Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Blencathra

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I thank all noble Lords for this short but focused debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for introducing his amendment. As he has explained, it seeks to allow registered social housing providers to issue a closure notice in relation to an individual flat within a housing block that they own or manage.

The closure power is a fast, flexible power that can be used to protect victims and communities by quickly closing premises that are causing nuisance or disorder. Clause 5 and Schedule 2 extend the closure power to registered social housing providers. Currently, only local authorities and police can issue closure notices. This is despite registered social housing providers often being the initial point of contact for tenants suffering from anti-social behaviour. Now, registered social housing providers will be able to issue closure notices and apply for closure orders, to enable them to close premises that they own or manage which are associated with nuisance and disorder.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned a specific landlord. Without going into the facts of that case, it is clear that registered social housing providers have to meet regulatory standards set by the regulator of social housing. There is statutory guidance in place, and registered social housing providers are expected to meet the same legal tests as set out in the 2014 Act that the noble Lord mentioned. This will ensure that all relevant agencies have the right tools to tackle anti-social behaviour quickly and effectively. In turn, this will save police and local authorities time, as housing providers will be able to make applications directly, rather than having to rely on the police or local authority to do so on their behalf.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised his concerns about risks of abuse. For instance, he was concerned that extending the power to housing providers might risk it being misused to evict tenants, such as those in rent arrears. There are robust safeguards in place to mitigate the risk of misuse. Like other agencies, housing providers will be required to consult with relevant partners prior to the issuing of a closure notice. This requirement is in addition to the legal test having to be met and the fact that the process will go through the courts.

I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others that premises here means any land or other places, whether enclosed or not, and any outbuildings that are, or are used as, part of the premises. This could therefore already include an individual flat within a housing block. Indeed, that would be the expectation: that this targets individual households, rather than whole blocks of flats. We are confident that the current legislative framework and the Bill will cover that and make that clear. On the basis of that clarification—of course, I will reflect on Hansard and the points he specifically raised about the 2014 Act, and I will write to him in more detail if I need to—I hope the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. I am quite happy with all the standards and powers, and I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones; I know there are robust standards. The only thing I was interested in was whether the word “premises” includes individual flats in a housing block. I have the Minister’s 98% assurance on that. I would be very grateful if he and his officials would reflect on that and, at some point, confirm absolutely to the House that the power exists to close an individual flat or a couple of flats, and not just the whole shooting match of the block. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Rivers and Estuaries: Derelict Boats

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Blencathra

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will try my best again for my noble friend. He raises a specific case in Maidenhead; I will be honest with the House, I do not have the details of that case. He is absolutely right that we rely on our navigation authorities, local authorities, local landowners and the community to work together. It should not be up to just one landowner to do the right thing; we need everyone to work together. I will certainly undertake to examine the lacuna in law that he has identified; perhaps I can write to him with some more detail.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, abandoned and derelict vessels—that well-known acronym ADV, which I learned about yesterday—not only are unsightly and a blot on a landscape but cause terrible pollution from engine oils, diesel fuel leaking out, battery acid, and corroded metals and plastics. Ideally, the owners should be made to pay for their removal, but they are usually impossible to find, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, pointed out. I did not know about the Avon. Natural Resources Wales is paying for the removal of some boats in the River Dee, but I do not think we can ask the taxpayer to foot the bill in England.

Therefore, I think for the first time in 40 years, I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I suggest that Defra should convene a conference of local authorities, river estuary owners, the Canal & River Trust and any other relevant authorities and marine experts to see whether a way can be found to deal with this problem, making the owners pay and not the taxpayer. If there is a lacuna in the law, let us deal with it.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I too have learnt some new acronyms this week and ADV is one of them, so I join the noble Lord in gaining that knowledge, and in understanding the importance of the fact that, as I continue to repeat to this House, navigational authorities are independent of government but are also responsible for enforcement action. The funding agreement that I mentioned with the Canal & Rivers Trust will have particular KPIs attached, such as enforcement and ensuring good, timely and responsible stewardship of the land in its control, whether in terms of clearing litter off the towpath or dealing with abandoned boats. Both are absolutely part of that.

We believe in devolution and in making sure that bodies such as navigation authorities, which understand their patches best, can have control of them. We cannot have our cake and eat it and say there should be some national enforcement when we must support those navigation authorities on the ground to do the job right.

English Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling and Dredging

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Blencathra

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right, and this is why we are serious about taking action in this area. When it comes to national security or promoting biodiversity and protecting our marine environment, we want to work with all stakeholders to get this right. I would be very interested to hear the views of the National Preparedness Commission and other such authorities in understanding the impact of bottom trawling on this important kind of national infrastructure.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, bottom trawling is an appalling way to fish but a superb way to destroy everything on the seabed. Last year, according to statistics from Oceana UK, just 10 fishing vessels of at least 20 metres in length were responsible for 27% of the suspected bottom trawling in our marine protected areas, wrecking fragile seabed ecosystems, releasing carbon and dumping tens of thousands of tonnes of discarded fish of the wrong sort. I say to the Minister that that applies to every single MPA, not just those with special species that he wants to protect. None of these 10 vessels was from the UK, and just 6% of the total 33,000 hours of suspected bottom trawling in MPAs was carried out by UK vessels. While we welcome the consultation, would the Government partly redeem themselves from selling out our fishermen to the EU by banning those 10 big foreign boats, which would lead to a 20% saving overnight, and then phase out the rest of bottom trawling over the next couple of years?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord would agree that it is important that we have a comprehensive, fair and equitable approach to the way that we protect our marine environment. The noble Lord mentioned discard rates; at present, it is the case that the Cefas observer programme wants to provide estimates of the discard rates for a variety of quota species, including using methodologies aligned with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea standards. Looking ahead, we want to implement a remote electronic monitoring programme, which involves installing cameras on vessels, which is expected to enhance our understanding and really understand the landscape of good behaviour and bad behaviour. In the meantime, I say to the noble Lord that we believe that the approach that we are taking is ground-breaking, but it is in line with what has happened before under the previous Administration. We are taking a whole-piece approach to this important issue.