Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I have involvement with two Motions in this group. The first is Motion E, which relates to Amendment 12, which would transfer the responsibility for dealing with fly-tipping from landowners to the local waste authority. When we considered the amendment on Report, there was strong support for the measure from around the House and it was carried.

On Report, the House accepted the strong logic of the argument that dealing with illegal waste is a complex system, with government in all its facets—central, agency and local—holding the levers for the push factor: the landfill tax, approved facilities, disposal, and investigation, policing and prosecution. However, 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. That is fundamentally unfair.

This position was supported in a joint letter sent to the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs on 19 March from Tim Bonner, the chief executive of the Countryside Alliance; Gavin Lane, president of the Country Land and Business Association; Robyn Munt, vice-president of the National Farmers’ Union; Tim Passmore of the National Rural Crime Network; and John Read, founder of Clean Up Britain. That is a powerful and knowledgeable coalition, united in support of the approach set out in that amendment.

However, I recognise that this is a complex issue, and indeed the Minister has, on behalf of the Government, stressed the financial privilege element, which is an unarguable point. Clearly, my amendment would represent a fundamental change. Therefore, at this stage, and in the context of this Bill, I will not be opposing Motion E. None the less, given the support around the country and from important stakeholder organisations for this potential change, the story does not end at this point.

I certainly support the move that the Government have made on licence points for fly-tipping. I support my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower’s Motion D1 with regard to seizure of vehicles.

The other Motion with which I have an involvement is Motion P, which deals with Amendment 333, originally tabled by my noble friend Lady Buscombe on Report and carried by the House. Unfortunately, my noble friend is unable to attend your Lordships’ House today, so I will address the Motion in her stead.

The amendment, as the Minister has mentioned, is designed to provide a 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 barbershops, nail bars, vape retailers and many other businesses. There are, of course, a great many legitimate, genuine businesses providing the public with these services, and they should be supported, but there are legions that are simply fronts for money laundering, the sale of illicit goods, drug smuggling and immigration crime, among other things.

These are not individual operations but co-ordinated networks—in other words, organised crime. They are operating in plain sight, but, despite that, we have collectively been slow to do anything about that situation. We require a co-ordinated, tough and aggressive multi-agency approach geared towards one objective: the destruction of these gangs. I welcome the initiatives that the Government have brought forward, including Operation Machinize under the auspices of the National Crime Agency, but much larger-scale and tougher action needs to be taken.

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. The amendment itself stresses that the time limits are too short for appropriate action to be taken. My noble friend’s amendment would extend the time limits, for both notices and closure orders, with the latter being extended from three to 12 months. The Bill recognises the importance of getting additional time, and I am pleased that the Minister has recognised the power of the argument from my noble friend and those who supported her and proposed an amendment in lieu to allow regulations to be made to extend the duration period of closure orders.

This is an important move and an important concession, and we welcome it. I particularly welcome the Minister’s assurance and undertaking that the consultation that he described will not be about whether but about how. With that in mind, we will not be opposing that Motion.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I do not need to repeat his excellent exposition of why Motion A1 is needed, although I stress that his original amendments were better, but we are where we are.

It is important to note that this is not about preventing enforcement at all. We can all agree on the need to clamp down on the problem of anti-social behaviour. In a situation where fixed penalty notices for PSPOs are presently at record levels—they have gone up 32.5% in a couple of years—the public might believe that councils are doing their best to stamp down on anti-social behaviour. However, that would be misleading and misinformation, because, where we have private companies, they are paid a commission of that penalty income, which can be up to 80% to 90% of the fine paid. That gives them a direct incentive to issue as many penalties as possible. Motion A1 tries to ensure that we protect the public from unscrupulous incentivised enforcement agencies, which I think are corrupt.

The main thing—if I can appeal to the Government—is that this does not actually tackle anti-social behaviour at all. If you live in an area with a private company, you might think that because everyone is being fined then the council are doing something about anti-social behaviour, but that is not true. I stress that those of us who support Motion A1 want to tackle anti-social behaviour and want a fair and just enforcement regime, but do not think that the private companies employed by some councils are tackling anti-social behaviour or delivering justice or fairness. I hope that the Government will reconsider.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will respond to the amendments in this group on waste crime and fly-tipping. As we know, nearly one-fifth of all our waste ends up in the hands of criminals. The rising number of mega tips and the speed at which they are now appearing show the increasingly sophisticated nature of criminal networks and that they are operating with impunity, making vast profits at little risk. That causes direct costs to our economy of more than £1 billion annually, with devastating effects on the environment, communities and individuals. Since our last debate, as the Minister mentioned, the Government have published their 10-point plan on waste crime. More must be done, but I 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. Amendment 6, from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, rightly seeks to make the polluter, not the landowner or the community, liable for clean-up costs. The Commons rejected this on the grounds that sufficient powers already exist. However, with 1.26 million fly-tipping incidents recorded in 2024-25, an increase of 9%, any conversation with any landowner or 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. In a similar vein, Amendment 12 would require waste authorities to collect fly-tipped waste and recover costs from offenders. The Commons dismissed this as a public cost.

In truth, these amendments would address only part of a much larger system. Real solutions require systemic 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 10-point plan are encouraging, although the details remain missing. Treasury receipts from landfill tax need urgently to be allocated to the clean-up of sites.

Amendment 10 proposes penalty points on licences for fly-tipping convictions. Although that was rejected, the two government amendments in lieu are welcome. Amendment 11 would add fly-tipping to the list of offences allowing vehicle seizures, which is a proportionate step since vehicles are the primary means of committing these crimes. My party supported this measure in the other place and, if it is pressed to a Division, we will support it today. I would, however, prefer roadworthy seized vehicles to be reused or sold rather than crushed.

In conclusion, the 10-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:

“On enforcement, we are committing further funding. We are exploring giving the Environment Agency police-style powers”.


The Bill could have given the Environment Agency the police-style powers that it so desperately needs to improve enforcement and make it more effective and speedy. The truth is that those powers have not been given.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, just before we progress, while the noble Lord on the Woolsack is absolutely right in what he has just argued, I have just witnessed three Members of this House not complying with the Companion. While my noble friend was wrong to do what he did, it is not for the noble Lord on the Woolsack to point out failures of procedure—it is for the Government Chief Whip or Deputy Chief Whip, who is present, to do so. If we all start not meeting our own individual responsibilities or discharging them properly, none of us is going to be complying with the Companion.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I feel as though I have entered into a slightly surreal moment there, but I thank noble Lords for that clarification. I speak very briefly in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Walney, is trying to do—having opposed it at an earlier stage, which is why I thought it was important to speak. The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, were very helpful in outlining what we are confronting and what we face at the present time.

I just raise some queries for the Minister to help me understand. One point that seems to have been made is that, if the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, were accepted, it would mean raising the threshold for proscribing an organisation. That did not make any sense to me because I would hope that, as legislators, we could make the finer distinctions between thresholds. We need some nuance here; otherwise, I fear that we will use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, which is what I fear has happened in relation to Palestine Action, potentially.

The notion of an extreme criminal protest group is a new phenomenon and therefore one that requires new thinking. The intimidation and criminal damage are not spontaneous; they are organised by organisations that proclaim that they are organisations. That needs to be tackled but they are not terrorist organisations. The point about supporting Palestine Action, which I thought the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, explained very well in terms of holding up a sign, is that we do not want to be soft on who is proscribed, but we have to be careful that we do not undermine what is meant by terrorism by turning to those people who are holding up the sign and treating them as though they are terrorists. That does not help anybody. I have spoken to a lot of young people and I have found that they are now cynical about the label “terrorist” precisely because of those people who are being arrested under an anti-terrorist proscription for holding up a sign. I cannot see that that helps. In the meantime, it does not make any sense for that to be the case, while the IRGC is still not proscribed. That seems completely contradictory.

The damage that this is doing is immense. The insurance example was given by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, but I know that people from Gail’s coffee shops have been specifically targeted. I was told by some young people that if you go to Gail’s, they have got it in for you—they are going to draw a map of Gail’s coffee shops. What has happened here is quite serious. This is very different from going out on a protest in support of Palestine or whatever else. We have to acknowledge that there is a new world with new problems and new legislation is needed.

Just finally, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment. I am not sure entirely what I think about it but, importantly, she drew our attention to the lessons of Southport and the fact that, whatever happens—and as the Minister rightly said yesterday—the Government need to be given time to read the inquiry’s report and decide what to do. I hope that some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raised, particularly in relation to how youth diversion orders will be used and the need for different agencies to talk to each other, were very powerful and important. Her comments could at the very least feed into the Government’s discussions in relation to not just learning lessons from Southport but preventing it happening again.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord on the Woolsack about the inadequacy of an apology for late arrival in the Chamber, and I am bound to say it is not something I have ever had to make before, but I was late into the Chamber today and I apologise to the House, after others, that I was late for the start of this group. I will speak briefly, if the House permits. The Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, to permit designation—