Lords Chamber

Monday 10th November 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
None Portrait Oral questions: Improvement of the data produced by the Office for National Statistics
-

The second order question Baroness Bousted.
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
None Portrait Oral questions: River pollution: sources other than sewage
-

The oral question Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
14:58
14:59
15:00
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
As.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The funding to the Environment Agency, Farm Inspections and Regulatory Enforcement team, which Regulatory Enforcement team, which will enable them to conduct at least 6000 inspections a year by 2029, in order to work with farmers 2029, in order to work with farmers to raise standards, which is really important. The Catchment Sensitive Farming grant, of which actually me and my husband have been recipients, is designed to address the specific needs of each farm. For example, we fenced off the river to stop cattle going down and causing damage to the riverbanks and pollution.

Because that's they they support capital investment in specific ways capital investment in specific ways to stop livestock going in watercourses. For example, as I just mentioned. And that also includes improving drainage to manage runoff more effectively. The manage runoff more effectively. The Sustainable Farming Incentive Scheme pays farmers for actions that protect and enhance our that protect and enhance our natural environment. That includes things that reduce runoff erosion, things that reduce runoff erosion, will maintain soil cover, create buffer strips and so on.

And we're also looking at improving farm also looking at improving farm pollution regulations because they need to be both simple and effective. And we've also issued amended statutory guidance on the farming rules for water to set regulations.
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
None Portrait Oral questions: Impact of a potential National Insurance rate increase on partnerships
-

I beg leave.
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
at people on a remittance basis and not taking into account wealthy investors who are not under Paye, who are leaving the country in who are leaving the country in droves. What if the noble Lord wants to talk about the amount of money that's left? I'm very happy money that's left? I'm very happy to point him to the £22 billion black hole in the public finances black hole in the public finances that that that we inherited and that that his government sought to and that his government sought to and that his government sought to hide from the office for Budget Responsibility.

Yeah. The the the same the same office for Budget Responsibility have certified that the non-dom reforms the government has implemented will raise £33.8 has 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 the new regime is internationally competitive and focussed on attracting the best talent and investment into the UK.

In his earlier answer, the noble Lord, the Minister said that much of the speculation was irresponsible, which suggests that some of it which suggests that some of it wasn't. Could he please list it? No, wasn't. Could he please list it? No, as I think I've made clear, I'm not measures.
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:21
None Portrait Private Notice Question: Assessment of recent accidental prison releases
-

An An accidental An accidental prisoner An accidental prisoner releases Lord Hayward.
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
None Portrait AMDT:1 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

content. The contents have it amendment one Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move a government amendment to clause 65 of the Bill. My Lords, the Nature of the Bill. My Lords, the Nature Restoration Fund is a key part of the government's vision for a planning system that delivers for planning system that delivers for both nature and for people. Throughout the passage of the bill, we have worked with peers and wider we have worked with peers and wider stakeholders to ensure that everyone can be confident that by taking a different approach, we can taking a different approach, we can unlock better outcomes for nature.

And while the NRF proposes a different approach, this will only different approach, this will only be available 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 edp's 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. And 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 they need to take action to avoid and reduce the impact of development, as well as delivering proactive conservation measures that will materially outweigh the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature. While we are clear 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, and so I'm very grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Parminter and the noble Lady Baroness Grender for their continued work with the government to ensure 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 Edp's can come forward, but will provide transparency as to how Natural England will undertake the preparation of an EDP, and how they should prioritise the actions available for them 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 which was accidentally agreed upon in Report stage.

This consequential amendment made provision for the commencement date of a substantive government amendment, one that would change the Secretary of State's powers to issue holding directions to local planning authorities, which all Lordships defeated at Report stage. We have therefore removed this consequential amendment from the bill. I beg to move these amendments, and while on my feet, I want to address a couple of further points following our Report stage debates raised in particular by the noble Lord Lord Roborough. The first relates to the noble Lords quest for an assurance that CPO powers under this bill will not be misused, and for clarification as to how these powers and the purchase of land by public authorities more broadly engaged with the critical 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 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 trickle 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. So 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.

My Lords, through the passage of this Bill, concerns have been raised on the behaviours surrounding the use of CPO powers. The government has 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 has listened carefully to the debates raised in the House, and it will continue to work with stakeholders to promote best practices to drive out bad behaviours to ensure 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 they are as robust and as clear as possible on compensation. The availability of advanced payment of compensation is important to ensuring landowners receive payment where they have been unable to reach agreement on the total amount of compensation due. Authorities are advised to ensure prompt advance payments are made, otherwise, interest on the total compensation due will increase, resulting in the overall cost of development being higher.

My Lords, the government has been clear that the CPO reforms in the bill do not target farmers or any other type of landowners. There is nothing in the bill which changes the core principles of compulsory purchase. It must only be used when negotiations to acquire land by agreement have not succeeded, and there is a compelling case in the public interest. And finally, another area raised by the noble Lord Lord Roborough was in respect of the role of 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 grow nature service markets and will support revenue diversification for farming and land management businesses as committed during the Committee stage, 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 EDP wherever possible, recognising that in some instances direct delivery will be necessary.

I hope 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 the amendments amendment proposed clause 65, page 105, line four at end in the words printed on marshalled list.
15:46
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I wonder if I might just intervene to ask a question in particular about the amendment which the noble Lady the Minister has just moved to to amend to clause 65. She will recall that in the debates we had at report in clause 63, there is a whole structure which is designed to allow natural Natural England when making an environmental delivery plan, to focus on one environmental feature. And in relation to that environmental feature, to focus on one negative effect of the development upon that feature.

And it's structured so that the others are excluded. And that's notwithstanding the wise insertion into that clause of the material relating to water, nutrient neutrality, etc. This 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, and I quote, about addressing any negative effect of development on a protected species or a protected feature of a protected site. So my question is to boil that down, is 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 the 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? And I'm afraid this is quite a significant difference when and how the prioritisation comes into effect.

And while I'm on my feet, can I just also say a big thank you to the Minister and indeed to her officials for them several, many occasions on which they've provided very helpful guidance and advice on the interpretation of the act. But can I just reiterate my continuing request that we be told when the powers that are relevant to the implementation of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but which are to be contained in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, are going to be commenced, or indeed, more to the point, implemented.

She knows that there are many of these that we're waiting upon, which are as significant as some of the planning measures in the bill itself. My Lords, I rise extremely briefly just to thank the noble Baroness, just to thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her engagement and also for her reassurance on on the exercise of CPO powers and the the exercise of CPO powers and the engagement of the private sector.
15:48
Baroness Parminter Portrait Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
That was brief.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And can I. On behalf of our benches, rise to say a few words? Apologies. to say a few words? Apologies. Baroness Pinnock has been stuck. There's no no trains anywhere. So There's no no trains anywhere. So you've got me very briefly, but can I firstly say we have been very pleased with the engagement we've pleased with the engagement we've had with the Ministers throughout the Report stage leading up to Third Reading today, which has brought about some important brought about some important changes in the bill, including on the issue of how we plan for electric vehicles in infrastructure, electric vehicles in infrastructure, and also the commitment that the Minister has made around looking again at the spatial standards on on housing, so that we can hopefully ensure that more young hopefully ensure that more young homeless people can find accommodation in the future.

But the comments that I really wanted the comments that I really wanted to touch on were in regard to the amendment, which the Minister has amendment, which the Minister has ably introduced earlier, of which I'm very grateful for the many, many meetings that she and many meetings that she and colleagues had with myself and other peers on these benches to try other peers on these benches to try and give us the reassurance that in this new process of strategic this new process of strategic planning, that the environment will have the safeguards that are needed in this, in this new process.

And I'm particularly grateful that the Minister has brought forward regulations and not guidance, which was an issue of concern, because we do need regulations which will provide the necessary clarity, clarity and transparency for those of us who are concerned about the need for environmental safeguards and the appropriate way that the the negative effects of developments will be addressed, and effectively, to make clear how the mitigation hierarchy, which is this 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 the particular instance of this new approach to strategic level planning for housing and how the mitigation hierarchy in this new process of EDPs will provide the necessary safeguards for the environment.

It's my hope that it will reduce the risk of viable impact avoidance and mitigation solutions being overlooked. I say it's my hope at this stage. That's all. That's all it can be. But I think what it will definitely do is make it much clearer. For those of us who are concerned about the environment, just how natural England will make the decisions it's going to make, what is going to be the the evidence that they're going to use in order to move forward with EDPs.

And I think that will give us some reassurance that the environmental protections will be in place. And if they're not, then what we know will happen is there will be a legal challenge. And that's neither in the interests of the developers or indeed the environment that will suffer. Now it's a compromise on the amendment I introduced at Report stage, and I accept that. And for some it will be a compromise too far. Again, I accept that. But I am a liberal Democrat and I'm prepared to face the political reality and the evidence that this government believes that this new approach with EDPs will deliver the house building that we all want, whilst at the same time giving us on these benches and others some security that the environmental backstops will be in place, because that's what we need and that's what our ever diminishing wildlife and habitats desperately need.

My Lords.
15:52
15:52
15:52
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that this bill do now pass. I would just briefly comment to the noble Lord Lansley. I think we've discussed Lansley. I think we've discussed before, during the course of our discussion. Oh, sorry. I believe we need to dispose of the amendments before we get to building albums. Thank you. I beg to move the amendments in my name. The question is that amendment one be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content to the contrary, not content.

The contents have it amendment two moved formerly Baroness Taylor. The question is that amendment two be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it. My apologies to the Deputy Speaker. My Lords, I beg to move that this bill do now pass. And if I could just make some brief comments to the noble Lord Lansley. First of all, I think we have had some discussions interrupt the Minister, but I think we must put the question to the House first before there is any discussion.

The question is that this building now pass. I'll carry on where I left off rather than repeat myself a third time. So do I. Okay, sorry. Process is a bit confusing sometimes. So we have discussed the implementation of the the the issues that are contained in the previous Levelling Up Act before. However, I think it probably would be helpful to know if I do write out a letter setting out when those provisions are coming into place, and I hope that will help all noble Lords.

In terms of the noble Lords, question about the hierarchy and how it would be employed, I think we wanted to be very clear that the mitigation hierarchy lives in this model, but it's got to be expressed in a different way given this move to a strategic approach. We've debated that many times before. The different levels of the hierarchy don't neatly map onto the different types of conservation measures available under an EDP. So we're going to use regulations to set out how those how those principles are expressed through the NRF.

So if there's anything further I can comment on the issue that the noble Lord raises, I will I will write to him on that, or I'll arrange a meeting between us on that. But I'm very grateful to all noble Lords for all the engagement and contributions we've had during the passage of this landmark piece of legislation. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a complex piece of legislation. I've been very grateful for the expertise around the House, which I think in the best tradition of this House has helped 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 would like to say a special thank you to my noble friends. Baroness Hayman of Alec Lord Khan of Burnley Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, who's arrived from his horrendous train journey just in time to hear me thanking him. Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, for their steadfast support in taking this bill forwards and who I know, echo my thanks to members across this House and also to my hon.

Friend in the other place, the Housing and Planning Minister, who has taken a lot of time to talk with peers about their concerns. I'm grateful in particular to the opposition frontbench, namely the noble Baroness 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. And in a similar vein, I would also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the noble Lord Earl Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter and Lady Grender for their continued engagement and contributions during the debate.

Many Lords of generously lent their time and expertise, including many around the chamber, and I'm very grateful for all of those who have contributed. Well, there may be disagreement on some of the issues we've debated. I know we all share the same aim of unlocking economic growth and getting this country building again. I believe we're 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'm very grateful to all the officials and members of the Bill team who have worked tirelessly on this bill behind the scenes, including Holly, Harper, Isabel, Lucy, Tom, Daria, Fatima, Guy and Sam and of course, my brilliant private office, without whom I wouldn't be doing anything. I'd also like to pay tribute to all the parliamentary staff, including the clerks, Doorkeepers security, Hansard, public Bill office, many of whom have stayed late, sometimes very late, as we debated this bill into the early hours.

I beg to.
15:57
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Lords, I know that the Commons are considering amendments to this bill on Thursday, and I genuinely hope that the government considers strongly, carefully what contributions noble Lords have made during this bill, particularly the during this bill, particularly the passage of amendment 130, as put forward by the noble Baroness Willis of Summertown. But I also, Willis of Summertown. But I also, on the advice of clerks, I've written at this point because I want to put on record my concern want to put on record my concern still about the section 20, subsection clause 20, subsection subsection clause 20, subsection three statement that was put on the face of the bill by both the Minister and the former Secretary Minister and the former Secretary of State.

It's a matter that's actually being considered in the courts right now about whether it's courts right now about whether it's justiciable or not. And it was my understanding. It almost certainly would be. Having been a former secretary. Of State for DEFRA, secretary. Of State for DEFRA, however, it turns out that the government and the House of Commons does not believe it is, but it's a does not believe it is, but it's a parliamentary proceeding. And that's why I want to express my concern about not only this bill, concern about not only this bill, but how we consider this particular element in future bills when we're considering legislation.

I don't say this lightly, because I'm say this lightly, because I'm conscious of what the office of the Environmental Protection has said, but it's one of the reasons I've tabled questions, both to the Deputy Speaker and indeed to the Minister. But with that, I hope that we will see a bill that will continue or an act in due course that will enhance environment, rather than my concerns about what part three will do to it.
15:59
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this has been a challenging bill over eight days in committee and five on report. We have examined the bill in extraordinary detail early mornings and late nights. Yet, my Lords, despite the effort, it still falls short of the government's own stated ambitions. The scale of late stage amendments 67 tabled at report and even two more today. My Lords, which we do support, 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, my Lords falling by 0.3 percent 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 the legal barriers that genuinely hold back new housing.

The hillside judgement, the absence or absence of proportionality in planning enforcement, restrictions linked to Ramsar sites, and the complexities surrounding nutrient neutrality rules. These, my Lords, are the real challenges confronting developers, confronting 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. I also wish, though, to acknowledge the diligent scrutiny 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, my Lords, that they deserve. My Lords, beyond the legal and regulatory hurdles, lies a deeper challenge, economic viability and confidence. House building has been weakened not only by the planning constraints but by the weaker economic uncertainty in recent years. The Home Building Federation's State of Play report makes this clear. My Lords, 67% of respondents said 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. My Lords, the 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 noble Baroness, the Minister, last responded to me at the despatch box, she leant on the common refrain that we had 14 years. My Lords, in the last Parliament we built 1 million homes and we delivered the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, legislation that I was proud to take through this House.

Can the government hand on heart, say 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, My Lords, for the three month figure since 1979. My Lords, that's not a record to celebrate. Throughout this bill, we tried to ensure that debate in this House remains constructive and solution focussed. Our amendments offered practical ways, forward measures to release land unlock permissions and to get homes built where they are most needed.

Instead, the government has defended a bill that promises reform but risks further delay. My Lords, Britain can't afford another plan that over promises and undelivered under-delivers. Our country needs homes, it needs infrastructure and renewed confidence, not another framework that leaves us standing still. Finally, my Lords, I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to the noble Baroness, the Minister for the time she's taken to engage outside the chamber for her openness to discussion and for the considerable work she's done in steering this bill through the House.

I know how demanding that process can be, and her endurance and professionalism has been greatly appreciated across your Lordships' House. I'd also like to thank my noble friends for their support over the many, many hours in this chamber and for all members across the chamber who have engaged seriously, generously and with good spirit, without in particular, my Lords, I'd like to put on record my thanks to Lord, my noble friends. Lord Jamieson, Lord Moylan, Lord Bourne, Lord Blencathra and the Baroness Bloomfield for their contributions from this Dispatch Box on this bill, I would also like to add my thanks to the staff who over many late nights and early mornings, looked after us so well.

And finally, but not least to our team of Sam, Molly, Hannah and Henry. Thank you for your exemplary support. As always, my Lords, this Bill may not yet deliver the clarity and ambition our country needs, but our debates have at least shown that this that your Lordship House remains committed to building a planning system worthy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of that task. My Lords, this bill is very much
16:05
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this bill is very much part of our plan to deliver. We inherited a sclerotic system and we inherited a sclerotic system and we will get Britain building again, fixing the foundations so we can deliver both the housing and infrastructure we need and protect our environment at the same time. We've already committed to funding the planning sector to supporting the skills agenda in construction industry, sorting out the building safety regulator. Great progress being made there already providing a package of support for SME builders who definitely deserve our confidence and have found themselves neglected and left out in the cold for the last few years.

We want to get Britain building again. We all need to work together on this mission. It's something for all of us to get involved in, and I look forward to working with noble peers from across the house. The noble Lady mentioned 67 amendments. I hope she would realise that there is a little bit of irony in, first of all, accusing the government of not listening and then accusing us of putting too many amendments forward. We were listening. Many of those amendments were technical in nature, responding to some of the devolution aspects of the bill.

But those that were responding to what noble peers had said, I hope have received the support of the House. That said, I thank all noble Lords for all their contributions and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. The question is this Bill do now pass? As many as are of that pass? As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it. I might wait for a minute before I call the next business to before I call the next business to
16:07
16:08
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
I'd like to start by acknowledging the work of Professor Becky Francis and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Her expert advisory team on this very important, detailed review. very important, detailed review. They were set very clear criteria They were set very clear criteria which the team have have diligently which the team have have diligently sought to incorporate. And the level of detail in the review means that given the time available, I will not be able to comment on many will not be able to comment on many of the individual recommendations, but perhaps other noble Lords will but perhaps other noble Lords will raise those.

Of course, we're pleased to see that the review pleased to see that the review builds on the reforms brought in by my noble friend Lord Gove and the 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 those curriculum and elements of those curriculum and assessment reforms, including the phonics test, a focus on a phonics test, a focus on a knowledge rich curriculum, subject specific curricula, as well as specific curricula, as well as formal exam based assessment.

And one of the advantages of a slight delay between the government announcing publishing the review and then announcing its own response, is that over the past few days, there have been a veritable litany of different blogs and commentaries from real experts in this area, and a few things from those who have started to emerge, which I hope the noble Baroness. The Minister, will be able to comment on. Firstly, there seems to be a divide between the advocates of specific subjects, whether that be citizenship, digital literacy, media literacy, climate change, financial education or the performing arts.

The enthusiasts of all of those subjects are broadly happy. Their subject is now in. 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 they've had a financial education lesson. So implementation as ever will be key. But 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're worried both by the extension of the curriculum and what that means for powerful knowledge and depth of understanding. And by the way, it's being measured. So my questions and concerns reflect some of those of our greatest experts and practitioners, and focus particularly on where the government has diverged from the review's recommendations. As Professor Dylan Williams said, assessment operationalises the curriculum. It's where the rubber hits the road and, by extension, measurement of a school's progress also shapes what is taught.

So in that context, we are concerned about the loss of the EBacc, which led to a ten percentage point increase in the uptake of history and geography GCSEs between 2010 and 2024, and also stemmed the decline in the modern foreign languages GCSEs. We've 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. So I wondered what modelling the government has done in terms of the likely decline in these subjects in future.

In the absence of the EBacc, and especially in relation to modern foreign languages. Even more troubling, perhaps, are the changes to progress eight, where the review was very clear that with some cosmetic changes to titles, progress eight should stay unchanged in terms of substance. And there is, I would say, a near-universal view from experts. This will lead to a lowering of standard for all children, but most importantly for the underprivileged. And I would particularly like to acknowledge very thoughtful blogs and Twitter threads from Matt Burnage of Arc, Soane and Stewart Locke of the Advantage Schools Trust.

So having invested in the evidence led approach of the Commission Curriculum and Assessment review, what was the evidence on which the government based its decision to deviate from the review's recommendation in relation to progress? Eight and what would the noble Baroness, the Minister, say to school leaders who are already worrying that this will see an increase in breadth at the expense of depth, and, more importantly, to those leaders who say, rightly, that schools don't operate in isolation. So there will be a pressure to choose easier options for pupils and especially for disadvantaged pupils.

The exact pupils the government wants to help. So the push for rigour for the rights of all pupils to access the best of what has been written, thought and said will erode and key as ever will be in implementation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to take one example of curriculum change, we will. Move back.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move back. Into, as ever, get.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Into, as ever, get. In 20 minutes. There's 20. To take one example of curriculum take one example of curriculum change and how to spot misinformation. As Daisy 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 aim to identify misinformation, but which in practice, only work if the pupil has enough knowledge to pupil has enough knowledge to assess it.

So will the government take the advice of experts in this take the advice of experts in this area and pilot the changes that they propose to this element of the they propose to this element of the curriculum? Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, when she comes to the Minister, when she comes to close, clarify the timing on the introduction of the new curriculum introduction of the new curriculum as noble Lords may have worked out, it will be 2042 until we have 18 it will be 2042 until we have 18 year olds whose whole schooling has been shaped by this review.

The elements which risk eroding quality will kick in very quickly. Those which might improve it are far, far away. So I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, can also reassure us that, as Professor Becky Francis herself said, the things which will influence outcomes for disadvantaged pupils in the short term are also outside the curriculum, notably attendance and behaviour.
16:16
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, could I also begin by thanking Professor Becky Francis for her curriculum and assessment review report? There's much in this final report that we on these benches can welcome. Indeed, quite a few of the ideas are distinctively liberal Democrat imprint a renewed emphasis on a broad and balanced curriculum, the recognition that every child must be offered a more rigorous and breath, and the government's acceptance that the need for more digital art space and citizenship education. But, my Lords, while the ambitions is high, the risk risks are real, particularly for those children whose life chances depend upon a system that works for all, not only for the privileged few.

If we are serious about social mobility, then these reforms must be equally serious about substance delivery and equity. I'd like to speak a little bit more about social mobility and equality of opportunity, an issue close to my heart given my lived experiences of the UK education system. The Francis Review rightly emphasises that national curriculum must be for every child, and that for one of its purposes is to ensure that all young people are not held back by their background and circumstances.

Yet the danger is that without an underpinning of investment and workforce plan, these reforms will continue existing inequalities. Let's consider the triple science the ambitions to give more students access to deeper science studies is admirable. However, I'm not sure if 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, fundamentally disenfranchising children in less resourced schools, many of whom are for a more deprived background.

Similarly, while the arts and digital education are flagged in the final report, the parallel removal of bursaries for music teacher training is concerning. Raising teacher vacancies in music and creative subjects, and underinvestment in enrichment threatens to drive a two tier curriculum, one of the one for those who attend a well resourced school, and another for everyone else. My Lords, I will now move to the on 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 it's replaced. Placement may be unintentionally narrow choice rather than broaden it. The new proposals around progress eight reforms with dedicated slots for science and subjects, may incentivise schools to pick the cheapest route to satisfy buckets rather than enrich, ensuring rich subject access. My Lords, our schools will be under pressure to hit headlines measures. As a consequence, this may lead to schools to steer pupils away from arts, language and physical education. If we are serious about social mobility, then we cannot allow the curriculum for large numbers of children to become the bare minimum choices, given them fewer options than for 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, my Lords, I'd like to touch upon the issue of teacher supply funding and implementation of all of these require teachers time, training and money. Without a proper workforce planning, the ambitions of the final report will collapse under the weight of under-resourced schools. The government must clarify how the reforms are to be funded, how many additional teachers will be recruited in shortage areas, how all schools, regardless of location, will be supported to deliver the new entitlement.

Because if a child in Sheffield or anywhere else else outside the privileged postcode is left behind because their school cannot deliver the new curriculum, then the promise of a world class curriculum for all becomes a hollow slogan. My Lord. 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. So the first question is 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, I'd also like to ask, what assessment has the department made on the impact of narrowing the curriculum on on students from lower income backgrounds? How will the reforms not widen the attainment gap? Can I also ask how 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 socio economic backgrounds, regions, disability status and other key equality indicators? And can I also ask the Minister to explain why the government has not progressed with all the Francis Review's recommendations? And finally, my Lords, this report offers not just change, but an opportunity.

An opportunity to build an education system that is truly inclusive, truly ambitious and truly equitable. But 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 you wish to talk of social mobility, we must mean it. If you 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.

My Lords, the proposals are good, but only if we deliver them properly and I look forward to the Minister's response.
16:22
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Can I first start by.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Lord Mohammed of Tinsley to his new. Role on the frontbench, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Role on the frontbench, and I will do my best to cover the points made by the noble Lady Baroness Barran and the noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Barran and the noble Lord. Although I. Will just note that for the. Second time in a row, in a responding to a statement, I've got responding to a statement, I've got less time to respond than the opposite to opposition frontbenchers to ask me questions. But I would like to start by But I would like to start by thanking Professor Becky Francis and those who contributed through and those who contributed through her panel and in the consultation. This is a review driven by evidence, informed by data, and which has informed by data, and which has relied on input from experts, the sector and the public.

The national curriculum ensures a common 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 led by James Callaghan in his great education debate and delivered by the National Curriculum by the the National Curriculum by the noble Lord Lord Baker in the first National Curriculum in 1988. Successive governments have Successive governments have understood that as the world changes, so must the curriculum that prepares our young people for that prepares our young people for success in that world.

That's why this is a curriculum, a national curriculum, which 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. Whilst I can understand what the objectives of the EBacc were, unfortunately they didn't achieve them. We have seen no increase in the numbers of students aged 16 to 19, for example, who took up subjects focussed on in EBacc.

The levels of students taking modern foreign language GCSE has remained increased to begin with, but now is broadly the same level as it was in 2009 ten. And of course the result has been to narrow the curriculum and to ease out arts and creative subjects in in relation to progress eight, 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. And languages and humanities, of course, continue to be incentivised in the proposed progress eight accountability measure on the important point made by the noble Lady opposite about attendance and behaviour, I'm sure she will recognise the work that this government has continued to do, some of it undoubtedly based on work she did to improve attendance and 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's why we're only making changes that are essential, and we will support teachers through the resources made available through the Oak Academy, including the AI Learning Assistance to support teachers through the 2300 more teachers who are already in our secondary and special schools. As a result of our focus on delivering 6500 more teachers. And by the way, we've seen a particular increase in the numbers of music teachers entering initial teacher training, which is one of the reasons for the changes in the bursary.

And of course, 1300 fewer teachers leaving the profession. We will provide sufficient time to implement producing the new national curriculum in spring 2027, with for first teaching in 2028 will enable there to be four terms for preparation to deliver the national curriculum more than was the case last time the national curriculum changed on CCC. We will. We will work with schools to see what is necessary to enable them to provide that entitlement for all pupils. But for example, we are already providing support for Non-physics science teachers to be able to teach physics.

My Lords, the curriculum hasn't been updated for over a decade and parents want one that is fit for the future. A knowledge rich education central to ensuring high and rising standards for every child, and a curriculum which will help children shape their own futures and the future of our country. Digital skills for a digital age. The speaking and listening skills that employers value music, sport, art and drama no longer the privilege of a lucky few and standards that will enable all children to benefit and to deliver their potential, whatever

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their starting point. My Lord, may I start by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, may I start by congratulating the Minister and the government for accepting the major government for accepting the major recommendations of the report, which was to remove the curriculum. which was to remove the curriculum. EBacc, which was imposed upon all schools by Michael Gove in 2010. schools by Michael Gove in 2010. EBacc consists of eight academic EBacc consists of eight academic subjects, word for word. The same, same subjects were taught from 1904, same subjects were taught from 1904, in our schools, and so for 14 years we had an Edwardian curriculum.

It we had an Edwardian curriculum. It is not surprising, my Lords, that disadvantaged children were not helped. When the Conservatives came helped. When the Conservatives came into office. There were about just over 300,000 disadvantaged students over 300,000 disadvantaged students when they left office. 14 years later, there were more than 300,000 later, there were more than 300,000 disadvantaged students. And that, my Lords, is a disgrace. And the my Lords, is a disgrace. And the other effect of EBacc is that during the time when the Conservatives in office on youth Conservatives in office on youth unemployment rose to 13.6%, my Lords, that's almost the highest rate in Europe and double what it is in Germany.

And one of the tasks of this government must be to reduce that level of youth unemployment. And I would say one thing. I hope the Minister will refute the comments that were made by Michael Gove last week to the effect that by introducing the abolishing EBacc, that somehow social expansion, social development will be developed, would be destroyed in the schools. It's exactly the reverse. When comprehensives will be allowed to take more cultural subjects, more subjects on climate change, more subjects on data skills and AI.

They will find that social responsibility expands dramatically, and that is in fact the lesson of the colleges that I've been promoting for the last 14 years. United Technical University Technical Colleges. We have an unemployment rate of 5%. Schools have an unemployment rate of 13.6%. And that, I would say to the government, is totally and utterly unacceptable. And I would just say one other thing. I must try and be shorter than some of the other speakers.

Only one short element. Another interesting thought I give to you in Becky Becky Sharp's report. She said she wanted to stand for evolution rather than revolution. I'm afraid that's completely the reverse. The way that the government is making changes first in skills. She's the skills Minister. She's the skills Minister, and three levels and all of that. And now the Becky report of that. And now the Becky report and now the bill going through. I'm going to sit down in a moment.

It's very. very.
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:31
16:32
16:33
16:34
16:34
16:35
16:36
16:37
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Portrait Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Withdrawal of the. I think it's time for the. Conservative Benches, but we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conservative Benches, but we should have enough time to to time for everybody to get in. Really grateful for your protection and championing. It's protection and championing. It's always an honour to give way to the future Archbishop of Canterbury. In any event. Can the Minister say any event. Can the Minister say more about the new Oracy framework? Because of course, young people Because of course, young people need to be able to speak as well as read and write. And can you give us an assurance that in preparing the an assurance that in preparing the framework, she'll work, her department will work really closely with the experts in this field, the with the experts in this field, the English speaking union, whose work this has been for the last 107 this has been for the last 107 years.

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

huge jewel in Britain's crown.
16:38
16:39
16:40
16:41
16:42
16:42
16:43
16:43
16:44
16:44
16:45
16:46
16:46
16:48
16:48
None Portrait AMDT: 1 Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-

content. The contents have it. In clause one. Amendment one Lord amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. One and speak to other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Baroness Doocey. I my noble friend Baroness Doocey. I welcome the start of the Committee stage and the opportunity to engage in detail with part one of the Bill concerning antisocial behaviour. We on these benches recognise the on these benches recognise the imperative to make our streets safer, and we support measures designed to tackle genuinely designed to tackle genuinely persistent and disruptive antisocial behaviour. However, the Liberal Democrat approach to public 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 liberties or the criminalisation of the vulnerable. This debate on respect orders goes directly to that principle. Clause one introduces the respect order for adults, which partly replaces the old anti-social behaviour injunction. The fundamental difference is severe. While breach of an ASB was treated as a civil contempt, breach of a respect order is explicitly categorised as a criminal offence that can lead to an unlimited file, a 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, then 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 antisocial behaviour regimes. The Manifesto Club and I declare an interest as a member of their advisory board, highlights several fundamental flaws in the previous regime. Under the 2014 act, which civil liberties advocates argue must be addressed before new antisocial behaviour powers such as respect orders are introduced.

The core legal powers under 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. Vague and subjective restrictions. Pspos are often drafted broadly, which leads to them functioning more as a tool applied at the discretion of officers rather than 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 only requires consultation with the police chief, the landowner and whatever community representatives the local authority thinks it appropriate to consult, meaning there is no requirement for any public consultation or minimum standards for one, and there is a significant lack of official data collection and central government scrutiny on the use and effectiveness of anti-social behaviour.

Powers like 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 for an 82 year old man for cycling his bike in a town centre, the feeding of stray cats, the flying of model aircraft, keeping a wheelbarrow behind a garden shed using foul language.

Community protection notices have been issued with restrictions on how people conduct themselves in their own homes, sometimes based on a weak evidence base reliant on hearsay. This is increasing. 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 income. 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 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 or non offences, and this intensification of busybody offences and penalties risks increasing injustice, particularly for vulnerable people. Amendment one, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Baroness Doocey and signed by the noble Baroness Fox of Buckley, requires 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, ASBOs, 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.

An independent review comes from key stakeholders, including justice and the victims Commissioner. We must pause, review, review what we have, and then legislate effectively. The core test. The core legal test for imposing a respect order is dangerously permissive, resting on two conditions the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities that the individual has engaged in antisocial behaviour, and the judicial belief that it is merely just and convenient to make the make the order. This is an alarmingly low threshold for an order that can severely restrict an individual's liberty and can lead to imprisonment.

Imprisonment. We must insist on a higher standard. Amendment five in the name of my noble friend Baroness Doocey and signed by myself, proposed 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 the conditions are tailored and appropriate to the specific case. Amendment seven, also in the name of my noble friend, 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. Furthermore, regarding the duration of the order, amendment seven, also in the name of my noble friend, seeks to specify a maximum length of time for the order challenging the Bill's proposals that a respect order can be imposed for an indefinite period and 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. Aligning respect orders with other established orders and requiring judicial review for any extension, and we must ensure that these powers cannot be weaponized 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 and I thank Lord Meston for signing. The amendment 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 the necessary safeguards and standards of proof are met, and we are particularly concerned on these benches about the risk of this power being used inappropriately against victims of domestic domestic abuse, potentially leading to their eviction.

Instead of the perpetrator's detention. Amendment 18 removes 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 as to require immediate prohibition, then a more specific or criminal intervention is warranted. Anti-social measures. Behaviour measures must possess strong democratic and public accountability to counter the risk of arbitrary local restriction.

Amendment nine, 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, mitigating 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 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 police, victims interests, housing providers and, crucially, homeless persons and legal practitioners, and this would prevent guidance aimed at kerbing behaviour from being developed in a vacuum, ensuring it is practical and trauma informed, especially when dealing with those struggling with addiction or homelessness. In conclusion, these amendments collectively seek seek to address the historical weakness of the ASB 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 fail, they must be founded on evidence, necessity and transparency. And I urge the Minister to recognise the fundamental importance of these safeguards. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An amendment proposed in clause one, page one, line six. At the
17:01
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
beginning, insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have added my name to amendments. One and 21, in the name of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One and 21, in the name of the Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Doocey, which have just been moved so well. In fact, I think I agree so well. In fact, I think I agree with all of the amendments in this in this group, although I'm not quite sure and have some quite sure and have some reservations about amendment two. But I on changing lowering the age But I on changing lowering the age to 16. But the proposition, it seems to me, is straightforward the powers to tackle anti-social powers to tackle anti-social behaviour are currently contained in the anti-social behaviour, Crime in the anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

So before the state even affords itself even the state even affords itself even more powers often, by the way, the duplicate what we already have. Shouldn't we assess whether what we have actually works in terms of improving outcomes for victims and fundamentally reducing anti-social behaviour, which is what we want? behaviour, which is what we want? We should note that 82% of anti-social behaviour practitioners surveyed by justice have called for surveyed by justice have called for such review of existing powers, and criticised the lack of proper consultation or even engagement consultation or even engagement with the government.

And I do think it's 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 and and nor their use monitored by government. So surely the Minister agrees that the government should be working to identify and address problems inherent with existing anti-social behaviour, powers and orders before creating more, and that that would be an evidence based approach to this question. We are focusing on respect orders largely in this group, and they are almost duplicates of anti-social behaviour injunctions, which the government has argued but the government has argued will provide more effective enforcement.

Actually, experts and practitioners suggest that they could actually confuse enforcement agencies. And what's more, as respect orders are so close to ASB, the fear is that they will just reproduce and increase the problems with those injunctions, which research shows are overused and inconsistently applied, and sweep up relatively minor behaviour problems alongside more serious incidents, at the very least. Can the Minister explain why the discredited ASB are staying on the statute book? Why not just dump them? EVs the government tell us the key difference with respect orders is to deal with persistent and serious anti-social behaviour.

Then that should be made explicit in the legislation. Otherwise the danger is they just become another overused part of a tool kit handed out promiscuously. And that's a particular concern because of the government's use and the bill's use of the phrase that these orders are just and convenient. Now, that word convenient is chilling, because here's the rule respect orders are formally civil orders, but essentially criminal in character. And I think, as the noble Lord has already explained so well that I am worried about this conflation of civil and criminal in relation to respect orders.

The government is removing that rather inconvenient problem of a criminal standard of proof, because it's got all that tiresome beyond reasonable doubt palaver that you have to go through. But if you're found guilty, as it were, there is a criminal punishment doled out via respect order. And you can, as we've heard, receive up to two years in prison, which does rather contradict, by the way, some of the emphasis in the sentencing bill of trying to actually stop people going to prison and keep them in the community.

So it's not entirely joined up government, either. A Second Reading, I quoted Dame Diana Johnson, who made this convenience point very clear by explaining that the problem with a civil injunction, such as an ASB, is that if breached, the police officer has to take the individual to court to prove that breach, as though somehow that was a real problem. And she complained there is no automatic power of arrest now that bothersome inconvenience has been overcome by creating a new respect order, which Dame Diana enthusiastically states quote combines the flexibility of the civil injunction with the teeth of the criminal behaviour order.

And I think that that sort of convenient mash up of legal solution, and is something we should be very wary of. It is also a dangerous precedent that shows that a cavalier attitude to legal norms and justice can lead to great injustice. I was thinking when I was reading all this 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 or dodging transport fares.

But with quick prosecutions conducted in such a way, and in this, in that instance, behind closed doors, as I think exposed brilliantly by Tristan Kirk, a journalist at The Standard, we've seen thousands of people on an on an industrial scale being found guilty, often of small unintended mistakes. And I do think that we just have to remember that if you try and bring about justice quickly and using these new methods, you can actually cause huge amounts of problem.

There's harrowing stories of people who are very ill, people who have dementia are even people who've died, who've been victims of these single justice procedure issues. And so I, I just hope that the amendments in this group will recognise that fast track systems of convenience are actually can lead to some terrible unintended consequences. And I'm also reminded in a similar vein of the growth of those monstrous non-crime hate incidents. Again, a legalistic mash up which has caused so many problems for free speech.

Using para legalistic language and confusing us over what constitutes guilt. And so I was glad to see the noble Lord Lord Blencathra amendment in this group, and look forward to his comments later. So I just think this group of amendments is one that I really would like to hear the Minister respond positively to. They're well intentioned. Nobody has been dismissive of anti-social behaviour, but we do not think that these particular orders respect orders, are fit for purpose. And on the other hand, anti-social behaviour orders in general are in a mess.

And at least let's review what works and what doesn't work before we move forward. we move forward.
17:08
17:09
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
I find myself in agreement with many of the concerns that have already been expressed from around the committee human rights, genuine human rights concerns that have been expressed from around the committee. And I find myself a little bit in a time warp because these concerns were evidenced by the use, abuse, disrepute and ultimate 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.

This is this is not hypothesis. This was evidenced by the practice of the original anti-social behaviour orders. And so I 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 that very unhappy history of of ASBOs, as they were. And and and other members of the Committee have already set out what happened in the interim. And again, it would be it would be useful if my if my noble friend the Minister would would explain what will be different this time, why and how.

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

The second concern is that once one is under the the jurisdiction of such an order, it becomes a personal, bespoke criminal code for an individual with with people. I remember the suicidal woman banned from bridges, the pig farmer who was who was ASBO because the pigs wandered onto the neighbour's. Is this 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 also this issue about vulnerable people, minorities who find themselves disproportionately affected.

And of course once once you then breach your personalised criminal code, which could be to keep away from this part of town, which may be where your close relatives live. You are. You are then swept into the system, and that is that is the third concern that I have about these quasi civil criminal orders. The ease with which vulnerable people with chaotic lives who have been let down by our social services and our and and our society in general, are now swept into the criminal justice system rather than diverted from it.

And so, finally, I also share concerns about making such orders available to even even younger people who really shouldn't be anywhere near the criminal justice system. And in a much later group, sometime next year, I think when we'll still be in this committee, we'll be older, if not wiser. I, I have tabled an amendment with the with the support of the noble and learned Ladies. Baroness Hale of Richmond and and the noble and learned Lady Butler-sloss to actually tackle the low age of criminal responsibility, shockingly low age of ten years old that we still have in England and Wales.
17:14
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to. Amendment three might look radical, reducing the age from 18 to 14, and the noble Baroness Baroness Chakrabarti certainly might not like it. But if we want to tackle the lack of respect or antisocial behaviour of those 18 plus, then that will not be possible unless we tackle all the anti-social behaviour which has built up from age ten or even younger. Now we can't get into the pre 14 behaviour today, but I have some frightening statistics I discovered from the Met Police, which were forced to publish under an FOI order request last year.

It shows that for the year ending December 23rd, there were 870 crimes, 879 crimes committed by children aged from 10 to 17, and that included 173 for violence against the person, 64 for robbery, 81 for theft, arson, 28 drug offences, 385 and possession of weapons 81. My Lords, that's really frightening. But if it wasn't bad enough, the met also published a breakdown of crimes committed by children aged 1 to 9, of which there were 653 offences, 128 were for theft, 95 arson and criminal damage.

And the really frightening statistics are these 85 for sexual offences and the largest group, 191 for violence against the person. As I say, we cannot deal with that age group today, but I simply ask, what kind of society are we becoming when just in the met area alone, we got 85 children aged between 1 and 9 accused of sexual offences and 191 for violence against the person. Now 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 antisocial behaviour or a bit of shop theft, burglary, more serious theft, then a bit of violence and then running up to full scale armed and violent robbery. That's why I want 14 to 18 year olds included in the respect order, since it might, just possibly might lead to fewer violent crimes. When these people are older now, it's very difficult to get accurate statistics for crimes committed by children.

Since the Office of 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 a concerted effort, to make it difficult to find important statistics. My Lords, just Google search number of children aged 14 to 18 convicted of homicide and you get referred to those FOI requests and vague government inexplicable statistics in the National Statistics Office. However, in October 24th, Sky news ploughed through all the tables and discovered that the number of convictions for murder by children since 20 have doubled since 2013 to 1 in 25 of all homicides.

Commenting on a doctor, Simon Harding, a criminal criminology expert, says there's been an increase in serious violence in young people and that there is, quote, a greater acceptance of extreme levels of violence between children, even something that might have been settled with fisticuffs or anti-social behaviour can suddenly dramatically turn into something much more serious and extreme, he says. What, ten years ago might have been a punch in the face, five years ago might have been a stab in the arm or leg, is now a stab to the neck or heart, which can lead to death, he concludes.

There's a greater willingness to inflict pain and suffering. My Lord, I was only 15 when the most evil child killer of all time, Mary Bell, was convicted of a vicious murder of two little boys. I was the Minister for policing Criminal Justice, and I had to read the full details of the Jamie Bulger case, murder by Thompson and Venables. Since the Home Office were 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.

But my Lord, that does seem to be. Those awful cases do seem to be run of the mill now. Since then, the age of our killers has dropped considerably and the viciousness of the killings has increased exponentially. As the House will know, Damilola Taylor was only ten when he was murdered by two brothers aged 12 and 13, last year. 215 year old girls lured a transgender person to a remote spot in Warrington and stabbed him, 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 which had planned for weeks.

And finally on that, my Lords. Just last month, three girls 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. Their sentence one got two years and six months, another got three years and six months and the third got four years. And of course they'll be out just over half the time. I think that makes rather a mockery of the concept of punishment.

Now, my Lords, the measures in this rebranding of anti-social behaviour Order into respect orders are mainly okay, in my opinion, but like the previous iterations will not work because we're 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, my Lord. All governments have failed, or for over 30 years to tackle youth offending, to tackle youth offending rigorously.

When bad behaviour starts now we need to invent a whole new regime for dealing with violent crime behaviour from ten years on and upwards. But not today, of course, but one small step I suggest is in my amendment to lower the intervention age to 14, as my amendment suggests. Well, what difference will that make? You will say, boys will say, well, let's look at the Youth Justice Board's own statistics for the latest year ending 2024 and published in January this year.

As might be expected, the rate of re-offending increases with the number of previous offences committed for the year ending March 23rd. Those with no previous offences had a re-offending rate of 16.7%, compared to 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, not one percentage point from the previous year, but the 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 committed 29% of all proven offences. My Lords, that is why I strongly backed the Then-home secretary, Michael Howard. Now my note right, my noble friend Lord Howard of Lymm in our three strikes and you're out policy. Although it would have been more accurately accurate to say 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 high profile offenders.

Of course, we shouldn't lock up children. We've committed their first few offences and they're minor and proper. Proper community intervention can work for them. Every police area I visited had the same story. The superintendent would show me a graph of crime stats, relatively level. Then it would spike to 5 or 10 times the average and in one case over a thousand extra offences. 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.

My Lords, you may say that's all anecdotal, but the Youth Justice Board stats show in the year ending December 23rd 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 to just 1% for those with no previous criminal history and for the aggregated cohort. In the year ending March 23rd, children had a higher re-offending rate of 32.5% than adults who only had 26%. Children who reoffended are a higher number of offences for than adults in the year ending March 23rd, for the second consecutive year.

The question then, my Lords, is will respect orders stop that trend? Possibly. Probably not. But we can bring in the 14 to 18 year olds as well. And if by that intervention we save just one other child being viciously stabbed to death by other children, then I submit my Lords, a willow being weathered. So at least let's try. Whilst recognising in my opinion, that we need a whole new regime for the terrible rise in child violence and crime, starting increasingly younger age every year.

Moving on to my amendment ten, it's quite straightforward. We'll have we will 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 intend to record them now. My Lords, am I missing something here? They will not investigate it to ascertain whether it's true or not, but they will still record it as a non-crime hate incident.

So potentially tens of thousands of people could have their name and reputation destroyed by false allegations, which 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 of the so-called non-crime. 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 chockablock with claims of all the rubbish, including nasty rubbish and social media could be included. The courts have better things to do. It's quite simple. If you don't want nasty messages on social media then get off it. I never once had a nasty or nice message on any social media, since I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot barge pole. It's a vile platform and as a libertarian I say let the buyer beware. So my Lords, these are my amendments and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm I don't need to move them. Lord Blencathra and sits down and in the spirit of committee, I wonder if I might just just challenge him a little on this epidemic of child criminality to epidemic of child criminality to which to which he so graphically referred. I think we should arguably park these very rare cases of child homicide from outside a debate on on anti-social behaviour, debate on on anti-social behaviour, but I wonder if he would agree with me that when it comes to fisticuffs, me that when it comes to fisticuffs, what would be a common, common assault or even theft? We do know assault or even theft? We do know that quite small children in every home in the country are capable of home in the country are capable of fisticuffs with each other, siblings with with taking things that aren't their own, but isn't a that aren't their own, but isn't a crucial difference in our response to those children.

Because anti-social behaviour in the anti-social behaviour in 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 likely to be reported to the police and end up criminal and end up criminalised at a very early age. So I wonder whether he agrees that children, for example, in in England and Wales are no 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vulnerable children. I replied to, to to the noble Lady, the Baroness, as follows. She Lady, the Baroness, as follows. She says it's a very rare child homicides. They've doubled in the last ten years or the last 12 years. last ten years or the last 12 years. They've actually doubled. And all the statistics I quoted from were from the Youth Justice Board and the National and Office of National the National and Office of National Statistics, showing the huge increase in knife crime. And the police forces themselves say that.

police forces themselves say that. I think there's an article in relating to the met, discussed on a blog yesterday about the is knife blog yesterday about the is knife is knife crime by children out of control? No, that's their words, not mine. So yes, there is a huge increase in viciousness of knife use by children, violent crime. And use by children, violent crime. And I'm suggesting in my amendments that possibly lowering the age to including 14 to 18 year olds in including 14 to 18 year olds in respect orders might make a difference if we can hide them off early.

And of course, I accept that early. And of course, I accept that children in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales will also have violent tendencies. My my, also have violent tendencies. My my, my my concern is we're failing to intervene early enough to do anything about them. And that's, anything about them. And that's, that's the whole cause of the problem over the last 30 years, lack of early intervention to deal properly with children and for for properly with children and for for some will be a caution, for some will be restorative justice.

For some it could be better work from social services. But for prolific young offenders, some of them may need to be taken out of circulation for their own benefit and also to save the lives of other children.
17:27
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lady Baroness Fox accurately pointed out that a respect order may be made merely on the balance of probabilities, the civil standard of proof. I wonder whether the Minister would confirm my understanding that if a criminal charge is to be brought for breaching a respect order, the criminal charge will be brought under new clause I. One offence of breach of respect order. And it is then for the prosecution to establish beyond a reasonable doubt on the criminal standard, that the person concerned is not merely breached the respect order, but has done so without reasonable excuse, and that may provide an answer to some of the more graphic, extreme examples that have been given in this debate of when a respect order may apply.

I'd be grateful if the Minister would confirm if my understanding is correct. It does also seem to me that in this debate, we really do need to take account of the fact that anti-social behaviour occurs in our society. It occurs with alarming regularity and it causes misery to law abiding citizens. And there does need to be some effective means of addressing it. Having said all that, I do 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 clause A one. One B, it's sufficient for the court to consider it just and convenient to impose a respect order. The noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones referred to this, and I have great sympathy with the argument that that really ought to be a test of necessary and proportionate. It does seem to me that all the sorts of case that one would want to see, prohibited by law, could be brought within a necessary and proportionate test.

The other concern I have, and the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti, I think, was the one who mentioned this in new clause a one nine. The test of anti-social behaviour is conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person. Any person, however vulnerable they may be, however weak minded they may be, is a purely subjective test. I would suggest in this context it really does need to be some objectivity written into the definition, whether or not by referring to a reasonable person, there would be other types of drafting mechanism that could be adopted.

So I share some of the concerns, but I also see the need for an effective and functioning

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system in this context. My Lord. I rise to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to. Speak to amendment 22, which is my own, but also to amendment one. my own, but also to amendment one. I do believe that we need to look at the current rules as they stand at the current rules as they stand and have have a review of those rules that effectiveness and who they fall upon. As someone who's they fall upon. As someone who's been a youth worker for over three decades now, I've seen large parts of of poorer communities, black and of of poorer communities, black and white, end up in very serious legal entanglements just because of what somebody else has subjectively decided was a was a piece of anti-social behaviour, which is anti-social behaviour, which is then led to some kind of legal, legal sanction that this these
17:31
Lord Bailey of Paddington Portrait Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
legal sanction that this these these respect orders seem like a a very fast track to many people's behaviour isn't what I would call traditional isn't, isn't recognised and therefore these these orders would become a real danger to them, a real danger that you had done something that was antisocial and then all of a sudden you are now facing a criminal sanction. Now, notwithstanding what the last speaker said about the court would then go back and test would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt above the the the civil courts 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're in trouble, because they are afraid. If we're going to put someone through that mechanism, we better make sure 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 just to quickly consider if we lower or raise the age of criminal consent, you have to be careful you don't expose young people to gang grooming.

If a gang is able to say 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 ten most children of ten years of age understand the risk they would be taking if you if you, if you remove that, you 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 do think that that bears looking at all.

That said, my amendment 22 is a very small amendment, but I believe a very important amendment. We all know that anti-social behaviour can be an absolute blight on a whole communities 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, all of that is very important. But when it comes particularly to where you live, the ripple effect from small amounts of anti-social behaviour can affect hundreds of people.

So I welcome the crime and policing bills aimed to tackle anti-social behaviour in the UK, especially around housing developments. I think that is a very, very good thing to do. However, I'm 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 to be a purposeful exclusion. Rather, the bill uses the definition of housing provider from the previous Crime and Policing Act 2014, and that definition talks about not for profit housing providers.

Currently institutional housing providers, as this bill is worded now, would not get access to these rules. And I think it's very important they do because they are huge sector projected to grow to, to to very large proportions into the future. And they look after the same vulnerable communities as any other housing provider. That's the important thing here. The fact that they're institutionally funded or not is actually irrelevant. It's about who are their client group. Their client group is some of the most vulnerable communities in this country, as many of our cells are very good at catering for.

But because they're 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 here now about the ability to defend people's life chances, because you can make where they are living safe. It can be dealt with properly. I've worked on many housing estates, 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're just asking for that small wording to be changed. It'll be very small, it'll be very powerful. I do believe it isn't a purposeful exclusion. It's just because we're using a definition from 2014. Thank you.
17:35
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
I do agree.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With much of what Lord Clement-Jones said, and I have added my name specifically 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 the quality of the evidence required, and order excluding someone from his or her home, has someone from his or her home, has always to be seen as a last resort. In this context, when other, less In this context, when other, less drastic restraints have not worked or are clearly not likely to work.

or are clearly not likely to work. I would therefore hope the government can clarify the likely scenarios and what criteria will apply when exclusion orders are sought and granted. As I understand it, under the bill, the application will be based on the risk will be based on the risk assessment to be carried out under the new section J1, supplemented by the new section J1, supplemented by guidance yet to come. The. The Bill does not expressly say, so far as I does not expressly say, so far as I can see, that the risk assessment should be included with the application to be made to the court, application to be made to the court, or that it should be served on the respondent where possible.

Both requirements surely should be explicit, not implicit. I would suggest also that at least the risk 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 home. In addition, and by analogy with the family jurisdiction with which I am more familiar, it should. It actually should actually state the effects of making or of not making the order on other known occupants of the home, including relevant children.

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand. I think nobody else is standing. I stand to support a lot.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand to support a lot. Of the concerns that have been expressed so far in this debate,
17:38
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia Portrait Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Conservative)
-
-
expressed so far in this debate, and the noble and Lord not panic, as scrutiny of the Bill is something that I hope we all take very careful note of. But I rise particularly to support my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti in her first intervention. The Baroness is very experienced in social matters from her days in liberty, and she rightly warns us that there are a lot of problems in respect orders if they are brought in as being legislated instantly.

It covers 11 pages of this bill, a bill that I, for legislative complaints described in Second Reading as a monstrous bill. I don't I don't like to describe these 11 pages of on respect orders as being a monster, because I think the government has been trying very hard to get it right, but they haven't so far done so. And therefore the sensible thing, and this is not to criticise the government, the sensible thing is for there to be applause for that, for it these new respect orders not to be brought in in this bill as such.

But after we've been able to review the entirety of these orders, anti-social orders and orders to protect the citizens from being badly disturbed, living in their homes or walking the streets. So my urge upon my noble friend, the Minister, to move with caution and accept that the amendment of the noble law Lord Clement-Jones, is not a destructive amendment. It's a sensible amendment, and it's a sensible amendment to achieve the one thing that we should be achieving in this bill, and that is to get it right, as right as we can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

possibly do. Very quickly associate myself
17:40
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very quickly associate myself with the remarks that we've heard from around the chamber, including from my noble friend Lord Bailey from my noble friend Lord Bailey Lord Addington and Lord Maude Lord Pannick, about the seriousness of anti-social behaviour and the rationale of the government bringing forward the measures that they have with regard to this section of the Bill. And, my Lords, I think the noble Lord will panic summed it up as the requirement for an effective and functioning system.

And hear, hear to that, my Lords, my concern, therefore, is aligned with the sentiment, if not the letter of amendment one with regard to the government really explaining why they feel that this particular set of measures, in terms of the respect orders, will work when previous similar measures of ASB and so forth have not done so to the extent, perhaps, that the Ministers that championed those when they were, when they were originally brought in. My Lords, I don't believe that this is the moment for an independent review, but I think the noble Lord, the Minister, can give the House 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 than the existing arrangements, and in particular, my Lords, what the degree to which they will really make a difference.

The noble Lord has brought forward these measures to the House for the approval of Parliament, and he must be able to justify what result he expects to, that they will have once they are implemented. My Lords, we know that that governments have all flavours, and this isn't 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. So, my Lords, that probably is the overall challenge that's been put to the Minister this afternoon.

I very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

much look forward to his answer. Lords, I'm grateful to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I'm grateful to the speakers in this debate so far. The this Committee stage will be a long
17:42
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
this Committee stage will be a long haul. But I hope that we can continue this level of discussion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and scrutiny throughout. Sorry. Thank you very much. No problem.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. No problem. My Lords, I. I rise. To speak very briefly to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To speak very briefly to. The amendments four, five and seven in my name. My noble friend seven in my name. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has made a very clear case for each of them. So I'm just going to speak very briefly to just going to speak very briefly to them. I would like to put on record my thanks, particularly to justice, my thanks, particularly to justice, who have gathered insights from so many people working in this field, and it has been really, really interesting reading case studies that are backed up by very, very that are backed up by very, very clear evidence.

These amendments would provide essential safeguards ensuring the powers contained ensuring the powers contained within respect orders are proportionate. Amendment four requires orders to only be made requires orders to only be made when there's evidence of actual conduct, not speculation, about conduct, not speculation, about what a person might do in the future. Amendment seven would future. Amendment seven would ensure that order is imposed with a clear end date capped at two years. clear end date capped at two years. It's definitely, in my opinion, wrong that an individual could be subjected to potentially serious restrictions in perpetuity as a result of behaviour that falls below the criminal threshold, and amendment five needs to the threshold, generally applying to civil proceedings just and convenient that we want to change that to necessary and proportionate, and a very good case for that was set out by the noble Lord Pannick much better than I could ever do it.

So I'm not even going to try. Can I just say amendment one, which is moved by my colleague Lord Clement-Jones calling for an independent review of existing anti-social behaviour powers before respect orders are called out. This would improve the bills considerably because precisely what laws are already used and what works in practice is absolutely critical to their success. And 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, maybe on drugs or drink, or both.

However, such requirements can only work if every region has capacity in drug and alcohol treatment programmes. I'm 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. So I'd be grateful to hear from the Minister when he responds. What efforts are being made to ensure that there are places available? Because legislation alone is no good without resources, I'd now like to 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, which seeks to ensure the respect orders do not exacerbate the suffering of those enduring trauma of domestic abuse. His concern around the potential impact of 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'm sympathetic to the intentions behind amendment six. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davis of Gower, requiring an individual to do anything described appears overly broad, and even more so when there's no specific end date. However, on amendments two and three, in the name of Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Blencathra, we on these benches take a very 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, it's also much more cost effective, with youth work provision costing less than £50,000 a year, compared to £200,000 for incarcerating a 16 year old. It's also notable that nine out of every ten young people in custody have some form of educational special need, primarily emotional and behavioural needs and dyslexia.

I share the concerns of my colleague 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 nine. My Lords, we know that respect orders are going to be piloted before being rolled out, so I hope the Minister agrees that this should be done with more transparency than was the case with the piloting of the knife crime prevention orders, the results of which were only made public following a successful Freedom of information request.

So 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 that they will be used disproportionately against specific groups.
17:49
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I did want to hear what you had to say. My enthusiasm to move on overtook me. Unfortunately, I must learn to ignore the nods from the government benches opposite as well. My Lords, I as I said, I think 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 the need for new anti-social behaviour laws and the validity of the proposed measure will be touched upon more thoroughly.

In Group three, 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 beginning with amendment two. In my name, which is intended to probe the age at which a person can be given a respect order, the bill states this would 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 ten, 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 noble Lord, 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 six aims to ensure that an issued respect order does not place excessive restrictions on the recipient.

It is similar to amendment five, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ducie and the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones, in seeking to ensure that orders are necessary and proportionate as it stands currently, 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 is required.

An order which which required an order in the first place. Prohibiting those actions is just. But that is where the powers of the prohibition should end. And 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, that is, to give 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, and I'm sure each noble Lord could think of a different set of hands. They would not want this power to reside in. The amendment in my name would prevent that from occurring and leave this already forceful power as it is. Amendments 13 and 14 seek to improve the clarity and the chain of command 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 orders recipient. I can foresee the potential mix up to miscommunications where either none 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 26, to require that risk assessments are actually the basis upon which respect order applications are based. It seems wrong that despite being required to carry out a risk assessment, an applicant can apply for respect order without having to reference it to it to the court. Respect orders are potentially very freedom. Limiting the court that issues them should be able to reference the risk posed by the recipient as a justification for these sanctions.

And as always, I look forward to the Noble Order Minister's response to these points. to these points.
17:53
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to noble Lords and ladies who have spoken in this debate, which is the first day of the Crime and Policing Bill. I feel like I'm at base camp at the start of a climb to Mount Everest, but as ever, Mount Everest has been conquered and I'm sure this bill will eventually be seen as well. But it does feel that we're a very start of a long and fruitful and productive process. I want to start, if I may, by just outlining a little bit about what the respect orders are about, because it is important to put into the general context of why the government is doing what it is doing.

There are 1 million incidents of anti-social behaviour recorded in the last year for which records exist. That is an awful lot of anti-social behaviour. That doesn't include even the underreporting that may well be there. There is a manifesto commitment from this government to take action on respect orders, and the new orders will enable courts to both ban offenders from engaging in harmful anti-social behaviour and or as indeed the noble Baroness Doocey noted, impose positive requirements to tackle the root cause of anti-social behaviour.

That could be anger management. It could be potentially alcohol or drug awareness courses, and it could be an issue which will hopefully tackle the root cause of anti-social behaviour and stop it occurring now. Unlike existing ASB civil injunctions, breach will be a criminal offence, enforceable by arrest and tried in the criminal court. That goes to the point that the noble Lord Pannick has mentioned. This only goes to court if an individual breaches the order that has been put on them, because that is the purpose of the.

The order is to stop the behaviour taking place and penalties for breach will include community sentences will include unlimited fines. Potentially could include prison time for the most serious breaches, but only on a breach. And that is a really important point to recognise in our discussions here today. Now I'm going to try and take, if I may, because there's so many amendments in this grouping. The amendments in turn, which is a slow process, but it will be done in turn. The First Amendment one, which had support from the noble Lord Bailey of Paddington, noble Lord Clement-Jones Baroness Fox of Buckley, my noble friend Baroness Whittaker, and my noble friend Lord Hacking, and the noble Viscount Goschen that required a Home Secretary to, within six months of the bill becoming law to undertake a review of existing powers under the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act of 2014.

Prior to introducing respect orders. Now I just start from the principle. This was a manifesto commitment, first of all, to introduce respect orders. So there has been some thought put into that by the governing party. But I also want to assure noble Lords that the government is committed to ensuring that the powers to address anti-social behaviour remain effective, and as such, they are subject to continuous review. Now, I don't want to disappoint the noble Lady Baroness Doocey, but there won't be a pilot on this because the Home Office has regularly engaged with frontline 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 in 2023, the department launched a public consultation to understand how powers could be used more consistently and effectively, and that consultation has helped us inform the measures that are in part one of the Bill today and to aid this ongoing evaluation process, I draw noble Lords and Ladies attention to clause seven of the Bill before us today, and clause seven of the bill provides for new requirements for local agencies to report information about anti-social behaviour to the government and to help us continually improve and review.

So the provisions in clause one deliver on the manifesto commitment. We need to press ahead with respect to orders as soon as possible to ensure that the police, local authorities and others have the effective powers to tackle that 1 million cases per year. Amendment one would require us to have a costly and unnecessary review. It would slow down and cause delay in the rollout and therefore, respectfully, I cannot accept it whenever that moment comes, either today or at report amendments two and three, in the name of Lord Davies of Gower and the noble Lord Blencathra, seek to lower the age at which respondents can receive a respect order from 18 to 16 or indeed to 14.

Now, again, I hope the noble Lord can understand this. Both the noble Lord Davis and Blencathra, that the government doesn't wish to criminalise young people unless it's absolutely necessary. Which is why our manifesto is clear that respect orders were aimed at tackling anti-social behaviour perpetrated by adults, and the noble Lord Bailey has made some very valid points on that in relation to the potential criminalisation of younger people. Now, it doesn't mean that there's no provision for the relevant agencies to deal with youth related anti-social behaviour because the respect order, while replacing the civil injunction for adults, it will remain in place for those under the age of 18.

Renamed as the Youth Injunction. This will enable youth courts to impose behavioural requirements on younger offenders without resulting in criminalisation if they breach the injunction. And that's an important point. There is still a potential for those orders to be placed, but it doesn't involve criminalisation. Now the amendments four and five in the name of noble Baroness Doocey and indeed others, would amend the legal taste test for issuing a respect order. Amendment four would mean that a respect order can only be issued in relation to ASB that a respondent has already engaged in, and not where the respondent has threatened to engage in this behaviour, as is currently the case with existing civil injunctions.

I want to stress, particularly to the House, that respect orders are fundamentally preventative in nature. They're designed to stop bad behaviour by putting in place a restraining order effectively to say don't do these particular actions. If the offender abides by the terms of the order, there will be no further sanctions. And that's really an important point that the House needs to understand and grasp. From the government's perspective, anti-social behaviour can be insidious. It can be difficult to prove, it can take many forms and we know the threat of aggressive or anti-social behaviour can often escalate quickly into more serious and violent criminal behaviour.

That point's been made indeed by the noble Lord Blencathra, which is why it's crucial that being able to issue an order in respect to those threatening to engage in ASB remains to prevent this harm before it happens. Now again, if I move on to amendment five, in the name of the noble Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lady Baroness Doocey, that would change the legal test for issuing in respect orders, so that the court would need to find it necessary and proportionate. Inverted commas to issue the order to prevent the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour, rather than 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 civil injunctions and therefore is familiar to the courts. Now let me be clear. This again goes to the points the noble Lord Pannick has made. The current threshold still requires a judge with all the relevant legal duties and safeguards that entails, to be satisfied that the issuing of an order is just, reasonable and fair. Courts will already take the necessary and proportionality of an order into account as a result of their duties under the Human Rights Act, and given these considerations, the benefits of amending the legal test in this way are.

I feel limited. Now if I move on to amendment six by the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Davies of Gower. Certainly, yes. Since the noble Lord accepts, and I think rightly accepts, that there is a test of proportionality there is a test of proportionality under the Human Rights Act, would it not be better to put it on the face of the bill, so that everybody understands whether they're magistrates, judges, solicitors, council, that that is the test and council, that that is the test and that would provide a great deal of comfort and protection for those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

comfort and protection for those who may be subject to these orders. I have a great respect for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have a great respect for the noble and learned Lords contributions. We believe this is the right way forward. Obviously the right way forward. Obviously I've heard what he says, but I believe this is the right way forward and we can always examine forward and we can always examine his comments again, and I appreciate the way in which he has contributed to the debate today. Amendment six from the noble Lord Davies of Gower seeks to ensure that any positive requirements placed on the recipients of the Respect Order are restricted to those which are prevent a future those which are prevent a future breach of the order.

Positive requirements to address the underlying causes of the behaviour underlying causes of the behaviour are an important aspect of the respect order, and that's a really key point I want to to impress upon key point I want to to impress upon noble Lords today that while the legislation sets out a number of restrictions on how positive requirements can be used, it is the government's view that this amendment is unnecessarily restrictive and the courts and agencies should have the discretion to tailor positive requirements to the particular case in each particular need.

In each particular case. Amendment seven in the name of the noble Baroness Doocey and well supported by the noble Baroness Doocey, and in the name of the Lord Davies of Gower, would limit the time that a respect order may be in effect for two years now. As it stands under the Bill, there is no time limit for respect, order and the time that it might be in effect for, and I think that is the right thing to do. Again, there's only the secondary action under the respect order in the event of a breach taking place.

And if, for example, there has been someone who has had persistent offending previously and the order puts in place an unlimited time, then I think that's reasonable until such time as the behaviour is noted, a two year time limit might well be of some difficulty and would not necessarily Taylor against the individual's behaviour. Ultimately, there's no action taken against the individual if they don't breach that order. So again, I come back to that central point. The duration of the respect order is dependent on the specific circumstances.

In each case that will be determined by the court. I don't expect every respect order is to be imposed for an indefinite period, but that option should be available if there are relentless adult ASB perpetrators, and the legislation makes provision for respect orders to be varied, or indeed to be discharged on the circumstances of the case. Now, amendment nine, another one from the noble Lord Clement Jones, makes it a requirement that the applicant must gain full council approval for all local authority led applications for a respect order.

Now, I think it's quite proper if some councils may seek full council approval for SPOs. Currently, 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 going back again to the noble Lord Panic's point. To ensure respect orders are used proportionately, whereas pspos impose prohibitions on the general public. Respect orders will be for individuals who have a history of disruptive anti-social behaviour.

And again, I come back to the fact that if individuals do not breach that order, they will not go 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, self-evidently, I've been a councillor, I've spent time in council committees and the potential is there for delay. The potential is there for a long period of time for making an order, and it risks not taking the action that we want to take by the purpose of having those orders quickly and supportively for the victims and for communities at large.

It would also require potentially full public consultation when requiring a respect order. Now, I don't think that's really the way to run a respect order or indeed how to impact upon an individual. Now. Amendment ten, moving swiftly to amendment ten, Lord Blencathra seeks to add non-crime hate incidents to the definition of anti-social behaviour. Now I respectfully say to him and I say this genuinely, we are going to use the word Non-crime hate incidents. During the course of this bill on a number of occasions later on, on different clauses, there's amendments that will be tabled by his noble friend, Lord young.

I'll just say to him for the moment, if I may, that the College of Policing and I've said this publicly in the House under the chairmanship of his noble friend, Lord Herbert of South Downs, are currently and very shortly to produce a review of Non-crime hate incidents. There's been discussion by the Metropolitan Police of what they're doing, but that review is coming. I hope that review will help inform later stages of the bill, but I think at this stage, amendment ten, in my view, is something that we should be not kicking down the line because we're going to come to it, but not dealing under clause one of this bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I may have misheard him, but if I if I heard him correctly, I want to correct what he said. I don't to correct what he said. I don't want to add it to the bill, but I want to add to the bill is a provision that is not included in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

provision that is not included in a prevent order. I appreciate that if I've misunderstood his intention. Apologies for that, but the Apologies for that, but the principle is still the same for me that there are specific amendments downstream that we will reach in downstream that we will reach in due course by the time we reach that. I'm hoping that we have further enlightenment from the College of Policing, and that we College of Policing, and that we can determine government policy on non-crime hate incidents.

In the light of that review, which is what light of that review, which is what I've said on a number of occasions in response to questions. So I would respectfully suggest that amendment ten at this stage is amendment ten at this stage is slightly premature, and we will discuss that matter in full detail. Downstream amendment 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Davis seeks to remove the provision for the Secretary of State to amend, by Secretary of State to amend, by regulations, the list of relevant authorities that can apply for a respect order.

I think, you know, I think the Secretary of State needs that power. Basically, the Secretary of State needs that power to look at the range of contexts that a multi-agency approach is often effectively needed to tackle often effectively needed to tackle anti-social behaviour and to ensure that we have that. I believe the Secretary of State needs to retain that power, and that's maybe disagreement between us. But that's where I think we are. The Secretary of State should be able to, you know, add to the list an agency.

It wouldn't be done unilaterally. We have to have regulations laid. And under new section B, one of the 214 act, the subject of the draft affirmative procedure, and as such would be subject to debate and approval in both houses. So it's not an unfettered power on behalf of the Secretary of State. Now, amendment 12 has also raised a number of important issues, and it seeks to remove the power to exclude a person from their home as part of the respect order in cases of violence or risk of harm.

Now, as noble Lords have said, including Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord Meston in their comments, 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 it can escalate into violence. And we know also sadly that 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 they do not face evictions for the wrongs of their perpetrator.

Now the key point on amendment 12, and this goes to the point that the noble Lord Meston has raised, is that the exclusion can only happen when there is a risk of violence or significant risk of harm. This will be a key for protecting those vulnerable victims who live with perpetrators, or indeed are in the same building, and the applicant for the respect order will be able to do a proper risk assessment. And that is the the purpose and focus of that. The power to exclude remains a decision for the court again, and only used when they consider it necessary to protect victims from risk of violence or harm.

So I don't know if that satisfies the noble Lord, but that is the government's rationale for the discussions that we're bringing forward today. This is a long group of amendments, so apologies to the House for continuing to deal with them. But amendment 13 from the noble Lord Davis seeks to ensure that the appropriate chief officer of police is specified. Where 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, and 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's intended that positive requirements also would be managed by those closest to the respondent's circumstances. Amendment 14 from the noble 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 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 of a respect order could be an unnecessary burden on police forces that have minimal involvement, and therefore, I think it's appropriate that the supervisor makes the final decision on these matters. Amendment 18 in the name of the Lord Barber, Lord Clement-Jones seeks to remove the provision enabling courts to make interim respect orders. Again, I would like to highlight that interim court orders are not a novel concept. They are generally available to courts in exceptional cases.

There is currently possibility for civil injunction and remains the case for the respect order, where it's necessary for the courts to grant an interim respect order to prevent serious harm to victims. And I come back to the House again to say that victims are central to the proposals we're bringing forward. Now, if an interim order has been granted, it's because there's been a case made to a court that victims need some assistance to prevent serious harm to them. An interim order can only be granted by the court when all the relevant legal duties and safeguards that entails, and requires the court to be satisfied that it is just to make an order that goes back again, to the point the noble Lord Pannick has made.

If that order is placed, it's 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 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 joined up 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 I think that we have met the provisions that he wants an amendment 20 to date, amendment 21 from the noble Lord Clement-jones, supported by the noble Lady Baroness Fox, would place a duty on the Home Secretary to conduct a public consultation before introducing new statutory guidance for practitioners on respect orders. If I can, to the House, can I make it clear that any updates or additions to the ASB statutory guidance are already subject to extensive consultation with relevant stakeholders, and that will include the front line practitioners for whom guidance is intended.

This will be the case for statutory guidance on respect orders, and I hope that satisfies the noble Lord. I would also note that as respect orders partially replace an existing power, the civil injunction. Therefore, a large portion of the guidance will already be familiar to practitioners to date. And finally, I come to the amendment 22, in the name of Lord Bailey of Paddington, which 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 that the importance of the relevant agencies do have powers needed to tackle anti-social behaviour. That's why, for example, we're giving both for profit and non-profit social housing providers the power to issue closure notices and apply for closure notices. However, these are powerful tools and it's also important that further challenges to the agencies that can use the powers, including respect orders, are considered carefully.

But I say to the noble Lord that he's raised a very important point, and I will look at those issues that he's raised. We will consider them carefully. And I really do appreciate him bringing them to the the House Committee today. Now, my Lords, earlier in my remarks, 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 to fully consider the case for adding additional authorities, such as for profit housing providers.

And if we conclude, it's possible to do so. And this is again an important point for the noble Lord Bailey of Paddington, that we can make those changes by primary legislation. Yes, in the bill today. But we can also make the changes that he has asked us to look at by secondary legislation for if the Bill achieves Royal assent, passes all its stages, that can be done by secondary legislation as well. So we will look at the issues that he's raised, but it may not necessarily be primary legislation that is required to make those changes happen in place.

That was a long climb, and I still am only about ten feet up Everest, but I hope that those comments help the noble Lord. Clement-jones I think it's been a useful discussion, but I hope that we can reach a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conclusion on those matters now. My Lords, can I thank the Minister? I think the Matterhorn, Minister? I think the Matterhorn, at this stage rather than Everest. But we'll see. My Lords, can I
18:17
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
But we'll see. My Lords, can I thank the Minister for his very full reply? And can I thank all noble Lords for their support for this set of amendments that myself and my noble friend Baroness Doocey put forward? The Ministers clearly set out his stall, and he's clearly very wedded to the current wording. And that will merit, you know, careful consideration. And I recognise, my Lords, the point that he made about this being a manifesto commitment. But, my Lords, Amendment one is not designed to negate respect orders.

It's designed to review the suite of anti-social behaviour legislation that we have in order to make sure that it is effective. And I recognise the point that he made about a million incidents, my Lords, but we do not know at this stage, other than the Minister's assertions that the respect orders are going to be effective in dealing with those 1 million, or indeed whether existing powers would have been effective themselves. My Lords, I also noticed that he didn't really, so he didn't really explain why the current legislation is inadequate, my Lords.

And he also, I don't think, for one second admitted that the current regime of Pspos and Cpns, I'll give way in a second.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The SBAs and Cpns had its faults. The difference between this legislation and the existing legislation and the existing legislation is that action can be taken immediately. That's the real difference. I think I did touch on that point, but if I didn't, then that point, but if I didn't, then noble Lord satisfaction, I apologise, but I think I did touch on that point. We can take action immediately on a breach.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think. My Lords, that we're going to need some more, more convincing need some more, more convincing that that is the case compared to anti-social behaviour injunctions, my Lords. But so I think we're we remain somewhat unconvinced. My Lords, we have a common aim, though Lords, we have a common aim, though I think across the House that we want to see an effective system, we want to see it fair and want to see it fair and proportionate. And the one, I think, in the minister's armour was that in the minister's armour was that he was prepared in response to the noble Lord Pannick, to consider the wording necessary and proportionate, which I very much hope that he will take away and consider as a take away and consider as a possible amendment to what he is proposing.

My Lords, I do agree proposing. My Lords, I do agree with the noble Lord Viscount Goschen that government's reach for the statute book. My Lords, I think we need to consider whether existing legislation is sufficient. The noble Lord Hacking caused call for a pause, whether it's a pause or review. My Lords, I think we will definitely want to return to this Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw amendment one. one.
18:20
18:20
None Portrait Amendment:8 Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we must ensure that courts can operate within their means. If we issue them with new responsibilities, we have to ensure responsibilities, we have to ensure that they have the capacity to fulfil them. Unfortunately, in restricting respect orders to high restricting respect orders to high courts and county courts, the government risks not providing the bandwidth to deal with new orders. bandwidth to deal with new orders. At the end of Labour's first year in office, the Crown Courts backlog suffered an annual increase of 11%.

suffered an annual increase of 11%. That is, over 70,000 74,000 cases waiting to be judged. Of course, that burden is not entirely at the that burden is not entirely at the door of the Crown Courts, but a considerable number of the outstanding cases will require outstanding cases will require their use. County courts are in a better but still not ideal state. The average time for justice to be 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 for the government to divide the responsibilities for the new respect orders as widely as possible.

The logical conclusion is possible. The logical conclusion is to permit an application for a respect order to be made to a magistrates court. My Lords, if magistrates court. My Lords, if respect orders were confined to the serious criminality that we expect to be dealt with by the High Court to be dealt with by the High Court and County courts, I would accept placing additional pressures onto them and excluding Magistrates Court. It is right that those facing serious harassment or other forms of anti-social behaviour the ability to make application to these courts, but the scope for respect or 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 to harassment and more serious forms of anti-social behaviour. So I see no reason why magistrates court should not be available to deal with these less serious and potentially menial forms of anti-social behaviour. This is the reasoning behind amendments 1815, tabled in my name and by my noble friends Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Keen of Ellie. 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 only be made by a magistrates court.

This recognised that anti-social behaviour should be the purview of summary justice, the noble Lord. The Minister might argue that the government is 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 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 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. And finally, I can see no downside to this. It would permit burden sharing between three types of courts. It would not alter the nature of the orders, nor would it alter the process by which they are made. But it would make some progress to reducing the waiting time for the making of a respect order. Surely the government does not want to seek a C, a 49 week wait for a respect order to be made? Would that not hamper the effectiveness of these supposedly tough new respect orders? So I do hope the Noble Noble Order Minister considers 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 impose and can impose the same restrictions on those unconscious that this may sometimes be necessary. I will 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 antisocial 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 only be issued to prevent 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 refusal 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

guilty. I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause one, page two, line 26 after court
18:25
18:26
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lord Davies of Gower and the noble Baroness Doocey for their comments. Let's get my page in order slightly quicker than I expected. Then I thought we'd have a few more contributions. The amendments all relate to the role of the courts in the government's new respect orders, and that's fair and proper that they do. So the question of the new orders are that the new able enable these new orders will enable courts to ban offenders from engaging in formal, harmful, antisocial behaviour.

And again, as we've discussed, tackle the root cause. Now, amendments eight and 16 seek to allow magistrates courts to issue respect orders. I've been clear, my Lords, that the respect order is a civil behaviour order intended to prevent further antisocial behaviour from occurring. They also aim to encourage rehabilitation through the positive requirements that I've discussed in the last set of amendments and the last grouping, 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 primarily deal with criminal matters and summary offences. Hearing civil applications in a magistrates court would risk treating preventative orders as a punitive measure when actually, as I've mentioned, they're designed to try to stop people undertaking types of behaviour, either 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.

Now, again, I think anti-social behaviour can escalate quickly, can cause great harm and an interim respect order enables a 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's important that judges retain the ability to do so on or without request from the relevant agency, and I can assure the noble Lord Geddes that the court will be required to apply itself to the question of whether it was appropriate to make an interim order.

There's no question of one being made without an express determination to that effect. But I think that 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 order, the respondent is duly notified. I would like again to 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.

And I come back to the fact that all the measures in this 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 only made when the court considers the respondent likely to engage in harassment. Now again, I just say to the noble Lord that the definition of anti-social behaviour is broad.

It's intended to capture behaviours that may not meet the criminal threshold, but can cause severe harm to victims and communities. And, as I've 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. And I would have thought that the noble Lord would have supported that general direction of travel. There are preventative order. They're not a punitive order, they're only punitive in the event of a breach.

And again, the purpose of the order is not to have that breach in the first place. It's 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 preventative mechanism, then you are facing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

potential criminal sanction. It's important for. The Minister, just briefly,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister, just briefly, because I do think this is a very important aspect of the enforcement important aspect of the enforcement of of respect orders. Is he saying of of respect orders. Is he saying that all that's needed is beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is shown that the respect order has been that the respect order has been breached? Or does one go back to breached? Or does one go back to the original decision on the civil balance of probabilities that the balance of probabilities that the actual.

The reasons for the respect actual. The reasons for the respect order, is it purely that you have to show beyond reasonable doubt that the respect order has been that the respect order has been breached, in which case it's still a civil balance of probabilities requirement for the original

**** Possible New Speaker ****

respect order to be to be enforced. Well. There is a determination and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is a determination and the legislation, I believe, before us today is clear on on that matter, and we will debate this still and we will debate this still further. Undoubtedly. But I think that there is essentially a respect order where the court will consider the potential breach and will make a judgement on that potential breach. And having examined that, will determine the issue in relation to that breach. But the noble Lord raises that issue now. But I think that in terms of the amendment we have before us today, amendment 19, which is the point I'm making now limiting the scope of where an interim respect order can be issued, risks further harm for communities as a whole.

Now, if I may just focus on the points that the noble Baroness Doocey has mentioned she did cover in the last series of amendments the same issue. In a sense, about capacity, it is important it will be a matter for discretion of the applicant and the court to determine what requirements would 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 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.

Now those judgements will be made at a local level by the local individuals who are determining these matters. And again, I refer noble Lords to the economic impact assessment that we've published. The ASB package is expected to lead to an overall reduction in prison places. Overall, the respect order replaces the civil jurisdiction. We aren't expecting additional cases per se. Annual prison places in a steady state for respect orders will stay more or less the same, and we expect respect orders to have a neutral impact on prison places, given they're replacing civil injunction powers.

So I hope that again reassures the noble Lady in relation to the resource question of the additional impact of these matters. But with those comments, I would respectfully request the noble Lord to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his amendments. Oh, okay. For the Minister sits down. I love that expression. Could I just check? I think the Minister said that respect orders weren't going to be piloted. Was that correct? Because Diane, Diana Johnson, the policing Minister, and the other place on the 1st of April committee session three, said we will pilot session three, said we will pilot respect orders to ensure they are as effective as possible before as effective as possible before rolling them out across England and Wales.

So what has changed between then and now that you've changed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then and now that you've changed your mind? The government's considered the reflections during Another place reflections during Another place and we determined now that we want to get on with this, because this bill as well, remember, is not it's bill as well, remember, is not it's going to take. We've got 12 days in committee. We've got a Report stage. We've got a long way to go before royal assent. And the government wants to have a manifesto commitment that it made in July commitment that it made in July 2024, implemented in good time.

And even now, that manifesto commitment even now, that manifesto commitment will take us potentially nearly two years to put in place. I think that's a reasonable process, and we that's a reasonable process, and we have consulted widely on the respect orders, and that's the position of the government now. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would. Ask the Minister then, is there anything else that has changed that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

anything else that has changed that we wouldn't be aware of because it's not been written down anywhere? Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. That's a very wide question. My Lords. Let me say that the purpose Lords. Let me say that the purpose of Committee stage of this bill is to provide a significant number of 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 opposition and Liberal Democrats to test Ministers and raise points if she has points she wishes to raise during the passage wishes to raise during the passage of this bill.

As ever, I will try to answer them either on the floor of this House or in writing afterwards. So for her to say, have things changed? There are a number of amendments, even today, that the government has brought forward in this group of that were deliberating on today from government amendments. Things do move because noble Viscount Goschen in relation to the immigration bill, in relation to the immigration bill, was saying that a number of things have changed over the course of have changed over the course of time and things move.

It's now 16 months since the King's Speech, which introduced this legislation. We continue to monitor and move and where necessary, we bring forward amendments. And I'm open to testing on all matters at all times. But I would welcome the noble Lord withdrawing his amendments today. withdrawing his amendments today.
18:37
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
And also I'm grateful to the noble Lords Minister and those who have contributed. I know we all have the interests of a functioning justice system and 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 would have the capacity to solely handle these new respect orders.

But as I have outlined, the court system is incredibly backlogged and it is therefore necessary to use as many courts as is possible to deliver the policy. Considering the scope of respect orders. On top of that, my amendments and the amendments to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Keen of Ellie are perfectly reasonable to consider causing alarm as on the same level as causing harassment, as prosecuting them in the same courts effectively does. Them in the same courts effectively does defies sense.

Making use of the magistrates courts is both the rationale and practical solution to this problem. Similarly, approaching interim respect orders form a more conservative standpoint would be prudent. They are very liberal 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 purview of their power, would seek to ensure that this is the case. So I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will agree with the important principles behind these amendments and perhaps take them away and consider them.

But for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Spellar this amendment be withdrawn, the amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment nine Lord Clement-Jones not moved. Not moved. Amendment ten Lord Blencathra not moved. Amendment 11 Blencathra not moved. Amendment 11 Lord Davies of Gower not moved. Amendment 12 Lord Clement-Jones not Amendment 12 Lord Clement-Jones not moved. Amendment 13 Lord Davis not moved and 14 Lord Davis not moved. Amendment 15 or Davis not moved. Amendment 15 or Davis not moved. Amendment 16 Lord Keen of Elie Lord Davis not moved and 17 not moved.

Davis not moved and 17 not moved. Amendment 18 Lord Clement-Jones not moved. Amendment 19 Lord Davis not moved. Amendment 19 Lord Davis not moved and 20 not moved. Amendment moved and 20 not moved. Amendment 21 Lord Clement-Jones not moved. And amendment 22 Lord Bailey Lord And amendment 22 Lord Bailey Lord Addington not moved. The question is that clause one stand part of
18:40
None Portrait CL 1 S/P Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-

is that clause one stand part of the bill. Would. Davis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I've tabled and grouped this clause stand part notice because I believe it would be helpful to the Committee to be helpful to the Committee to probe the real purpose of respect orders. We have no plans to insist orders. We have no plans to insist this part of the bill be removed at Report stage. The first point I wish to make is that this government appears to be making the same errors as that of the previous Labour administration. The Blair government seem to believe that the government seem to believe that the more they legislated on crime and anti-social behaviour, the less of that behaviour there would be.

And so we saw act after act, many repealing or amending acts, they had passed merely a few years before. This flurry of law making meant that by the end of their term meant that by the end of their term in office, Labour had created 14 different powers for the police to use to tackle anti-social behaviour use to tackle anti-social behaviour and criminality. My noble friend, lady May maiden, had undertook to simplify this whole system by simplify this whole system by condensing all these measures into just six powers.

But with this bill just six powers. But with this bill we see that that old pattern of the New Labour years re-emerging. This bill creates four new powers. We bill creates four new powers. We have respect orders, youth injunctions, housing injunctions and youth diversion orders. I and youth diversion orders. I cannot see what real world impact this will make. This leads me on to my next point. As I said at Second Reading, the whole concept of respect orders appears to me to be little more than perhaps a gimmick.

It is legislative action to make it appear as if the government are tough on anti-social behaviour, when in fact they perhaps are not. The reality is that respect orders are really no different from the currently existing anti-social behaviour. Injunctions. Applications for both are made by the same list of people to the same courts. The requirements that can be placed on the respondent is the same for both 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 condition of respect. Order a person found guilty of that offence on conviction on indictment is liable to jail sentence of up to two years.

Anti-social behaviour injunctions, however, do not have a specific criminal offence attached to them. That is to say, a person who breaches a condition of as injunction does not commit an offence of breaching the injunction. The government have essentially argued that this difference makes their respect orders tougher and therefore justified. But my Lords, this overlooks two important facts. Firstly, the court granting the the injunction can attach a power of arrest to the injunction under section four of the Anti-social behaviour, Policing and Crime Act 2014.

Section nine of that act states that a constable may arrest a person without warrant where they believe the person has breached the condition of their injunction. A person arrested for a breach of the injunction can then be charged with contempt of court, which carries a punishment of up to two years imprisonment. It is entirely understandable why the government wishes to introduce a specific criminal offence of breaching conditions. It is easier to prosecute someone who breaches their respect order than it would be to prosecute a person for contempt of court for breaching the 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 power of arrest. But 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. And I understand this entirely, but that does not explain why the government is 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 the ASB injunctions remain in place, but they have the same power of enforcement. So I ask the noble Lords Minister 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 orders? And the answer cannot be that one is a civil order and one is a criminal order. Because, as I've demonstrated, the civil order could have easily been upgraded to criminal status by way of legislative amendment.

I would hazard a guess and say the reason is perhaps bluster. Is it not the case that the government wanted to seem like they are being tough on crime? So they came up with a rehash of ASBOs with a slightly catchier name. The reality is that these new orders will likely have little effect in reducing anti-social behaviour. What would actually have a positive impact would be to increase the number of police officers, and fortunately, the government had failed on that front since they entered the office.

Total office police officer headcount has fallen by 1316, and that record to date stands in stark contrast to the previous government's successful recruitment of 20,000 additional police officers in the last parliament. So if the government really are serious about getting tough on crime, they should stop, stop the gimmicks and start with enforcement. I beg to move.
18:45
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, I have listened to the discussion, the quite detailed discussion we've had so far on our attempt at line by line scrutiny of the bill in relation to respect orders and weighing up the pros and I think rather more cons. I'm very aware that what I'm going to say might seem as though it's being glib about anti-social behaviour. And I'm sure that if people are listening in, they might think, oh, this crowd who are raising problems of civil liberties are just not aware of the real scourge that anti-social behaviour is and the impact and the misery it can cause on ordinary people's lives.

And indeed the noble Lord Lord Pannick. And I think the noble Lord Lord Blencathra maybe gave us a bit of a taste of what? That anti-social activity can feel like in local areas. And I did recognise the descriptions of particularly young people. The noble Lord Lord Blencathra described potentially of running amok in local areas just based on where I live, that that has been known to happen. So I can recognise that. But I think the problem is, is that I don't think it would be appropriate for us to be, as it were, emotionally blackmailed into suggesting that if we're opposed to some of these anti-social behaviour orders being brought in is because we don't care about ordinary people suffering anti-social behaviour.

I think the query is it's not that we should be told to shut up and put up, but I think that we need. I'm not satisfied anyway that respect orders will help. They're certainly not going to help increase the amount of respect in society, particularly of young people respecting people, authority or what have you. And I think that there's a danger that they themselves could become a scourge. I mean, I'm convinced and I think I'm going to use the civil.

Level of proof here on the balance of probabilities, as respect orders are too problematic to keep in the legislation without a lot, without something of a real challenge. I did want to challenge the noble Lord, the Minister, about the manifesto commitment, because I know that it was a manifesto commitment to introduce respect orders, but with respect, the electorate wouldn't know what a respect order was. They do want the government, and they do want politicians to tackle antisocial behaviour. They do want more respect in society.

I don't know what respect order is. We can barely understand what respect order is ourselves, and the bill has only just been put before us. So I don't think you're betraying one would be betraying the manifesto commitment. If you were to say this particular order that we dreamt up. Because it's got a good sounding title, isn't fit for purpose. I wanted to just remind ourselves of what we're being asked to sign up to. Respect orders are not just to be used to deal with an individual engaging in antisocial behaviour.

You can also be issued with an order if it's concluded that someone threatens to engage in said behaviour, and that is a preventative order that can be dangerously open ended. What does threatens to engage in? And it means that criminal sanctions based on speculation, but not on actual behaviour, can be applied. It's also the case that this is based on a definition of antisocial behaviour, as defined 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.

And I'm emphasising that because I feel as though these things matter, that we just end up arming the state with new tools. And I'm not completely convinced they're going to tackle the problem. So if I could just use the the notion of young people and shoplifting and anti-social behaviour and running amok, even though I know that's a caricature of a Lord, a noble Lord, Lord Blencathra style caricature, no disrespect, but you know, and it's kind of like a Daily Mail image.

But the main thing is, is that when those activities are happening, I don't think that there is an intervention using the laws that we already have. A lot of these things are already illegal. They're certainly antisocial. They're already actually criminal activities and nobody does anything. So I'm worried about having two open ended a criminalising clause that can be doled out to people, but not necessarily tackle the the problem on the harassment, alarm or distress. I've been doing a lot of work with university students, and I can assure you that on universities there's a huge amount of harassment, alarm and distress being caused, particularly in relation to, for example, the the pro-Palestinian activists disrupting lectures, threatening lecturers, kind of explicit Jew hatred on campus.

And, and everybody goes, well, what can we do? Well you could issue them a respect order, but even I don't think that's the kind of way that we should deal with it. The point is, is that we are using these things, it seems to me, as a 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 terms of language to be a safe new legislative change.

I'm mindful that respect orders can also have significant impacts on our citizen's rights and freedoms. And I do think that rights and freedoms are important. These are a form of behavioural control order that imposes limitations upon a person's liberty and daily activities. In an attempt at preventing unwanted behaviour, unwanted behaviour that's actually quite subjectively defined. And 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, restriction on who a person can communicate with, where they can travel to and even can exclude people from their own home.

Things we've already heard about. There are no limits to the type or number of prohibitions or requirements that can be imposed, and respect orders can be imposed without notice, as we've already heard, without telling the person the order has been made against them, and they can be imposed for an indefinite period, with no provision to remove conditions imposed. These are quite draconian challenges to our civil liberties regime, and we don't even know if they work. And we're told by the noble Lord, the Minister, that the pilot scheme has been put off because it's urgent.

We get on with using these orders. I would suggest that what's 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 nonetheless gives the state a lot of powers I'd rather they didn't have without much more scrutiny. So I don't. I would like this to stand apart from the bill and get rid of respect others altogether.
18:53
18:54
18:55
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
good before I have to disagree with him on future groupings, my Lords, but I entirely agree with what he had to say, as indeed I did with the noble 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 one solve a problem, or does it merely create complexity and risk? And the bill, of course, as we've heard, introduces respect orders, but it also retains anti-social behaviour injunctions.

And many of us already feel that the new respect orders, as we debated on the first group, are respect orders are unnecessary and largely either replicate powers already available under the 2014 act or as the noble Lady Baroness Fox made very clear, add undesirable elements to the to those powers. So, my Lords, we've seen it as busy emselves. There have been some proposals to include positive requirements tailored to underlying causes 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 Davis said, focusing resources on effective enforcement and mandating psychological or therapeutic interventions, rather than introducing a confusing, duplicated power. So, my Lords, 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.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to noble Lords for the discussions that we've had
18:57
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
today. Can I just start off by saying something? I think again, which I hope is helpful and is meant to be helpful, which is that the respect orders are not something in their own right. They're part of a suite of tools that the government are looking at to help tackle antisocial behaviour. And I take some challenge with what the noble Lord Davis has said about police numbers. I was police Minister in 2009 ten, and immediately after we lost office, the then government, coalition government, I have to add reduced police numbers by around 20,000.

So the figure of 20,000 that the noble Lord says are being put on the streets are really replacement for ones that were taken off the streets by the very same government that he supported. Now, he says, have we had additional police officers on the ground? Well, this year we've put around another 3000 police officers on the ground and we're looking at providing around 13,000 extra boots on the ground during the course of this Parliament, comprised of specials comprised of PCSOs and indeed of direct, warranted officers.

And that's a commitment, again, in the manifesto that we're doing. And many of the measures in this bill later on that we will come to around phone theft and around use of anti-social vehicles and all sorts of other measures in the bill are still part of the suite of measures to try to tackle anti-social behaviour as a whole. So I would say to all noble Lords and ladies that this is a suite of measures of which this forms part. And if I take the challenge from Viscount Goschen head on, I can't give him a figure as to what the impact is going to be directly on the on those matters.

As of now, I will reflect on what he said and see if I can bring further light to that. But the key point is, is that this legislation before the committee today and this clause stand part, that the noble Lord is testing the House on today are again a measure whereby, in the event of breach of those orders, speedier criminal action can be taken, which is different to where we are currently with other forms of anti-social behaviour legislation. And again, I reaffirm what I said in earlier contributions that we're not seeking to be punitive, we're seeking to be preventative so that 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. And that goes to the heart of again, what the noble Baroness Fox of Buckley has said. Because from my perspective, this is part of a suite of measures. That's the point I want to put to the house today. We know that the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour and Crime and Policing Act of 2014 do not always go far enough to tackle antisocial behaviour, and I do believe the whole House wants to tackle that anti-social behaviour, which is why the government committed in our manifesto to introducing the respect order to crack down on those making our neighbourhoods, town centres and communities and unsafe and unwelcome place.

The 1 million police recorded incidents and over a third of people experiencing or witnessing some form of anti-social behaviour is a really key issue. It's one any government should address and the respect order partially replaces the civil injunction powers for persons aged 18 or over. But like the civil injunction, it will enable courts to set prohibitive conditions by banning disruptive ASB perpetrators from town centres or from engaging in a particular behaviour, or 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 and authorities.

If this legislation is passed, can apply for a respect order, including the police, local authorities, registered social housing providers amongst others. Now that means that we have people on the ground who are closest to the ground as a police officer in a community, a local council, in a community or a housing association in a community who can identify that they want to provide some support for the potential victims of anti-social behaviour. Now, the respect order is not a punishment unless breach, which I have said already.

It's intending that upon receiving a respect order, the offender would, I hope, cease the behaviour and there would be no further sanctions. Now can I measure that for the Viscount Goschen at this moment? Possibly not. But can I measure it downstream? I hope so. Provision is only made for punishment where an offender ignores their respect order and continues to cause harassment, alarm or distress. And therefore, the important point on that again is that it's a criminal sanction if they breach that order.

Which means that unlike in a civil injunction, breaching the respect order will be a criminal offence and therefore arrestable. And that is a significant order again. So in a sense, an individual would be warned to not do something or encouraged to do something. And if they don't do either, then they are subject to arrest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for the noble Lord, the Minister, for him responding to my question about projections of the effect that these measures will have the these measures will have the purpose of me asking him these questions, just as I did on a on another bill, not just to ask another bill, not just to ask awkward questions and to give his officials more work. It's a genuine officials more work. It's a genuine focus on performance.

We've got a very serious issue in the country. We're all agreed in terms of We're all agreed in terms of anti-social behaviour, and I think that the the price for the House that the the price for the House essentially agreeing to broader and broader powers is some degree of confidence that they're likely to have a significant effect. Of course, it's incredibly difficult to to quantify what that effect may to to quantify what that effect may be, but some guidance on that, I think would help his cause, which heart.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

heart. And I accept that. But I think it would be fair to say that I would be making promises or would be making promises or guessing around issues that I could not guarantee. But what I can guarantee to the noble Viscount is guarantee to the noble Viscount is that we will monitor the use of that, and also that the measures that I've already outlined, both in that I've already outlined, both in this bill, but also on police numbers and on the focus that we're putting on certain police initiatives through central government discussion with the police Chiefs Council will, I hope, make a difference.

We'll be judged on that. But self-evidently a manifesto commitment to reduce anti-social behaviour, to tackle anti-social behaviour requires this Minister and this government and this Home Secretary to go back at some point to the electorate to say that's the difference we have made. And it's one which I hope that while I can't give him an aperitif today, I can hopefully give him a full course meal when the discussions have taken place further downstream. I think also as well, it's important that we just say the perpetrators who breach an injunction multiple times, the police can't take action unless they take them to court.

Under this measure, there will be a criminal action where the police can take action immediately. And I just want to say again to the noble Lord that for a respected order to be issued, two tests must be satisfied. Firstly, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has engaged in or threatens to engage in anti-social behaviour as defined, and the second is that the court must be satisfied that issuing the order is just and convenient. A further safeguard is introduced that relevant authorities carry out risk assessments prior to the respect order being put in place.

Now, I think that these clauses that the noble Lord has quite rightly asked questions about are important. I wish to see them retained in the Bill, and I am grateful for his overall indication that, at the stage when it comes to determining that, that he will not oppose the clauses. But I will certainly take away the comments that have been made, and I hope that we can continue our discussions in the positive way we've done to date. positive way we've done to date.
19:06
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Lord, I'm grateful to the contributions made and to the noble Lord, the Minister, for his response. I, of course, have no intention of opposing the passage of respect orders. They were part of the government's election manifesto, and as such there shall become the law of the land. That this is not, of course, prevent my criticising them. Indeed, simply because they were part of the government's manifesto does not mean they are a good idea. That will have a positive impact on the streets of Britain.

I have, I would argue, provided rather substantive justification for why I believe 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. My Lords. The proof will be in the pudding and we will see whether the Prime Minister's so-called tough new respect orders have any actual impact in due course. But for now I will leave it there.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is. bill. As amended, is that opinion will say content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say content. To contrary. Not content. The contents have it. The question is. That clause. Two stand.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That clause. Two stand. Part of the bill. As many as that opinion will say. Content to the contrary, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that schedule one be the first schedule to the bill. As the first schedule to the bill. As many as the opinion. That opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The question is clause not content. The question is clause three Sam part of the bill? As many as that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The the contrary not content. The contents have it in clause four,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it in clause four, amendment 23 Lord Clement-Jones. I rise to speak and move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak and move amendment 23, which removes the subsections, increasing the maximum level of fines attached to fixed
19:07
None Portrait AMDT: 23 Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-

level of fines attached to fixed penalty notices for breach of public space protection orders and community protection notices. The core proposal in clause four is to increase the maximum effort 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, who I've previously mentioned a body with whom I've engaged extensively on these powers, write me labels. This increase as a grossly out of proportion penalty.

We must look at the nature of these offences that these fines target. The Home Office claims 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 issued for innocuous actions that fall far outside anyone's definition of serious anti-social behaviour, leading to what they call the hyper regulation of public spaces. For instance, in 2023, Hillingdon Council largely issued pspo penalties for idling, leaving a car engine running for more than two minutes.

This affected 2335 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 while swimming, busking and feeding birds. The Manifesto Club has documented community protection notices, also subject to the increased fine that target non harmful behaviours such as issuing orders banning two people from closing their front door too loudly, prohibiting a man from storing his wheelbarrow behind his shed, or 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, if clause four is that it will spark a boom in the enforcement industry and intensify the fact 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 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 like Pspo and CPN breaches, nor even formally acknowledged the issue and I have raised this many times in the House. My Lords, 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're issued solely based on the decision of an 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're 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, and this increase in penalties must, I hope, be abandoned. I therefore urge the government to support amendment 23 and reject Subclauses three and four of clause four. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, page 12, line eight. Leave out subsections three and four.
19:12
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

three and four. Mr. speaker, my amendments 24 and 25. In some aspects I take a and 25. In some aspects I take a slightly different view from the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones, because I approve of the £500 penalty. The increase provided it is for proper real antisocial behaviour, and I do accept his point that do seem to have been quite a few of of of ASBOs. Granted, when it's been for busy busybody offences and that that is not right.

However, my Lords, my concern here is making sure that the fines are properly paid. If we rise to give rise to £500, what will be the punishment if criminals don't pay it now? Imprisonment is not important. In the words of that great capitalist delboy, it's quite cushty and most criminals, from the smallest to the greatest, regard a term of imprisonment as sort of factored into their crime. What about fines? Well, no problem, they will simply not pay them and with sufficient sob stories to the court, and they'll probably get away with a ridiculously low payment plan.

And then when they go outside and drive away in their BMW whilst texting on the new iPhone, that's great. The only one thing works by laws and they hate it, which is proper punishment and gives the state and the victims proper recompense, and that is confiscation of their ill gotten gains or confiscation 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 only probably not pay up and nothing more is done about it, my Lords, we must expand confiscation orders to all crimes where a penalty has not been paid.

And my amendments here are a tiny and small but good example. I would suggest. We seem to have gone too far away to make compensation orders as difficult as possible to obtain and deliver. Confiscation orders in the UK can only be issued for any crime that involves financial gain, not just specific offences. I used to take away profits from criminal activity, with a court determining the amount of the order based on the defendant's benefit from a criminal conduct. Now the common crimes involve fraud, drug trafficking, theft, organised crime.

But any offence where a financial element is present can trigger an order. So how do confiscation orders work? Well, very briefly, first of all, a conviction is required. And even I would agree with that. My Lords, a confiscation order can only be made made after the defendant is convicted of a crime and 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 the word 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. My Lords, I simply say, why on earth stop there with that tight confiscation confiscation concept where ill gotten gains. If someone has committed a crime and gets a financial penalty or a fine and he does not pay up, then he has benefited from that crime. He's made a financial gain in that he has saved the money he should have spent on a fine.

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

Otherwise. Part two of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has the one that deals with confiscation, has 86 clauses and 2000 hoops for prosecuting authorities to jump through before they can get their hands on criminal money or property. My Lords flicked through the bill and go to schedule 20. Set schedule 16. In this bill you will find My Lords, 39 or 40 pages of detailed amendments to that bill. I shall probably deal a few with amendments when we come to it, but a huge amount of amendments just to confiscate the proceeds of crime.

We don't need any of that here. And I suggest that all financial penalties or fines, such as we will have in this clause, have an automatic confiscation order attached for failure to pay within a reasonable time. No need to go back to court. 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 happens. happens.
19:17
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, of course I support the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones amendment opposing the increases in these fines, but I think we need to go further and abolish these on the spot penalties per se, for a variety of reasons, which is why I have asked to put this clause stand part of the bill. Sorry, I think that we you cannot underestimate how public space protection orders and community protection notices trivialise what we understand to be dealing with anti-social behaviour.

And we've just had a long discussion about what is anti-social behaviour, but these are part of the toolkit to deal with anti-social behaviour and they really do end up targeting individuals for the most anodyne, mundane activities and banning everyday freedoms. And I think the use of fines has led to, in a way, us not taking seriously what real anti-social behaviour is because these fines are given out for such arbitrary, eccentric reasons. The pspos and cpns can be issued on a very low threshold, entirely subject to misuse.

Lots of evidence showing that often criminalising, as I say, everyday activities. For example, they're often pspos are often used to ban people gathering in groups, young people gathering in groups, which seems to me to be a dangerous attack on our right to assembly. And it's despite the fact that the statutory guidance states that Pspos should only target activities that cause a nuisance and should not criminalise everyday sociability, such as standing around in groups. That's what it says. And yet they're constantly used in that way.

But they seem to be unaccountably doled out. There are now over 2000 pspos in England and Wales, and each of them contains up to 35 separate restrictions. And that means that tens of thousands of new controls are being issued on public spaces all the time. And they are, as we heard earlier, imposed on different geographic areas, prohibiting making prohibitions on different types of activities for different citizens from one place to another. So you can be in one town where an activity is legal, go to the next town and the activity the same activity is illegal.

And we discussed some of that earlier. But I think as the noble Baroness Baroness Chakrabarti pointed out, and indeed justice has drawn our attention to the inconsistent use of these kind of Pspos does create a postcode lottery for victims, but also indeed for perpetrators. And it may. And to quote justice says, this undermines the rule of law by making enforcement dependent on the victim's location rather than the circumstances. I hope that we can possibly send the noble Lord, the Minister, the research done by justice and by the Manifesto Club that's already been referred to so that he can see the freedom of information requests to local authorities and just what kind of activities are being issued with Pspos Cpns and therefore what these fines are being used to tackle.

And I can assure you, it's innocuous activities, not anti-social behaviour. There are councils that are banning kite flying, wild swimming, as we've heard, using camping stones. I mean, I thought that it was interesting that recently the Free Speech Union were forced Thanet District Council to scrap its imposition of a sweeping public safety sorry public space protection order that would have banned the use of foul or abusive language in public space in the area. So you would be able to swear in one area and not in another area.

I can understand that they might have raised a lot of money, but I don't necessarily think that that's the same as dealing with anti-social behaviour. But actually the councils themselves don't do the dirty work of enforcement. They instead outsource that to private companies. And that's really the why. The reason why the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones has explained so well the dangers of this private firms going around. We've got geographic breakdown of national way of dealing with anti-social behaviour, and now we've got a kind of almost feudal way of collecting fines from it.

If a payment per fine is this payment per fine? Sorry. These kind of fines means that the orders might well be issued for all the wrong reasons for income generating commercial purposes, for targets that are about raising money rather than tackling anti-social behaviour and increasing fines for will surely only incentivise that practice further. I really do urge the the noble Lord, the Minister, to consider this, that the noble causes. The government is associated with here is to deal with anti-social behaviour.

But by using private companies to find people in such a cavalier way, then actually is discrediting the whole cause of dealing with anti-social behaviour, it really is damaging the reputation of this noble cause. I think that there's no transparency or oversight mechanism for these companies, and I do think there is one ban that I would like to bring in and that is fining for profit. So I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will consider at least reviewing this and looking at it closely.
19:23
19:25
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to. All noble. Lords who have. Contributed to this thoughtful debate. On clause four and debate. On clause four and associated amendments. The discussion is reflected that balance must be struck between proportionate enforcement and proportionate enforcement and ensuring that penalties remain effective and fair. And anti-social effective and fair. And anti-social behaviour seems to be increasingly present on our streets. It is right present on our streets. It is right that the clause is given careful consideration.

The noble Lord Lord consideration. The noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones raised concerns about the overuse or inappropriate issuance of fixed penalty notices issuance of fixed penalty notices in amendment 23. Those are indeed legitimate points for consideration, legitimate points for consideration, and I am sure that all noble Lords agree that such power should be exercised carefully and with a 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 the courts, but they must always be used responsibly in accordance with proper guidance.

However, it seems proper guidance. However, it seems that subsections three and four 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. Turning to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, we are grateful to the noble Lord 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, to ensure that enforcement is both efficient and fair. The noble Baroness Fox of Buckley has given notice of her intention to impose to oppose the question that clause four stand part of the bill.

We respect this view, but we cannot agree to the removal of the clause. Clause four contains a number of sensible and proportionate measures, which 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. My Lords, this debate has underlined the importance of maintaining confidence in the effects in the fixed penalty system, ensuring that it is used appropriately and it is enforced consistently.

The system exists to fulfil the wider aim of upholding law and order in our communities. In these endeavours on our benches, we will always be supportive. Thank you. you.
19:28
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lords, with the support of Lady Fox, for discussing and tabling the amendments amendment 23 and to Lord Glenarthur for his amendments 24 and 25. I'm grateful also, if I may say so, to the noble Lord Sanders for his broad support for the government's approach on the main thrust of the issues, although he obviously, like we do, slightly diverges from Lord Blencathra, which I'll come back to in a moment. I can't agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I'm afraid that's the nature of political life.

Can't agree with her. These offences are used for things such as dog fouling, littering, vandalism, drunken, aggressive behaviour. They're not trivial, they're not low level. They're things that impact upon people's lives. And the abandonment of this clause completely would be the abandonment of the people who are victims of those particular instances. So the debate for me is around whether £100 is a reasonable figure or whether the £500 that we have put into the bill is a reasonable figure. And I would argue to the noble Lord Clement-Jones that it's the practitioners who have said to us that the current hundred pound limit does not always carry enough weight to stop offenders from committing further anti-social behaviour.

Now again, I just say to the noble Lord Clement-Jones that under existing legislation, relevant agencies may already issue fixed penalty notices of up to £500 for environmental offences such as littering, graffiti or flyposting. We expect that the prospect of a higher fine will, as the noble Lord Sandhurst has said, act as a stronger deterrent. 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 don't know whether the Manifesto Club contributed to that consultation offhand, but the point is the majority support in a consultation accepted that the increase was necessary. Now, it doesn't mean, of course, that increasing the upper limit means that every person breaching an order will receive a fine of a £500 figure. That £500 could be a lower figure. It could be proportionate to the individual circumstances and the severity of the case. And even if an individual feels their fine is not reasonable proportionate, they can make representations to the issuing agency on receipt of the notice to make their case, and can 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. So I hope that the that those those reassurances assist the noble Lord and he won't in due course push those amendments. Now the the point that the noble Lord Blencathra has mentioned is an important one. It is important that individuals do pay a fixed penalty notice and don't shirk their responsibilities.

And I want to hopefully reassure the noble Lord that a robust process is already in place for non-payment of such notices, including, and this is a quite a hefty penalty, a 50% increase of the fine amount and a referral to a magistrates court, which could infer further costs falling on the individual. Confiscation orders can also involve seizure of assets, bank accounts or property, and failure to pay can lead to eventually potentially 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, which are designed for more serious crimes. So I recognise where the noble Lord is coming from. He shakes his head with a slight unhappiness at my response, but I say to him that I think that's a reasonable approach, and it is the intention of the government that when fines are levied that they are paid. And that is the key point, I think, where we share common ground in the park on this matter.

With that, I would urge noble Lord to withdraw his amendments. amendments.
19:32
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Rogan I thank the Minister for his reply. Disappointing though I'm afraid that is. But that's probably a pattern that will continue as the bill carries on. My Lords, I must say I didn't even get an acknowledgement from the Minister that there are no flaws in the existing CBO CPS system that quite often they are just busy body offences which receive fixed penalty notices. He just recited a number of of the perhaps the the the the outer edge of the anti-social behaviour, which of course should attract fixed penalty notices.

But my Lord, there seem to be. And he also prayed in aid the fact that environmental offences can have fixed penalty notices at a higher level. But my Lords, we've heard quite a lot of anecdotal evidence about those being misused. So it's quite clear that the chances are that these new higher penalties will be misused as well. I also didn't seem to have any acknowledgement that the fining for profit aspect of all of this by local government was a problem, and I don't know whether the new statutory guidance that he mentioned will actually include something along those lines.

I very much hope so, my Lords. And I very much hope that the Minister can also reassure us that that there will be a re affirmation of the need for proper democratic oversight of Pspos and Cpns, because, my Lords, the current guidance does recommend that councils, either in full council or in Cabinet, actually approve these pspos, but that appears not to be the case currently, with all the consequences that the noble Lady Fox has has outlined.

So, my Lords, I do hope if we're going to learn from the experience of the current anti-social behaviour powers that the government take on board, some of this debate and some of the points that have been made in previous groups, my Lords. But at the moment we'll probably return to this on report. But for now, My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment 23. Is it your lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 24 and 25 Lord Amendments 24 and 25 Lord Blencathra not moved. The question is that clause four stand part of is that clause four stand part of the bill. As many as that opinion will say. Content. Content to the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause five stand part of the bill, as amended. That opinion will say content.

Content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it. My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that the house. Be resumed. We will. Then. Move to consider. The accused.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The accused. And we will not return to the bill before 2034.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that the House be resumed? Be resumed? As many as that opinion will say. Content. that opinion will say. Content. Contrary, not content. The contents
19:36
19:36
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Lords, for nearly 50 years I've 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 a 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 Lady Baroness 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 disarray every time there's a Court of Appeal or Supreme Court decision, it still contains gaps in coverage. For example, to what extent do matrimonial assets become matrimonial? On which the case of Standish has opined, after 52 years, the treatment of pensions? Does domestic abuse make a difference, even if general conduct does not? And why should an oligarch's wife like Mrs. Potter be unable 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've witnessed less well-off couples in court ignorant of even the basics, such as the paramountcy of the child's welfare. I've seen them weeping at the adversarial nature of the proceedings and needing more judicial guidance than there is time for. I've 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 and JK, and let there be no misunderstanding.

This is a lucrative field for lawyers representing better off couples, and their opposition to reform is understandable. I've seen what were thought to be watertight nuptial agreements torn up by judges in different ways. It is disgraceful, too, that the laws uncertainty keeps the door open for blackmail by husbands in religious divorces. Some discretion is a good thing, but it's reached a pitch that is too costly to 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.

But, my Lords, I no longer need to make the case for reform. Baroness Shackleton and I have been totally vindicated by the Law Commission 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 and accountants. Bonus a solicitor's sustenance, an area of judicial creativity, a windfall for the wives of oligarchs, an academic gold mine, an impoverishment of children, but a desert for the average divorcee.

We're out of step with most of Europe and the common law world, especially Scotland, where the default position is a 5050 split of assets acquired after the marriage. Very limited ongoing maintenance and pre-nuptial contracts that are binding. This is what I've 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 only lead to the continuation of the discretionary scheme and all its attendant ills.

The second is guideline based discretion, which would retain judicial discretion but within a structured framework. This too would keep open the door 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 pre-marital, 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, and 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 chooses, they should be mindful of this artificial intelligence ChatGPT has entered family law. There are already online models for clarifying what assets are in play and suggesting 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 this 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 waste of assets. All the government has to do is to 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, then 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 and 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say which model the government will go forward with. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I congratulate the noble Baroness Baroness Deech on securing this debate and her excellent and this debate and her excellent and compelling speech. The noble Baroness and the noble Baroness Baroness Shackleton deserve great Baroness Shackleton deserve great credit for their campaign and persistence in pressing for action on this matter. The Law Commission
19:44
Lord Mendelsohn Portrait Lord Mendelsohn (Labour)
-
-
on this matter. The Law Commission report strongly supports their arguments that the Law on financial provisions on divorce require change to ensure certainty and accessibility. I do share the view that some form of judicial discretion is important, but dare I say this, rather like the debate over VAR in modern football, greater consistency will be welcome. I have just a few questions for the noble Baroness, 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 do not, and their procedures are not used as a means of undermining the rights of women or as a means to disadvantage them. This is a serious matter in the case of some. Thankfully, a small number of Jewish religious divorces and other cases. Firstly, I'd be grateful if the noble Baroness, the Minister, would confirm that in whichever solution the government alights on, they would 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. Would the noble Baroness, the Minister, undertake to give consideration that this will be addressed in their proposal of how they go forward? Secondly, we have also seen terrible cases where, in the process of agreeing to a religious divorce, the courts, 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.

Would the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm that consideration will be given to including a specific exclusion to this practice? Thirdly, would the noble Baroness, the Minister, also consider reinforcing that courts of arbitration must not exceed their jurisdiction in such matters? Whilst the provisions of the 1996 Arbitration Act 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 noble Baroness, the Minister, take the opportunity to place this obligation on the courts of arbitration to ensure they and their members are at fault, if they exceed their jurisdiction in these matters? Finally, and in relation to prenuptial agreements, will the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm that the government will allow for names to be enforced to deal with financial and other matters where financial pressures could be exerted so that they can be forcefully upheld and only varied in exceptional circumstances.
19:47
Lord Patten Portrait Lord Patten (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, I. Happily join with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Mendelsohn's. Congratulations to. noble Baroness. Deech in her getting this timely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deech in her getting this timely debate, and also for the firm. Tone that she was addressing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

towards the Minister and the government. For heaven's sake, get on and do something and don't let. Things.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Things. Languish any longer. That having been. Said in this debate, I shall concentrate only on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate, I shall concentrate only on. The matter of financial provision for children. I am no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

provision for children. I am no lawyer. I have no financial interest to declare. Or any. Interest in any of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or any. Interest in any of. My professional and business undertakings. And for that matter, undertakings. And for that matter, for complete transparency. I have never had. Any involvement at all never had. Any involvement at all in divorce or legal separation. So I'm speaking tonight as a generalist, if you like, an amateur in a chamber full of experts in in in a chamber full of experts in in this matter. But I have for long been concerned about the been concerned about the correlation between children having divorced parents and the likelihood divorced parents and the likelihood of later offending, as shown by the excellent longitudinal studies coming out of the Home Office over so many years by their researchers, our Department of State, I have to say, just in passing, that I think is very often unfairly excoriated for being guilty of all sorts of things when they're facing people who are guilty of lots of other things.

It's a very difficult department to run. But 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, but most don't offend. But some do, and the statistics are absolutely as plain as a pikestaff. But I think together these are facts and statistics that almost dare these days don't speak their name because they don't often get a welcome in polite discourse.

They're uncomfortable facts for a lot of people, but these facts should be much more widely known, which is why I'm speaking tonight to be dealt with more effectively with public education. Challenging that would be for I believe, that too many young do not get timely help in the midst of parental conflict, and therefore I've got two suggestions. First, to take account of the longer term effects on children, which go on and on. Provision of a financial support should be extended from 18 to 21 years of age to help to mitigate these issues, which take time to resolve if they ever can be wholly resolved.

And secondly, and lastly, that 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. In other words, a clear understanding in undertaking that they have lengthy responsibilities ahead of them. And all of this at a time when I read only last week that there are people pressing legal persons, pressing people to consider in nuptial agreements to take into account the future of their pets.
19:51
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Too am delighted that the noble Lady, the Baroness Beech, has put forward this question. I would. Before I start, I'd like to support much of what the noble Lord Patten much of what the noble Lord Patten has just said about the importance of children and the fact that they are in many ways not properly recognised. When we look at financial provisions. I spent most financial provisions. I spent most of my life at the bar and in three tiers of the judiciary, in family disputes over children and the disputes over children and the division of financial assets.

I was a divorced registrar when the 1973 legislation became law. See how long ago I have been this? Most of long ago I have been this? Most of the financial disputes I tried were the couples either if lucky, with a the couples either if lucky, with a house and a few other assets, or no property owned and only debts. One property owned and only debts. One important aspect of financial dispute cases which do not settle, is often the high degree of emotion is often the high degree of emotion in the background and rather like child disputes, the parties are fighting the issues of the broken relationship in the context of the court cases.

The Law Commission, an court cases. The Law Commission, an excellent scoping report, have 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 recognised in the scoping report much of what I dealt with. The issues have not changed very much. It seemed clear from the report from the Baroness Deech Baroness Shackleton and 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 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's needed. I do not entirely support the divorce bill proposed by the Baroness Deech because, in my view it is too rigid, does not allow for frequent situations which her bill, if it became law, would not provide for not sufficient flexibility.

What I would like to see is more certainty, with enough discretion in 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've tried was the couple 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 don't know the answer to it. We used to say after the children reached 18 or 21, it was sold. Nowadays, that is said not to be a good idea, but I'm not sure what is better. I am particularly concerned about the longish marriage. The wife who doesn't work. The husband says she doesn't need to or takes a very small job.

He then leaves her. She's middle aged to elderly. How does she cope? And quite simply, to cut off maintenance after five years or so would not allow for that sort of case. Finally, I have to say I'm interested in the idea of cohabitants, but I entirely agree with the noble Lady Baroness Deech that we shouldn't start on that line until we've dealt with divorce and financial provision. I think it would disturb it. I would very much like to see any legislation.

This government is brave enough to introduce being treated as all party legislative scrutiny, in my view, would help and I would hope would reduce too many amendments. many amendments.
19:55
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia Portrait Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I. for bringing it, and I feel very humbled to follow the noble and learned Lady Butler-sloss. I spoken on many occasions in your Lordships' House about the urgent need to reform in relation to ancillary relief in divorce, rather than go over very familiar territory, which just gets lost. I'm going to focus. As previously flagged, the noble Baroness Prime Minister about the law in Pre-nuptial 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 the 28th of February. I am still waiting for a response from Lord Timpson, and I do not wish to make any criticism there, because when we were in government, it was no better to say that we depend on sorting the entire matrimonial financial remedies situation, including cohabitation rights, is an absurd excuse for dealing with an issue which 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 on.

I should, I suppose, 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 granatino upholding the validity of prenuptial contracts in certain circumstances, there has been a seismic shift in the acceptability of such contracts, and as a consequence of them being entered into and both marriages breaking down. Now, the occurrence of cases appearing before the family courts has increased. In a survey recently done, 46 to 47% of under 50 people under 50 regard them as a good idea, whereas 37% of over 65 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 to 15, there were 310. In 2015 to 2020 there were 359, and in 2020 to 2025 there 542. Prenups are no longer rich or exclusively the rich, and sufficient time has passed since radmacher for Prenups to trickle down the public consciousness. Not only are prenuptial. Agreements more common, they are also entered into where parties have modest assets but wish to retain their financial autonomy.

To be a home, maybe once a home earner or two professionals or people entering a second marriage enter into such arrangements. But the point made by my noble friend Lord Patten in relation to children is a good and valid one. Wearing my hat as a marriage foundation. Statistics show that when children are born of unmarried couples, they fare less well and that relationship is more likely to flounder. People do not get married when the uncertainty of getting divorced is so obvious and they can't protect themselves.

There is obviously a sorry. There is absolutely no consistency as to how these contracts are applied. For 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 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, the law in England where the parties were living would have been. But 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 is not even clear with the whether the existence of PNC limits or curtails needs. And 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 name is fanciful. When two respectable lawyers can differ in their interpretation of the law and therefore frustrate any mediated situation. From October this year

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to May of next, the president is announced. Can I. I'm sorry, can I just interrupt?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry, can I just interrupt? Sorry. I'm conscious of the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Can I just finish quickly? Then the president has announced that financial remedies are now being taken out of the list, because there isn't time to deal with them there isn't time to deal with them in a situation where the law was clearer, there would, because it is clearer, there would, because it is the courts are being blocked by litigants in person and rich people.
20:02
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
litigants in person and rich people. If a law was clearer, the courts would have more space to deal with people that really need them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord sir, I join in thanking Baroness Deech for raising this Baroness 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, and, importantly, asked the government importantly, asked the government to consider what underpinning principles should appear in reforming legislation. The Law reforming legislation. The Law Commission made it clear that future work in this area will require a number of significant require a number of significant policy decisions.

Having worked since the early 1970s as a barrister and then until recently barrister and then until recently as a judge, dealing with matrimonial and other family cases. I do hope I understand the strengths and weaknesses of existing law and practice. When I existing law and practice. When I started the law, introduced in 1970 started the law, introduced in 1970 and reproduced in 1973, moved the focus of cases away from largely sterile disputes over legal sterile disputes over legal ownership of property towards the realities of the needs of the parties and their children.

And 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 the case law also has not been assisted with its concept of matrimonial ization, which has perhaps moved the clock back and arguments about it should be confined 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 do 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 much with far less cloth to be cut. Trying to create two households out of one mortgaged family home, and stretched and stretched incomes and borrowing capacity. Whatever option is selected, and I would 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 do 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. The cost of 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.

And finally, I do suggest that the views of experienced specialist practitioners at the coalface should not be disregarded. They have to operate in a changed legislative Cogs, perhaps consoled by the advice of the late Joseph Jackson, doyen of matrimonial law, that there is always at least ten

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years work in any new Act of Parliament. My Lords.
20:06
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I to congratulate the noble Lady Baroness Deech for introducing this Baroness Deech for introducing this debate, and I congratulate her and Baroness Shackleton for their tenacity in bringing these issues

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before the House. A lot. Has happened in society since

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has happened in society since the 1970s, when Parliament last intervened, and the heavy lifting in the development of the law has in the development of the law has been done by the judges. They've introduced in various cases, quite introduced in various cases, quite a lot of different expressions. And I should declare an interest as a barrister and one who was recently barrister and one who was recently instructed in the two cases mentioned by the noble Lady Baroness Deech. Standish and Potanin.

Some of the concepts they've introduced, needs already they've introduced, needs already mentioned a very different concept of what needs would normally be expected to mean. Then there is the expected to mean. Then there is the sharing principle the Lordship, the yardstick of equality, matrimonial yardstick of equality, matrimonial ization of property, mingling, compensation, stellar contribution, and then the very difficult thing and then the very difficult thing that judges apparently have to assess sometimes matrimonial endeavour. I'm sure all of us would endeavour.

I'm sure all of us would ask themselves from time to time, have we been sufficiently endeavouring matrimonial? Anyway, endeavouring matrimonial? Anyway, the problem is there is a very big discretion, and the issue always, discretion, and the issue always, for a court, and indeed so much for 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, and his view was that the law, quote, 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 Baroness Deech? I don't know, but I'm sure she wouldn't be wedded to every single word of that bill.

But it is at least a significant improvement on the current uncertainty that prevails. Finally, let me deal with the question of prenuptial agreements. The the House of Lords were clear, or at least eight out of nine of them were clear as to what the approach should be. And 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 doesn't seem to them.

To be fair, as things now are, then they find some reason to avoid the consequences of prenuptial agreement, thereby completely undermining the public policy that was identified in that in that seminal case, there is a public policy, I suggest, in favour of there being marriage. And if people, particularly, perhaps people in their second marriages, are very hesitant to approach the question of marriage without a prenup, because who knows what might happen, what other people might have claims on it.

It is simply contrary to public policy not to have a statute. I don't find the argument that we can't 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's do something. Preferably, let's do everything. But let's not sit back and say we can only solve the problem if we solve every single issue. Now the scoping paper doesn't provide any answers. 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 Ministers like myself, were unable to give my myself, were unable to give my Lords. I also join in. Thanking my noble friend.
20:11
Lord St John of Bletso Portrait Lord St John of Bletso (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Deech for again introducing this important debate. Her timeless and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tireless tenacity. And pushing this thing forward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And pushing this thing forward is short of exemplary, and I commend her for all she's. Done in trying to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Done in trying to. Reform this crucial. Part of. Family law. The Law Commission scoping report we are discussing scoping report we are discussing today laid bare many of the facts that we've all known before that that we've all known before that the law governing financial provision on divorce is no longer fit for purpose. The report's. Conclusion is stark. It states that the law lacks certainty and accessibility, to an extent that it could be argued to be inconsistent with the rule of law.

Well, my Lords, when the rule of law itself is called into question, we cannot simply sit back and wait for the simply sit back and wait for the government to consider its options indefinitely. As many have mentioned, the Matrimonial Causes mentioned, the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973, now well over 50 years ago, was with a different generation. I say this with all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

generation. I say this with all respect to my noble. Friend Baroness Butler-Sloss. But society.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But society. Has changed. The consequences of this inaction are profound and far this inaction are profound and far reaching. 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.

And my Lords, this is not justice. This is a lottery. And as the noble Baroness, my friend Baroness 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 and 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.

Having practised as a divorce attorney in South Africa, where we have the Corpus and roman-dutch law, prenuptial agreements have long worked for many, many decades. When the Divorce Financial Provisions 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 and the can is constantly being kicked down the road, having prenuptial agreements enforceable would provide certainty, would reduce litigation and save enormous sums in legal fees.

Of course, my Lords, safeguards are essential. There must be financial disclosure, there must be independent legal advice, and the terms must be free, fair and reasonable. But, crucially, the welfare. Several members have already mentioned the 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.

So in conclusion, my Lords, I do hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, and I congratulate her on her new appointment in winding up can give us a timetable to hopefully introduce a bill to enforce prenuptial agreements and secondly, to commit to wholesale modernisation of this antiquated and damaging area of law. The case and damaging area of law. The case for reform is overwhelming.
20:15
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I start by declaring

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an interest. In in that although. I do know. Divorce work. Now, I. Once did.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Once did. And I'm. Still rather. By default, I fear a member of the Family Law Bar. Association.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Association. noble. Lady Baroness Deech. In introducing. This debate. In an.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In an. Area where she has. Campaigned for many years. And I. Also thank the Law Commission

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Also thank the Law Commission for their very hard work. In producing the scoping report. And that shows by its very length, what a daunting task. Reform in this area will be. My Lords, this debate has exposed a tension well described by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. Between flexibility and judicial discretion on the one hand, and certainty and predictability on and certainty and predictability on the other. Those advocating flexibility and. Judicial discretion emphasise the importance discretion emphasise the importance of individual judges weighing up factors in particular cases and factors in particular cases and deciding how to apply them.

In applying section 25 and to reach applying section 25 and to reach fair decisions. Those advocating certainty and predictability argue 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's particularly unfortunate when so many couples are without legal advice or representation. My Lord. The Law Commission's scoping report said this the law lacks certainty and accessibility to an extent that it could be argued to be inconsistent with the rule of law.

My Lords, the charge of inconsistency with the rule of law may be overstated, but the charges of uncertainty and inaccessibility are serious. The noble Lady Baroness Deech sets out this case, argued by her persuasively, as I've said for many years, supported by others, including Lord St John of Bletso and the noble Lady Baroness Shackleton, who concentrated with Lord St John on the question of nuptial agreements. My Lords, the Lord Law Commission recommends a full review of the law, but it doesn't 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.

My Lords, turning to those options, the first is codification of the existing law, and that, I would submit, 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 limitation.

The third option, my Lords, is guided discretion and that, frankly largely overlaps with codification. Plus the second option 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, which would set out a general rule and is applied in some other jurisdictions, probably some kind of community property arrangement, subject to exceptions to be more fully defined. My Lords, I would 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 do favour retention of some judicial discretion in the context of greater clarity and certainty, as does the noble Lord Lord Mendelsohn. And indeed, I agree fully with the noble and Leonard, lady Barnardo's, Baroness Butler-Sloss and and 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 from 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, and I would far prefer to see, before we legislate 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. Thank you. law for the future. Thank you.
20:20
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. Like everyone else who's spoken today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the noble Baroness Deech for moving. This debate so the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moving. This debate so the. House can scrutinise. This important manner. The Law Commission has produced a meticulous scoping report on. Financial remedies. It is put forward for clear options, but it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hasn't come. To a. Final decision. And that. I. Think, is. A pity. Few areas of. Law touch more.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Law touch more. Directly upon ordinary lives than family law. Marriages and institution that we on these benches. Firmly support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Firmly support. Break down is always distressing. For those involved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is the law's task to bring fairness and. Finality to support. Families.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Making this difficult transition. I have. A genuine interest. In the topic. During the first.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the topic. During the first. 20 years or so at the bar. Financial provision. Matters and other family. Matters formed a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other family. Matters formed a substantial part of my practice. So I'm a little out of date, but I know where they're. All coming from. The Law

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All coming from. The Law Commission's report. Is sobering. It shows that. The framework established.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The framework established. act. Was. Drafted for a different social

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Drafted for a different social world. People need certainty. The system may be fair. In individual. Cases. But it's opaque to those who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have to live under it. It cannot be. Right if the outcome depends upon the postcode or philosophy and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

upon the postcode or philosophy and individual judge. Or if it's. Simply too difficult to understand. The cases.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The cases. Uncertainty drives. Parties towards litigation. And expense. It undermines. Confidence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Confidence. As we've heard. In the. Rule of law itself. These challenges must be met.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

These challenges must be met. There must be. Enough flexibility, but there must.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but there must. Be predictability for. Everybody. Except the. urge.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

urge. The government. To take seriously. The Law Commission's. Invitation to select a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Invitation to select a. Clear model for reform. And to embark on the detailed. Work. Necessary. It seems.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It seems. To us plain that we cannot wait. For the. Law Commission to produce a full report. We've got to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report. We've got to. Get on. With it. practical.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

practical. Decisions to be made. And. There are enough. People who can pull that together. There must be clearer statutory

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There must be clearer statutory guidance, improved transparency on outcomes and clarity in. Particular for those who cannot.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for those who cannot. Afford lawyers. The recent judgements have. Illustrated the strength and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

strains of the system. The Supreme Court has clarified the. Distinction between. Matrimonial and matrimonial property, yet.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

property, yet. It. Also exposed the complexity. Of the current.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the current. principles. Accessible. In statute. The material now has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In statute. The material now has been put before. Commission.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commission. The. This important report must not gather dust. Government must not gather dust. Government must act. I wait to hear from the noble Baroness Levitt what.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Levitt what. Course the government is going to take. It must not be. Put in the too

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It must not be. Put in the too bring. Forward a bill. And I. Think I. Suggest this could be done in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Suggest this could be done in the next session, or certainly the. Session after. There's no reason not to. This should be not to. This should be pre-legislative scrutiny and I hope, broadly cross-party approach. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

broadly cross-party approach. But one thing is certain we mustn't let the search. For. Perfection, the enemy.
20:23
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Perfection, the enemy. Of the good. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. other. noble Lords in thanking the noble Lady Baroness Deech for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

As the noble Lady Baroness Deech and other noble Baroness Deech and other noble Lords have said, she and others have long campaigned for a change in the current law because they are 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 reasons are that it leaves too much to judicial discretion, and because most of the principles are contained in case law, it's very contained in case law, it's very difficult for couples to understand without consulting a lawyer.

It was in this context that the previous in this context that the previous government asked the Law Commission to review financial remedies law, examining whether the current 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 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? And the Law Commission's verdict is clear the existing law lacks cohesion, and it fails to give parties the certainty they need.

And 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's 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, and 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. And one of the reasons that the government is 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 don't even realise that they are left financially insecure until it's too late.

They don't 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've listened carefully to your lordships concerns about uncertainty and conflict in the current system of remedies on divorce. The government shares those concerns and is determined to look more at these issues and address them.

So 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. Now, I realise that this may disappoint many of noble Lords, and I have 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're going to do, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to resist it.

Some of you may wonder why we've not simply asked the Law Commission to continue its impressive work. Plumped as the noble Lady, Baroness Deech suggested for one of the options and told them to get on with it. But as the speeches of noble Lords have made clear in this chamber tonight, many of whom have great expertise in this area, there's disagreement even amongst them, as to which option we should be going for. So the answer is that when we consult on cohabitation reform, we've got a real opportunity to examine the question of break up and financial remedies in tandem.

We're 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reforms in one area may have implications for the other. I hesitate. To interrupt, but. Does the noble.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble. Baroness not appreciate that marriage is a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Status non-marriage is not a status, and that the time has come.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

status, and that the time has come. For the two to be looked. At separately? Divorce on the one hand, and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one hand, and. How you. Look after those in other relationships on the other. The Law relationships on the other. The Law Commission has done a lot of work. The ground has been laid and isn't it not time you can go down

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it not time you can go down parallel paths, that they shouldn't be linked and heard. At the same time. And I see.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I see. Everyone else in this. Chamber nodding. Disappoint the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst, because our assessment is that looking at these piecemeal is going to run the risk of creating new disputes and creating new disputes and injustices. In the end, it is about making sure, principally, that children are protected when the children are protected when the relationships from which they are born end up dissolving. May I born end up dissolving. May I reassure the noble Baroness, lady.

Just point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just point. Out to the noble Lady that the consultation on cohabitation was carried out very thoroughly by the Law Commission. They did it some years ago, and as far as children go, you can't 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 don't do the work all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

over again. It's been done. I'm afraid. This is as I say. I'm going to disappoint the noble Lady, the Baroness. This is a manifesto commitment and it is going to happen. We will issue our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going to happen. We will issue our consultation by spring of next year. I'm very grateful. Lords Minister the one thing that this Minister the one thing that this House was agreed on today was on Prenups. It would be very simple to Prenups. It would be very simple to introduce Prenups, and it wouldn't be in any difficulty for anything else. It wouldn't stop the else. It wouldn't stop the government looking at cohabitation with divorce. But the Prenups is a special situation, and I have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

special situation, and I have become convinced that it would be entirely sensible. Yeah. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. It's very difficult to resist the noble and learned Lady with all her experience. But again, I'm her experience. But again, I'm afraid I'm going to have to. I wanted to pay tribute to the noble Lady Baroness Shackleton greatly Lady Baroness Shackleton greatly admired and respected, not just because of her expertise and experience, has raised this, experience, has raised this, supported almost across the House by noble Lords. And it is frustrating that the previous frustrating that the previous government did not give a full response to the Law Commission's 2014 recommendations on nuptial 2014 recommendations on nuptial agreements.

So as we are working towards our consultation, we are carefully considering the issue of this and it will be again taken into account to ensure that we have a consistent framework, mainly designed to put children at the centre of what happens when relationships break down. Turning now, very briefly, if I may, to the points made by noble.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But to what extent does. A prenuptial agreement influence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A prenuptial agreement influence children protection? You cannot legislate in a prenup any rights in relation. It is open to the court. relation. It is open to the court. Every single avenue is open to the judge. In relation to judge, you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

judge. In relation to judge, you simply can't contract out. I'm grateful to the noble Lady because one of the issues that the because one of the issues that the government needs to consider when deciding what to do about nuptial agreements is whether and if so, agreements is whether and if so, how such agreements provide certainty and fairness for both parties whilst protecting the interests of any children. And that's why they are all going to be considered as part of a piece. Turning now to the points made by Turning now to the points made by noble Lords, briefly, if I may, the noble Lord Lord Mendelsohn made a noble Lord Lord Mendelsohn made a number of points, and he raised the question of how conduct is going to be treated in financial remedy be treated in financial remedy proceedings.

I've listened carefully to the matters raised about this. The Law Commission examined this closely, and as we examined this closely, and as we prepare for consultation, we will carefully consider what they say. Violence against women and girls is Violence against women and girls is a priority for this government and will be central to our consideration about it. As far as the matters you raised about religious courts are concerned, I think I may have to write to him in relation to that. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, raised the issue of children very often.

Those, as I've already said, are those of cohabiting partners. We are concerned to ensure that children are prioritised at all points. The noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss has raised many issues and Lord Meston has agreed with some of them, but not with all of them. And again, I make the point that even within the experience in this House, not everyone is agreed on the right way forward from here. Noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst.

Neither of them could agree on the right way forward either. And that is the reason that we are going to consult my Lords. The points raised in this debate do go to the heart of fairness and certainty for thousands of families at a time of great personal difficulty. I therefore want to say again that I thank the noble Lady Baroness Deech, as tabling this motion and the contributions of your lordships today. I have listened to very carefully, and they give us a great deal of food consultation.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I suggest a short pause before we go back to the Committee
20:35
20:35
None Portrait AMDT:26 Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. Amendments 26 Lord Blencathra I. Rise to move amendment 26, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rise to move amendment 26, which relates to clause five of the Bill a clause five is a very short clause, and it says closure of clause, and it says closure of premises by registered social housing provider schedule two amends various parts of the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 so as to enable registered social housing providers registered social housing providers to close premises that they own or manage, which are associated with manage, which are associated with nuisance and disorder.

Now, my amendment says an NHS provider may issue a closure notice in respect issue a closure notice in respect of an individual flat with a housing block for which they are responsible. I apologise to the House and to the Minister. My amendment is already included in amendment is already included in the definition of premises. However, my Lords, the only definition I can find is in clause 92 of the find is in clause 92 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act and that says premises includes a any land or other place, whether enclosed or not.

B any outbuildings that are or not. B 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 a housing block was technically not premises within the definition of the 2014 act or Schedule two in this bill. Now, I tabled this amendment because I'm 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 LMK social landlords. Addicts were threatening other householders to let them in to buy drugs from the flat. Children and 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 that Ellen Key refused to do anything.

They even lied that they had applied for an ASBO, and it took two years before that tenant was finally evicted. Now, of course, the bill and my amendment cannot force a negligent a r l an issue a closure notice, but it might help those who do care about their tenants. And just for the record, my Lord, I've named that company because my noble friend Lord Gould, who was then the housing Minister, called in the chief executive after writing to him stating you have failed your tenants.

And he did that following a devastating ombudsman's report and covered a prolonging a prolonged period of decline in his repairs and complaint handling. I do not need it any more. The Minister tells me that premises include individual flats within the definition and will be covered by this. And I'll not come back to this report. But if I've got a valid point that I hope the government will make a little tweak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and amend the bill accordingly. I beg to move. Amendment proposed schedule two,
20:38
20:39
20:40
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particularly obviously Lord amendment. Amendment 26. As he.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 26. As he. As he has explained it, seeks to. Allow registered social housing providers to issue a closure notice providers to issue a closure notice in relation to an individual flat within a housing block that they own or manage. My Lords, the own or manage. My Lords, the closure 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 five and schedule two extend the closure power to registered social housing providers.

Currently, only local authorities and police can issue closure notices. This is can issue closure notices. This is despite registered social housing providers often being the initial point of contact for tenants suffering from anti-social suffering from anti-social behaviour. Now, registered social housing providers will be able to issue closure notices and apply for issue closure notices and apply for closure closure orders to enable them to close premises they own or manage, which are associated with nuisance and disorder. In his contribution, Lord Blencathra mentioned a specific landlord.

mentioned a specific landlord. Without going into the facts of that case, it is. It is clear that. The registered social housing providers have to meet regulatory providers have to meet regulatory standards set by the regulator of social housing and their statutory guidance in place, and registered social housing providers be expected to meet the same legal test 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 antisocial behaviour quickly and effectively.

In turn, this will save police and local authorities time and as housing providers be able to make applications directly rather than having to rely on the police or local authority to do so on their behalf. Lord Clement-Jones raised his concerns about risks of abuse, and it and the that for instance, extending this power to housing providers risks misuse to evict tenants. For example those in rent arrears. And I just say to him and noble, noble Lordships' House that there are robust safeguards in place to mitigate the risk of misuse.

Like other agencies, housing providers will be required to consult 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 noble Lord Blencathra and indeed Lordships' House that premises here means any land or other places, whether enclosed or not, and any outbuilding that are used as part of the premises, and this could already include individual and individual flat within a housing block.

Indeed, that would be the expectation that this targets individual households rather than whole blocks of flats. And I would say to that we are we are confident that the the current legislative framework and what's in the bill will will cover the will cover that and, and make that and make that clear on the basis of that clarification. And of course, I will reflect on Hansard and and the points you raised about the 2014 act. If I need to, I'll undertake to write to more detail.

But on the basis of that clarification, I hope the noble Order, order be content to withdraw his amendment. his amendment.
20:43
20:44
None Portrait AMDT: 27 Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 27 Lord Russell of Liverpool. My Lords, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I. Thank my noble. Friend Lord Hampton for. Putting his name to these five

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Putting his name to these five amendments which seek to ensure that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour are swiftly anti-social behaviour are swiftly identified, protected from further harm and are given, above all, the opportunity to have their voices heard. And these amendments have the full support of the victims. Commissioner for England and Wales. While this bill forms part of the government's very welcome determination to crack down on anti-social behaviour, it does fail to address some of the underlying issues victims currently face and risks maintaining the status quo, which leaves many victims without meaningful recourse and allows harm to persist.

So the status quo, in effect, does not bring about the degree of change that was called for by the victims commissioner herself and by HMRC FRS in its October 2024 report just 12 months ago, called the policing response to antisocial behaviour, the policing, local authority and housing authorities response to how to tackle antisocial 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, focussed and prioritised national structure with very clear do's and don'ts.

I am most grateful for the time that Joe 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 you can actually 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. And I know that leaders like Andy Prophet, who the noble Lord, the Minister, may well know, the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire, who is the NPCC lead on anti-social behaviour. I know they are. He is extremely keen to work across all 43 police forces to identify and syndicate best The those people would be very, very supportive of the intent behind these amendments. And Baroness 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. And I don't need to remind your Lordships' House if there's one person who knows at a profound level the what antisocial behaviour can do, it is Baroness Newlove herself. So amendment 27 stems from the battle that many victims of anti-social behaviour face when they try to escalate their complaints. And 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's having on the victims. Moving on to amendments 28 and 31, we have the opportunity in this 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 review are rejected. Addressing local variation and ensuring victims no longer face a postcode lottery when attempting to access it. But it's also vital that the review process itself restores victims confidence, and amendment 29 would ensure that every ASB case review has an independent chair, and the victims are given a voice at the table guaranteeing transparency and fairness. My Lords, the deaths of Doctor Suzanne Dow, Fiona Pilkington, Bijan Ibrahim Ibrahim, Matthew Bowman, Stephen and Jennifer Chapple, David Askew, Louise lots 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. So I invite the Minister to please consider these amendments in the spirit in which they are being moved, and I hope to be able to work with him and his colleagues between now and Report stage to see if we can insert some additional elements into the bill, which will give victims real hope, but hope also to the exponents of best practice in tackling ASB, who are keen to share their expertise and insights.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause six. Page 12. Line 18. At the end,
20:52
Lord Hampton Portrait Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
-
Page 12. Line 18. At the end, insert the words as printed on the motion list. I rise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To add my name to amendments 27 to 31 and declare as ever my interest as a secondary school interest as a secondary school teacher. These are amendments from the Victims Commissioner. They are the Victims Commissioner. They are have been ably introduced by my noble Lord, my noble friend Lord noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool. So you don't need to hear much from me. My Lords, need to hear much from me. My Lords, we are told data is the new gold in teaching with safeguarding.

We are teaching with safeguarding. We are told to report every slight suspicion because it can form part of a jigsaw which can show abuse is happening in these amendments. The victims commissioner actually calls victims commissioner actually calls it missed patterns, missed victims. These very sensible amendments would give victims of antisocial behaviour both a route to support, behaviour both a route to support, but also a strong voice in anti-social behaviour. Case reviews anti-social behaviour. Case reviews as Victims Commissioner's Office says this delivers real change for says this delivers real change for victims.

Victims of persistent ASB must be swiftly identified, must be swiftly identified, consistently supported and given access to resolution processes that deliver effective outcomes. My Lords, these amendments do just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. My Lords, I rise to support the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to support the amendments in this group and, as repeated, so ably laid out by the
20:54
20:54
20:54
Baroness Stedman-Scott Portrait Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
assessment when a victim reports three incidents of anti-social behaviour in a six month period. behaviour in a six month period. This will enable agencies to understand the level of harm being caused, so that victims are given access to the appropriate support. Victims have cited several barriers Victims have cited several barriers to utilising the anti-social behaviour case review, and one of behaviour case review, and one of the key barriers was the lack of knowledge and awareness about the case.

Review among staff at key agencies, with a responsibility to agencies, with a responsibility to resolve anti-social behaviour. For many victims, this lack of knowledge prevented them from being signposted promptly, promptly, if at all, to the case review at all, to the case review mechanism. This also posed additional barriers to them being able to successfully activate the case review process and get the anti-social behaviour resolved. anti-social behaviour resolved. This ultimately prolonged victims suffering, and none of us want that.

And so I'd ask the noble Lord, the Minister, to seriously consider this amendment 28 and 31 asked 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 consult 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 unilaterally adding caveats which make it more difficult for the victim to make a successful application. And this consultation we recommend should also 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 of the behaviour that it's having on them, which I think and their families, which is critical to strengthen victim participation and ensure their voices are central to the process.

We recommend the Home Office consult 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, dealing with anti-social behaviour effects, or being represented at the case review by a chosen individual to ensure their perspective is effectively communicated. But we want them to have the right to choose the method in which this happens.

Also, we're saying that there should be a statutory requirement that anti-social behaviour case reviews are chaired by an independent person. This is not an unreasonable request. You know, very often when there's somebody independent that 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. On amendment 30, local bodies, we are saying, should be compelled to publish data on the reasons they denied. They were denied an anti-social behaviour case review to enable better overall scrutiny and understanding, and for how effective and how consistent the process is on across England and Wales.

As the noble Lord Russell stated, data is king and we do not think this is an unreasonable request at all. So I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will give serious consideration to these amendments, and if they cannot be agreed, he will explain in detail why. My Lords, I think these are. why. My Lords, I think these are.
20:58
20:59
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Here, here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this group so well introduced by the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool and spoken to Russell of Liverpool and spoken to by Lord Hampton, Baroness Stedman-scott and Baroness Jones, focuses on putting the victim first, focuses on putting the victim first, a principle we wholeheartedly support. Clause six aims to strengthen the anti-social strengthen the anti-social behaviour case review and we support the package of amendments in the clause tabled by Lord in the clause tabled by Lord Russell and Lord Hampton.

We support the objective of support the objective of establishing a statutory threshold for convening a review that explicitly considers the victim's explicitly considers the victim's vulnerability. This is crucial as it removes the discretion for authorities to apply additional caveats, and ensures that the severity of the impact on the individual is prioritised over mere persistence of the behaviour. We backed the proposal amendment 29, backed the proposal amendment 29, to ensure the review is chaired by an independent person who has not been previously involved in.

In the case, independence is essential to restore trust and ensure restore trust and ensure objectivity when agencies review their own failures, and we 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 requiring police officers to undertake an ASB Impact Assessment when the threshold is met, is a common sense measure to ensure 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 their trauma and vulnerability are fully recognised, and I very much hope that the government will take them on board. government will take them on board.
21:01
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I want to 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, delivering a just outcome for the complainants and communities affected without being overly burdensome, burdensome on the relevant authorities is an important principle. 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 also 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. That reason, amendment 27, raises eyebrows. It is, of course, important that we provide the necessary support for those who are harmed by criminal behaviour, but it is also true that this clause will now require policing bodies to review the responses to complaints about anti-social behaviour.

In certain instances, it will place an additional level of administration, of course, onto these authorities. The amendment, as it stands, seems to cast the net too widely, perhaps as to when impact assessments might be necessary, and would therefore add yet more workload to already strained forces. And I look forward, perhaps, to what hearing what the Minister's opinion on this matter is. Amendments 28 and 31, however, do 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 as to where it is necessary.

A discretionary threshold has the potential to encourage local authorities to earn the side of caution, and thus review cases that do not actually 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 this on board. I'm cautious of amendment 30 for similar reasons that I've 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 actually meet the threshold.

Additionally, as 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. My Lords, this is largely sensible set of amendments that does have the interests of both complainants and the respective authorities at heart. So I do hope that the noble Lord Minister agrees with what I've just said, and perhaps look forward to David. David.
21:04
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
First of all, may I thank the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool for his amendments, and I also want to, if I may, thank the victims Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, both on the amendments, but also, if I may, for her work on this issue over many years. I'm also grateful for the support of the noble Lady, Baroness Stedman-scott, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord Hampton, and the noble Lord Clement Jones for their comments in this area, and for the noble Lord Davis from His Majesty's Opposition.

Amendment 27 aims to ensure that all victims of repeat antisocial behaviour are subject to an impact assessment, including even where the individual has not requested a case review to be undertaken. Now, the government believes 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, and that that would be included in updated statutory guidance for frontline staff, which we indeed published in September.

The proposals in the amendment, I think, would significantly increase the resources required to review antisocial behaviour incidents, and 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. But the way in which the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool, has approached this, and he has said that he wishes to work with the government on looking at this. So I'm very happy to have further dialogue with him post this Committee stage with myself and all the Minister responsible in the Home Office, and we can return to that and examine the nuances.

But I hope the initial comments give him a flavour of where the government currently is. If I turn to amendments 28, 29 and 31, they look at the antisocial behaviour case review process. The amendments mandate the requirement for there to be an independent chair for victims to be invited to attend the case review, and to reduce the ability for authorities to add additional caveats that reduce the victims abilities to request a case review. Now, I'm pleased to say, and I hope again, the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool will will accept this in the way I'm putting it to him that we have recently updated the statutory guidance to frontline professionals that already reflects the proposals that he has put to the House in committee today, and I believe that this will create the impact it's intended that the amendments are intended to bring, while still allowing for great flexibility for circumstances to be treated on an individual basis.

Again, I hope that outside of the committee today, if he wants further information on the statutory guidance, I'm very happy to provide that to him and to the noble Lady, Baroness Newlove. But we think that that meets the objectives of 28, 29 and 31 on amendment 30, the noble Lords Amendment is seeking to require relevant bodies to be involved in case reviews, to publish details of why they've determined that the statutory threshold for a case review was not met. Now, again, under existing legislation, it's already a requirement for the relevant bodies to publish the number of times they decided that review threshold was not met.

And if I can, if I can highlight to the noble Lord clause seven of the Bill, the government is introducing further requirements for local agencies to report information about anti-social behaviour to the government, and that is really for the purpose of us understanding how local agencies are using powers and tools provided by the 2014 act, including the question of case review. And I think, again, if you looked at clause six of the bill in particular, it's buried in the the depth of the undergrowth in clause six.

But I assure the noble Lord that it is there 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. And this includes where the relevant bodies determine that the threshold was not met for the initial case review. So when we come to clause six again, I hope that I'll give further explanation of clause six when we reach it. But I hope that again, when we get to it, it will meet the objectives that he has set in his amendment 30 to the bill.

The recently updated guidance on case reviews address many of the same points as these amendments, and I would hope that they will have an opportunity to bed in. I'm very happy to send the noble Lord a copy of the guidance if I'm able to, and I can assure the noble Lord that we will monitor the effectiveness of that guidance in improving good practice, and if necessary, he has my commitment to revisit the issues again in the near future. But until then, I submit that it would be premature to legislate further on case reviews beyond the measures in this bill to date.

And I hope with those assurances and the opportunity for further discussion and further information, that the noble Lord would be content to withdraw his amendment. amendment.
21:09
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
I'm very grateful to the Minister for the tenor and content of what he just said. The devil is quite often in the details, so I, with others, will be very happy to sit down with him and just try and make sure we all are understanding it in the same way and are talking the same language. I do have some concern about guidance, which in theory is flagging up to people in a slightly different and slightly more lurid way what their rights are.

And in evidence I would state the experience of the victims code, which has been around for a very long time, but on numerous occasions when officers of various agencies which are in theory responsible for knowing what the contents of the victim's code are, are actually quizzed on it, they know absolutely nothing or very, very little or they get very confused about it. So having guidance does not in itself solve any issue. If people do not understand the guidance, are not trained in the guidance and have sufficient experience, how to apply that knowledge in in a sensible way.

But I do hear what the Minister is saying. I think we are. We are moving in the right direction. I do feel very strongly that trying to look at and perhaps reverse engineer some of the examples of best practice, which there are around, would be very informative and very helpful. We do have a habit of reinventing the wheel in our 43 different police forces. And of course we have all the local authorities and we have the housing associations as well. So it's quite a it's quite a muddle of people and agencies that we have looking at this.

And I do think we the evidence suggests we need to pull that together much more coherently and effectively than we are at the moment. But I take the Minister's kind invitation to discuss this further on board, which I accept,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your pleasure to the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 28 already rated, not moved. Amendment 29 already debated, not move. Amendment 30 already debated. Not moved. Amendment 31 already debated. moved. Amendment 31 already debated. Not moved. The question is on clause 16, part of the bill as amended, say content. Contrary, not amended, say content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it.

We now come to the next group series of government amendments, amendment
21:12
21:13
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed schedule three, page 248. Leave outlines 27 to 30. My Lords, I welcome the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I welcome the Minister's confirmation that these amendments are matters of purely technical housekeeping because they technical housekeeping because they remove provisions that are no longer needed, and this is caused by the insertion of section 183 into the Data Protection Act 2018 by section 162 of the Data Use and Access Act 2025. And I must confess, my Lords, having spent time in the salt mines of the Data Use and Access Bill, I didn't. This did not come to my attention at the time, but I'm sure it's a valuable piece of legislation, my Lords, and it does create a standard, an overarching safeguard, ensuring that new enactments like this bill do not automatically override core data protection requirements.

However, my Lords, the fact that the government's intentions are technically sound in this respect does not, I should say, remove the need for clarification and specific statutory safeguards in certain highly sensitive policy areas, which we will be debating in due course. My Lords, and I thought I'd just put the Minister on notice that we'll will be calling for adoption of additional safeguards, ensuring that new powers in the bill are fair and proportionate. And, for instance, the DVLA access and facial recognition provisions in clause 138, which grants powers for regulations concerning police access to DVLA driver licensing information.

And we do. We remain deeply concerned that the power granted by clause 138 could be used to create a vast police facial recognition database, my Lords, and we will be looking for additional safeguards. And in terms of clauses one nine 2 to 1 nine four concerning international law enforcement information sharing agreements. My Lords, the cross-border transfer of data inherent in these agreements present significant civil liberties concerns. So we will be calling for mandatory privacy impact assessments. My Lords, just a taste of my Lords.

In conclusion, while the government's amendments are technical in nature, we will in due course be using the opportunity to embed robust, specific statutory safeguards for a number of new powers in the bill. powers in the bill.
21:15
21:16
21:16
None Portrait AMDT: 35 Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 35. Lord Blencathra. I rise to move amendment 35

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment 35 standing in my name, which says that regulations may not require a relevant authority to provide relevant authority to provide information on social media posts, which they may consider to be antisocial or of anti-social behaviour messages. I don't need to regurgitate much of what I said earlier on the Non-crime hate incidents, which could compose a large part of this because I'm looking forward the Minister's announcement in due course that he'll have solved the problem of of so-called non-crime hate incidents.

I decided not to. I was tempted to be down a motion that clause seven do not stand part of the bill, because I wanted to discuss the huge amount of of requirements in clause seven, but I thought I would do it under the scope of this amendment. So basically, what I want to ask the Minister is this what will the government do with all the information demanded by clause seven? Now, when I was a Home Office Minister, and I know I'm certain the noble Lord had this experience as well.

We get lots of written requests from, from from members of Parliament asking for all information on all sorts of law and order issues. What were police up to in in England and Wales. And we didn't have and we could not provide it because the police forces were not under an obligation to send it to the Home Office. Now, sometimes I would think, oh, I'd like to know that as well. But whenever I ask the police forces if they could provide it, then they would quite legitimately say, what resources do you want us to divert from fighting crime to collating this information, Minister, to send to the Home Office? And what practical use will you put it to? Well, my Lords, I think they had a fair point.

But the demands for more and more statistics from the police have continued to increase. I won't suggest that it is in proportion to the rise in crime, but more information has not helped reduce it. So I come back to the point. Will the noble Lord, the Minister, tell the House exactly what use will the Home Office make of all this information? Since the extent demanded is fairly extensive? Now, if this information was free, then 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, unquote, as per amendment A, subsection four b. Now this may I suggest, is not a low grade clerking job, since the information demanded in subsection two is not just a collection of numbers or reports, but provision of the reports plus the authority's responses, plus the details of ASB case reviews.

Then subsection three calls for the information collected to be analysed by the local authorities. Now, as I say, analysis of the plethora of different anti-social behaviour orders and responses to them in a manner of insufficient quality to be sent to the Home Office, will be regarded as a fairly high level job, and not one for a low paid junior clerk in the council. I think, my Lords, we probably are looking at a salary of about 50,000 for the head and for the lead person and 30,000 for the assistant.

And with National Insurance and Pensions, we're looking at about £100,000 per authority. Multiply that by 317 local authorities. And we've had local government costs of 32 million. But no doubt many local authorities will love it. My Lords, more office bound jobs as they cut dustbin collection, social services work and leave potholes unfilled. Okay, as a sinister, cynical comment, but that will happen in some local authorities. So Minister, I simply ask please tell the House if that 32 million I calculate will be the cost of of every authority supplied all the information requested in clause seven.

Will that be money well spent? Well, my little amendment does my bit to limit some of the costs, since I do not want local authorities wasting time and resources, collecting and analysing so-called anti-social media posts which have happened in their area, either to the poster or or to the complainant, they'll be chasing their own tails if they attempt to go down this route. It would be a self-defeating waste of time. So, Minister, that's the purpose of my amendment to just to ask the government to justify what will they do with all the information collected under clause seven, and how much will and is my calculation of 32 million roughly right? I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause seven, page 16, line 29 at end. Insert the words printed on the marshalled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. I rise to move to speak to
21:21
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move to speak to amendment 55 A this is supported by stopwatch, an organisation, a campaign organisation that is campaign organisation that is concerned with the use of stop and search. And I want to disagree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord. Lord Blencathra. This. This amendment would require the Home Office to publish quarterly data on the issuing of anti-social behaviour orders and related injunctions. So 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, and so 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 1000 black people, and yet only around six for every 1000 white people.

There's a real risk that these disparities could be echoed or even compounded in the issuing of anti-social behaviour orders or injunctions. So 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 very is clearly very exercised about the use of resources. And he actually said that more information does not reduce crime. I think that's probably completely wrong, because the more information you have, the better you can understand what is happening. So this is about good governance, 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, this transparency strengthens public trust in policing and the rule of law. This amendment is about shining a light where it's most needed. It does nothing to restrict police powers. It simply ensures that their use can be properly scrutinised. And 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.
21:24
21:26
21:27
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to both the noble Lords, Blencathra and the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. With the two amendments before the Committee today, as the noble Lord has explained, amendment 35 relates to the new power in clause seven for the Home Secretary to make regulations requiring regular, 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 that are considered antisocial, or indeed contain antisocial messages.

Now again, we'll come on to later the stuff around the Non-crime hate incidents, issues that the noble Lord has a concern about. But currently clause seven would allow for information to be requested on reports of anti-social behaviour made to an authority, responses of the authority and also anti-social behaviour carried out by the relevant authority. Anti-social behaviour can come in various forms and it's important that the regulation making power can address this. Now what we do know is that information held by central government on antisocial behaviour is in some areas limited.

This has led to a significant evidence gap in the national picture of anti-social behaviour. And whilst I've mentioned the million incidents per year, 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 seven creates a regulation power making only regulations will then be made following the passage of the bill. To specify the information, agencies must provide which going back to what the noble Baroness Jones has indicated may indeed be information they already have, but do not necessarily share.

I want to assure the noble Lord that regulations are being developed in close consultation with the relevant practitioners, which includes local authorities and social housing housing providers, to understand what information is held on anti-social behaviour and the impact this requirement may have upon them. For the very reasons that the noble Lord has mentioned. We will, of course, make sure that any new requirements are reasonable and proportionate, but meet the government's objective of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

having a wider understanding of some of the trends and information. I'm very grateful to noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to noble Lord for his usual detailed explanation and courtesy, but with particular reference to my rather narrow reference to my rather narrow amendment. Does he think it right that there should be reporting on so-called anti-social behaviour so-called anti-social behaviour which occurs in media posts like leaving aside the Non-crime hate incidents, will local authorities incidents, will local authorities be expected to report that an instance of anti-social behaviour instance of anti-social behaviour in their area, and those incidents have only been on social media, not face to face?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

face to face? What I can say to the noble Lord is that again, the Secretary of State has within this clause a State has within this clause a regulation making power, and the Secretary of State is examining Secretary of State is examining currently and will do if this power is approved by Parliament with local councils, what information local councils, what information they hold that they can share with the government. So there's there's a range of issues to go down the a range of issues to go down the road.

Yet before we get to a stage whereby we're actually issuing regulations that demand or require regulations that demand or require particular types of information, but that will be done in consultation. And of course, it also depends on sharing information. also depends on sharing information. The local authorities or social housing providers hold not what the government is asking of them to hold necessarily. So we'll we'll cross that bridge a little further down the line if the legislation is passed and if the legislation receives royal assent.

Underpinning the amendment obviously is again the wider question of police recording of Non-crime hate incidents. And as I've said, we'll have an opportunity to discuss that later. And by the time we get to discuss it later, we may even have further information from the College of Policing. So again, I'm not kicking the can down the road, but it is one that we can discuss at a later date. Amendment 55 seeks for the Home Office to publish data on various anti-social behaviour orders, including the respect Order, as well as the important issue of stop and search being used prior to issuing these orders.

Again, as I've just said to the noble Lord, clause seven of the bill only creates a regulation making power. The necessary secondary legislation will then be made following the passage of the bill, which will specify further details that will be under a negative procedure. So the noble Lady can pray against any regulations, and I know she'll have the ability, should she wish to, to do that. And I will then have to defend those regulations which have not yet been drafted in, probably the Moses room or possibly on the floor of this house, depending where they end up.

So there's there's still parliamentary scrutiny over that particular power. And the extent to which data will be published will be confirmed prior to regulations being made. After undertaking the consultation that we've just discussed, and undertaking the implications of publishing the data. But she has mentioned stop and search in particular, and I just want to say to her that the the Home Office does already publish significant detail on stop and search information. I used some details in answer to a parliamentary question last week about the number of searches that resulted in weapons being found, or indeed knives and guns being found.

The number of arrests following a search, the demographic data on the individual search, broken down by individual community safety partnerships, police force areas, members of the public. All of that information is published through the annual data and also is detailed on stop and search maps on Police.uk, using monthly data provided directly by police forces. So it's there, and I just direct the noble Lady to say that the amendment would not add to what is already there. And so I would hope that the noble Lord can withdraw for the moment, but return to later, and the noble Lady will not, in due course, publish or push her amendment for a decision, given that we have the information already.

already.
21:33
21:34
None Portrait AMDT: 37 Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-

bill as amended. That opinion will say content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 37.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Davies of Gower. Lords I rise to move. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords I rise to move. Amendment 37 standing in my name. This group of amendments addresses three separate but related offences, separate but related offences, increasing the penalties for littering and dog fouling offences and introducing a specific offence and introducing a specific offence of littering and public transport. Littering may appear to be a minor problem when juxtaposed with some problem when juxtaposed with some of the issues discussed in the bill, but it is one of the most prominent antisocial offences to plague towns and communities.

Littering is one of the most visible forms of environmental degradation, affecting not only the appearance affecting not only the appearance of our streets and greenery, but it also degrades our sense of public pride and community. Littering is pride and community. Littering is associated with signs of a neglected area, and it sends a powerful negative message about powerful negative message about standards and civic responsibility. While also scale of this problem is undeniable, Keep Britain Tidy undeniable, Keep Britain Tidy estimates that local authorities in England alone spend around £1 billion each year clearing litter billion each year clearing litter and fly tipped waste.

Almost 80% of our streets in England are affected by littering to some degree, with by littering to some degree, with the most common items including food and drink packaging, cigarette 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 amendment seeks 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 and uplift is thus justified and necessary. A higher penalty to 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. My Lords, the same logic applies to my amendment concerning dog fouling offences. It is true some progress has been made through awareness campaigns, but the problem still persists in many communities.

It is an unpleasant, unsanitary and it is unpleasant, unsanitary and requires local authorities to bear the costs of cleaning up. It is therefore only right that penalties are raised to reflect both a nuisance and costs incurred. I hope the government agrees with me, and that more must be done to combat littering and dog fouling offences. The negative externalities 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 is exacerbated.

It is a growing problem on our trains, buses, trams and underground systems. Anyone using public transport on Saturday and Sunday mornings will no doubt have experienced the scale of rubbish left behind, from the thoughtless view 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 in public transport causes expense and inconvenience for operators and diminishes the travelling experience for others. Often passengers would rather stand and sit on dirty seats.

A distinct offence for littering and public transport would underline the responsibility of passengers and shared public places, and would support transport authorities in maintaining standards of cleanliness and safety. My Lords, these amendments are not about punishing people for the sake of it. They are about upholding civil civic standards and ensuring that those who do the right thing are not let down by those who do not. They are also about fairness. The costs of litter removal fall on local taxpayers, transport users and businesses, rather than those responsible for creating the mess.

It is time the government takes a firmer stance on the few who ruin the enjoyment of Britain's streets for the many high penalties and clear offences would, in my view, provide both the incentive and the penalty 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 noble Lord, the Minister, and across the House on how the government intends to continue building on its anti-littering strategy in supporting local authorities in enforcement.

I am sure many noble Lords in this House 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 at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a selfish behavior. I beg to move. Question is the amendment
21:39
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is the amendment proposed after clause eight? Insert the following new clause as printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the marshalled list. I rise to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend. My only criticism would be the penalties are not increased high penalties are not increased high enough, but at least it's a very good start. I declare an interest as on the register. I'm a director of the community interest company called Clean Streets, which works with Keep Britain Tidy to try and reduce cigarette litter on the streets, with some considerable success. I was in about 1995. I was privileged to make an official visit to Commissioner Bratton in New York, and he pioneered the concept of the broken window theory.

I'm sure the noble Lord, the Minister, is aware of it. And as he discovered, if you find a street and there's one broken window, no one does anything about it. Very soon there's more broken windows. Then there's litter lying in the street. Then low life people, as they call them in America, would move in. And he said, within a couple of years you'd start the street with a broken window. You end up with rubbish and garbage. And then you had a drug den there. And I've actually visited one where they were trying to batter down a steel door to get the druggies out.

Now, I'm not suggesting that a little bit of litter would cause that here, but there was also an experiment quoted by the excellent nudge unit set up by Oliver Letwin in when he was in government, and the nudge unit quoted an experiment carried out in the Netherlands, where for one week they looked at a bicycle parking lot and they pressure washed the whole thing, scrubbed it, kept it clean. And over the course of that week, not a single bit of litter was left there and no damage caused.

The following week the puts a bits of litter there, bottle here, cigarette box there and within days the whole place got more and more litter because people thought it was the okay thing to do. If you see one bit of rubbish, I'll just add my rubbish to it as well. My Lords, littering is not only is it unsightly, it's highly dangerous. The cigarette litter in particular is dangerous. Not from the cigarettes themselves, but from the filters with the micro plastics in them. And it causes enormous costs to councils to to clean up.

And a couple of months ago, serving on the Council of Europe, I attended an official meeting in Venice. First time I'd been there. It's not very wheelchair friendly, my Lords, but I did manage to get round. But what impressed me I paid for an extra days to stay on. What impressed me after 4 or 5 days in Venice is there was not a single scrap of litter anywhere on the streets. One couldn't move for tourists, but not a single scrap of litter and signs everywhere keep Venice clean and people, mainly ladies on there with their two wheeled big barrels collecting garbage from people's homes.

Absolutely impressive. What was even more impressive, my Lords, was that nearly everyone seemed to have a dog. The widest variety of dogs I've ever seen, breeds of dogs I've ever seen, and there was only one occasion in five days where I saw dog mess on the pavement again. The view was, if you've got a dog, you clean up after you. That's an extraordinary place, my Lords. Well, I'm going to my wheelchair in London or anywhere else. I, I try and look, I try and avoid the people on their mobile phones who walk into me.

But I'm looking down all the time because I dare not drive through dogs dirt on the pavement. I can never get it off the wheels. I've managed to avoid that all the time, my Lords, but that's what I have to do in this country. In my own country, I can't take the risk. In a wheelchair of driving through the dog mess we find on the pavements. Now, to be fair, in Victoria Tower Gardens, when I see people exercising, the dogs have all got the little poop scoop bag and pick it up and that is very good.

But with two dog mess on the pavements. So my Lords, we do need tougher sanctions on them. We do need the highest possible penalties, particularly for fouling and leaving mess on the pavement. I know the penalties are there already, but I don't think there have been enforced rigorously enough. Now. This could be another act, for I think my noble friend Baroness Fox can possibly condemn the private companies who would move in and start imposing more fines for ridiculous dropping of litter. But if they could move in and start imposing and catch out, the people who do it, who are leaving the dog mess on the pavement, I almost tried myself on one occasion, three days in a row, I came across a similar dog mess in the same spot.

I was tempted to grab it 5:00 in the morning and sit there with my camera to catch the person doing it, and report him or her to Westminster City Council. But my Lord, we do need enforcement of this I. Goodness knows how people with colleagues in this place who are who are blind, they've got guide dogs. Hopefully their guide dogs manage to avoid it, but others may not avoid it and walk through it. And it is absolutely filthy and disgusting. And it's a very serious health hazard.

So, my Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend, and I do urge the government to consider all aspects of making tougher penalties for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

litter and tougher enforcement penalties for dog mess on the pavement. Very briefly, I'd like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly, I'd like to support my noble friend Lord Davis and indeed my noble friend Lord
21:44
21:45
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Arrives from our benches to comment on 37, 38 and 39. I've great sympathy with some of the sentiment of the of the amendments. Well, as usual, it's it puts the price up and puts the fines up, but it misses the elephant in the room. Who's going to collect, who's going to do the work to collect, to see the dog person that Lombard is looking for, to be on every train, to be on every street corner.

And that's the issue we have with these amendments, because whilst no one likes litter, we're skeptical whether higher fines will act as a deterrent. The current fines now are, what, £25? Is that going to matter? I don't think that's the game changer. The proposers thinks these amendments will bring. Proper enforcement is key, alongside accessible rubbish bins on public transport. We need cleaner carriages, buses, coaches and trams. 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, that would be a help and decent resources for local authority governments to increase their work in the areas of anti-social behaviour, street cleaning and waste collection. Because in terms of public attitude to littering and what constitutes litter, some of the rail companies have done research. 2024 Northern Rail carried out a search on the behavioural science about literary on trains, and we know that train companies have to work hard to keep the carriages clear. The tens of thousands of people who travel every day.

When I used to be travelling up and down every day on a bounty trains, they were sometimes have an extra assistant get on at Manchester, probably would get off at Crewe or Stoke or Crewe, going down and going back. Get on a store called Crewe to Manchester and there are enormous clear plastic bags. When you see the amount of rubbish that they will collect through that train when they got to Manchester, it is absolutely mind blowing how much he's there. The trouble is on the late trains at night, going home, the 10:00 trains and the I was getting back.

There is no one like that. And if you walk through that train in Manchester at about 12:30, 12:45, you are literally walking through it. It is everywhere, on top, on the seats, on the floor, on eating food. And that's the issue. As part of the research that Northern Rail did, 2000 customers use coffee cups and said that leaving them on the on the train wasn't considered littering. However, when they admitted littering, they also admitted that they felt guilty, especially the impact on the passengers, which shows that habits can change and people can be encouraged to take the rubbish away and use bins.

In terms of the issue with litter, it is a very important point as well. And that's not only on trains and trams and coaches, but on the tracks, because Network Rail say litter on the track 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 area is perhaps where we should be putting a greater focus, where serious health assets come. And in terms of 39 increasing amounts for dog fouling, well, none of us want that on the mess.

But again, who's going to make the behavioural change that we need. And the fact of the matter is it's in the government's hands to do this. Because whether you have the fines or not, if they invest in local authorities, in town wardens, in civic pride. I was leader of a council for six years and I was proud of that. We once were Council of the year, as are the as audited by the Audit Commission used to come to your towns, but I invested then I had the funds to invest now in my local authority.

I think it's 3 or £4 of every £5 we get, because an adult care and social care. So the budgets have been squeezed. So if you want to stop litter, you need to empower local authorities, perhaps with initiatives that don't cost millions of pounds but encourage civic pride, get local councillors and local wards to form their own small groups to patrol around and just keep an eye out and see where the black spots and hot spots are, where you can then bring more resources in to deal with it.

So it's not always charging people more. It's getting people to understand and understand, as was said, that it is not low level and the broken window syndrome is true. And Catherine is right. And I've had when I was in charge, a number of government Ministers come to Stockport on litter initiatives, and they work for a while and the funding stops and then it stops. So if the government are serious about dealing with litter, it should look with local authorities first and then try and assist the transport companies in the arms that they do.

Everybody doesn't. Nobody wants it. Any sensible person in any pub say that they are against littering, but somebody dropping the rubbish, somebody taking a dog out without the pooper scooper bag and it's finding no small number of people and re-educating them. That is a problem. And one final thing. When the underground strike was on and I'm, I stay out in Kensington, I was coming in on the bus every day, which was an experience because the buses were rammed, because there was no trams.

But the number of people I spoke to on the buses, Americans. And who said, actually, London streets are the cleanest streets they've seen. And that was unsolicited. So perhaps there is a different view and different part. So sometimes it's not about running us down. It's about improving the things that we can do and what we can do. Working together can make a difference. And it's a small number of people that cause havoc for a lot of people, and that is a part of society's problems.

And I think I don't envy the Minister in resolving that. But there are ways you can be positive. Things can be done that to make this problem less of a problem. Thank you.
21:52
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Thank. Lord was just gearing up for, for for the for the comments. I'm grateful to the noble Lord for tabling, for the amendments. And let me just say I agree with him. I agree with everybody else who's spoken that flytipping loitering, littering, sorry dog fouling and not victimless crimes. They are crimes that blight our communities. And I actually find it very annoying myself, not just to see dog mess in the bushes, but also to see stuff thrown out of car windows, stuff left on trains that isn't picked up, and I find it very annoying.

And part of the reason I think an important point was made by the noble Lord Goddard is that some of this is also about improving behavioural change and improving people, not tolerating that, never mind fines or or responsibilities. It's about not tolerating that as a society. Having said that, I think that the amendments themselves are unnecessary in this case, and I'll try and 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. And as we've debated earlier, clause four raises the maximum penalty for breach of pspos from 100 to £500, so there's already an upward target in terms of the amount of potential fine. And also, and this is not meant to be a sort of snide point, but the dog Brackets Fouling of Land Act 1996 has been repealed and been replaced.

So I can't amend that because it's it doesn't exist anymore. There's an argument that I will put to the House 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 prosecuting for littering can also face on conviction a fine of up to 2500 pounds. I don't 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 three on the standard scale, currently £1,000 being the appropriate level in these circumstances.

If I look at amendment 38, which makes the very important point on littering on public transport a specific offence, I actually want to pay tribute, first of all to the people that the noble Lord Goddard of Stockport mentioned, those people who go up and down the train collecting rubbish on behalf of the company and doing that role. They're also the people who helped protect us. Last week in the LNER attack, and they fulfil a very important function as a whole. However, the British Transport Police and the railway operators already have the power to enforce railway byelaws and prevent unacceptable behaviour with both heavy and light railway, and that includes fines of up to £1,000.

So on your the noble Lords late night train back. In theory, a £1,000 fine for littering could be issued by laws are controlled by each individual devolved area and they will have their own bylaws around littering and enforcement. And again, that just takes me to the other point, which is again, is not meant to be sort of very cocky in the way I say this, but 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 Senate in Wales.

And 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's of benefit to noble Lords. If I briefly outline the steps the government is taking to reduce littering among our communities, there is a pride of place strategy which sets out how government will support local action. A very point again, the noble 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 refreshes 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 of these issues, I think that it's an extremely important point. I'm not trying to downgrade the points that have been made by noble Lords. Litter is an extremely important issue. The the approach taken in these amendments is not one that I can support, but not because I'm not interested in the issue itself. So I would ask the noble Lord to not move these amendments and withdraw them in the moment, but we can discuss still further at some point.

Again, no doubt at report potentially.
21:57
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Lords, I'm most grateful to those that have contributed and spoken in support of this group of amendments and indeed to the noble Lord. The Minister's response, although I was a little disappointed at the skepticism 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, and 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 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 the 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 of Lords. 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 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 amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your lordships? The amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 38 is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 38 already directed, not moved. Amendment 39 already debated, not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved. My Lords, I beg to move that the House be resumed. The question is that the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House be now resumed, as many of that opinion will say. Content. Contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. My Lords, I beg to move the House. Do now adjourn. House. Do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page