House of Lords

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Monday 10 November 2025

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of London.

Trials: Timeliness

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked by

[Lord Austin of Dudley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the length of time between charging suspects and trials taking place.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, as of June 2025, the average time from charge to the main hearing in the Crown Court, whether that is a guilty plea or a contested trial, for all Crown Court cases is 241 days. That is 14 fewer days than in the corresponding quarter last year, a drop of 5%, so there is some improvement, but overall the Crown Court backlog that the Government inherited continues to rise, which means that victims are waiting too long for justice. The Government commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to propose reforms. We are carefully considering his report and will respond in due course.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, but defence companies, the MoD and businesses they work with were attacked by Palestine Action almost 400 times before it was proscribed. This is an industry of huge strategic importance; it keeps our country safe and is helping to defend Ukraine. These attacks intimidate workers and put jobs at risk. Police have been injured. These cases were already straining the justice system. Trials are taking years to reach court. That creates a perception that serious offences go unpunished, and that could encourage more attacks. What can the Government do to speed things up in these cases?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this important issue. Palestine Action has conducted an escalating campaign involving alleged criminal damage to Britain’s national security infrastructure, intimidation and violence. This Government unreservedly condemn any crimes of this kind. That said, as the noble Lord will understand, it would be wrong for me to comment on individual cases that are awaiting trial. In relation to when trials take place, in the same way that no Government can tell the Crown Prosecution Service which cases to prosecute, this Government do not tell courts which cases to prioritise when listing trials. These are decisions for independent judges to make, free from political pressure.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will remember from her time as a Crown Court judge that the time between a case first coming before a Crown Court and being listed for trial has got longer and longer. Now, perhaps in her old court, trials are being listed for 2028 and 2029. This is unacceptable for victims, for witnesses and even for the defendant. It requires some will and leadership to crack this. What are the Government intending to do about it? The 1,250 extra days promised to the system by the Lord Chancellor just the other day could be taken up by her old court alone in one year. Please let us have some action.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the basic premise of the noble and learned Lord’s question. It is simply unacceptable, and behind every one of those statistics are human beings waiting for justice. Our immediate reactions are that we intend to fund a record high of 111,250 sitting days in the Crown Court, to free up an additional 2,000 days in the Crown Court by extending the sentencing powers of the magistrates’ courts from six to 12 months, and to make some capital investment. But it is obvious to everybody that simply making efficiencies and putting financial help into the system will not deal with the problem. The backlog is now twice what it was before Covid, which is why the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at fundamental reforms of how the system works. We are considering those and will respond in due course.

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

My Lords, we all accept that there is no magic bullet to reduce trial delays to acceptable levels, but does the noble Baroness agree that the most important factor is indeed the number of Crown Court sitting days? Unless prosecutions have to be abandoned—which does happen because of delays—all these cases need to be tried eventually, so there is no saving of resources by delaying trials. What steps do the Government have in mind specifically to increase the number of court sitting days much further and so to reduce these shameful court backlogs?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important point, and once again I agree with his fundamental premise. The difficulty is that any court in the Crown Court is a complex system. It is not just a room or just a judge; it is also things such as numbers of court staff, advocates and prison cells available in that court system. Currently we are funding 111,250 sitting days, as I said, and the Lady Chief Justice has said the maximum available is 113,000. But that is just rooms and judges, not all the rest of the infrastructure. That is why we are looking at Sir Brian Leveson’s reforms and will respond in due course.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, I accept the pretty appalling inheritance with which the Government have been dealing over the past year or so. Nevertheless, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Austin, some—perhaps a small number—of these cases are related to terrorism offences. Considering the small number of those offences, and the way in which lengthy delays in terrorism-related cases could affect public confidence in the court system, is there some way that such cases could be expedited?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that, and I can understand why that seems like an obvious solution. But the separation of powers between the Government and the courts is one of the fundamental protections of any citizen. Therefore, putting pressure on judges to alter a judicial decision would be wrong and is something that this Government will not do. What I can say is that all judges—I know this because I was one—do not just take cases in the order in which they come into the system; they prioritise certain categories. For example, those with vulnerable victims and witnesses, particularly children, will always jump the queue. Where the Lady Chief Justice and her judges put these particular cases is a matter for them, and I am sure that she will look at them with the attention they deserve.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

I of course accept what the Minister says, but there can be a dialogue with the Government. We saw that last year in Southport, where the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister worked with the prosecution system to ensure that a message was getting through that crimes would have quick consequences to deter further action. Is there not a case for doing this with politically motivated crimes, such as Palestine Action and other politically motivated areas, where the lack of deterrence is increasing the prospect of the ringleaders being able to recruit more people into the net?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an interesting point. I can understand why it could be seen that the responses to the riots had been prioritised, but there are many reasons why those prosecutions took place very quickly. The first is that many of the cases were straightforward and could be dealt with in a magistrates’ court; the second is that, in relation to many of them, the evidence was very strong and people pleaded guilty; and the third is that the decisions involved were made by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the independent judiciary. The Government made sure that they had the resources if they needed them, but no pressure was put on them to decide how to do it.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

Recent data from the Criminal Bar Association shows substantial regional variations in trial delays. What specific steps are being taken to reduce these geographic disparities in trial delays?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is an interesting point. For example, the delays are much worse in central London than they are in Wales. There can be all kinds of reasons for that. I have already said that a trial, as the noble Lord knows, is a complicated factor. There are difficulties because you cannot just, for example, ship cases out to somewhere else; we cannot send a whole lot of London’s cases out to Cardiff because of the effect on victims, witnesses and defendants and the movement around of people within the prison estate. But it is important to look to see where lessons can be learned from other parts of the country and to see whether they are doing things that could be imported to other parts of the country so that we can do better there.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, the Minister has said a couple of times that the response to the Leveson recommendations will be delivered in due course. Can she possibly tell us what “in due course” looks like, because it has been quite a long time already?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

That is another good question, as one would expect. The right reverend Prelate would not expect me to give a precise date, and I cannot. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that the recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson, to whom we are extremely grateful, are robust and far reaching. They will have a potentially radical effect on our justice system as we know it, and it is right that the Government take time to consider them and make sure that there are no unexpected effects on other parts of the system—for example, on the prison estate. If more people are sent to prison, can the prison estate cope with it? For that reason, impact assessments are being undertaken, and we will respond as soon as we are sure that what we are recommending will actually work.

Office for National Statistics

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:47

Asked by

[Baroness Bousted]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to support the improvement of the data produced by the Office for National Statistics.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, access to trustworthy, accurate and timely statistics lies at the heart of a thriving democracy. In June the Government published the Devereux review on the performance and culture of the Office for National Statistics. The Government accepted all the recommendations and are now working closely with the Office for National Statistics to implement them. This has included the ONS publishing plans to recover economic statistics and to improve and enhance its surveys, and the appointment of a new Permanent Secretary to run the ONS.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

Does my noble friend the Minister share my concern that the response rate to the Labour Force Survey dropped to just over 14.5% in 2023, down from nearly 48% a decade earlier, and that the gender pay gap has been underreported for the past 20 years? Does she agree that a democratic society cannot function well without reliable, timely and accurate statistical data?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, the drop in the response rate is of deep concern, and I thank my noble friend for asking. Concern about the Labour Force Survey and our economic statistics more widely was a key reason for the Devereux review, which was commissioned earlier this year. As I said, since then the ONS has published a survey improvement enhancement plan on economic statistics. I assure my noble friend that this is something that we are taking very seriously, not least because having clear data, especially in an age of misinformation, ensures that the Government can act. This is always the case with the gender pay gap—but, regardless of the data, what is clear is that the underlying message on the gender pay gap is the same. There is a persistent gender pay gap that is bad for women, businesses and growth, which is why this Government are taking the necessary steps to ensure that it narrows more quickly.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, when I was attached to the Cabinet Office well over a decade ago, I was told that the Government, locally and nationally, have a very large amount of administrative data which is not shared because of systemic barriers between different departments. I note that this was recommendation 6 in the Lievesley report last year, but nothing much has been done in that regard. I note also that the Devereux report suggests that we may need legislation to correct this. How do the Government plan to integrate administrative data much better than we have so far achieved?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important point about data sharing of statistics. The ONS, which we all talk about regularly, is only one of nearly 200 organisations that provide government data and are governed by the Office for Statistics Regulation. As for how we can move forward, there is a new framework in place. There is also the issue, by the way, of devolution and the impact that that is having on data. There is a framework moving forward for data sharing. It is very difficult. The noble Lord is absolutely right that it was in the Lievesley report. Given that progress was not as speedy as we had hoped, what we are looking to do now, through the recommendations and with the current interim National Statistician, is to implement better processes more quickly.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, the ONS’s attempt to improve the quality of its data has been challenged by staff members of the Civil Service union, the PCS. They have voted once again in favour of strike action and non-compliance over the ONS’s office attendance target, which is 40%—just two days a week. Does the Minister believe that this level of working from home is consistent with the ONS getting its act together?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, Ministers are clear that we expect people to be in the office 60% of the time, at least. The new ONS leadership is working with unions to resolve this dispute. One of the issues that was highlighted in both the Lievesley and Devereux reviews was culture. It is very hard to effect cultural change if people are not in the office.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, what progress have the Government made in implementing the report of the Sullivan review, which recommended collection of data by sex?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, the Sullivan review has been published and has been shared with all relevant government departments to ensure that it informs their thinking.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, Sir Robert Devereux’s independent review of the ONS earlier this year highlighted a culture where there was

“a reluctance, at senior levels, to hear and act on difficult news”

and where unrealistic targets were pursued. What measures are being taken to change that organisational culture, and are the Government confident that they now have the correct leadership, in terms of technical expertise, to improve both the statistics and the culture, so that those in positions of senior management listen to internal warnings about data quality?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, we are very grateful to Emma Rourke, the acting National Statistician, for working with us as we seek to fix some of the current challenges. Since we came to government, we have had the Devereux review to restore public trust and confidence in ONS national statistics; we appointed a new Permanent Secretary to the ONS, which was the second recommendation of the Devereux review, to ensure that there was significant corporate leadership; and we are continuing to work with them and with the UKSA chair to make sure that the ONS is reformed and is fit for purpose.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, the UK Statistics Authority’s new code of practice now covers the trustworthy communication of data and statistics. Are there plans to update the Ministerial Code to reflect this?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I believe that all my colleagues are very clear on their responsibilities under the Ministerial Code, and we have updated it since we came to office. We have no plans to update it now, but obviously it is always under review.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, in his independent review, Sir Robert also pointed to relatively low pay, leading to recruitment and retention difficulties, particularly for analysts. Does my noble friend the Minister agree?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

Obviously, pay levels within the ONS are a matter for its leadership. I reassure noble Lords, however, that the budget for the ONS has increased. Rarely would I say so from this Dispatch Box, but the last Government and this Government have ensured that the budget for the ONS has increased by 6.5% year on year since 2015. It is the only government department to have had that uplift, and its budget is over £430 million. It has the resources it needs to make sure that they are deployed effectively.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the new Permanent Secretary has the technical expertise necessary in this particular area?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

Absolutely.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I believe I am right in saying that some 40% to 50% of all ONS data is produced by survey. What steps are being taken to dramatically reduce that percentage? Surveys rely on the good will of people offering to fill them in, particularly in areas such as immigration; there must be a better way to collect data than surveys.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point about the quality and calibre of our data and how we collect it. As the world moves on, so has our need for data, and how we use and collect it. We expect the ONS to be using all available resources to it. We also need to make sure of the value—especially with regard to the census, for example—of survey-based data, because it is some of the most effective and efficient available to us.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware that when I was First Sea Lord, I used to encourage my sailors to all be on board the ships when they were working.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

Why should the Civil Service work to a different pattern? Admittedly it has few ships, but I would be very interested to know.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy, I would never want to disagree with a much more senior officer. The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point. While people who do not necessarily have to be deployed also have the 60% target for being in the office, there is an issue here about making sure that we have people in the right place at the right time, especially when we are trying to effect cultural change. That is what is clearly required at the ONS, according to both the reviews that have been undertaken.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

My Lords, I was pleased to hear from the Minister just now that the Sullivan review has been copied to all departments. Can she tell the House what they are doing about it?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I answer for the Cabinet Office. I can inform the noble Lord that it has been shared and highlighted to the relevant government departments. If he has a specific query, I am more than happy for him to write to me, and I will respond to it.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will know how keen I am to set targets for departments and organisations. Given that we spend more every year on this service, do we not need to have some targets that we can judge its performance by?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important point, especially given the concern about some of the data. I reassure noble Lords that we have faith in the ONS and that the overwhelming majority of its data is sound. Having said that, we have established, with the ONS, the economic statistics steering group, which includes representatives from the Cabinet Office, the Treasury, the Bank of England and the OBR. It meets quarterly to track its progress on being more effective with its economic data.

River Pollution

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:57

Asked by

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to tackle river pollution from sources other than sewage.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, cleaning up our rivers is a top priority. To tackle agricultural pollution, we are increasing regulatory compliance, reforming environmental land management schemes to prioritise water and promoting innovation. To tackle pollution from abandoned metal mines, we are investing in a programme of water treatment schemes. Finally, we are working with the Department for Transport to review our approach to tackling pollution from road run-off, including tackling chemical contaminants.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response. According to the Cunliffe review, agriculture is the single largest cause of river pollution, with pesticides and nutrients ultimately leading to poor environmental outcomes dangerous to public health and blocking developments in affected catchment areas. If we ignore agriculture, little will be done. Can the Minister say how the Government plan to address this source? Will they need primary legislation to do so, and if so, when can legislation be expected?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On agricultural run-off pollution specifically, which the noble Baroness asked about, we are doubling the funding to the Environment Agency farm inspections and regulatory enforcement team, which will enable it to conduct at least 6,000 inspections a year by 2029, in order to work with farmers to raise standards, which is really important.

The catchment sensitive farming grant—of which my husband and I have been recipients—is designed to address the specific needs of each farm. For example, we have fenced off the river to stop cattle going down and causing pollution and damage to the riverbanks. This supports capital investment in specific ways to stop livestock going in watercourses, for example, as I just mentioned. That also includes improving drainage to manage run-off more effectively.

The sustainable farming incentive scheme pays farmers for actions that protect and enhance our natural environment. That includes things that reduce run-off and erosion, and that will maintain soil cover, create buffer strips and so on. We are also looking at improving farm pollution regulations, which need to be both simple and effective. We have also issued amended statutory guidance on the farming rules for water to set clearer expectations on enforcing the regulations.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, the Canal & River Trust has removed litter bins from the canal network throughout England and Wales, on the tow-paths. It has a statutory duty to manage litter in England and Wales. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of water pollution on biodiversity and wildlife on our waterways?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, it is important that we do not have litter blowing into our rivers, causing further damage and pollution, or litter generally, not just going into the watercourses. The Canal & River Trust can make its own decisions, but we work very closely with it and urge it to consider pollution in its decision-making.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, there was a report last week in the Guardian about the operators of intensive chicken and pig units that are apparently withholding their emissions data from the public. Would the Government now follow the recommendations of the Government’s 2022 and 2023 Environmental Audit Committee inquiries and adopt a presumption against expanding intensive chicken and pig production in polluted catchments until there is a plan as to how to reduce the amount of pollution we already get, which is estimated at 70% in the River Wye from the chicken farms alone?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that pollution from chicken farms, particularly in the River Wye, is a huge problem. I have met with people with interests in the River Wye to look at potential solutions to that, and the department is considering how best to deal with it. Planning is an important part of how we manage our sustainable agriculture going forward, and I know that the Farming Minister has been taking a particular interest in how we can look at planning to improve both pollution and animal welfare.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, I know that this Question relates specifically to river pollution, but my noble friend will no doubt be aware that there has been a major pollution event in East Sussex on Camber Sands in the recent past. That has resulted in some very necessary clearing up having to be done by a wide range of agencies, but as yet, as I understand it, there is no clear indication of where the pollution came from. Since it represents a serious threat to wildfowl, among other things, in the area, can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made on identifying the source?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can give my noble friend an update on where we are on Camber Sands and Southern Water at the moment. The pollution incident is really worrying, and it is disappointing that it has happened. We are pleased that Southern Water has now taken responsibility for this plastic pollution incident. The Environment Agency is currently conducting a thorough investigation. It is also looking at what regulatory action should be taken and is working with Rother District Council on the clean-up operation. It is absolutely unacceptable that something like this should happen. For too long, these serious pollution events have not been taken seriously. It is absolutely right that the Environment Agency is looking thoroughly at this incident so we can understand exactly what has happened in order to try and prevent it happening again in the future. We need swifter penalties to clamp down on polluters. We have given £104 billion in private investment to help cut exactly this kind of pollution incident.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the Water (Special Measures) Act, the Cunliffe review and now the Planning and Infrastructure Bill all offer the potential for the mobilisation of greater private capital in dealing with non-sewage pollution in our rivers. Can the Minister inform the House what progress is being made with private sector investment? How big a contribution is planned and how much will therefore be saved for the benefit of the taxpayer? I refer the House to my registered interest as a land and river owner.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As part of dealing with any major area that requires investment and funding, we will of course consider how private investment can support what the Government are trying to achieve. We believe that it is important for us all to pull together to make the right kind of progress.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the release of millions of toxic bio-beads happened two weeks ago. Southern Water at first refused to take responsibility and, even now, it is not in charge of a clear-up that would benefit people and wildlife. When will this Government accept that the water companies are incompetent and badly managed and should be nationalised?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is aware that the Cunliffe review made a number of recommendations, and we are acting very quickly on nine of them. She will also be aware that it is our intention to bring forward a second water Bill in order to tackle properly so many of the issues that we still see in our water industry that are simply not acceptable.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the Inter-Ministerial Group for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last met in June this year; it was very high level and all the top Ministers from the various nations were there. An extensive communiqué was issued in September, but it made no mention of this important topic. Can the Minister assure us that, the next time that the interministerial group meets, this topic will be on the agenda? Can she tell us—directionally, at least—when it will meet again?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am afraid that I do not have any information on when it will meet again. However, I am more than happy to pass on the noble Earl’s suggestion and concerns to the new Secretary of State in Defra, who I am sure will want to take the best action possible at the next meeting.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a key challenge for this Government is the lack of effective planning enforcement? I have a classic example from my own village of Goring-on-Thames in connection with a retrospective application for an Airbnb on a zone 1 flood plain. The Liberal Democrat council accepted a work of fiction by so-called professionals, Taylor Consulting, which even named the wrong village and the wrong river in its report, which was entirely accepted by South Oxfordshire District Council. It completely ignored all kinds of water going into the river, including treated pool water.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, I cannot comment on a specific case. It is important that, when planning applications are put forward, they are properly considered in the context of pollution.

National Insurance: Partnerships

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:08

Asked by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation’s proposal for increasing the National Insurance rate on partnerships, and of the impact of such an increase.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government do not comment on tax speculation outside of fiscal events. The Chancellor will set out the Government’s fiscal plans at the forthcoming Budget.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, given that professional services contribute some 12% to GDP, and that almost all the UK’s leading accountancy and law firms operate as LLPs, has the Minister examined the potential for unintended consequences such as increased incorporation or outsourcing, which could reduce, rather than increase, the overall tax take? I originally tabled this Question to probe the bad but rumoured idea of taxing GP partnerships in this way. Can the Minister at least rule that out?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. However, she knows that I am not going to speculate or give a running commentary on the next Budget now. There has been much speculation, as is usual ahead of a Budget. A lot of that speculation is irresponsible. I am not going to comment on individual tax measures now. We will do things in the usual way. The Chancellor has asked the OBR to produce a new forecast. She will make decisions based on that forecast. We will set out our fiscal plans at the forthcoming Budget. The Chancellor will do so mindful of the importance of growth and investment to businesses and the economy.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister, as an expert in taxation matters, agree that in reality, the great majority of those who are partners in limited liability partnerships do not have any of the autonomy of self-employed persons but are treated as having such autonomy, and that it would be logical for all those who are in reality employed persons to be treated in the same way by the tax system?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I am afraid I am not going to comment now on individual tax measures.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the self-employed sector creates growth and increases economic participation and that self-employed people are risk absorbers without access to various state benefits? Is the suggestion floated concerning LLPs potentially the thin end of the wedge to attach more tax to all self-employment? Possibly, there is an issue, in that LLP status transfers risk from partners to societies at no cost to the partners. If there is a moral case for payment for that risk transfer, surely, it must be separately investigated, not wangled through national insurance.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question, the first part of which I agree with. On the rest of it, as she knows, I am not going to comment on individual tax measures right now.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, may I ask the Minister a very simple question? In terms of his definition of a working person, is a partner in a law firm a working person?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I applaud the noble Lord’s attempt at his question. I am not going to comment on individual tax measures right now.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, whether someone trades through a company or a partnership is a personal choice. That choice should not be incentivised by the national insurance system. It is wrong to hand incentives to rich accountants and lawyers to dodge employers’ national insurance just because they trade as partnerships. That differential treatment encourages abuse and avoidance strategies. Does the Minister agree, and if not, can he give reasons?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My reason is very simple: I am not going to speculate on the next Budget now. I am, of course, grateful for my noble friend’s expertise in these matters.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister accept that it not speculation but fact that the legal services sector brought in exports worth £9.5 billion last year? Will he also accept that it is fact, not speculation, that to increase the tax burden would inevitably damage the ability of law firms to attract cases such as international arbitration and dispute resolution from abroad when we are in competition with Singapore, Dubai and other litigation centres?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I certainly agree with the first fact that the noble Lord set out, and I am happy to do so. On his second fact, that is inviting me to speculate, which I think I have made clear I am not going to do.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, without asking the Minister to speculate on what might be in the Budget, will he tell us what was meant when the Chancellor and the Prime Minister said they would not increase income tax?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Again, I think that that may be inviting me to speculate on the next Budget. I am not going to give a running commentary on the speculation there has been so far. The Chancellor will set out the Government’s tax policy at the forthcoming Budget.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister accept that although he continues to tell us that he is conducting his responses in the normal way ahead of a Budget, it is not the normal way, ahead of a Budget, for the Chancellor to give a speech to a press conference which is simply about the Budget?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The Chancellor is entirely at liberty to set out what she wants to set out at any given point. As I said, there has much speculation ahead of the Budget. I am not going to comment on the Budget. We will do things in the usual way. She has asked the OBR to produce a new forecast for the Budget. She will take decisions based on that forecast and set them out at the forthcoming Budget.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister advise his colleagues that any new partnership NICs applied to LLPs will exclude small entities that genuinely are a variant on self-employed organisations, with similar risks, precarious income, limited benefits and lack of employment opportunity, and are, indeed, a very important path for a lot of people returning to employment or getting into employment for the first time?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I am not quite sure how many more ways I can say this: she is inviting me to comment on tax speculation, and I think I have made it clear that I am not going to do that.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, going back to the last election after Labour were previously in power, Labour had to leave a note saying that there was no money left. The next time, it will have to leave a note saying that there is no money left and no entrepreneurs left. Has the Minister read the Walker report, which shows that the HMRC assessment of non-doms leaving the country was underestimated by 50% because it looked at people only on a remittance basis and had not taken into account wealthy investors who are not under PAYE, and who are leaving the country in droves?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

If the noble Lord wants to talk about the amount of money that is left, I am very happy to point him to the £22 billion black hole in the public finances that we inherited and that his Government sought to hide from the Office for Budget Responsibility. The same OBR has certified that the non-dom reforms the Government have implemented will raise £33.8 billion in total revenue over the five-year forecast period. This figure accounts for some non-doms who are ineligible for the new regime, choosing to leave the UK in response to these reforms. The Government will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that the new regime is internationally competitive and focus on attracting the best talent and investment into the UK.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, in his earlier answer, the Minister said that much of the speculation was irresponsible, which suggests that some of it was not. Could he please list it?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

No. As I think I have made clear, I am not going to comment on individual tax measures.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree with me that, if there are going to be tax increases of any sort, they should be fair and should not be borne by people who are paying PAYE, who have no choice about paying their tax—but that everyone over there seems to think that everyone else should have an opportunity to avoid it?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. I am not going to comment, as he knows, on individual tax measures, but I think we can be clear that the priorities for the forthcoming Budget will be protecting our NHS and public services from a return to austerity. It should be a Budget for growth that supports businesses to create jobs and innovation; we should improve the cost of living, doing what is necessary to protect families from high inflation and high interest rates; and we should keep debt under control.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, I think there may be a misunderstanding about what LLP structures are. Will the Minister agree with me on the importance of these structures, which enable people to pool their own labour? This is not a loophole; it is an opportunity for people to come together, and they are effectively charging tax on employing themselves. Will the Minister agree with me that, in principle, LLPs are a good idea, and that getting rid of them would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater? We have just had a baby in the Chamber, so I am very reminded of that. If he could answer my question, I would be very grateful.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not know if the noble Lord was paying attention for the last 10 minutes, but I have made it extremely clear that I am not going to comment on individual tax measures.

Clerk of the Parliaments

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Announcement of Successor

15:18

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, on 24 July, I informed your Lordships’ House of Simon Burton’s intention to retire from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from 1 April 2026. The recruitment process for his successor has now concluded. The unanimous recommendation of the interview board was that Chloe Kilcoyne Mawson should succeed Simon as Clerk of the Parliaments. Her appointment follows an open and external competition which attracted a wide field of high-calibre candidates. A number of internal and external applicants were interviewed by a board consisting of myself, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Convener of the Cross Benches and Dame Elizabeth Gardiner, former First Parliamentary Counsel. I am sure that everyone will join me in congratulating Chloe on her appointment, and we very much look forward to working with her in her new role.

Accidental Prison Releases

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Private Notice Question

15:20

Asked by

[Lord Hayward]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent accidental prison releases.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

My Lords, any release in error is one too many. Releases in error have been increasing for years and are another symptom of the justice system crisis inherited by this Government. The Ministry of Justice has already taken immediate steps, including introducing stronger release checks with more direct senior accountability, commissioning an independent review to tackle this issue, which has persisted for too long, and deploying a digital rapid response unit to all prisons to modernise release processes.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, for the absence of doubt, I am asking the Question in relation to Mr Brahim Kaddour-Cherif. Can the Minister please identify a timeline of, first, when officials were first notified of the accidental release of this gentleman, and, secondly, when the Secretary of State was first notified of his accidental release?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Both the Deputy Prime Minister and me were informed first thing on Wednesday morning when we woke up. The Deputy Prime Minister quite rightly thought it was irresponsible to potentially give incorrect information to Parliament. The information was changing rapidly and the Deputy Prime Minister did not want to mislead Parliament without all the details.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister explain what, if any, impact the previous Government’s austerity measures and policies over a decade or more have had on the Prison Service today?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that important question. I have been visiting prisons and been interested in this area for 25 years, and with the previous Government I saw a lack of investment across the board. There are three specific areas. First, they did not build enough prisons and did not maintain the prisons that they had. Secondly, they reduced the staffing levels as part of austerity, to the extent that lots of very experienced staff left, and that was especially so in probation. Thirdly, and connected with errors on release, there was a lack of investment in digital technology to help our hard-working staff, who spend hours and hours with boxes of paperwork, when it would be far more efficient and accurate if they had digital support to help them.

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

My Lords, the two accidental releases from Wandsworth, together with that of Mr Kebatu, which we discussed recently, demonstrate a continuing and frankly pretty chaotic lack of co-ordination. Will the investigation by Dame Lynne Owens, announced after Mr Kebatu’s accidental release, now be widened to encompass all the release procedures throughout our prisons to prevent recurrence of these mistakes?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord will recognise that Dame Lynne Owens is a superb choice to do this investigation. I have already met with her, last week, to talk about the scope. She will be looking at the whole area of releases in error and is already visiting prisons and speaking to staff. I want to reassure the noble Lord about two things. First, in my book the staff who work in the offender management units are amazing. They have to do an incredibly complex, difficult job, with boxes of paperwork, and to make sure it is accurate when there are multiple opportunities for failure in the system. Secondly, this is not a quick fix. This has been getting worse for a number of years and it will take time to get it right.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

The Minister answered the second of my noble friend Lord Hayward’s questions, but he did not answer the first: when did officials first know?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I am not aware of the exact details, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord when I get them.

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, what work is being done to improve prison officer training to reduce releases in error, as a matter of urgency and in the long term?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The Ministry of Justice has a programme called Enable, around how we develop the skills of our fantastic staff. In the short term, we have introduced new checklists that are more robust than ever and asked for duty governor sign-off on releases. We are investing more money in training for our staff. That is not just for staff who are joining the service; it is important that we invest in the staff who have been with us for some time. The offender management unit does complex work. I have spoken to governors who have been in the service for many years. When they look at the release checks that the offender management units must do, they cannot believe how much more complex it has become over the last few years.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I know that the Minister works extremely hard and is very knowledgeable about this subject. He and I have been cantering around this track for more than two decades. When I was last in opposition, in the 2000s, I was shadow Prisons Minister and visited 75 of the prisons, young offender institutions and so forth in England and Wales. Even though there was a Labour Government, nobody ever said that it was the Labour Government’s fault that people escaped. Can we have a little less of it being said that it is the last Government’s fault? In the 2000s, there were people escaping, there were high levels of suicide and high levels of violence against prison officers, and there was sewage flowing from the top floors of prisons into the lower floors. The whole estate was in a shambles and the staff in a state of low morale. Let us solve this problem together. The Minister and I know that this can be done. I ask him not to fall into the trap of reading out the Whip’s notes.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord and I know each other very well. I hope he knows that I have my own view on this, because, like him, I visit lots of prisons all the time. It is clear that our prisons need investment and that we need to build new prisons. Only last week I went to a new prison which will be opening in 2028. These are modern, highly efficient prisons that are there not just to keep the public safe but to rehabilitate people. The problem that we are trying to fix is a long-term problem. It is not just about buildings; it is about people and how we support our staff to deliver an amazing service in rehabilitating people so that when they leave prison they do not come back.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I visited HMP Wandsworth last Thursday and was told that there are about 2,000 releases every year from there. I was visiting the independent monitoring board. One of the issues that it raised with me was a review that is going on into the IMB process and the secretariat that supports the IMB. Does my noble friend agree that IMBs are vital? They tell truth to power, truth to Ministers and truth to the inspectorate. Will my noble friend write to me to tell me about the process of review of IMBs which is under way and assure me that the IMBs are fully valued?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that the independent monitoring boards in our prisons do a really vital job. In every prison I go to, I try to meet the IMB leaders—the chair—and last week I met the national chair of the IMBs, Elisabeth Davies, to talk through how their plans were going. I know they struggle on recruitment in certain prisons as well, but the work they do, walking the wings, speaking to prisoners and speaking to staff, is absolutely vital.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister’s Answer to my noble friend Lord Hayward. He said that the information available to the Deputy Prime Minister was changing rapidly. What information was available to the Deputy Prime Minister after Prime Minister’s Questions that he did not have beforehand?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister did not have the accurate information, because the information was changing by the minute; but what was certain is that, when we knew exactly what the situation was, that is what we dealt with and we acted upon it.

We have 57,000 releases from prison—that was March 2024 to 2025. In Wandsworth, which my noble friend mentioned, there are 2,000 releases a year from that prison. So it is important that we get the information right, because we are often dealing with individuals with different aliases and with multiple convictions, and we need to make sure we get it right.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, 10 years ago, when I was reviewing deaths in prison, I spent some time looking at the intake arrangements, which are clearly important in terms of assessing the risk. In the best prisons, that was a very detailed process. Can the Minister tell us whether, in his experience, and not necessarily talking about this particular case, there is a wide variation between prisons in the detail with which they do the process of release, in terms of the information they collect and the information they check?

Secondly, can he tell us how good he feels about—whether this is another area that needs investment—the information flows that take place within prison to make sure that the officer doing the releasing knows precisely the status of individual prisoners and, indeed, which prisoner they are talking to?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. The checklists that we have made more robust are the same checklists across all prisons, but the number of releases per prison varies dramatically. HMP Gartree averages two releases a year, whereas, as I previously said, in Wandsworth it is 2,000. That is why the digital team last week went into HMP Wandsworth, to look at opportunities for some quick fixes to embrace digital technology.

The AI team went in and, to give a couple of examples, they thought that an AI chatbot would be really helpful, along with a cross-referencing for aliases, because we know some offenders have more than 20 aliases. We have given the team the green light to get on with examples like that.

The noble Lord is exactly right that this is about how we deal with this information, and how we make sure it is accurate when we are dealing with often very complex people in a very complex situation.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

Further to that answer, can the Minister confirm how many prisons still rely on manual, rather than digital, release date calculations, why that is so and what plans there are to move to a digital system?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The process is a mixture of paperwork and computers and digital. In an offender management unit, there are literally boxes and boxes of paperwork, all over desks and on the floor, that follow offenders around the various prisons that they go to.

My and the team’s solution is very much digitally based, but we need to make sure we link that across the whole justice system, and the Home Office as well, because a number of the errors can be caused not just in the prison but in the courts too. So, longer term, it has got to be right that we look at a digital solution across the whole justice sector.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, what assessment has the Minister made of the raising of the skilled workers visa threshold and its impact on the Prison Service, in view of the current difficulties?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

It is right that the Government want to bring down net migration, and we are supporting the staff who are affected. I have to say that the staff I have met do a fantastic job and we want to support them as much as we can.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, could I offer a revolutionary thought? Are we not sending too many people to prison who would be better off dealt with in some other way, particularly those who have serious mental illnesses?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The number of people going to prison has increased and the number in prison will increase, but that is because reoffending rates are too high. Too many people are leaving prison still addicted to drugs and alcohol. Too many people leave with nowhere to live and then reoffend and go back in the system. One area in which I am specifically interested, and which connects with that question, is around female offenders, because I believe from going round women’s prisons that too many women are there because they are victims themselves or because they are vulnerable and ill, and prison is not always the best place to support them and their families.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I noted that two of the recent escapees were captured following information from members of the public. What does this say about public trust and confidence in the police and the importance of it?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. One of my roles over the last couple of weeks was to be on a number of calls with police colleagues, and it was clear to me what an incredible job they do and how well they link to colleagues at the Ministry of Justice, specifically on their day-to-day work in prisons. I often see police staff in the various prisons I visit and their role in probation is often overlooked. They work with us to ensure that people who stay on the right side of the law are still supported by police colleagues. In the work they have done with us over the last few weeks, their support has been incredible and we should be proud to have them as public servants.

House of Lords Commission

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Liaison Committee

Membership Motions

15:36

Moved by

[The Senior Deputy Speaker]

House of Lords Commission

That Dr Alice Maynard CBE be appointed as an external member of the Select Committee, in place of Nora Senior.

Liaison Committee

That Lord Storey be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Purvis of Tweed.

Motions agreed.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

3rd reading
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

Scottish legislative consent granted, Welsh legislative consent sought. Relevant documents: 28th and 35th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee.

15:37

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Clause 65: Other requirements for an EDP

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

1: Clause 65, page 105, line 4, at end insert—
“(8A) The Secretary of State must make regulations setting out the appropriate prioritisation, by Natural England, of the different ways of addressing any negative effect of development on a protected species or on a protected feature of a protected site when—(a) preparing an EDP, or(b) considering requesting an amendment to an EDP.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out a prioritisation of the different ways in which the negative effect of development which may be subject to an EDP may be addressed. The regulations would apply to Natural England when preparing an EDP or considering an amendment to an EDP.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, the nature restoration fund is a key part of the Government’s vision for a planning system that delivers for both nature and people. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have worked with Peers and wider stakeholders to ensure that everyone can be confident that, by taking a different approach, we can unlock better outcomes for nature. While the NRF proposes a different approach, this will be available only where there is clear evidence to show that this strategic approach will deliver better environmental outcomes.

In creating this new approach, we have developed the overall improvement test to ensure that EDPs deliver more than would be achieved under the current system, going further than offsetting impact and supporting the restoration of sites and species, in line with our wider ambitions. While it is right that we focus on outcomes, we have been clear that Natural England will of course carefully consider not only what is achieved but how it is achieved. That is why the Bill provides Natural England with the tools it needs to take action to avoid and reduce the impact of development, as well as deliver proactive conservation measures that will materially outweigh the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature.

While we are clear that the Bill will allow Natural England to take appropriate actions to deliver on the overall improvement test, in moving to a strategic approach there is a need to articulate how the principles of the existing mitigation hierarchy are expressed through the new system. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Grender, for their continued work with the Government to ensure that there is clarity as to how Natural England will consider the different ways of addressing any negative effect of development, including how such actions should be prioritised when developing an EDP.

This will not affect the experience for developers, nor the speed with which EDPs can come forward, but will provide transparency as to how Natural England will undertake the preparation of an EDP and how it should prioritise the actions available to it to deliver the overall improvement test. This amendment will allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out the appropriate prioritisation of actions taken to address the negative effect of development through an EDP.

I also wish to bring to the attention of the House a minor and technical correction to Clause 120 to remove a previous government amendment that was accidentally agreed on Report. That consequential amendment made provision for the commencement day of a substantive government amendment that would change the Secretary of State’s powers to issue holding directions to local planning authorities, which your Lordships defeated on Report. We have therefore removed the consequential amendment from the Bill.

While on my feet, I want to address a couple of further points following our debates on Report, raised in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. The first relates to the noble Lord’s request for an assurance that CPO powers under the Bill will not be misused and for clarification as to how these powers, and the purchase of land by public authorities more broadly, engage with the Crichel Down rules.

Where land acquired by or under a threat of compulsion by a non-departmental public body is surplus to requirements, there is an expectation that it will be offered back to the former owners or their successors. This expectation is established in case law and the procedure for offering land back is set out in the Crichel Down rules. This ensures that where the land is genuinely surplus following purchase by a public body, it will be made available to former owners. As we move forward with implementing the Bill, we would be happy to work with relevant stakeholders to consider how best to improve awareness and understanding of these rules.

Through the passage of the Bill, concerns have been raised on the behaviours surrounding the use of CPO powers. The Government have been clear that authorities using CPO powers should undertake engagement with all landowners to identify the impacts of their schemes, along with the mitigation measures that can be implemented. This advice was included in the latest update of the Government’s guidance on compulsory purchase, which was published in January this year.

The Government have listened carefully to the debates in the House and will continue to work with stakeholders to promote best practices to drive out bad behaviours and to ensure that the needs of landowners are fully considered. In addition, we will review the Government’s guidance and plain English booklets on compulsory purchase to ensure that they are as robust and clear as possible.

On compensation, the availability of advance payment of compensation is important to ensuring that landowners receive payment where they have been unable to reach agreement on the total amount of compensation due. Authorities are advised to ensure that prompt advance payments are made—otherwise, interest on the total compensation due will increase, resulting in the overall cost of development being higher.

The Government have been clear that the CPO reforms in the Bill do not target farmers or any other type of landowners. Nothing in the Bill changes the core principles of compulsory purchase. It must be used only where negotiations to acquire land by agreement have not succeeded and there is a compelling case in the public interest.

Finally, another area raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, was in respect of the role of the private sector and landowners delivering the nature restoration fund. As set out in the recent all-Peers letter, EDPs create new opportunities that will help to grow nature service markets and support revenue diversification for farming and land management businesses. As committed to in Committee, the Government will publish guidance for Natural England regarding the role of the private sector in EDPs. This guidance will be clear that open and competitive procurement of goods and services is typically the best way to secure value for money and innovation. We will expect Natural England to preferentially adopt competitive procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, recognising that in some instances direct delivery will be necessary.

I hope that this provides reassurance that the NRF presents opportunities for landowners and private providers to work with Natural England to deliver high-quality nature services. I beg to move.

15:45

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I have a question about the amendment that the Minister has just moved to Clause 65. She will recall from the debates on Report that there is a whole structure in Clause 63 that is designed to allow Natural England, when making an environmental delivery plan, to focus on one environmental feature and, in relation to that feature, to focus on one negative effect of the development on it. It is structured so that the others are excluded, notwithstanding the wise insertion into that clause of material relating to water, nutrient neutrality et cetera. The new amendment, where the Secretary of State can make regulations relating to prioritisation, does not refer to the negative effect on development identified in an environmental delivery plan, but it talks about

“addressing any negative effect of development on a protected species or on a protected feature of a protected site”.

To boil that down, my question is: is it the intention that the Secretary of State’s regulations would look at only the negative effect of development on a protected feature that is identified in an EDP, or is it, at an earlier stage, setting out prioritisation in relation to what may be the negative effects of a development on a particular feature? I am afraid that it makes a significant difference when and how the prioritisation comes into effect.

While I am on my feet, I say a big thank you to the Minister and her officials for the several—in fact, many—occasions on which they have provided helpful guidance and advice on the interpretation of the Act, but I reiterate my continuing request that we be told when the powers that are relevant to the implementation of this Bill but are contained in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act are to be commenced or, more to the point, implemented. She knows that we are waiting on many of these and that they are as significant as some of the planning measures in the Bill itself.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise extremely briefly to thank the Minister for her engagement and her reassurance on the exercise of CPO powers and the engagement of the private sector.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

Gosh, that was brief. I will say a few words on behalf of our Benches. I apologise that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is stuck—there are no trains anywhere—so the House will have me, very briefly.

We have been pleased with the engagement that we have had with the Ministers throughout Report and leading up to Third Reading today, which has brought about some important changes in the Bill, including on the issue of how we plan for electric vehicles in infrastructure, and the commitment that the Minister has made to look again at spatial standards for housing so that hopefully we can ensure that more young homeless people can find accommodation in the future.

The amendment that the Minister ably introduced—I am grateful for the many meetings about it that she and colleagues had with me and other Peers on these Benches—tries to give us reassurance that the environment will have the safeguards that are needed in this new process of strategic planning. I am particularly grateful that she has brought forward regulations—not guidance, which was an issue of concern—because we need regulations to provide the necessary clarity and transparency for those of us who are concerned about the need for environmental safeguards and the appropriate way in which the negative effects of developments will be addressed.

Can the Minister make clear how the mitigation hierarchy, a very well-established environmental principle which has served this country and indeed many countries around the world so well for so long, will apply in this new approach to strategic level planning for housing? How the mitigation hierarchy in this new process of EDPs will provide the necessary safeguards for the environment?

It is my hope that it will reduce the risk of viable impact avoidance and mitigation solutions being overlooked—I say it is my hope; at this stage, that is all it can be. However, it will definitely make it much clearer for those of us concerned about the environment just how Natural England will make its decisions. What evidence will it use in order to move forward with EDPs? That will give us some reassurance that the environmental protections will be in place. If they are not, we know there will be legal challenge. That is neither in the interests of the developers or, indeed, of the environment that will suffer.

It is a compromise on the amendment I introduced on Report, and I accept that. For some, will be a compromise too far; I accept that as well. I am a Liberal Democrat and prepared to face the political reality and the evidence that this Government believe this new approach with EDPs will deliver the housebuilding that we all want, while at the same time giving us on these Benches and others some security that the environmental backstops will be in place. That is what we need and what our ever-diminishing wildlife and habitats desperately need.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening and for bringing forward Amendment number 1, which this side of the House supports. We also take note of Amendment 2.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

2: Clause 120, page 171, line 17, leave out paragraph (d)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes an amendment to the commencement clause which was made in error at Report Stage as it related to an amendment inserting a new clause which was not agreed.

Amendment 2 agreed.

15:52

Motion

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, to make a few brief comments to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, we have discussed the implementation of the issues contained in the levelling-up Act before; however, it would probably help noble Lords if I write a letter setting out when those provisions come into place—I hope that will help all noble Lords. In terms of the noble Lord’s question about the hierarchy and how it would be employed, we wanted to be very clear that the mitigation hierarchy lives in this model but has to be expressed in a different way given this move to a strategic approach. We have debated that many times before. The different levels of the hierarchy do not neatly map on to the different types of conservation measures available under an EDP, so we will use regulations to set out how those principles are expressed through the NRF. If I can comment further on the issue raised by the noble Lord, I will write to him or arrange a meeting between us.

I am very grateful to all noble Lords for all their engagement and contributions during the passage of this landmark piece of legislation, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It is a complex piece of legislation. I have been very grateful for the expertise around the House, which, in the best tradition of this House, has helped to make the Bill better. We have debated the Bill at length and into the early hours on many occasions over the past six months, with many thoughtful and considered contributions. I say a special thank you to my noble friends Lady Hayman of Ullock, Lord Khan of Burnley, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield—he has arrived from his horrendous train journey just in time to hear me thank him—and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill for their steadfast support in taking this Bill forward. I know they echo my thanks to Members across this House.

I also thank my honourable friend in the other place, the Minister for Housing and Planning, who has taken a lot of time to talk to Peers about their concerns. I am grateful in particular to the Opposition Front Bench, namely the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, for their robust and constructive engagement throughout the passage of the Bill. In a similar vein, I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Parminter and Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their continued engagement and contributions during the debate.

Many noble Lords have generously lent their time and expertise, including many here around the Chamber, and I am very grateful to all of those who have contributed. While there may be disagreement on some of the issues we have debated, I know we all share the same aim of unlocking economic growth and getting this country building again. I believe that we are in broad agreement that this Bill represents a critical milestone in achieving this objective, alongside doing what we can to enhance our environment as we go on that journey.

Finally, I am very grateful to all the officials and members of the Bill team, who have worked tirelessly on this Bill behind the scenes: Holly Harper, Isabelle, Lucy, Tom, Daria, Fatima, Guy and Sam. I of course thank my brilliant private office, without whom I would not be doing anything. I also pay tribute to all the parliamentary staff, including the clerks, doorkeepers, security, Hansard and the Public Bill Office, many of whom have stayed late—sometimes very late—as we debated this Bill into the early hours.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I know that the Commons will consider amendments to this Bill on Thursday. I genuinely hope that the Government strongly and carefully consider the contributions noble Lords have made during this Bill, particularly on Amendment 130, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown.

On the advice of the clerks, I speak at this point to put on record my concerns about the Clause 20(3) statement that was put in the Bill by both the Minister and former Secretary of State. It is a matter that is being considered in the courts right now—whether it is justiciable or not. As a former Secretary of State for Defra, my understanding is that it almost certainly would be. However, it turns out that the Government and House of Commons do not believe it is, but that it is a parliamentary proceeding. That is why I want to express my concerns about not only this Bill but how we consider this element in future Bills.

I do not say this lightly, because I am conscious of what the Office for Environmental Protection has said, but it is one reason why I have tabled Questions to the Senior Deputy Speaker and the Minister. With that I hope that we will see a Bill enacted in due course that will enhance the environment, rather than my concerns about what Part 3 will do to it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a challenging Bill. Over eight days in Committee and five on Report, we have examined it in extraordinary detail, with early mornings and late nights. Yet, despite the effort, it still falls short of the Government’s stated ambitions. The scale of late-stage amendments, with 67 tabled on Report—and even two more today, which we supported—speaks to a Government with no clear plan to deliver the homes we need. At the last election, the Government pledged to deliver 1.5 million new homes, yet construction output continues to decline, falling by 0.3% in August following no growth at all in July. That is hardly the sign of a system ready to meet its targets.

This Bill, regrettably, does not confront the real blockages to delivery. From the outset, we on these Benches have sought to focus on substance: the practical and legal barriers that genuinely hold back new housing, such as the Hillside judgment, the absence of proportionality in planning enforcement, restrictions linked to Ramsar sites and the complexities surrounding nutrient neutrality rules. These are the real challenges confronting developers, councils and communities seeking to build, not the voices and views of local people that are being curtailed. These are the issues that matter; the measures that would build homes, infrastructure and hope for millions still locked out of home ownership.

16:00

I wish to acknowledge the diligent scrutiny that my noble friend Lord Roborough has brought to the Defra-related clauses in this Bill. His thoughtful and consistent engagement has ensured that the environmental considerations have been debated with the seriousness they deserve.

Beyond the legal and regulatory hurdles lies a deeper challenge: economic viability and confidence. Housebuilding has been weakened, not only by the planning constraints but by the economic uncertainty in recent years. The Home Builders Federation’s State of Play report makes this clear. Some 67% of respondents said that the business environment itself is now a major barrier to delivery, while 89% report being less optimistic about their prospects than before the 2024 general election. The increasingly complex and costly taxation and regulatory framework is cited as the third-largest barrier to getting homes built. The industry itself is willing to build but finds itself constrained by uncertainty, instability, and the absence of a clear and consistent growth strategy.

When the Minister last responded to me at the Dispatch Box, she leaned on the common refrain that we had 14 years. In the last Parliament, we built 1 million homes and delivered the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, legislation that I was proud to take through this House. Can the Government, hand on heart, say that they are proud of this Bill in the same way? Between April and June this year, around 700 planning applications for residential development were granted—the lowest three-month figure since 1979. That is not a record to celebrate.

Throughout this Bill, we tried to ensure that debate in this House remained constructive and solution focused. Our amendments offered practical ways forward: measures to release land, unlock permissions and get homes built where they are most needed. Instead, the Government have defended a Bill that promises reform but risks further delay. Britain cannot afford another plan that overpromises and underdelivers. Our country needs homes, infrastructure and renewed confidence, not another framework that leaves us standing still.

I place on record my sincere thanks to the Minister for the time she has taken to engage outside the Chamber, for her openness to discussion and for the considerable work she has done in steering this Bill through the House. I know how demanding that process can be, and her endurance and professionalism have been greatly appreciated across your Lordships’ House.

I thank my noble friends for their support over the many hours in this Chamber and all Members across the Chamber who have engaged seriously, generously and with good spirit throughout. In particular, I put on record my thanks to my noble friends Lord Jamieson, Lord Moylan, Lord Blencathra and Lady Bloomfield for their contributions from this Dispatch Box on this Bill. I thank the staff who, over many late nights and early mornings, looked after us so well. Last but not least, I thank our team—Sam, Molly, Hannah and Henry —for their exemplary support, as always.

This Bill may not yet deliver the clarity and ambition our country needs, but our debates have at least shown that your Lordships’ House remains committed to building a planning system worthy of that task.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this Bill is very much part of our plan to deliver. We inherited a sclerotic system and we will get Britain building again, fixing the foundations so that we can deliver both the housing and infrastructure that we need and protect our environment at the same time. We have already committed to funding the planning sector, supporting the skills agenda in the construction industry, sorting out the building safety regulator—great progress is being made there already—and providing a package of support for SME builders, who definitely deserve our confidence as they have found themselves neglected and left out in the cold for the past few years. We want to get Britain building again. We all need to work together on this mission—it is something for all of us to get involved in—and I look forward to working with noble Lords from across the House.

The noble Baroness mentioned there being 67 amendments. I hope she realises that there is an irony in first accusing the Government of not listening and then accusing us of putting forward too many amendments. We were listening. Many of those amendments were technical in nature, responding to some of the devolution aspects of the Bill, but those that responded to what noble Lords have said have, I hope, received the support of the House. That said, I thank all noble Lords for all their contributions and commend the Bill to the House.

16:06

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Curriculum and Assessment Review

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Statement

16:07

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Wednesday 5 November.

“With permission, I would like to make a Statement to update the House on this Government’s plans to renew the national curriculum, to secure for every child an education steeped in our rich history, ready to shape our country into the 2030s and beyond.

As I outline the future of our national curriculum, I do so in full knowledge of its past, because I was part of the first wave to benefit from a process begun by Jim Callaghan’s great education debate—his ambition for a curriculum of universal high standards. When Lord Baker introduced a national curriculum for the very first time in 1988, my generation secured a common entitlement to share in the core wisdom that we as a nation value most.

Since then, our national curriculum has evolved under successive Governments, and now it must evolve again, because the world is changing as never before as a result of artificial intelligence, machine learning and hyperconnectivity. Where once our young people had to compete locally, the playing field is now global. They are stepping into a world of huge opportunity, but it is also one of immense change and challenge—a muddy landscape of misinformation and social media. Our current curriculum no longer arms them for this brave new world. It lacks the breadth of knowledge and skills that our children need, not only for the jobs they will go on to do, but for the lives they will go on to lead. We need more, and they need more.

Our curriculum sits at the centre of an education system that has forgotten too many children—white working-class children; children with special educational needs and disabilities; the children who are bright but bored, not engaged as they should be and not achieving as they should. That is why I asked Professor Becky Francis and an external panel of experts to review our curriculum, assessment and qualifications—to equip every child and every young person to achieve and thrive. I thank Professor Francis and the whole panel for their hard work and expertise. The review’s final report and our Government’s response have both been published today. We will publish a revised curriculum in 2027 for first teaching in 2028; we will update our GCSEs for first teaching from 2029; and we are planning to deliver new V-level qualifications from 2027.

This Government are facing the future boldly, taking our education system from narrow to broad. That means a curriculum rich in knowledge, strong on skills, and, in everything that we do, uncompromising on high standards, grounding every child’s education in the most important knowledge and disciplinary skills to master every subject—more specific on the most important content, to sharpen understanding, and more coherent in how different subjects slot together, to spark connections. It will be a truly world-leading curriculum: supportive, challenging, and urging all children on. The House should be in no doubt that I will put high standards to work, in the service of every child’s future.

Our work starts in the early years. Through our Best Start family hubs, we are supporting parents as their children take those first steps into learning. We are setting the foundations for their futures: developing language early, expanding the reach of maths champions, and introducing children to numbers early on.

As children arrive at school, they will begin to master the core subjects—the ones that unlock the rest of the curriculum—and reading especially. Whether it is for step-by-step instructions in a science experiment or a question in maths, reading is essential in every subject. It adds texture, colour and context—such as in history, by reading letters from soldiers on the front line of the Second World War. We have to build that right from the beginning. That is why we are introducing new training for reception teachers, to meet our ambition for 90% of children to reach the expected standard in the phonics screening check. We will double our reading ambition for all teacher training, for children who need the most help, reaching more than 1,200 primary schools, and we will train more teachers in 600 schools to help them teach reading fluency.

Together with reading must come writing and speaking, because in life we all need to express ourselves clearly and confidently, whether out loud or in writing. In July we published the new writing framework, which includes evidence-based ways to teach writing to children, and we are now going further by improving the primary writing assessment to focus on fluency. We will also design a new oracy framework to support children to become assured and fluent speakers and listeners by the time they leave primary school.

Too many children are falling through the gaps in the jump to secondary school, including on reading. Learning not just to read, but to read well, must be the entitlement of every child. It is the single most powerful driver of life chances that we have, yet too often problems that begin in primary are left to drift in those first years of secondary. The focus fades just when it should intensify. To make sure that every school is on top of this, we are introducing a new statutory reading test for all pupils in year 8. We will expect all schools to assess progress in writing and maths in year 8 as well, checking excellence in those vital skills. Our new regional improvement for standards and excellence—RISE—key stage 3 alliance will spread excellence from one school to the next. All children will benefit from a new combined oracy, reading and writing framework that will be embedded across the entire secondary curriculum, and the brand-new digital version of the national curriculum will help teachers to strengthen connections across subjects and stages.

On those firm foundations, we will build choice and breadth as children move into secondary school. That means preparing them to tell fact from fiction, truth from lies and right from wrong. Our young people need a rich core of knowledge and skills—the high standards that I am determined to drive—but we must take literacy further and wider. The reformed English programme of study and English language GCSE will open students up to a wide range of texts to see how arguments are made across different types of media, to discover the power of persuasion and emotive language in different contexts, and to understand how they can be used not just to educate but to manipulate—exploited by dark forces online to spread lies and sow division. That is why we are building media literacy to prepare young people not to consume passively, but to engage critically and to recognise and reject disinformation.

We are not just boosting media literacy. We are also boosting digital literacy through a reformed computing curriculum to allow pupils to navigate the opportunities and challenges of AI and much more, and we are boosting financial literacy to empower young people to make informed choices about money, saving and investing. All our plans aim to take education from narrow to broad.

We need a fundamental shift in what we value in our secondary schools. For that, we need a fundamental shift in how we measure attainment and progress to deliver the breadth that we want to see. Today I can announce that we will consult on improved versions of Progress 8 and Attainment 8, because the current structure holds us back in subjects that strengthen our economy and our society. Too often it restricts choice, turning children away from subjects like drama, art and design, and music. Our creative industries are a source of such national pride, but as Ed Sheeran has said so powerfully, we cannot continue to lead on the world stage without a broad base in our schools at home. The arts should be for all, not just a lucky few, so we will revitalise arts education, putting it back at the heart of a rich and broad curriculum.

To encourage variety to flourish in our curriculum, we will measure what matters. We will balance breadth with a strong academic core and promote mastery of the fundamentals, combined with student choice. We will strive for academic excellence, on a broad scale, in every classroom, art studio, dance hall and science lab. In those science labs, a new triple science entitlement will give all young people the best opportunity to get into exciting new careers in clean energy, digital technologies and life sciences. We will build the strongest science, technology, engineering and mathematics foundations, and introduce a new computing GCSE so that students can excel in the new advanced digital and AI qualifications, addressing critical skills gaps in the tech sector. We will go further, too, with a new enrichment entitlement for all that includes civic engagement, culture, nature and adventure, and sport, which will deepen children’s investment in their time at school.

The curriculum cannot begin and end in our schools; it must stretch from the best start in life programme to the post-16 White Paper. Last month, I updated the House on our plan for skills. Much of that is about supporting young people to build on this new curriculum and to make their post-16 choices from a clear landscape of A-levels, T-levels and the new V-levels, with clearer pathways through learning and into work, which will help them to develop skills to find a good job and get on in life.

Professor Francis and the expert panel have delivered a strong set of recommendations, upon which we will now build. Our new curriculum will be an expression of who we are as a modern nation—the knowledge, skills, values and ideas that will bring us together and take us forward, building on the past to shape the future.

For families who have withdrawn from education, the new national curriculum will be a chance to rediscover the power of learning once again. For every child across the country, it will be an invitation not just to share in our national story, but to write the next chapter. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I start by acknowledging the work of Professor Becky Francis and her expert advisory team on this very important and detailed review. They were set clear criteria, which the team has diligently sought to incorporate. The level of detail in the review means that, given the time available, I will not be able to comment on many of the individual recommendations, but perhaps other noble Lords will raise them.

We were pleased to see that the review builds on the reforms brought in by my noble friend Lord Gove and the right honourable Sir Nick Gibb, the former Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, and keeps key elements of curriculum and assessment reforms, including a phonics test, a focus on a knowledge-rich curriculum and subject-specific curricula, as well as formal, exam-based assessment.

One advantage of the slight delay between the Government publishing the review and then announcing their response is that, over the past few days, there has been a veritable litany of blogs and commentaries from real experts in this area. A few things from those have started to emerge, which I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on.

First, there seems to be a divide between the advocates of specific subjects, whether citizenship, digital literacy, media literacy, climate change, financial education or the performing arts. The enthusiasts for all those subjects are broadly happy, because their subject is now in, but they are beginning to worry about implementation. Indeed, I heard one advocate of financial education pointing out that although this already exists in the secondary curriculum, many secondary school pupils are not even aware that they have had a financial education lesson. As ever, implementation will be key.

Conversely, those who I would describe as the real curriculum experts are bringing a much more worried tone, as are those who lead some of our most successful schools and trusts. They are worried both by the extension of the curriculum and what that means for powerful knowledge and depth of understanding, and by the way it is being measured. So my questions and concerns reflect some of those of our greatest experts and practitioners and focus particularly on where the Government have diverged from the review’s recommendations.

As Professor Dylan Wiliam said, assessment operationalises the curriculum. It is where the rubber hits the road and, by extension, measurement of a school’s progress also shapes what is taught. In that context, we are concerned about the loss of the EBacc, which had led to a 10-percentage point increase in the uptake of history and geography GCSEs between 2010 and 2024, and also stemmed the decline in modern foreign language GCSEs. We have seen the percentage of disadvantaged pupils who do the EBacc rise from 9% in 2011 to 29% in 2024, and that is what opens doors and drives social mobility. What modelling have the Government done of the likely decline in these subjects in the absence of the EBacc, especially in relation to modern foreign languages?

Even more troubling, perhaps, are the changes to Progress 8, where the review was very clear that with some cosmetic changes to titles, Progress 8 should stay unchanged in substance. There is, I would say, a near-universal view from experts that the changes will lead to a lowering of standards for all children but, most importantly, for the underprivileged. I particularly acknowledge very thoughtful blogs and Twitter threads from Matt Burnage of Ark Soane and Stuart Lock of the Advantage Schools trust. Having invested in the evidence-led approach of the Curriculum and Assessment Review, what was the evidence on which the Government based their decision to deviate from the review’s recommendation in relation to Progress 8? What would the Minister say to school leaders who are already worrying that this will see an increase in breadth at the expense of depth? What would she say, more importantly, to those leaders who say, rightly, that schools do not operate in isolation, so there will be a pressure to choose easier options for pupils, especially disadvantaged pupils—the exact pupils the Government want to help?

The push for rigour, for the rights of all pupils to access the best of what has been written, thought and said, will erode. Key, as ever, will be implementation. To take just one example of curriculum change—

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

Just how long will this take? Will the Back-Benchers ever get in?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

They will get 20 minutes.

To take one example of curriculum change and how to spot misinformation, as Daisy Christodoulou wrote in her recent blog on the Pacific Northwest tree octopus, there is a risk that we end up with simple checklists that aim to identify misinformation but which, in practice, work only if the pupil has enough knowledge to assess it. Will the Government take the advice of experts in this area and pilot the changes to this element of the curriculum that they propose?

Will the Minister clarify the timing of the introduction of the new curriculum? As noble Lords may have worked out, it will be 2042 before there are 18 year-olds whose whole schooling has been shaped by this review. The elements that risk eroding quality will kick in very quickly; those that might improve it are far, far away. I hope the Minister can also reassure us that, as Professor Becky Francis herself said, the things that will influence outcomes for disadvantaged pupils in the short term—notably, attendance and behaviour—are also outside the curriculum.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I too begin by thanking Professor Becky Francis for her Curriculum and Assessment Review report. There is much in this final report that we on these Benches can welcome. Indeed, quite a few of the ideas bear a distinctly Liberal Democrat imprint: renewed emphasis on a broad and balanced curriculum; the recognition that every child must be offered both rigour and breadth; and the Government’s acceptance of the need for more digital, arts-based and citizenship education.

However, while the ambition is high, the risks are real, particularly for those children whose life chances depend on a system that works for all, not only for the privileged few. If we are serious about social mobility, these reforms must be equally serious about substance, delivery and equity.

I will speak a little more about social mobility and equality of opportunity—an issue close to my heart given my lived experience of the UK’s education system. The Francis review rightly emphasises that the national curriculum must be for every child, and that one of its purposes is

“to ensure that … all young people are not held back by background or circumstance”.

Yet the danger is that without an underpinning investment and workforce plan, these reforms will continue existing inequalities.

Let us consider triple science. The ambition to give more students access to deeper science study is admirable. However, I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that across England, a quarter of state schools have no specialist physics teacher. Without addressing the recruitment and retention crisis in science and other shortage subjects, we risk fundamentally disadvantaging children in less-resourced schools, many of whom are from more deprived backgrounds.

Similarly, while the arts and digital education are flagged in the final report, the parallel removal of bursaries for music teacher training is concerning. Rising teacher vacancies in music and creative subjects, and underinvestment in enrichment, threaten to drive a two-tier curriculum: one for those who attend well-resourced schools, another for everyone else.

I turn to the structure of performance measures and subject choices. The scrapping of the English baccalaureate is not in itself a problem; the problem lies in how its replacement may unintentionally narrow choice rather than broaden it. The new proposals around Progress 8 reform, with dedicated slots for science and breadth subjects, may incentivise schools to pick the cheapest route to satisfy buckets rather than ensuring rich subject access. Our schools will be under pressure to hit headline measures, which may lead schools to steer pupils away from the arts, languages and physical education.

If we are serious about social mobility, we cannot allow the curriculum for large numbers of children to become a bare-minimum choice which gives them fewer options than their more fortunate peers. A child in a deprived area should not be streamed into the narrowest option simply because the school’s performance indicators push them there.

Finally, I will touch on the issues of teacher supply, funding and implementation; they all require teachers, time, training and money. Without proper workforce planning, the ambitions of the final report will collapse under the weight of underresourced schools. The Government must clarify how the reforms are to be funded; how many additional teachers will be recruited in shortage areas; and how all schools, regardless of location, will be supported to deliver the new entitlement. If a child in Sheffield, or anywhere else outside a privileged postcode, is left behind because their school cannot deliver the new curriculum, the promise of a “world-class curriculum for all” becomes a hollow slogan.

Before I conclude, I would like to pose a number of questions to the Minister that I hope she will address in her response to your Lordships’ House. First, what workforce strategy does the Department for Education have in place specifically to deal with the specialist teacher shortages in subjects such as physics, music and languages, given that many schools in disadvantaged areas currently have none?

Also, what assessment has the department made of the impact of narrowing the curriculum on students from lower-income backgrounds? How will the reforms not widen the attainment gap? How will the Government monitor and evaluate whether the new curriculum and assessment changes improve both attainment and life chances for students from underrepresented groups, and will data be published by socioeconomic backgrounds, regions, disability status and other key equality indicators?

Can the Minister also explain why the Government have not progressed with all of the Francis review’s recommendations?

Finally, this report offers not just change but an opportunity to build an education system that is truly inclusive, ambitious and equitable. However, ambition must be matched by resources, rights must be matched by access and the reforms must be implemented with a resolve to ensure that no child is left behind. If we wish to talk of social mobility, we must mean it; if we wish to talk about opportunity, we must support it; and if we wish to talk of education for all, that must include children from communities such as mine in Sheffield, where aspiration is in abundance but where barriers remain real. The proposals are good, but only if we deliver them properly. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, to his new role on the Front Bench. I will do my best to cover the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord—although I note that, for the second time in a row in responding to a Statement, I have less time to respond than the two Opposition Front-Benchers took to ask me questions.

I start by thanking Professor Becky Francis and those who contributed through her panel and in the consultation. This is a review driven by evidence, informed by data and which has relied on input from experts, the sector and the public. The national curriculum ensures a common entitlement to share in the core wisdom that we as a nation most value. An ambition for a curriculum of high standards was of course led by James Callaghan in his great education debate and delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in the first national curriculum in 1988.

Successive Governments have understood that, as the world changes, so must the curriculum that prepares our young people for success in that world. That is why this is a national curriculum that will ensure both rock-solid foundations in oracy, reading, writing and maths but also the development of the sorts of skills necessary for young people to be able to succeed in the world today.

On the particular points about accountability in relation to the EBacc, while I can understand the objectives of the EBacc, unfortunately, it did not achieve them. We have seen no increase in the numbers of students aged 16 to 19, for example, who took up subjects focused on in the EBacc. The levels of students taking modern foreign language GCSE increased to begin with but is now at broadly the same level as it was in 2009-10. Of course, the result has been to narrow the curriculum and ease out arts and creative subjects.

In relation to Progress 8, we will consult on how to continue to provide a strong academic core—which we believe our proposals will do—while balancing breadth and student choice. Languages and humanities of course continue to be incentivised in the proposed Progress 8 accountability measure.

On the important point made by the noble Baroness opposite about attendance and behaviour, I am sure she will recognise the work this Government have continued to do—some of it undoubtedly based on work she did—to improve attendance. I am sure she will welcome the fact that children were in school for 5 million more days in the most recent academic year than the year previously.

This is a substantial change, as noble Lords have said, and that is why we are making only changes that are essential. We will support teachers through the resources made available through the Oak Academy, including AI learning assistance to support teachers. There are 2,300 more teachers already in our secondary and special schools as a result of our focus on delivering 6,500 more teachers. We have seen an increase in the number of music teachers entering initial teacher training, which is one of the reasons for the changes in the bursary. Of course, 1,300 fewer teachers are leaving the profession.

We will provide sufficient time to implement this by producing the new national curriculum in spring 2027, with the first teaching to commence in 2028. That will provide four terms’ worth of preparation to deliver the national curriculum—more than was the case the last time it was changed.

On triple science, we will work with schools to see what is necessary to enable them to provide that entitlement for all pupils. For example, we are already providing support for non-physics science teachers to teach physics.

The curriculum has not been updated for over a decade, and parents want one that is fit for the future. We need a knowledge-rich education, which is central to ensuring high and rising standards for every child, and a curriculum that will help children shape their own futures and the future of our country. It must include digital skills for a digital age and the speaking and listening skills that employers value. Music, sport, art and drama will no longer be the privilege of a lucky few. We will have standards that will enable all children to benefit and to deliver their potential, whatever their starting point.

16:26

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the Government on accepting the major recommendation of the Becky Francis report, which was to remove the EBacc curriculum that was imposed on all schools by Michael Gove—now the noble Lord, Lord Gove—in 2010. The EBacc consists of eight academic subjects. Word for word, the same subjects were taught in our schools from 1904, and so for 14 years we have had an Edwardian curriculum. It is not surprising that disadvantaged children were not helped. When the Conservatives came into office, there were just over 300,000 disadvantaged students; when they left office 14 years later, there were more than 300,000 disadvantaged students, and that is a disgrace. The other effect of the EBacc is that, when the Conservatives were in office, youth unemployment rose to 13.6%. That is almost the highest rate in Europe and double what it is in Germany. One of the tasks of this Government must be to reduce that level of youth unemployment.

I will say one thing. I hope that the Minister will refute the comments made last week by the noble Lord, Lord Gove, who said, in effect, that by abolishing the EBacc, social expansion and social development would somehow be destroyed in schools. The reality is the exact reverse: when comprehensives will be allowed to take more cultural subjects and more subjects on climate change, data skills and AI, they will find that social responsibility expands dramatically. That is the lesson of the university technical colleges that I have been promoting for the past 14 years. We have an unemployment rate of 5%, but young people leaving school have an unemployment rate of 13.6%—that is totally and utterly unacceptable.

I will say one other thing; I must try to be briefer than some of the other speakers. I will discuss only one element—another interesting thought to give the House. In the Becky Francis report, she said that she wanted to stand for “evolution not revolution”. I am afraid that the reality is completely the reverse. The way that the Government are making changes, first in skills—the noble Baroness is the Skills Minister—V-levels and all of that, and now the Becky Francis report, and now the Bill going through—

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

My Lords—

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

I am going to sit down in a moment.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

May the noble Lord wind up, because we have other speakers coming up as well?

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

Some of the long speeches we hear are not from the Back Benches but from the Front Benches, if I may say so. The only comment I will make is that the Government have in fact embarked on revolution, not evolution.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I do not think there is very much I need to add to that.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this new curriculum and its emphasis on widening the scope to engage more pupils. Does the Minister agree with me that when the Opposition talk about dumbing down and powerful knowledge, the fact is that the current curriculum fails to engage far too many pupils? There is a 20% persistence absence that rises to 35% for disadvantaged pupils and pupils with SEND. We need a rigorous, knowledge-based curriculum but one that addresses the interests, the aspirations and the subjects of a great variety of our pupils, who can see themselves in the curriculum, see the diversity, learn about the arts, financial education and media literacy, and be provided with the skills they will need in the 21st century.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right; we need students to have the deep knowledge that is necessary to succeed in the world, but we also need them to have the skills that the modern world demands of them. This new curriculum will deliver both and, in doing that, will engage more students, as my noble friend says, to achieve success, both for themselves and for the future of the country.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, the arts sector is hugely grateful that the EBacc has gone, and I think that needs to be said. However, does the Minister agree that it is going to take a lot of work to turn around the culture in relation to the arts in schools that has been in place since 2010 and, importantly, repair the arts infrastructure? This is a question of resources and specialist schoolteachers—which the Minister has mentioned—but the increase is from a low base, so in that light the decision to axe all the arts ITT bursaries seems to many of us unfathomable. The music hub landscape is in a mess and, in the wider landscape, the music course at the University of Nottingham is just the latest to be suspended. Getting rid of the EBacc is a good start, but the Government need to do a lot more work to turn this around in relation to the arts in schools.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Earl that a high-quality arts education must not be just for the privileged few. It is ironic that the arts that have been forced out of state school curricula are those that are so often advertised in independent schools’ offers. It is an essential part of the broad and rich education that every child deserves. We will revitalise arts education for a reformed curriculum and will support teachers.

In improving the art and design curriculum, we will ensure that all pupils are taught the core knowledge and skills to develop their own creative practice and to study the work of a wider range of artists and designers. I have already partly responded to the point about teachers. I will add that our new national centre for arts and music education will provide support for schools and teachers to deliver the reformed curriculum, as will our continued investment in music hubs to support pupils to make good progress in instrumental performance.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, like others, we warmly welcome much in the report, particularly on languages and the arts, as we have already heard. I want to raise one thing mentioned on page 37 about the technical awards. We have not had any briefings or debates on V-levels; they have suddenly appeared as if from the blue. The Government should have learned from the T-levels that it takes a long time to introduce and embed a new vocational qualification. What is wrong with BTECs? They are understood by everybody. They are understood by pupils and even by parents—ye gods, that is a triumph. Universities and employers all understand BTECs. They have served people very well. T-levels have not really got properly embedded yet. Why on earth are the Government involved in embarking in something new when there is something perfectly good already there?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

There will be plenty of opportunity for people to have their say about V-levels, not least in the consultation that we published alongside the skills White Paper. It has never quite been my approach to say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. There are improvements that we can make to the standard of our vocational education. T-levels are now achieving considerable success, both in the outcomes for students and for a broad range of students in terms of their prior attainment. As we carry out that consultation, I am very happy to carry on talking about where we think V-levels fit in the important range of choices and options for students aged 16 to 19.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords—

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, we are living in an increasingly complex world, and the study of religious education is critical in helping young people to navigate it. The need for understanding and dialogue across different faith groups and worldviews is increasingly obvious. The Church of England has welcomed the scrapping of the EBacc, because it has positive implications for religious education. At present, schools with a religious character provide the most comprehensive RE in the country. Will the Government commit to ensuring that these new proposals do not undermine this or the historic role that churches have in providing education in England?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will start—seeing as this is my first opportunity—by congratulating the right reverend Prelate, who is soon to be elevated. The Government firmly believe in the importance of religious education. Good-quality RE can develop children’s knowledge of the values and traditions of Britain and other countries, and foster understanding among different faiths and cultures. That is why it remains compulsory for all state-funded schools, including academies and free schools, at all key stages. We welcome the review’s recommendation that Vanessa Ogden continue her work with the sector to seek to reach consensus on what a national curriculum for RE might look like. We look forward to seeing the outcome of that work.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords—

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

My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Conservative Benches, but we should have enough time for everybody to get in.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

I am really grateful for the noble Lord’s protection and championing. It is always an honour to give way to the future Archbishop of Canterbury.

Can the Minister say more about the new oracy framework? Of course, young people need to be able to speak as well as read and write. Can she give us an assurance that, in preparing the framework, her department will work closely with the experts in this field, the English Speaking Union, whose work this has been for the last 107 years?

Secondly, I welcome the focus on building media literacy. The number of young people who do not read a newspaper and do not listen to the broadcast media is alarming. Their information comes through social media, with its adjusted algorithms. Within that, can the Minister give an unequivocal assurance that the benchmark for independent, impartial broadcasting in this country—and, I would say, around the world—is the BBC? Whatever the short-term squall, the BBC is a huge jewel in Britain’s crown.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I can give the noble Baroness the assurance she asks for on the development of the oracy framework. As she has identified, being able to speak and listen is an enormously important skill that employers say they need young people to have. On the point about media literacy, as she says, in a world in which young people need to distinguish misinformation and disinformation, it is enormously important that they are supported with media literacy. That is why media literacy will be embedded in English, in history and in citizenship. I share her view about the importance of the BBC, both at home and abroad.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Curriculum and Assessment Review, particularly the removal of the EBacc, which has damaged the provision of arts and music education in state schools. I also welcome the emphasis on both media literacy and music provision in the curriculum. It is important to highlight the significant inequalities in access to music in state schools. The annexe to the review highlights that in 2023-24, one in four young people may not have been able to access a music qualification at key stage 4 in their school, even if they wanted to.

A further aspect of inequality highlighted in the review concerns those pupils whose parents cannot afford extracurricular tuition. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that the Government will double down on these inequalities to ensure that the ability to read music and play an instrument becomes available to all students in state schools, and that the number of specialist music teachers will start to be restored to the much higher level it was at in 2011?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Despite the fact that my cello has sat in the attic for far too long, I wholly agree with my noble friend about the value of music and music tuition. We recognise the current challenge of access in music. Tackling that starts with a high-quality music education for every pupil through a reformed programme of study, and then providing clear progress routes for further study to 16 and 18, starting with a review of music, GCSE and technical awards. It needs the continued investment that the Government are making in the 43 music hubs partnerships across England to offer musical instrument tuition, instrument loaning and whole-class ensemble teaching. That is why I welcome the increase we have seen in the number of teachers teaching music and those entering initial teacher training.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, with the withdrawal of the EBacc and with more and more universities shutting down their modern language courses, what measures are the Government considering to prevent take-up of languages at GCSE plummeting? Secondly, will the noble Baroness give urgent attention to introducing an advanced language premium to boost take-up of languages at A-level, modelled on the very successful advanced maths premium? We know that having foreign language skills significantly enhances future employability, so we must avoid short-changing pupils in state schools by letting languages disappear.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Languages are a vital part of the curriculum, and we want to ensure that all pupils have access to a high-quality language education. That includes supporting and empowering the workforce: for example, we will continue to fund the National Consortium for Languages Education to ensure that all language teachers have access to high-quality professional development. We want more pupils to develop strong language skills and to have their achievements recognised earlier than at GCSE. For that reason, we will explore the feasibility of developing a new flexible languages qualification which enables all pupils to have their achievements acknowledged when they are ready, rather than at fixed points.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, alongside my noble friends and the irrepressible noble Lord, Lord Baker, I very much welcome today’s Statement. It talks about “boosting digital literacy through a reformed computing curriculum to allow pupils to navigate the opportunities and challenges of AI and much more”. What is the “much more”?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We want, first, to recognise that digital skills are an enormously important element of a young person’s development in the modern world. That is why we will widen the GCSE beyond simply computing and introduce a new level 3 qualification in data science and AI.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, Progress 8 has been proved to have been a success, and, as my noble friend pointed out, the Francis review is clear that its recommendation is not to make any changes

“to the structure of Progress 8 or the composition of the ‘buckets’”,

yet Ministers have now decided to consult on changes to the measure anyway. So, will keeping the current Progress 8 measure be included as one option within this consultation, or have the Government simply decided to ignore the evidence-based recommendation of their own review?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We believe we will deliver an improved version of Progress 8 that balances a strong academic core with breadth and student choice, reflecting the importance of a curriculum that supports high standards. That improved Progress 8 will recognise the value of subjects, including the arts, which strengthen our economy and society, and the importance of a broad pre-16 curriculum. As I have already said, it will maintain the focus on languages and on humanities. It has the potential in the consultation to strengthen the role, for example, of triple science, which is very important for enabling students to access further science study. We will of course listen carefully to the points that come forward in the consultation.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the review and the Government’s response. I particularly welcome the emphasis on preparing young people for a changing world and the statutory requirement to teach citizenship at key stages 1 and 2. This is imperative in order to make the democratic process relevant to young people, but also for respect in politics. The Jo Cox Foundation, which I chair, highlights that, and the Speaker’s Conference noted that 96% of MPs have been subjected to harassment. That cannot be good for democracy. Can my noble friend reassure me that citizenship will be properly taught by properly qualified teachers?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I strongly agree with my noble friend, not least because I preceded her as the chair of the Jo Cox Foundation. We agree with the review that people should be taught the skills and knowledge they need to be active, informed and responsible citizens from an early age. As my noble friend says, it was one of the recommendations of the Jo Cox Civility Commission that there should be a better focus on the nature of government and the responsibilities of politicians in the school curriculum, in order to support not only better understanding but to reduce the unacceptable levels of abuse that elected officials face. I am glad that this Government have delivered that.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the review, and I must press the Minister further on the decision not to accept its recommendation to stick with the current Progress 8. Can she tell us a little bit more about why the Government have made the proposals they have—why creative arts and not computing or technology? For many young people, particularly lower-achieving pupils, there will be less choice under the Government’s proposals. I am not sure that pushing a large number of unwilling boys into drama is quite what we have in mind. Any further enlightenment as to why the Government have made the recommendations they have made would be very welcome.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Nobody is going to be pushed into drama who does not want to do it. In fact, in the same category as drama, music, and art and design is design and technology, which is being introduced into the curriculum for the first time. The noble Baroness will recognise that as being important. As I have stated, to ensure that we have a curriculum that supports high standards and the breadth and choice that students need, we are consulting on the reformed Progress 8.

Crime and Policing Bill

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day)

Northern Ireland legislative consent granted, Scottish and Welsh legislative consent sought. Relevant documents: 11th Report from the Constitution Committee, 33rd Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

16:47

Clause 1: Respect orders

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at beginning insert “Subject to a review of existing anti-social behaviour powers under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2014 being conducted and completed by an independent person appointed by the Secretary of State within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent,”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Government to review current anti-social behaviour powers within six months of the Bill becoming law, before the new measures proposed in the Bill take effect.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I will speak to other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Doocey.

I welcome the start of Committee and the opportunity to engage in detail with Part 1 of the Bill concerning anti-social behaviour. We on these Benches recognise the imperative to make our streets safer, and we support measures designed to tackle genuinely persistent and disruptive anti-social behaviour. However, the Liberal Democrat approach to public safety demands that new laws be not just tough but fair and proportionate. We reject measures which risk the erosion of civil liberties or the criminalisation of the vulnerable. This debate on respect orders goes directly to that principle.

Clause 1 introduces the respect order for adults, which partly replaces the old anti-social behaviour injunction. The fundamental difference is severe. While breach of an ASBI was treated as a civil contempt, breach of a respect order is explicitly categorised as a criminal offence that can lead to an unlimited fine or up to two years’ imprisonment. If the state intends to use a civil tool granted merely on the balance of probabilities to impose prohibitions whose breach results in criminal sanctions, that tool must be subject to the most rigorous safeguards. Unfortunately, respect orders currently risk replicating and arguably worsening the problems and abuses associated with past anti-social behaviour regimes.

The Manifesto Club—I declare an interest as a member of its advisory board—highlights several fundamental flaws in the previous regime under the 2014 Act, which civil liberties advocates argue must be addressed before new anti-social behaviour powers such as respect orders are introduced.

The core legal powers underpinning PSPOs and CPNs are inherently flawed due to their low legal threshold and vague scope. PSPOs can be implemented if activities are deemed to be having a detrimental effect on the quality of life in a defined public area. The Manifesto Club notes that this is an unprecedentedly low legal test for criminal intervention and argues that there is often no requirement to show substantial evidence of this effect. PSPOs are vague and subjective restrictions and are often drafted broadly, which leads to them functioning more as a tool applied at the discretion of officers than as a precise law, and this has resulted in what the Manifesto Club calls

“absurd, stigmatising and authoritarian orders”

that ban diverse and sometimes anodyne non-criminal activities.

A major criticism centres on the weak governance and poor assessment of these powers. Manifesto Club research found that nearly half of all PSPOs issued by local authorities in one year were signed off by a single council officer, without passing through scrutiny procedures within the council, such as approval by cabinet or full council. Despite legal requirements for consultation, the Manifesto Club points out that the legislation requires consultation only with the police chief, the landowner and whatever community representatives the local authority thinks it appropriate to consult, meaning that there is no requirement for any public consultation or minimum standards for one.

There is a significant lack of official data collection and central government scrutiny on the use and effectiveness of anti-social behaviour powers such as CPNs and PSPOs. The broad and unchecked nature of the powers creates inconsistency of enforcement across the country, leading to postcode lotteries for victims, where enforcement depends on location rather than circumstances.

PSPOs and dispersal powers are often unfairly imposed on or enforced against homeless people, including bans on rough sleeping and begging. Homeless individuals report being moved on by police multiple times a day and feeling that the system is set against them. Examples of arbitrary and overzealous enforcement include fines issued to an 82 year-old man for cycling his bike in a town centre, for the feeding of stray cats, for the flying of model aircraft, for keeping a wheelbarrow behind a garden shed and for using foul language. Community protection notices have been issued with restrictions on how people conduct themselves in their own home, sometimes based on weak evidence reliant on hearsay.

There is increasing commercialisation of enforcement of anti-social behaviour powers. Many councils outsource the issuance of fixed penalty notices for PSPOs and CPNs to private companies. The most common contractual arrangement involves companies receiving a percentage of FPN—fixed penalty notice—income, which directly incentivises officers to issue as many penalties as possible.

This practice is explicitly stated to contradict statutory guidance, which notes that enforcement should in no circumstances be used as a means to raise revenue. Private officers employed under this system have been accused of setting daily targets, hiding badges, intimidating people and ticketing minor offences or non-offences. This intensification of busybody offences and penalties risks increasing injustice, particularly for vulnerable people.

Amendment 1, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Doocey, and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, would require the implementation of respect orders to be delayed until a comprehensive review of existing anti-social behaviour powers under the anti-social behaviour Act 2014 is conducted and completed by an independent person within six months of Royal Assent.

Before we introduce a new measure, we should assess whether the myriad existing tools—ASBIs, community protection notices and public space protection orders—are truly fit for purpose. The process of anti-social behaviour governance is already widely criticised as confusing, inconsistent and prone to arbitrary enforcement.

Without undertaking this vital review, we risk merely layering a new, complex civil order onto a system that is already confusing, ineffective and unjust, leading to overlapping powers and making enforcement decisions more difficult. Additional support for this delay, and an independent review, comes from key stakeholders, including Justice and the Victims’ Commissioner. We must pause, review what we have and then legislate effectively.

The core legal test for imposing a respect order is dangerously permissive. It rests on two conditions: the civil standard of proof—the balance of probabilities that the individual has engaged in anti-social behaviour—and the judicial belief that it is merely just and convenient to make the order. This is an alarmingly low threshold for an order that can severely restrict an individual’s liberty and lead to imprisonment. We must insist on a higher standard.

Amendment 5, in the name of my noble friend Lady Doocey and signed by me, proposes to replace the vague phrase “just and convenient” with the essential standard of “necessary and proportionate”. This change is essential to ensure that the restrictions imposed align strictly with the principles of the Human Rights Act 1998, ensuring that the conditions are tailored and appropriate to the specific case.

Amendment 4, also in my noble friend’s name, probes the wording that allows an order to be made if a person “threatens to engage in” anti-social behaviour. This vague phrasing gives excessive scope for judicial speculation, allowing the state to impose serious orders based on future suspicion rather than concrete, proven past behaviour.

Amendment 7, also in my noble friend’s name, seeks to specify a maximum length of time for an order, challenging the Bill’s proposals that a respect order can be imposed for an indefinite period. An indefinite order, based on a civil standard of proof, is inconsistent with the framework of other behaviour control orders. We propose a maximum duration, such as two years, to align respect orders with other established orders and requiring judicial review for any extension.

We must ensure that these powers cannot be weaponised against those struggling with homelessness or mental health issues, as seen with past anti-social behaviour powers targeting people for begging, sleeping rough or feeding the birds. Amendment 12—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for signing it—seeks to remove the power to exclude a person from their home. This power, introduced in new Section C1, is disproportionate; exclusion from one’s home is an extremely severe sanction. While the Bill limits this to cases involving violence or a significant risk of harm, such threats should be handled exclusively through the criminal justice system or specific protection orders to ensure that the necessary safeguards and standards of proof are met. We on these Benches are particularly concerned about the risk of this power being used inappropriately against victims of domestic abuse, potentially leading to their eviction instead of the perpetrator’s detention.

Amendment 18 would remove the provision creating interim respect orders. Interim orders lack proper procedural safeguards and carry the inherent risk of disproportionate interference with liberty, particularly when they are made without notice to the respondent. If a situation is so urgent that it requires immediate prohibition, a more specific or criminal intervention is warranted. Anti-social and behaviour measures must possess strong democratic and public accountability to counter the risk of arbitrary local restriction.

Amendment 9 in my name requires respect orders to pass through full council and be subject to a full public consultation before the relevant authority makes an application to the court. This would ensure that elected representatives approve decisions that directly impact civil liberties, which would mitigate the democratic deficit seen in the implementation of other local orders such as PSPOs.

Amendment 21, in my name and signed by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mandates that the Secretary of State must conduct a full public consultation exercise prior to issuing any statutory guidance on respect orders. This guidance must be informed by groups including the police, victims’ interests groups, housing providers and, crucially, homeless persons and legal practitioners. This would prevent guidance aimed at curbing behaviour being developed in a vacuum and ensure that it is practical and trauma-informed, especially when dealing with those struggling with addiction or homelessness.

In conclusion, these amendments collectively seek to address the historical weaknesses of the ASBI regime —weak judicial thresholds, arbitrary enforcement, indefinite application and a lack of accountability—before they are codified in a new measure that carries the full weight of the criminal law. If respect orders are to succeed where previous civil orders failed, they must be founded on evidence, necessity and transparency. I urge the Minister to recognise the fundamental importance of these safeguards. I beg to move.

17:00

[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.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 3 and 10. Superficially, Amendment 3 may look radical, in seeking to reduce the age from 18 to 14. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, certainly might not like it, but, if we want to tackle the lack of respect or anti-social behaviour of those aged 18-plus, that will not be possible unless we tackle all the anti-social behaviour that has built up from age 10 or even younger.

We cannot get into pre-14 behaviour today, but I discovered some frightening statistics from the Met Police, which it was forced to publish under an FOI request last year. They show that, for the year ending December 2023, 879 crimes were committed by children aged 10 to 17. Of these, 173 were violence against the person, 64 were robbery, 81 were theft, 28 were arson, 385 were drug offences and 81 involved possession of weapons. That is fairly frightening. But if that was not bad enough, the Met also published a breakdown of crimes committed by children aged one to nine, of which there were 653 offences. Some 128 were theft and 95 were arson and criminal damage, but the really frightening statistics were the 85 sexual offences and—the largest group—191 crimes of violence against the person. As I say, we cannot deal with that age group today, but I simply ask what kind of sick society we are becoming when in the Met area alone we have 85 children aged between one and nine accused of sexual offences and 191 accused of violence against the person.

17:15

These statistics are important background, because we all know there is almost always a progression in the level of criminal behaviour. Very few people commit rape as their first sexual offence. Very few criminals—indeed, I suggest none—commit an armed robbery without starting first with some anti-social behaviour or a bit of shop theft, then burglary, more serious theft and a bit of violence, before running up to full-scale armed and violent robbery. That is why I want 14 to 18 year-olds included in the respect orders, as it just possibly might lead to fewer violent crimes when these people are older.

It is difficult to get accurate statistics for crimes committed by children, since the Office for National Statistics and the Youth Justice Board seem to hide them away in dozens of tables. There seems to be a concerted effort to make it difficult to find important statistics. If you google the number of children aged 14 to 18 convicted of homicide, you get referred to FOI requests and vague, inexplicable government statistics in the Office for National Statistics.

In October 2024, Sky News ploughed through all the tables and discovered that the number of convictions of children for murder have doubled since 2013 to one in 25 of all homicides. Commenting on this, Dr Simon Harding, a criminology expert, said there has been an

“increase in serious violence in young people”,

and that there is a greater

“acceptance of extreme levels of violence between”

children. He said:

“Even something that might have been settled with fisticuffs or anti-social behaviour can suddenly dramatically turn into something much more serious and extreme. What 10 years ago might have been a punch in the face, five years ago might have been a stab to the arm or leg is now a stab to the neck or heart, which can lead to death”.

He concludes that there is a greater willingness to “inflict pain and suffering”.

I was only 15 when the most evil child-killer of all time, Mary Bell, was convicted of the vicious murders of two little boys. I was the Minister for policing and criminal justice and had to read the full details of the Jamie Bulger case, who was murdered by Thompson and Venables, as the Home Office was appealing against what we considered the leniency of the sentence. It made the most nauseating reading. I feel really sorry for the jury, who heard every single word of that and saw the photographs.

Those awful cases seem to be run of the mill now. Since then, the ages of our killers have dropped considerably and the viciousness of the killings has increased exponentially. As the Committee will know, Damilola Taylor was only 10 when he was murdered by two brothers aged 12 and 13. Last year, two 15 year-olds lured a transgender person to a remote spot in Warrington and stabbed the person 28 times in the back, neck and head with a hunting knife in what the court was told was a “frenzied and ferocious” murder that they had planned for weeks. Just last month, three girls aged 14, 16 and 17 were convicted of manslaughter after a vicious and unprovoked attack on a 75 year-old pensioner waiting at a bus stop, who died of his injuries the next day. For their sentences, one got two years and six months, another got three years and six months, and the third got four years. Of course, they will be out in just over half the time. I think that makes rather a mockery of the concept of punishment.

The measures in this rebranding of anti-social behaviour orders into respect orders are mainly okay, in my opinion. However, like the previous iterations, it will not work because we are not intervening early enough, or our interventions are ones which we make through rose-tinted spectacles, believing that all little kiddies can be saved by a bit of restorative justice and endless cautions. We are failing. All Governments have failed for over 30 years to tackle youth offending rigorously when bad behaviour starts. We need to invent a whole new regime for dealing with violent criminal behaviour from 10 years-old and upwards, but not today of course.

One small step, I suggest, is in my amendment: lower the respect order intervention age to 14. “What difference would that make?”, noble Lords will say. Let us look at the Youth Justice Board’s latest statistics, for the year ending 2024, published in January this year. As might be expected, the rate of reoffending increases with the number of previous offences committed. For the year ending March 2023, those with no previous offences had a reoffending rate of 16.7%, compared with 72.8% for those who had committed 11 or more previous offences. Those who had committed no previous offences made up 51% of all children in the aggregated cohort—the highest proportion in the time series, and up one percentage point from the previous year. But they committed only 17% of all proven offences. Those with 11 or more previous offences made up only 9% of all children in the aggregated cohort, but they committed 29% of all proven reoffences.

That is why I strongly backed the then Home Secretary—now my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne—on our “Three strikes and you’re out policy”, although it would be more accurately called a “Three strikes and you’re inside” policy. I was hated by all prison detractors, but it worked in reducing crime because it took out of circulation the most prolific offenders. Of course, we should not lock up children who have committed their first few minor offences—proper community intervention can work for them. But every police area I visited had the same story: the superintendent would show me a graph of crime stats that was relatively level, and then it would spike to five or 10 times the average, with over 1,000 extra offences in one case. Then it would come down again after a few months. In every case, they would say that the spike was when little Johnny was released from the young offender institution, and the low level was when he was taken back or moved away.

Noble Lords might say that this is all anecdotal, but the Youth Justice Board’s stats show that, in the year ending December 2023, of the children cautioned or sentenced who had a criminal history of 15 or more previous cautions or sentences, 44 were sentenced to immediate custody, compared with just 1% of those with no previous criminal history. For the aggregated cohort in the year ending March 2023, children had a higher reoffending rate—32.5%—than adults, who had only 26%. Children had a higher number of reoffences than adults in the year ending March 2023 for the second consecutive year.

The question then is: will respect orders stop that trend? Possibly—probably not—but, if we can bring in the 14 to 18 year-olds as well, and if by that intervention we save just one other child from being viciously stabbed to death by other children, I submit that it will have been worth it. So let us at least try, while recognising that, in my opinion, we need a whole new regime for the terrible rise in child violence and crime, starting at an increasingly younger age every year.

My Amendment 10 is quite straightforward. We have another opportunity to attempt to get rid of the appalling non-crime hate incident fake reporting. Indeed, we had the announcement two weeks ago that the Met will no longer investigate them—great news and long overdue. But wait: the Met still intends to record them. Am I missing something here? It will not investigate them to ascertain whether they are true or not, but it will still record them as non-crime hate incidents. So tens of thousands of people could potentially have their names and reputations destroyed by false allegations that will not be investigated.

However, for the purposes of this clause, I am content that “anti-social behaviour” means:

“conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person”—

but only if the so-called non-crime hate incident is face to face. What would be completely unacceptable is for people to complain that they suffered alarm or distress because of social media or online messages. Our courts will be chock-a-block with claims that all the rubbish, including nasty rubbish on social media, could be included. The courts have better things to do. It is quite simple: if you do not want nasty messages on social media, get off it. I never once had a nasty or nice message on any social media, since I would not touch it with a 10-foot barge pole. It is a vile platform and, as a libertarian, I say: let the buyer beware.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

In the spirit of Committee, I wonder whether I might challenge the noble Lord a little on this epidemic of child criminality to which he so graphically referred. I think we should park these arguably very rare cases of child homicide outside a debate on anti-social behaviour, but would he agree with me that, when it comes to fisticuffs—what would be common assault—or even theft, we know that quite small children in every home in the country are capable of fisticuffs with each other, between siblings, and taking things that are not their own? But is not a crucial difference in our response to those children? Anti-social behaviour on the playing fields of Eton rarely ends up anywhere near the criminal justice system, but looked-after children in particular are more likely to be reported to the police and end up criminalised at a very early age. So does the noble Lord agree that children in, for example, England and Wales are no more malign than children in Scotland, where the age of responsibility is 14? We should look to ourselves as adult society and our responses to these vulnerable children.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

The noble Baroness says that child homicides are very rare, but they have doubled in the past 12 years. All the statistics that I quoted were from the Youth Justice Board and the Office for National Statistics, showing a huge increase in knife crime. Then there are the police forces themselves; there is an article relating to the Met, or a discussion on a blog from yesterday, asking whether knife crime by children was out of control—and those are their words, not mine.

There has been a huge increase in viciousness, knife use and violent crime by children, and I suggest in my amendments that lowering the age to include 14 to 18 year-olds in respect orders might make a difference, if we could hive them off early. Of course, I accept that children in Scotland, as in England, Northern Ireland and Wales, will also have violent tendencies. My concern is that we are failing to intervene early enough to do anything about them; that is the whole cause of the problem in the past 30 years—a lack of early intervention to deal properly with children. For some, that will mean a caution or restorative justice; for others, it could mean better work from social services. But some prolific young offenders may need to be taken out of circulation, for their own benefit and to save the lives of other children.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, accurately pointed out that a respect order may be made merely on the balance of probabilities—the civil standard of proof. Will the Minister confirm my understanding that, if a criminal charge is to be brought for breaching a respect order, it will be brought under new Section I1, and the offence of breach of respect order? It is then for the prosecution to establish beyond a reasonable doubt, on the criminal standard, that the person concerned has not merely breached the respect order but has done so without reasonable excuse. That may provide an answer to some of the more graphic and extreme examples that have been given in this debate of when a respect order may apply. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether my understanding is correct.

In this debate we need to take account of the fact that anti-social behaviour occurs in our society with alarming regularity and causes misery to law-abiding citizens. There needs to be some effective means of addressing it. Having said all that, I share some of the concerns that have been expressed as to the width of the powers that we are being invited to endorse. There are two particular concerns that I have.

The first is that in new Section A1(1)(b), it is sufficient for the court to consider it “just and convenient” to impose a respect order. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to that—and I have great sympathy with the argument that that really ought to be a test of “necessary and proportionate”. All the sorts of cases that one would want to see prohibited by law could be brought within a necessary and proportionate test.

The other concern that I have—and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was the one who mentioned this—is that in new Section A1(9), the test of anti-social behaviour is

“conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person”.

That means any person, however vulnerable they may be, or weak-minded, which is a purely subjective test. I suggest in this context that there really needs to be some objectivity written into the definition, whether or not by referring to a reasonable person; other types of drafting mechanism could be adopted. I share some of the concerns, but I also see the need for an effective and functioning system in this context.

17:30

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 22 and to Amendment 1. I believe that we need to look at the current rules as they stand and have a review of those rules, their effectiveness and who they fall upon. As someone who has been a youth worker for over three decades now, I have seen large parts of poorer communities, black and white, end up in very serious legal entanglements just because of what somebody else has subjectively decided was a piece of anti-social behaviour which has then led to some kind of legal sanction. These respect orders seem like a very fast track too. Many people’s behaviour is not what I would call traditional, is not recognised, and therefore these orders would become a real danger to them; there is a real danger that they have done something that was anti-social and all of a sudden, they are facing a criminal sanction.

Notwithstanding what the last speaker said—that the court would then go back and test and would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, above the civil court’s level of proof—it would be too late for many young people, because it would have blighted them. Many young people act out once they realise they are in trouble, because they are afraid. If we are going to put someone through that mechanism, we had better make sure that they actually have a question to answer before we posit a question that leads them to end up in some kind of legal entanglement.

Another thing to consider is that, if we change the age of criminal consent, we have to be careful that we do not expose young people to gang grooming. If a gang is able to say that, under a certain age, you will not be legally held to account for your crimes, they will use that as a rallying cry, as a recruitment cry. Currently, most children of 10 years of age understand the risk they would be taking. If we remove that, we could be exposing those children inadvertently to high levels of gang membership, because they will be told, “You cannot be prosecuted, because you cannot be held responsible”. I really think that bears looking at.

All that said, my Amendment 22 is a very small amendment, but I believe it is very important. We all know that anti-social behaviour can be an absolute blight on a whole community’s life. It is often the beginning, the prelude, to a very large and long criminal career, so if we can nip it in the bud early, that is very important. When it comes to where people live, the ripple effect from small amounts of anti-social behaviour can affect hundreds, so I welcome the Bill’s aim to tackle anti-social behaviour in the UK, especially around housing developments. I think that is a very good thing to do. However, I am concerned that the Bill in its current form fails to extend the new powers to all housing providers. Currently, the Bill provides for social housing inconsistently. This does not appear to be a purposeful exclusion; rather, the Bill uses the definition of “housing provider” from the crime and policing Act 2014, a definition that talks about not-for-profit housing providers.

As the Bill is currently worded, institutional housing providers are not covered by these rules. I think it is very important that they are, because it is a huge sector, projected to grow to very large proportions in future, and it looks after the same vulnerable communities as any other housing provider. That is the important thing here. Whether they are institutionally funded or not is actually irrelevant; it is about who is their client group. Their client group is some of the most vulnerable communities in this country, which many of our RSLs are very good at catering for, but because they are dealing with the same client group, because the young people and older people in their purview are exposed to exactly the same situations, they should have exactly the same powers to help people.

We are talking about the ability to defend people’s life chances, because we can make where they are living safe. It can be dealt with properly. I have worked on many housing estates; I was born and raised on one myself. Anti-social behaviour that cannot be addressed by the landlord is an absolute blight on people’s lives, so we are just asking for that small wording to be changed. It would be a very small but very powerful change. I believe that it is not a purposeful exclusion; it is just because we are using the definition from 2014.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I too agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, and I have added my name to his Amendment 12 to ask the Government to amplify the basis upon which exclusion orders might be made and the quality of the evidence required. An order excluding someone from his or her home has always to be seen as a last resort —in this context, when other less drastic restraints have not worked or are clearly not likely to work. I therefore hope that the Government can clarify the likely scenarios and the criteria that will apply when exclusion orders are sought and granted.

As I understand it, under the Bill, the application will be based on the risk assessment to be carried out under new Section J1, supplemented by guidance yet to come. The Bill does not expressly say, as far as I can see, that the risk assessment should be included with the application to be made to the court, or that it should be served on the respondent where possible. Both requirements should surely be explicit, not implicit. I suggest also that at least the risk assessment should be expected to summarise the behaviour and attitude of the respondent giving rise to the risk of harm, and specifically to the need to evict him or her from their home. In addition, and by analogy with the family jurisdiction, with which I am more familiar, it should actually state the effects of making or not making the order on other known occupants of the home, including relevant children.

Finally, the assessment, I suggest, should set out clearly the reasons to believe that making an exclusion order will actually reduce the perceived risks. Experience shows—certainly, my experience shows—that in some cases, making such an order may do no more than move the problem on somewhere else.

[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.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

No problem.

My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly to Amendments 4, 5 and 7 in my name. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has made a very clear case for each one, so I will speak briefly. I put on record my thanks to Justice, which has gathered insights from so many people working in this field and it has been really interesting reading case studies that are backed up by very clear evidence.

These amendments would provide essential safeguards, ensuring the powers contained within respect orders are proportionate. Amendment 4 would require orders to be made only where there is evidence of actual conduct, not speculation about what a person might do in future. Amendment 7 would ensure that an order is imposed with a clear end date, capped at two years. In my opinion, it is wrong that an individual could be subject to potentially serious restrictions in perpetuity as a result of behaviour that falls below the criminal threshold. In Amendment 5, we want to change the “just and convenient” threshold generally applied in civil proceedings to “necessary and proportionate”. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put a very good case for this—much better than I could ever do, so I will not try.

Amendment 1, moved by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, calling for an independent review of existing anti-social behaviour powers before respect orders are rolled out, would improve the Bill considerably, because precisely what laws are already used, and what works in practice, is critical to their success.

On the subject of likely success, I welcome the fact that respect orders can include positive requirements that people have to, for example, attend rehabilitation—perhaps to deal with addictions to drugs or drink or both. However, such requirements can work only if every region has capacity in drug and alcohol treatment programmes. I am sure the Minister is aware that only 12 of the 43 police forces returned data last year on how many cases were referred for such treatment. Without that information, we cannot know how such rehabilitation can work. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister, when he responds, about what efforts are being made to ensure there are places available. Legislation alone is no good without resources.

17:45

I now turn to some of the other issues that were raised. I give my wholehearted backing to Amendment 12, in the names of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It seeks to ensure respect orders do not exacerbate the suffering of those enduring the trauma of domestic abuse. His concern is around the potential impact on this vulnerable cohort, who are four times more likely to have an anti-social behaviour complaint made against them, due to being wrongly blamed for situations caused by their abuser. This amendment removes the considerable and sweeping power to exclude a person from their home.

I am sympathetic to the intentions behind Amendment 6, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. Requiring an individual “to do anything” described appears overly broad, and even more so when there is no specific end date.

However, on Amendments 2 and 3, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Blencathra, we on these Benches take a different view. Lowering the age threshold to either 14 or 16 risks drawing more people unnecessarily into the criminal justice system, without effectively reducing anti-social behaviour. The Liberal Democrats cannot support this. Indeed, we believe that youth diversion should be a statutory duty for young people under 25. This is in all our interests; not only is it more effective in reducing future offending, but it is also much more cost effective—youth work provision costs less than £50,000 per year, compared to £200,000 per year for incarcerating a 16 year-old. It is also notable that nine out of every 10 young people in custody have some form of special educational need, primarily emotional and behavioural needs and dyslexia.

I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones on the need for wider consultation and collaboration, as set out in Amendment 21. I also very much support the case he has made on Amendment 9.

We know that respect orders are going to be piloted before being rolled out. I hope the Minister agrees that this should be done with more transparency than was the case with the piloting of knife crime prevention orders, the results of which were made public only following a successful freedom of information request. Can the Minister provide reassurance that the pilot will monitor how these powers are used, who receives them and what their efficacy is, to minimise the risk they will be used disproportionately against specific groups?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I did want to hear what she had to say, but my enthusiasm to move on overtook me, unfortunately. I must learn to ignore nods from the Government Bench opposite as well.

As I said, the Committee stage will be a long haul, but I hope that we can continue this level of discussion and scrutiny throughout. On these Benches, we are not entirely sure of the need for new anti-social behaviour laws, and the validity of the proposed measure will be touched on more thoroughly in group 3. We feel the focus should be on enforcement first and foremost.

But as this proposal will become law, there are several individual parts of it that would benefit from being amended. I begin with Amendment 2 in my name, which is intended to probe the age at which a person can be given a respect order. The Bill states that this will be 18 and that younger offenders will be subject to a youth injunction. I cannot see why there should be two different powers to deal with the same behaviours. One of the benefits of anti-social behaviour injunctions is that they can apply to any person over the age of 10, rather than having different powers for different age groups.

To set the age minimum at 16 seems like common sense, and I would be surprised if the Minister disagrees with me. It is, after all, his party that believes in treating children of that age as adults. Why should 16 year-olds be allowed to choose the people who create anti-social behaviour laws, but simultaneously be exempt from those laws? Perhaps the Minister can explain the rationale, should he oppose the amendment.

Amendment 6 aims to ensure that an issued respect order does not place excessive restrictions on the recipient. It is similar to Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in seeking to ensure that orders are “necessary and proportionate”. As it stands, respect orders may require the recipient to do anything specified by the court—a power that does not contain any internal safeguards. This could lead to massive judicial overreach. The amendment in my name seeks to ensure that this is not the case. It is fair and proportionate that a recipient may be prohibited from doing anything that may cause a repeat of that which required an order in the first place. Prohibiting those actions is just, but that is where the powers of prohibition should end. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this potential issue with the proposed policy.

Amendment 11 would remove perhaps the most egregious part of this clause: giving the Secretary of State complete discretion not only over which authorities fall under the scope of respect orders, but the definitions that define respect orders themselves. It means that the already strong and limiting orders can be altered and twisted by whichever Home Secretary happens to be in office. I am sure each noble Lord could think of a different set of hands that they would not want this power to reside in. The amendment in my name would prevent that occurring and leave this already forceful power as it is.

Amendments 13 and 14 seek to improve the clarity in the chain of command in issuing orders. In a policy with so many moving parts, efficiency is key. A respect order would currently appoint a supervisor, who would then have the discretion to inform an

“appropriate chief officer of police”

if the offender lives in more than one area. This adds an extra layer of responsibility to a supervisor already charged with monitoring the respect order’s recipient. I can foresee potential mix-ups and miscommunications whereby either no or multiple chief officers believe themselves to be responsible for a recipient. The easy solution would be to specify the relevant chief officer alongside the supervisor, disaggregating the chain of appointments and improving clarity. I hope the Minister considers this point.

Amendment 20 seeks to require that risk assessments are the basis of respect order applications. It seems wrong that, despite being required to carry out a risk assessment, an applicant can apply for a respect order without having to reference it to the court. Respect orders are potentially very freedom-limiting; the court that issues them should be able to reference the risks posed by the recipient as a justification for these sanctions. As always, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate on the first day in Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill. I feel like I am at base camp at the start of a climb to Mount Everest—but, as ever, Mount Everest has been conquered, as I am sure the Bill will eventually be as well. It feels like we are at the very start of a long, fruitful and productive process.

I will start by outlining a little about respect orders, because it is important to put them into the general context of why the Government are doing what they are doing. There were over 1 million recorded incidents of anti-social behaviour in the last year for which records exist. That is an awful lot of anti-social behaviour and does not include even the underreporting that may well exist.

There is a government manifesto commitment to take action on respect orders. The new orders will enable courts to both ban offenders from engaging in harmful anti-social behaviour, and/or—as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, noted—impose positive requirements to tackle the root cause of anti-social behaviour. That could be anger management or alcohol or drug awareness courses, which will hopefully tackle the root cause of that anti-social behaviour and stop it occurring.

Unlike existing ASB civil injunctions, breach will be a criminal offence enforceable by arrest and tried in the criminal courts. That goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. This goes to court only if an individual breaches the order put on them—the purpose of the order is to stop the behaviour taking place. Penalties for breach will include community sentences, unlimited fines and potentially prison time for the most serious breaches, but only on a breach. That is a really important point to recognise in our discussions today.

Because there are so many amendments in this group, although it is a slow process I will take the amendments in turn. Amendment 1, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Bailey of Paddington and Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, my noble friends Lady Whitaker and Lord Hacking, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, would require a Home Secretary within six months of the Bill becoming law to undertake a review of existing powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, prior to introducing respect orders.

First, the introduction of respect orders was a manifesto commitment, so the Government have put some thought into it. I also assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring that the powers to address anti-social behaviour remain effective. As such, they are subject to continuous review. I do not want to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, but there will not be a pilot on this, because the Home Office has regularly engaged with front-line practitioners and with the ASB sector to better understand how the powers of the 2014 Act are used and where improvements can be made.

In addition, under the last Government the department launched a public consultation in 2023 to understand how powers could be used more consistently and effectively. That consultation has helped inform the measures in Part 1 of the Bill. I draw noble Lords’ attention to Clause 7 of the Bill, which, to aid this ongoing evaluation process, provides for new requirements for local agencies to report information about anti-social behaviour to the Government to help us continually improve and review.

Therefore, the provisions in Clause 1 deliver on the manifesto commitment. We need to press ahead with respect orders as soon as possible to ensure that the police, local authorities and others have the effective powers to tackle the 1 million cases per year. Amendment 1 would require us to have a costly and unnecessary review, and it would slow and cause delay in the rollout. Therefore, with respect, I cannot accept it either today or on Report.

Amendments 2 and 3 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Blencathra, seek to lower the age at which respondents can receive a respect order from 18 to 16, or indeed to 14. Again, I hope the noble Lords understand that the Government do not wish to criminalise young people unless it is absolutely necessary, which is why our manifesto was clear that respect orders were aimed at tackling anti-social behaviour perpetrated by adults. The noble Lord, Lord Bailey, made some very valid points on that in relation to the potential criminalisation of younger people.

That does not mean there is no provision for the relevant agencies to deal with youth-related anti-social behaviour. The respect order, while replacing the civil injunction for adults, will remain in place for those under the age of 18, renamed as the youth injunction. Importantly, this will enable youth courts to impose behaviour requirements on younger offenders without resulting in criminalisation if they breach the injunction. There is still the potential for those orders to be placed, but it does not involve criminalisation.

Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and others would amend the legal test for issuing a respect order. Amendment 4 would mean that a respect order could be issued only in relation to ASB that a respondent had already engaged in, and not where the respondent had threatened to engage in this behaviour, as is the case with existing civil injunctions.

I stress to the House that respect orders are fundamentally preventive in nature. They are designed to stop bad behaviour by putting in place a restraining order that says, in effect, “Don’t do these particular actions”. If the offender abides by the terms of the order, there will be no further sanctions. That is an important point for the House to understand and grasp from the Government’s perspective. Anti-social behaviour can be insidious and difficult to prove and it can take many forms. We know that the threat of aggressive or anti-social behaviour can often escalate quickly into more serious, violent and criminal behaviour —a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. That is why it is crucial that we retain the ability to issue an order against those threatening to engage in ASB, in order to prevent that harm before it happens.

Amendment 5, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would change the legal test for issuing a respect order, so that that the court would need to find it “necessary and proportionate” to issue the order to prevent the respondent engaging in anti-social behaviour, rather than using the legal test as currently drafted, in which the court must find it “just and convenient” to do so. The current “just and convenient” language mirrors that of the civil injunction and is therefore familiar to the courts.

Let me be clear—this again goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—that the current threshold still requires a judge, with all the relevant legal duties and safeguards that that entails, to be satisfied that the issuing of an order is just, reasonable and fair. Courts will already take the necessity and proportionality of an order into account as a result of their duties under the Human Rights Act. Given these considerations, the benefits of amending the legal test in this way are limited.

Moving on to Amendment 6—

18:00

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Since the Minister rightly accepts that there is a test of proportionality under the Human Rights Act, would it not be better to put it in the Bill, so that everybody understands—whether they are magistrates, judges, solicitors or counsel—that that is the test? That would provide a great deal of comfort and protection for those who may be subject to the orders.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have great respect for the noble Lord’s contributions. I have heard what he said, but I believe that this is the right way forward. We can always examine his comments again and I appreciate the way in which he has contributed to the debate.

Amendment 6, from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, seeks to ensure that any positive requirements placed on the recipient of a respect order are restricted to those which would prevent a future breach of the order. Positive requirements to address the underlying causes of the behaviour are an important aspect of the respect order. That is a key point that I want to impress on noble Lords today. While the legislation sets out a number of restrictions on how positive requirements can be used, it is the Government’s view that the amendment is unnecessarily restrictive and that courts and agencies should have the discretion to tailor positive requirements to the particular needs of each case.

Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and also spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, would limit the amount of time that a respect order may be in effect to two years. As it stands, there is no limit on the time a respect order might be in effect for, and I think that is the right thing to do. Again, there will be secondary action under the respect order only in the event of a breach taking place. If, for example, someone has previously been a persistent offender and the order puts in place an unlimited time, that would be reasonable until such time as the behaviour is noted. Implementing a two-year time limit might be of some difficulty and would not necessarily tailor against the individual’s behaviour. I come back to the central point that, ultimately, no action is taken against the individual if they do not breach the order.

The duration of a respect order is dependent on the specific circumstances of each case. That will be determined by the courts. I do not expect that every respect order will be imposed for an indefinite period, but that option should be available if there are relentless adult ASB perpetrators. The legislation makes provision for respect orders to be varied or discharged depending on the circumstances of the case.

Amendment 9, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would make it a requirement that an applicant must gain full council approval for all local authority-led applications for a respect order. It is proper quite that, while some councils may seek full council approval for PSPOs, there is no legislative requirement for them to do so. It should be noted that respect orders, unlike PSPOs, are granted by the courts, which provides additional safeguards to ensure that respect orders are used proportionately—this goes back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Whereas PSPOs impose prohibitions on the general public, respect orders will be for individuals who have a history of disruptive, anti-social behaviour.

I return to the fact that, if individuals do not breach an order, the matter will go no further. It is the Government’s view that, given this distinction, it would not be appropriate to require full council approval for all respect orders—which quite honestly is self-evident. I have been a councillor and spent time in council committees, so I know that there is potential for delay. It might take a long time to make an order, which would risk us not taking action quickly and supportively for the benefit of victims and communities at large. The amendment might also require a full public consultation when applying for a respect order, but I do not believe that that is the way to run respect orders or to impact on individuals.

Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to add non-crime hate incidents to the definition of anti-social behaviour. I respectfully say to him that we are going to use the phrase “non-crime hate incidents” during the course of the Bill in relation to a number of amendments, including those tabled by his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Young. As I have previously said publicly in the House, the College of Policing—under the chairmanship of his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs—will very shortly produce a review of non-crime hate incidents. There has also been discussion by the Metropolitan Police on what it is doing. I hope that the review will help inform later stages of the Bill. At this stage, I believe that, while we should not kick Amendment 10 down the line—we will come back to the subject of the amendment—we should not deal with it in relation to Clause 1.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I may have misheard the Minister, but if I heard him correctly, I want to correct what he said. I do not want to add it to the Bill; I want to add to the Bill a provision that it is not included under prevention orders.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I appreciate that. If I have misunderstood his intention, I apologise. None the less, the principle is still the same for me. There are specific amendments about this downstream. By the time we reach them, I hope that we will have further enlightenment from the College of Policing and that we can determine government policy on non-crime hate incidents in the light of that review. That is what I have said on a number of occasions in response to similar questions. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that Amendment 10 is slightly premature at this stage, and we will discuss that matter in full detail downstream.

Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to remove the provision for the Secretary of State to amend, by regulations, the list of relevant authorities that can apply for a respect order. The Secretary of State needs that power to look at the range of contexts, and a multiagency approach is often needed to tackle anti-social behaviour. To ensure that we have that, I believe that the Secretary of State needs to retain that power—that may be a source of disagreement between us, but that is where I think we stand. The Secretary of State should be able to add an agency to the list. It would not be done unilaterally; new regulations would have to be laid. Those made under new Section B1 of the 2014 Act would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure and, as such, subject to debate and approval in both Houses. It is not an unfettered power for the Secretary of State.

A number of important issues have been raised in relation to Amendment 12, which seeks to remove the power to exclude a person from their home as part of a respect order in cases of violence or risk of harm. As noble Lords have said, including the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Meston, excluding a person from their home is of course not something that should be taken lightly. However, we know that anti-social behaviour is not always trivial and can escalate into violence. We also know that, sadly, in some cases, anti-social behaviour is accompanied by domestic abuse. The ability to exclude perpetrators from their homes in such scenarios is a valuable safeguard in protecting vulnerable victims and ensuring that they do not face eviction for the wrongs of their perpetrator.

The key point on Amendment 12—this goes to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston—is that an exclusion can happen only when there is a significant risk of violence or harm. This will be key for protecting vulnerable victims who live with perpetrators or are in the same building. The applicant for the respect order will be able to make a proper risk assessment; that is the purpose and focus of that. The power to exclude remains a decision for the court and will be used only when it considers it necessary, in order to protect victims from the risk of violence or harm. I do not know whether that satisfies the noble Lord, but that is the Government’s rationale for the discussions we are bringing forward today.

This is a long group of amendments, so I apologise to the Committee for continuing to deal with them. Amendment 13 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to ensure that

“the appropriate chief officer of police”

is specified where a respect order has been issued. The Bill also provides that a supervisor must provide details of the respondent’s compliance with positive requirements to the chief officer of police. While the police are among the agencies that can apply for these orders, the operational responsibility for enforcing requirement lies with the designated supervisor and not with the chief officer of police. It is intended that positive requirements would be managed by those closest to the respondent’s circumstances.

Amendment 14 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, seeks to ensure that the supervisor does not make the final decision on who the relevant chief officer of the police would be, where it appears that the respondent lives in more than one police area. Supervisors are directly involved in managing the positive requirements of respect orders. They have first-hand knowledge of the respondent’s living arrangements and which police areas are most impacted by the respondent’s behaviour. Specifying the chief officer of police prior to issuing a respect order could be an unnecessary burden on police forces that have minimal involvement, and therefore it is appropriate that the supervisor makes the final decision on these matters.

Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seeks to remove the provision enabling courts to make interim respect orders. Again, I highlight that interim court orders are not a novel concept; they are generally available to courts in exceptional cases. There is currently the possibility for a civil injunction, and it remains the case for the respect order where it is necessary for the courts to grant an interim respect order to prevent serious harm to victims.

Victims are central to the proposals we are bringing forward. If an interim order has been granted, it is because there has been a case made to a court that victims need some assistance to prevent serious harm to them. An interim respect order can be granted by the court only when all the relevant legal duties and safeguards that that entails are met, and it requires the court to be satisfied that it is just to make an order. That goes back to the point the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made. If that order is placed, it is because the court has determined on the evidence before it that there is a real risk of threat to an individual and therefore that order has to be made.

Amendment 20 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, seeks to ensure that a respect order is based on a risk assessment. The introduction of the risk assessment offers a further safeguard in ensuring that respect order applications consider contextual vulnerabilities and agencies take a joint multilateral approach. I hope I can make it clear to the noble Lord that this is a statutory requirement, and all agencies must complete a risk assessment prior to applying for a respect order, so we have met the provisions that he wants in Amendment 20 to date.

Amendment 21 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, would place a duty on the Home Secretary to conduct a public consultation before introducing new statutory guidance for practitioners on respect orders. I make it clear to the Committee that any updates or additions to the ASB statutory guidance are already subject to extensive consultation with relevant stakeholders. That will include the front-line practitioners for whom the guidance is intended. This will be the case for statutory guidance on respect orders, and I hope that satisfies the noble Lord. As respect orders partially replace an existing power, the civil injunction, a large portion of the guidance will therefore already be familiar to practitioners.

Finally, Amendment 22, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, seeks to add for-profit registered social housing providers to the list of relevant agencies that can apply for a respect order. For-profit social housing providers have grown in prominence since the 2014 Act came into force, and I recognise the importance of the relevant agencies having the powers needed to tackle anti-social behaviour. That is why, for example, we are giving both for-profit and non-profit social housing providers the power to apply for and issue closure notices. However, these are powerful tools, and it is also important that further challenges to the agencies that can use the powers, including respect orders, are considered carefully. But the noble Lord has raised some very important issues, and we will consider them carefully. I really appreciate his bringing them to the Committee today.

18:15

Earlier, I highlighted the importance of the Home Secretary being able to amend the list of relevant authorities that can apply for a respect order. This power enables the Government fully to consider the case for adding additional authorities such as for-profit housing providers. This is an important point for the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington: if we conclude that it is possible to make those changes through primary legislation—yes, in the Bill today—and we can make the changes he has asked us to look at in secondary legislation, if the Bill gets Royal Assent and passes all the stages, that can be done by secondary legislation as well. So, we will look at the issues he has raised, but primary legislation may not be required to make those changes happen.

That was a long climb, and I am still only about 10 feet up Everest, but I hope that those comments help the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. This has been a useful discussion, but I hope that we can reach a conclusion on those matters now.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I think it is the Matterhorn at this stage, rather than Everest, but we will see. I thank the Minister for his very full reply, and I thank all noble Lords for their support for this set of amendments that I and my noble friend Lady Doocey put forward. The Minister has set out his stall; he is clearly very wedded to the current wording, and that will merit careful consideration. I recognise the point he made about this being a manifesto commitment, but Amendment 1 is not designed to negate respect orders; it is designed to review the existing suite of anti-social behaviour legislation in order to make sure that it is effective.

I recognise the point the Minister made about the 1 million incidents, but we do not know at this stage, other than from the Minister’s assertions, that the respect orders are going to be effective in dealing with those, or, indeed, whether existing powers would have themselves been effective.

The Minister did not really explain why the current legislation is inadequate. He also did not for one second admit that the current regime of PSPOs and CPNs had its faults.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The real difference between this legislation and the existing legislation is that action can be taken immediately. I think I did touch on that point, but if it was not to the noble Lord’s satisfaction, I apologise. We can take action immediately on a breach.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I think we are going to need some more convincing that that is the case, compared to anti-social behaviour injunctions. So, we remain somewhat unconvinced.

We have the common aim across the House of achieving an effective system that is fair and proportionate. The one chink in the Minister’s armour was that he was prepared, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to consider the wording “necessary and proportionate”. I very much hope that he will consider that as a possible amendment to his proposal.

I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that Governments reach for the statute book; we need to consider whether existing legislation is sufficient. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, called for a pause. Whether it is a pause or a review, we will definitely want to return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendments 2 to 7 not moved.

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

8: Clause 1, page 2, line 26, after “court” insert “or a magistrate’s court”

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we must ensure that courts can operate within their means. If we issue them with new responsibilities, we have to be sure that they have the capacity to fulfil them. Unfortunately, in restricting respect orders to the High Court and county courts, the Government risk not providing the bandwidth to deal with new orders.

At the end of Labour’s first year in office, the Crown Court backlog suffered an annual increase of 11%. There are over 74,000 cases waiting to be judged. Of course, that burden is not entirely at the door of the Crown Courts, but a considerable number of the outstanding cases will require their use. County courts are in a better—but still not ideal—state. The average time for justice to be delivered is just over 49 weeks. Reflecting on this, it makes sense for the Government to divide the responsibilities for the new respect orders as widely as possible. The logical conclusion is to permit an application for a respect order to be made to a magistrates’ court.

If respect orders were confined to the serious criminality that we expect to be dealt with by the High Court and county courts, I would accept placing additional pressures on to them and excluding magistrates’ courts. It is right that those facing serious harassment or other forms of anti-social behaviour have the ability to make application to these courts, but the scope for respect orders is far wider than that. The definition of anti-social behaviour is to include actions causing alarm and distress. These are two very subjective metrics: they are fundamentally different from harassment and more serious forms of anti-social behaviour. So I see no reason why magistrates’ courts should not be available to deal with these less serious and potentially menial forms of anti-social behaviour. This is the reasoning behind Amendments 8 and 16, tabled in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie.

There is also precedent for this. When the last Labour Government introduced anti-social behaviour orders in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, they could be made only by a magistrates’ court. This recognised that anti-social behaviour should be the purview of summary justice. The Minister might argue that the Government are simply replicating the application process for anti-social behaviour injunctions and that they were the action of the previous Government. That may be a fair criticism, but that would not mean that the Government are right. Simply following the case of previous legislation does not automatically mean that the legislation before us today is following the right path; nor does it acknowledge the very different state of the backlog in the High Court and county courts today, as opposed to 2014. It makes far more sense to permit the use of magistrates’ courts for this purpose today, given the historic case burden.

Finally, I can see no downside to this. It will permit burden-sharing between three types of courts. It would not alter the nature of the orders, nor the process by which they are made. But it would make some progress toward reducing the waiting time for the making of a respect order. Surely the Government do not want to see a 49-week wait for a respect order to be made. Would that not hamper the effectiveness of these supposedly tough new respect orders? I hope the Minister will consider these amendments carefully and sensibly.

The other amendments in this group seek to minimise the pressure placed on our courts by the new measures and ensure that our shared principles of justice are upheld. Interim respect orders interact with the principle of innocent until proven guilty. They can be made following a court adjournment up until the final court hearing. They have the same function as a regular respect order and can impose the same restrictions. I am conscious that this may sometimes be necessary. I reiterate the debilitated state of our courts and the fact that adjournment is sometimes out of their hands, even if the defendant is likely to engage in further anti-social behaviour. In these occasional instances, I can understand the need for an interim respect order.

Amendment 15 aims to find a balance, creating a presumption against issuing an interim order, while still leaving the option open. Amendment 19 exists to forward the argument that these orders can be issued to prevent only further harassment, and not the vague concepts of alarm and distress. These amendments aim to ease the administrative burden on the courts. Amendment 17 seeks to ensure that, if an appeal is made against a decision to refuse to issue an interim respect order, the defendant is notified. It is right that a person should know when they might be subjected to a respect order, especially when they have not yet been proven guilty. I beg to move Amendment 8.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I have just a few comments. I am quite concerned that the latest figures show that the magistrates’ courts’ backlog of cases to be heard reached 361,000 as of September 2025, a record high and a significant increase on previous years. In the other place, the Minister said the legal test for respect orders was being kept “broad and flexible” to enable them to be used for a wide range of anti-social behaviours. Again, this suggests significant extra pressure on courts. Jamming up the system further is not going to help victims. Can the Minister say what the Government’s assessment is of the impact on the wider criminal justice system?

Giving evidence in the other place, the Police Federation also pointed to the pressure these orders would put on custody places, saying that infrastructure was needed to make new legislation “effective and believable”. Perhaps the Minister could also address that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for their comments. I am sorry: I am just getting my pages in order; it came slightly more quickly than I expected. I thought we would have a few more contributions.

The amendments all relate to the role of the courts in the Government’s new respect orders, and it is fair and proper that they do so. These new orders will enable courts to ban offenders from engaging in formal, harmful anti-social behaviour and—again, as we have discussed—tackle the root cause. Amendments 8 and 16 seek to allow magistrates’ courts to issue respect orders. I have been clear that the respect orders are civil behaviour orders intended to prevent further anti-social behaviour occurring. They also aim to encourage rehabilitation through the positive requirements that I discussed in the previous group of amendments. Because they are civil in nature, applications should be heard in the civil courts, which have the appropriate procedures and expertise for handling these types of orders.

Magistrates’ courts deal primarily with criminal matters and summary offences. Hearing civil applications in a magistrates’ court would risk treating preventive orders as punitive measures, when, actually, as I mentioned, they are designed either to try to stop people undertaking negative behaviour or to encourage people to undertake what I will term positive behaviour, such as anger management or alcohol awareness courses.

Amendment 15 seeks to ensure that the interim respect orders are not issued by the courts unless specifically said otherwise, and where an application has been made without notice. Again, anti-social behaviour can escalate quickly and cause great harm, and an interim respect order enables rapid protection in urgent cases involving immediate risk. Judges can make decisions based on the individual facts of the case and ensure that victims receive immediate relief in cases which they deem to be appropriate. On occasion, these will have to be issued without giving notice to the respondent, and it is important that judges retain the ability to do so on or without request from the relevant agency. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that the court would be required to apply itself to the question of whether it was appropriate to make an interim order. There is no question of one being made without an express determination to that effect, but speed is still required.

Amendment 17 seeks to ensure that, if an appeal is made against the decision by the courts to refuse an interim respect order, the respondent is duly notified. I reiterate that interim respect orders are designed to provide urgent temporary relief to protect victims and the public from serious harm before a full hearing. If the respondents were notified of an appeal, it could undermine the immediacy and effectiveness of the interim order, and doing so would likely complicate proceedings, prolonging risk to victims and communities. I come back to the fact that all the measures in the Bill are designed to tackle anti-social behaviour at source and provide either interventions to prevent or interventions to encourage positive behaviour. The law allows appeals without notice to maintain speed and efficiency in safeguarding measures.

Amendment 19 seeks to ensure that the interim respect orders are made only when the court considers the respondent likely to engage in harassment. Again, I just say to the noble Lord that the definition of anti-social behaviour is broad: it is intended to capture behaviours that may not meet the criminal threshold but which can cause severe harm to victims and communities. As I pointed out, interim respect orders are a necessary thing to provide immediate relief, preventing harmful behaviour from escalating and causing further damage to victims and communities. I would have thought that the noble Lord would have supported that general direction of travel. They are a preventative order, not a punitive order; they are punitive only in the event of a breach. Again, the purpose of the order is not to have that breach in the first place but to send a signal that says, “This behaviour is unacceptable”, or “This support mechanism is required”, and if you do not attend the support mechanism or if you breach the preventive mechanism, you are facing a potential criminal sanction.

18:30

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Just briefly, because this is a very important aspect of the enforcement of respect orders, I ask whether the Minister is saying that all that is needed is that it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that the respect order has been breached, or does one go back to the original decision on the civil balance of probabilities—the reasons for the respect order? Is it purely that you have to show beyond reasonable doubt that the respect order has been breached, in which case it is still a civil balance of probabilities requirement for the original respect order to be enforced?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There is a determination, and I believe the legislation before us today is clear on that matter. We will debate this still further, undoubtedly, but there is essentially a respect order where the court will consider the potential breach and will make a judgment on it, and having examined that, it will determine the issue in relation to that breach. The noble Lord raises that issue now, but as regards Amendment 19 before us today, which is the point I am making now, limiting the scope of where an interim respect order can be issued risks further harm for communities as a whole.

I will just focus on the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned. She covered in the last series of amendments the same issue, in a sense, about capacity, which is important. It will be a matter for discretion of the applicant and the court to determine what requirements will be most suitable in line with the resources and options that are available in a given area. So, again, that discretion is there at a local level to determine; for example, if an alcohol awareness course is required, then self-evidently an alcohol awareness course has to be available for the individual to take up that course. Those judgments will be made at a local level by the local individuals who are determining these matters.

Again, I refer noble Lords to the economic impact assessment that we have published. The ASB package is expected to lead to

“an overall reduction in prison places”.

The respect order replaces the civil injunction, and we are not expecting additional cases per se. Once in a steady state, annual prison places for respect orders will stay more or less the same, and we expect respect orders to have a neutral impact on prison places, given that they are replacing civil injunction powers. So I hope that that again reassures the noble Baroness in relation to the resource question of the additional impact of these matters. With those comments, I respectfully request the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down —I love that expression—can I just check? I think he said that respect orders were not going to be piloted. Is that correct? Diana Johnson, the Policing Minister in the other place, in the third session in Committee, said:

“We will pilot respect orders to ensure that they are as effective as possible before rolling them out across England and Wales”.—[Official Report, Commons, Crime and Policing Bill Committee, 1/4/25; col. 104.]


So, what has changed between then and now that the Government have changed their mind?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have considered the reflections in another place, and we have now determined that we want to get on with this. Remember that the Bill has 12 days in Committee, and then Report, and we have a long way to go before Royal Assent. The Government want to have a manifesto commitment that they made in July 2024 implemented in good time. Even now, that manifesto commitment will take us potentially nearly two years to put in place. That is a reasonable process, we have consulted widely on the respect orders and that is the Government’s position now.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

Can the Minister say whether anything else has changed that we would not be aware of because it has not been written down anywhere?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a very wide question, my Lords. Let me say that the purpose of Committee is to provide a significant number of days for Members from all sides of the House—as we have had today, from the government side as well as from the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—to test Ministers and raise points. If the noble Baroness has points she wishes to raise during the passage of the Bill, as ever, I will try to answer them, either on the Floor of this House or in writing afterwards.

The noble Baroness asks whether things have changed. Even today, there are a number of amendments that the Government have brought forward in the groups of amendments that we are deliberating on today. Things move; the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, was saying with regard to the immigration Bill that a number of things have changed over the course of time, and things move. It is now 16 months since the King’s Speech which introduced this legislation. We continue to monitor and move; where necessary we bring forward amendments, and I am open to testing on all matters at all times. But I would welcome the noble Lord withdrawing his amendment today.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to those who have contributed. I know we all have the interests of a functioning justice system at heart, and the discussion has reflected that. We must approach this debate with pragmatism as our guiding principle. That means that, when legislating for new crimes, the best outcome is the one that sees offences prosecuted. In a perfect world, perhaps the Crown Courts and the county courts alone would have the capacity to handle these new respect orders. But, as I have outlined, the courts system is incredibly backlogged, and it is therefore necessary to use as many courts as possible to deliver the policy.

Considering the scope of respect orders on top of that, my amendments and the amendments of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie are perfectly reasonable. To consider causing alarm as on the same level as causing harassment, as prosecuting them in the same courts effectively does, defies sense. Making use of magistrates’ courts is both the rational and practical solution to this problem.

Similarly, approaching interim respect orders from a more conservative standpoint would be prudent. They are very illiberal measures and should be used only in the most necessary circumstances. Amendments, such as those tabled in my name, to create presumptions against them and to narrow the preview of their power seek to ensure that this is the case.

I hope that the Minister will agree with the important principles behind these amendments and will perhaps take them away and consider them, but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Amendments 9 to 22 not moved.

Debate on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled and de-grouped this clause stand-part notice because it would be helpful to the Committee to probe the real purpose of respect orders. We have no plans to insist that this part of the Bill be removed on Report.

This Government appear to be making the same errors as those of the previous Labour Administration. The Blair Government seemed to believe that, the more they legislated on crime and anti-social behaviour, the less of that behaviour there would be. We saw Act after Act, many repealing or amending Acts that they had passed merely a few years before. This flurry of lawmaking meant that, by the end of its term in office, Labour had created 14 different powers for police to tackle anti-social behaviour and criminality. My noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead undertook to simplify this system by condensing all these measures into just six powers. However, with this Bill we see that old pattern of the new-Labour years re-emerging. This Bill creates four new powers: respect orders, youth injunctions, housing injunctions and youth diversion orders. I cannot see what real-world impact this will make.

As I said at Second Reading, the concept of respect orders appears to be little more than a gimmick. It is legislative action to make the Government appear to be tough on anti-social behaviour when in fact they are not. Respect orders are no different from the existing anti-social behaviour injunctions. Applications for both are made by the same list of people to the same cause. The requirements that can be placed on the respondent are the same for ASB injunctions and respect orders. Both permit the making of an interim order or injunction. Both permit the exclusion of a person from their home in the case of serious violence or risk of harm. Both permit the variation or discharge of the order or injunction. They are, in almost every aspect, exactly the same.

The only difference is that one is a civil order and the other a criminal order. The Bill creates a criminal offence of breaching a condition of a respect order. A person found guilty of that offence on conviction or indictment is liable to a jail sentence of up to two years. Anti-social behaviour injunctions, however, do not have a specific criminal offence attached to them. A person who breaches a condition of an ASB injunction does not commit an offence of breaching the injunction. The Government have argued that this difference makes their respect orders tougher and therefore justified. However, this overlooks two important facts.

First, the court granting the ASB injunction can attach a power of arrest to the injunction under Section 4 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Section 9 of that Act states that

“a constable may arrest the respondent without warrant”

where they believe that the person has breached a condition of their injunction. The person arrested for a breach of their injunction can then be charged with contempt of court, which carries a punishment of up to two years’ imprisonment. It is entirely understandable that the Government wish to introduce a specific criminal offence of breaching conditions. It is easier to prosecute someone who breaches their respect order than to prosecute someone for contempt of court for breaching their injunction. That is not least because a police officer would have to know that a person had an injunction against them, that they had breached the condition and that their injunction contained a power of arrest. It is also because, even though ASB injunctions are civil orders, the criminal standard of proof is applied when determining whether a person has breached a condition.

I understand this entirely, but it does not explain why the Government are seeking to replace injunctions in their entirety. Surely, given that every other aspect is the same, it would be far easier and more expeditious to retain the injunctions and simply amend them to create an offence of breach of conditions. That would mean that the ASB injunctions remain in place but they have the same power of enforcement. Why did the Government not follow this route? Why did they not simply amend the anti-social behaviour injunctions, as opposed to creating a whole new class of order?

The answer cannot be that one is a civil order and one a criminal order because, as I have demonstrated, the civil order could easily have been upgraded to criminal status by way of legislative amendment. I would hazard a guess and say that the reason is perhaps bluster. Is it not the case that the Government wanted to seem to be tough on crime, so they came up with a rehash of ASBOs with a slightly catchier name? These new respect orders will likely have little effect on reducing anti-social behaviour. What would have a positive impact would be to increase the number of police officers. Unfortunately, the Government have failed on that front. Since they entered office, the total police officer headcount has fallen by 1,316. That record to date stands in stark contrast to the previous Government’s successful recruitment of 20,000 additional police officers during the last Parliament.

If the Government are serious about getting tough on crime, they should stop the gimmicks and start with enforcement. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have listened to the quite detailed discussion that we have had so far in our attempt at line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill in relation to respect orders. Weighing up the pros and rather more cons, I am very aware that what I am going to say might seem glib about anti-social behaviour. People listening in might think, “This crowd who are raising problems of civil liberties are not aware of the real scourge of anti-social behaviour and the impact and the misery that it can cause on ordinary people’s lives”. The noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Blencathra, gave us a taste of what that anti-social activity can feel like in local areas. I recognised the descriptions from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, of young people potentially running amok in local areas. Where I live, that has been known to happen, so I recognise that.

18:45

However, it would not be appropriate for us to be emotionally blackmailed by the suggestion that, if we are opposed to some of these anti-social behaviour orders being brought in, it is because we do not care about ordinary people suffering anti-social behaviour. It is not that we should be told to shut up and put up. I am not satisfied that respect orders will help. They certainly will not help increase the amount of respect in society, particularly of young people respecting authority or what have you. There is a danger that the orders themselves could become a scourge. Using the civil level of proof, on the balance of probabilities, respect orders are too problematic to keep in the legislation without a real challenge.

I want to challenge the Minister: introducing respect orders was a manifesto commitment but, with respect, the electorate would not know what a respect order was. They want the Government and politicians to tackle anti-social behaviour. They do want more respect in society. They do not know what a respect order is. We can barely understand what a respect order is ourselves and the Bill has only just been put before us. One would not be betraying the manifesto commitment by saying, “This order that we dreamt up because it has a good sounding title isn’t fit for purpose”.

I want to remind noble Lords what we are being asked to sign up to. Respect orders are not just to be used to deal with an individual engaged in anti-social behaviour. You can also be issued with an order if it is concluded that someone threatens to engage in said behaviour. That is a preventive order that can be dangerously open-ended. What does “threatens to engage in” mean? It means that criminal sanctions based on speculation rather than actual behaviour can be applied. This is based on a definition of anti-social behaviour as not just conduct that has caused harassment, alarm or distress to any person but conduct that is

“likely to cause distress, alarm or harassment”.

I am emphasising that because these things matter. We end up arming the state with new tools which I am not completely convinced will tackle the problem.

The notion of young people shoplifting, engaging in anti-social behaviour and running amok is a noble Lord, Lord Blencathra-style caricature—no disrespect to him—and kind of like a Daily Mail image. When those activities are happening, there is no intervention using the laws that we already have. A lot of these things are already illegal. They are certainly anti-social and actually criminal activities, but nobody does anything. So I am worried about having too open-ended a criminalising clause that can be doled out to people but will not necessarily tackle the problem.

On harassment, alarm and distress, I have been doing a lot of work with university students, and I can assure your Lordships that in universities there is a huge amount of harassment, alarm and distress being caused, particularly in relation to, for example, pro-Palestinian activists disrupting lectures and threatening lecturers, and where we have a kind of explicit Jew hatred on campus. Everybody says, “Well, what can we do?” Well, you could issue them a respect order, but even I do not think that that is the way that we should deal with it. The point is that we are using these things, it seems to me, as an abdication of responsibility for acting by basically creating another legislative tool.

Overall, the statutory test for imposing respect orders, in my opinion, is too broad and vague in its language to be a safe new legislative change. I am mindful that respect orders can also have significant impacts on our citizens’ rights and freedoms, and I do think that rights and freedoms are important. These measures are a form of behavioural control order that imposes limitations upon a person’s liberty and daily activities in an attempt to prevent unwanted behaviour that is actually quite subjectively defined. To do this, they provide the state with unfettered discretion to do anything described in the order, and that might include imposing curfews, electronic monitoring, and restrictions on who a person can communicate with and where they can travel to, and even can exclude people from their own home—things we have already heard about.

There are no limits to the type or number of prohibitions or requirements that can be imposed. Respect orders can be imposed without notice, as we have heard—without telling the person the order has been made against them—and for an indefinite period, with no provision to remove conditions imposed.

These are quite draconian challenges to our civil liberties regime and we do not even know whether they work. We are told by the Minister that the pilot scheme has been put off because it is urgent that we get on with using these orders. I would suggest that what is urgent is that we get on with enforcing the laws that we have and ensuring that those laws are used to punish wrongdoing, rather than creating a whole new legislative framework that also will probably not be enforced, but none the less gives the state a lot of powers that I would rather it did not have without much more scrutiny. I do not want this clause to stand part of the Bill, and I do want to get rid of respect orders altogether.

[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.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for the discussions that we have had today. I will start by saying something that I hope is helpful and which is meant to be helpful. Respect orders are not something in their own right. They are part of a suite of tools that the Government are looking at to help tackle anti-social behaviour.

I take some issue with what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has said about police numbers. I was Police Minister in 2009-10, and immediately after we lost office, the coalition Government reduced police numbers by around 20,000. The figure of 20,000 officers that the noble Lord says are being put on the streets really represents a replacement of ones who were taken off the streets by the very same Government that he supported.

The noble Lord asked whether we have additional police officers on the ground. This year we have put around another 3,000 police officers on the ground, and we are looking at providing around 13,000 extra pairs of boots on the ground—specials, PCSOs and, indeed, direct warranted officers—during this Parliament. That is again a commitment in the manifesto that we are doing. Many of the measures in the Bill that we will come to later around phone theft, the use of anti-social vehicles and all sorts of other measures are still part of the suite of measures to try to tackle anti-social behaviour as a whole.

If I take the challenge from the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, head on, I cannot give him a figure as to what the impact is going to be directly on those matters as of now. I will reflect on what he said and see whether I can bring further light to that. The key point is that this legislation before the Committee today—this clause stand part notice that the noble Lord is testing the Committee on—is a measure whereby in the event of a breach of those orders, speedier criminal action can be taken, which is different from where we are currently with other forms of anti-social behaviour legislation.

Again, I reaffirm what I said in earlier contributions: we are not seeking to be punitive; we are seeking to be preventive. I hope that nobody will be sanctioned by the legislation for breaching an order. The whole purpose is to put some behaviour modification in place to stop a poor behaviour or to encourage help and support to overcome the reasons why that poor behaviour has taken place in the first place.

This goes to the heart of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said because, from my perspective, this is part of a suite of measures. That is the point I want to put to the Committee today. We know that the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 did not always go far enough to tackle anti-social behaviour and I believe that the whole Committee wants to tackle that anti-social behaviour. It is why the Government committed in our manifesto to introducing the respect order and cracking down on those making our neighbourhoods, town centres and communities unsafe and unwelcome places.

The 1 million police-recorded incidents and over a third of people experiencing or witnessing some form of anti-social behaviour are key issues that any Government should address. The respect order partially replaces civil injunction powers for persons aged 18 or over but, like the civil injunction, will enable courts to set prohibitive conditions by banning disruptive ASB perpetrators from town centres or engaging in a particular behaviour or by providing a rehabilitative, positive requirement, such as attending an anger management course or, potentially, a wider drug or alcohol awareness course to help tackle the root causes of their offending.

19:00

If this legislation is passed, authorities—including the police, local authorities and registered social housing providers, among others—can apply for a respect order. That means that the people who are closest to the ground in a community, such as a police officer, local council or housing association, can identify when they want to provide some support for the potential victims of anti-social behaviour. The respect order is not a punishment unless breached, as I have said already. It is intended that, upon receiving a respect order, the offender would cease the behaviour and that there would be no further sanctions. Can I measure that for the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, at this moment? Possibly not, but I hope I can measure it down stream. Provision is made for punishment only where an offender ignores their respect order and continues to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

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.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am grateful for the contributions made and to the Minister for his response. Of course, I have no intention of opposing the passage of respect orders. They were part of the Government’s election manifesto and, as such, shall become the law of the land. This does not prevent my criticising them. Indeed, simply because they were part of the Government’s manifesto does not mean that they are a good idea that would have a positive impact on the streets of Britain.

I have provided substantive justification for why I believe that respect orders are, simply put, an effort to paint a picture of a Government bearing down on crime and anti-social behaviour when, in reality, they are not. The proof will be in the pudding; we will see whether the Prime Minister’s so-called tough new respect orders have any actual impact, in due course. For now, I will leave it there.

Clause 1 agreed.

Clause 2 agreed.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Clause 3 agreed.

Clause 4: Fixed penalty notices

Amendment 23

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

23: Clause 4, page 12, line 8, leave out subsections (3) and (4)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the subsections increasing the level of fines attached to FPNs, aiming to address concerns that existing notices and orders are being imposed in inappropriate circumstances.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 23 would remove subsections that increase the maximum level of fines attached to fixed penalty notices for breach of public space protection orders and community protection notices. The core proposal of Clause 4 is to increase the maximum FPN for these breaches from £100 to a punitive £500. This represents a 400% increase in the penalty for infractions often issued without judicial oversight.

The Manifesto Club—a body which I mentioned previously and with which I have engaged extensively on these powers—rightly labels this increase as a

“grossly out-of-proportion penalty”.

We must look at the nature of the offences that these fines target. The Home Office claims that this increase shows a “zero-tolerance approach” to anti-social behaviour, but that ignores the actual activities being punished. Manifesto Club research, relying on freedom of information data, shows that the vast majority of penalties are issued for innocuous actions that fall far outside anyone’s definition of serious anti-social behaviour. This is leading to what the Manifesto Club calls

“the hyper-regulation of public spaces”.

For instance, in 2023, Hillingdon Council issued PSPO penalties largely for idling—leaving a car engine running for more than two minutes. This affected 2,335 people, including a man waiting to collect his wife from a doctor’s surgery. Other commonly banned activities that face this grossly increased penalty include loitering, swearing, begging, wild swimming, busking and feeding birds.

The Manifesto Club has documented community protection notices that target non-harmful behaviours, which are also subject to the increased fine. Orders have been issued banning two people from closing their front door too loudly, prohibiting a man from storing his wheelbarrow behind his shed and banning an 82 year-old from wearing a bikini in her own garden. The increase in fines to £500 for these so-called busybody offences appears to be simply a form of message sending, rather than a proportionate penalty designed to resolve community harm.

The second, and perhaps most corrosive, effect of Clause 4 is that it will spark a boom in the enforcement industry and intensify the practice of fining for profit. The Manifesto Club found that 75% of PSPO penalties in 2023 were issued by private enforcement companies. These companies are typically paid per fine issued, which creates an overt financial incentive to pursue volume regardless of genuine harm or proportionality. They target easy infractions rather than the most serious offenders.

Increasing the financial reward fivefold heightens this perverse incentive to issue as many FPNs as possible for anodyne activities. Crucially, while Defra has published guidance stating that environmental enforcement should never be a means to raise revenue, the Home Office has not prohibited fining for profit for anti-social behaviour offences such as PSPO and CPN breaches, nor even formally acknowledged the issue. I have raised this many times in the House.

Rather than authorising this increase in fines, we should be prohibiting incentivised enforcement for all ASB penalties in primary legislation or statutory guidance. The system of FPNs is already heavily criticised for undermining due process. They are issued solely based on the decision of an official and do not involve the production of evidence in court. This lack of judicial scrutiny means that, when innocent people are fined for innocuous actions, they often feel completely helpless, lacking the means to appeal a decision made by incentive-driven officers.

If we are serious about addressing serious anti-social behaviour, the enforcement should focus on serious criminality and nuisance, not extracting revenue from arbitrary restrictions. We must resist measures that intensify arbitrary law enforcement and injustice. This increase in penalties must be abandoned. I therefore urge the Government to support Amendment 23 and reject subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 4. I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 24 and 25. In some aspects, I take a slightly different view from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, because I approve of the increased £500 penalty, provided it is for real anti-social behaviour. I accept the noble Lord’s point that there seem to have been quite a few ASBOs granted for “busybody offences”, and that is not right.

However, my concern here is making sure that the fines are properly paid. If we give the rise to £500, what will be the punishment if criminals do not pay it? Imprisonment is not important. In the words of the great capitalist Del Boy, it is “cushty”, and most criminals, from the smallest to the greatest, regard a term of imprisonment as factored into the crime. What about fines? No problem, they will simply not pay them, and with sufficient sob stories to the court, they will probably get away with a ridiculously low payment plan. Then, when they go outside and drive away in their BMW while texting on their new iPhone, that is great.

Only one thing works as proper punishment—they hate it—and gives the state and victims proper recompense: that is the confiscation of their ill-gotten gains or of any part of their property, which will cover the amount of any unpaid penalty. Of course, there are compensation orders, which can be made for most crimes, but, again, the convict will probably not pay up and nothing more will be done about it.

We must expand confiscation orders to all crimes where a penalty has not been paid, and my amendments are, I would suggest, a tiny but good example. We seem to go out of our way to make compensation orders as difficult as possible to obtain and deliver. Confiscation orders in the UK can be issued for any crime that involves financial gain, not just specific offences. They are used to take away profits from criminal activity, with the court determining the amount of the order based on the defendant’s benefit from their criminal conduct. The common crimes involve fraud, drug trafficking, theft and organised crime, but any offence where a financial element is present can trigger an order.

How do confiscation orders work? First of all, a conviction is required. Even I would agree with that. A confiscation order can be made only after the defendant is convicted of a crime. The Crown Court decides whether to issue an order after gathering information from both the prosecution and defence. The court’s goal is to recover the benefit—they stress “benefit”—the defendant gained from the criminal conduct. The court considers whether the defendant has a criminal lifestyle, which can be established by their conduct over time. The ultimate aim is to disrupt criminal activity by making the crime unprofitable and preventing future offences.

Why on earth stop with that tight confiscation concept about ill-gotten gains? If someone has committed a crime and gets a financial penalty or a fine and he does not pay up, he has benefited from that crime. He has made a financial gain in that he has saved the money he should have spent on a fine. In those circumstances, it is only just and right that the court’s bailiff can confiscate all and any property of the convict to recover the fine he has refused to pay or says that he cannot pay.

In this case, we are looking at confiscation of his goods and property up to a value of £500 plus a small administration fee. My amendment advocates automaticity, and that is essential. We do not need all the evidence of ill-gotten gains that prosecutors have to go through to prove that the superyacht, Bentleys and five homes all over the world came from drug running or ripping off a pension fund, since we would be collecting only on a known fine imposed by a court.

19:15

Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which deals with confiscation, has 86 clauses and 2,000 hoops for prosecuting authorities to jump through before they can get their hands on criminal money or property. If noble Lords flick through the Bill to Schedule 16, they will find 39 or 40 pages of detailed amendments to that Act. I shall probably deal with a few of those amendments when we come to it. That is a huge number of amendments just to confiscate the proceeds of crime. We do not need any of that here, and I suggest that all financial penalties or fines, such as we will have in this clause, should have an automatic confiscation order attached for failure to pay within a reasonable time. There would be no need to go back to court and no more bogus sob stories about inability to pay. Society and victims deserve that the convicted person pays his dues. My amendment would ensure that that happens.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, of course I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, opposing the increases in these fines, but I think we need to go further and for a variety of reasons abolish these on-the-spot penalties per se, which is why I have tabled this clause stand part notice.

You cannot overestimate how much public space protection orders and community protection notices trivialise what we understand to be dealing with anti-social behaviour. We have just had a long discussion about what anti-social behaviour is. These orders are part of the toolkit to deal with anti-social behaviour and they end up targeting individuals for the most anodyne and mundane activities, and banning everyday freedoms.

The use of fines has, in a way, led us to not take seriously what real anti-social behaviour is, because these fines are given out for such arbitrary, eccentric reasons. PSPOs and CPNs can be issued on a very low threshold, are entirely subject to misuse—there is lots of evidence showing that—and often criminalise, as I said, everyday activities. For example, PSPOs are often used to ban young people gathering in groups—which seems to me to be a dangerous attack on our right to assembly—despite the fact that the statutory guidance states that PSPOs should target only activities that cause a nuisance and should not criminalise

“everyday sociability, such as standing in groups”.

That is what it says, yet they are constantly used in that way and seem to be unaccountably doled out.

There are now over 2,000 PSPOs in England and Wales, and each of them contains up to 35 separate restrictions. That means that tens of thousands of new controls are being issued on public spaces all the time. As we heard earlier, they are imposed in different geographic areas, making prohibitions on different types of activities for different citizens from one place to another. You can be in one town where an activity is legal and then go to the next town and the same activity is illegal. We discussed some of that earlier.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, pointed out and as Justice has drawn our attention to, the inconsistent use of PSPOs creates a “postcode lottery” for victims but also for perpetrators. Justice says that this

“undermines the rule of law by making enforcement dependent on the victim’s location rather than the circumstances”.

I hope we can send the Minister the research done by Justice and by the Manifesto Club that has already been referred to so that he can see from the freedom of information requests to local authorities just what kind of activities are being issued with PSPOs and CPNs, and therefore what these fines are being used to tackle. I assure the Committee that it is innocuous activities, not anti-social behaviour. There are councils that are banning kite-flying, wild swimming, as we have heard, and using camping stoves.

I thought it was interesting that, recently, the Free Speech Union forced Thanet District Council to scrap its imposition of a sweeping public spaces protection order that would have banned the use of foul or abusive language in a public space in the Thanet area, so you would have been able to swear in one area but not in another. I understand that it might have raised a lot of money, but that is not necessarily the same as dealing with anti-social behaviour.

Actually, the councils themselves do not do the dirty work of enforcement. Instead, they outsource that to private companies, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has explained so well the dangers of using these private firms. We have a geographic breakdown of the national way of dealing with anti-social behaviour, and now we have an almost feudal way of collecting fines from it. These kinds of fines mean that orders might well be issued for all the wrong reasons—for income-generating, commercial purposes to meet targets that are about raising money rather than tackling anti-social behaviour—and increasing the fines will surely only incentivise that practice further.

I urge the Minister to consider that the noble cause that the Government are associated with here is dealing with anti-social behaviour, but using private companies to fine people in such a cavalier way discredits the whole cause. It is damaging the reputation of that noble cause. There is no transparency or oversight mechanism for these companies. There is one ban that I would like to bring in, and that is fining for profit. I hope the Minister will consider at least reviewing this and looking at it closely.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I do not intend to rehearse the arguments already put so effectively by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. Suffice to say that we on these Benches fully support Amendment 23, as £500 is an extortionate amount of money for the type of behaviour that fines are designed to address and will simply result in private companies making even greater profits than they do at the moment while pushing those already struggling further into debt. For these reasons, we have serious reservations about the implications of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

The orders create a postcode lottery for victims. Charities warn that, in some parts of the country, orders are handed out like confetti. This undermines public trust by making enforcement dependent on the victim’s location.

Overall, the use of these powers needs to be subject to much stricter safeguards. The Government must ensure that there is proper oversight of their use and that the law is applied equally, openly and proportionately.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this thoughtful debate on Clause 4 and associated amendments. The discussion has reflected the balance that must be struck between proportionate enforcement and ensuring that penalties remain effective and fair. As anti-social behaviour seems to be increasingly present on our streets, it is right that the clause is given careful consideration.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised concerns in Amendment 23 about the overuse or inappropriate issuance of fixed penalty notices. Those are indeed legitimate points for consideration, and I am sure that all noble Lords agree that such powers should be exercised carefully and with a proper sense of proportion. Fixed penalty notices are designed and intended to deal swiftly with low-level offending without recourse to the courts, but they must always be used responsibly and in accordance with proper guidance. However, it seems that Clause 4(3) and (4) will help to act as a proper deterrent to anti-social behaviour, as they will play an important part in ensuring that the penalty levels remain meaningful. I look forward to hearing the Government’s thoughts on this matter.

I turn to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. We are grateful to my noble friend for his focus on practical enforcement. His Amendments 24 and 25 seek to strengthen the collection of fines by introducing automatic confiscation provisions and modest administrative charges for non-payment. It is right that those who incur penalties should expect to pay them, and that local authorities are not left to have to chase persistent defaulters at the public’s expense. We therefore view my noble friend’s proposals as a constructive contribution to the debate in order to ensure that enforcement is both efficient and fair.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has given notice of her intention to oppose the Question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. We respect this view, but we cannot agree to the removal of the clause. Clause 4 contains a number of sensible and proportionate measures that are designed to improve compliance and to strengthen the effectiveness of penalties. Many of these reforms build on the Criminal Justice Bill brought forward by the previous Conservative Government.

This debate has underlined the importance of maintaining confidence in the fixed penalty system, ensuring that it is used appropriately and enforced consistently. The system exists to fulfil the wider aim of upholding law and order in our communities. In these endeavours, we on our Benches will always be supportive.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for discussing and tabling Amendment 23, and to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his Amendments 24 and 25. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for his broad support for the Government’s approach to the main thrust of the issues, although he, like us, slightly diverges from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which I will come back to in a moment.

I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—I am afraid that is the nature of political life. These offences are used for things such as dog fouling, littering, vandalism and drunken, aggressive behaviour. They are not trivial or low level; they are things that impact on people’s lives, and the abandonment of the clause would mean the abandonment of the people who are victims of those particular instances. The debate for me is around whether £100 or the £500 that we have put in the Bill is a reasonable figure. I argue to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that it is practitioners who have said to us that the current £100 limit does not always carry enough weight to stop offenders committing further anti-social behaviour.

I also say to him that, under existing legislation, relevant agencies may already issue fixed penalty notices of up to £500 for environmental offences such as littering, graffiti or fly-posting. We expect that the prospect of a higher fine will act as a stronger deterrent, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has said. These measures were consulted on by the Home Office in 2023, before this Government came to office, and received majority support as an effective deterrent to anti-social behaviour. I do not know offhand whether the Manifesto Club contributed to that consultation, but the point is that a majority in the consultation accepted that the increase was necessary. Increasing the upper limit does not mean that every person breaching an order will receive a fine of £500. The figure could be lower, proportionate to the individual circumstances and the severity of the case.

19:30

Even if an individual feels their fine is not reasonable or proportionate, they can make representations to the issuing agency on receipt of the notice to make their case and give reasons why they feel the notice should not be implemented. There will be statutory guidance, updated very shortly, to emphasise the importance of using these new limits proportionately, including a recommendation that local authorities include wording on this in any service level agreement with the contractors. I hope that those reassurances assist the noble Lord and that he will not, in due course, press those amendments.

The point that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has mentioned is important. It is important that individuals pay a fixed penalty notice and do not shirk their responsibilities. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that a robust process is already in place for non-payments of such notices, including—and this is quite a hefty penalty—a 50% increase in the fine amount and referral to a magistrates’ court, which could mean further costs falling on the individual.

Confiscation orders can also involve seizure of assets, bank accounts or property, and failure to pay can lead eventually to imprisonment. It would be disproportionate to introduce automatic confiscation orders for a failure to pay a fixed penalty notice of up to £500, but the current legislation already provides for escalation to the magistrates’ court for unpaid fixed penalty notices as well as a criminal conviction and fines for persistent breaches. This ensures accountability without resorting to confiscation powers designed for more serious crimes.

I recognise where the noble Lord is coming from. He shakes his head in slight unhappiness at my response, but I think this is a reasonable approach, and the Government’s intention is that, when fines are levied, they are paid. That is the key point on which we share common ground. With that, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lord, I thank the Minister for his reply, disappointing though it is, but that is probably a pattern that will continue as the Bill carries on.

I did not even get an acknowledgement from the Minister that there are flaws in the existing PSPO/CPN system; often, it is just busybody offences that receive fixed penalty notices. He just recited a number, at perhaps the outer edge of anti-social behaviour, which of course should attract fixed penalty notices. He also prayed in aid the fact that environmental offences can have fixed penalty notices at a higher level, but we have heard quite a lot of anecdotal evidence about those being misused. The chances are that these new higher penalties will be misused as well.

I also did not seem to get any acknowledgement that the fining-for-profit aspect of this by local government is a problem. I do not know whether the new statutory guidance the Minister mentioned will include something along those lines. I very much hope so, and that he can reassure us that there will be a reaffirmation of the need for proper democratic oversight of PSPOs and CPNs. The current guidance recommends that councils, either in full council or in cabinet, approve these orders but that appears not to be the case currently, with all the consequences that the Baroness, Lady Fox, has outlined.

I hope that, if we are going to learn from the experience of the current anti-social behaviour powers, the Government take on board some of this debate and the points made in previous groups. We will probably return to this on Report, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 23.

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

Amendments 24 and 25 not moved.

Clause 4 agreed.

Clause 5 agreed.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.34 pm.

Financial Provision on Divorce

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:35

Asked by

[Baroness Deech]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the Law Commission’s Financial Remedies Scoping Report published in December 2024, what consideration they are giving to the reform of the law relating to financial provision on divorce.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, for nearly 50 years I have been calling for reform of the way assets are distributed on divorce, a law now contained in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. In that time, divorce law itself has undergone profound changes and is now entirely no fault and administrative. In 1973, the financial provisions were based on the difficulties that had arisen when divorce was first detached from fault, and women and the Church had argued that the husbands should pay for what they saw as the abandonment of their wives. It was a sop to them.

In the past decades, society has changed. Sadly, the harm to children remains, and it is shameful how their maintenance is neglected and not enforced—one of the ills that I am seeking to remedy. The statutory law, however, has remained frozen in a 1960s state. Over the years, the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, the great expert, and I, have pointed out that it is so full of discretion that it is unpredictable to the point of being in breach of the rule of law. It is unstable, being thrown into fresh disarray every time there is a Court of Appeal or Supreme Court decision. It still contains gaps in coverage. For example, to what extent do pre-matrimonial assets become matrimonial, on which the case of Standish has opined after 52 years? There is the treatment of pensions. Does domestic abuse make a difference, even if general conduct does not? Why should an oligarch’s wife such as Mrs Potanina be able to clog up our courts, with only the slightest link to this country, in order to seek millions more to add to the £31 million she had already been awarded in Russia?

All this has a devastating effect on litigants. There is no legal aid, and I have witnessed less well-off couples in court, ignorant of even the basics, such as the paramountcy of the child’s welfare. I have seen them weeping at the adversarial nature of the proceedings, needing more judicial guidance than there is time for. I have seen much of a couple’s assets dissipated in legal costs—for example, assets of £1.5 million running up costs of £280,000 in EC v JC.

Let there be no misunderstanding: this is a lucrative field for lawyers representing better-off couples, and their opposition to reform is understandable. I have seen what were thought to be watertight nuptial agreements torn up by judges in different ways. It is disgraceful, too, that the law’s uncertainty keeps the door open for blackmail by husbands in religious divorces.

Some discretion is a good thing, but it has reached a pitch that is too costly and too damaging to the parties. As the Law Commission explained, Scotland and some Australian states have statutory guidelines that promote mediation and settlement without ruling out judicial nuance. I no longer need to make the case for reform. The noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, and I have been totally vindicated by the Law Commission’s scoping report of December last year, which in hundreds of pages explored the deficiency of the law and determined that it has to be reformed.

The existing law is an intellectual delight for the lawyers, an accountants’ bonus, solicitors’ sustenance, an area of judicial creativity, a windfall for the wives of oligarchs, an academic goldmine, an impoverishment of children, but a desert for the average divorcee. We are out of step with most of Europe and the common-law world, especially Scotland, where the default position is a 50:50 split of assets acquired after the marriage, very limited ongoing maintenance and prenuptial contracts that are binding. This is what I have tried in successive years to achieve in my Private Member’s Bill. Now we are nearly there.

The Law Commission identified four potential models for reform and invites the Government to choose one. The first is codifying the existing law, but that would lead only to the continuation of the discretionary scheme and all its attendant ills. The second is guidelines-based discretion, which would retain judicial discretion within a structured framework. This, too, would keep the door open to too much uncertainty. The third is, as I recommended in my Bill, a matrimonial property regime which limits division to assets acquired during marriage, excludes premarital, inherited or gifted assets, aligns with Scotland and other European countries, and limits maintenance. If that sounds harsh, remember that wives, typically, who are in receipt of universal credit will have their maintenance reduced pound for pound. The husbands in that category are unlikely to have any income to give away in any case. The fourth option is a community property model without discretion—just dividing equally all post-marital assets. That may be a step too far for now.

Whatever model the Government choose, they should be mindful of artificial intelligence: ChatGPT has entered family law. There are already online models for clarifying which assets are in play and suggesting a settlement. The way forward is obvious. Once the law is reformed and has clear principles, AI will gather the information and predict the resulting split that should occur, leaving only the very dissatisfied to continue to fight in court at huge expense.

The other imperative is that there is no point in legislating for cohabiting couples to join the fray while the law is unsettled. That would only open the door to blackmail and a waste of assets. All the Government have to do is choose one of these models and the Law Commission will get on with the work of transposing it into statutory form for enactment. We have waited long enough. If this House believes in reducing child poverty, as I know it does, a law that prioritises child maintenance from divorcing parents and stops wasting their assets must be a good thing.

In the meantime, the Government could immediately bring forward for enactment the Bill already drafted by the Law Commission for the statutory enactment of pre- and post-nuptial agreements with conditions. That would enable all those who dislike the present law to get around it. It would also enable cohabiting couples to make agreements with some confidence that they will be upheld. It is imperative that the Government choose one model now for the sake of litigants, the general economy and peace of mind of families. Vested interests and uncertainty about direction can now be put aside. I ask the Minister to say which model the Government will go forward with.

19:43

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing this debate, and her excellent and compelling speech. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, deserve great credit for their campaign and persistence in pressing for action on this matter.

The Law Commission report strongly supports the noble Baronesses’ arguments that the law on financial provisions on divorce requires change to ensure certainty and accessibility. I share the view that some form of judicial discretion is important but—dare I say?—rather like the debate over VAR in modern football, greater consistency will be welcome.

I have just a few questions for the Minister, which relate to the place and role of religious courts in relation to divorce proceedings and financial settlements. This House has been alert in previous debates to ensuring that religious courts and their procedures are not used as a means of undermining the rights of women or to disadvantage them. This is a serious matter in the case of some—thankfully, a small number —of Jewish religious divorces and in other cases.

First, I would be grateful if the Minister will confirm that, in whichever solution the Government alight on, they will ensure that consideration is given to the question of conduct. Frequently, the problems associated with denying a religious divorce can be a form of domestic abuse and especially a form of coercive control. Will the Minister undertake to consider addressing this in the Government’s proposal of how to go forward?

Secondly, we have seen terrible cases where, in the process of agreeing to a religious divorce, the religious courts, their officials and their processes have tied this outcome to varying the financial settlements and even child access arrangements, including those agreed through the courts. Will the Minister confirm that consideration will be given to including a specific exclusion to this practice?

Thirdly, will the Minister also consider reinforcing that courts of arbitration must not exceed their jurisdiction in such matters? Whilst the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 provide a regime which should deal with this, the obligation falls on the unfortunate victim to have to seek relief and very often in circumstances where they are under terrible pressures. Will the Minister take the opportunity to place this obligation on the courts of arbitration to ensure that they and their members are at fault if they exceed their jurisdiction in these matters?

Fourthly and finally, in relation to prenuptial agreements, will the Minister confirm that the Government will allow for PNAs to be enforced to deal with financial and other matters where financial pressures could be exerted, so that they can be forcefully upheld and varied only in exceptional circumstances?

19:46

[Lord Patten (Con)]

My Lords, I happily join the congratulations the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on getting this timely debate, and the firm tone in which she addressed the Minister and the Government: for heaven’s sake, get on and do something and do not let things languish any longer.

That having been said, in this debate, I shall concentrate only on the matter of financial provision for children. I am no lawyer; I have no financial interest to declare or any interest in any of my professional and business undertakings. For complete transparency, I have never had any involvement in divorce or legal separation. So I am speaking tonight as a generalist—an amateur in a Chamber full of experts in this matter.

I have long been concerned about the correlation between children having divorced parents and the likelihood of later offending, as shown by the excellent longitudinal studies by its researchers coming out of the Home Office over so many years. It is a department of state, I have to say in passing, that I think is very often unfairly excoriated for being guilty of all sorts of things, when it is facing people who are guilty of lots of other things. It is a very difficult department to run.

Of course, what the figures show is a correlation and not a causation—a guaranteed outcome. Lots of children from divorced families are at risk of unhappiness or issues of a behavioural nature. Most do not offend, but some do, and the statistics are as plain as a pikestaff. Together, these are facts and statistics that these days we almost dare not speak their name, because they do not often get a welcome in polite discourse. They are uncomfortable facts for a lot of people, but they should be much more widely known—that is why I am speaking tonight—to be dealt with more effectively through public education, challenging though that would be.

I believe that too many young people do not get timely help in the midst of parental conflict, and therefore I have two suggestions. First, to take account of the longer-term effects on children, which go on and on, provision of financial support should be extended from 18 to 21 to help mitigate these issues, which take time to resolve—if they ever can be wholly resolved.

Secondly, the law should now provide for binding nuptial agreements—not just hopes but binding commitments for future years—regarding future children yet to be born, or, in other words, a clear understanding and undertaking that they have lengthy responsibilities ahead of them. All this is happening at a time when, as I read only last week, people are pressing legal persons to consider taking into account the future of their pets in nuptial agreements.

19:50

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I too am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has put forward this Question. I support much of what the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said about the importance of children and the fact that they are, in many ways, not properly recognised when we look at financial provision.

I spent most of my life at the Bar and in three tiers of the judiciary, in family disputes over children and the division of financial assets. I was a divorce registrar when the 1973 legislation became law—see how long I have been in this. Most of the financial disputes I tried were with couples either, if lucky, with a house and a few other assets or with no property owned and only debts. One important aspect of financial dispute cases that do not settle is often the high degree of emotion in the background. Rather like in child disputes, the parties are fighting the issues of the broken relationship in the context of the court cases.

The Law Commission’s excellent scoping report correctly identified the extent to which big-money cases have distorted the approach to the usual divorce case. I am largely out of touch, having retired many years ago, but I recognise in the scoping report much of what I dealt with. The issues have not changed very much. It seems clear—from the report, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton, and from what I have heard from practitioners—that some substantial adjustment to the existing law now needs to be provided by Parliament. I was attracted to some extent by the Law Commission’s “codification-plus”, but I fear it would need “plus, plus, plus” to achieve enough certainty, together with a residual discretion.

Both the Scottish and the New Zealand legislation would, with additions—many of which are proposed by academics—probably meet what is needed. I do not entirely support the divorce Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, because in my view it is too rigid. There are frequent situations that her Bill, if it became law, would not provide for; there is not sufficient flexibility. I would like to see more certainty, with enough discretion for the judge to meet the more unusual needs of certain spouses and partners. I very much support prenups, so long as a judge can retain a discretion to help a spouse or partner, male or female, who develops a serious medical problem such as MS, Parkinson’s or indeed dementia.

One major issue came up again and again in the cases I tried. With couples with children owning a flat or a house and no other assets, what should happen to the house after the mother—generally the mother—and the children have had it during the childhood? I do not know the answer to this. We used to say that, after the children reached 18 or 21, it was sold. Nowadays, that is said not to be a good idea, but I am not sure what is better.

I am particularly concerned about the longish marriage: the wife who does not work—the husband says she does not need to—or who takes a very small job, and he then leaves her. She is middle-aged or elderly; how does she cope? Quite simply, to cut off maintenance after five years or so would not allow for that sort of case.

I am interested in the idea of cohabitants, but I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that we should not start on that line until we have dealt with divorce and financial provision; it would disturb that.

I would very much like to see any legislation that this Government are brave enough to introduce being treated as all-party. Pre-legislative scrutiny would help, in my view, and I hope that it would reduce the number of amendments.

19:54

[Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for this debate. I feel humbled to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I have spoken on many occasions in your Lordships’ House about the urgent need for reform in relation to ancillary relief in divorce. Rather than go over very familiar territory, which just gets lost, I will focus—as previously flagged to the Minister—on the law in prenuptial contracts, in the hope that something will actually get done. It is simply not acceptable that the legislators will not deal with this issue as a stand-alone one to be fixed. This came before your Lordships’ House on 28 February, and I am still waiting for a response from the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. I do not make any criticism there, because when we were in government it was no better.

To say that this depends on sorting out the entire matrimonial financial remedies situation, including cohabitation rights, is an absurd excuse for dealing with an issue that is not even mentioned in the 1973 legislation as amended, and on which the Supreme Court in Granatino, now 15 years ago, invited Parliament to legislate. I declare my interest both as a divorce lawyer and as a member of the Marriage Foundation. As one can imagine, 15 years since the ruling in Granatino upholding the validity of prenuptial contracts in certain circumstances, there has been a seismic shift in the acceptability of such contracts. As a consequence of them being entered into, and those marriages breaking down now, the occurrence of cases appearing before the family courts has increased.

According to a recent survey, 46% to 47% of people under 50 regard such contracts as a good idea, whereas 37% of the over-65s are in favour of them. The best statistics that I could glean in relation to prenuptial contracts coming before the courts are as follows. In 2010-15, there were 310; in 2015-20, there were 359; and in 2020-25, there were 542. Prenups are no longer the preserve of the rich—or exclusively of the rich—and sufficient time has passed since Radmacher for prenups to trickle down into public consciousness. Not only are prenuptial agreements more common, but they are also entered into by parties who have modest assets but wish to retain their financial autonomy—maybe one is a homeowner, or maybe there are two professionals —or by people entering a second marriage.

The point made by my noble friend Lord Patten on children is good and valid. Wearing my hat as a Marriage Foundation member, I note that statistics show that, when children are born of unmarried couples, they fare less well and that that relationship is more likely to flounder. People do not get married when the uncertainty of getting divorced is so obvious and they cannot protect themselves.

There is absolutely no consistency in how these contracts are applied, the two-step test in Radmacher being that the contract has to be entered into freely between the parties but will not be upheld if a court determines that it is unfair to do so. What is fair depends on the judge, who from Parliament is given no legal direction. The application of the law is now at odds with the facts in this case, where there was no disclosure and the husband, although advised to get legal advice, did not get any. Had he done so, he would have found that the law in England, where the parties were living, was that these agreements were only evidential and unenforceable.

The issue of fairness, which influences whether the court will uphold such a contract, usually revolves around the applicant’s needs, although needs is a very elastic and discretionary term applied by the tribunal. It is not even clear with the whether the existence of a PNC limits or curtails needs. For the avoidance of doubt, it is impossible to contract out of children’s maintenance, which is always open for the court to adjudicate on. The absence of any legislation in this regard leaves such contracts open to challenge; at a time when the rest of the law is so very uncertain, their reliability is even more important. The idea that alternative dispute resolutions or mediators are able to sort out the problem in relation to the treatment of a PNA is fanciful, when two respectable lawyers can differ in their interpretation of the law and therefore frustrate any mediated situation. From October this year to May of next, the president has announced—

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

I am sorry to interrupt, but I am conscious of the advisory time limit and giving the Minister enough time to wind up.

[Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)]

Can I just finish quickly then? The president has announced that financial remedies are being taken out of the list, because there is no time to deal with them. The courts are being blocked by litigants in person and rich people and, in a situation where the law were clearer, the courts would have more space to deal with people who really need them.

20:01

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for raising this question for further debate. The Law Commission’s thorough and balanced scoping report asks if it is agreed that the law needs reform and which of the four suggested models for reform should be preferred by the Government. Importantly, it asks the Government to consider what underpinning principles should appear in reforming legislation.

The Law Commission made it clear that future work in this area will require a number of significant policy decisions. Having worked since the early 1970s as a barrister, then until recently as a judge, dealing with matrimonial and other family cases, I hope that I understand the strengths and weaknesses of existing law and practice. When I started, the law, introduced in 1970 and reproduced in 1973, moved the focus of cases away from largely sterile disputes over legal ownership of property towards the realities of the needs of the parties and their children. The Act of 1984 added the aim of achieving financial independence and an immediate or deferred clean break. Case law has emphasised the objective of a fair outcome. Present company, I hope, will forgive me for saying that case law has not been assisted with its concept of matrimonialisation, which has perhaps moved the clock back, and arguments about it should be confined to a luxury in bigger money cases.

Whatever reform option is selected, the need will be for law that gives clarity, predictability and some flexibility and can address any significant financial disadvantage and disparity. While trying to avoid uncritical attachment to what is familiar to me, I suggest that problems with the operation of the existing law have in some respects been overstated. Much of the current law has evolved through authoritative decisions in big-money cases involving ultra-high-net-worth individuals, which have little similarity to the average case, with far less cloth to be cut, trying to create two households out of one mortgaged family home and stretched incomes and borrowing capacity. Whatever option is selected—I prefer the so-called codification plus model, with principles clearly stated on the face of the statute, maintaining the ability of judges to exercise discretion—I think the time has come for a decision to be made.

I wish to make the following final points. First, leaving some level of informed discretion to the court should not be seen as a bad or undesirable thing. Achieving greater certainty should not require restrictive rigidity. If anything, family law practitioners know that one size does not fit all. Secondly, any new law should highlight the importance of pensions and reform should address the question of accessible and affordable valuation of pensions. Thirdly, the temptation to allow for greater emphasis on domestic abuse as relevant conduct should be resisted, except in extreme cases. If disputed, allegations of domestic abuse have to be tried, and the cost to the parties and the court time taken will be greatly increased. Even when established, such abuse is hard to quantify in monetary terms, unless serious enough to have had a long-term financial consequence. Fourthly, if there is to be further delay, as has been said, the Government can at least now legislate for prenuptial agreements.

Finally, I suggest that the views of experienced specialist practitioners at the coalface should not be disregarded. They have to operate any changed legislative cogs, perhaps consoled by the advice of the late Joseph Jackson, doyen of matrimonial law, that there is always at least 10 years’ work in any new Act of Parliament.

20:05

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on introducing this debate, and I congratulate her and the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, on their tenacity in bringing these issues before the House.

A lot has happened in society since the 1970s, when Parliament last intervened, and the heavy lifting in the development of the law has been done by the judges. They have introduced in various cases quite a lot of different expressions. I declare an interest as a barrister, and one who was recently instructed in the two cases mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech: Standish and Potanin. Some of the concepts that they have introduced, such as needs, as already mentioned, present a very different concept of what needs would normally be expected to mean, for example. Then there is the sharing principle, the yardstick of equality, matrimonialisation of property, mingling, compensation, stellar contribution —and then the very difficult thing that judges apparently have to assess sometimes, matrimonial endeavour. I am sure that all of us would ask ourselves from time to time whether we have been sufficiently endeavouring matrimonially.

The problem is that there is a very big discretion. The issue always, for a court, and indeed for so much of the legislature, is flexibility versus predictability. The difficulty is the 1970 Act; the 1973 re-enactment of the 1970 Act contained no statutory aim, just a big discretion. What is fair is rather subjective and can be different in the eyes of different judges. Sir Nicholas Mostyn, a retired High Court judge, never short of a forthright opinion in this area, is quoted in this very substantial document from the Law Commission. He described the approach of the judges as having a “woolly discretion”. His view was that the law,

“will never be predictable, transparent, economical or consistent”

as it is at the moment. Surely, we need to attempt some form of legislation, such as the Bill suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I do not know, but I am sure that she would not be wedded to every single word of that Bill. It is at least a significant improvement on the current uncertainty that prevails.

Finally, let me deal with the question of prenuptial agreements. The House of Lords was clear—or at least eight out of nine of them were clear—as to what the approach should be. One would have thought, reading that case, that judges would be all too keen to honour prenuptial agreements where they had been reached. In fact, quite a lot of judges seem to take the view that, if it turns out for one reason or another—and stuff happens in life—that the prenuptial agreement does not seem to them to be fair, as things now are, they find some reason to avoid the consequences of the prenuptial agreement, thereby completely undermining the public policy that was identified in that seminal case.

There is a public policy, I suggest, in favour of marriage, and if people, particularly people in their second marriages, are very hesitant to approach the question of marriage without a prenup—because who knows what might happen and what other people might have claims—it is simply contrary to public policy not to have a statute. I do not find the argument that we cannot do anything until we do everything, which was the answer we got last time from the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, the Minister’s colleague, very satisfactory. Let us do something; preferably let us do everything, but let us not sit back and say we can solve the problem only if we solve every single issue.

The scoping paper does not provide any answers, but it provides some options. I congratulate, rather late in time, the Minister on her appointment. I think she has policy responsibility. Please give an answer that previous Ministers, including me, were unable to give.

20:10

[Lord St John of Bletso (CB)]

My Lords, I join in thanking my noble friend Lady Deech for again introducing this important debate. Her timeless and tireless tenacity in pushing this thing forward is exemplary, and I commend her for all she has done in trying to reform this crucial part of family law.

The Law Commission’s scoping report we are discussing today laid bare many facts that we knew before, including that the law governing financial revision on divorce is no longer fit for purpose. The report’s conclusion is stark:

“The law lacks certainty, and accessibility to an extent that it could be argued to be inconsistent with the rule of law”.


When the rule of law itself is called into question, we cannot simply sit back and wait for the Government to consider their options indefinitely.

As many have mentioned, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, now well over 50 years old, was from a different generation—I say this with all respect to my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss—and society has changed. The consequences of this inaction are profound and far-reaching, as we see in the 26% of applicants who lack legal representation and must navigate the labyrinthine system alone. As too often happens, legal costs consume the very assets that families are fighting over, leaving children deprived of the financial stability that they should have in their inheritance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, spoke powerfully about the uncertainty that plagues the current system. This is not justice; this is a lottery, and as my noble friend Lady Deech rightly pointed out, judicial discretion intended to provide flexibility has instead become a source of unpredictability and expense. Judges apply their own vision of what is fair, there is no clear statutory guidance and couples are left with no way of knowing what the outcome will be.

Clearly, one of the most powerful and needed reforms is that of prenuptial agreements. I practised as a divorce attorney in South Africa, where under the Corpus Juris Civilis and Roman Dutch law, prenuptial agreements have worked for many decades. When the Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill was debated in 2018, there was a belief that reform was imminent. Sadly, seven years later, prenuptial agreements are still not enforced by courts in England and Wales and the can is constantly being kicked down the road. Having prenuptial agreements enforceable would provide certainty, reduce litigation and save enormous sums in legal fees.

Of course, safeguards are essential. There must be financial disclosure; there must be independent legal advice; and the terms must be free, fair and reasonable. Crucially, the welfare—as several Members have already mentioned—and needs of children, must always be paramount and determined separately. But to deny couples the autonomy to agree their own financial arrangements is paternalistic and out of step with modern life. As noble Lords have mentioned, the Law Commission has presented four models for reform, from single codification to more radical default.

In conclusion, I hope the Minister, whom I congratulate on her new appointment, will give us, in winding up, first, a timetable for introducing a Bill to enforce prenuptial agreements and, secondly, a commitment to wholesale modernisation of this antiquated and damaging area of law. The case for reform is overwhelming.

20:14

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

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest in that, although I do no divorce work now, I once did, and I am still—rather by default, I fear—a member of the Family Law Bar Association. I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on introducing this debate in an area where she has campaigned for many years. I also thank the Law Commission for its very hard work in producing the scoping report, which shows by its very length what a daunting task reform in this area will be.

This debate has exposed a tension well described by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, between flexibility and judicial discretion, on the one hand, and certainty and predictability on the other. Those advocating flexibility and judicial discretion emphasise the importance of individual judges weighing up factors in particular cases and deciding how to apply them, in applying Section 25 and to reach fair decisions. Those advocating certainty and predictability argue that the present law does not make it clear to divorcing parties where they stand on how financial provision orders are to be made. That is particularly unfortunate when so many couples are without legal advice or representation.

The Law Commission’s scoping report said:

“The law lacks certainty, and accessibility to an extent that it could be argued to be inconsistent with the rule of law”.


The charge of inconsistency with the rule of law may be overstated, but the charges of uncertainty and inaccessibility are serious. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, set out this case, argued by her persuasively, as I have said, for many years, supported by others, including the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, who both concentrated on the question of nuptial agreements.

The Law Commission recommends a full review of the law but it does not express a preference between the four options it considers, stating that a full report is required once a choice between the four options has been made by government. The first of those options is codification of the existing law. I submit that that represents no real reform, in an area where it is quite clear that some reform is needed. The second option, codification-plus, would involve consideration of the difficult issues in this area: the position and enforceability of nuptial agreements, considered by the Law Commission in 2014; limits on the duration of spousal and child maintenance; the place of conduct in financial provision proceedings, including domestic abuse; pension sharing; and limitation. The third option is guided discretion, which largely overlaps with the second option of codification-plus. It would leave judicial discretion in place but set out clearly the principles on which it should be applied. The fourth and final option is the default regime, applied in some other jurisdictions, which would set out a general rule—probably some kind of community property arrangement—subject to exceptions to be more fully defined.

I argue that the Law Commission is rather ducking the central issue in failing to express a preference between the four options. For my part, I favour retention of some judicial discretion in the context of greater clarity and certainty, as does the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. I agree fully with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that some judicial discretion and flexibility continue to be needed to cover unusual cases.

I understand the argument that this is a political decision, ultimately for Parliament, but that should not prevent the Law Commission expressing a view on the options it has thoroughly researched. The Law Commission has, in the past, made radical and fully considered recommendations for reform. Before we legislate, I would far prefer to see a full report, including consideration of all the options and specific recommendations from the Law Commission to Parliament. It would then be for Parliament to legislate on financial provision law for the future.

20:19

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, like everyone else who has spoken today, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for moving this debate so that the House can scrutinise this important matter. The Law Commission has produced a meticulous scoping report on financial remedies. It has put forward four clear options but has not come to a final decision, and that is a pity.

Few areas of law touch more directly on ordinary lives than family law. Marriage is an institution that we on these Benches firmly support. Breakdown is always distressing for those involved. It is the law’s task to bring fairness and finality to support families making this difficult transition. I have a genuine interest in the topic. During my first 20 years or so at the Bar, financial provision and other family matters formed a substantial part of my practice—I am a little out of date, but I know where they are all coming from.

The Law Commission’s report is sobering. It shows that the framework, established in 1973, is no longer enough. The Act was drafted for a different social world and people need certainty. The system may be fair in individual cases, but it is opaque to those who must live under it. It cannot be right if the outcome depends on the postcode or philosophy of the individual judge, or if it is simply too difficult to understand the cases. Uncertainty drives parties towards litigation and expense, and it undermines confidence, as we have heard, in the rule of law itself. These challenges must be met. There must be enough flexibility, but predictability for everybody except the exceptions.

On these Benches, we urge the Government to take seriously the Law Commission’s invitation to select a clear model for reform and to embark on the detailed work necessary. It seems to us plain that we cannot wait for the Law Commission to produce a full report—we must get on with it. The work is done; there are practical decisions to be made, and there are enough people who can pull that together. There must be clearer statutory guidance, improved transparency on outcomes, and clarity, in particular for those who cannot afford lawyers.

The recent judgments have illustrated the strength and strains of the system. The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, yet it also exposed the complexity of the current case law. Reform should set out principles accessible in statute.

The material now has been put before the Government by the Law Commission. This important report must not gather dust. The Government must act. I wait to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, what course the Government will take. The report must not be put in the “too difficult” box. The Government must bring forward a Bill. I suggest that this could be done in the next Session or certainly the one after—there is no reason not to. There should be pre-legislative scrutiny and, I hope, a broadly cross-party approach. One thing is certain: we must not let a search for perfection be the enemy of the good.

20:22

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by joining all other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for securing this debate. The noble Baroness has, as other noble Lords have said, been unceasing in championing reform in this area, and I was very grateful to her for meeting me before the debate so that I could be sure I understood the issues she was going to raise. I also thank the Law Commission for the scoping report which has formed the basis for today’s debate, and indeed for its wider contribution to law reform.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and other noble Lords said, she and others have long campaigned for a change in the current law, because they are of the view that there is not enough certainty about it. The reasons are that it leaves too much to judicial discretion, and, because most of the principles are contained in case law, it is very difficult for couples to understand without consulting a lawyer. It was in this context that the previous Government asked the Law Commission to review financial remedies law, examining whether the current framework in England and Wales delivers fair and consistent results.

The report identifies not merely technical issues but matters that affect real families, often at times of great vulnerability and distress. Its conclusions go to the heart of the family justice system: namely, is the system fair, and can we and our fellow citizens have confidence in it? The Law Commission’s verdict is clear: the existing law lacks cohesion and fails to give parties the certainty they need. That is of course a troubling conclusion for any Government to absorb. I was particularly struck by its finding that the law can sometimes not only fail to resolve disputes but may even actively encourage continued conflict. That is a sobering conclusion and it underscores why this debate is timely.

As many noble Lords have made clear, because this was a scoping report, rather than setting out its conclusions, the Law Commission offered four possible models for reform. Each of these offers a different balance between judicial discretion and legal certainty. These have been described in the speeches of others, principally that of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and I shall not rehearse them further.

This brings me to the Government’s plans. Your Lordships will be aware of the Government’s manifesto commitment to strengthen the rights and protections for those in cohabiting relationships. Today, over 3.5 million couples live together, more than double the number 30 years ago. One of the reasons why the Government are so concerned about this is that, when such relationships come to an end, women and children are often left without financial security. Many of them do not even realise that they are left financially insecure until it is too late. They do not realise it because there is a widespread myth that the law recognises common-law marriages. In fact, it does no such thing, and the children of such relationships are frequently left unprotected.

Earlier this year, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby confirmed that we will be consulting on cohabitation reform. I repeat that commitment today, but I want to go further, because I have listened carefully to your Lordships’ concerns about uncertainty and conflict in the current system of remedies on divorce. The Government share those concerns and are determined to look more at these issues and address them. I therefore confirm that our consultation will not only consider cohabitation reform but will also explore the challenges identified by the Law Commission in relation to the current law on financial provision on divorce.

I realise that this may disappoint many noble Lords. I particularly bear in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, gave such a charming and persuasive invitation to me to say exactly today what we are going to do, but I am afraid I am going to have to resist it. Some noble Lords may wonder why we have not simply asked the Law Commission to continue its impressive work, plumped for the one of the options, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, suggested, and told the commission to get on with it. However, as has been made clear in this Chamber tonight by the speeches of noble Lords, many of whom have great expertise in this area, there is disagreement even among them as to which option we should be going for.

So the answer is that, when we consult on cohabitation reform, we have a real opportunity to examine the question of break-up and financial remedies in tandem; we are not going to do it piecemeal. Consulting on financial provision alongside cohabitation will bring consistency and fairness across marriage, civil partnerships and cohabitation, recognising that reforms in one area may have implications for the other.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I hesitate to interrupt, but does the Minister not appreciate that marriage is a status but non-marriage is not a status, and that the time has come for the two to be looked at separately: divorce on the one hand and how you look after those in other relationships on the other? The Law Commission has done a lot of work and the ground has been laid. We can go down parallel paths, but they should not be linked and heard at the same time. I see everyone else in this Chamber nodding.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am afraid I am going to have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, because our assessment is that looking at these matters piecemeal will run the risk of creating new disputes and injustices. In the end, it is about making sure principally that children are protected when the relationships from which they are born end up dissolving.

I assure the noble and learned Baroness—

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Perhaps I might point out to the Minister that the consultation on cohabitation was carried out very thoroughly by the Law Commission. It did it some years ago and, as far as children go, you cannot protect them if the splitting couple—which is very often the case with cohabitants—have no money, and we are not enforcing child maintenance in this country. So do not do the work all over again—it has been done.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am afraid that I will disappoint the noble Baroness. This is a manifesto commitment, and it will happen. We will issue our consultation by spring next year.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. The one thing that the House has agreed on this evening is prenups. It would be very simple to introduce prenups, and it would not cause any difficulty for anything else. It would not stop the Government looking at cohabitation with divorce. Prenups is a special situation, and I have become convinced that they would be entirely sensible.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

It is very difficult to resist the noble and learned Baroness, with all her experience, but I am afraid that I will have to do so.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, who is greatly admired and respected, not just because of her expertise and experience. The points she raised were supported across the House by almost all noble Lords. It is frustrating that the previous Government did not give a full response to the Law Commission’s 2014 recommendations on nuptial agreements. As we are working towards our consultation, we are carefully considering this issue. It will be taken into account, to ensure that we have a consistent framework, which will be designed mainly to put children at the centre of what happens when relationships break down.

[Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. To what extent does a prenuptial agreement influence the protection of children? We cannot legislate in a prenup any rights in relation to them. It is open to the court—every single avenue is open to the judge. Someone simply cannot contract out.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. One of the issues that the Government need to consider when deciding what to do about nuptial agreements is whether—and, if so, how—such agreements provide certainty and fairness for both parties while protecting the interests of any children. That is why they will all be considered as part of one piece.

I turn briefly to the points made by other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, raised a number of questions, including how conduct will be treated in financial remedy proceedings. I have listened carefully to the matters raised about that. The Law Commission examined it closely, and as we prepare for consultation, we will carefully consider what it has said. Challenging violence against women and girls is a priority for this Government and will be central to our consideration about the issue. On the matters he raised about religious courts, I will have to write to him.

The noble Lord, Lord Patten, raised the issue of children. Very often, as I have already said, those are the children of cohabiting partners. We are concerned to ensure that children are prioritised at all points.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, raised many issues; the noble Lord, Lord Meston, agreed with some but not all of them. Again, I make the point that, even with the experience in this House, not everyone is agreed on the right way forward. The noble Lords, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Sandhurst, could not agree on the right way forward either, which is why we will consult.

The points raised in the debate go to the heart of fairness and certainty for thousands of families at a time of great personal difficulty. I therefore thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for tabling this Question for Short Debate. I thank noble Lords for their contributions; I have listened to them very carefully and they have given us a great deal of food for thought as we move towards the consultation.

Crime and Policing Bill

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

20:35

Schedule 2: Closure of premises by registered social housing provider

Amendment 26

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

26: Schedule 2, page 242, line 22, at end insert—
“(1B) An RSH provider may issue a closure notice in respect of an individual flat within a housing block for which they are responsible.”

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 26 relates to Clause 5. Clause 5 is very short and is titled “Closure of premises by registered social housing provider”. It says that Schedule 2 amends various parts of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

“so as to enable registered social housing providers to close premises that they own or manage which are associated with nuisance and disorder”.

My amendment says:

“An RSH provider may issue a closure notice in respect of an individual flat within a housing block for which they are responsible”.


I apologise to the Committee and to the Minister if my amendment is already included in the definition of “premises”. However, the only definition I can find is in Clause 92 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, and that says

“‘premises’ includes … any land or other place (whether enclosed or not) … any outbuildings that are, or are used as, part of premises”.

Thus, it would seem to me, as a non-lawyer, that a person could argue that an individual flat in an RSH housing block was technically not “premises” within the definition of the 2014 Act or Schedule 2 to this Bill.

I tabled this amendment because I am aware of a serious problem in a block of flats next to mine and only about 400 yards away from here. Over a period of about two years, residents complained of blatant drug dealing in a flat owned by the L&Q social landlords. Addicts were threatening other householders to let them in to buy drugs from the flat. Children in other flats were scared to come home from school in case they met violent druggies in the corridor. The police were involved but could not sit there 24/7, waiting to catch drug dealing in practice. The Westminster City Council anti-social behaviour unit and the local MP got involved, demanding action, but L&Q refused to do anything. It even lied that it had applied for an ASBO, and it took two years before that tenant was finally evicted. Of course, the Bill and my amendment cannot force a negligent RSH, such as L&Q, to issue a closure notice, but it might help those who do care about their tenants.

Just for the record, I have named that company because my noble friend Lord Gove, then the Housing Minister, called in the chief executive after writing to him, stating:

“You have failed your residents”.


He did that after a devastating ombudsman’s report uncovered a prolonged period of decline in L&Q’s repairs and complaint handling.

I do not need to say any more. If the Minister tells me that “premises” includes individual flats within the definition and we will be covered with this, I will not come back to this on Report. But if I have a valid point, I hope the Government will make a little tweak and amend the Bill accordingly. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I knew there was a reason why I was so nice about the earlier amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I am afraid we do not agree with Amendment 26. The amendment focuses on the power to issue closure notices, a measure which deals directly with the security of the home, which we believe is a fundamental right in our society. A closure notice is an extreme measure, and any power enabling the exclusion of a person from their residence must be subject to the highest legal scrutiny and strict proportionality, and we do not support the amendment.

Social justice groups consistently caution that new powers risk disadvantaging tenants and vulnerable groups. We must remember that, where these orders relate to social housing, they have the potential to render entire families homeless. We believe that the amendment would exacerbate that.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Amendment 26 to Schedule 2 to the Bill, which permits a registered social housing provider to issue a closure notice in respect of premises they own or manage, under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. As my noble friend and other noble Lords have stated, a closure notice under Section 76 of that Act is a notice which prohibits a person from accessing specific premises. Currently, such a notice can be issued only by the police or the local authority, but Schedule 2 permits an RSH to also issue such notices.

My noble friend’s amendment would ensure that the RSH provider is able to issue a closure notice for an individual flat in the premises it is responsible for. Given that paragraph (2)(b) of Schedule 2 does not specify that fact, I look forward to the Minister’s answer and hope he might clarify that point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

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

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

Schedule 2 agreed.

Clause 5 agreed.

Clause 6: Reviews of responses to complaints about anti-social behaviour

Amendment 27

Moved by

[Lord Russell of Liverpool]

27: Clause 6, page 12, line 18, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 104 (review of response to complaints about anti-social behaviour), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Where a person has made at least three qualifying complaints about the anti-social behaviour and irrespective of whether the person applies for an ASB case review, the police must undertake an impact assessment which determines whether—(a) the alleged behaviour exceeds the threshold of criminality, irrespective of whether the police intend to pursue criminal charges, and(b) the level of harm inflicted on the person is low, medium, or high.(1B) Following an impact assessment under subsection (1A), where the threshold for criminality has been met or exceeded and the level of harm is assessed as medium or high, the police must refer the person to local victim support services, pursuant to the Victim Code of Practice.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires police officers to undertake an anti-social behaviour impact assessment when a victim meets the trigger point for an Anti-Social Behaviour Case Review, so that those who are assessed as having experienced medium to high levels of harm can receive appropriate support.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hampton for putting his name to these five amendments, which seek to ensure that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour are swiftly identified, protected from further harm and, above all, given the opportunity to have their voices heard. These amendments have the full support of the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales.

Although the Bill forms part of the Government’s very welcome determination to crack down on anti-social behaviour, it fails to address some of the underlying issues victims currently face and risks maintaining the status quo, leaving many victims without meaningful recourse and allowing harm to persist. So the status quo, in effect, does not bring about the degree of change called for by the Victims’ Commissioner herself and by HMICFRS in its October 2024 report, just 12 months ago, called The Policing Response to Antisocial Behaviour.

20:45

The policing, local authority and housing authority response to how to tackle anti-social behaviour is painfully reminiscent of the repeated attempts to tackle stalking. All around England and Wales there are examples of good practice or best practice in tackling anti-social behaviour, most of them existing in relative isolation, in geographic or organisational silos, which have never been brought into a proper, focused and prioritised national structure with very clear dos and don’ts.

I am most grateful for the time that Jo Grimshaw of Surrey Police, its head of anti-social behaviour, partnerships, youth engagement and tactical lead for serious violence, has spent with me explaining the holistic way in which she and her team tackle anti-social behaviour countywide and across multiple agencies, steered by deep specialists, all of whom, very importantly, are non-serving police officers; many of them are ex-police officers. The advantage of not being a serving police officer is that you can stay in role for years at a time. You will not be moved around, so you can develop profound and very deep expertise and knowledge. I know that Andy Prophet, the chief constable of Hertfordshire and the NPCC lead on anti-social behaviour, who the Minister may well know, is extremely keen, like other leaders, to work across all 43 police forces to identify and syndicate best practice. I think the Government would find that those people would be very supportive of the intent behind these amendments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, herself brought some of the challenges into painfully sharp focus in her September 2024 report entitled, Still Living a Nightmare: Understanding the Experiences of Victims of Anti-social Behaviour. I do not need to remind your Lordships’ House that if there is one person who knows at a profound level what anti-social behaviour can do, it is the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, herself. Amendment 27 stems from the battle that many victims of anti-social behaviour face when they try to escalate their complaints. The first of these is the challenge of even being recognised as a victim of persistent anti-social behaviour, defined as experiencing three incidents within six months—the threshold for triggering the anti-social behaviour case review. But as each incident is often viewed in isolation by multiple different agencies, victims are frequently dismissed, ignored and, ultimately, failed. They are left to endure the dripping tap of repeated harm, routinely minimised as neighbourhood disputes, and this is despite some cases involving threats, criminal damage, arson, and even assault.

The ASB case review was designed to act as a vital safety net for those victims of persistent anti-social behaviour, and by prompting multiple agencies to consider the case, it was designed to offer a pathway to resolution—a source of hope in breaking this continuous cycle of harm. This is why I want to see Amendment 27 place a statutory requirement on police to undertake an assessment of harm on the third call-out within a six-month period. This would help identify victims earlier in the cycle and build a clearer picture, sooner, of the cumulative impact it is having on the victims.

Moving on to Amendments 28 and 31, we have the opportunity in the Bill to give ASB case reviews real clout when agencies repeatedly let victims down. The ASB case review must serve its intended function in offering a route to redress for victims and not simply yet another way for agencies to mark their own homework and ignore the issues that victims face. Amendments 28 and 31 would place the ASB case review threshold in statute. If implemented, this would provide absolute clarity for agencies and victims, eliminating local caveats, removing extra hurdles for victims and preventing the inconsistent application currently enabled by legislative discretion.

Amendment 30 would introduce further oversight of the reasons why victims’ requests for a review are rejected, addressing local variation and ensuring that victims no longer face a postcode lottery when attempting to access it. However, it is vital that the review process restores victims’ confidence. Amendment 29 would ensure that every ASB case review has an independent chair and that victims are given a voice at the table, guaranteeing transparency and fairness.

The deaths of Dr Suzanne Dow, Fiona Pilkington, Bijan Ebrahimi, Matthew Boorman, Stephen and Jennifer Chapple, David Askew and Louise Lotz can all be directly linked to sustained campaigns of anti-social behaviour. Whether through suicide, homicide or, in David Askew’s case, as the south Manchester coroner said in 2011, unlawful death after years of torment, these lives were lost due to a lack of action.

I invite the Minister to please consider these amendments in the spirit in which they were tabled. I hope to be able to work with him and his colleagues between now and Report to see whether we can insert some additional elements into the Bill that will give victims real hope—and give hope to the exponents of best practice in tackling ASB, who are keen to share their expertise and insights. I beg to move.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 27 to 31. I declare my interest as a secondary school teacher.

These amendments from the Victims’ Commissioner have been ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool, so the Committee does not need to hear much from me. We are told that data is the new gold. In teaching, with safeguarding we are told to report every slight suspicion because it can form part of a jigsaw that can show that abuse is happening. The Victims’ Commissioner calls it missed patterns and missed victims. These sensible amendments would give victims of anti-social behaviour a route to support and a strong voice in anti-social behaviour case reviews. As the Victims’ Commissioner’s office says, this would deliver real change for victims. Victims of persistent ASB must be swiftly identified, consistently supported and given access to resolution processes that deliver effective outcomes. These amendments would do just that.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Russell.

Amendment 27 asks for a statute of requirement for police officers to undertake an anti-social behaviour impact assessment when a victim reports three incidents of anti-social behaviour in a six-month period. This would enable agencies to understand the level of harm that is being caused, so that victims are given access to the appropriate support.

Victims have cited several barriers to utilising the anti-social behaviour case review. A key barrier was a lack of knowledge and awareness about the case review among staff at key agencies with a responsibility to resolve anti-social behaviour. For many victims, this lack of knowledge prevented them being signposted promptly, if at all, to the case review mechanism. This posed additional barriers to them being able to successfully activate the case review process and get the anti-social behaviour resolved. This ultimately prolonged victims’ suffering—and none of us wants that. I ask the Minister to seriously consider this.

Amendments 28 and 31 ask for a statutory threshold for triggering an anti-social behaviour case review that removes any discretion for authorities to insert additional caveats which serve as a barrier to victims getting their cases reviewed. To ensure consistent access to anti-social behaviour case reviews, we are recommending the Home Office consults on the need to legislate to standardise the threshold for anti-social behaviour case reviews by placing it in statute as opposed to just guidance. This would prevent local authorities unilaterally adding caveats which make it more difficult for the victim to make a successful application. This consultation, we recommend, should look at mandating access to case review applications via a range of options, including but not limited to paper, online and telephone applications.

Amendment 29, which has already been outlined, would give victims a voice and enable them to explain the impact that the behaviour is having on them and their families, which is critical. To strengthen victim participation and ensure their voices are central to the process, we recommend the Home Office consults on the need to introduce legislation which guarantees victims the right to choose their level of participation in a way that best suits their needs. It might include attending a case review meeting in person, participating virtually or submitting a written impact statement detailing the anti-social behaviour effects, or being represented at the case review by a chosen individual to ensure their perspective is effectively communicated. We want them to have the right to choose the method in which this happens. There should be a statutory requirement that anti-social behaviour case reviews are chaired by an independent person—this is not an unreasonable request. Very often, when there is somebody independent who can see things that other people have not seen and bring it to people’s attention, fairness and confidence in a system is absolutely strengthened.

Amendment 30 seeks that local bodies should be compelled to publish data on the reasons an anti-social behaviour case review was denied to enable better overall scrutiny and an understanding of how effective and consistent the process is across England and Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, stated, data is king, and we do not think this is an unreasonable request at all.

I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to these amendments and, if they cannot be accepted, he will explain in detail why.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, these are powerful amendments and it is hard to see how they can be argued against. We have all heard of cases where victims have had a very tough time demonstrating the persecution that they have experienced, and they often get challenged in court, unreasonably, I think. These amendments are excellent and we should encourage the noble Lord to push them to a vote later.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this group, so well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Jones, focuses on putting the victim first, a principle that we wholeheartedly support.

Clause 6 aims to strengthen the anti-social behaviour case review, and we support the package of amendments to the clause tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Hampton. We support the objective of establishing a statutory threshold for convening a review that explicitly considers the victim’s vulnerability. This is crucial, as it would remove the discretion for authorities to apply additional caveats and ensure that the severity of the impact on the individual is prioritised over mere persistence of the behaviour.

We back the proposal in Amendment 29 to ensure that the review is chaired by an independent person who has not previously been involved in the case. Independence is essential to restore trust and ensure objectivity when agencies review their own failures. We also strongly agree with the demand in Amendment 30 that authorities must publish the reasons for determining that the threshold for a review has not been met. This is a simple but powerful measure to increase accountability and transparency in the decision-making process. Amendment 27, which would require police officers to undertake an ASB impact assessment when the threshold is met, is a common-sense measure to ensure that victims experiencing high levels of harm receive appropriate support.

These amendments demonstrate how we can collectively strengthen the system to deliver genuine justice for victims of persistent anti-social behaviour, ensuring that their trauma and vulnerability are fully recognised. I very much hope that the Government will take them on board.

21:00

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Hampton, for tabling these amendments and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Ensuring that anti-social behaviour complaints are adequately handled and delivering a just outcome for the complainants and communities affected without being overly burdensome on the relevant authorities are important principles. These amendments are largely in line with that goal.

This group is particularly important, as anti-social behaviour seems to be on the rise in our streets. As such, it is important that we have the right framework not only for dealing with complaints but for self-correcting any potential mistakes made. With an increased volume, local authorities simply do not have the time to be weighed down by bureaucratic procedures.

For that reason, Amendment 27 raises eyebrows. It is important that we provide the necessary support for those who are harmed by criminal behaviour, but it is also true that this clause would require policing bodies to review responses to complaints about anti-social behaviour, in certain instances. It would place an additional level of administration on to these authorities. As it stands, the amendment seems to cast the net too widely on when impact assessments might be necessary; it would therefore add yet more workload to already strained forces. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s opinion on this matter.

Amendments 28 and 31, however, appear to work to the opposite end. It is right that, when we mandate administrative work from our public servants, we should give them clear guidance on where it is necessary. A discretionary threshold has the potential to encourage local authorities to err on the side of caution and thus review cases that do not merit the time required. Adding a statutory threshold for an ASB case review would both streamline the process and create a more regular system across authorities. This is never a bad thing, and I hope the Minister will consider taking it on board.

I am cautious of Amendment 30 for reasons similar to those that I have already discussed. In principle, the amendment is sound, but adding more bureaucracy to the process by publishing the reasons for not reviewing a case has the potential to take time and attention away from cases that do meet the threshold. Additionally, a statutory threshold would be available for all to see and would set out the criteria needed to meet it. This would surely forgo the need to release the reasons why thresholds were not met.

This is a largely sensible set of amendments that have the interests of both complainants and the respective authorities at heart. I hope that the Minister agrees with what I have just said and look forward to what he says in response.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for his amendments. I also thank the Victims’ Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, both on the amendments and for her work on this issue over many years. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for the comments on this area from the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Clement-Jones, and to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, from His Majesty’s Opposition.

Amendment 27 aims to ensure that all victims of repeat anti-social behaviour are subject to an impact assessment, even where the individual has not requested a case review to be undertaken. The Government believe that there is a more effective response to this issue, in that we can ensure that victims are aware of their rights to request a case review. That has been included in updated statutory guidance for front-line staff, which we published in September. The proposals in the amendment would significantly increase the resources required to review anti-social behaviour incidents. The wording of the amendment would mean that even in cases where the victim is satisfied with the response, the police would be required to conduct an impact assessment.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, has approached this by saying he wishes to work with the Government to look at this. I am happy to have further dialogue with him and the responsible policy Minister in the Home Office post Committee. We can return to it then and examine the nuances. I hope that my initial comments give him a flavour of where the Government currently are.

Amendments 28, 29 and 31 look at the anti-social behaviour case review process and mandate the requirement for there to be an independent chair, for victims to be invited to attend their case review, and to reduce the ability for authorities to add additional caveats that reduce the victim’s abilities to request a case review. I am pleased to say—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, will accept this and the way that I put it to him—that we have recently updated the statutory guidance to front-line professionals, which already reflects the proposals he has put to the Committee today. I believe that this will create the impact that his amendments intend to bring while still allowing for greater flexibility for circumstances to be treated on an individual basis. Again, if the noble Lord would like further information on the statutory guidance, I am happy to provide that to him and to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, but we think that it meets the objectives of Amendments 28, 29 and 31.

Amendment 30 seeks to require relevant bodies involved in case reviews to publish details on why they have determined that the statutory threshold for a case review was not met. Under existing legislation, it is already a requirement for the relevant bodies to publish the number of times they decided that the review threshold was not met. I highlight to the noble Lord that, through Clause 7, the Government are introducing further requirements for local agencies to report information about anti-social behaviour to the Government. That is for the purpose of us understanding how local agencies are using the powers and tools provided by the 2014 Act, including the question of case review.

If the noble Lord looks at Clause 6 in particular—it is buried in the depths of the undergrowth of Clause 6 but I assure him that it is there—he will see that there will be a new duty for police and crime commissioners to set up a route for victims to request a further review where dissatisfied with the outcome of their case review. This includes where the relevant bodies determined that the threshold was not met for the initial case review. I will give further explanation of Clause 6 when we reach it, but I hope that it meets the objectives that the noble Lord has set out in Amendment 30.

The recently updated guidance on case reviews address many of the same points as these amendments and I hope that it will have the opportunity to bed in. I am happy to send the noble Lord a copy of the guidance, if I am able to, and I assure him that we will monitor the effectiveness of that guidance in improving good practice. He has my commitment that, if necessary, we will revisit the issues again in the near future. Until then, I submit that it would be premature to legislate further on case reviews beyond the measures in the Bill. I hope that with those assurances, the invitation to further discussion and the offer of further information, the noble Lord would be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the tenor and content of what he just said. The devil is quite often in the detail, so I, with others, would be happy to sit down with him and try to make sure that we all understand it in the same way and are talking the same language.

I have concerns about guidance that is, in theory, flags up to people in a slightly different and slightly more lurid way what their rights are. In evidence, I would state the experience of the victims’ code, which has been around for a very long time. On numerous occasions, when officers of various agencies who are, in theory, responsible for knowing the contents of the victims’ code are quizzed on it, they no absolutely nothing or very little or get very confused about it. Having guidance does not in itself solve any issue if people do not understand the guidance, are not trained in it and do not have sufficient experience of how to apply that knowledge in a sensible way.

However, I hear what the Minister is saying and I think we are moving in the right direction. I feel strongly that trying to look at, and perhaps reverse-engineer, some of the examples of best practice that are around would be informative and helpful, since we have a habit of reinventing the wheel in our 43 different police forces. Then of course there are all the local authorities and housing associations as well, so there is quite a muddle of people and agencies looking at this and the evidence suggests that we need to pull that together much more coherently and effectively than we are doing at the moment. But I take and accept the Minister’s kind invitation to discuss this issue further, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

Amendments 28 to 31 not moved.

Clause 6 agreed.

Schedule 3: LPB case reviews: supplementary provision

Amendment 32

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

32: Schedule 3, page 248, leave out lines 27 to 30
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision that is no longer needed because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and came into force on 20 August 2025.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are technical amendments that affect provisions in the Bill containing data-sharing provisions. Within the relevant clauses and schedule, there are general provisions that bar the disclosure of data if such disclosures would contravene data-protection legislation. These protections against data-protection overrides are now no longer needed within the Bill, as a general provision to the same effect is now made by Section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by Section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. That Act came into effect on 20 August and, now that the general provision is in force, the amendments remove the redundant duplicative provisions from the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the amendments are matters of purely technical housekeeping, because they remove provisions that are no longer needed, and that this is caused by the insertion of Section 183A into the Data Protection Act 2018 by Section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. I must confess, having spent time in the salt mines of the then Data (Use and Access) Bill, that this did not come to my attention at the time, but I am sure it is a valuable piece of legislation.

This creates an overarching safeguard, ensuring that new enactments such as this Bill do not automatically override core data protection requirements. However, I must say that the fact that the Government’s intentions are technically sound in this respect does not remove the need for clarification and specific statutory safeguards in certain highly sensitive policy areas, which we will be debating in due course. I thought I would put the Minister on notice that we will be calling for the adoption of additional safeguards ensuring that new powers in the Bill are fair and proportionate: for instance, the DVLA access and facial recognition provisions in Clause 138, which grant powers for regulations concerning police access to DVLA driver licensing information. We remain deeply concerned that the power granted by Clause 138 could be used to create a vast police facial recognition database, and we will be looking for additional safeguards.

On Clauses 192 to 194, concerning international law enforcement information-sharing agreements, the cross-border transfer of data inherent in such agreements presents significant civil liberties concerns, so we will be calling for mandatory privacy impact assessments. That is just a taster.

In conclusion, while the Government’s amendments are technical in nature, we will in due course be using the opportunity to embed specific, robust statutory safeguards for a number of new powers in the Bill.

21:15

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is all too often the case that, when the Government say they are bringing minor and technical amendments to a Bill, those amendments are neither minor nor technical in nature. However, with these amendments, that is genuinely the case. There is, therefore, little for me to say in response to this group of amendments. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 was passed by this House earlier this year and, as far as I am aware, the data protection override in Section 106 of that Act was not queried or opposed by noble Lords during its passage, and no amendment was proposed to that clause. I therefore have no issue with these amendments.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful and all I say in response is that the sooner we get to Clauses 132 and 192, the better.

Amendment 32 agreed.

Amendment 33

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

33: Schedule 3, page 248, leave out lines 33 and 34
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 3, page 248, leave out lines 27 to 30.

Amendment 33 agreed.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed.

Clause 7: Provision of information about anti-social behaviour to Secretary of State

Amendment 34

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

34: Clause 7, page 16, leave out lines 26 to 29
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision that is no longer needed because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and came into force on 20 August 2025.

Amendment 34 agreed.

Amendment 35

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

35: Clause 7, page 16, line 29, at end insert—
“(6A) Regulations may not require a relevant authority to provide information on social media posts which they may consider to be anti-social or have anti social behaviour messages.”

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 35 standing in my name says:

“Regulations may not require a relevant authority to provide information on social media posts which they may consider to be anti-social or have anti-social behaviour messages”.


I do not need to regurgitate much of what I said earlier on non-crime hate incidents, which could compose a large part of this, because I am looking forward to the Minister’s announcement in due course that he will have solved the problem of so-called non-crime hate incidents.

I was tempted to propose that Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill, because I wanted to discuss the huge number of requirements in it, but I thought I would do it under the scope of this amendment. Basically, I want to ask the Minister: what will the Government do with all the information demanded by Clause 7? When I was a Home Office Minister—and I am certain the noble Lord has had this experience as well—we got lots of written requests from Members of Parliament, PQs, asking for information on all sorts of law and order issues concerning what the police were up to in England and Wales. We could not provide it, because the police forces were not under an obligation to send it to the Home Office.

Sometimes I would think, “Oh, I’d like to know that as well”, but whenever I asked the police forces if they could provide it, they would quite legitimately say, “What resources do you want us to divert from fighting crime to collating this information to send to the Home Office, and what practical use will you put it to?” Well, I think they had a fair point, but the demands for more and more statistics from the police have continued to increase. I will not suggest that it is in proportion to the rise in crime, but more information has not helped reduce it.

I come back to the point: will the Minister tell the House exactly what use the Home Office will make of all this information, since what is demanded is fairly extensive? If this information was free, it would be okay, but we all know what will happen. All councils will employ at least one, probably more than one, special information-gathering co-ordinator to collect the information required and transmit it to the Home Office. New computer systems will be needed to provide it in “the form and manner”, as per new subsection (4)(b).

This, I suggest, is not a low-grade clerking job, since the information demanded in subsection (2) is not just a collection of numbers or reports, but provision of the reports, plus the authorities’ responses, plus the details of ASB case reviews. Then subsection (3)(d) calls for the information collected to be analysed by the local authorities. As I say, analysis of the plethora of different anti-social behaviour orders and responses to them in sufficient quality to be sent to the Home Office will be regarded as a fairly high-level job, not one for a low-paid junior clerk in the council.

I think we are probably looking at a salary of about £50,000 for the lead person and £30,000 for the assistant, and with national insurance and pensions we are looking at about £100,000 per authority. Multiply that by 317 local authorities and we will have local government costs of £32 million. No doubt many local authorities will love it; there will be more office-bound jobs as they cut dustbin collections and social services work and leave potholes unfilled. Okay, that is a sinister, cynical comment, but that will happen in some local authorities.

I simply ask the Minister to tell the Committee, if that £32 million I calculate will be the cost of every authority supplying all the information requested in Clause 7, will that be money well spent? My little amendment would do my bit to limit some of the costs, since I do not want local authorities wasting time and resources by collecting and analysing so-called anti-social social media posts which have happened in their area, either to the poster or to the complainant. They will be chasing their own tails if they attempt to go down this route. It would be a self-defeating waste of time. That is the purpose of my amendment: to ask the Government to justify what they will do with all the information collected under Clause 7 and to ask whether my calculation of £32 million is roughly right. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 55A, which is supported by StopWatch, a campaign organisation that is concerned with the use of stop and search. I disagree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

Amendment 55A would require the Home Office to publish quarterly data on the issuing of anti-social behaviour orders and related injunctions. Specifically, it would ensure that these reports include the number of occasions when stop and search has been used by the police prior to the issuing of such orders, and the protected characteristics of those who have been issued with them. These powers can have serious and lasting consequences for those subject to them, particularly young people and those from marginalised communities. Yet at present, the public and Parliament have very limited visibility of how these tools are being applied. This would ensure transparency and accountability about how anti-social behaviour powers are being used across England and Wales.

We know from existing evidence that stop and search disproportionately affects people from black and non-white ethnic backgrounds. The Government’s own figures last year reported that there were nearly 25 stop and searches for every 1,000 black people and yet only around six for every 1,000 white people. There is a real risk that these disparities could be echoed or even compounded in the issuing of anti-social behaviour orders or injunctions. Without clear data, broken down with protected characteristics, we cannot know whether these concerns are justified, nor can we properly evaluate the fairness and effectiveness of the system. By requiring the Home Office to publish quarterly data, this amendment would bring much-needed transparency. It would allow Parliament, bodies with oversight and the public to monitor trends, identify disparities and ensure that anti-social behaviour powers are being used proportionately and appropriately.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is clearly very exercised about the use of resources. He actually said that more information does not reduce crime. I think that is probably completely wrong, because the more information you have, the better you can understand what is happening. So this is about good governance and evidence-based policy. If these powers are being used fairly, the data will confirm that. If not, then we will have the information necessary to take corrective action. Either way, the transparency will strengthen public trust in policing and the rule of law.

This amendment is about shining a light where it is most needed. It would do nothing to restrict police powers. It would simply ensure that their use can be properly scrutinised. I hope the Minister will agree that accountability and transparency are not optional extras in a just society; they are actually the foundations of it.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, we support Amendment 55A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She has already highlighted the importance of improved data collection around the use of anti-social behaviour legislation. This is essential because it is impossible to gauge the fairness or effectiveness of anti-social behaviour powers without adequate data and transparency.

We also support Clause 7. It is important to have more transparency around how these powers are used by local authorities and housing providers. The evidence is that they already have this information but are failing to share it. As a result, little is known about how these powers are being used in practice.

The charity Crisis wants the Government to go further by making this information publicly available. This would provide full transparency around patterns of anti-social behaviour and the powers used to tackle it. Is this something the Government might consider? Perhaps the Minister could let us know.

The police, too, must improve their recording practices around anti-social behaviour. A report last year by HMICFRS found that some forces’ recording is very poor, while others do not always record the use of statutory powers. We believe that transparency is key to ensuring that future orders are applied reasonably and proportionately, and to prevent discrimination.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Blencathra, as ever, raises a serious and pertinent point with his Amendment 35. Clause 7 permits the Secretary of State, by regulations, to require authorities to provide them with information about anti-social behaviour. Unfortunately, Clause 7 contains rather vague requirements on what information the regulations might contain. It would perhaps be helpful for the Minister to provide the Committee with some concrete examples of what might be included. My noble friend is absolutely right that social media posts should not be included in any of the guidance.

With Amendment 55A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my fear is that the police and the Home Office, already overburdened with creating statistics, will yet again be further burdened. Perhaps this is not the way forward.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for these two amendments.

As the noble Lord explained, Amendment 35 relates to the new power in Clause 7 for the Home Secretary to make regulations requiring relevant authorities, including local councils and social housing providers, to report information on anti-social behaviour. The amendment would mean that those regulations would not be able to request information from the relevant authorities about things that are considered anti-social or indeed anti-social messages. We will come on to the non-crime hate incident issues that the noble Lord has a concern about, but currently Clause 7 would allow information to be requested on reports of anti-social behaviour made to an authority, responses of the authority and anti-social behaviour case reviews carried out by the relevant authority. Anti-social behaviour can come in various forms, and it is important that the regulation-making power can address this.

Information held by central government on anti-social behaviour is in some areas limited. This has led to a significant evidence gap in the national picture of anti-social behaviour. I mentioned the 1 million incidents per year, but there is still an evidence gap in that picture of anti-social behaviour. The new clause will change this to ensure stronger and more comprehensive understanding of ASB incidents and interventions, but we want to make sure that Clause 7 creates a regulation-making power only. Regulations will then be made following the passage of the Bill to specify the information that agencies must provide. Going back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, indicated, this may be information they already have but do not necessarily share.

I assure the noble Lord that regulations are being developed in close consultation with the relevant practitioners, including local authorities and social housing providers, to understand what information is held on anti-social behaviour and the impact that this requirement may have upon them, for the very reasons that the noble Lord mentioned. We will of course make sure that any new requirements are reasonable and proportionate but meet the Government’s objective of having a wider understanding of some of the trends and information.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his usual detailed explanation and courtesy. With particular reference to my rather narrow amendment, does he think it right that we should report on so-called anti-social behaviour that occurs in media posts? Leaving aside the non-crime hate incidents, will local authorities be expected to report on instances of anti-social behaviour in their areas when those incidents have been only on social media, not face to face?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

What I can say to the noble Lord is that, again, the Secretary of State has within this clause a regulation-making power and is currently examining—and will do if this power is approved by Parliament—with local councils what information they hold that they can share with the Government. There is a range of issues to go down the road yet, before we get to a stage where we are issuing regulations that demand or require particular types of information, but that will be done in consultation. Of course, it also depends on sharing information that the local authorities or social housing providers hold, not what the Government are asking them to hold, necessarily. We will cross that bridge a little further down the line, if the legislation is passed and receives Royal Assent.

21:30

Underpinning the amendment is the wider question of police recording of non-crime hate incidents. As I have said, we will have an opportunity to discuss that later and, by the time we get to it, we may even have further information from the College of Policing. Again, I am not kicking the can down the road, but that is an issue we can discuss at a later date.

Amendment 55A would require the Home Office to publish data on various anti-social behaviour orders, including the respect order, as well as on the important issue of stop and search being used prior to issuing these orders. Again, as I have just said to the noble Lord, Clause 7 creates only a regulation-making power. The necessary secondary legislation will be made following the passage of the Bill, which will specify further details; that will be under the negative procedure, so the noble Baroness will be able to pray against any regulations, should she wish to. I will then have to defend those regulations, which have not yet been drafted, probably in the Moses Room or possibly on the Floor of this House, depending on where they end up—so there is still parliamentary scrutiny of that power. The extent to which data will be published will be confirmed prior to regulations being made, after undertaking the consultation we have just discussed and considering the implications of publishing the data.

The noble Baroness mentioned stop and search in particular. The Home Office already publishes significant detail on stop and search information. I gave some details in answer to a parliamentary question last week about the number of searches that resulted in weapons—knives and guns—being found. The number of arrests following a search and the demographic data on the individual search, broken down by individual community safety partnerships, police force areas and members of the public: all that information is published through the annual data, and detailed on stop and search maps on police.uk using monthly data provided directly by police forces. So it is already there, and the amendment would not add to that.

I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment for the moment; we will return to the issue later. I hope too that the noble Baroness will not in due course push her amendment to a decision, given that we have the information already.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

In view of the Minister’s detailed reply and assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 35 withdrawn.

Amendment 36

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

36: Clause 7, page 17, leave out lines 6 and 7
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 7, page 16, leave out lines 26 to 29.

Amendment 36 agreed.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed.

Clause 8 agreed.

Amendment 37

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

37: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Increased penalties for littering offences(1) The Environmental Protection Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) In section 88 (fixed penalty notices for leaving litter)—(a) in subsection (6A)(b)(i), for “£100” substitute “£125”;(b) in subsection (6A)(b)(ii), for “£75” substitute “£94”;(c) in subsection (8C) (England, Wales and Scotland versions), for “level 3” substitute “level 4”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to increase penalties for littering and related offences. It raises fixed penalties in England and Wales by 25 per cent and moves the maximum fine levels up one tier on the standard scale.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses three separate but related offences: increasing the penalties for littering and dog fouling offences and introducing a specific offence of littering on public transport.

Littering may appear to be a minor problem when juxtaposed with some of the issues discussed in the Bill, but it is one of the most prominent anti-social offences to plague towns and communities. Littering is one of the most visible forms of environmental degradation, affecting not only the appearance of our streets and greenery but degrading our sense of public pride and community. Littering is associated with signs of a neglected area, and it sends a powerful negative message about standards and civic responsibility.

The scale of this problem is undeniable. Keep Britain Tidy estimates that local authorities in England alone spend around £1 billion each year clearing litter and fly-tipped waste. Almost 80% of our streets in England are affected by littering to some degree, with the most common items including food and drink packaging, cigarette ends and sweet wrappers.

The Government’s own figures show that local councils issue fewer than 50,000 fixed penalty notices a year, despite the widespread scale of the problem. This is why my amendments seek to increase the penalties for littering offences. The current fixed penalty levels were last revised in 2018, when the maximum fine was raised to £150. Since then, both inflation and enforcement costs have risen considerably. As time has gone on, therefore, the deterrent effect of the penalty has been eroded. An uplift is thus justified and necessary. A higher penalty would reflect the real cost to communities and to local authorities, and would send a clear message that littering is not a low-level or victimless offence.

The same logic applies to my amendment concerning dog fouling offences. It is true that some progress has been made through awareness campaigns, but the problem persists in many communities. It is unpleasant, unsanitary and requires local authorities to bear the cost of cleaning it up. It is therefore only right that penalties are raised to reflect both the nuisance and costs incurred. I hope the Government agree that more must be done to combat littering and dog fouling offences.

The negative effects of littering are felt most in highly frequented public places. Public transport is one such area of public life where the harm of littering is exacerbated. It is a growing problem on our trains, buses, trams and underground systems. Anyone using public transport on a Saturday or Sunday morning will no doubt have experienced the scale of rubbish left behind from the thoughtless few of the night before. The accumulation of food packaging, coffee cups, bottles and newspapers left behind by passengers is a saddening sight and must be addressed. Littering on public transport causes expensive inconvenience for operators and diminishes the travelling experience for others. Often, passengers would rather stand than sit on dirty seats. A distinct offence of littering on public transport would underline the responsibility of passengers in shared public places and support transport authorities in maintaining standards of cleanliness and safety.

These amendments are not about punishing people for the sake of it; they are about upholding civic standards and ensuring that those who do the right thing are not let down by those who do not. They are about fairness: the costs of litter removal fall on local taxpayers, transport users and businesses, rather than on those responsible for creating the mess. It is time the Government took a firmer stance on the few who ruin the enjoyment of Britain’s streets for the many. Higher penalties and clearer offences would, in my view, provide both the incentive and the clarity needed to improve compliance.

I hope the Government will view these proposals in that spirit—not as punitive but as a practical contribution to cleaner, safer public spaces and to civic pride. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, and from across the Committee, on how the Government intend to continue building on their anti-littering strategy and supporting local authorities in enforcement. I am sure many noble Lords will have received letters and emails from constituents complaining about the state of local streets and the scale of litter they must contend with. They are right to be concerned. The cost to our environment, our economy and our collective morale is far greater than the individual cost of a packet or a coffee cup dropped out of selfish behaviour. I beg to move.

[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.

21:45

While no one likes litter, we are sceptical as to whether higher fines will act as a deterrent. The current fines are going to go up by £25. Will that really matter? I do not think that is the game-changer that the proposers of these amendments think they will be. Proper enforcement is key alongside accessible rubbish bins on public transport. We need cleaner carriages, buses, coaches and trams. We need the restoration of proper community funding and policing, giving officers the time and resources they need to focus in local areas, alongside funding for British Transport Police, which would be a help. We also need decent resources for local authorities to increase their work in the areas of anti-social behaviour, street cleaning and waste collection.

Some of the rail companies have done research on public attitudes to littering and what constitutes litter. In 2024, Northern Rail carried out research on the behavioural science of littering on trains. We know that train companies have to work hard to keep the carriages clear; there are tens of thousands of people who travel every day. When I used to travel up and down every day on Avanti trains, there was sometimes an extra assistant who would get on at Manchester and get off at Crewe or Stoke going down, and going back, get on at Stoke or Crewe and stay on to Manchester. They would have enormous clear plastic bags. The amount of rubbish they would collect through the train by the time they got to Manchester was absolutely mind-blowing. The trouble is that on the late trains going home, such as the 10 pm train that I got back, there is no one like that. If you walk through that train in Manchester at about 12.30 am or 12.45 am, you are literally walking through litter. It is everywhere: uneaten food on the seats and on the floor. That is the issue.

As part of the research done by Northern Rail, 2,000 customers who used coffee cups said that leaving them on the train was not considered littering. However, when they admitted littering, they also admitted that they felt guilty, especially for the impact on other passengers, which shows that habits can change, and that people can be encouraged to take their rubbish away and use bins.

Another important point on the issue of litter is that it is not only on train and tram carriages but on the tracks. Network Rail says that litter on the tracks can attract rats that chew the cables, leading to signal failures, delays and even accidents. Metal cans and foil short-circuit the signalling system, so this is perhaps an area where we should be putting our weight of focus, as it is where serious health hazards come.

On Amendment 39, increasing fines for dog fouling, none of us want that mess, but who is going to make the behavioural change that we need? The fact of the matter is, whether you have fines, it is in the Government’s hands to do this. They can invest in local authorities, town wardens and civic pride. I was leader of a council for six years, and I was proud that we were once council of the year, as audited by the Audit Commission who used to come to towns. I invested then, as I had the funds to invest. Now, in my local authority, £3 or £4 of every £5 we get goes on adult social care. The budgets have been squeezed.

Therefore, if you want to stop litter, you need to empower local authorities, perhaps with initiatives that do not cost millions of pounds, but which encourage civic pride. We could get local councillors in local wards to form their own small groups to patrol around, to just keep an eye out and see where the black spots and hotspots are, where more resources could be brought in to deal with it.

It is not always about charging people more; it is about getting people to understand, as has been said, that it is not low-level. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is right that the broken window syndrome is true. When I was in charge, a number of Government Ministers came to Stockport with litter initiatives; they worked for a while, but when the funding stops, the initiative stops. If the Government are serious about dealing with litter, they should work with local authorities first and then try to assist the transport companies in what they do. Nobody wants this. Any sensible person you speak to in a pub would say that they are against littering, but somebody is dropping their rubbish and somebody is taking their dog out without a pooper-scoop bag. It is finding that small number of people and re-educating them that is a problem.

Finally, when the Underground strike was on, I was coming in on the bus every day from where I stay in Kensington, which was an experience, because they were rammed because there were no trams. A number of people I spoke to on the buses, many of them Americans, said that London streets were the cleanest they had seen—and those comments were unsolicited. So perhaps there is a different view and different parts to this debate. Sometimes it is not about running us down; it is about improving the things that we can do. What we can do, when we work together, can make a difference. It is a small number of people who cause havoc for a lot of people, and that is part of society’s problems. I do not envy the Minister in resolving that, but positive things can be done to make this less of a problem.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Sorry, I thought the noble Lord was gearing up to make further comments.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendments. I agree with him and everybody else who has spoken that fly-tipping, littering and dog fouling are not victimless crimes; they blight our communities. I find it very annoying to see not just dog mess in bushes but stuff thrown out of car windows and stuff left on trains that is not picked up. An important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, is that some of this is also about improving behavioural change and encouraging people not to tolerate this. Never mind fines or responsibilities, it is about not tolerating this as a society.

Having said that, the amendments themselves are unnecessary in this case, and I will try to explain why. Local authorities can already issue fixed-penalty notices for littering of up to £500, which is greater than the proposed penalties in the amendment. In addition, local authorities already have the power to issue public space protection orders to tackle persistent anti-social behaviour, including dog fouling. As we have debated, Clause 4 raises the maximum penalty for the breach of PSPOs from £100 to £500, so there is already an upward target in terms of the amount of potential fine. This is not meant as a snide point, but I say to the noble Lord that the Dog (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 has been repealed and replaced; I cannot amend it because it does not exist any more.

The argument I put to the House is that local authorities are best placed to set the level of these penalties in their area, taking into account the characteristics of the community, which might even include ability to pay. Outside of issuing a fixed-penalty notice, those prosecuted for littering can also face, on conviction, a fine of up to £2,500. I do not believe that increasing the fine available to someone who fails to give their name and address to an enforcement officer issuing them a fine is appropriate, with a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale—currently £1,000—being the appropriate level in these circumstances.

Amendment 38 makes a very important point about littering on public transport becoming a specific offence. I pay tribute to the people whom the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, mentioned: the people who go up and down trains, collecting rubbish on behalf of the company. They are also the people who helped protect us last week in the LNER attack. They fulfil a very important function as a whole.

However, the British Transport Police and the railway operators already have the power to enforce the railway by-laws and prevent unacceptable behaviour on both heavy and light railway. That includes fines of up to £1,000. On the noble Lord’s late-night train back, in theory, a £1,000 fine for littering could be issued. By-laws are controlled by each individual devolved area, which will have its own by-laws around littering and enforcement.

That takes me to the other point—I do not mean to be cocky in the way I say this—that the amendments, as proposed, seek to amend the law in Scotland and Wales as well as for England, and they deal with matters that are devolved to Scotland and to the Senedd in Wales. As such, it would not be appropriate to include such measures in the Bill without the consent of the legislatures, which at the moment we do not have and have not sought.

Finally, I think it is of benefit to noble Lords if I briefly outline the steps the Government are taking to reduce littering among our communities. There is a Pride in Place Strategy, which sets out how Government will support local action—the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, mentioned—by bringing forward statutory enforcement guidance on littering, modernising the code of practice that outlines the cleaning standards expected of local authorities and refreshing best practice guidance on powers available to local councils to force land and building owners to clean up their premises.

Having had the opportunity to debate all these issues, I think that the amendments make an extremely important point, and I am not trying to downgrade the points that have been made by noble Lords. Litter is an extremely important issue, but the approach taken in these amendments is not one that I can support—but not because I am not interested in the issue itself. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and not to move the other amendments, but we can still discuss it further at some point, no doubt on Report.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to those who have contributed and spoken in support of this group of amendments and, indeed, for the Minister’s response, although I was a little disappointed by the scepticism of colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

These matters go to the heart of civic pride and the everyday quality of life that our constituents rightly expect. The present system of penalties is no longer an adequate deterrent, having not been amended for many years. As has been observed, local authorities spend hundreds of millions of pounds every year clearing up after those who show little regard for the public realm. When the maximum fine for littering has remained unchanged since 2018, its real-term value has fallen sharply. Fines are now too often treated as a minor inconvenience rather than a genuine consequence for selfish behaviour. My amendments seek to address that imbalance and ensure that penalties once again reflect the true cost to our communities. Our buses, trains and underground systems are shared spaces used by millions every day. They should be clean spaces, not repositories for discarded coffee cups and beer bottles.

As I mentioned in my opening speech, although awareness of dog fouling has improved, enforcement remains inconsistent and penalties insufficient. It is only fair that those who allow this behaviour to persist should face meaningful consequences, rather than leaving their neighbours and local councils to deal with the aftermath.

These amendments are modest practical steps towards restoring civic responsibility and pride in our shared environment. They are not intended to be punitive; they are about accountability and respect for the public spaces we all enjoy. I hope that the Government will take note of the strength of feeling by travellers and the public at large and will continue to work with local authorities and communities to tackle the persistent blight of dog fouling and littering, especially on public transport. But for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 37 withdrawn.

Amendments 38 and 39 not moved.

House resumed.

Employment Rights Bill

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons on Wednesday 5 November with reasons and amendments.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons on Wednesday 5 November with amendments and a reason.

House adjourned at 9.58 pm.