill and the act that it will become should reflect the true test. It does seem to me, the true test. It does seem to me, as it seems to Baroness Doocey, that it's highly appropriate, that what is on the face of the legislation should set out what is the true test. This has to be the true test. This has to be applied not just by judges, but by police officers, by local authorities, by communities, and by everyone who is responsible for considering and enforcing this legislation.

So let's put on the face of the bill the true and proper test. proper test.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. I. My Lords, I the government, there's a lot in this group. That's the first thing to say. The government are undoubtedly sincere government are undoubtedly sincere in wanting to use this bill to further tackle anti-social behaviour. And certainly such moves will be popular at taking on this blight on communities. However, I blight on communities. However, I think we do have to pause a moment and say that there's already a plethora of tools on the statute books designed to tackle anti-social behaviour, and yet it doesn't seem to be improving.

And this is the group in which we need to ask why? Because perhaps, just perhaps, anti-social behaviour orders and injunctions in all their various guises, from community
16:05
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
penalty notices to public space protection orders, are just not fit for purpose. But instead of for purpose. But instead of tackling this, I fear that the government is taking something of an easy and performative route and an easy and performative route and affording the state even more of the same, a bit more draconian powers with a different label that powers with a different label that is, respect orders. But all of this with little clarity or evidence of with little clarity or evidence of efficacy.

And that's what these amendments in this group are designed to tackle. And by and large, I support them all. I've tabled amendments six that calls for an independent and I stress that word independent. An independent review of existing powers under the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 that should be published prior to the commencement of sections one and two of the act. As legislators, we have an obligation for taking responsibility for assessing the impact, the impact of and the evidence about laws that we have made in the past.

Before we duplicate their weaknesses, we need to be able to understand the pros and cons. This review would look at. Solving the evidence gap is extraordinary, that there's a significant gap in and variation in data capture across relative authorities, across ASB, or 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 both 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 just 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. It is why amendment 24, in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, who's not in her place, as I see, requiring the Home Office to publish quarterly data is so important, as well as amendment 12 from the noble Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Doocey calling for an annual report, both positively trying to tackle the lack the limits of availability of evidence of the evidence base, without which I don't know how we can make informed policy decisions.

At present, all the critiques of present behaviour orders are invaluably brought to us from both sporadic academic research from FOI, both research led by the likes of Josie Appleton and her team at the campaign for freedom for Everyday Life and the excellent campaign group justice. But they want their work to become redundant by the government. They want the government and officialdom to do their work instead, because if the Home Office doesn't understand its own legislative tools, because it hasn't got the data, the misery of anti-social behaviour will remain untouched while the statute book grows.

Maybe the noble Lord, the Lord, the Minister will listen. I hope to the front line workers who have to implement and use these orders and reasonably bemoan the lack of proper consultation with those who in real life, understand the Abi regime. And I have noted a government amendment on consultation, which is welcome. But the vast majority of practitioners who justice consulted believe that the new respect orders are unnecessary and replicate flawed laws already available. Only 6% conclude they will improve outcomes for victims.

82% of respondents of the Practitioners Survey have called for the review of the existing 2014 act of existing powers prior to introducing respect orders, and there was unanimous agreement that the government should be addressing problems inherent with 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 that those opportunities are missed. Surely the noble Lord, the Minister, will want and feel the need to understand why research shows a significant proportion of Cpns and PPOs are, for example, being overused for trivial activities such as, I don't know, feeding the birds, honking horns, gathering in groups, 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 anti-social behaviour that the public is concerned about, and that the 2014 act envisaged it will be tackling.

And so all that we're asking, I think, in these amendments is that the Minister actually look at what's gone wrong so we can improve it. Surely the government is worried about the vastly varied use of existing orders that creates a postcode lottery for victims, and also means British citizens don't know what's allowed from one town to another. Conduct that's totally lawful in Lincoln might be the subject of 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 feels very strongly in support of, and it makes enforcement dependent on the victim's location rather than circumstances, or on the perpetrator's location, rather than the precise precisely how they're behaving badly.

This makes a mockery of all the notion of all of us being equal under the law. And a review would look at these problems and recommend practical solutions. Amendments one and three especially, I think, are important in relation to ensuring the respect orders are only used when necessary and in a proportionate way. And we've already heard about that. I think this is very helpful, particularly in creating a right to appeal. I'm worried that the statutory test and language use were imposing these new respect orders is so broad that rather than capturing the behaviour that is, rather than capturing behaviour that is serious, persistent and persistent in nature, it will, as I've said, criminalise more trivial behaviour that they can be imposed on individuals without their knowledge and most egregiously, can be imposed for an indefinite duration, for example, until further notice.

That's 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've reached the end of their defined term of sentence, or even sometimes before these days, there is. This is reminiscent of that stain on our justice system, the abolished and abominable APPG indefinite sentence that has caused such a scandal.

So why would the government now create this new, these new oppressive orders that flout the important principle that individual lives are subject to state interference? They need to know how long the interference will last and when it will end. Finally, I've added my name to amendment seven, an excellent contribution from the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Doocey on fixed penalty notices based on the work of the campaign for Freedom of Everyday Life. This, I really hope, will ring true with any Labour government, because ensuring that those private companies dishing out on the spot fines for anti-social behaviour, doing that for profit, to profit financially is surely something the government offends.

The government's values concerns the anti-social behaviour orders have been corrupted for income generation and commercial purposes and with fines increasing much under this bill, surely that tendency will be turbocharged, I think is something the government will want to tackle because all the orders in clause four being issued at such a low benchmark are actually likely to are defined to those going up. So I'm worried that this will encourage councils to become trigger happy with orders and so on. I'm sure the noble Lord Lord Hanson of Flint in particular, will remember, as I do, the scandal of kingdom security in North Wales in I think it was 2019 when councils including Conway, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Gwynedd and Anglesey outsourced the collection of their on the spot fines to private security group Kingdom, who illustrated that the enforcers could well be seen as being far more antisocial than any behaviour of local residents.

They were supposedly fining them for. A grassroots campaign attracted 8000 plus members to its Facebook page, and led to numerous protests all over North Wales. The security groups wardens were accused of threatening bullying and even stalking residents. North Wales following dog walkers and smokers at a distance just so they could catch them out and find them. They especially targeted the elderly and women and children and 195 year old lady. Her tissue blew from her wheelchair to the ground and she was fined.

Kingdom security don't have their contract, didn't have their contract renewed. But similar practices have proliferated throughout the Abi enforcement world. Such scam like behaviour of fines for profit discredits and trivialises a serious approach to tackling anti-social behaviour, and this is a chance for the government to roll back on this. So I do hope that the noble Lords will call a division on this, and I'll certainly be voting in support of amendment seven if they do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ensure. My Lords, I rise to support the bill tabled in my name. As you all bill tabled in my name. As you all know, I am terrible with the abelian rules we have in this place. Bear with me. This is a small Bear with me. This is a small change that will make a big difference to many residents around the country. I'll try not to the country. I'll try not to rehearse the the arguments I made before, but I will say this.

We now before, but I will say this. We now need to reflect the reality of the housing situation that we have in this country. With the government's mission to build 1.5 million homes, this reality will only become even bigger that many of our housing
16:16
Lord Bailey of Paddington Portrait Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
providers in the social sector are for profit companies, and it's 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 same access to the law that any resident would have, regardless of the the financial structure, the the the financial structure, the legal structure of their landlord. So in order to make that happen, these small changes to remove those these small changes to remove those particular words, private and non-profit, would make a massive difference to the ability of these companies to keep people safe.

The law is at its best when it is clear and coherent, and good law should be comprehensive and unambiguous. If Parliament intends these powers to apply to housing providers, then, as I said, it should apply to all of them. This amendment does not alter the policy intent of the bill. It strengthens it. It reinforces the simple principle that tenants safety and accountability must be the same, regardless of where you live in the country. So I would I would recommend the bill to the government and ask for this tiny little change to make sure that we can deliver safety for all of our residents country wide.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I rise to speak to the amendments in my noble friend Baroness Doocey name and mine. In Baroness Doocey name and mine. In this group, we seek to ensure that the government's new anti-social behaviour powers are grounded in evidence, proportionality and democratic accountability and to other amendments in this group. My Lords, on these benches, we do not dismiss the misery that persistent dismiss the misery that persistent anti-social behaviour causes. However, we remain deeply unconvinced that layering yet
16:18
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
another complex civil order onto an already confused ASB framework is already confused ASB framework is the right approach. As justice has highlighted, respect orders risk highlighted, respect orders risk duplicating existing powers come with limited evidence of effectiveness and lack basic effectiveness and lack basic procedural safeguards. They rely on a weak civil standard of proof, yet they impose severe restrictions and they impose severe restrictions and carry a potential two year prison sentence upon breach. First of all, my Lords 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.

And much welcome what the noble Lord Pannick had to say. And the Minister, the noble Lord Hanson Committee, defended this language as familiar to the civil courts. However, he did offer a of light, agreeing to examine the arguments for the wording in amendment one 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, safer threshold today, ensuring these orders are not used merely for administrative expediency.

And my Lords, we really do 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 two requires that the terms of respect, orders and spos must be subject to a full council vote. In his follow up letter to me following committee, the Minister, the noble Lord Hanson, rejected this, claiming it would introduce delays and unnecessary bureaucracy. My Lords, 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 ASBO be undertaken at Cabinet or full council level to ensure openness and accountability. Currently researched by the campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life, formerly the Manifesto Club, shows that nearly half of all ASBOs are signed off by a single, often unelected council officer without any democratic vote. This lack of scrutiny has led to observe 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 three, as I highlighted on 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 ASBO and CPS 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. My Lords, this is totally inadequate. There should be a formal right of appeal. Now, my Lords, I turn to amendment seven in my name concerning fixed penalty notices for public space protection orders and community protection notices. And I do thank the noble Lady Baroness Fox for her support in this respect and for her very extensive unpicking of these ASB powers.

My Lords, under clause four, the government is 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 is 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. My Lords guidance and informal representations are entirely inadequate when faced with the modern enforcement market, as the campaign for Everyday Freedoms 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 pointed out to the Minister previously, Defra has already issued strict guidance stating that private firms enforcing littering should not receive greater revenue from increasing the volume of penalties. It's entirely illogical not to apply this exact same statutory prohibition to anti-social behaviour enforcement. We must ban fining for profit. On the face of the Bill today, my Lords, it's time to put a statutory end to the revenue collection system masquerading as justice.

Finally, my Lords, we have an amendment. 12 proposed an annual report on the use of the these ASB powers. For all the reasons I have stated and so well expressed by the noble Baroness Lane-Fox, I entirely understand that the noble Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb is trying to achieve something very similar in her amendment. My Lords, we are all aiming for much greater transparency of the use of these ASB powers, and I very much hope that the government will at least go for one of the proposals.

My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords here. My Lords, it will come as no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the noble Lords Minister that these benches maintain our opposition to the maintain our opposition to the government's respect orders we have heard, both at Committee and today, many concerns about the new regime. many concerns about the new regime. Our concerns are slightly different from some of those expressed by other noble Lords, in that we other noble Lords, in that we oppose them because we view them as simply unnecessary. At Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower asked the noble Lord, the Minister, if he could say what would be the true difference between respect orders and the current anti-social behaviour.

Injunctions. And 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 and in addition, the power of arrest can be attached to the injunction under section four 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 91 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, there does exist, therefore, a number of avenues for enforcement of these injunctions. But even if the government believes that creating a specific criminal offence is necessary, then why not simply amend the ASB injunction regime to create that offence? Why introduce an entirely new regime instead? My Lords, having said all of that, we are where we are.

The noble Lord, the Minister at Committee, responded to my noble friends criticism by stating that it was a manifesto commitment. I do accept this and that is why I suspect it will pass today unhindered. Turning briefly to some of the other amendments in this group, I do have a rather specific concern about the requirement in amendment two, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones, that a respect order may only be applied for if the local authority has agreed to do so at a meeting of the full Council.

Section subsection eight A of his amendment states that a relevant authority may not make an application for respect order unless the relevant local authority has complied with the requirements. In subsection eight b. However, the definition of relevant authority in subsection B, one of the bill, includes the chief officer of the police for the 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.

And I do wonder if this might create an overly burdensome and time consuming requirement. Amendment seven from the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones is, however, something I do have sympathy for in 2020 for a record 14.4 million parking fines were issued, a number that represents 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. Preventing parking firms and indeed councils, from using fines based on spurious violations to simply make money is surely not right.

Where a person has violated the rules, then 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 them. Finally, and having been somewhat critical of respect orders, I do say to the noble Lord, the Minister, that I do welcome his amendment. For as much as I may think respect orders are unnecessary, if we are to have them, then it is welcome that the Secretary of State will be required to consult on the guidance they issue.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's good to be back, isn't it? It feels like we've been away for ages. And now here we are again, ages. And now here we are again, back at the Crime and Policing Bill for another session of interesting amendments. And I'm grateful to all noble Lords for tabling the amendments before the House today. I just begin with the point that the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel himself recognised respect. Orders are a Labour government manifesto commitment.

They are done for the purposes of securing action on anti-social behaviour in our town
16:30
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
centres across this country, and we secured a mandate to implement them. secured a mandate to implement them. So therefore, I say to the Committee as a whole that I welcome the amendments. We'll discuss the the amendments. We'll discuss the amendments, but this is a core element of Labour government policy. element of Labour government policy. I come, first of all, to move amendment four in my name also, and amendment four in my name also, and that is a a part of a listening exercise that we've taken as part of the Committee stage.

Amendment four would ensure that appropriate consultation is carried out prior to the issue or revision of statutory guidance in respect of respect orders. And my Lords, whilst consultation with relevant stakeholders is of course routinely carried out prior to the issuing of such guidance, I hope that formalising this requirement with amendment four in the legislation will go some way to help the concerns that were raised by noble Lords about statutory guidance not being subject to adequate consultation, and the perceived impact on its utility.

And I obviously will return to that at some point in the future, but I hope that is of assistance as a whole. The amendment also makes clear that the consultation undertaken prior to clause one coming into force, will count towards fulfilling the consultation requirement. And if I may, just at this point, I will try and clarify to some extent the concerns that have been raised around the respect
16:31
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Order, order pilot and what is happening with that. I would just say to both the noble Baroness say to both the noble Baroness Doocey who raised that point, and other noble Lords who have other noble Lords who have commented upon it, that details of the rollout of the Respect orders are being examined and worked through by the government, and I through by the government, and I will share more detail in due will share more detail in due course on that before any any further action is taken.

But at the moment, that is the position for the House to understand. There's a number of other amendments in the group and I'll try and address each of them in turn, if I may. Amendment one was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Ducey, and has had the support and comments from the noble Lord, and learned Lord Pannick on that matter, and that seeks to change the legal test for issuing a respect order so that the court would need to consider it. And inverted commas necessary and proportionate to issue the order, rather than just inverted commas, just and convenient to do so.

This was raised at the Committee stage, where I made it clear that the current, just inconvenient language does mirror the test in the current civil injunction regime under the 2014 act, which the respect order in part replaces. The legislation was, of course, enacted by the coalition government, of which I think the noble Lady Baroness Doocey may well have been in the House at the time when that was done. It mirrors that language completely, and housing injunctions and injunctions will remain operational under the 2014 act, and the just and convenient test will be consistent across these orders and the respect orders, which we consider to be fair and proper.

So there's a point to be made. And if the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lady wish to make it, that is fine. But I'm saying to them both that this is consistent with Acts of Parliament that are currently in place on similar orders, and courts will take the necessity and proportionality of an order into account as a result of the duties of the noble and learned Lord Pannick raised under the Human Rights Act. It's therefore, in my view, we can take a view on it, but it's, in my view, the unnecessary procedure to amend the legal test, particularly as the effect would be to increase the threshold for the use of these orders, making the job of the police, local authorities and others in protecting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities that much harder. Very grateful to the Lord. Would he accept? It's very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he accept? It's very. Difficult ever to think of circumstances in which it would be circumstances in which it would be appropriate for a court to impose a respect order, with all the respect order, with all the implications that that has for an individual, unless the court is satisfied that it is necessary and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

satisfied that it is necessary and it is proportionate. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord has unloaded. Lord has made his point. I'm trying to give the defence from the government's perspective in what government's perspective in what I've said. That is our view. I think it's a reasonable point, but think it's a reasonable point, but that is our view, and I would hope that he would accept the comments that I've made in good faith on on that I've made in good faith on on those issues. Amendment two I have to say, and I hope the noble Lord to say, and I hope the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel will understand when I say this, that I agree with him on the points that he made.

It is rather bureaucratic under amendment two, in the name of the noble Lord Clement-Jones, that the Council must carry out a full public consultation prior to any application to the court for respect order to be made. Now, I have to say I was leader of the council for some years. We had six seven meetings per year of that council. Does the noble Lord Clement-Jones expect really that in the event of this legislation becoming law, that the Council would have to on maybe a six, seven, eight week basis once, six times a year, considering any respect orders and agree them before the police could go.

And with the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel on this one. You know, some areas do undertake as a matter of course, local practice that but there is no requirement for a public consultation prior to a Public Spaces Protection order being implemented. And it's certainly my view 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. And I hope that, on reflection, he will agree with His Majesty's opposition and myself.

He may not, but I put that point to him for his consideration. Amendment three would add a provision into the bill for a respondent to appeal the making of variation of a respect order, again moved by the noble Lord. Clement-Jones. 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, and the ordinary rules of appeal will apply to decisions to grant a respect order or a refusal to vary or discharge an order, and to be absolutely clear on this issue.

Decisions to grant or vary respect orders, as well as decisions not to grant or vary an order, will be appealable through the usual avenues under Civil Procedure rules, and I hope that assists. I'm grateful to the noble Lord Bailey of Paddington for his amendment five. We did potentially begin to discuss this in committee, and I know that he wished to to speak to that, and he has sought an amendment five 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 antisocial behaviour, but I think we should exercise caution before extending these powers without more consideration. And I say that in, I hope, the spirit of friendship and cooperation with the noble Lord. The Home Secretary has a power to amend the list of relevant authorities that can apply for a respect order. And I say to the noble Lord Bailey of Paddington that if it is considered appropriate to add a for profit registered social housing 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, if I may, to that point. But it's not a it's not a no, it's a potentially it could be added later with more consideration. And I hope that will at least help him in the discussions that he's had today. Amendment six, 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 just go back to what I said to the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel. It's a manifesto commitment that we fought the election on to improve anti-social behaviour responses and one of the anti-social behaviour responses that we specifically put in the manifesto at the general election was the issue of respect orders. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the idea that we wish to know the sorry. Just just to clarify or just to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just just to clarify or just to. Help the noble Lords Minister, I wouldn't want to in any way stop the government implementing its the government implementing its manifesto promises. The aim of the review was not to stop respect review was not to stop respect orders was to suggest that the anti-social behaviour on the statute books was reviewed before statute books was reviewed before respect orders were brought in. Because it can't. They can't learn what has gone wrong with the previous anti-social behaviour orders if you've never reviewed it.

So it's to help you make sure that your manifesto promise of respect orders are effective, rather than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just a paper piece of paper. I'm always grateful for the noble Ladies help on these matters. In fact, it's it's it's as rare as hen's teeth normally. But I'm hen's teeth normally. But I'm always grateful to the noble Ladies help on these matters. But I still say to her that the implementation say to her that the implementation of respect orders is crucial for us to ensure that we do tackle anti-social behaviour effectively. And I just put it to a gentleman that I know she's very keen on reducing bureaucracy and very keen on reducing the cost of government, etc.

this would be a very costly, unnecessary review of the whole landscape of ASB powers when we already know we agree with those powers, and we'd have an unacceptable rollout of the orders that the manifesto has given. And we're already, you know, 18 months, 19 months into a Labour government term and people are impatient for change. And one of the changes we want to make is tackling anti-social behaviour. So I would say to her that the respect order, housing injunction, youth injunction are not novel, but replace and improve upon an existing order.

The Civil Injunction Order, which has been in place since 2015. We are committed to ensuring the powers address anti-social behaviour remain effective and we will routinely engage with practitioners across the board, but I hope that she'll reflect on on that amendment. Given those those comments, amendment seven provides that any accredited or authorised person working on behalf of a local authority may not profit financially. Can I just make clear to the movers of the amendment that this bill simply makes clear that the fixed penalty notice that can already be issued for breaches of these orders are still in place, and we only increase the upper limit of the fine.

And it's expected that the figure issued will be based on the individual circumstances and the severity of the case. As of now, local agencies are expected to ensure that fixed penalty notices are only issued in circumstances where it's considered proper and appropriate, and I recognise that there are some concerns and she's referenced her. Our home areas of North Wales, where there have been sometimes in excess or unreasonable number of fixed penalty notices issued. I accept fully that point, but I just put to her again that the contracting enforcement of third parties is a common arrangement.

Councils aren't going to do it themselves, all in-house. They do some of that contractually. There is statutory guidance which all relevant agencies have a legal, legal duty to have regard to, which underscores the importance of applying new fixed penalty notice limits in a proportionate and balanced way. And I would say again to the noble Lord Clement Jones, who has also referenced this amendment, that the importance of proportionate use of new thresholds and for local authorities and agents acting on behalf of them, should not be issuing fixed penalty notices to generate profit is agreed.

We will be consulting on revised guidance and I will undertake to share a copy of that guidance with the noble Lord Clement-Jones and anybody else, including the noble Lady Baroness Fox, should she so wish, before any action is taken, to implement any proposals passed by Parliament in due course, the statutory guidance will be implemented and I hope that we can examine that in due course. Amendments 12 in the name of the noble Lord Clement Jones and amendments 24 which the noble Baroness Jones's tabled, but was not able to speak to today.

Amendment 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report before Parliament on the operation of respect Orders. Amendment 24, which hasn't been spoken to, would require 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 it improved because that helps government understand those anti-social behaviour causes. Clause seven of the bill to which I refer the House on page 16 of the bill, does include a provision on the information about anti-social behaviour to the Secretary of State, and it does under subsections one, two, three, four, five, six and seven, list a range of matters that it wishes to have information collected from it, and the extent to which data will be reported and published will be confirmed after consultation with the relevant agencies.

The Home Office also publishes data on the use of stop and search powers, including stop and search conducted arrests following a search of a demographic area, and it does include information broken down by community safety partnerships as well as police force areas. So I'm afraid in terms of the amendments before the committee today, I hope I've given some supportive words to some amendments, given some clarification on others, but have also indicated there are amendments that we cannot support as the government.

But I remind the House that all of this is done for a purpose. That purpose is to prevent antisocial behaviour and to support the growth of our town centres. And I would commend amendment four to the House in my name and would ask amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, the Minister. Nobody doubts, so nobody questions that anti-social behaviour is a anti-social behaviour is a manifesto commitment that that's taken as read. But if it's a manifesto commitment, you've got to manifesto commitment, you've got to put the words that clearly describe what you're trying to say. I find what you're trying to say. I find it quite baffling that in that First Amendment, the government prefers the words you are just and convenient.

What's convenient in their why are you dressing it up? Whereas of the thought that the normal language of necessary and proportionate are much easier to understand. So why is the government rejecting words that will help this antisocial behaviour bill in order to deal with the matter? And instead of really fishing for some other words, which for me actually do not make sense at all, could you try and make sense for me because I had your explanation, my Lord, I was not persuaded, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

The words that we know in the Human Rights Act, necessary and proportionate, will ease the fear that you're just simply going to go on a spree. The police will go on a spree and do a number of things, because they judge it to be just and convenient.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, as ever, I'm I'm genuinely sorry I've not been able to persuade the noble and right persuade the noble and right reverend Lord of the government's case. We've taken the view that case. We've taken the view that just inconvenient is the wording that is currently mirroring the civil injunction regime of the 2014 civil injunction regime of the 2014 act, passed by a Conservative and Liberal Democrat government. This Liberal Democrat government. This is not this is not words from the Labour Minister.

This is words from an act passed in 2014, which we are mirroring in respect of a manifesto commitment that this government is bringing in to introduce new respect orders. I'm sorry, I can't convince him of that. And I'm sorry that if I haven't persuaded him accordingly, we may I don't know. We may have an opportunity to see if anybody else is persuaded very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shortly. But I'll give way to the right. Lord Grade I remain unpersuaded, my Lords. But the Minister keeps mentioning the manifesto commitment. But in the manifesto there is no But in the manifesto there is no mention of the threshold for liability in terms of a respect liability in terms of a respect order. And so it's perfectly legitimate to question the basis on which the respect order that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which the respect order that the government is introducing is based. Surely. Well, the basis on which the respect order is introduced and the and the phraseology used is the phraseology which his government and the Hmg's opposition government put in place for previous orders. I'm not changing the wording of anything that presumably at some point in 2014, he and other Liberal Democrat peers walked through a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lobby to vote for. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Well, oh, got me there. Well, can I rephrase rephrase my can I rephrase rephrase my challenge back that that with him not supporting, but with the coalition government of which he coalition government of which he supported, passed through with the conservative opposition in place now when they were the government now when they were the government in a coalition government in the 2014 act. I like to be accurate in my barbs back at the noble Lords, and I hope that accuracy still persuades him that if he didn't vote for it, some of his noble Lords did at the opportunity, and they did with the conservative government in a coalition which at the time our side of the House was not looking too favourably upon.

But I accept his his personal validation. But I want to try and move to a position whereby if there is a division in this house of opinion, we test it. And I would say to the House, amendment four, I move, and I hope that other noble Lords will either withdraw or if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they need to, and I haven't convinced them, they put it to a test in. A final throw. My Lords, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A final throw. My Lords, I wonder if the Minister remembers how the Labour benches voted in how the Labour benches voted in respect of those orders at the time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

respect of those orders at the time. Well. It is 12 years ago. And let me just let me say that although I was a member of the although I was a member of the House of Commons at the time, I would probably have done whatever my noble friend at the time, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chief Whip asked me to do. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. OK. My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken and I'm noble Lords who have spoken and I'm very grateful for all the support I got. I am disappointed, but not at all surprised by the Minister's response, because I think the response, because I think the Minister is particularly good at listening, but not particularly good at hearing.
16:50
16:51
None Portrait Division
-

matter by division. I will advise the House when voting is open. This This order, order! Question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the amendment be agreed to. We changed amendment be agreed to. We changed over in the middle of this process. So in that case I go back to the So in that case I go back to the stage. Chris is going to say content, not content. Not content content, not content. Not content that is being decided by division and contents will go to the right by the throne, not contents to the left by the bar.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, there have voted contents 86, not contents 178. So the not contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You are both. Come now to amendment two. Baroness Doocey not moved. Amendment three Lord Clement-Jones Amendment three Lord Clement-Jones not moved. Amendment four Lord Hanson amendment has been moved. The question is amendment be agreed The question is amendment be agreed to as many will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it and to amendment five Lord Bailey of Paddington not moved. Amendment six Baroness Fox of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Buckley not moved. Amendment seven Lord Clement-Jones. My Lords, I'm afraid it's no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm afraid it's no cigar again for the Minister on this particular amendment. His this particular amendment. His promise of consultation, statutory guidance and so on. On the question of fining for profit. My Lords, I really don't think he's going to cut the mustard. And on these cut the mustard. And on these benches we want to put a marker down that fining for profit, using contractors to enforce these powers must end. And we want to test the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion of the House. My Lords, I beg to move. Amendment proposal four, page 12, line 11, and insert the words on the party's list. Question is that the amendment be agreed to, as many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the amendment be agreed to, as many people say content the contrary, not content. Not content. The matter will be decided by a division. I'd advise the House when voting is open.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order! Questions Questions the Questions the amendment. Questions the amendment. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question is that the amendment be agreed to as soon as that has been the contents. Are you going to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are you going to. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, will say content to the contrary, not content. Contents will go to the right by the throne. The not Thank Thank you, Thank you, sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By By the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted contents 205, not contents 188. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contents have it. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In clause six, we come now to amendment eight. Lord Russell of Liverpool.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liverpool. My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments eight, nine, and ten in my name, to which the noble
17:14
17:15
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
accessibility of the ASB case review by removing local discretion over thresholds and the definition over thresholds and the definition of a qualifying complaint, which currently are creating unnecessary currently are creating unnecessary barriers for victims. The Anti-social Behaviour Case Review was established as a mechanism that was established as a mechanism that allows victims to trigger a multi-agency, resolution focussed multi-agency, resolution focussed 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 can be activated.

It said three or a different number as set out under local review procedures. Six or more, three or more qualifying complaints within a six month period. However, the existing framework does give 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 Authority Survey found that 62% of respondents applied additional local caveats, such as, as I mentioned earlier, 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, and I quote, frivolous.

Whatever the local authority's definition of frivolous happens to be, and these range of caveats present a serious barrier 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, places 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 judgements that risk undermining undermining victims credibility, but in particular undermine confidence in the process. So collectively, this results in inconsistent access and contributes to this postcode lottery. Now, the government's response to these amendments, the Committee stage referenced their newly launched ASB statutory guidance. And while the Home Office's updated guidance encourages a threshold of three complaints in six months, this is not legally binding and does not prevent authorities from introducing additional conditions.

So without legislative change, inconsistency and local caveats will continue. These amendments are designed to close these loopholes and establish firm national standards. The system currently, unfortunately, lacks coming to amendment ten. Amendment ten 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, consistent collection and publication of data. My Lords, in this sort of situation, data really is king. One is flying slightly blind.

If one is trying to make judgements about what is and what is not going on, if the data which one is relying upon to make those judgements are themselves seriously flawed, and as we've seen, open to individual interpretation to a significant degree across multiple local authorities during Committee stage in response to the amendment require independent chairs for case reviews and to ensure victims are able to attend, or at least have their views represented. Now we accept that the guidance needs time to take effect, but my Lords guidance is one thing.

If you don't have any meaningful way to monitor whether that guidance is actually being applied consistently, how it's being applied and what effect it is having, that it is quite difficult to judge whether the guidance is actually doing what you want it to do. And the currently data collection on the ASB case review is sparse, inconsistent and fragmented. There is a patchwork of information and there is 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 reviews each year.

But my Lords, this information is somewhat meaningless if we don't know the reasons why an application for review were refused, particularly, as we've heard before, local bodies can set their own parameters for qualifying incidents and set caveats on the thresholds. Now, my Lords, I recognise the government has introduced clause seven on the provision of information to the Secretary of State, which may provide authorities to provide, firstly, reports of ASB behaviour made to the authority. Secondly, responses of the authority to ASB behaviour.

And thirdly, ASB case reviews carried out by the relevant authority. But my Lord, this merely outlines the types of information the Secretary of State could require from local bodies, which, in the view of the Victims' Commissioner, does not go far enough. But without proper data it is not possible to assess whether the guidance is working in practice. So, my Lords, what I would ask of the noble Lords, the Minister, if I can find my bit of paper, Mr.

chair, in, in in responding to this particular group, what we would be enormously grateful is would the government commit to ensuring that the relevant authorities are required by regulations to collect and provide to the Secretary of State the data points in amendment ten, specifically where local bodies determine the threshold for the case review, was not met by reference to the local review procedures and the reasons 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 lastly, the number of reviews carried out where the victim or their representative actually attended the review in person. My Lords, I'm hoping that we will have a positive response from the government. I know the Minister is sympathetic to this. I know everything cannot be done simultaneously, but I do think the case for more consistency, as is required in the first two amendments and in providing meaningful, useful data to judge whether the new guidance is actually working or not, are really important enough that I hope the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government will really give it some serious attention. I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause six,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause six, page 12. Line 18. Insert the words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Marshalled List. On the wrong side of the room. I signed Lord Russell's amendments signed Lord Russell's amendments and he has spoken eloquently to the detail in the amendments and indeed
17:23
17:24
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, can I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for his work on these amendments for his work on these amendments and also Baroness Brinton for her contribution to the debate both contribution to the debate both today and at Committee on Anti-social Behaviour Reviews. It's an important issue that touches on how our system responds to persistent harm affecting families and communities, and we on these benches are very sympathetic to these amendments. At Committee stage, 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 designed to bring agencies together and to ensure a joined up response. While local action alone has not resolved the problem, and 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 placing some elements currently left to local discretion into statute.

A statutory threshold for convening a case review, removing caveats that frustrate victims would provide clarity and consistency across the country, ensuring that victims are not facing a postcode lottery when accessing this right and at committee. My noble friend Lady Stedman-scott echoed this point, noting that a statutory threshold was streamlined. The process and prevent agencies from imposing additional barriers that can deter applications. Of course, my Lords, that would depend on where exactly the threshold was set. These measures, these amendments also include measures targeted at transparency.

They require authorities to publish the reasons they determine a threshold has not been met, and data on independent chairing and victim attendance that greater transparency would build confidence in the process and also assist in identifying patterns of variation between areas. My Lords. However, as was raised in committee, it's important to balance those laudable aims with the need to avoid imposing disproportionate bureaucracy on bodies that perhaps are already under pressure. And I think the government explained that updated statutory guidance has been published, as we've heard, to strengthen awareness of the case review mechanism and to help agencies guide victims through the process.

So I think perhaps we should 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. Nonetheless, this group of amendments is rooted in, I think, a shared desire to ensure that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour are heard, are supported and are treated fairly. And with those comments, I look forward to the Minister's response.
17:27
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool for his Russell of Liverpool for his amendments and for the opportunity to meet and discuss them in person. to meet and discuss them in person. I'm also acutely aware that he discussed the amendments with the late Baroness Newlove, to whom I again pay tribute, and Claire Waxman, the current Victims' Commissioner and indeed the Police Chiefs Council, to develop and examine those amendments. And we've had, I hope, a fruitful discussion where I've given the government's view, both in committee but also in our meetings, head to head amendments eight and nine in the noble Lords name aim to limit the relevant bodies discretion to set criteria to underpin an application for a case review.

Amendment eight would also require the relevant bodies to provide more transparency as to their reasoning, but also promote awareness of the case, review and publish the provision they have in place for when a victim is dissatisfied about how the case has been handled. I know the noble Lord knows this, but I think it's worth putting on record that currently an individual may apply for a case review after making three qualifying complaints. The statutory guidance, which we only updated in September of this year, already dictates of last year, sorry already dictates that the relevant bodies involved in these reviews may, where appropriate, set different thresholds to those set out above, provided they do not make it more difficult for the victim to make a successful application.

And the government maintains that the ability to set different thresholds is important to allow flexibility in handling each case, particularly where agencies may want to add caveats to make the threshold for review lower. In cases of high harm or vulnerable adults. I think it's also important that noble Lords examine the provision in clause six, which does give powers to police and crime commissioners to set up a route for victims to request a further review where they're dissatisfied with the outcome of their case review, including where the relevant bodies determined that the threshold was not met for the initial case review.

I think that adds a further safeguard to the case review process to ensure better victim outcomes. It's an important point, the noble Lord mentioned, with regard to promoting awareness of the ASB case review procedure. The statutory guidance, again only published in September of last year, is clear that the relevant bodies should already be raising awareness of different methods to apply for a review and be communicating this effectively to the victim. I therefore respectfully say that given that we've done that in September, that the remembrance would duplicate that and are not necessary in practice.

Now, the question of amendment ten, which would require relevant bodies to publish additional data pertaining to ASB case review, including reasons why they determined that a request for review was unsuccessful, and indeed, the number of reviews carried out by an independent chair and data on victim attendance. Again, I say to the noble Lord that it's a statutory requirement currently for relevant bodies to publish certain information relating to case reviews, and that includes the number of times applications have not been met for the threshold of review.

But it also includes information on the number of anti-social behaviour cases received, the number of anti-social behaviour cases reviewed, the number of recommendations made following those reviews, and the number of rejections of those reviews. And that information is already established in statute for publication. Now, perhaps we need to again improve the awareness of that, but it is there already in statute. And again, I, if I may refer the noble Lord Russell to clause seven of the bill, which the government is also introducing further requirements for local agencies to report information about anti-social behaviour to the government, including on the ASB case review process.

And in clause seven of the Bill, the Secretary of State has, by regulations as well, can require further information on specific information related to anti-social behaviour, but that will include, as clause seven two says, 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. Now again, we're doing that for a purpose and the purpose is the noble Lord is absolutely right. We need to know what's going on, on the ground.

And I would say to him, as I have done in committee, and I've tried to say privately and again, I commit the same comments to the noble Lady Baroness Brinton that we have under clause seven provided for that information. We have got statutory guidance issued in September, and I would argue to the House today that the updated statutory guidance, coupled with the provisions in the bill, cover the issues that the noble Lord raises, supported by the noble Lady Baroness Brinton. And I think we need to actually, if I may say so, assess the impact of those changes that we've made or are going to make before we further look at legislative provisions.

So on that basis, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendments.
17:33
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Noble Lord, 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 victims are currently experiencing. What I would say is that these three amendments are come from a period during which the Victims' Commissioner office has been scrutinising in detail the new guidance that was delivered last September. So these amendments were brought forward in the direct light and response to that new guidance.

And that is not to say the new guidance is not welcome. The experience of the Victims' Commissioner and her office is that in order to understand whether the guidance is working as intended in in the view of the Victims' Commissioner, it requires a level of data which is deeper and more detailed than is currently outlined in what the government is intending to get in terms of data and what is covered in clause 7.2. So 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 which will be helpful both to the Victims' Commissioner and to victims, but also, thirdly, to the government itself.

I what I would ask is for the government at some point after this bill is enacted would be, you know, certainly there will be meetings in the diary with the victims commissioner and her team, and obviously they will be scrutinising the effects of the new guidance and the degree to which, from their observations, it is being implemented. But I do think having a constructive, interactive dialogue, if the data is almost raising more questions than it is answering, which is, I think, what the Victims' Commissioner anticipates may be the case that the government is open to having that dialogue and if needs be, listening and adjusting, if the data is not telling us what we actually need.

I would again thank the Minister and her team. I forgot to mention Andy Prophet, who is the ASB lead for the National Council of Police Chiefs, who's been extremely helpful and supportive, and his successor, Cath Akehurst, who I think takes over next week, is also very actively involved in this. So what we are trying to do is we're trying to work with the police, with the Victims' Commissioner, with the ASB charities and with the Local Government Association to come up with solutions which work for victims and which are inevitable and enforceable in law and in guidance.

But in that spirit, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw the amendment. The Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawal. amendment is by leave withdrawal. Amendment nine. Lord Russell not moved. Amendment ten Lord Russell moved. Amendment ten Lord Russell not moved. Amendment 11 Lord Hanson. That's my Lords. The government's That's 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'm very grateful to both those committees for their scrutiny of this legislation. I won't repeat here all the arguments your Lordships' House will be pleased to hear. I won't repeat all the arguments made by the government, and instead point noble Lords to the responses to each of the committee's reports available on the respective web pages. However, let me briefly explain the various government amendments which address the committee's concerns. Firstly, amendments 15 and 25 to clauses nine and 24 provides that the guidance on fly-tipping enforcement and on the new civil penalty penalty regime in respect of a failure to remove illegal online content relating to knives and offensive weapons, is subject to the negative procedure.

I want to stress to noble Lords that the government's general position does remain, that it's not necessary or appropriate for the generality of statutory guidance to be subject to any parliamentary procedure. There are limited exceptions to that general rule, however, and we agree that the guidance provided for in clause nine and 24 should be to such exceptions, as per the DPR recommendations, that in both cases they should be. The guidance should be subject subject to the negative
17:38
17:39
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Marshalled List. >> My Lords, we have come to the first of two groups tonight containing a large number of government amendments, and I find myself having to express my strong frustration disappointment with the number of government amendments that have been brought to this bill at report. As we broke up for recess, the government tabled 243 amendments to the bill. And then on Monday, two days before the first day of report, they tabled a further 73 amendments. And this completely flies in the face of the accepted norms and conventions whereby the government is 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, and will spend much time debating that amendment later. But suffice to say, 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 nor on the other place, and as such will not receive the proper scrutiny that it should deserve. Having said that, I do welcome some of the changes the government is bringing.

Amendment 15, 16, 17 and 25 and 26 and 27 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 Parliament can diligently hold the government to account on amendment 36 two and 363. I am naturally cautious about the government granting itself 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 36 four and 36 five, which do place limitations on the Secretary of State's power. But it would be useful to know what types of devices the government envisages being brought into the scope of clause 129.
17:41
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)
-

Well, my Lords, I I'm I'm grateful for the the comments. Well, I'm grateful to an extent from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Davies. I mean, I would say that the vast, the vast majority of these are the government amendments that have been laid before your Lordships House are are indeed in response to either issues raised through discussion at committee or indeed subsequent discussion at committee, or indeed response to to. As I as I said in my opening remarks, the the issues that were raised by the by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform committee in the and the Constitution Committee and these are and and I think it would be also and we'll get on to this in a in a group fairly fairly shortly some of the the larger number.

But they're all making in a sense the same because the nature of legislation, the large group that we have coming up is all about making the same sort of the same changes around devolution to a large number of parts of the bill. And that's why issues understood and discussed. And it was following discussion actually at committee where the on that group where the, the, the, the opposition frontbench were are presented their rationale for opposing this. So we decided not to move those those government amendments that were tabled at, at committee at that time.

So, you know, this is an iterative process, and I think it's fair to point out that, you know, the point of committee is for the government to hear concerns and to be able to respond to them. And I think there'll be many areas where we table government, government amendments throughout the passage of the of the Report stage of the bill, not not least, not least on the ones that we're discussing in this group right now. Well, I think it's you know, there is and I'm grateful for his words of welcome for these for, for these government amendments.

You know, concerns were raised about about by the both both those committees about our approach to statutory guidance and secondary legislation. So we've we've we've responded to it. The government new clause on on on aggravated offences, which the noble Lord Lord Purvis referred to, as well as delivering on a manifesto commitment. It responds directly to the debate on the issue in the Commons and was touched on Lords Second Reading and in committee, where we reiterated the government's intention to bring forward an amendment at report.

Moreover, the issues raised in the government's new clauses do cross over to those raised in what were now what are now clauses one, two, 2 to 1, two, four, which were thoroughly debated in the in in the committee. I would I would be happy in addition to this to carry on the conversation. If the noble Lords happy, I'll write to him on the specifics that he raised on on clause 129. But given that explanation, as I say, I'll reiterate my moving those these government amendments in this group.
17:44
17:44
None Portrait Amendment:13 Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-

My Lords, the amendment standing my name relates to fly-tipping and measures that can and should be taken to combat it. My Lords, Fly-tipping is a serious and growing blight on society. In 20 23, 24, local authorities in England had to contend with approximately 1.15 million fly-tipping in litter incidents, an increase of 6% from 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.

And 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. This is a significant disparity between these offences and the enforcement, and this sends the signal to offenders that they are unlikely to face any consequences to their actions. Amendment 13 would seek to address this current inequity. The government is proposing to issue guidance relating to Fly-tipping. Our amendment would ensure that guidance would make clear that where a person is convicted of fly-tipping, they are liable for the costs incurred as a result of their offence, not the victims.

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. An amendment 19, also tabled in my name, proposes that a person convicted of Fly-tipping should receive three penalty points on their driving licence for the offence. My Lords, it seems almost 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. And finally, 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, and 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 will disrupt organised dumping activity and reinforce the seriousness with which we should treat environmental crime.

So I do hope that the Minister is listening, and I have to say to the House that if Minister will not accept violence in this group or give assurances as to their intent, I may well seek to divide the House.
17:47
17:48
17:48
17:49
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful for the support of of my noble friend, my Lords, this is an important issue and I've campaigned for many years around fly-tipping in the and the importance of having a stronger regulatory settlement. And I certainly very much support my noble friend's amendments within this group. It is a very large scale problem. The noble Lords are Lord Katz, I believe, has referred at an earlier stage to an estimate of some 1.15 million fly-tipping events reported to local authorities.

That's a huge number, and I expect that that thoroughly under-reports the true scale of the problem. And, my Lords, the noble Lord Lord Katz was kind enough to write to me in response to a question that I raised on the 17th of November in committee, when I inquired as to the number of cost recovery orders that had been successfully made by within courts, and it appears that the government doesn't hold that information. But, my Lords, I did look at the at the manifesto about which we've 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 doesn't hold the statistics. I'm slightly puzzled as to how the government is going to make progress on that without holding the relevant information, but my Lords, the Lord, noble Lord Lord Katz in his letter to me, did say that 1100 378 fines have been made in respect of Fly-tipping. Well, that is a tiny number. That is 1 in 1000 point one of a percent.

A tiny, tiny number. So, my Lords, it's quite clear. And indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Harman of Ullock, in response to a question about the Kidlington outrage, also agreed that the current the current regulatory position, the current status quo isn't working. So, my Lords, this is a particular issue in the countryside where there is a very heavy burden on farmers. We've heard and hear. Indeed, I declare an interest of sorts as the owner of a farm.

So, my Lords, I have amendment 21 in this group. Its effect is simple, and it places a duty on local waste authorities to remove waste and then to attempt to pursue cost recovery from the culprits. And it builds really on amendment 1314, amending in my noble friend's name, which amends the guidance. Both have a similar intent, my Lords, in in in my view, it is simply unfair that the victim of the crime should also be responsible for clearing it up.

There are indeed many factors which 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 on the other hand, the Environment Agency and the police enforcement effort. My Lords, my noble friend referred to the incident, reported of a farmer who'd had recently 200 tonnes of rubbish dumped on his land. Well, this is a perfect illustration of the problem that landowners and indeed community trusts and others that have sports grounds, for example, football clubs and so forth can face this individual faced with a bill for some £40,000.

Now, I understand that the council and the police had failed to identify the culprits and they had failed to protect him after repeated previous incidents. Indeed, he alleges that he'd also been the victim of intimidation. Well, why should he face the financial face, financial ruin for the failures of public authorities to protect him from the actions of a criminal gang? And I would argue that it's 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 don't know how to make the various agencies involved work more effectively, and indeed, they're vulnerable to intimidation and they don't have the resources. My Lords, 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 so are clear as this would create a complete system where public sector agencies control landfill pricing. On the one hand, access to legitimate waste disposal sites, identification and prosecution of culprits, and recovery of costs.

I would also suggest that this would incentivise 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 also allow for faster removal, which I think is also a very important factor having waste lying around on farmland, on private land, on on any open ground, just one thing follows another and more suddenly turns up. And I think it would also be a much fairer treatment towards landowners.

Lords, it is clear that the current system isn't working, and on the one hand, we've heard of a member of the public being fined for pouring the dregs of her cup of coffee down the drain. But on the other one, 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? And how can we have confidence in a system if you can't catch 300 trucks? Well, what chance does the poor landowner have in this? 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.

And they now need to take responsibility. My Lords, I very much support my noble friend Lord Davis of Gaz. Other amendments, all of which are designed to strengthen the regulatory settlement to tackle Fly-tipping. And I very much look forward to enable all the Minister's response.
17:57
17:58
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord. >> If I may, and I declare an interest as a director of a farming company, it is regularly the victim company, it 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 just add that the waste, the toxic waste quite often piled up on land is getting into the watercourses. This is a really serious issue and very often landowners, even if they do have the wherewithal to finance its removal, which many of them don't, they don't have the technical expertise to deal with toxic waste.

And I spoke about this at committee, so I'm not going to go on in great detail. It's 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 for doing anything to assist either with punitive legislation or actually assisting in the clean up or 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 on that, and I will just share, just to illustrate, one experience I had on a farm track, a large amount of building materials and other unpleasant items were tipped out by a truck. They were so confident of not being caught or punished that they even thrown down on the pile the parking ticket they'd got earlier that day with the registration number.

I called the police who, to their credit, came out and we looked at it together. I can add that I spent the weekend clearing it up afterwards, but I showed the parking ticket to the policeman who said, yes, that's all very helpful, but I'm not going to tell you whose vehicle it is in case you do something. And I can assure you that if we are 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 would happen and no further action was taken. That is one tiny example of the sort of things that people in rural areas face with waste, mainly generated in cities, that is simply taken out into the countryside and dumped with complete impunity. These amendments are a start to disincentivizing people to going for doing that, if they believe they may end up having to face the bill for the clear up.

It's a start, my Lords. There's a lot more that needs to be done, but I really hope the government will get behind this because it is to do with rural crime. It is to do with pollution. It is to do with gangs. It is to do with so many areas on which they claim to be very interested. I do hope the Minister will help me with that. Thank you.
18:01
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> I rise to support. The amendment. All the amendments in this group, and particularly the amendment to and particularly the amendment to which I attach my name, which is number 20, and it's a pleasure to number 20, and it's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Cromwell and the exemplary speech by my noble friend Viscount Goschen either more positive story, which I've read in the Times and noble Lords, will also have read, I think about a a very public spirited parish councillor in the Cotswolds, I think in Gloucestershire, who picked up a McDonald's paper bag and again, it had a a receipt for a purchase of a McDonald's meal.

And this very public spirited and diligent parish councillor went to McDonald's and they were able to use CCT coverage that they had to identify the car and the driver. And to their credit, Gloucestershire Police find that gentleman £500. The slight downside for the public spirited gentleman, who was the parish council councillor, was that he was one of his neighbours in his village. So conversations at the pub were probably quite awkward from thence on. But seriously, my Lords, I I'm delighted that there is a debate on this issue.

It used to be quite a niche issue, litter picking and fly-tipping. It's now a much more serious issue. And and so it should be. And I'm pleased that my own frontbench and the government and government Ministers are taking it seriously because as we know, as alluded to by the noble Lord Cromwell, it costs 15 in 22, 23, it costs local authorities £50 million, which doesn't sound a lot of money, but is £50 million not spent on other services. In order to clear up serious issues of fly-tipping.

And as he quite rightly says, Fly-tipping does involve often hazardous materials, asbestos, tyres, chemical waste that, as he says, contaminate not just water,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but air and farmland. Generally we like it. I'm very grateful for the kind

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful for the kind things the noble Lord is saying. Can I just clarify with him that local authorities will clear up local authorities will clear up fright? Fly-tipping that is on the verge of the highway beyond ten metres, although that's not in law anywhere but beyond ten metres. It's your problem. They will not clear it up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear it up. Quite. The noble Lord is absolutely right, and that's a point very strongly made in. In a very trenchant remarks by my noble friend as well about the issue in Kidlington. And he's right that Fly-tipping does disproportionately affect farmland. And they farmers have, as he knows, very little legal recourse and also deprived urban areas. I believe that we need in bringing forward action in primary legislation and secondary legislation to stigmatise those who would despoil the land.

I mean, I'm a regular cyclist, and it's quite dispiriting and depressing to cycle around the rural parts of the city of Peterborough and South Lincolnshire to see the exponential growth in piles of fly-tip material on farmland, on the fringe of roads and waterways, the River Welland and the River Nene being the two local rivers in our area are very depressing, but it is a growing phenomenon and it relates to the issue raised by my noble friend. Viscount Hogg.

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 this is very much linked increasingly to organised crime and criminal gangs operate illegal waste operations, undercutting legitimate licensed waste contractors. And so tough sanctions, particularly those that target the proceeds of such activity and can confiscate vehicles and even imprison ringleaders, is something we should seriously think about and has been pursued in other jurisdictions.

I'll just finish very briefly. I know this is Report stage, but now we have the opportunity to talk about these issues. Just to acquaint your Lordships' House with the Fly-tipping action plan that Keep Britain Tidy have brought forward and published, I think, at the end of last year, very briefly, their recommendations for tackling waste crime are to shut down rogue operators by introducing tamper proof licensing, taxi style license plates and central a central searchable register. Strengthen enforcement with tougher sentencing, which, of course, these amendments would facilitate support councils with intelligence sharing platforms and stronger representation in the Joint Unit for waste crime and finally 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.

And they all seem to be sensible proposals which wouldn't cost necessarily the taxpayer huge amount of money. But this is a very serious issue. These amendments are proportionate and sensible and will not be overly burdensome financially on the taxpayer, and on that basis, I strongly support them, and I hope the Minister will perhaps address some of the specific issues I've raised in his response.
18:07
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
I. mainly because I would have thought the government would welcome. I would hope all of them, because they seem quite common sense. they seem quite common sense. They're quite tactical at times, and I would just say that there are two strategic things I do think need to be considered. One is the charging regime for businesses attending recycling sites, because if they're set too high, it encourages people to find alternative arrangements. We might condemn it. It's a bit like smuggling tobacco when we set the tax wrong.

The smuggling of tobacco from France increases exponentially. So getting that balance right is not easy. But I think if we look at either, you know, where you can get rid of a fridge, what charge you're going to make if you're a business. That really is the context in which these offences have been committed. I'm not trying to provide a defence for the people involved. I'm just it seems to me that that's one of the things that's causing it. And the second thing, obviously it is a business.

So they're doing it for money. And I know there's later amendments about organised crime and it being an organised crime. But obviously what you have to do is go after the assets ruthlessly so that when you get them, you go after the home or you go after the business, that really starts to make an impact when they realise that their life will not continue in the way that it has. And I'm not sure we collectively and include the police in that Environment Agency have had that determination.

But on the amendments for me, 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 the problem, unless of course, they've been paid to store it or they've not take reasonable steps to make sure it doesn't continue. And I would call that, you know, like calling the police or calling the Environment Agency or anybody to try and help you to make sure it doesn't happen again. But fundamentally, it can't be right if a victim is asked to pay to remove the problem they didn't arrange.

Because it seems to me that at the moment, what's happening is it's been a civil wrong, when in fact we're all agreeing it's a criminal wrong. And this shift of culture is vitally important. And I think the best people to try and help clear the problem, forget about whose fault it is are the local authorities. They were the ones with the equipment, the people who skilled and frankly, the recycling places and the tips to get rid of it now, because the consequences are that we're seeing around the country health hazards growing, sometimes toxic waste, sometimes just rat infestations.

And we've seen these things growing very near to where people are living with children or anybody. That can't be right. Something has to be done. And I mean in the sense that somebody has to act quickly to remove the pile of stuff and make sure it's as far as possible, it doesn't return. And then the other two that I support are 14 and 20, which are two sides of a similar coin, which are about giving points on licences to offenders or taking their vehicles.

And we have seen that there have been effective measures. It doesn't stop people driving necessarily, but it restricts their mobility for a while. They can still drive, but you've now got the police have got an opportunity to lock them up because they're driving while disqualified. So it starts to inhibit their mobility. And the second thing is obviously to take the vehicles so a large vehicle can be worth 20, 50, £100,000. This starts to make a difference in their business model. And that, it seems to me, is vital.

And 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 1 or 2 things. They can either crush them and sell the scrap. They can 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 straight away to law enforcement. And the government might want to consider whether money taken in this respect is applied through the Environment Agency or other bodies to make sure that it enhances their ability to reduce the amount of organised crime involved in this horrible thing that's causing such misery around the country.

So for me, if the vote is called, I certainly support 13, but I do support the other amendments because I think there are things that could work.
18:11
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard Portrait Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
My Lords, just very briefly, I want to support. want to support. >> These amendments and in particular as a landowner and particular as a landowner and someone who has fly-tipping happens on their property. It's extremely dangerous, number one, even for 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, a very, very dangerous a they it brings disease and it brings all sorts of trouble.

So there is a small level of fly-tipping, but then we have the larger a waste crime and that's carried out by criminal gangs. And I know in Northern Ireland we've had a huge site at my mobile outside Londonderry, a two criminals have been prosecuted and jailed, 1 to 21 months and one got a I think it was one year. But between them they're criminal gangs and their businesses are believed to have benefited in the region of £33 million from that dumping and that waste disposal on to individual people's land.

It's absolutely criminal and we need to do more to clamp down on this. Otherwise it's going to expand. Now, obviously in Northern Ireland we suffer as well from cross-border fly-tipping and people coming across the border to to tip the the rubbish in Northern Ireland. But in general it is something that really needs to be clamped down on simply because there is not enough convictions and there's not enough people being caught.
18:13
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise to respond to this group >> I rise to respond to this group of amendments from from our bench. I fly-tipping is anything from the I fly-tipping is anything from the illegal disposal of rubbish, from the back of a car boot to more serious organised dumping of rubbish. It is no doubt a growing problem and it is out of control. And it is a problem that's harming our communities, damaging our environment and having a disproportionate impact on our rural communities.

All too often it's farmers and innocent landowners who end up paying the cost for other people's criminality. Criminals are 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 20 24, 25, local authorities in England dealt with 1.26 million incidents, an increase of 9% from 1.15 million incidents reported in 2024, again highlighting the absolute scale of the problem, which is relentless and is only growing worse.

While profits can range up to 2500 pounds per lorry road, and this is low risk and high reward. Turning to the amendments, however, we have a lot of sympathy and general support for the amendments, but we don't particularly feel that any of these amendments in and of themselves, really offer the appropriate solutions. Turning to amendment 13, in the name of Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron, this seeks to ensure that the state's guidance on Fly-tipping makes the person responsible for fly-tipping, rather than landowner or community, liable for the cost for clearing up the mess.

We entirely understand and share the concerns that this amendment seeks to address, but this is not really a workable answer. The blight of fly tipping and illegal waste dumping causes immense frustration for communities, and 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 should bear the financial burden for their actions. The polluter pays is a principle that fundamentally we support. However, while we strongly agree with the intention behind this amendment, we remain uncertain that it provides any sort of a workable solution.

The unfortunate reality is that many offenders are never caught, and even when successful prosecutions are achieved, the sentences are often too lenient to deter others. In addition, these convictions frequently lack these. Those convicted frequently lack any assets to meet the costs of any remission, leaving the authorities struggling to recover any meaningful sums. All the while, the waste has been dumped, remained stay there, causing untold environmental damage and further distress to local communities. We therefore believe the focus must remain on improving capacity, strengthening investigation powers and ensuring that local authorities and the police have the resources they need to act swiftly.

Prevention is better than cure these practical steps, rather than further guidance alone, are what will really help and ensure the responsibility for waste. Crime is properly directed and the polluter pays and not the innocent. We are keen to continue exploring ways to achieve this shared goals in ways that are more effective. I won't respond to amendment 14 because that's not been moved. Turning to amendment 19, the name of Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron. This is about adding penalty points to driver's licence for persons convicted of a fly tipping offence.

We are supportive of this amendment. Those who fly-tip are dependent on their vehicles to conduct their nefarious activities, and we support this as a means of taking further action and further deterrents. However, I don't think that in itself, again is really the answer because these people aren't caught, they aren't detected, and I don't think they're going to be particularly deterred from a couple of points on their licence. But we have no objection to this being brought forward. Amendment 20, again from Lord Davies of Gower Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson of Peterborough seeks to add the offence of fly tipping to the list of offences for which vehicles may be seized.

Again, we're supportive of this, but maybe I could turn to the Minister to clarify this, because my understanding is that these powers already exist, that they're being used. In fact, guidance was issued just literally this morning on how local authorities can do more of this stuff. So my understanding is this completely exists already. So I don't think this is needed. I think what is needed is greater public understanding and information on those powers. Turning to amendment 21, this seeks to require local authorities to collect all waste resulting from fly tipping, and then to seek to recover the costs from the offender.

Again, we understand. However, while we support the aim, waste is cleared, we support the aim that waste is cleared promptly. But we do not believe placing a statutory duty on local waste authorities to collect fly-tip material is practical or a sustainable solution. Again, many councils operating under severe resource constraints and have very, very limited funds and what will really happen is what will happen as a result is that the public pays the cost for this through local authorities.

The polluter gets away with not paying what they should do. So we again don't feel this is really in and of itself an actual practical solution. I think there is need for greater cross-party talk and conversations on these issues. I think actually this smaller area of fly tipping is complex. I think we need to do a lot more on a circular economy. We need to do a lot more to make sure local authorities actually provide proper waste disposal facilities. I think we need to strengthen the Rural Crime Task Force.

I think we need to temporarily collect landfill revenue to clearing up historic sites, and I think more needs to be done to investigate this. But I don't particularly feel any of these amendments in and of themselves actually really will make a huge difference to this problem.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will very briefly. I think the argument is would be summarised in argument is would be summarised in perfect be the enemy of good. I think I'm trying to suggest that these seizing vehicles making the these seizing vehicles making the flu to pay if you can catch them putting points on their licence. putting points on their licence. These are steps towards solving the problem. They're not the silver bullet. There isn't one. It's going to be a range of measures, including the issues around waste tips, but it also gives an incentive to the victims to actually collect evidence, sometimes at great personal risk.

If, if if you know that you can provide evidence and that there is a route for the police to prosecute these people and recover costs or whatever it is, that's an incentive to actually do something about it. At the moment in the rural area, 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. And with these large waste dumps, you've got no choice but to leave it there. So I would ask the noble to consider that these are small steps and they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should be encouraged. I don't disagree with the noble Lord that they are small steps. Lord that they are small steps. They're welcome steps. I'm not against these small steps. They will help. I'm not against them. They're just there's a bigger, broader problem that also needs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tackling out there as well. He will support the amendment in the lobby.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No.
18:21
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lord Davies of Gower and the noble Viscount, Lord Goshen, for setting out the case for these amendments. And I'm grateful, obviously, for the comments that have been made in support of those amendments from the noble Lord Hogan-Howe, noble Lord Elliott, amongst others. And I'll refer to other colleagues in a moment. I think we can all agree that Fly-tipping blights communities and answer to the burdens of local authorities, and there is a need to take action on this.

In fact, much to my. Great welcome today, my colleague Mary Kray MP in the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has this very day, as has been referenced by a number of noble Lords, issued a press release on the urge to crush more fly-tipping vehicles, and to issue new guidance to local authorities to crack down on waste crime, and to ensure that we have a first overview of councils offering clear instructions on identifying, seizing and disposing of vehicles, and on strengthening deterrence, and on giving guidance for maximising public awareness, and on ensuring that the Environment Agency has new technology and boosted funding to put more waste crime officers on the ground.

That is this very morning. By happy coincidence for the debate here today, the statutory guidance already provided in clause nine of the Bill will help in that regard, but I hope that I can just give some comment on the amendments before the committee. The Report stage in the House today. Let me start with amendment 13. I noted the noble Lord Carter of Haslemere is a technical issue, and it's one that I would have referred to had he not done so.

But I also endorse that. And I also note the comments of the noble Earl Russell on the issue in amendment 13. I recognise the financial burden the clearing Fly-tipped waste spaces is on landowners, but I just say to the noble Lord Davis that currently where there is sufficient evidence, and this is the point, the noble Earl Russell made fly-tippers can be prosecuted on conviction. A cost order can be made by the court currently, so that the landowner's costs can be recovered from the perpetrator.

If sufficient evidence is not available for a successful prosecution. This is again the point the noble Earl Russell mentioned. Then there will be not sufficient evidence to force a fly-tipper to have responsibility to clean up either. If there's a prosecution, the clean up can be added to the effectively the the sentence. It's unclear, therefore, how amendment 13 by addressing this statutory guidance would help when a criminal prosecution is already the best route for the desired outcome. Now I note amendment 21, which was moved in the name of the noble Viscount Goschen and which had the support of the Viscount Hailsham, which seeks, in effect, to place a duty on waste authorities to clear up waste.

Waste left by fly-tippers. Again, I fully understand and share the sentiment behind the amendment. It's a legitimate question to ask as to why a farmer or a landowner or an occupier of any land should be liable for those clean up costs. Now, as I've said already to the House where there is a conviction, the courts do have currently 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 again

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today is clear evidence of the government's willingness. Just would the Minister perhaps

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just would the Minister perhaps be good enough to focus on this argument that if a burden is posed argument that if a burden is posed on the wealth, the waste disposal authority, either by being liable to clear up the mess or to clear up the mess or alternatively having to pay for it there, be much less willing to close waste sites. And if waste close waste sites. And if waste sites are kept open. Fly tipping is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

likely to diminish. The noble Viscount tempts me to go down the responsibilities go down the responsibilities directly of local councils, the slightly wider of the amendments before us today, that the point I before us today, that the point I would make is that where there is a conviction already, if there's a conviction of somebody for fly conviction of somebody for fly tipping, the courts have the power to make an offender meet the clean up costs. We encourage local up costs.

We encourage local authorities, as again by today's guidance, to investigate all incidents of fly tipping, including those on private land. And we also want to make good the enforcement powers. As I described, DEFRA is talking to a number of groups National Farmers Union, Fly-tipping prevention Group, to promote and disseminate good practice. But the problem I come to again is 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.

Now I accept this is unfair. I accept that this is a challenge and I accept that this 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 they currently have the local individual landowner themselves providing that. Now, again, I just want to put on the record that the Environment Agency has a responsibility to clear illegal waste sites and even though it is not, you know, the the look, sorry, the Environment Agency does not have a responsibility to clear illegal waste sites, but it does do so where there are issues.

And I go back to what the noble Lord Cromwell has said, which is in relation to where there is a risk of potential fire, where there's a risk of impact on the watercourse, where there are other environmental factors accordingly. So again, I come back to what the noble Earl Russell said, which is that the issue of prevention and better enforcement and the provisions in this bill and other actions the government are taking forward, is the way forward on these issues. Amendment 19 sought to ensure the penalty points would be added to the driving licence of an offender for Fly-tipping.

Now, again, I hope I can help the noble Lord by saying that the government is currently considering the benefits of adding penalty points to driving licences for fly tipping offences. I you know, I noted the noble Earl Russell's questions on that, but I think that there is still potentially benefit in this area. I can't 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 licences, enforcements as opposed to the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

But I hope I can say to the noble Lord that the government is looking carefully and quickly at this issue of penalty points and that although I can't accept it today, we will have to look at how we can put that principle in practice in due course. Amendment 20, which again is in the name of the noble Lord Davis, but which the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough and indeed Earl Russell spoke to, that adds the offence of fly-tipping to the list of offences for which vehicles may be seized.

Again, I understand the sentiment behind the amendment. However, as I've said, local authorities already have the power to seize vehicles linked to waste crime under the Environmental Protection Act of 1990 and vehicles can be kept, sold or disposed by local authorities. And again, I just refer to the the press notice today, which is available on Gov.uk, which says the new guidance published today will provide the first comprehensive overview for councils offering clear instructions on how to identify, seize and dispose of vehicles in Fly-tipping, as well as advice on taking cases to court and securing convictions against vehicle owners.

And that best practice is, I think, intended to provide and not replace statutory documentation. It is therefore an important matter, through my colleagues in Defra, to ensure that we bring forward that statutory guidance on Fly-tipping to examine that case for penalty points and also how we deal with those matters in due course. I just want to make a very brief reference, although I suspect we'll touch on this in the next group to the Kidlington illegal waste dumping incident.

Absolutely unacceptable. Absolutely wrong. And there is a criminal investigation ongoing about which I can't comment in detail, but there have been a total number of four arrests made to date. The Environment Agency have taken action to limit the impact of this waste crime on the environment and local community, which goes to the points that the noble Lord Cromwell mentioned earlier. They've directly awarded a contract on the 19th of January to a company called Acumen Waste Services Limited, who are looking at how they can remove that site.

As a matter of urgency, site mobilisation will commence on the 2nd of March and waste removal is predicted to commence in early April and the mobilisation will consist of both removing the material, importing aggregates to create access tracks for heavy vehicles, building of site compound and cabins, erecting further security fencing and there'll also be a number of issues to do with sampling of water and traffic management plans put in place. So I accept that it is a difficult issue, but it's one which, having been brought to the attention of government agencies, is now being dealt with.

So I hope with those comments that noble Lords can accept where I've tried to move and understand the positions where the government has given, I hope, a reason why we can't accept the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. Noble the Minister sits down. May I ask him a question? I mean, May I ask him a question? I mean, I'm sure DEFRA issuing guidance on best practice for Fly-tipping will strike fear, terror, and a sense of strike fear, terror, and a sense of repentance. In to fly-tippers. But you know, that's slightly cheeky comment aside, if you'll forgive me, I believe that the Environment Agency going on to land where there Agency going on to land where there has been toxic fly-tipping, is simply going to advise the landowner that if they don't deal with it, they themselves will face a penalty.

I think it's much more commonly going to be the case than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they will come on and clear it up for them. Well, let. Me say on the first instance, when the noble Lord made a sort of when the noble Lord made a sort of comment about the proposals announced today, this government is advising on a range of issues advising on a range of issues through Defra today. How we take action on Fly-tipping now. It's all very easy to be cynical about that very easy to be cynical about that and say it won't work and it won't stop the criminal criminals.

Any action, any legislation takes will not stop determined criminals. But it is important that the government tries to ensure that we deal with this in an effective way and DEFRA today, irrespective of the debate happening coincidentally, has taken issue with that and is trying to strengthen the response on those issues and I would rather welcome it rather than sort of, you know, take shots at it. And I just say that in a friendly way to the noble Lord. But it's an important issue that we need to do.

And the approach that we're trying to take is important. Now, again, he's mentioned, you know, in terms of Kidlington, the waste management issues and the difficulties on that. Again, I say to him, in that instance, there is a criminal investigation ongoing. There are a total number of four arrests made to date. And as I've 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 cleanup are put to the individual or organisation concerned.

And, you know, that is an important mechanism which again, the amendments are trying to examine. But that mechanism is there now. And I would say to to noble Lords that let us judge what happens in Kidlington. Let us judge whether the investigation needs to further not just arrests, but also convictions that will be a matter for us, responsibilities. Not with me, but I think it's important to say that there is a mechanism to do that. And what the current debate around Kidlington and indeed the figures we've produced today that show that there are 1.26 million incidents of Fly-tipping last year, which is quite simply unacceptable.

What those figures do and what the Kidlington incident has done is focussed government minds on this, and this government is trying to respond to that in a responsible way. And I hope that the noble Lords will accept the offer of try to give on penalty points and withdraw the amendments there. But also look at what I've said and hopefully withdraw and not move the amendments on the basis of the correspondence discussions that I've had today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and I hope they won't be offended if I don't name them personally. But I do want to single personally. But I do want to single out the noble Lord Lord Cromwell for his particular personal example for his particular personal example of what amounts to, as he says, rural crime. I was somewhat disappointed in the Liberal disappointed in the Liberal Democrat response, particularly, I thought with amendment 13, the noble Lord Russell was somewhat contradictory in his response.

I thank the Minister for what he has said. I have to say that I'm not entirely sure that a a press notice will address this situation. Neither am I convinced that the long winded process of convicting somebody and then pursuing them for costs is satisfactory as it stands. But, my Lords, I do not need to reiterate the appalling impact that Fly-tipping has on communities, particularly rural communities up and down the country. The only measure in this bill relating to Fly-tipping is the Secretary of
18:36
18:37
18:48
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I open this group on waste crime by moving my amendment waste crime by moving my amendment 18 and I thank my noble friend Baroness Doocey for her support. My Lord, serious and organised waste Lord, serious and organised waste crime is now a multibillion pound scourge on our economy, our scourge on our economy, our countryside, our environment and our communities. It is out of control and it is only getting worse. Figures released this very morning show that 11 show 11% rise in large scale fly-tipping some 52,000 tipper lorry load incidents in 20 2425, up from 47,000 incidents in 20 2324.

DEFRA estimates that this alone will cost local authorities 19.3 million, from Lord Wood to Kidlington to Wigan. Serious organised waste. 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 and £4 billion each year. One site alone, that of Hoads 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 publication of the Environment and Climate Change Committee's report, of which I am a member, published simply last October. More large scale waste dumps have been discovered than the agency themselves had previously known existed. That should worry and alarm this House in equal measure. My Lords, 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, and the to the advantage. My amendment responds by making 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 three of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, to include the threat and to ensure it features in the national Crime agencies annual reporting.

That simple amendment moves waste crime from operational consideration to unequivocal accountability. I came across the issue through Hoads Wood, an ancient woodland and a triple C, 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.

Instead, intelligent still vanishes in what has been described as a Bermuda Triangle between various agencies. Local councils face clean up bills 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 leave it under-resourced and overstretched.

A mere handful of staff in the joint unit on waste crime cannot match the adversaries with the capacity to purchase land, create fake companies and launder millions of pounds to waste crime, elevating waste crime to the National Crime Agency. Strategic priority would change all of that in an instant. It would bring forensic accounting, integrated threat assessments, coordinated operations linking the National Crime Agency, the Joint Unit on Waste Crime, the Environment Agency, HMRC Police and Border Force agencies. We have seen this model work against trafficking and cybercrime, combined intelligence, freezing assets and dismantling networks that would change, that would also strengthen parliamentary oversight.

Ministers would be accountable for performance and resourcing, as they are for the National Crime Agency priorities. Race 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 fit that description national, organised, profitable and currently evading fragmented local resources by hard wiring it into the National Crime Agency priorities.

Now, through the Police and Crime Bill, we can ensure it receives the strategic response it demands. My Lord, serious organised crime demands a serious organised crime response. Amend. 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.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They amendment proposed after clause nine. Insert the new clause clause nine. Insert the new clause printed on the Marshalled List. My printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, serious and organised waste, crime fly-tipping on an industrial crime fly-tipping on an industrial scale is poisoning our soil and waterways and, at least until fairly recently, was a largely a fairly recently, was a largely a hidden scandal, costing billions of pounds in environmental and clean up costs. Desecration of the land is not a local nuisance.

It's now a significant part of the organised crime playbook, along with drugs and trafficking. The scale of this problem means the government now needs to show leadership and to act without delay. The new guidance the
18:55
18:55
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Russell, the government's own estimates said that around 20% of waste in England may be illegally managed at some stage in the supply chain, and that over a third of chain, and that over a third of waste crime is linked to organised crime groups. These figures underline that waste crime is not underline that waste crime is not simply limited to opportunistic fly-tipping, but in many cases co-ordinated criminal activity co-ordinated criminal activity driven by profit is therefore entirely understandable that noble Lords wish to see it recognised as a national strategic priority.

However, we do have some reservations about placing such a requirement in statute under section three of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the Secretary of State already determines the Nca's strategic priorities following consultation. There is no fixed statutory list of priorities at present, and to single out one specific crime type in primary legislation would be unusual. The question, therefore, is not whether waste crime is serious, it is whether this is the right legislative mechanism. And I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, the Minister, how the government intend to ensure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

serious and organised waste crime receives a sustained and meaningful focus. Lord. Who.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord. Who. Have concerns about this amendment. Nobody could dispute that waste

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nobody could dispute that waste crimes are a serious problem and needs to be addressed. But as I understand it, the NCA strategic understand it, the NCA strategic priorities at the moment, whether they're required by the Secretary of State or others or otherwise focus on degrading the highest harm.
18:57
18:58
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
regularly alerted now to new illegal waste sites, as evidenced for the noble Earl, that the for the noble Earl, that the government takes this matter seriously. The Environment Agency's additional waste crime enforcement additional waste crime enforcement budget for 2526 has been increased budget for 2526 has been increased by more than 50% to £15.6 million. That is a 5.6 million increase on the previous year. And that's the previous year. And that's because we've recognised that there is a potential area of concern here, and that's allowed the Environment Agency to increase its frontline criminal enforcement resource by 43 full time staff to go to the Joint Unit for Waste Crime, an area environmental crime teams, as well as bringing additional staff for enforcement duties under our major waste reforms.

Now, the Environment Agency does work closely, as the noble Earl has mentioned, with the National Crime Agency and with the Joint Unit on Waste Crime. There are multi-agency prevention and disruption tactics that are 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. And we are looking at, with other law enforcement bodies recommending and introducing new technical capabilities to look at how we can have, through an agreed strategy targeting waste crime.

So there is a role for the National Crime Agency. But I just say with which I think the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel and the noble and learned Lord Pannick have alluded to, the National Crime Agency is not the lead agency for tackling waste crime. That is the Environment Agency. And 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. And for that reason, and I'm pleased to say, if I may say so, Baroness May have Maidenhead here.

Who would have been the lead Minister on the 2013 act which established the National Crime Agency, which I served as shadow at the time, on dealing with that bill, the section three of the 2013 act is deliberately silent on the types of organised crime because it wants to not fetter the National Crime Agency. The very point the noble Lord Pannick made in relation to the Home Secretary's discretion to skew the National Crime Agency's priorities. So therefore, to insert a crime type however well meaning and however needed would be to undermine the principles of section three of the 2013 act.

So, in short, the government fully agrees with the sentiment of underpinning the amendment. We do take waste crime extremely seriously. The increase in the budget is evidence of that, and the cooperation between the NCA and the Environment Agency is also evidence of that. But I hope that with those comments, the noble Earl would agree that the concerns about the approach of tying the National Crime Agency to specific targets would not be as helpful as he hoped, and therefore I would hope he could withdraw his amendment.
19:01
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord, I thank the Minister >> My Lord, I thank the Minister for his response and everybody else who's spoken in this debate. I mean, who's spoken in this debate. I mean, 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. These the under the 2013 act, it may be under the Home Secretary's priority to deem waste crime as something that comes under the National Crime Agency.

If the Minister had said that to me, that the Home Secretary would do that, I would be I would absolutely withdraw my amendment. The truth is that that is not the case, and the problem continues to grow and it's out of control. I do very much welcome everything that is being done in this, this I recognise the work that the Environment Agency is doing and other sites, and I welcome the extra budget but and new technology. But and then I know the government announced just last week that drones will be used, but frankly they should have been used all along.

And if this was really waste, crime was dealt as a serious organised crime issue, then these matters would be intertwined and done already. So I feel I have no choice but to test the opinion of the House on this matter, because waste crime is a very serious issue and it is not being addressed, and it is not being part of the National Crime Agency.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. As many as are of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

18 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. Content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the not contents have it. The question will be decided by division and I will advise the division and I will advise the House when voting is open. My Lords,
19:04
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Yeah. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. That's Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. That's right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. That's right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. That's right. Yes. You make a very good. If you Yes. You make a very good. If you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

18 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne and the not Because. DSIT. Prime Minister. Transport for London Lord Wood Of the contrary, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. Principal Private Secretary Baroness Symons So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

26. Baroness Baroness Bray. Baroness Bray. Baroness Bray. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted contents 59, not contents 152. So The not contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So. It's a hold up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So. It's a hold up. Amendments 19 and 20 consequential to amendment 13. Lord consequential to amendment 13. Lord Davies of Gower. And formally the question is amendments 19 and 20 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary. Not content, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contrary. Not content, not content. Oh the contrary not content. Content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents have it. Amendment 21 consequential to amendment 13 Viscount Goschen move. Formally, the question is amendment 21 be the question is amendment 21 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 11, amendment 22 Lord Davies of Gower not moved. 22 Lord Davies of Gower not moved. Not moved. Amendment 23 not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 24 Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. I've got my paperwork. It's not moved because you've already spoken to it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

already spoken to it. Not. Oh, no, I didn't speak to it. Sorry. You did OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved in clause 24, amendments 25 and 26 Lord Hanson of amendments 25 and 26 Lord Hanson of Flint moved formally. Move formally, the question is amendments 25 and 26 be agreed to. As many as are of 26 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Clause 27, amendment 27 Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Davies of Gower Lord Cameron of Lochiel.
19:15
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, amendment 27. In my name and in the name of my noble 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 offensive weapon, with intent to use it to commit unlawful violence from 4 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, namely possession with intent to cause harm. However, this new offence carries the same maximum penalty as the existing offence, meaning the additional element of meaning to commit damage or harm is not reflected in the prescribed punishment. During Committee stage, many noble Lords highlighted this very real concern. I myself observed that the offence as currently drafted differentiates between simple possession and intentional violence, and 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 and those who intend to cause harm, 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 for violence or to cause fear is a profoundly serious act. He noted that such intent shows a premeditated, premeditated willingness to harm, intimidate or seriously damage property. When these concerns were raised at Committee stage, they were opposed by the government on the grounds of proportionality for raising the maximum sentence. The noble Lord, the Minister, said that four years aligns with maximum penalties on existing weapon 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 equivalent in seriousness. In law, possessing without harmful intent and possessing with the intent to unleash unlawful violence. My Lords, this amendment does not advocate arbitrary maximums or mandatory sentences sentences. In fact, we have met the noble Lord, the Minister, halfway in the spirit of compromise and lowered our original proposed threshold of 14 years to ten years. And I also respectfully remind your Lordships House that we are advocating for a ten 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 clear signal that society treats premeditated threats of violence more seriously than mere unlawful possession.

And if the noble Lord, the Minister, will not accept this amendment, I am minded to divide the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

EA amendment proposed clause 27, page 31. Line eight. Leave out for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 31. Line eight. Leave out for and insert ten. Lords. I rise from these benches

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords. I rise from these benches to express our support for amendment 27. Moved by the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel, which Lord Cameron of Lochiel, which seeks to increase the maximum sentence for the new offence of sentence for the new offence of possessing a weapon with intent, we on these benches entirely support the creation of this new offence, which rightly bridges the gap between the simple possession of a
19:20
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
knife in a public, are of a knife in public, and actually using it to threaten or harm someone, creating threaten or harm someone, creating a separate category for those who carry weapons with violent intent is the right approach to target the is the right approach to target the most dangerous individuals in our society. However, as my noble society. However, as my noble friend Baroness Doocey made clear during committee, if we are to treat carrying an offensive weapon 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 currently 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 actually intend to inflict damage or harm. In our view, this is not merely a theoretical sentencing debate, as the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel has stated, 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 armed 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 provides 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, my Lords, 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, and we therefore welcome this amendment to give the judiciary the vital tool that they need.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower and the noble Lord Davies of Gower and the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel for tabling the amendment, and for the noble Lord Cameron for moving it. I do believe the sentences should be proportionate to the offence, and that's why the maximum sentence for the new offensive possession of a the new offensive possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon, or with intent to use for unlawful violence, has been set in four years imprisonment.

And 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
19:23
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
serious offences such as threatening with an offensive weapon and repeat possession of weapon and repeat possession of offensive weapon. It's also, I think, just worth noting in the House today that the courts House today that the courts currently, even though the maximum penalty is four years, are currently judges in court after trial, not giving sentences anywhere close to the upper range anywhere close to the upper range on the sentencing scale, which seems to indicate to me that judges currently review the maximum penalty of four years as adequate.

Now a maximum penalty of ten years for the possession of intent offence would be therefore, in my view, out of line with other possession offences and potentially, I think, disproportionate given where we are now. I just want to say this is not meant to be a sort of tennis ball political point, but I just want to say to the noble Lord that the new offence was included in the previous conservative administrations, Criminal Justice Bill and the then policing Minister, who is now the shadow Home Secretary, spoke eloquently at committee in that bill in support of.

Yes, my Lords, the four year maximum penalty. So there's been a change that might be legitimate. It might be right. But the Member for Croydon South, Chris Philp, spoke in favour of the four year penalty that the government is seeking to do. Not only a couple of years ago now. Interesting fact, I think, but the one that I'm not intending to use in any sort of aggressive way, just to simply put that on the record that it is there, there as a whole.

I think it's also important. I just want to, if I may, reassure noble Lords that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has given a recommendation which the government has accepted in his review in the Southport attacks, that the penalty for new possession offences at clause 27 be kept at four years. If the government considers introducing a new offence of planning a mass casualty attack. Now let me reassure noble Lords that we're considering how best to close the gap identified. But 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, and I hope that the noble Lord would agree with the conservative shadow Home Secretary now who spoke as police Minister, and agree that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawal of the amendment be made. To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, especially grateful to the support from noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones from noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones and his citation of Mr. Hall and events, the tragic events in events, the tragic events in Southport. I have no doubt that all noble Lords understand the seriousness of knife crime and seriousness of knife crime and weapon related violence. As I have previously stated, we support this new offence, but 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
19:27
19:28
None Portrait Division
-

House when voting is open. My Lords, voting is now open. Clear the bar. voting is now open. Clear the bar. Oh, Oh, no. Oh, no. Very Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the the question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that amendment 27 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content contrary, not content. Not content. The contents will go to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents will go to the right by the throne and the not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, Well, I'm Well, I'm going Well, I'm going to Well, I'm going to do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm going to do. Well, I'm going to do. Creedon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm going to do. Creedon. I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is My Lords, the question is that To To say To say we. To say we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted. Contents 172, not contents 148. So Contents 172, not contents 148. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there seems My Lords, there seems to My Lords, there seems to be My Lords, there seems to be a convenient time to break for dinner. Break business will therefore not Break business will therefore not return to the the bill before 2018. I beg to move that the report be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourned. The question is that further consideration on report be now consideration on report be now adjourned and will not resume before 2018. As many as are of that before 2018. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords are paused for a short moment, whilst noble Lords, who may wish to do so leave quickly
19:39
19:40
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
change of position. It joins a growing catalogue of reversals, each compounding doubt and each each compounding doubt and each carrying a financial price. Stability in public administration Stability in public administration is the foundation upon which local authorities plan candidates prepare authorities plan candidates prepare and citizens place their trust. Against that background, it is 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, the noble Baroness, 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 confidently asserted has now been undone. So, my Lords, two issues now arise. The first is constitutional. Does the noble Baroness 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 my noble friend and my 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 constraint the power, 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 to deliver services to their residents. In other words, my Lords, 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, my Lords, without consequences. It absorbs scarce managerial capacity. It risks delay to the very reforms that the government professes to champion. And if community empowerment is truly the objective, one might expect the government to strengthen local capacity rather than burden it with unavoidable disruption. My Lords, it is precisely because there are constitutional and practical consequences that your Lordships' House is entitled to transparency on the costs of all this.

So therefore, could the the noble Baroness inform the House of the full costs of this regrettable sequence of events? What has been the expended on legal fees, on wasted preparation, and on emergency arrangements now required to conduct elections at short notice? What support is being provided to local authorities required to shoulder these have been these additional burdens. There is talk of £63 million, but is this on top of the already agreed election costs, and has an assessment been made of the impact upon council capacity and service delivery? And if so, my Lords, will it be published? So, my Lords, 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 possess the capacity to participate, later inform the department that they did? No, they did not any longer have that capacity. My Lords, taken together, these questions point to a wider uncertainty. Where does this leave the government's much heralded programme of reorganisation? Confidence in reform depends upon steadiness of hand and clarity of purpose. If Ministers not will, will not answer fully and reform for restore transparency, then, my Lords, we feel that serious reflection is required at the highest level.

And my Lords, I would suggest that is not at Secretary of State level as he's been the person responsible for this unnecessary mess, my Lords.
19:45
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. Well. >> My Lords. Well. >> Here we are again, a topic we have discussed debated in different have discussed 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. And so, although the outcome that we have in the end of all elections going ahead in May, as should originally have been the case is a welcome outcome.

I think we can all agree that the route by which we have got here is a highly undesirable route. And so, having read the statement that we're 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 noble Baroness, the Minister. Firstly, in that debate on Monday, the Secretary of State was asked if, in the light of the latest legal advice and the government's current understanding of the legal situation, the government believes the cancellation of elections last May was legal.

The Secretary state was asked that direct question and chose not to answer it. We can all speculate why, but I hope, therefore, the noble Lady, the Minister, will be able to clear that matter up by giving us a direct answer on that. Secondly, looking at the reasons the Secretary of State gives in the statement for cancelling elections, they don't seem to me to sit easily with what he wrote in the article published in The Times newspaper. Ahead of the consultation on potential cancellation, closing the statement that we're considering this evening says the cancellation of elections quotes should only ever happen in exceptional circumstances, a sentiment which I suspect we all agree with.

But in the article in The Times newspaper, the Secretary of State said they want pointless elections. Labour wants to fix potholes. Well, the existence of potholes in need of repair is absolutely not an exceptional circumstance. It is a frustrating daily reality. It's 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're considering goes on at some length about how the government was listening and consulting.

But again, look back at the article in The Times newspaper published before the closure of the consultation over elections for this May, and 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 and went on. And 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, could be seen both to prejudge 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 if the noble Lady, the Minister, can 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. And finally, thirdly, turning to perhaps a a more positive, a more positive aspect. I absolutely welcome the the comment in the statement that the government is willing to think again, and particularly in the context of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, about rather sorry, the phrase is the government is willing to reflect carefully, which I hope means thinking again as well about the amendments that have been tabled, such as by myself and and Baroness Scott, about the powers and the circumstances in which elections might be cancelled in the future.

And I hope, therefore, the noble Lady, the Minister, will be able to tell us whether those reflections will be carried out involving a degree of cross-party discussion, and will they be carried out in time, so that if the outcome of those reflections on the government is to decide the changes, the law appropriate, we can do that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at the Report stage of that bill? Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the. Noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions and comments on the statement. Your and comments on the statement. Your Lordships have now heard in full the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Friend the Secretary of State and the other place and the House has also raised a number of thoughtful and serious points about process, legality and democratic principle, which I appreciate. What I wish to do now is draw together the key arguments and restate clearly why the government acted as it did in answer to the questions that I've been asked and why we have now changed course.

First, this, as noble Lords will know, this sits in a much wider programme of reform. The government is determined to fix local government through a fairer funding settlement, based on need, and 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 was guided by two principles. First, the postponement of elections should occur only in exceptional circumstances, and I did repeat
19:50
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
that a number of times in this House, that it would only be in exceptional circumstances, and only exceptional circumstances, and only where there is compelling evidence based justification. Second, as a government committed to devolution, we should be guided by local leaders themselves following extensive engagement with councils extensive engagement with councils in the areas concerned, a number from across the political spectrum from across the political spectrum expressed serious anxiety about their capacity to run elections whilst simultaneously undertaking structural change.

They warned of duplication, uncertainty, additional cost and the risk of impending the impeding sorry 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, powers that have been exercised by previous governments, incomparable reorganisation contexts. However, as is entirely proper, the legal position was kept under review.

Further legal advice was subsequently received. At that point the responsible course was clear. 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. Now I recognise as many as 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 councils in making sure they are ready for elections.

That's precisely why the government acted swiftly once the new advice was received, so that clarity could be provided as early as possible. And we're working very closely with returning officers, suppliers, the Electoral Commission and sector bodies to ensure 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 the organisation itself. Last week, the Secretary of State announced up to £63 million in additional capacity funding to answer the noble Baroness. Lady Scott's comment, building on the £7.6 million previously provided to develop proposals that is substantial support and no previous government has 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'll continue working hand in hand with councils across the 21 reorganisation areas to progress towards Unitisation, and has been made clear, subject to Parliament for Surrey, there will be elections to the new unitary councils as planned this year.

A number of noble noble Lords have also raised the question of ministerial powers over the timing of local elections, and both Baroness Scott and Lord Pack asked me a specific question around 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 is reflecting seriously on the amendments tabled and the concerns expressed by noble Lords. And to respond to the noble Lord Pack.

We will do that as quickly as possible. My Lords, 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 receive the legal advice, the government acted swiftly. Now, I don't pretend this has been easy for councils concerned. I spoke to many of them myself. Nor do I dismiss the disappointment that's 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 Lords questions in my. As I've gone through on the election pilots. As far as I know, only one council has pulled out the pilot, and that's for a reason. That's nothing to do with reorganisation. It's a specific local issue, but I will. If that's not correct, I will respond to the noble Lady in writing on the noble Lord Katz question about last May's election.

There is there are legal powers to council elections. Each situation is taken on its merit and we don't have any I don't have any detail and I couldn't give legal detail because it's privileged information on this year's. So I don't know what the difference is on prejudging the outcome in a in a times article, I would say to the noble Lord Pack that both the Secretary of State, other Ministers and myself received many representations from councils about the possibility of counselling elections.

So it may be that the Secretary of State was reflecting on that rather than prejudging what we carried out, which was an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

extensive consultation. My Lords, before we move on to the next session, we now move on to the next session, we now move on to a maximum of 20 minutes of backbench contributions. The key is backbench and we want questions, backbench and we want questions, not speeches. This set out in The Companion in chapter six. 6.6.7.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah my Lords. Are you. Go ahead.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are you. Go ahead. No, no you go ahead. My Lords. The the. Noble Lady referred to the
19:56
Lord Pickles Portrait Lord Pickles (Conservative)
-
-
powers. Now they come out of section 87 of the Local Government section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000, and in its present form, that powers existed for over 25 years. Custom and practice and advice have been consistent throughout. So what was this new throughout. So what was this new legal advice to suggest that this blanket postponement, and blanket postponement, and particularly the double postponement, would have been possible? And why didn't the Secretary of State pay some attention to the Electoral Commission and question this advice? It's only taken a a junior Minister a little bit of time to look at the advice, and he's come to the conclusion that most people in that office would have come.

But this wasn't right. Am I being unfair to the government in agreeing with Mr. Jonathan Karl West, the chief Executive of the Local Government Information Unit, when he said that the government is reckless to play fast and loose with with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

foundations of democracy. Yeah. I have the greatest respect for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have the greatest respect for Jonathan Karl West. I've worked with him on many an occasion, but he hasn't seen the legal advice. It's and it is a long standing principle, as the hon. Gentleman James Cleverly said at the other James Cleverly said at the other end, and I could quote him if I had the quote in front of me, that it's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a long standing principle that government does not comment or publish legal advice. Well, one of the concerns expressed to me by colleagues in local government has been the cost of preparing submissions and scoping works for local government reorganisation, and friend has talked about the £63 million of additional funding which will be going to local government to support them going forward. Can my noble friend give reassurance to those in local government that that £63 million will meet the costs that they're going to incur? Because, as I say, some of the concerns expressed to me have been that previous government tranches of money haven't met all of the costs that have been incurred.

that have been incurred.
19:59
Lord John of Southwark Portrait Lord John of Southwark (Labour)
-
-
Well, I can reassure my noble friend that this is an unprecedented amount of funding that's been provided to support the capacity that local councils will need to help them as they go through this transition process. I think it's very important that we've been also working very closely with those councils. And, you know, I've done much of the engagement myself and the Minister. Minister McGovern has done an awful lot of engagement with councils as well. And our officials in the department have been hugely supportive to local government as they've gone through this process.

So it's right that we provide some funding to support that as well. So that's where the £63 million to undertake that reorganisation to support the implementation, and it will include those councils which have been impacted upon by today's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by the changes that were made on Monday. To the embarrassment that the government must be feeling about the U-turn on the election cancellation. But I'm grateful that the Secretary of State is going to the Secretary of State is going to look at some of the amendments, including in my own name, which extend the cancellation to both PCCs and mayors. And as the times PCCs and mayors. And as the times look forward about what the cost of LGR may be, not just to the individual but to the council tax, the people who said this was going to save money, LGR may say it won't.

We know there'll be about £1 billion worth of pension strain costs from
20:00
20:01
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
It's a shame the the noble Lord hasn't had a chance to look at the proposals as I have, because the proposals as I have, because the proposals that have come in set out very clearly the say that the very clearly the say that the anticipated savings, but more importantly than that, they provide a much more cohesive form of local a much more cohesive form of local government for those who will be on the receiving end of these services and taking out layers of chief executive salaries, of finance directors salaries all helps to push money back to the front line where it's needed, so that we've got the money to deal with the much needed services filling in potholes, looking after vulnerable adults and children and making sure that our our environment is taken care of.

All the things that local councils do so well will be done better, more effectively, and the public will understand which where to go to. Instead of having two councils,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour. My Lords. I declare an interest as a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare an interest as a. Non-exempt director of MCHLG Department. Can my noble friend the Minister remind the House of the original purpose of local government reorganisation? Surely not just for reorganisation? Surely not just for the sake of reorganisation, but for a wider purpose? And does my noble friend the Minister think it's a coincidence that with the exception of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, all other areas of England that have pioneered regional devolution
20:02
20:03
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Well, I agree with my noble friend that of course I do that friend that of course I do that that in terms of driving forward the strategic ambitions both of our country and of our government, in terms of making sure we see the economy growing in the way that we all want to see it grow, that we get the house building we need to deal with the housing crisis, but also making those very key public services that are so needed by vulnerable adults and children, making sure they are taken forward in an efficient and effective way, required us to not just tinker at the edges of this, but to do what we are doing, which is the most radical reorganisation of local government for at least half a century.

I think it's really important that we this has been pushed into the long grass nearly all the time I've been in local government that I think there have been something like four attempts to do this, and it always stopped short of doing what was actually needed to be done, which is creating local government that will drive the economy of our local areas and support the public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

services that people deserve. Conservative county councils in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conservative county councils in Norfolk have no fear of democracy and in fact are very much looking forward to these elections in 74 forward to these elections in 74 days time. I think it's worth pointing out, my Lords, that the actual elections will be conducted actual elections will be conducted by the district and borough councils, and certainly the borough council of King's Lynn and West
20:04
Lord Bellingham Portrait Lord Bellingham (Conservative)
-
-
council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk are incredibly professional and competent at handling those elections, and they will take this in their stride and deliver a professional service. Can I ask the Minister, because she didn't actually reply to this particular point put forward by my noble friend a moment ago? This legal case costs a lot of money. She said herself that frontline services are under a lot of pressure. It was egregious, really, that this case ever took place. Can she tell the House what were those legal costs? Well.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, can I thank the noble Lord for recognising the way that local government does respond to things government does respond to things like this? And I know that colleagues in electoral services and in the political side of local and in the political side of local government will do what they need to do and be ready for these elections. And as I said earlier on, they're more than used to responding to very short notice responding to very short notice elections, including snap general elections.

So and, you know, they work very well in those circumstances. And in my experience, the electoral services departments the electoral services departments of councils are extraordinarily efficient and effective. So I, I welcome his comments in that regard. In terms of the costs, the costs are now being assessed. I can't are now being assessed. I can't give him a figure at the moment. So I'm afraid that will have to wait.
20:05
20:06
20:07
20:08
20:08
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-
Well, my noble friend, agree that whilst the proposal to cancel that whilst the proposal to cancel the elections has been dropped, the opposition have no basis to opposition have no basis to complain about such proposals because they've done it themselves. because they've done it themselves. I can bear personal witness to this. I was a member of the Greater London Council. I'm always grateful for the opportunity to remind people of the Greater London Council, and 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 both occasions it was probably a reasonable thing to do. But to make the criticism is really a bit thick.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Well done. Well, my noble friend is quite right. Of course there is. There is right. Of course there is. There is precedent for cancelling elections and we've seen it done before and we've seen it done before because of reorganisation and for other reasons as well. So there is definitely precedent for that. definitely precedent for that. However, I would say that we do have the opportunity during the process of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and Community Empowerment Bill to have a look at that which we will continue to do. My Lords, local.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government reform is absolutely essential and should have happened essential and should have happened years and years ago. That's why I'm delighted to have heard Minister say tonight that it's the government's intention to carry on government's intention to carry on with local government reform and I hope at the same, at the same speed hope at the same, at the same speed as it has shown so far. I'm, I'm from Leicester and Leicestershire from Leicester and Leicestershire and I have to tell the House and I'm asking the noble, obviously the noble Lady, the Minister, that the settlement that was reached all of 50 years ago was monstrously unfair
20:10
20:11
20:12
20:13
20:14
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Portrait Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Labour)
-
-
Yes. >> Heartened by the questions. I'm from across your Lordships House that it hasn't descended into an attack on local authorities. Er, rose electoral registration officers and their ability to carry out these elections for for those of us and many of us in the, in the House tonight, we've spent many years working. I'm with those officials and have, have have seen them turn around. I'm elections very quickly whether that's by elections or snap general elections. So the fact that that hasn't been called into question, I'm heartened me.

I wonder if I can just take my noble friend, the Minister, back to the guiding principle that that has got lost a little bit and I do think deserves to be pulled out. And and that is the devolution aspect of what His Majesty's Government, through the Secretary of State and the ministerial teams are looking to do. And, and can I tempt the Minister just to, to talk a little bit more about those principles of devolution and, and the move away from those centralised powers down to local levels and to, to, to more local decisions affecting the daily lives

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the local communities. Well, there are very strong

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, there are very strong guiding principles here. And they've been, you know, a part of the core mission of this government, the core mission of this government, which is to, you know, our belief is that to drive the economic growth, we want to see, those decisions have to be taken at local level, where people understand the level, where people understand the economies, they understand the the base of the workforce and skills, and that they understand the way that they can shape the economy in their local area.

Secondly, around the delivery of public services, I think it was back in 2015, I did a report with other another member of my ministerial team and and other people, including the leader of Manchester City Council and the then mayor of Hackney, which talked about making sure that we start
20:16
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
tackling public services from the prevention point of view. That's much better done at local level than it is at national level, and that we deliver services properly at these key services adult care, children's services and to some extent, community safety services that they're delivered so much better at local level. And the result of all that is that you do result of all that is that you do get economies and local services that are tailored to local need far more effectively and efficiency efficiently.

That's our mission. That's what we want to do. The Britain has been one of the most centralised countries in Europe. As long as I can remember. It's time we turned that around. That's the mission of this government. It will be good for the country, and it will be good for the communities that we all serve.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lord Whitby not due to return

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord Whitby not due to return to the bill until 18 minutes past. Back to about to adjourn during pleasure. Until that point, I'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pleasure. Until that point, I'll just keep on talking. I'll speak very quickly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the House to adjourn during pleasure until 2018? So I as many as that opinion say content, content, content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. Hold on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Report of the Crime and Policing Bill. Lord Hanson of Flint.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Report be received. Question is the bill be now further considered on report? As further considered on report? As many as that opinion will say content the contrary not content. content the contrary not content. The contents have it. In clause 31, amendment 28 Lord Hanson of Flint.
20:18
20:19
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
expressed by the noble Lord Davis. But I have now today reintroduced But I have now today reintroduced them for the House's consideration. The amendments relate to the The amendments relate to the provisions in clauses 31 to 35, which introduce a stricter two step age, verification, checks for sale age, verification, checks for sale and delivery of knives and crossbows bought online, if I may, crossbows bought online, if I may, just for the house's convenience. Recap clauses 31 to 32 for knives and clauses 33 to 34 for crossbows will require, at the point of sale or point of sale or hire for crossbows.

Specific checks to include photographic identity plus the current photograph and at the point of delivery, photographic identity checks and a new offence for 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 can't be left on doorsteps, or indeed with neighbours. These amendments clarify that the requirement for a passport or driving licence, used as proof of age on a remote sale of a knife, or remote sale, or hire of a crossbow to be a physical version.

And we are also, again, adding provisions that would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations subject. And I hope this again helps the House, subject to the affirmative procedure, prescribing an alternative process for age verification, such as digital ID. These amendments are required in order to ensure that a digital ID can be used as evidence of an entity wherever the physical ID is accepted. Now in committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davis, raised concerns that the use of digital ID would be mandatory.

However, I can assure him this is not a blanket requirement. Mandating the use of digital ID to purchase knives or crossbows. It's simply making a provision for alternative forms of ID, digital or otherwise, to be used. This is to ensure that the legislation keeps pace with future developments, potentially on digital ID. I know that the benches opposite have their concerns with the government's plans on digital ID, but we have been clear that under those plans it would not be mandatory to have a digital ID, and I hope that helps the noble Lord.

These provisions are about giving people a choice as to how they verify their identity will continue to be possible. For the purchaser to present a physical passport or a physical driving licence where they have one, or as an alternative to a specific digital ID. If they wish to provide a digital ID, they can provide that as an alternative. And furthermore, the amendments in the group also with the permission and support of authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland, extend these clauses to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

We're also now amending the legislation to ensure that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for ID verification on delivery of bladed products and crossbows to residential purposes. This is to account for situations where the delivery company engaged by the seller to deliver a bladed product, subcontracts 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, or else, my Lords, the regulations in the bill would be meaningless.

So I hope that having reflected on the debate and given the changes and clarification I've given, that the noble Lord will be content with his government's amendments. I have to say that there are obviously other amendments in this group. 117177 sorry, which the noble Lord Clement-Jones will potentially move should he so wish in a moment. And if the House will allow me, I will respond to that once I have heard from the noble Lord. But for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moment I beg to move the amendments in my name. Amendment proposed. Page 36.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. Page 36. Line 23. Leave out from seller to and in line 26 and insert the words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and in line 26 and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, I'm not sure I'm in order. I'm looking at the noble order. I'm looking at the noble Lord Katz. He's nodding, which is good news. Thank you. I'm much appreciated. When you write a appreciated. When you write a speech and you can't deliver it. There's nothing worse than that. My Lords. I do rise from these benches to welcome the government's amendments in this group brought forward by the Minister concerning the remote sale and delivery of knives and bladed articles.

As I
20:23
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
noted during committee on these benches, we fully support the intent behind the government's measures in this area. We must measures in this area. We must strengthen accountability for businesses and sellers in tackling online knife sales, and we welcome the robust two step age verification checks being implemented. It's entirely right that we ensure a consistent UK wide approach by extending these approach by extending these provisions, including those relating to crossbows, to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It's 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 specific amendments in this group 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. And 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 regarding 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 reasonably practicable, 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.

My Lords, 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 on the face of the bill. Turning bureaucratic compliance intelligence.
20:26
20:27
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm here to help. I'm grateful for the comments of the noble Lord for the comments of the noble Lord Davies of Gower in doing that. And if I just if I may just address the points from the noble Lord Clement-Jones 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 just say to the noble Lord that we are working with the police on the details of a reporting system. I want to reassure the noble Lord that the points he raised, both in committee and in this amendment, and during the debate today, will be taken into account when drafting the regulations. I don't believe there's any difference of substance between us on that. It's just that we are of a view that the timeliness of reports is best left to regulations rather than primary legislation, and we will be bringing those regulations forward, and I hope that he will be able to support them and comment upon them and discuss them at that time.

So I do hope the noble Lord will be content not to move his amendment. But just before I do finish, I just think it's worthwhile, both in the context of this debate and also the previous group's debate, just to place on record that overall knife crime, whilst previously climbing since the start of this parliament, knife homicides have fallen by 27%, while knife enabled offences have recorded an 8% decrease. The latest admissions data for NHS hospitals in England and Wales also show a 10% fall in admissions for knife assaults.

Now I'm not complacent. I am not going to stop pressing on this. But those results, I think, demonstrate progress. And with the measures in this bill that we're currently discussing in the Report stage now, and with the measures that I hope we can have about digital and non-digital ID on two step verification, I hope again that we will further reduce those figures in coming months. But in the meantime, I beg to move my amendment 28 and the other amendments, and I would hope that the noble Lord would be content not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move his. Amendment. 28 the question is that amendment 28 be agreed to as that amendment 28 be agreed to as many as that of NSA content, contrary not content, the contents contrary not content, the contents have it amendment 29 to 176 move have it amendment 29 to 176 move formally en bloc. The question is that amendment 29 to 176 be agreed that amendment 29 to 176 be agreed to. En bloc as many as of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content.

The contents have it. That's the way to make progress. On amendment 177. Not moved. Not moved. That brings us to Group nine. After clause 37, amendment 176 Lord Hanson Lord Katz.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the noble Lord Lord Brady of Altrincham will recall that at Committee stage he tabled an amendment which sought to an amendment which sought to deregulate devices known as sound moderators and flash suppressors. These items are subject to control These items are subject to control by virtue of the fact that they are included in the statutory definition of a firearm. Firearm definition of a firearm. Firearm set out in section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968. My Lords in committee, I indicated that the committee, I indicated that the government was sympathetic, I would say very sympathetic to the intent behind the noble Lords Amendment.

Having already given a public
20:30
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
commitment in June 2025 to deregulate these devices when parliamentary time allowed. These are entirely inert objects which contain no moving parts and do not in themselves create a risk to in themselves create a risk to public safety. There was much support from noble Lords who spoke at committee in favour of removing these items from the legal these items from the legal definition, thereby alleviating the administrative burden on police firearms licensing departments. It firearms licensing departments. It would also benefit certificate holders who would no longer be required to apply for and pay for a variation of their licence each time they acquire or dispose of a sound modulator.

The noble Lord Lord Brady withdrew his amendment, but we undertook to update him ahead of Report stage on what might be done to take forward the shared intent to deregulate it. Sound moderators and flash suppressors, which we did via letter on on the 13th of February. That, my noble friend, is actually not in his place. Lord Hanson sent the amendments in this group will do this by removing sound moderators from the definition of a firearm. In section 57 of the 1968 act, and to ensure that these devices are held lawfully only by those with a legitimate purpose, and who have been subject to full suitability checks to possess a firearm, it will also be made an offence for somebody to be in possession of a sound moderator for a section one firearm, unless they hold a valid certificate, either a firearm or shotgun certificate.

These offences this the offence rather relates to section one firearms only, because the definition of a sound moderator in the Firearms Act relates to the definition of a firearm, but not a shotgun or an air weapon. My Lords, these amendments take into account the fact that existing legislation provides for a number of situations where a person is allowed to possess a firearm without holding a certificate. It makes sense that they should also be allowed to possess a sound moderator in those circumstances. These exemptions are listed in the proposed new schedule.

These amendments will achieve the widely supported reform of the way in which sound moderators and suppressors are regulated. And so,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my Lords, I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 37 to insert the new clause as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Martian list. My Lords, I rise very briefly to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise very briefly to thank the noble Lords Ministers on thank the noble Lords Ministers on the other side of the House. Very grateful to have accepted what I think was an entirely common sense case, something the government had case, something the government had already accepted and the report had 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 can't think of many others.

So I really am grateful. I think it will help the police. It reduces the bureaucratic burden on them. It will reduce costs for a lot of people. It does not pose any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

harm whatsoever. So thank you. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I warmly welcome the government's amendment amendments in this group, which deliver on the in this group, which deliver on the commitments made by the Minister during our Committee stage debate. As I noted at the time, townies As I noted at the time, townies such as myself were being educated during the passage of this bill. during the passage of this bill. What these items were, however, the logic of this measure was immediately clear when the noble Lord Brady of Altrincham introduced his amendments, and we were very pleased to support them when he first championed the cause.

So we're delighted that the government has accepted his amendments, my Lords. My Lords, I too, thank the
20:34
20:34
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
an administrative burden currently placed on police, something we all support and will pose no threat to the public. They are wholly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasonable and we support them. All. My Lords. It's very rare to have a to have both unanimity and indeed a common sense break out across the chamber. So I will thank all noble Lords for their their comments, even amongst townies like I associate myself with the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones comments as a fellow townie. It was an education. I've learned an awful lot. But thank thank everyone for their support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. To the noble Lord before he sits down. That unanimity and common

**** Possible New Speaker ****

down. That unanimity and common sense don't always go together. That was the point I was trying

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to make, but more eloquently by the noble Lord. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 178 be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 179 Lord Davies of Gower.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, as at committee, these benches oppose clause 40, standing benches oppose clause 40, standing part of the Bill. I will briefly remind the House of the background. remind the House of the background. Clause 40 repeals section 22 of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1980, which Magistrates Courts Act, 1980, which was inserted into that act in 2014. Section 22 A of the Magistrates Courts Act provides that where a
20:35
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
Courts 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 only be heard before a magistrates court and will not go before the Crown Court. That is the current position. The government now proposes to do away with this and make low value shoplifting triable either way. In their criticisms of the status quo before the general election in 2024, the Labour Party suggested that the status quo had created, and I quote, 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 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 there are hundreds of summary only offences.

Does the government think that they create immunity and should become tribal either way too? And my Lords, there are also 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 this government is pursuing with perplexing enthusiasm their Sentencing Act and their proposed court reforms. In the Sentencing Act, the government has introduced a presumption of a suspended sentence where the sentence is less than 12 months.

I know the government does 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.

For those of those offences, as a CPS determined 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 says that is necessary to tackle the backlog.

They have argued that offenders are trying to gain 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 absolutely no sense whatsoever. Perhaps if the noble Baroness, the Minister, will not listen to my arguments, she might listen to her own colleagues.

Sarah Sackman, the Minister for the courts, who said in a Guardian article and I quote, do we think that someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky from a mini mart should receive the right to trial by jury? Well, 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. So for all those reasons, and essentially because in our view, the government's position here is completely contradictory, I beg to move.
20:40
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Amendment proposed leave out clause 40. >> All my Lords, clause 40 of this bill delivers on a manifesto bill delivers on a manifesto commitment made by this government, and I'm very happy. I'm very happy to note that the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies of Gower and I share the same overall objective, which is to reduce the backlog in the Crown Court by reserving jury trials for the most serious cases. So I'm delighted to hear that they agree with the government, and I look forward to their support of 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. My Lords, the low value shoplifting provision was always a curious beast, and it was quite unlike other criminal offences because shoplifting is and was charged as theft, which is always a triable either way offence, which 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, but a defendant who wanted a jury trial could still choose or elect to use the formal term trial in the Crown Court.

So it is a nonsense to say that this keeps it in the Magistrates Court, because section 22 A still allows defendants to elect trial in the Crown Court if they want to do so. But the reality is that hardly any of them did. And I'll return to this very shortly. So this was an administrative provision designed to reduce the burden on the Crown Court, but in reality it had very little impact on that. But it did have a very undesirable effect, which was entirely unintended.

Whilst 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, and some regard it as having been effectively decriminalised. It doesn't matter whether that is in fact true or not, it is the perception that is damaging. And it is section 22 A that created the perception that those committing theft of goods worth £200 or less will escape any punishment. Clause 40 rectifies this, and it really matters.

My Lords, evidence from the Association of Convenience Stores shows that only 36% of retail crime is ever even reported. Many retailers choosing not to do so because they think it's a waste of time, because they believe that the police won't do anything. And once again, it doesn't really matter whether they're right or not about that. That's what they believe. So this underreporting masks the true scale of the problem, and it leaves businesses vulnerable. My Lords, we must act decisively to support retailers facing this growing challenge, this scourge of shoplifting.

And 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 it will be treated seriously. My Lords, I do hope that the noble Lords will accept that probably no one is more concerned than I am about remedying the position of a backlog in the Crown Court as possibly being one of the only people that has actually lived through what it has meant in practice. When I sat as a circuit judge and as I've already said, jury trials for these cases are a very small proportion of the Crown Court workload.

In the year ending in September 2025, almost 50,000 defendants were prosecuted for shoplifting of goods valued at £200 or less, but only 1.3% of these were committed for jury trial in the Crown Court, of which the vast majority had been sent there by the magistrates, with only a very small proportion of defendants themselves electing trial. So 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 what it does do is send a clear message to perpetrators and would be perpetrators, that this crime won't be tolerated and would be met with appropriate punishment. With signalling to retailers that we take this crime seriously, that they are encouraged to report it and the police will take it seriously. And the happy news for the noble Lords who have 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 and not by defendants.

And as I've already said, I look forward to the noble Lords support on this. In the meantime, given that this is a manifesto commitment, I make it absolutely clear that the government is determined that it shall pass. But I hope that I've been able to persuade noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.
20:45
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble >> I'm grateful to the noble Baroness and Minister not quite persuaded, I'm afraid. The persuaded, I'm afraid. The government have been attempting to appear tough in a so-far unsuccessful attempt to demonstrate they are cracking down on crime. And 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 from the previous year. And to make matters worse, they are now proposing measures that will not see a soul go to prison for shoplifting and VAR clause 40 allow offenders to string out their trials through the Crown Court, all the whilst they pursued a polar opposite outcome for other offences through their court reforms.

If this is the policy of a government that is serious about tackling shoplifting, then 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.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My question is that amendment 179 be agreed to. As many as that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

179 be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. Not content. The question will be decided by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will be decided by a division. Advise the House when a division. Advise the House when voting is over. Voting is now open.
20:47
None Portrait Division
-

Yeah, Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. No. Yeah. Yeah. Lord Yeah. Lord Gascoigne. Yeah. Lord Gascoigne. She Yeah. Lord Gascoigne. She said Yeah. Lord Gascoigne. She said no. Yeah. Lord Gascoigne. She said no. Yeah. Lord Gascoigne. She said no. Yes. Yes. That's how I. Say. That's how I. Say. Oral That's how I. Say. Oral Question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question. The question. The The question. The question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question. The question is that amendment 179 be greeted. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that amendment 179 be greeted. As many as of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content should go to the right by the throne. The non contents to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. It It is Mr Mr Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords My Lords have My Lords have voted My Lords have voted contents My Lords have voted contents 43, not contents 131. So the not contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Question. In clause 41, amendment 180 Lord Hanson of Flint.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hanson of Flint. I'm grateful, my Lords. On this occasion, I hope I can be accused occasion, I hope I can be accused of listening and hearing in order of listening and hearing in order to assist the noble Baroness Doocey, because on these amendments to the child criminal exploitation offence which I beg to move will remove in cases involving children aged 13 or over, the requirement that a perpetrator did not reasonably believe the child was an adult. And in bringing forward these amendments, I am directly responding to the concerns raised in the debates in the House, in particularly listening to the very cogent arguments put forward a Committee stage by the noble Lord Hampton, my noble friend Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.

And indeed, arguments were made in another place 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 precedented and long standing legal test. The CPS and courts are experienced in dealing with such an element. However, having reflected further and acknowledged that there is a heightened risk of teenage black males in particular who are overrepresented in the cohort of children vulnerable to child criminal exploitation being wrongly perceived as older.

We are therefore 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, therefore, send a clear message that responsibility for involving children in crime, which is always bad and harmful, rests with the adult and I commend the amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that I beg to move to the House. Amendment proposed, page 62,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, page 62,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

line 17 after person insert D. My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward these for bringing forward these amendments. We wholly support the intention of clause 41, which introduces the offence of child criminal exploitation. But I do have several concerns regarding the amendments which I hope he will be able to allay. First, in my Lords, is the fact that the original crime being brought forwards is being
20:59
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
done so to highlight and punish exploitative behaviour. An adult will get a 12 year old to perhaps will get a 12 year old to perhaps shoplift or deal drugs because they are less conspicuous and have a are less conspicuous and have a less chance of being caught. That type of coercion is what is being targeted here. I'm not so sure that targeted here. I'm not so sure that this is always the case when it comes to older teenagers. It is often far more of a voluntary decision based on a mutual understanding to commit a crime when the child is 16 or 17.

And whilst it may be exploitative, exploitative, the offender may not be enticing them towards crime because they are a child. It is a subtle but important difference in intention, introducing strict liability up to 18 removes the discretion that courts often exist to provide. And that brings me on to my second concern, which is that the the fact that this may end up being used to absolve fully complicit young offenders of criminal responsibility, and the government has made it clear that it sees 16 to 18 year olds as adults, and the law already provides them with many legal rights that 15 year olds don't have.

And the government will soon give them the right to vote. Is the noble Lord 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 were will also be cases where this is not the case, and 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.

My Lords, I understand the government's intentions. With this updated measure. It is a different principle to child sexual assault. But just as that crime includes a condition that factors in intent, so should this crime. From the side of the under 18, obviously there should be an arbitrary cut off as the original measure suggests, but we have a criminal responsibility of ten, 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.

And so I hope that the Minister will be able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

perhaps address these points. My Lord, I want. To. Apologise to Lord Davies of Gower. I was just checking with Gower. I was just checking with another member of your Lordships House before I started my winding speech. So no, my apologies for for speech. So no, my apologies for for not attracting his attention. My Lords, we welcome the government's decisions to address child criminal exploitation. The range of measures
21:02
21:03
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Well, I'm grateful I will I will >> Well, I'm grateful I will I will try and just very briefly, if I may respond to that. I mean, again, I just remind the House that we are just remind the House that we are responding to requests from noble Lords, but also in addition to noble Lords, partners in children's noble Lords, partners in children's charities, law enforcement and members from the House of Commons to make the change on ensuring that child criminal exploitation offence works as intended to protect children most at risk of being targeted, and particularly as both the noble Lady Baroness Brinton and the noble Lord Davies of Gower has said there is potentially commonly boys between age 15 to 17, and indeed very often black and other minority children overrepresented in those figures.

And they're the same children at risk of being wrongly perceived as being older and therefore not protected. So what we've tried to do in this is 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 do it, the child under the age of 18 and and what we have in this particularly is for the purposes of this piece of legislation.

The purpose of this is a child is dealt with as being under the age of 18. Now the noble Lord Davis raises again his concerns about voting at 16 and whether that is a particular issue. I say to him, that's an issue for debate. It's a Labour manifesto commitment. Again, it's an issue for debate, but I don't suggest it's an issue for debate today. If the noble Lord says it's a comparison and let, let, let, let let, let me accept that.

But I would suggest to him that for the purposes of this legislation today, we are saying that individuals 15 to 17 particularly are vulnerable. And that goes again to the points that Albert Baroness Brinton has made, and 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 that we've got. And also, again, risks somebody who has undertaken child criminal exploitation getting off because they believe that person was older than the person actually was.

So that's a line we've drawn. It's an argument we've made. It's in the legislation and I'm very happy. But I'm not the Minister responsible, but I'm still very happy at some point to have a discussion with the noble Lord about why votes at 16 is important, and if he wants to do that, we'll find an opportunity, I'm sure if it relates to a Home Office bill at any time in the future. Thank you. So I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is amendment 108 be agreed to? As many as are that opinion will say content the opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendments 181 to 193. have it. Amendments 181 to 193. Lord Hanson moved. The question is amendments 181 to 193 be agreed to amendments 181 to 193 be agreed to en bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents contrary not content. The contents have it.

Amendment 194 Lord Hanson uniformly. The question is amendment 194 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it in clause 58, amendment 195. Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb.
21:07
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, I think like other noble Lords here this evening, I'm quite keen to get home, especially as I've got stay up all night tomorrow night. Reacting to the tomorrow night. Reacting to the Gorton and Denton by election, which obviously is going to be very, which obviously is going to be very, very exciting. I, I do hope the noble Lord, the Minister, expresses the same sort of support for these amendments as he did and obviously won't, but perhaps somebody else will.

Because these I am concerned that Labour has promised something that this these clauses won't actually deliver. So perhaps I can explain. I want to thank the noble Lords. I want to thank the noble Lords, Hampton and Randall, both of whom signed these amendments. Although Lord Hampton's name. Isn't on them. So these one, nine, five and the related amendments seek to ensure that children are not held criminally responsible for offences of cuckooing and or coerced internal concealment, where those acts arise from exploitation, and these amendments come from joint work from The Children's Society Action for Children UK.

Catch 22, Alliance for Youth Justice, NSPCC, Barnardo's and other academics. The government's decision to introduce the the offence of CCE alongside new offences, addressing cuckooing and coerced internal concealment does demonstrate a genuine commitment to closing gaps, increasing justice and ensuring that those who exploit children are held to account. Taken together with the new preventative orders and the strength and safeguarding measures elsewhere in the Bill, this represents real progress. However, there is a troubling inconsistency at the heart of the legislation as currently 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, exploited by adults could in law be treated as perpetrators rather than victims, and this directly contradicts the government's stated intention to address the imbalance of power exercised by adults who use children to commit crime, and it also risks undermining the very purpose of the new offences by recriminalizing children through the back door.

We know from the National Crime Agency that child exploitation exploitation is a defining feature of Cuckooing linked activity. Police forces report children as young as 14 being found in properties that have been taken over for criminal purposes, and I would like to say that this clearly is a legal point. I am not a lawyer. I'm very much hoping that the government's lawyers can look at this and actually see that I am right about it, and perhaps tighten up the bill as it sits at the moment, children are subjected to violence, grooming, intimidation and control.

Can't meaningfully refuse adults who demand who who demand their help. They cannot consent, and they shouldn't 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 I really do think that these amendments could help ensure that children are victims and not offenders, and that the law reflects that without any sort of ambiguity. Moving on to 189, this concerns clause 62, and the provision of statutory guidance for agencies responded to child criminal exploitation.

And again, it comes from the same child action networks. As I mentioned before. As I've already said, the creation of new offences and preventative orders in this bill, they are welcome. But legislation on its own is actually a blunt instrument, and its success will depend entirely on how it's 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.

And so we have to have a joined up, consistent, well informed response. Otherwise it's pointless actually putting any of this into the bill. So I would say that support must extend 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 at part six, clause 99, the Secretary of State is rightly given powers to issue multi-agency statutory guidance in relation to the new stalking offence that recognising that identifying victims, managing perpetrators and preventing harm requires coordinated action across multiple agencies and child criminal exploitation is no less complex and in many cases far more so and so.

The same approach should apply here. And this amendment 198 would ensure that statutory guidance is issued to all agencies operating under section 16 of the Child Children Act 2004, reflecting their safeguarding activities and duties. And I, I realise it's very difficult for the government to react to all the amendments that we put in. I'm feeling a bit lonely on these benches, actually. I don't know if everybody else has gone home already. I'm quite jealous. So my ambition is to ensure that the that the provisions in this bill are supported by clear, authoritative and multi-agency guidance necessary to make them work in practice and to make sure that we can see that they're working in practice as well.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 58. Page 74. Line 15. After a insert Page 74. Line 15. After a insert who is aged 18 or over.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who is aged 18 or over. I think Lady Jones has outlined in detail the amendments and the importance of the amendments. I importance of the amendments. I just want to echo, really, her last point about the need for proper point about the need for proper guidance to actually set out exactly what the many agencies who should be involved need to do, and the proposals from the group of charities who've written to us says that this should be providing clear advice on the complex and evolving nature of CCE, including Cuckooing, clarifying the roles and responsibilities of all relevant partners and emphasising transitional safeguarding, ensuring young people don't suddenly get pulled out of somewhere and have absolutely no recourse to to face a new life.

It's really important they they add that we go, this isn't just the obvious agencies. It needs to include slavery and trafficking. It needs to include those people, the police specialists working in child abduction. It needs to extend certainly to care orders, secure accommodation and deprivation of liberty orders. The it would be
21:16
21:16
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
that these amendments are concerned with the protection of children and young people. The amendments would restrict the new offences of cuckooing and coerce in internal concealment, so that they apply only to those aged 18 and over, and would require the Secretary of would require the Secretary of State to issue statutory safeguarding guidance in connection with these provisions. My Lords, with these provisions. My Lords, let me say at the outset that we all recognise the deeply exploitative nature of cuckooing and of 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 their exploitation, and we in these benches have a lot of sympathy for that principle. And the clauses are designed to disrupt organised criminal activity, which so often preys on the vulnerable. However, we cannot support the amendments in this group. They would effectively create a blanket exemption for 16 and 17 year olds from criminal liability for these offences, and in this country, the age of criminal responsibility is ten. Parliament has long accepted that young people under 18 can, in appropriate circumstances, be held criminally responsible for serious criminal conduct and 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 prosecutorial discretion and the youth justice framework provide mechanisms to distinguish between a hardened exploiter and a child groomed into criminality. But a blanket statutory exclusion would go too far. And 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. So we must ensure that exploiters are prosecuted, that victims are protected, and that that law remains coherent. And for those reasons, while I very much respect the intentions behind these amendments, I cannot support them.
21:19
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank all those noble Lords who are taking part in noble Lords who are taking part in this debate. I'm starting with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I'd like to start by welcoming, welcoming, I think, her genuine recognition of the progress that we're making through this legislation, through introducing the new child criminal exploitation and indeed cuckooing offences for in this bill. So we're grateful for for that. And as she's explained, amendments are amendments 1952197 seek to restrict those who can commit the cuckooing and internal concealment offences to those aged 18 or over.

My Lords, the government fully recognises that children, particularly those exploited by county line 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 exploited themselves is particularly appalling, and it's why this government's work to target child criminal exploitation is so important, and I think everyone across your Lordships' House recognises that. While I appreciate the spirit of these amendments, I believe it's absolutely right that children where 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, my Lords, for a child to commit cuckooing or internal concealment without having been exploited to do so. Let's be clear, my Lords, decisions as to whether to charge someone should be taken on a case by case basis. As with all offences, the police exercise operational judgement when investigating and gathering evidence to establish the facts of the case and the Crown Prosecution Services 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. Excuse me. We will also issue such guidance to support implementation of the cuckooing and internal concealment offences, including on how police should respond and identify exploitation when children are found in connection with cuckooing or internal concealment. When she was speaking to her amendments, the the, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I think, kind of posed the question why we're 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, where a victim of child criminal exploitation offence still 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 of CCE will continue to be able to access the section 45 defence as they do now. However, we consider that creating an additional standalone statutory defence for victims of child criminal exploitation beyond that which already exists in section 45 of the 2015 act for victims who 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 individual individuals who criminally exploit them.

But I should add, we're working with partners in the criminal justice system to improve awareness and understanding of the section 45 defence. This will support the early identification of potential victims of modern slavery and prevent criminal proceedings being brought against victims. It's 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 which will accompany the new offence. Turning to amendment 198, we similarly sympathise with the intention behind this amendment to introduce statutory guidance for multi-agency partners.

It is, of course, 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 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, 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.

Risk duplication and a siloed approach to protecting children and vulnerable adults something I'm sure we'd all wish to avoid happening. More broadly, the government is taking a range of actions to strengthen child protection through the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will introduce a new multi-agency child protection teams in every local authority in England. This will ensure stronger join up between the police, health, education and children's social care when responding to harms such as child criminal exploitation. The noble noble Baroness Goldie Jones mentioned stalking offences.

I say to her that stalking offences are mainly against adults committed mainly against adults, so it's appropriate to have bespoke guidance. Here we're talking about safeguarding children where the DfE guidance will apply and it's appropriate given the given. Given the nature of the, the, the the range of agency involved, agents involved for, for for for children that it's that we take this approach. So I hope that with these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reassurances, the noble Lady will be content to withdraw. Just before.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just before. I said in my contribution that I would was hoping that the agencies might extend beyond the usual ones, might extend beyond the usual ones, and he certainly named the usual ones. Would it, for example, include working with the local include working with the local gangmaster operations as well?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gangmaster operations as well? I won't speculate off the. I would suspect that would be the case, but I think I'd probably best undertake to write to the noble Lady to confirm that detail. I would, I would assume so, but I'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll write to confirm that. I think the noble Lord for his answers. And I do recognise the answers. And I do recognise the points he's made and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Davis. But quite honestly, when you have But quite honestly, when you have so many children's organisations saying that the government has got something wrong, I really think the government ought to listen. And although I'm not going to push this to a vote, I feel like perhaps tackling the various Ministers in the corridor sometime and making sure they understand the depth of my, my caring, my passion about this.

Because we all want to protect children and if there are gaps, the government will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

responsible. I. Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 196, 197 and 198. Amendments 196, 197 and 198. Baroness Jay not moved. Not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Jay not moved. Not moved. My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on report. Do now adjourn. The question is that further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that further consideration on report be now adjourned. As many as are of that opinion will say content the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move the House. Do now adjourn. House. Do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page