(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:37 - Division on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 282 / Noes: 184 - Motion A1 agreed.
16:51 - Division on Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D) - Ayes: 281 / Noes: 190 - Motion D1 agreed.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2D to Commons Amendment 2B and its Amendment 2E to Commons Amendment 2C, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2F to Commons Amendment 2B and Amendment 2G to Commons Amendment 2C in lieu.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak to Motions B, C and D.
Before I begin my main remarks, today marks Stephen Lawrence Day, 33 years to the day since the loss of Stephen. My noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon is in the Chamber today, and I pay tribute to her for her campaigning activity over those 33 years. I was pleased to join my noble friend earlier today for an event at the King’s Trust in Southwark to continue the campaigning work of the Stephen Lawrence Day Foundation. Today is a good opportunity for us to remember Stephen and to recommit to continue to make a stand against racism in all its forms. I wanted to place that on record on behalf of the whole House before we commenced the Crime and Policing Bill, which in itself deals with a number of issues that are important in combating racism and tackling knife crime.
As I said last week, I am grateful for the engagement that I have had with the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on these matters. There are a number of amendments to deal with and I am pleased that they are all to be considered now in one group.
As I also said last week, I understand the concern, particularly in relation to Motion A, about enforcement agencies potentially issuing fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour offences where there may be a financial incentive to do so. However, I remain of the view that it is not appropriate to put in place a blanket ban on the issuing of fixed penalty notices by enforcement companies and contractors. Introducing such a ban would be disproportionate and would significantly weaken enforcement capability. Contracting enforcement to third parties is a common arrangement, and it is for the local authority to ensure that the use of powers remains just and proportionate. It is for this reason that the Government last week tabled Amendments 2A to 2C in lieu, which would rightly ensure that statutory guidance addresses the very points that noble Lords are concerned about.
I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has moved on this and tabled amendments in lieu to ensure that such guidance must, not may, address the need to ensure proportionality in the use of fixed penalty notices. I therefore hope that he is content with the further government amendments in lieu, Amendments 2F and 2G, which also seek to ensure that any guidance issued must address the issuing of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons.
In addition, in discussions with the noble Lord I have mentioned the Defra statutory guidance on litter enforcement powers. That guidance includes various entries relating to the need to exercise enforcement powers proportionately. It also addresses the use of contractors. I can give an undertaking to the noble Lord that we will adopt similar language in the guidance to be issued in respect of anti-social behaviour enforcement powers under the Bill. We commit to include a passage in the guidance which says:
“Where external contractors are used, private firms should not be able to receive greater revenue or profits just from increasing the volume of penalties”.
I will ensure that the statutory guidance reminds local authorities that contracted agencies are not expected to issue fines purely for profit, and, if they are found to do so, that local authorities may take appropriate remedial action, such as revocation, in line with the terms of their contract. I hope that provides the noble Lord with the reassurance he needs not to press Motion A1.
On Motion B, as I have said throughout the passage of this Bill, the Government fully agree with noble Lords on the need to do more to tackle fly-tipping. Our recently announced waste crime action plan, which I referred to in our last round of ping-pong and which was published over the Easter Recess, does just that.
On Amendment 11, I stress that local authorities already have powers to seize vehicles if they have reason to believe that the vehicle is being used, or is about to be used, to commit a fly-tipping offence. This is in addition to the police’s general power under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and its associated codes, to seize items as evidence if they believe they are being used in the commission of a criminal offence.
The Government want local authorities to use their powers fully to tackle fly-tipping. To that end, I have tabled Amendments 11C to 11F in lieu, which make it clear that the statutory guidance to be issued to waste authorities in England under Clause 9 must, not may, include advice to local authorities on exercising their powers, including the seizure of vehicles. I am grateful for the gentle discussion that we have had with the noble Lord on these matters and for the pressure that he has put. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on that matter.
On Motion C, we return to the issue of “must” versus “may”. Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, reiterated her concerns that the police are required to consult with youth offending teams only when applying for a youth diversion order. As I mentioned last week, multi-agency engagement will be crucial to the success of these orders. I want to be clear to the House that youth offending teams are already multi-agency by statute, and include representatives from health, education, social services and probation, as mandated by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Youth offending teams may also engage with child and adolescent mental health services, education inclusion teams, voluntary and community organisations, and local early help services.
I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has raised concerns about the involvement of parents. I would like to reassure her that engagement with parents or carers is a routine and integral part of the work of youth offending teams, beginning at assessment stage and continuing through any intervention. This engagement is led by practitioners who are trained to work with families, understand family dynamics and assess what engagement is appropriate, safe and in the child’s best interests. The nature and extent of parental involvement is therefore nuanced and individualised. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that it would not be right to prescribe a one-size-fits-all process for what could and very often will be complex and varied cases.
Lord Clement-Jones
At end insert, “and do propose Amendment 2H as an amendment to Amendment 2F, and Amendment 2J as an amendment to Amendment 2G—
(A2) Any person found to be in breach of the guidance under subsection (A1)(b) may have their designation revoked by the relevant local authority.”
(A2) Any person found to be in breach of the guidance under subsection (A1) may have their designation revoked by the relevant local authority.””
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, before I speak to the Motion, I thank the Minister for reminding us of the anniversary of the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence. I join him in his tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, and join these Benches with his commitment to combating racism in all its forms.
While I welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged the widespread concern over how these powers are enforced, I must express my profound disappointment that they have chosen again to strip out a robust amendment passed by this House only last Thursday that would have implemented a strict statutory ban on fining for profit. The Government’s replacement amendment under Motion A is simply too weak, offering only that the Secretary of State must issue guidance.
In recent days, the Minister—I thank him for his engagement—has sought to reassure me that this will be sufficient because the Home Office intends to draw directly on the recently published Defra statutory guidance on litter enforcement to update the anti-social behaviour guidance. Incorporating the language of the Defra guidance will not solve this problem. That Defra guidance states that
“private firms should not be able to receive greater revenue or profits just from increasing the volume of penalties”.
As Josie Appleton, the director of the Campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life—which has done so much to highlight the problems with the way in which fines are collected for PSPOs and CPNs—has rightly pointed out to me, relying on this guidance framework is fundamentally flawed. She has highlighted three crucial points that explain why primary legislation is vastly preferable. First, if the Government genuinely intend to do as they say and stop this cowboy practice, they should have absolutely nothing to fear from passing my amendment in primary legislation. Secondly, she rightly asks whether the Government are actually going to ban payment per fine and the use of tacit or explicit targets or whether they will simply fudge the issue with fine words about proportionality. The Defra guidance relies on the permissive word “should”, rather than a legally binding “must”, leaving the door wide open for these lucrative contracts to continue. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, what is the enforcement mechanism for this guidance? As Ms Appleton asks, would somebody be able to appeal an FPN—a fixed penalty notice—on the basis that it was issued under payment-per-fine arrangements? The answer is no. To mean something, the law needs to have teeth. Guidance is not strictly legally binding; local authorities and private agencies simply have a duty to have regard to it.
We cannot regulate a multi-million pound industry built on aggressive, incentivised ticketing by politely suggesting what it should do in non-binding guidance. The scale of this issue is immense. The surge in penalties is overwhelmingly driven by the 31 councils that employ private companies, which issued a staggering 75.7% of all PSPO penalties last year. With the Government pushing ahead to increase the maximum fine for these breaches by 400% from £100 to £500, this industry is about to be supercharged. We cannot allow a system that financially incentivises the punishment of our citizens to masquerade as justice. That is why I hope the House will fully support Motion A1 today.
Motion A1 puts the necessary teeth into the Government’s proposals. It would ensure that the guidance must explicitly set out how authorised persons
“can be disincentivised from issuing fixed penalty notices for the purpose of generating any direct or indirect financial benefit”.
Crucially, it would provide a real enforcement mechanism by stating in the Bill:
“Any person found to be in breach of this guidance … may have their designation revoked by the relevant local authority”.
If we are to rely on guidance-based frameworks, its prohibition on financial incentives must be explicit and there must be statutory consequences for breaching that. I urge the House to support Motion A1. I beg to move.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion C1. I thank the Minister for Amendments 342C and 342D. I also thank the Minister and his officials for the time that they have spent with me during the passage of the Bill.
I am pleased that the Government have taken on board a number of the concerns that I have raised. Amendment 342C ensures that the guidance is now mandatory. The police must have due regard to it, and it must address alternative interventions. The Minister has confirmed that the police will be required to present evidence to the court on what alternatives were tried or considered and has also provided helpful clarity on the broader consultation process beyond youth offending teams. These are important technical steps towards the informed justice that I have sought.
However, it is a matter of regret that the Government did not feel able to go further. We debate these powers in the immediate wake of the Southport inquiry, where Sir Adrian Fulford identified a “fundamental failure” by agencies to take ownership of risk, and an “inappropriate merry-go-round of referrals”.
The Government argue that it would be premature to codify the inquiry’s lessons before a fuller review of its recommendations this summer. However, we have seen before how recommendations from vital inquiries, such as the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and the Manchester Arena Inquiry, can be accepted in principle yet delayed in practice. The families in Southport deserve more than a watching brief. They deserve the certainty of law. I also hope that these concerns will be reflected in the Home Office guidance for youth diversion orders. I welcome the Minister’s offer to share the guidance in advance and trust that it will be as clear and unambiguous as he has indicated.
In light of the concessions made, and the Minister’s assurance on parliamentary oversight via the negative procedure, I am prepared to accept the Government’s position today and will not divide the House on Motion C1. However, let me be clear: this is not the end of the matter. We will watch closely for the guidance to be laid before Parliament. The Home Secretary has already admitted that past guidance failed because it was applied inconsistently. If the new guidance is lacking, or the Government’s response to the Fulford report is diluted, I will not hesitate to table a Motion to ensure that this House can fully debate those failings. We are legislating for powers designed to prevent mass-casualty tragedies so safety must be built on the full multi-agency picture, not on administrative hope.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on pushing Motion A1, which I will be supporting.
After the previous ping-pong debate on the issue of on-the-spot fines by private enterprises, I was inundated with complaints about egregious harassment by these very bodies, these enforcement agencies. People were outraged at what they saw as an abuse of the system. I quote one, who said, “Not only you have have to, as you walk down the high street, look out for phone-snatchers, but you also have to look out for official muggers after your money, and then find out that they are employed by the contract. They are just as illegitimate and just as anti-social”.
I emphasise that this abuse of the public’s understandable frustration and concern about anti-social behaviour—and the Government’s completely correct focus on tackling it—is made worse by an enforcement regime that is discredited. That is why enforcement matters: if the legitimacy of the enforcement response is weak, it means that we are not tackling anti-social behaviour and the public just become cynical about the whole enterprise.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, regarding Motion A1, moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, on disincentivising fining for profit and, importantly, ensuring that contractors found to be profiteering from fixed penalty notices may risk losing their contracts, I have nothing to add to what he said.
On Motions C and C1, to which my noble friend Lady Doocey spoke, it is encouraging that she has accepted the assurances the Government have given on the future guidance on youth diversion orders, but I hope to hear from the Government that they take note of her reference to possible future parliamentary action on this if the guidance does not work.
I turn to the Conservatives’ Motion D1, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, relating to the proscription of Iran-related entities. We accept that, on some readings, the Marshalled List could be taken to suggest that the government and opposition parties are not dramatically far apart on Motions D and D1. Motion D1, the Conservative Motion which we support, calls for a review within one month of whether any organisations related to the Iranian armed forces should be proscribed, whereas the Commons Amendment in lieu, in favour of which the Minister spoke, would require only a statement about the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State relating to proscription orders. However, those differences mask an important point of constitutional principle.
When the issue of proscribing the IRGC was considered by this House last Thursday, the Minister said, as he said again today, that the Government would not give a running commentary on proscription—as has been the position of previous Governments—and would keep the issues of proscription under review. The noble Lord’s approach was, and is, that because the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and I, and by implication everyone not privy to government intelligence briefings, have not had the intelligence that the Government have received from the intelligence services, it follows that it is the Government’s right to make these judgments, as a Government, on which organisations are proscribed and when. The Minister’s approach was largely echoed by Minister Sarah Jones in the other place on Monday of this week.
We understand the Government’s approach. In particular, we are not seeking a running commentary on ongoing consideration of the proscription of possible organisations. Nevertheless, we contend that the Government’s approach misunderstands the constitutional position. Decisions on orders proscribing organisations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and such orders cannot take effect unless approved by both Houses of Parliament, so they are ultimately decisions for Parliament. If these decisions were for the Executive alone, the requirement for a vote of both Houses would be meaningless and contradictory of the legislation.
Furthermore, the Government’s position would mean, inconsistently, that while parliamentary approval is required to approve a proscription recommended by the Executive, Parliament is not entitled to take a view on the proscription of any organisation that the Government do not recommend for any reason for proscription, whether that reason be good or bad. That is constitutionally unsustainable. Just as a sovereign Parliament would be entitled to legislate to require a proscription so this Parliament is quite entitled to take the far more modest step of insisting on a report—not just about the general principles of proscription to enable us to understand the procedure, as the Minister would have us accept, but on the Government’s reasoning in relation to the IRGC and other organisations related to the Iranian military.
Considerations such as those spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, are important for Parliament and government in considering whether to proscribe organisations, just as they might be on a Motion to approve an order laid by the Government for a positive proscription. The noble Baroness referred to David Lammy’s and Yvette Cooper’s support in opposition for proscription of the IRGC, and those are relevant considerations for Parliament. We will vote solidly in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and we commend it to the House.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Motions in his name, and I am pleased to see the government Amendments 11C to 11F to include guidance on evidence collection and the exercise of seizure powers in the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance. We are happy to accept these. But I add that it is over a year ago now that my honourable friend Matt Vickers brought these to the attention of the other place, and they were rejected at that point by the Government. It is regrettable that the Government were against our amendments here, and we have only just arrived at this point as a result of the persistence of this side of the House.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has tabled his Motion. We support this and, if he decides to divide the House, we will be with him. I tabled Motion D1 to disagree with the Commons amendments and to offer my own amendment in lieu, which is only slightly altered from the previous version. The only change I have made is to narrow the language to mention groups linked to the Iranian armed forces, as opposed to focusing on groups linked to the Iranian Government as a whole.
It is peculiar how one’s opinion can change so greatly when one enters government. As was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the Labour Party used to stand on this side of the House urging Conservative Ministers to proscribe the IRGC. In fact, on 7 March 2023, during the Report stage debate on the National Security Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, then the opposition Home Office shadow Minister, moved an amendment with the express purpose of requiring the Government to proscribe the IRGC. The noble Lord stood at this very Dispatch Box and said:
“It is in the national security interests of this country for the IRGC to be proscribed as soon as possible”.—[Official Report, 7/3/23; col. 753.]
That was the view of the Labour Party in 2023, but clearly it no longer believes that that is the case.
Instead, the Government have offered us a Statement within six months outlining the process of proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. When speaking to the Government’s amendment in the House of Commons, the Minister, Sarah Jones MP, said that this was to
“help the Opposition and others to understand the proscription process”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/26; col. 104.]
We do not need to be patronised by this Government. We can all read the conditions in Section 3 of the Terrorism Act. We know what the process is. Our contention is that the Government are not willing to use that process effectively. We can see plainly and clearly that the IRGC meets that threshold. I say to the Minister: put yourselves in our shoes. If he were standing where I am today, would he accept a Statement on the process as sufficient to prevent him pressing this to a Division? I doubt he would.
We should be in no doubt that the IRGC poses a significant threat to our country. When we have seen in 2025 alone more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots on British soil, when we have seen numerous antisemitic attacks carried out in Britain, and when we have seen the IRGC ramping up its plots and attacks across the Middle East and beyond, then we know we have a problem. The IRGC is a dangerous and lethal organisation. Just today, we have seen how it has fired at merchant vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz. We must act against groups that pose a threat to our national security. The United States has banned the IRGC, as have Canada, New Zealand, Australia and even the European Union. If they can, why can we not? Surely it is time for the Government to listen to the British people, listen to Parliament and listen to themselves, and proscribe the IRGC as soon as possible.
Before I sit down, I align myself with the comments on the appalling events that led to the death of Stephen Lawrence, which I remember only too well.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords who spoke in this short debate, and I will respond to their comments. On fixed penalty notices, I had genuinely hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would have accepted that we have moved significantly towards his position. Everybody wants to see fixed penalty notices issued fairly and proportionately, and the Government’s amendments would have helped and will help to ensure that this is the case. But we also need to accept that there is a continuing role for external contractors in the enforcement of ASB orders, and I do not believe we should close the door to that, which is what in our assessment the noble Lord’s amendment would do.
I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is not happy. However, before we move to a potential Division on this, I recommit to what I said in my opening remarks: we commit to a passage in the guidance, which I will produce on behalf of the Home Office, that will say:
“Where external contractors are used, private firms should not be able to receive greater revenue or profits just from increasing the volume of penalties”.
I think that meets the noble Lord’s objective. If he remains unhappy, that is the way these things work, so we will have to examine that in a moment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I come at this from a somewhat naive point of view perhaps, but I cannot understand, having heard the Minister, why on earth the Government have not done it already.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, if I answered that question, I would stray into the very issues that I do not wish to talk about, because they are issues which we have to keep under consideration. I will say to the noble and learned Baroness what I said in my opening remarks: we have sanctioned Iranian officials. We have put visa sanctions on Iranian officials. We have Iran under FIRS for registration of foreign interests. We have taken action, as is self-evident, in relation to the current crisis. I will not comment on those matters, not because I do not want to but because whatever I say on them gives an indication of what the Government might wish to do at any particular time on any particular topic, and it is not right that we give a running commentary.
I say to those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that I welcome their support for the government amendments in lieu. I hope I have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on his amendments relating to fixed penalty notices—I suspect that I have not—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will not push Motion D1, for the arguments that I have put.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and his colleagues on the Conservative Benches for their consistent and solid support on the issue of fining for profit. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her consistent support throughout on the same issue. I add my thanks again to the Minister for his engagement: I do not think there has been a lack of engagement, but he is shuffling towards the finishing line; he could still do more, and more quickly, to address the concerns expressed in Motion A1. I urge him to take his department by the scruff of the neck and get this matter done with a bit more creative thinking—that is all it requires. For the reason I set out earlier, I wish to test the opinion at the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 11C to 11F in lieu.
“(a) the collection by those authorities of evidence to support representations to the court about an order under section 33C (forfeiture of vehicles), and
(b) the exercise by authorised officers of their powers under section 34B (search and seizure of vehicles).
(1A) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to English waste collection authorities about”
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 342 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 342C and 342D in lieu.
“(A1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to chief officers of police about—
(a) matters to be taken into account by chief officers of police before making an application for a youth diversion order, including alternatives to making an application,
(b) how chief officers of police are to comply with their duties to consult under section 174, and
(c) the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for chief officers of police to consult persons other than those mentioned in section 174 before making an application for a youth diversion order or the variation or discharge of such an order.”
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 359 and 439 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 439C and 439D in lieu.
“Duty to make statement about proscription regime
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement about the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State in relation to the Secretary of State’s powers under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (power to amend list of proscribed organisations).
(2) The Secretary of State must comply with subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
“(ca) section (Duty to make statement about proscription regime);”
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D. I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Lord Davies of Gower
Leave out from “439” to end and insert “, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 439C and 439D in lieu, and do propose Amendments 439E and 439F in lieu—
“Proscription status of Iran-related entities: review
(1) The Secretary of State must, within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, review whether any organisations related to the Iranian Armed Forces should be proscribed under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (proscription).
(2) The Secretary of State must publish the outcome of the review under subsection (1), and this must include the reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision.”
“(ca) section (Proscription status of Iran-related entities: review);””
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to Members who have spoken in support of this Motion. I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I am afraid I do not accept his argument. I therefore beg leave to test the opinion of the House.