Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Whitaker Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, this comprehensive Bill, so well introduced by my noble friend, brings our treatment of crime up to date to fit new kinds of offences and some hitherto unrecognised. In the time available, as my experience in dealing with crime is limited to my time as a magistrate in the past and my current membership of the Sussex Police diversity advisory board, I will focus on two areas I am particularly concerned with: the new provisions on county lines, and the surprising omission of dealing with the High Court decision that Part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 breached human rights.

I declare interests as president of the Advisory Council for the Education of Romany and other Travellers and of Friends, Families and Travellers, to which I am grateful, as ever, for expert briefing, together with that of the Traveller Movement. The new offence of coerced internal concealment and associated provisions will enable those forgotten children or vulnerable adults who have been excluded from education or who have slipped through the net in other ways to be found, rescued and protected.

The abhorrent practice by organised criminal gangs of recruiting these young people by force or deception into carrying drugs, illicit money and SIM cards away from the centres where they were stolen or dealt with has mushroomed in recent years. It exploits many who have been virtually abandoned by society and its institutions, instilling fear which estranges them from their family and community networks. The reinforcement of the civil prevention order is helpful and further support from the £42 million county lines programme is a sensible broadening of the approach to include positive elements of safeguarding and rehabilitation. I warmly welcome this set of measures.

My other concern is that our Government have missed an obvious opportunity to end discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers created by the Conservative Government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. That small minority of Gypsies and Travellers who live in their traditional way in caravans on sites and have to make do with unauthorised ones can be imprisoned and their vehicles, which are their homes, impounded even if there are no authorised sites for them to go to—under circumstances found by the judge to be discrimination. The case followed formal recommendations by our Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and UN treaty bodies to repeal these measures.

They were not welcomed by our police either. The majority of police forces and police and crime commissioners responding to the initial Home Office consultation on criminalising staying on unauthorised encampments, rather than the previous definition of trespass, opposed it. Some 93% of police bodies called for better site provision as the solution to unauthorised encampments. Of course, it is the paucity of these that is the real problem, as the judge commented, not the desperate search to find somewhere to put the caravan home.

Meanwhile, the Government are under a solemn obligation to remedy the incompatibility with our human rights law. That is, they must restore to these fellow citizens who do not live in bricks and mortar that small measure of security they had to be able to live and send their children to school without fear of being driven out unreasonably, having their mobile home impounded or being sent to prison. I trust that my noble friend the Minister will not default on this obligation. Surely this Bill is a suitable vehicle.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Whitaker Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 1 and 21 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, which have just been moved so well. I agree with all the amendments in this group, although I am not quite sure and have reservations about Amendment 2 on lowering the age to 16.

The proposition seems to me straightforward. The powers to tackle anti-social behaviour are currently contained in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. So, before the state affords itself even more powers—which, by the way, often duplicate what we already have—should we not assess whether what we have actually works in improving outcomes for victims and fundamentally reducing anti-social behaviour, which is what we want? We should note that 82% of anti-social behaviour practitioners surveyed by Justice have called for such a review of existing powers and criticised the lack of proper consultation, or even engagement, by the Government. It is shocking that there has never been a formal review of the 2014 Act, and that data on the use of existing orders is not collated centrally, nor their use monitored, by government. Surely the Minister agrees that the Government should be working to identify and address problems that are inherent in existing anti-social behaviour powers and orders before creating more, and that that would be an evidence-based approach to this question.

We are largely focusing on respect orders in this group. They are almost duplicates of anti-social behaviour injunctions but will provide, the Government has argued, more effective enforcement. Experts and practitioners in fact suggest that they could confuse enforcement agencies. What is more, as respect orders are so close to ASBIs, the fear is that they will just reproduce and increase the problems with those injunctions, which research shows are overused, inconsistently applied and sweep up relatively minor behaviour problems alongside more serious incidents. At the very least, can the Minister explain why the discredited ASBIs are staying on the statute book? Why not just dump them?

If, as the Government tell us, the key difference with respect orders is to deal with persistent and serious anti-social behaviour, that should be made explicit in the legislation. Otherwise, the danger is that they just become another overused part of a toolkit, handed out promiscuously. That is a particular concern because of the use of the phrase by the Government and in the Bill that these orders are “just and convenient”.

“Convenient” is chilling, because—here is the rub—respect orders are formally civil orders but, in essence, are criminal in character. I am worried about the conflation of civil and criminal in relation to respect orders, which the noble Lord explained so well. The Government are removing that rather inconvenient problem of a criminal standard of proof because it has all that tiresome “beyond reasonable doubt” palaver that you have to go through. However, if you are found guilty, as it were, there is a criminal punishment doled out via a respect order and you can, as we have heard, receive up to two years in prison, which rather contradicts some of the emphasis in the Sentencing Bill on trying to stop people going to prison and keeping them in the community—so this is not entirely joined-up government either.

At Second Reading I quoted Dame Diana Johnson, who made clear the “convenience” point by explaining that the problem with a civil injunction such as an ASB is that,

“if a civil injunction is breached, the police officer has to take the individual to court to prove the breach”,

and she complained that there was no automatic power of arrest. That bothersome inconvenience has been overcome by creating a new respect order, which Dame Diana enthusiastically states

“combines the flexibility of the civil injunction with the ‘teeth’ of the criminal behaviour order”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/24; cols. 795-96.]

However, that convenient mash-up of a legal solution is something that we should be wary of. It has a dangerous precedent, showing that a cavalier attitude to legal norms and justice can lead to great injustice.

When I read all this, I thought of the single justice procedure, which we were told would allow public authorities to bring cheap and speedy prosecutions for law breaches, such as not paying the BBC licence fee or dodging transport fares. However, with quick prosecutions conducted in such a way—and, in that instance, behind closed doors, as exposed brilliantly by Tristan Kirk, a journalist at the Evening Standard—we have seen thousands of people on an industrial scale being found guilty, often of small unintended mistakes. We have to remember that, if you try to bring about justice quickly and using these new methods, you can cause huge amounts of problems. There are harrowing stories of people who are very ill, people who have dementia and even people who have died, who have been victims of these single justice procedure issues.

I hope the movers of the amendments in this group will recognise that fast-track systems of convenience can lead to some terrible unintended consequences. I am reminded, in similar vein, of the growth of those monstrous non-crime hate incidents—again, a legalistic mash-up that have caused so many problems for free speech, using paralegalistic language and confusing us over what constitutes guilt. I was therefore glad to see the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in this group, and I look forward to his comments later.

This group of amendments is one to which I would like to hear the Minister respond positively. They are well intentioned—no one has been dismissive of anti-social behaviour—but we do not think respect orders are fit for purpose and, on the other hand, anti-social behaviour orders in general are in a mess. At least let us review what works and what does not before we move forward.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my support for Amendment 1. There should be a review of all these orders before layering another one on. In fact, some of that work has been done: freedom of information data demonstrates that people from minority ethnic communities are far more likely to be subject to this range of orders—Gypsy and Irish Traveller people are also more likely to receive disproportionate criminal punishments on breaching the orders—so the lack of monitoring of the use of behavioural orders is disturbing. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister does not want to continue this cycle of criminalising vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, so please can we have a formal review of the impact of the orders currently in place?

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I find myself in agreement with many of the genuine human rights concerns already expressed around the Committee. I find myself in a bit of a time warp because these concerns were evidenced by the use, abuse, disrepute and ultimately disuse that anti-social behaviour orders fell into all those years ago. The criminalisation of vulnerable people, people with addiction problems, people with mental health problems, homeless people and so on is not hypothesis; it was evidenced by the practice of the original anti-social behaviour orders.

I therefore hope that, in his reply, my noble friend, who I know to be a very thoughtful Minister, will go some way to expressing how he thinks these new respect orders will improve on the very unhappy history of ASBOs. Other members of the Committee have already set out what happened in the interim. It would be useful if my noble friend the Minister could explain what will be different this time, why and how.

In a nutshell, my concerns are, first, that the threshold of behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress is low and vague. To be blunt, some people are easily alarmed and distressed. Harassment is the more objective, higher part of that threshold. That is the entry point at which vulnerable people can first fall into this quasi-civil criminal order that can sweep them into the criminal justice system rather than diverting them from it.

The second concern is that, once one is under the jurisdiction of such an order, it becomes a personal, bespoke criminal code for the individual. I remember the suicidal woman banned from bridges and the pig farmer who was given an ASBO because the pigs wandered on to the neighbours’ land. Is it really appropriate to have bespoke criminal codes for different people in different parts of the country? The postcode lottery point was made well, but there is also the issue of vulnerable people and minorities, who find themselves disproportionately affected.

Once you breach your personalised criminal code—which could be to keep away from a part of town where your close relatives live—you are then swept into the system. That is my third concern about these quasi-civil criminal orders: the ease with which vulnerable people with chaotic lives who have been let down by social services and society in general are now swept into the criminal justice system rather than diverted from it.

Finally, I share the concerns about making such orders available to even younger people, who really should not be anywhere near the criminal justice system. In a much later group—sometime next year, I think, when we will still be in this Committee and will be older, if not wiser—I have tabled an amendment, with the support of the noble and learned Baronesses, Lady Hale of Richmond and Lady Butler-Sloss, to tackle the shockingly low age of criminal responsibility, 10 years-old, that we still have in England and Wales.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Whitaker Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Whitaker]

49: After Clause 10, insert the following new Clause—
“Repeal of offence for unauthorised encampment in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows.(2) Omit section 60C (Offence relating to residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle).(3) Omit section 60D (Offence under section 60C: seizure of property etc).(4) Omit section 60E (Offence under section 60C: forfeiture).(5) In section 61 (power to remove trespassers on land)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) in paragraph (a), omit sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), and(ii) at the beginning of paragraph (b) omit “in either case,”,(b) in subsection (4)(b) omit “prohibited period”,(c) omit subsection (4ZA),(d) in subsection (9), in the definition of “land”, in paragraph (b)—(i) in the words before sub-paragraph (i), omit “in Scotland”, and(ii) insert—“(i) a highway unless it falls within the classifications in section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic or road used as a public path) or is a cycle track under the Highways Act 1980 or Cycle Tracks Act 1984; or”, and”,(e) omit subsection (10).(6) In section 62 (powers to seize property related to offence under section 61)—(a) in subsection (1)(b), omit “prohibited period”;(b) omit subsection (1A).(7) In section 62B(2) (failure to comply with direction under section 62A: offences), for “twelve” substitute “3”.(8) In section 62C(2) (failure to comply with direction under section 62A: seizure), for “twelve” substitute “3”.(9) In section 68(5) (offence of aggravated trespass), omit paragraphs (a) and (aa).(10) Omit section 62F (guidance).”Member’s explanatory statement
This would repeal amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made in 2022 in respect of unauthorised encampments, including those on which the High Court has made a Declaration of Incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 49 in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—for whose wide-ranging support I am most grateful—would right an acknowledged wrong: the declaration of incompatibility with human rights of part of Part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The right reverend Prelate regrets he cannot at the last minute attend, but he hopes His Majesty’s Government will help. The amendment also tackles the whole of that discriminatory part of the 2022 Act. I will not rehearse again the full range of unfair disadvantage which has resulted from these provisions, which I set out at Second Reading. I will briefly describe what our amendment would achieve, to correct a manifest unfairness which harshly criminalises, and confiscates the caravan homes and domestic possessions of, a small number of families whose nomadic way of life is recognised in law.

I should first of all say that it is the shortage of authorised sites which is the underlying problem. That is why that minority of Gypsies and Travellers who live in that way have often no other choice than to park their family home on an unauthorised site. This is where the judge found race discrimination. He said that

“it means that Gypsies will no longer be able to avoid the risk of criminal penalty by resort to transit pitches. The position might be different if transit pitches were readily available … But the evidence shows this is not the position”.

The amendment simply returns the situation to what it was before the cruel and discriminatory provisions of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act were enacted. It in no way reduces the ample powers the police already had in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to oblige unauthorised trespassers to leave if there had been threatening behaviour or damage—previous case law has included “squashed grass” in this category—to issue temporary stop notices and injunctions to protect land, to direct unauthorised campers to an alternative site, and to prevent them returning within three months. Our amendment’s main provisions are: the elimination of the power of a landowner to command eviction on a subjective reason of being caused distress, and a return to 12 months as the interval within which the travelling family cannot return to the land—from three months, which was the discrimination that the incompatibility declaration captured.

I need hardly remind the Committee that our Gypsy and Traveller population already suffer a degree of prejudice which has substantially contributed to the worst life chances in health, employment, education and well-being of any minority ethnic group in our country: the attitudes and conduct enabled by the provisions we seek to repeal can only further encourage that prejudice and disadvantage. Can your Lordships imagine how it feels to have hanging over your head, when you cannot find an authorised site, the fear that your family home might be impounded, with all that is in it, and your family turned out, homeless, to find shelter—all on the say-so of a member of the public who feels “distress” simply at the presence of a travelling family? Not the least of your fears will be that your children cannot get to their school, or that the medical regime of an elder in your family has to be abandoned.

I urge the Minister to heed the widespread condemnation of the provisions we seek to repeal by our Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Committees on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and fulfil this Government’s acceptance of the obligation to comply with the court through our amendment. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, Manchester’s famous Christmas markets are now in full swing. If you’re visiting my city any time in the next few weeks, until the last few days before Christmas, you are most welcome to patronise them. However, that was not the case for a number of young people from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller backgrounds this time last year. They were turned away by police at the railway station on the supposition that they must have come to commit crime. Children were seen being forced on to trains heading to unknown destinations, separated from family members, and subjected to physical aggression. That included shoving, hair-pulling, and handcuffing. Several individuals reported officers making disparaging remarks about their ethnicity.

It is a sad fact that in 2025, it remains acceptable in our society to treat Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people in ways that seek to drive them to the margins of society. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which amended the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act in respect of unauthorised encampments, included changes in respect of which, as we have just been reminded by the noble Lady, Baroness Whitaker, the High Court has made a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Police powers were expanded beyond the original provisions of the CJPO Act, allowing officers to arrest, seize vehicles, and forfeit property if individuals failed to leave when directed. The PCSC Act also extended those powers to cover land on highways, increased the no-return period from three months to 12 months, and broadened the types of harm that justify eviction, removing the previous need to demonstrate threatening behaviour or damage.

I opposed those changes in your Lordships’ House then, and I do so still. The overwhelming reason why illegal encampments take place is simple. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has just reminded us, it is down to the continuing failure of local authorities across the nation to provide sufficient legal sites. There are few votes for local councillors in providing Traveller sites; alas, there are many more votes for those same councillors in closing or refusing permission for them. That is a direct consequence of the same prejudiced attitudes against the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community which underlay the distressing treatment of the young people in Manchester last year. Amendment 49 can be a first step towards rectifying that institutionalised injustice.

I hope that in responding to this debate, the Minister, can give us some indication of how His Majesty’s Government intend to legislate, both in this Bill and elsewhere, to tackle the persistent levels of discrimination against the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but does he accept that there is no definition of “alarm and distress”, and that it is in fact a subjective view on the part of the landowner? Does he also accept that majority of the police did not want this provision when consulted?

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I think the point is that the lack of a definition gives the police the ability to act within their discretion.

As for the issue of incompatibility, it is worth noting that, when a declaration of incompatibility is made by the courts, such a declaration is not a strike-down power; it is not a mandate for immediate legislative repeal. It will come as no surprise that we on these Benches believe that there have been too many instances of judicial overreach, as to justify a repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the ECHR. If we cannot prevent unlawful encampments by people with no right to reside on the land, which is, in our view, an absolutely legitimate aim, that is an indication that the Human Rights Act and the ECHR are not fit for purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The position of the Government is that it is up to each local authority. I understand the right reverend Prelate’s point, but there is overarching guidance in England, provided by the National Planning Policy Framework, which basically indicates that local authorities are required to assess the need for Traveller pitches in their area. That is a conflict; there is a shortage, there is always a debate on these matters, there is always opposition, there is always discussion, but, ultimately, local councils have to settle on sites in their areas and I cannot really help the right reverend Prelate more than that. There is guidance and a process to be followed.

Issues around the proportionality of enforcement action were also mentioned in passing today. Again, our laws are designed to address unlawful behaviour such as criminal damage or actions that cause harassment, alarm or distress, rather than to criminalise a way of life. This distinction is central to ensuring fair and proportionate policing. Harassment, alarm and distress are well established within our legal framework, so there is a careful balance to be achieved. The response to unauthorised encampments, locally led, involves multi-agency collaboration between local councils, police and relevant services. This approach supports community engagement and ensures that responses are tailored to local needs.

My noble friend’s amendment goes slightly further than the court’s judgment: she seeks to repeal the offence of residing on land without the consent of the occupier of the land, as well as the power for police to direct trespassers away from land where they are there for the purpose of residing there. I just say to my noble friend that those are matters the court did not rule on, and the Government still consider these to be necessary and proportionate police powers, but I give her the undertaking today that I did in my earlier comments, that we hope to be able to bring forward solutions by Report. In the light of that undertaking, I hope my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, in particular my cosignatories, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, but also the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who spoke tellingly about recent experience. I thank warmly my noble friend the Minister for being the first Minister to offer a way through. The sites issue will, all the same, be pursued, but then there are other routes to pursue that with areas that are not within Home Office responsibility.

I simply make one point: the 1994 Act does give the police powers to remove people when there is damage caused. It is the criminalisation element of Part 4 of the 2022 Act which is so discriminatory, but we shall discuss these aspects before Report, I hope, including the way through that my noble friend the Minister outlined. I hope we shall have the opportunity to talk about that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 49 withdrawn.