Crime and Policing Bill

Viscount Goschen Excerpts

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

I just want to say a few words to congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies of Gower, on their persistence on the question of penalties for the new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to use unlawful violence. On these Benches, we have entirely supported the creation of this new offence, which rightly bridges the gap between the simple possession of a knife in public and actually using it to threaten or harm someone. We have taken to heart the views of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, following the horrific Southport attack, which has been under discussion today in relation to the first report from Sir Adrian Fulford. The reviewer has made it absolutely clear that a four-year sentence is simply insufficient when there is clear evidence of an intention to cause mass fatalities. We welcome the fact that the Government have now listened to the strength of feeling in this House and formally accepted that the additional element of intent to use unlawful violence justifies a higher maximum penalty compared with possession-only offences. Again, we congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies, on tabling those amendments on Report, and we thank the Government for their movement on this. I beg to move Motion A1.

[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.