Lords Chamber

Thursday 16th April 2026

(began 2 hours, 3 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
11:05
None Portrait None
-

You You know.
11:05
11:05
11:06
11:06
11:06
11:07
11:08
11:08
11:09
11:09
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:16
11:16
None Portrait Oral questions: Data centres: clean power by 2030 and for net zero by 2050
-

Russell. >> I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order
11:16
11:17
11:18
11:19
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:29
11:30
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:53
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Well, can I say to the noble, the noble Lord, there's a debate on the noble Lord, there's a debate on Monday about defence resilience in the grand committee, so we can the grand committee, so we can start the conversation there as one part of that. But of course, there's a broader a broader debate that the noble, the broader conversation that noble Lord is referring to. And we're working hard to deliver that as well. On on defence spending. Let me just say there's a debate about spending.

I accept that, but let me just say in 20 2425, the total deal was 60.2 billion. In 2829, it will be 73.5. Under current plans. That's a 13.5 billion increase per year for that in that final in that final year. So that is an increase in terms of the SDR. He will know, notwithstanding the debate that's going on around that, the government isn't waiting for the publication of the SDR. There are significant investments being made already. Leonardo's was announced recently in terms of Yeovil around helicopters just yesterday, again talking about helicopters with Boeing UK, there was nearly £900 million announced for Chinook and Apache maintenance.

This huge investment going into shipbuilding in Scotland, which is immense for Scotland and something of which we can all be pleased. The nuclear deterrent is being renewed. We've ordered 12 type 35, a Type Thai F-35s, so all of those sorts of things are are important. We're not waiting for the SDR. We're investing already. The debate no doubt will continue about the total amount. But it's wrong to say that we're not investing in anything.
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
12:01
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
The the the point I was trying to make on Tuesday, and I'm happy to reiterate, is that the threat that we face needs the country to respond as a whole, and the government's responsibility working with others is to ensure that the population understands that threat and the increasing nature of that threat. And I think that in response to that, we can expect everyone to come together, as our country always does.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I simply say, from the Liberal Democrat benches that I've spoken to George Robertson, I can't spoken to George Robertson, I can't think how many times in the last few months we are fully engaged, as the Minister knows well with this the Minister knows well with this debate. We are anxious that the defence review should be implemented. We regret that there has not been the national conversation led by the Prime Minister, which we need, and the idea that we're somehow not engaged idea that we're somehow not engaged at all with this is, to say the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

least, a little over the top. On the on the on the main point that the noble Lord is making around the national conversation, around the national conversation, as I've said to him, and said in this House on a number of occasions that national conversation needs to that national conversation needs to needs to begin as soon as possible and plans are underway. With respect to that, it is essential that it happens, and we need to that it happens, and we need to ensure that the British public understand the very real circumstance, changing circumstances that they face.

Now,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

circumstances that they face. Now, compared to just a few years ago. My Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, does the Minister agree that as important as the level of expenditure is, the effectiveness of that expenditure? And can he tell the House what the MoD is tell the House what the MoD is doing to improve the efficiency of defence spending? Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defence spending? Well. We. The the Mod is, as the noble Lord probably know, we all know is that the. There's been a reform of defence reform program which has led to the establishment of a National Armaments Director Directorate and a new National Armaments Director. And certainly at the top of his agenda is the whole business of ensuring more effective procurement and better value for money, all of those sorts of things that you would assume are essential. But it's not only effective procurement.

The other challenge for for us and for all of us as a nation and indeed our friends and allies, is what is the appropriate equipment to buy with the changed nature of warfare at the current time? And the lesson from Ukraine is clearly air defence. Clearly new technology and drones, and it's how we ensure the balance between what you might call traditional capability, which of course is still essential, and the new technologies which are emerging. So that's also a challenge as well as the nature of the procurement itself.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord Sandhurst just a short pause before we move on to ping Consideration Consideration of Consideration of Commons reasons and monuments under Crime and Policing Bill Lord Hanson of Flint.
12:02
12:03
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move motion a that this House do not insist on its amendment to, and do agree with the Commons in their amendments to a to too-c in lieu, and if I may, in speaking to motion, I'd also like to speak to motions B f p in this group. Amendment two is intended to ensure that accredited or authorised persons or their employers may not profit financially from the issuing of fixed penalty notices issued for breaches of community protection orders, public spaces protection orders.

I've had a discussion with the noble Lord Clement-Jones on a number of occasions, and I fully understand the concerns that he has raised that fixed penalty notices could be issued disproportionately where there is a financial incentive to do so. However, I must stress that this amendment risks weakening crucial enforcement action taken to address those who breach community protection notices or indeed public space protection orders, and such a ban would effectively put an end to all outsourcing and could significantly reduce enforcement capacity.

Therefore, I've tabled amendments in lieu 282C which seek to ensure that statutory guidance is issued, which addresses the need for proportionality in the issuing of fixed penalty notices. And I've had an opportunity to discuss that with the noble Lord outside of the chamber. I await his comments in due course, but it would mean on the face of the Bill, there would be a statutory presumption that the guidance addresses the use and proportionality of such fixed penalty notices. If I can turn to amendment six, ten, 11 and 12 in the issue of Fly-tipping, it's really important issue.

I know that noble Lords have been exercised about this. I want to emphasise that I understand and recognise the problem and believe that waste crime is an issue that does indeed confront us. The government is committed to taking firm action over the recess. The government recently published our new Waste Crime Action Plan, which I would argue is the toughest ever crackdown on illegal waste and targeting. The problem at its root, Lord Dear amendment six, I would argue, is unnecessary, as there is already sufficient evidence available.

Local authorities have the power to both prosecute Fly-tippers and on conviction. A cost order can be made by the court so that the landowner's cost can be recovered from the perpetrator. If available. Evidence is not sufficient to secure a successful prosecution, and it is unclear how addressing this issue through statutory guidance would indeed help in recovering those clean up costs. Amendment 11, I would argue again, is also unnecessary, as under section 34 B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local councils have the power to seize vehicles if they have reason to believe that the vehicle is being used or about to be used to commit a fly tipping offence, and where police stop and search a vehicle under their pace powers on the basis of reasonable suspicion that the vehicle is used for Commissioner Fly-tipping offences, they can also call on local authority officers who can then impound the vehicle under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

As I've mentioned, amendment 12 places a duty on waste authorities to clean up waste from Fly-tipping, including on private land. I again, I've had, I hope, constructive discussions with the noble Viscount Goschen. But I have to say again, as I've said to him outside of the chamber, that the amendment places a substantial unfunded burden on local councils, represents a significant departure from current practice and as such would infringe also on Commons financial privilege. And I trust on that basis, the noble viscount can consider not pursuing the amendment further.

But having said all of that, I just say to the House that the waste Ram action plan itself sets out what I believe is a zero tolerance approach to prevent waste crime. We'll look at pursuing criminals responsible and accelerating the clean up effort. We are committed to working, particularly with the insurance industry, to explore any barriers to accessible insurance market that would allow farmers, businesses and landowners to be indemnified against illegal waste dumping on their land. And we're also taking further action because in turning to amendment ten, the government does agree with the need for tougher penalties for those convicted of fly tipping.

Amendment ten has drafted is seeking to amend, I would suggest the wrong legislation. Driving licence endorsements are set out in Road Traffic Offenders Act 1998, but our amendment ten A in lieu enables the addition of penalty points to a driving licence of an offender following conviction for fly tipping offences where that offender was driving, a motor vehicle used in or for the purposes of the commission of the offence. This may ultimately lead again to disqualification from driving. Now I say I'm grateful to the noble Lord Davies of Gower for tabling his amendments earlier on this, and I hope that he will now look at the amendment that we've tabled and see that amendment ten, by allowing a range of 3 to 9 points being added, goes even further than the amendment that he tabled initially.

With regards to Lord amendment 15. I do understand the concerns raised by noble Lords across the House about the four year custodial term on the reflection of the elements of culpability in the new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to cause unlawful violence. Again, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Davies of Gower for tabling his amendment. Initially, we have reflected upon it. We've tabled amendment 15 A in lieu, and that raises, with the cross-government support from my colleagues in the MoJ and the Home Office, the maximum term to seven years imprisonment from the current four year custodial term, I hope that noble Lords will accept this as a sensible compromise.

It is a movement by the government and it does reflect the additional intent elements of the new offence. And finally, turning to Lords Amendment 333, this would allow the extend of the duration of closure orders from 48 hours to seven days and closure orders from six months to 12 months. Clause three of the bill already extends the duration closure notices of 48 hours to 72 hours. Now again, I know that Baroness noble Baroness Buscombe is not able to be in their place today, and the noble Viscount Goschen may well be speaking to this set of amendments.

I say to him and to the noble Baroness Buscombe through him, that I acknowledge the sentiments of the amendment. I agree it's vital that we tackle money laundering, organised crime and other criminal activities. I extended a report, my view on how police should be doing that in the street, and I indicated my support for a very strong action on these issues. However, I think it's important that if we support the principle of extending duration of closing orders, we first should consult to avoid any unintended consequences.

Stronger enforcement powers should only be used proportionately and therefore the government amendment in lieu will enable us, following targeted consultation, to extend the maximum duration of closure orders and make different provision for commercial and or residential properties. And I can assure the noble Baroness Buscombe and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that the consultation will focus not on whether to exercise the regulation power, but on how to exercise the regulation power. I realise that this grouping has covered ASB Fly-tipping unlawful weapons and closure premises.

It is quite a wide group. They have been grouped under the issue of anti-social behaviour, but I hope again that noble Lords will see that the government has moved where it can. There is significant movement with some of the amendments in lieu, and I hope and commend them to the House and await any contributions from noble Lords on these matters.
12:11
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The question is that motion A, B agreed to motion A1 Lord Clement-Jones. >> To move motion. >> A1 as an amendment to. >> Motion A and insert an. >> Do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do. Propose amendment to D as an amendment to amendment two. B an amendment to amendment two. B an amendment to E as an amendment to two. Amendment two. C my Lords, while I welcome the fact that the government has acknowledged the widespread concern over how these powers are being enforced, I must express my profound disappointment that the government have chosen to strip out the robust amendment from the Bill, which would have banned fining for profit in primary legislation.

The government should have retained that original amendment, which would have implemented a strict statutory ban preventing private companies from receiving financial benefits contingent on the number or value of the fixed penalty notices they issue. The government has argued that a statutory ban risks weakening enforcement action, and I quote, and prefers to rely on statutory guidance to ensure proportionality. But, my Lords, we're not talking about legitimate enforcement. We're talking about a cowboy enforcement economy that preys on the public.

Under this bill, the maximum fine for breaching a public spaces protection order or a community protection order will rise by 400% from £100 to a staggering £500. Without a firm legal prohibition, this drastic increase will only supercharge an industry that profits from punishing our citizens for anodyne actions. As we know from the damning new report from the campaign for freedom in Everyday Life, the surge in penalties is overwhelmingly driven by councils that employ private companies, who issue a staggering 75.7% of all penalties, despite making up only 11.2% of the responding councils.

My Lords, if your local authority employs a private contractor, companies that typically retain 80% to 90% of the fine income, you are 25 times more likely to be fined. Take the London Borough of Redbridge as a cautionary tale. In 2022, they issued just 163 penalties in 2023 after hiring a private company. That number exploded to 3550 when they stopped employing the company, the number of fines dropped to zero. And what are these incentivised wardens finding the public for in these local authority areas? Not serious anti-social behaviour.

They're issuing penalties for feeding the birds, for swimming, for lacking a dog poo bag, and for simply standing in groups or loitering disgracefully. This system is also being used to target the most vulnerable, with multiple councils issuing fines for begging and rough sleeping. By rejecting the original amendment, the government is protecting a corrupt enforcement industry that uses financial incentives to issue unfair penalties. The government's replacement amendment under motion A is simply too weak. It states only that the Secretary of State may include guidance about the issue of fixed penalty notices by authorised person persons.

May is not a guarantee, and general guidance about issuing notices will not stop the aggressive, profit driven tactics we are seeing on our streets. And my Lords, that's why we've tabled new amendments under motion A1 today. These vital new amendments demand two things. First, they change the permissive May to a mandatory must, ensuring that the Secretary of State is legally obligated to address this issue in guidance. Secondly, they ensure that this guidance cannot merely offer vague platitudes about proportionality, but must explicitly tackle the practice of incentivising the giving out of fixed penalty notices.

If the government insists on regulating this through guidance, rather than a direct statutory ban on profit sharing, then that guidance must be mandatory and its prohibition on financial incentives must be explicit. And so, my Lords, I urge the House to support motion A1 and I beg to move. My Lords, I just want to say a few words and to congratulate the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel and the noble Lord Davies of Gower for their persistence on the question of penalties for the possession offence.

The new possession offence of a weapon with intent to use, lawful violence. My Lords, on these benches, we've entirely supported the creation of this new offence, which rightly bridges the gap between the simple possession of a knife in public and actually using it to threaten or harm someone. We very much taken to heart the views of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall, following the horrific Southport attack, which has been under discussion today in terms of the first report of Sir Adrian Fulford, who made it absolutely clear that the reviewer has made it absolutely clear that a four year sentence is simply insufficient when there is clear evidence of an intention to cause mass fatalities.

My Lords, we welcome the fact that the government have now listened to the strength of feeling in this House and formally accepted that the additional element of intent to use unlawful violence justifies a higher maximum penalty compared to possession only. My Lords, so again, we congratulate the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel and the noble Lord Davis for bringing those forward on report. My Lords, and we thank the government for their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

movement on this. The original question was that motion a be agreed to. Since then, motion a be agreed to. Since then, motion A1 has been moved as an amendment to motion A at the end to insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion A1 be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. My Lords. I have. Involvement with two. Motions in this group. The first is motion E, which relates to motion 12, which would transfer the responsibility
12:17
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
for dealing with Fly-tipping from landowners to the local waste landowners to the local waste authority, the Lords. When we considered the amendment at Report stage in your Lordships House, there was strong support for the measure from around the House and it was carried. My Lords at report. The House accepted the strong logic of the argument that dealing with of the argument that dealing with illegal waste is a complex system with a government in all its facets central agency and local, holding the levers for the push factor in the sense the landfill tax for proof, facilities for disposal and for investigation, policing and prosecution.

However, my Lords responsibility for dealing with the aftermath of a dump lies with the landowner and through no fault of their own, they could face a huge bill in a recent case, £40,000 for clearing up 200 tonnes. My Lords, that is fundamentally unfair. Well, Lords, this position was supported in a joint letter sent to the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs on the 19th of March from Tim Bonner, the chief executive of the Countryside Alliance. Gavin Lane, president of the Country Land and Business Association.

Robin Hunt, vice president of the National Farmers Union, Tim Passmore of the National Rural Crime Network, and John Read, founder of Clean Up Britain. That's a powerful and knowledgeable coalition, united in their support of the approach set out in that amendment. However, my Lords, I do recognise that this is a complex issue and indeed the noble Lords, the Minister, on behalf of the government, has stressed the financial privilege element, which is an unarguable point. Clearly, my amendment would represent a fundamental change and therefore, for at this stage and in the context of this bill, I won't be opposing motion E nonetheless, my Lords, I think that given the support around the country and from important stakeholder organisations about this potential change, that the story doesn't end at this point.

My Lords, I certainly support the move the government has made in terms of points on licences for Fly-tipping, and I support my noble friend Lord Davis of Gowers. Amendment D1. With regard to seizure of vehicles. My Lords, the other motion with which I have an involvement is motion P, which which deals with amendment three, three, three, which was originally tabled by my noble friend Lady Buscombe at Report stage, which was carried by the House. Unfortunately, my Lords, my noble friend, is unable to attend your Lordships House today and I'm addressing the motion in her stead.

My Lords, the amendment as the noble Lord the Minister has mentioned, is designed to provide one further tool to deal with the epidemic of fake cash only businesses which have taken over our high streets, up and down the land masquerading as barber shops, nail bars, vape retailers and many other sorts of businesses. Of course, my Lords are a great many totally legitimate, genuine businesses, providing the government the public with these services and they should be supported. But there are legions which are simply fronts for money laundering, the sale of illicit goods, drug smuggling, immigration, crime, amongst others.

These are not individual operations Lords but are coordinated networks. In other words, organised crime. And they're operating in plain sight. And despite that fact, we collectively have been slow to do anything about that situation. What is required is a coordinated, tough and aggressive multi-agency approach geared towards one objective the destruction of these gangs. And I certainly welcome the initiatives the government has brought forward in terms of Operation Mechanise under the auspices of the National Crime Agency. But a much larger scale and tougher action needs to be taken.

My Lord, my Lords, my noble friend's amendment represents a small but important measure to amend the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to enable the police to close premises. But the amendment itself stresses that the time limits are too short for appropriate action to be taken, and my noble friend's amendment extended those time limits, both in terms of notices and the closure orders, the latter from three months to 12. The Bill does recognise the importance of getting additional time, and I'm very pleased indeed that the noble Lord, the Minister, has recognised the power of my noble friend's argument and those that have supported her and have proposed an amendment in lieu to allow regulations to be made to extend the duration period of closure orders.

My Lords, this is an important move. It's an important concession and we welcome it. And I particularly welcome the noble Lord, the minister's assurance, an undertaking that this consultation that he described will not be about whether it will be about how. And with that in mind, my Lords, we will not be opposing motion here.
12:23
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords. My Lords, I wanted to just support the noble Lord Lord just support the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones, who's excellent exposition of why amendment A1 is exposition of why amendment A1 is needed. I don't need in any way to repeat, although I would like to stress that his original amendments would were better. But we are where we are. I think it's very important to note that this is not about preventing enforcement at all. I think we can all agree on clamping down on anti-social behaviour as a problem.

But if you can imagine a situation where fixed penalty notices for SPOs are at present at record levels, they've gone up 32.5% in a couple of years. You might be believe, or the public might believe, that councils were really doing their best to stamp down on anti-social behaviour, but actually that would be misleading and misinformation because then we find out that when we have private companies, they're paid a commission of that penalty income that can be up to 80 to 90% of the fines that you're paying, and that gives them a direct incentive to issue as many penalties as possible.

So what I think the amendment A1 is trying to do is to ensure that we protect the public from unscrupulous, incentivised enforcement agencies, which I think are corrupt. But the main thing is, is that if I can appeal to the government, it doesn't actually tackle anti-social behaviour at all. It depends. If you live in an area with a private company, then you might think, oh, everyone's being fined. The council are doing something about anti-social behaviour, but actually that's not true.

And so I wanted to stress those of us who are supporting A1 want to tackle anti-social behaviour, want a fair and just enforcement regime, but do not think that the private companies be employed by some councils or in fact tackling anti-social behaviour or delivering justice or fairness. And I hope, therefore, that the government will reconsider.
12:25
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I respond to the amendments in this group on waste amendments in this group on waste crime and fly tipping. Nearly one fifth of all our waste, as we know, ends up in the hands of criminals and the rising number of of mega tips and the speeds at which they are now appearing show the increasingly sophisticated nature of criminal networks and the fact that they are operating with impunity and making vast profits at little risk, and that causes direct costs to our economy of more than 1 billion annually, with devastating effects on our environment, communities and individuals.

Since our last debate, as the Minister mentioned, the government has published its ten point plan on waste crime. More must be done. But I do want to record my thanks to the Minister and the government, because this is a very welcome step forward. We support the amendments before us, but none alone would shift the dial on this problem. Lord Remnant six by the noble Lord Davies of Gower rightly seeks to make the polluter, not the landowner or the community liable for cleanup costs.

The Commons rejected this on the grounds that sufficient powers already exist. Yet, with 1.26 million fly tipping incidents recorded in 20 2425 and that being up 9%, any conversation with any landowner or any farmer in this country would show that the powers we have now are not adequate. The polluter pays principle remains unmet, and clean up costs can reach tens of thousands of pounds, which is simply bankrupting many individuals. On a similar vein, Lord's Amendment 12 would require waste authorities to collect five fly-tip waste and recover costs from offenders.

The Commons dismissed this as a public cost. In truth, these amendments only address part of a much larger system. Real solutions require systemic reform, reform, prevention, adequate local authority funding and compensation for local authorities where they do clear sites without turning off the supply tap and properly resourcing councils responsibility is merely passed down the chain. Mentions of local authority compensation in the ten point plan are encouraging, although the details remain missing. Treasury receipts from landfill tax do need to be urgently allocated to the clean up of sites.

Lords amendment ten proposes penalty points on licences for Fly-tipping convictions, though rejected, two government amendments in lieu are welcome. Lords amendment 11 adds Fly-tipping to the list of offences allowing vehicle seizures a proportionate step since vehicles are the primary means of committing these crimes. My support my party supported this measure in the other place and if it is moved to a division, we will support it today. I would, however, prefer roadworthy vehicles to be reused or sold rather than crushed.

In conclusion, the ten point plan makes some real progress, but this bill largely remains a missed opportunity to tackle waste crime decisively. Serious organised waste crime should be treated as serious organised crime. The Environment Agency lacks specialist skills and technology to counter these networks effectively, the government's plans to strengthen its powers is welcome, but questions remain. The plan says, and I quote our info on enforcement. We will commit further funding. We are exploring giving the Environment Agency police style powers.

But my Lords, the truth is that this bill could have given the Environment Agency those police style powers that they so desperately need to improve the enforcement and make it more effective and speedily. And the truth is that those powers have not been given.
12:29
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. My Lords motion. >> C d indeed relate to the several amendments the Conservatives tabled at Report stage on Fly-tipping, and I thank the government for their I thank the government for their amendment and points on licences for fly tipping offences. Although our previous arguments in support of this policy were opposed by the government, I welcome their amendments ten A and ten B, even if it has taken us some time to get to this point. I also thank my hon. Friend Viscount Goschen for his amendment 12.

We on these benches wholly agree with the principle that it should be the responsibility and burden of the offenders who fly-tipped to clean up the waste they deposit. My Lords, I was disappointed to see that the government tabled amendment D, which would oppose the amendment that provides police with the powers to seize vehicles in respect of fly-tipping offences. The noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe pointed out a report that this. This is a business. That is why we need to disrupt the business model by confiscating the means to conduct this criminality.

I simply cannot understand why the government remains reluctant to take firm and decisive action on Fly-tipping. They were reluctant to impose penalty points for the offence until they were defeated at Report stage. It is deeply disappointing that it is their intention to resist my amendment, which would put into statute powers for the police to seize vehicles used for fly-tipping, and if the government opposed my motion D1, I would like to obviously test the opinion of the House on the issue of knife crime.

Amendment 15 increased the maximum term of imprisonment for the new offence of possession of a bladed article with intent to use unlawful violence from 4 to 10 years. As I explained to both committee and report the offence of simple possession of a bladed article under the Criminal Justice Act, 1988 is four years. Therefore, it did not make sense to create a new, more serious offence of possessing an article with the intent to do harm to another that carried the same maximum sentence, and for both offences to carry the same maximum sentence would be entirely inconsistent with how the criminal law is always approached the issue of intent.

That is why we sought successfully to amend the maximum term of imprisonment report. However, of course, since then the government have tabled an amendment in lieu which would increase the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence of possessing an article with the intent to harm another two seven years, and I thank the Minister for recognising the arguments that the Conservatives made, both at committee and report stages of the Bill. My Lords, I thank my noble friend, Lady Buscombe for laying her amendment at Report stage regarding closure notices.

Recent investigations have exposed businesses that plague our high streets, selling counterfeit and illegal goods, as well as unregulated products. In doing so, she has raised important issues which have clearly resonated with your Lordships. It was therefore welcome to see that despite opposing my noble friend's amendment and report, the government now recognise the importance of this issue and their amendment in lieu, would give the Secretary of State powers to change the maximum duration of closure orders, as well as the maximum period for which such an order may be extended.

It also recognises the different provisions that provisions may be required for different purposes, such as if a building is commercial or residential. So I thank the government for the amendments. 333A in lieu. I look forward to when the Secretary of State uses the powers conferred by this amendment to lay regulations on closure notices. As previously stated, if the government wish to oppose my motion d one concerning seizure of vehicles and fly-tipping, I will of course test the opinion of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

house and beg to move. Hey, hey. I'm grateful for the contributions that have been made contributions that have been made in response to these groups of amendments, both in lieu by the government and the amendments moved by members here today. I want to stress that the government agrees stress that the government agrees with the sentiment behind the amendments in this group on the noble Lord Clement-Jones amendments, noble Lord Clement-Jones amendments, two D and two E, which the Baroness Fox of Buckley also supported.

I want to just assure the noble Lord that while the amendments say that the statutory guidance may include guidance about the issue of fixed penalty notices, it is our firm intention to issue such guidance and indeed, I'll be happy to share
12:34
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
a copy of the guidance in draft form with the noble Lord at an appropriate time when it is ready. appropriate time when it is ready. The issue of fly-tipping is permeated through the discussions that we've had in the last half an that we've had in the last half an hour or so, and I do understand the strength of feeling on all sides of your Lordships House. That's why we your Lordships House. That's why we put the amendments in lieu to introduce penalty points for Fly-tippers.

And I do emphasise Fly-tippers. And I do emphasise again to noble Lords that in relation to amendments, 6 to 11 local authorities do already have the power to seize vehicles used for fly-tipping, and courts can already impose cost orders on those convicted of Fly-tipping. And I should also add, if I may, the DEFRA now, with the support of the Home Office, is going to explore how the Environment Agency's powers to address address waste crime can indeed be bolstered. We're going to consider how additional measures within the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and Proceeds of Crime Act, and indeed other relevant legislation could achieve this.

And this work will ensure that the Environment Agency does have the very strong powers and tools to bring criminals to justice, intervene earlier and disrupt criminal finances, undermining the waste system. The noble Viscount Lord Houchen in relation to amendment 12. Again, I'm sympathetic to the amendments and I understand and welcome the comments from the noble Earl Russell in relation to the Waste Crime Action Plan. We are trying to look at how we improve enforcement of Fly-tipping. However, as I've mentioned, and I think the noble Viscount has acknowledged, the amendment breached Commons financial privilege and I.

I thank the noble Viscount for accepting those arguments and not pursuing the amendments further. The amendment from the noble Lord Davis again on amendment 15 A in lieu. I'm also grateful for him accepting
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page