Crime and Policing Bill

Viscount Goschen Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, should be congratulated for her extraordinary achievement in summarising more than 400 densely packed pages of legislation in 15 minutes. By my mathematics, that works out at summarising around 25 pages per minute, so she has set the bar pretty high and I know that her friends on the Government Front Bench will be looking very closely to see if they can follow that.

I follow my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, down the perhaps unpopular opinion in this House of legislation that the answer does not always lie in the statute book. Much of the anti-social behaviour-type issues that we have been talking about in the early part of this very substantial Bill are already illegal activities—they are crimes. The focus of my remarks will be much more on execution, delivery, performance and co-ordination than on the generation of new criminal offences—which are quite often activities that are already illegal.

I hope the Minister will accept that nothing I say today should be taken as a party-political point or a criticism of a Government of one flavour or another. My remarks are intended to address the performance of government as a whole, under various Administrations, and all the agencies involved, including the police. I certainly pay tribute to the police officers who protect us all. We are extremely lucky to have such a high-quality police force and, when there are failings—such as those we have heard about, including from the noble Baroness—they are even more extraordinary because the overall standard is so high.

Despite that, public confidence in local policing has continued to decline. One of the principal factors is that the public see overt offending not being properly prioritised or dealt with. The cumulative effect of the de facto tolerance of street crime means that the public feel powerless and disenfranchised, while lawbreakers are allowed to carry on without fear or sanction. We have heard about, for example, the extraordinary prevalence of bicycle crime. I understand that the clear-up rate is 1%; so, for 99% of the time, criminals are getting away with it. That is normalisation and tolerance of crime, and we cannot allow that to be the case.

We all listen carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on so many issues and I find myself very much aligned with his view: if we see people riding obviously illegally powerful e-bikes, how does that affect those who take the proper route of purchasing registered vehicles with number plates, insuring and taxing them, getting MOTs, and being prepared to take the sanctions should they break the law? I walk a couple of miles a day around the streets of central London and I have never once seen a policeman stop one of these vehicles.

There has been a lack of co-ordination, and accountability has fallen through the cracks between central and local government. As a final note, there are about 45 police forces; is that really a sensible number in our small group of islands in a modern digital age?

Crime and Policing Bill

Viscount Goschen Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo a lot of the concerns that have been expressed so far in this debate. The scrutiny of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is something that I hope we will all take very careful note of.

I particularly support my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti in her first intervention. She is very experienced in social matters from her days in Liberty, and she rightly warns us that there will be a lot of problems if respect orders are brought in as they are legislated. Incidentally, respect orders cover 11 pages of the Bill, a Bill that I, for legislative complaints, described at Second Reading as “a monster”. I shall not describe these 11 pages on respect orders as being a monster, because I think the Government have been trying very hard to get it right, but they have not so far done so, and therefore the sensible thing—and this is not to criticise the Government—is for there to be a pause, and for these new respect orders not to be brought in as such in the Bill but only after we have been able to review the entirety of these orders, anti-social orders and orders to protect citizens from being badly disturbed living in their homes or walking the streets.

I urge my noble friend the Minister to move with caution and to accept that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is not a destructive amendment but a sensible amendment to achieve the one thing that we should be achieving in the Bill, which is to get it right, as right as we possibly can.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks we have heard from around the Chamber, including from my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the seriousness of anti-social behaviour and the rationale of the Government in bringing forward the measures that they have in this part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, summed it up as the requirement for an effective and functioning system—hear, hear to that.

My concern is aligned with the sentiment, if not the letter, of Amendment 1, which would require the Government to explain why they feel that this set of measures, including respect orders, will work, when previous similar measures—ASBIs and so forth—have not worked to the extent, perhaps, that the Ministers who championed them when they were originally brought in expected. I do not believe that this is the moment for an independent review, but I think the Minister could give the Committee a detailed explanation of the specific circumstances in which he feels that these new respect orders will be deployed, why they are more likely to work than the existing arrangements and, in particular, the degree to which they will really make a difference. The Minister has brought forward these measures for the approval of Parliament, and he must be able to justify the result he expects them to have once they are implemented.

We know that that Governments of all flavours—this is not a specific reflection on the current Government—tend to reach for the statute book to address knotty problems, when in fact the answer may equally lie in better execution of existing powers. That probably is the overall challenge that has been put to the Minister this afternoon. I very much look forward to his answer.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the speakers in this debate so far. This Committee stage will be a long haul, but I hope that we can continue this level of discussion and scrutiny throughout. Sorry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am prompted to rise following the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, with which I largely agree. I am not sure whether I should be offended or pleased by some of the other remarks she made about me, but I think her crucial point is that anti-social behaviour orders have been around for years.

We heard from the Lib Dems that they are worried that orders may be imposed inappropriately on people who should not have them. The Government are worried that they do not have enough powers; therefore, they want respect orders instead. People generally know what anti-social behaviour orders are. My question to the Minister is: why not amend the anti-social behaviour orders to tighten them up as the Lib Dems want and impose the penalties the Government want?

I know the Government will say they used the word “respect” in their manifesto and have to stick to it, but it would seem to me to be introducing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has said, a whole new concept which people maybe do not understand—they may think it is more magical than it actually is. Why not use the existing system and amend it to make it work the way the Government want it, the way the Lib Dems want it and the way my noble friends in the Official Opposition want it to? That is all I ask.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned in his remarks on the first group that there are over a million instances of anti-social behaviour in the United Kingdom, and he is seeking broad new powers in the early part of the Bill. Can he give the House any guidance as to what sort of effect, if the House were to give the Government these powers, will be seen in terms of a projected reduction in anti-social behaviour as a result?

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I will seize the opportunity to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, while the going is good and before I have to disagree with him on future groupings. I entirely agreed with what he had to say, as indeed I did with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.

This stand part debate goes to what might be called the heart of legislative utility. Why do we need a new tool if the old tools are sufficient? We must ask: does Clause 1 solve a problem or does it merely create complexity and risk? The Bill, as we have heard, introduces respect orders, but it also retains anti-social behaviour injunctions. Many of us already feel that the new respect orders, as we debated in the first group, are unnecessary and largely either replicate powers already available under the 2014 Act, or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made very clear, add undesirable elements to those powers.

We have seen with ASBIs that there have been some proposals to include positive requirements tailored to underlying causes of behaviour. If the goal of the Government is to better address the underlying causes of persistent anti-social behaviour, we could be strengthening the existing injunction framework, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, focusing resources on effective enforcement and mandating psychological or therapeutic interventions, rather than introducing a confusing, duplicated power.

Our preference on these Benches is very clear. We should focus on accountability, review and proportionality to ensure that the existing framework works effectively, rather than adding a potentially flawed new tool that invites mission creep and targets the vulnerable.

--- Later in debate ---

The important point again is that there is a criminal sanction if someone breaches that order. Unlike in a civil injunction, breaching the respect order will be a criminal offence that is therefore arrestable. Again, that is significant. In a sense, an individual would be warned not to do something or encouraged to do something. If they do neither, they would be subject to arrest.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for responding to my question about projections of the effect of these measures. The purpose of me asking him these questions, just as I did on another Bill, is not just to ask awkward questions and give his officials more work but a genuine focus on performance. We have a very serious issue in the country and we all agree on anti-social behaviour. The price for the Committee, in essence, agreeing to broader powers is some degree of confidence that they are likely to have a significant effect. Of course, it is incredibly difficult to quantify what that effect may be, but some guidance on it would help the Minister’s cause, which is always a cause close to my heart.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I accept that, but it would be fair to say that I would be making promises or guessing about issues that I could not guarantee. But I can guarantee for the noble Viscount that we will monitor the use of this and that the measures that I have already outlined—those in the Bill, those on police numbers and the focus that we are putting on certain police initiatives through central government discussion with the National Police Chiefs’ Council—will make a difference. They will be judged on that.

Self-evidently, a manifesto commitment to reduce and tackle anti-social behaviour requires this Minister, this Government and this Home Secretary to go back to the electorate, at some point, to say, “That is the difference that we have made”. While I cannot give the noble Viscount an aperitif today, I hope I can give him a full-course meal after the discussions have taken place further down stream.

It is important, as we have just heard, that if perpetrators breach an injunction multiple times, the police cannot take action unless they take them to court. Under this measure, there will be a criminal action so police can take action immediately.

I wish to tell the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that, for a respect order to be issued, two tests must be satisfied. First, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has engaged in or threatened to engage in anti-social behaviour as defined. Secondly, the court must be satisfied that issuing the respect order is just and convenient. A further safeguard introduced is that the relevant authorities carry out risk assessments prior to the respect order being put in place.

These clauses, about which the noble Lord has quite rightly asked questions, are important and I wish to see them retained in the Bill. I am grateful for his overall indication that, when it comes to determining that, he will not oppose these clauses, but I will take away his comments and I hope to continue our discussions in the positive way that we have to date.

Crime and Policing Bill

Viscount Goschen Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend. My only criticism is that the proposed increase for the penalties is not high enough, but at least it is a very good start. I declare an interest, as on the register: I am a director of the community interest company, Clean Streets, which works with Keep Britain Tidy to try to reduce cigarette litter on the streets, with considerable success.

In about 1995, I was privileged to make an official visit to Commissioner Bratton in New York, who pioneered the broken window theory—I am sure the Minister is aware of it. As he discovered, if there is a street with one broken window and no one does anything about it, very soon there will be more broken windows, then litter and rubbish lying in the street, and then low-life people, as they call them in America, move in. He said that you would start with a street with a broken window and, within a couple of years, end up with garbage and then a drug den. I actually visited one where they were trying to batter down a steel door to get the druggies out.

I am not suggesting that a little litter would cause that here, but there was an experiment cited by the excellent nudge unit, set up by Oliver Letwin, when he was in government. The experiment was carried out in the Netherlands, where, for one week, they looked at a bicycle parking lot. They pressure-washed the whole thing, scrubbed it and kept it clean, and over the course of that week not a single bit of litter was left there and no damage was caused. The following week, they put bits of litter in the parking lot—a bottle here and an empty cigarette box there—and, within days, the whole place got more and more litter, because people thought it was an okay thing to do. If people see one bit of rubbish, they think they can just add their rubbish to it as well.

Littering is not only unsightly but highly dangerous. Cigarette litter, in particular, is dangerous—not from the cigarettes themselves but from the filters, which have microplastics in them. It causes enormous costs to councils to clean up.

A couple of months ago, serving on the Council of Europe, I attended an official meeting in Venice. It was the first time I had been there. It is not very wheelchair friendly, but I did manage to get around. After four or five days in Venice—I paid to stay on for some extra days—I was impressed that there was not a single scrap of litter anywhere on the streets. One could not move for tourists, but there was not a single scrap of litter. There were signs everywhere, saying “Keep Venice Clean”. People, mainly ladies, were going round with their big two-wheeled barrels collecting garbage from people’s homes. It was impressive.

I was even more impressed that everyone seemed to have a dog—the widest variety of dog breeds I have ever seen—but there was only one occasion in five days where I saw dog mess on the pavement. The view was that, if you have a dog, you clean up after it. It is an extraordinary place. When I am on my wheelchair in London or anywhere else—trying to avoid the people on their mobile phones who walk into me—I am looking down all the time as I dare not drive through dog dirt on the pavement because I can never get it off the wheels. I manage to avoid it, but that is what I must to do in my own country. I cannot take the risk in a wheelchair of driving through the dog mess we find on the pavements. To be fair, in Victoria Tower Gardens, where I see people exercising their dogs, they all have the little poop-scoop bag and they pick up the mess and that is very good, but there is too much dog mess on the pavements.

We need tougher sanctions. We need the highest possible penalties, particularly for fouling and leaving mess on the pavement. I know the penalties are there already, but they have not been enforced rigorously enough. My friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, might condemn the private companies that move in and start imposing more fines for the ridiculous dropping of litter, but perhaps they could move in and start imposing them, and catch out the people who are leaving the dog mess on the pavement. I almost tried to do it myself on one occasion, when I came across similar dog mess in the same spot three days in a row. I was tempted to get up at 5 am, sit there with my camera to catch the person doing it and report him or her to Westminster City Council.

We need enforcement on this. Goodness knows how colleagues in this place who are blind and who have guide dogs manage to avoid it—I hope the dogs do—but others may not avoid it and will walk through it. It is filthy and disgusting, and a very serious health hazard. I support the amendments in the names of my noble friends, and I urge the Government to consider all aspects of making tougher penalties for litter and tougher enforcement penalties for dog mess on the pavement.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

I support my noble friends Lord Davies and Lord Blencathra. Litter is important, and while it may sound like a low-level issue, I endorse the sentiments expressed by my noble friends about the broken windows theory that a messy environment leading to more litter and more problems.

I support the increase in fines. In reality, I doubt whether taking £100 or £125 would make the slightest bit of difference. I believe this is all about enforcement. We have heard from my noble friend about the low level of fines being put forward for littering offences. The emphasis is on local authorities to provide adequate water paper bins. That is the other side of it—there must be carrot and stick involved.

I support what my noble friend Lord Blencathra said about dog fouling. I add one thing: human nature is very strange. In the countryside where I live, in Devon, on a number of occasions one comes across people picking up dog mess in little plastic bags and then chucking it into the hedge—they seem to think that is super helpful, but it is littering. We need some sort of public information campaign to say that that is dangerous to livestock as well as to the environment.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I have great sympathy with some of the sentiment of the amendments. However, as usual, they put the price—the fines—up but miss the elephant in the room. Who is going to do the work to collect the fines, to see the dog walker that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is looking for, and to be on every train and street corner? That is the issue we have with these amendments.

Crime and Policing Bill

Viscount Goschen Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for the delay; the lift was delayed, so I just made it.

In moving my Amendment 40, I will also address Amendment 42. Amendment 40 suggests omitting subsection (7), on the forfeiture of vehicles, from the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The first question is: what does subsection (7) say? To start with, this part of the 1990 Act deals with the criminal act of illegally fly-tipping and the massive amounts of rubbish dumped in the countryside, including controlled waste. We saw an example of that at the weekend at Kidlington, where an enormous amount was illegally dumped there. Section 33 deals with a forfeiture of vehicles and rightly gives the appropriate authority, which may be a local authority or the Environment Agency, power to ask the court to take possession of the vehicle used in the commission of the crime and dispose of it—excellent law, in my opinion.

Regarding subsection (7), the point of my amendment is to remove a few hoops which the court has to consider before making the order—in my opinion they are not necessary—and make it more difficult to penalise the organised crime rackets behind most of the worst illegal dumping. Thus, subsection (7) says:

“In considering whether to make an order under this section a court must in particular have regard to … the value of the vehicle … the likely financial and other effects on the offender of the making of the order (taken together with any other order that the court contemplates making) … the offender’s need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes”


and

“whether, in a case where it appears to the court that the offender is engaged in a business which consists wholly or partly in activities which are unlawful by virtue of section 33 above … the making of the order is likely to inhibit the offender from engaging in further such activities”.

I say to these caveats that the value of the vehicle is irrelevant. If the criminal uses it to commit a crime, too bad. Whether it is a 20 year-old clapped-out van or a new Mercedes-Benz Sprinter, if it is used in a crime, he loses it, whatever the value. As for the likely financial effects, what should we care if it has financial effects on the criminal? I would hope it would—that is the point of confiscating the implement he uses to commit the crime.

Then the court has to consider the criminal’s

“need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes”.

I have no doubt that he will tell the court that he needs it to transport meals on wheels or medical supplies and give any number of bogus excuses. If a criminal uses a vehicle for criminal purposes and has made a lot of money by doing so, he should forfeit the vehicle, even if he can no longer use it for the school run.

Let us not be naive. We are not looking here at a householder who drives in his Volvo to the countryside to dump a bag of garbage but at serious and organised criminals, using their three-tonne tipper trucks—or, as we saw recently, their 30-tonne tipper trucks—to dump thousands of tonnes of controlled waste, including asbestos, chemicals and other building rubble. It is estimated, according to our House of Lords Select Committee report of two weeks ago, that the organised gangs make about £1 billion per annum from illegal dumping of controlled waste. As I said in a debate last week, the only thing that hurts these criminals is not a fine, which they might not pay, but depriving them of their property. We should not have any get-outs, as we have in subsection (7); instead, we should confiscate any and all vehicles used in their criminal waste-dumping activities.

I will not speak to Amendment 42, since my noble friends on the Front Bench put down their own amendment before mine and will make a better argument of it than I can. All I say is that I apologise that my explanatory statement is wrong here; I inadvertently attached the same one as for Amendment 40. However, going back to Amendment 40, I beg to move.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly support my noble friend. He has done the Committee a great service by bringing forward these amendments. The Bill is indeed very broad, and the question of fly-tipping falls very squarely within its auspices.

This is a very serious issue indeed, and it is undertaken by a range of criminals, from small one-man bands to large, organised gangs, and everything in between. The fact is that we still have a really serious problem, which is not taken sufficiently seriously by law enforcement. Therefore, we have to bring forward measures that the criminals will be frightened of and will not just consider as a cost of business of being in that field. They must be concerned about the potential loss of their vehicles and the potential removal of—or, at least, adding of points to—their driving licenses. I could not agree with my noble friend any more; he has absolutely hit the nail on the head.

There is another very important measure, on which we will hear from my noble friends on the Official Opposition Front Bench in a few moments, around equity. It is inequitable that the person who is the victim of this crime must be responsible for clearing it up—that is just completely wrong. I have never understood why that should be the case.

I declare an interest of some description in that I have a small farm in Devon. I really feel for landowners and those who have responsibility for land. They go into their fields to tend their stock and then see massive piles of waste that could contain everything from biowaste to asbestos, to building products, and so forth, and then somehow it becomes their problem to find the means to clear it up. This is wrong, so we ought to use the Bill, in a very positive way, to remove that burden on the victims of crime and put it on the perpetrators, with support from local authorities.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will respond briefly to this group of amendments. Fly-tipping is out of control and a very serious problem. As we have heard, farmers and innocent landowners often end up paying the cost for other people’s criminality. The Government’s own statistics show that around 20% of all waste generated ends up being illegally managed. These figures highlight the absolute scale of the problem. With profits being up to £2,500 per lorry, if you start driving 30 lorries a day, the profits soon add up. So this is no longer a small matter of rural dumping but a major criminal enterprise—it certainly spreads into major criminal enterprises—which damages our ecosystems, undermines legitimate businesses and leaves legitimate legal landowners with responsibilities.

We on these Benches start from the position that prevention is better than cure and call on the Government to make rapid reforms and approaches to these issues through a lens of fairness, proportionality and effective enforcement. We stand firmly behind innocent landowners and want to see progress made on these matters. The law needs fundamental and major reform. We would like to see that happen.

Amendment 40 concerns the forfeiture of vehicles under the Environmental Protection Act. We can see the logic in removing Section 33C(7), strengthening the ability to confiscate vehicles used for fly-tipping offences. Its removal concerns the offenders’ need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes—well, they should have thought about that before they started using it for illegal ones. However, enforcement agencies must ensure that these powers are used proportionately if the Government agree to them.

Amendments 41 and 42 relate to landowners and the bills that they are facing from others’ criminality. We support the principle that the polluter should pay and that those who dump waste should be caught and prosecuted. However, we have some concerns about these amendments. This is a complicated matter and the truth is that most of these criminals are not caught. Convictions are often far too lenient. Often, when people are caught, the authorities lack the financial capability to track down sufficient funds to meet clean-up costs. This can all take considerable time, during which there is ongoing environmental damage.

Amendment 42 comes as a package deal with Amendment 41. It states categorically:

“Any guidance issued under this section must state that the costs of removal of illegally tipped refuse will not fall on the landowner on whose property the refuse was dumped”.


The trouble is that it does not say who does pick up the cost. It raises a lot of questions without providing enough answers. In some cases, we are seeing criminals even buying land specifically for the purposes of dumping waste—it is so profitable to do so. I am worried about the nuance of the law in this. I fully recognise that the law needs full reform. I have every sympathy with what the noble Lords are trying to do. I am just not certain that, as drafted, these amendments would do what the noble Lords intend.

Amendment 46 seeks to add a penalty point to driving licences of those convicted of fly-tipping. This is about creating a potentially powerful deterrent. This policy was a hangover from the last Conservative Government which was not legislated for. Fly-tippers depend on their vehicles to carry out their criminal activities. This is an amendment that we generally welcome and support. I would be interested in the Government’s response to it.

Amendment 47 goes further by seeking to amend the Police Reform Act to allow vehicles used in fly-tipping to be seized. Local authorities already have a lot of these powers to seize vehicles. This amendment would take it further. I am interested in the Minister’s response to this amendment. Separate to these amendments, I ask the Government to go further and consider giving local authorities greater powers to stop vehicles that are suspected of taking part in fly-tipping and to create greater co-operation and intelligence sharing between local authorities and the police.

Some of the answers to these questions revolve around our policy of a national fund to support innocent landowners who fall victim to this, rather than this approach and these amendments. We call for that fund to be enacted from levies on waste carriers and for that money to help innocent landowners who find themselves the victims of others’ crime.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, we are debating again the Crime and Policing Bill—the second day in Committee—which has as its core purpose making our communities safer, protecting victims from harm and ensuring that they secure the justice they deserve, so it is fitting that I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Hanson earlier today, when he spoke on the border security Bill, by paying my own tribute to that doughty campaigner for victims’ rights, Baroness Newlove. Her tireless campaigning on behalf of victims and the bereaved was truly inspirational. Like other Members of your Lordships’ House, I was deeply saddened to hear of her most untimely passing. She will be much missed, and I am sure all noble Lords will join me in passing on our condolences to her family and friends.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Davies of Gower, for setting out the Opposition’s position on Clause 9 and fly-tipping more generally. Fly-tipping is a serious issue, as both the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. It is environmental vandalism, and you have only to consider the enormous pile of illegally dumped waste by the A34 and the River Cherwell in Kidlington, to which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred, to see that this is a very real problem, which the Government are absolutely committed to tackling.

On that particular, egregious example of fly-tipping, noble Lords will, I hope, be pleased to hear that the Government are engaging with the Environment Agency on this specific case. I understand that an investigation is under way. An Environment Agency restriction order has been served to prevent access to the site and further tipping, and the local resilience forum has been notified to explore opportunities with multi-agency support.

In 2023-24, local authorities in England reported 1.15 million fly-tipping incidents and 60% of fly-tips involved household waste. Fly-tipping is not only an eyesore, blighting our streets and open spaces, it can pose a serious public health hazard when not effectively dealt with. It really impacts the quality of life in communities across our land, often the most deprived areas, urban and rural, and that is why we as a Government are committed to tackling it.

The current waste carriers, brokers and dealers regulatory regime is not fit for purpose and the Government have announced plans to reform this regime and move the regulation of waste management and transport from a light-touch registration scheme into environmental permitting. We committed in our manifesto to forcing fly-tippers to clean up the mess that they have created, as part of a crackdown on anti-social behaviour, and will provide further details on this commitment in due course. We are also carrying out a review of local authority powers to seize and crush vehicles of suspected fly-tippers, to identify how we can help councils make better use of this specific tool.

We want to see an effective enforcement strategy at the centre of local efforts to combat the problem, which makes full and proper use of the available powers. I stress that we think that this is appropriately done at the local level, because it is local people, local communities, and indeed local councillors, who are elected to represent those communities, who are best placed to understand the specific needs and issues in those areas. Clause 9 will help achieve that by placing a legal duty on councils across the country to have regard to forthcoming guidance on fly-tipping enforcement.

I recognise the significant burden that clearing fly-tipping waste places on landowners. However, I do not believe that Amendment 41 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and Amendment 42 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, are the right way to tackle the issue.

Through Section 33B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, where local authorities prosecute fly-tippers, a court can mandate that a costs order be made on the convicted person in order that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. Such a cost order is a criminal penalty and, as such, is properly imposed by the independent judiciary under the relevant provisions of the 1990 Act. Where there is sufficient evidence, fly-tippers can be prosecuted and, on conviction, a costs order can be made by the court so that those landowners’ costs can be recovered.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister help the Committee by telling us how often such an order has been imposed?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am afraid I will have to write to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, with that detail. But I stress that there is no statutory limit on the amount of compensation that may be imposed for an offence committed by an offender aged 18 or over. However, in determining whether to make a compensation order and the amount that should be paid under such an order, the court must take into account the offender’s means. If they are limited, priority must be given to the payment of compensation over a fine, although a court may still impose a fine. I suppose 20% of something is better than 100% of nothing, if I can put it that way.

Having said that, guidance on presenting court cases produced by the National Fly-tipping Prevention Group, which is a group chaired by Defra that includes a wide range of representatives from interested parties—central and local government, enforcement authorities, the waste industry, police and fire services, private landowners, and the devolved Administrations—sets out that prosecutors should consider applying for compensation for the removal of waste. Defra will consider building on this advice in the statutory guidance that will be issued under Clause 9 once the Bill becomes law.

Noble Lords will also be interested, I hope, to hear that local authorities can already issue fixed penalties of up to £1,000 to fly-tippers, the income from which must be spent on clean-up or enforcement. Local authorities issued 63,000 fixed penalty notices in total for fly-tipping during 2023-24, and these were the second most common enforcement action, according to Defra data.

I fully understand the sentiment behind these amendments and entirely accept the principle that the polluter should pay but the Government believe that the sentencing framework, as set out in primary legislation, is the proper place to deal with this issue. I recognise, however, that there may be benefits in providing the court with an alternative disposal relating to penalty points, as proposed in Amendment 46 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Defra remains committed to considering such a move and will provide an update in due course.

I also stress, and in response to Amendment 47, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, noted, that there is an existing power for local councils and the police to seize a vehicle where there is a reasonable belief that it is being used or had been used for fly-tipping, which can lead to the vehicle being sold or crushed if it is not claimed. If the vehicle is claimed, the council can prosecute and a court can order that ownership rights are transferred to the council, under which it can keep, sell or dispose of the vehicle. There were nearly 400 vehicles seized in 2023-24 as an enforcement action.

When such an order is being considered, it is appropriate that the court must consider certain factors that Amendment 40, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to remove. The duty on the courts to consider these factors, such as the financial impacts of the forfeiture or the offender’s need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes, embeds principles of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of—our friend—the European Convention on Human Rights. This entitles a person to a peaceful enjoyment of their possessions but allows the state to enforce laws to control use of that property when it is in the general interest. Any such interference with this right must be lawful for legitimate aim and be proportionate. Amendment 40 would remove these safeguards, and we should always tread lightly when considering long-held rights regarding property, something I am sure I would not have to tell the Benches opposite.

In light of my explanations, I hope the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Hooray indeed. I will not commit any more strongly than that. I will let noble Lords come to their own conclusions about the ability to take on those considerations ahead of Report.

In the light of the action that we are taking already to tackle waste crime, and without pre-empting the response from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State Emma Reynolds to the Environment Committee’s report, I hope the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

Before the noble Earl responds to the debate, I ask the Minister: when he comes back to the Committee with an update on the Kidlington issue, will he explain how it unravels in open sight? As we have heard, there must have been hundreds of lorry loads and, no doubt, many complaints and missives to the police, the Environment Agency and the other bodies responsible. To the man and woman in the street, it seems that if we cannot deal with something as enormous and obvious as this, what hope is there for smaller fly-tipping incidents?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, for that point. I appreciate what he is saying. I am not aware of the events that led up to the time it took to issue this enforcement action, and it would be wrong for me to speculate. I am afraid I have not yet had the time to review the Hansard report of the Urgent Question, but I suspect we may have some of the answers to that question if we review the Commons Hansard report of the Urgent Question that Calum Miller asked of the Government today.

I understand the point the noble Viscount is making, and in the future should I be in the position to report back, I will offer more information. All I will say is that one would hope—I am not speaking out of turn, I simply do not know the facts—that there would be community action and community reporting of this in strength. The Environment Agency only has so much resource; it cannot be all-seeing and so it cannot take enforcement when it does not know the action there. I am not suggesting that that was the case in this situation in Kidlington, but it is important for us to take wider societal responsibility to address these issues.

I am fortunate that the London Borough of Camden, my home borough, has an app through which I can always report fly-tipping, which is nowhere near on the scale of Kidlington. I am an avid user, and therefore I take responsibility. My kids hate me stopping to take pictures of rubbish when I am walking along with them, but I use it because that means that the offence is noted and recorded, and then action is taken. In tribute to Camden, it is usually taken quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I align myself with my noble friend on his remarks and the question he put to the Minister. I do not understand the situation, so I would very much appreciate an explanation from the Minister. What is the logic of having the same maximum penalty for both the existing offence of carrying an offensive weapon and the new offence of carrying an offensive weapon with intent to commit harm or violence, and so forth?

My mild concern, which I am sure the Minister with his usual skill can allay, is that if we have the four years maximum penalty for the new aggravated offence of having intent to commit harm, is there not a danger that that could diminish the seriousness of the existing offence if it is not possible or likely to prove the intent to commit violence or the other provisions of the new section? I absolutely support what the Government are trying to do here; we are all on completely the same side. It would be very helpful for the Minister to explain how these two offences would differ in their application in practice and therefore the implications for the maximum sentences.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I rise for the final time tonight—the Committee will be pleased to know—to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel. I wish I had put down my own amendment to Clause 27 to draw attention to what I think is the complete disconnect between subsections (1) and (3) in the new section.

The Bill in its current form proposes in subsection (1) of the new section that it shall be an offence for any person to possess an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon with the intent

“to use unlawful violence against another person, … to cause another person to believe that unlawful violence will be used against them”

and others, or

“to cause serious unlawful damage to property”.

That is fairly serious stuff.

However, the penalties in subsection (3) of the proposed new section, with a maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment in a magistrates’ court and up to four years on indictment, are insufficient given the gravity of the offence. I support the argument for a substantial increase in sentencing powers to reflect the seriousness of the conduct involved.

Possession of an offensive weapon with intent to use it for violence or to cause fear is a profoundly serious criminal act. Such intent demonstrates a premeditated willingness to inflict harm, intimidate or destroy property. It is not a spontaneous or lesser form of criminality but rather a calculated and dangerous escalation. The mere possession of a weapon with such intent poses a direct threat to public safety, undermines community trust and creates an atmosphere of fear and insecurity.

As the Minister will know, offences involving offensive weapons are often precursors to more serious crimes, involving grievous bodily harm right up to homicide. I maintain that actions that create an imminent risk of serious harm should be met with robust deterrence and sentencing. Allowing relatively lenient penalties for those caught with weapons and with criminal intent fails to deter potential offenders and signals a lack of seriousness in addressing violent crime. The psychological impact on victims—those who are threatened or believe they are at risk of violence—can be profound and long-lasting, as many reports say, even if no injury actually occurs.

When compared with other offences of similar seriousness, the proposed penalties appear disproportionately low. For instance, offences such as aggravated burglary or possession of firearms with intent to endanger life attract significantly higher sentences, often exceeding a decade in custody. This clause is about people going out with vicious knives or machetes, intending to use unlawful violence against another person—in other words, to attack them and possibly kill them. Why on earth should there even be a summary trial for that sort of offence? That is why I wish I had put down my own amendment to delete from the new section subsection (3)(a), which provides for trial in a magistrates’ court.

Of course, we must not look at this Bill in isolation; we have the Sentencing Bill coming along, which will aim to ban anyone—if I understand it correctly—going to prison for a sentence of 12 months or less. If one of these cases goes to a magistrates’ court, and the magistrates impose the maximum sentence of 12 months, it will be automatically suspended and the perpetrator will get away with it. What signal does that send? If these criminals were going out with a knife to scratch cars or vandalise property, summary might be appropriate, but they are going out with knives to attack people and possibly kill them. That is why, in my opinion, it has to indictable only and a 14-year maximum sentence—which, as we know, will end up as seven in any case, with automatic release at half-time. I believe the current proposal for a maximum of four years on indictment is markedly out of step with comparable offences and the seriousness of potential offences in subsection (1).

The criminal justice system must not only punish offenders but deter would-be offenders and reassure the public that their safety is paramount. Inadequate penalties such as this one risk undermining public confidence in the legal system. A more severe sentencing framework would send a clear message that society will not tolerate the possession of weapons in the street with intent to commit violent acts or grievous bodily harm to people. It would also be a stronger deterrent to those contemplating such conduct.

In conclusion, I believe the Government are absolute right to introduce this new power, but they have the penalties wrong since they are disconnected from the seriousness of the offence. Given the potential for severe physical and psychological harm, the premeditated nature of the crime and the need for effective deterrence, I also submit that the maximum penalties should be increased. Of course, this is not tying the judge’s discretion; I am suggesting no minimum sentence but a sentence of up to 14 years.

I should add that I have exactly the same view on the suggested penalties in the next massive group of amendments, but I have made my arguments here and I will not repeat them when we come to that group on Wednesday.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his amendment, which, as noble Lords will know, increases the maximum penalty to 14 years for possessing a weapon with intent. I happen to think that sentences should be proportionate to the offence, and that is why the maximum sentence for this offence has been set at four years. This is in line with other weapons offence penalties, such as that for possession of a bladed article. To set the sentence for this offence at 14 years would be disproportionate.

The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked legitimate questions about the difference between existing offences and this new proposed offence. It is already an offence to carry a bladed article in public without good reason. It is also an offence to then threaten a person with a bladed article or weapon. Under Section 52 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, it is an offence to intentionally threaten someone with an offensive weapon in public or in private.

The introduction of this new offence bridges a gap, which I believe is there, between being in possession of a knife or other offensive weapon in public or on education premises, and it being used to threaten or harm anyone. This offence will target those who equip themselves with bladed articles with the intention to endanger life, cause serious harm or fear or violence, but are intercepted by the police before they have had the chance to carry out any attack on the intended victim. It will therefore empower the police to bring charges against those individuals, which, in my view, is a differentiation which I hope has been clarified for the noble Viscount. He shakes his head.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

The issue is not the Minister’s explanations. I will have to think carefully about this. If the police can already stop someone and already have an easier test to make an arrest and prosecute that individual for the carrying of a knife, how does the carrying of the knife with the intent to commit harm make that easier to do? Surely, it makes it more difficult, because not only do you have to show that the person was carrying the knife, but you also have to prove their intent. I am not criticising the Minister’s intention here; I just do not understand.

Crime and Policing Bill

Viscount Goschen Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I will just say a word about Amendment 213. I shall come back more fully to a discussion of the principles in the fifth group of amendments, but there is a danger that a range of agricultural and gardening tools will be caught. I have in mind, for example, machetes, bill-hooks and hand scythes—all of which will be found in various parts of my house. I think it is a very good thing that we should make the exemption clear.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the points made and the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, supported by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. We are in the territory of unintended consequences. The Committee needs to take a pragmatic approach. Where there are lacunae and mishaps in complex swathes of legislation, with many successive Acts on knives and similar offensive weapons, we need to take the opportunity to correct those. I certainly support the derogation for agricultural, gardening or conservation purposes, and for weapons of historical importance, collectables and so forth. These seem to be very pragmatic measures, which I support.

I am not knowledgeable on the subject of truncheons. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, even with his experience did not use his. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, at Second Reading saying that he made “liberal use” of it in an arrest with the result of blood “being spattered” onto his uniform. I guess experience varies, but I support the noble Lord’s efforts today.

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

My Lords, I also support the amendments put forward by my friend and colleague, my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe. I will address the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for a short period. He was a Minister, as was one other person in this Committee, when I was a senior police officer. I do not remember the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, once instigating or taking through legislation that did not have an effect. That is a fact.

The other thing I am going to disclose—I was going to keep it secret, but I know I can trust all of you and that you are all positively vetted—is that when the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, left he was given a helmet, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. She was also an extremely effective Minister in my time. The noble Lord was offered a truncheon, but he decided that his shepherd’s stick was far more effective than a truncheon, so we did not give it to him. As a matter of record, I used my truncheon once. I was chasing someone down Tottenham Court Road. I hit him three times and it had absolutely no effect. From then on, I never used it. However, on the flying squad, when we were going to violent robberies where we had intelligence that weapons were being used, we used pickaxe handles. They are far more effective.

This is a move in the right direction. I think the noble Lord described it as a practical approach. We need a common-sense approach to things such as straight truncheons and all the other issues that have been raised this afternoon. It has been a great debate as far as I am concerned, but we will make a difference. Following the approach of my dear friend the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his historical delivery in terms of what he delivered with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in the time they were Ministers, we will make a difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned my name, perhaps I should just say that his recollection of what happened in Glasgow is indeed correct. Lord Carmont was dealing with convicted criminals. These were people who had been convicted of crimes, from assaults to severe injury, and were using a perfectly familiar weapon: an open razor, which people commonly used. The example that the noble Lord gave makes exactly the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, made: it was dealt with by sentencing, not by legislation.

In those days, there was no Sentencing Council, and a judge was free, more or less, to choose his own sentence. Lord Carmont chose very severe sentences, which were quite out of the usual range. The shock that caused had a real effect in reducing that particular crime. It was not the end of knife crime, I am afraid, although that was suppressed later by other measures, but it was a very effective use of a sentencing power in the days when judges were not constrained by a Sentencing Council, other rules and so on. They were able to select a really severe sentence when it suited the situation. The noble Lord’s recollection is perfectly correct, but I think it makes the point that it is better to deal with this by sentencing.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, I associate myself with all the sentiments that have been shared this afternoon on this matter. I think we all know what we want to try and stop with the Bill: zombie knives. There is no excuse or legitimate use at all for a zombie knife. But it is incredibly difficult to define, and legislation has attempted to do so. The points raised by my noble friend Lord Hailsham are absolutely right: we do not want to criminalise the use of everyday items or the ownership of swords. They may not be for historical purposes, but they may be of sentimental value, family heirlooms or collector’s items and may have any number of associated uses. My noble friend Lord Blencathra has put his finger on an absolute scourge which we, as parliamentarians and in co-operation with the police, really have to deal with using every tool that we have. But I also share the concern that there will be many unintended consequences if my noble friend’s amendments, as currently drafted, were included in the Bill.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak about Amendment 214B on knives in schools. It will come as no surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that we on these Benches take a different view. We strongly believe that criminalising children is just not the way forward. Last year, an authoritative joint police and Ofsted report warned that serious youth violence has spread its tentacles further than many adults realise and that 11 year-olds now carry knives for protection, so there is no doubt that there is a major problem. However, the same report does not call for more punitive sanctions to deter young people from offending. Instead, it recommends a preventative, public health approach, focused on early intervention, safeguarding and partnership working. It warned that, without better co-ordination and sustained investment in prevention, efforts to tackle youth violence will fall short and the cycle of harm will continue. These warnings must be heeded.

Yet, budget pressures mean police forces are cutting safer school programmes. The Met, for example, is moving 371 officers out of schools due to funding shortfalls. Prevention has to be taken seriously and resourced properly. Public health funding per capita has fallen by 28% since 2015. That results in reactive rather than preventative policing, and nowhere is this more important than with children and knife crime.

I agree that there is no justification for a child to bring a knife into school, but we cannot support the approach of Amendment 214B. Instead, we should concentrate on the success of interventions such as Operation Divan, which involves a single, voluntary face-to-face meeting between a young person at risk and a police officer or a youth justice worker. This prioritises prevention, education and safeguarding. Early results show a 60% reduction in knife and weapon offences at a cost of only £30 to £65 per person.

I turn briefly to the noble Lord’s remaining amendments and the proposal for a special category of particularly dangerous weapons. As the noble Lord recognises, these weapons are already prohibited. In our view, creating another category risks unnecessary overlap without adding any real benefit.