Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Oral questions: Assessing the impact on bereaved families, confidence in pensions and future levels of pensioner poverty, of proposals to impose inheritance tax retrospectively on unused pensions and death benefits

Urgent Question Baroness Altmann. standing in my name on the Order Paper.

15:00

Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)

- -

My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government continues. To incentivise pension. Savings for their. Intended purpose of funding retirement, most unused pension

15:00

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

retirement, most unused pension funds and death benefits payable from a pension will form part of a person's estate for inheritance tax purposes from the 6th of April, 2027. This removes distortions resulting from changes made over the last decade, which have led to pensions being openly used and marketed as a tax planning vehicle to transfer wealth rather than to fund retirement. fund retirement.

15:00

Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)

- -

I thank the noble Lord for his answer, but my question is whether the government has actually properly considered the real world impact of these unworkable proposals, with its aim to hit the minority of wealthy pension owners. This could actually damage millions of less well-off families, who will see a 40% cut in death benefits, especially if they are in a defined contribution scheme, much less so in defined benefit. A single parent with a house and children will lose out significantly.

And does the noble Lord recognise that this retrospective confiscation without transitional protection undermines confidence in long term planning, reduces long term investment and will lead to more people rushing to take money out of their pensions quickly, just in case they may face the inheritance tax, especially if they can take out thousands of pounds a year at just 20%, which will mean more pensioners in future in poverty. Despite the government's aim to get more people saving for a good pension.

saving for a good pension.

15:01

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful to the noble Lady for her question. I think the short answer is no. Let's be very clear this is not a retrospective policy change. It takes effect for deaths on or after the 6th of April 2027. So that's in no way retrospective. And the examples that the noble Lady gives, I think it's important to be very clear that estates will continue to benefit from all the normal neural rate bands, reliefs and exemptions available so an estate can pass on up to £1 million with no inheritance tax, and spouses are fully exempt from inheritance tax.

So more than 90% of UK estates will continue to have no inheritance tax liability. Following these changes.

15:02

Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)

- -

May I welcome my noble friend's clear statement that the purpose of a pension fund is to provide pensions, and not to assist the better off in estate planning. Does he agree with me, given the frequent press comment that inheritance tax is in many senses a voluntary tax, that it that anyone will be able to avoid paying a higher rate of tax with a modicum of planning. of planning.

15:03

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

Well, I very much agree with my noble friends first part to his question, and I think it's very important to state that the intended purpose of pension savings is to fund retirement. The government continues to incentivise pension savings with tax reliefs on both contributions into pensions and on the growth of funds held within a pension scheme, and that these tax incentives are very significant, costing taxpayers £78 billion a year. And it is therefore right. As my noble friend rightly said, it's important to ensure these tax reliefs are being used for encouraging savings for retirement rather than ordinary taxpayers subsidising the wealthy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to pass on their wealth free of inheritance tax. Rothman my Lord Wills does. Does the Minister agree that it

15:03

Lord Macpherson of Earl's Court (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the Minister agree that it is an important principle of the tax system, that tax reliefs and tax system, that tax reliefs and therefore tax expenditures, should be tightly drawn? And does he also agree that the point of pension relief is to provide a pension in retirement, and therefore pension savers should draw down their pension rather than using it as a device to avoid inheritance tax and to improve the lot of their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

descendants rather than themselves. Yeah. I do agree with I think everything the noble Lord said. I

15:04

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

everything the noble Lord said. I enjoyed discussing these matters with him when he was a Treasury official and I was a special adviser, and I probably learnt a lot of this from him, from him then. So I completely agree with what the noble Lord said. And just to repeat, the purpose of of pension savings is to fund retirement. If the taxpayers are spending £78 billion a year on that, it's very important that it's used for its intended purposes rather than estate planning, as the noble Lord says.

planning, as the noble Lord says.

15:04

Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Real life, that many people restricted their lifestyles and their spending and restricted their gifting in order to build a sufficient DC pension that could pay, if needed for years in a care home, not knowing how long they would live or their health conditions, and they didn't want to burden the state or their children, they now see that they were gullible for believing in assurances that anything unused could go to their loved ones free of inheritance tax, and that the government simply regards their sense of responsibility as rather stupid.

What would the Minister say to those people?

15:05

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

Yeah. I'd say that the noble Lady is saying things that are completely misleading. As I've said already, estates will continue to benefit from all the normal nil rate bands, reliefs and exemptions available so an estate can pass on up to £1 million, £1 million with no inheritance tax and spouses are fully exempt from from inheritance tax. And I think it's just also important to say that we have equal treatment here. So there's equal treatment for inheritance tax purposes between pension and non pension assets.

And I think that is perfectly fair within the system.

15:06

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)

- -

I speak as someone whose relatives have struggled for years rather than months in coping with the probate system, partly because the problems caused by the inefficiencies of the probate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

office executors will not be able to. Deal with. The extra complexity of adding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The extra complexity of adding pensions to I, particularly those with lots of small pension pots. Now, my noble friend Baroness Now, my noble friend Baroness Altman, in her submission to our finance Bill Sub-Committee, has finance Bill Sub-Committee, has suggested a simpler mechanism for dealing with this and raising the

15:06

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

necessary revenue. Would the government examine this sympathetically?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I presume, and I will, lady is referring to the noble Lady's proposal for a flat tax, which I proposal for a flat tax, which I think is very interesting. Noble Lady raises this. Currently, fewer than 10% of estates will have an inheritance tax liability. If you put a flat tax on all pensions,

15:07

put a flat tax on all pensions, then you are asking 90% of estates to pay more so that 10% of estates can pay less. I do not consider

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that to be fair. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Interest charges for late payments of tax are charged at 8% payments of tax are charged at 8% per annum and apply to estates. After six months with the noble Lord, the Minister agree with me Lord, the Minister agree with me that given potential complications in finalising and executing wills, six months is rather short and that six months is rather short and that a longer period of grace period of at least one year should apply

15:07

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at least one year should apply before interest charges are levied. I do understand the point that

15:07

Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do understand the point that the noble Lord raises. As I understand it, six months is standard within the tax system.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the noble Lord. The Minister may recall this time last year I asked a question about pensioners who are coming up to the pensioners who are coming up to the time when their pensions are ready to be drawn down, and they're looking forward to the 25% tax free lump sum. Despite the noble Lords reassurances. Thousands of pensioners took their pension early. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, reassure those pensioners waiting to draw down their pension that there will be no changes to the 25% lump sum, tax free lump sum?

15:08

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

I do remember the noble Lords question last year, as he knows I'm not going to speculate on the next budget now, and I'm not going to comment on individual tax measures ahead of time. My Lords, the noble.

15:08

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

- -

Lord accept.

15:08

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

Any kind.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cash to pay it. Well, as I say, given that the or the given all the normal nil rate bands will continue to apply and the state can pass on up to £1

15:09

Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)

- -

and the state can pass on up to £1 million, as I say, with no inheritance tax. So I think if you're leaving £1 million, you probably have the cash to pay the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tax. My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord that pensions should noble Lord that pensions should pension funds should be used to fund retirement. The point is, this is a retrospective tax because is a retrospective tax because people have already put the money in and made long term plans, of which now a significant proportion, which now a significant proportion, and sometimes the majority is being confiscated by HMRC if they are confiscated by HMRC if they are unlucky enough to die before they draw down.

The worry is about draw down. The worry is about people who are younger, not those who are deliberately avoiding who are deliberately avoiding taking their pensions. But people die unexpectedly young. Their families will lose out, their death families will lose out, their death benefits will be cut. And these are people who've made long term plans, people who've made long term plans, and I'm concerned about the impact on future pension savers who will on future pension savers who will think, well, the government might just come and take this money away from me.

I'm not going to invest it from me. I'm not going to invest it for the long run. Pensions is just not something I want to bother with. Even if they would not eventually Even if they would not eventually pay IHT. That is the problem. And why I was suggesting a flat rate levy which can recover some of the tax relief given on unused pensions, but still not impact the future. Confidence and pensions.

15:10

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

Yeah.

15:10

Oral questions: Supporting an increase in the numbers training to be teachers of music, drama, art and design, and dance

Well, I think that all the points the noble Lady just raised have been covered in previous conversations. It's very clearly not a retrospective tax because it takes effect for deaths on or after the 6th of April, 2027. I've also dealt with the fact that a flat rate tax would mean that 90% pay more, so 10% can pay less. And I've also, I think, dealt with the fact that an estate can pass on up to £1 million with no inheritance tax due.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fourth oral. Question Baroness Keeley. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Lords, we're working with the sector to re-establish teaching as an attractive profession across all subjects, including the arts. This subjects, including the arts. This is why this government has increased teacher pay by almost 10% over two years, and is providing

15:11

Baroness Keeley (Labour)

- -

over two years, and is providing bursaries this year worth up to £10,000 for trainees in art, design and music. We are already seeing positive impact. The number of new trainees and teachers have trainees and teachers have increased significantly in arts and design and music over the past year. design and music over the past year.

15:11

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

I thank my noble friend for that answer. The undervaluing of music in state schools by successive conservative led government since 2010 led to the loss of over 850 full time equivalent music teachers since 2011. High vacancy rates and poor retention rates of music teachers, with only two thirds of those who qualified five years ago still teaching now, and music teacher recruitment targets, which were missed 11 times in 12 years. So there's a great deal for the Labour government to do.

Sustained bursary funding for initial teacher training has been shown to show training has been shown to show more stable recruiting. So can my noble friend look at both reinvesting in the music teacher reinvesting in the music teacher training bursary and then sustaining it for a number of years, backed by Ministers, emphasising backed by Ministers, emphasising the central place of that music teacher bursary, not just science and maths. and maths. My noble friend is right that we are currently having to deal with the underinvestment in teachers of the last government and of course, as well the narrowing of the curriculum that limited students ability to be able to study music and art and design courses.

But we are making good progress. I'm pleased to say, on our pledge to deliver 6500 more teachers, the workforce has grown by over 2300, and we have a near record low number of pupils. Sorry, of teachers leaving the profession, but we do have to, when thinking about the additional funding that we provide in terms of bursaries, consider the current position with respect to recruitment. And I suppose the good news is that we've seen actually a 53% increase in people going into music teacher training, starting postgraduate teacher training in in the last year.

And for that reason, we have decided not to continue the bursary this year. But we are optimistic in figures that we've already seen and will publish in December that course acceptances indicate that this improved recruitment will be at least maintained. at least maintained.

15:13

Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)

- -

As both the last government and this government have recognised the problem we have in getting teachers for music in particular, but also in the arts generally. So it is very disappointing that the bursary for music teachers, people wanting to train has been cut to zero in order for young people to follow on from people like the Beatles, all these people who brought a huge amount into the economy, we need to invest in the next generation, and that means teaching them to play instruments and to be able to become musicians of the future.

become musicians of the future.

15:14

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

I, I completely agree with the noble Lord. That's why, as well as investing in all teachers and as I say, seeing results in terms of teachers coming into the profession, we're also making specific contributions through, for example, the funding of the over 40 music hubs that exist across the country to support the very best teaching of music, and of course, the Music Opportunities pilot, which will make sure that more young people, particularly those who are disadvantaged or who have special educational needs and disabilities, will be able to play an instrument or sing to a high standard.

15:15

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Lib Dems.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that in terms of creative. Subjects, that. There will no longer be. A privilege for the lucky few. So could.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So could. I ask the Minister specifically. In relation to. Rural and smaller schools who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rural and smaller schools who often struggle to attract. Specialist teachers. In the creative subjects, how

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the creative subjects, how they're going to actually deliver a full equality creative curriculum?

15:15

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Yeah. Well, this is precisely why we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, this is precisely why we need this 6500 new teachers into the profession in secondary and, and special schools that this government has committed to. And why not only committing, but investing is already delivering results in terms of the increased numbers of teachers that we're seeing. And it's why we also need to through the Music Hub programme, for example, that I talked about previously, make sure that. There is there are opportunities for teachers to understand the best way, in order both to teach music and to enable their students to have the joy that comes from understanding, enjoying music and playing instruments or singing.

instruments or singing.

15:16

The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords. schools where it all starts in, for example, music and art and design do not have specialist knowledge in those areas. So what importance does the government attach to having specialist art teachers in primary schools? And do they think gathering statistics on the numbers involved? These figures do not currently exist, would be helpful in getting to grips with this area? in getting to grips with this area?

15:16

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

Well, as the noble Lord says in primary, quite often teachers will have a range of areas that they will that they will teach. So what's important there is that teachers have got access to the best understanding of how to teach music, supported through the music hubs. They've got understanding about the best quality, excellent arts teaching, which we will develop, for example, through the new centre for Arts and Music Education, and that they are being supported, for example, through the pay increases that we have put in place to actually enter the profession and stay in it.

15:17

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

Lord Singh I'd like to follow on from the noble Earl, the Earl of Clancarty question. But before I do so, the noble Baroness, the Minister is very quick as ever to criticise the previous government and come out with various statistics. She did omit to mention, of course, that teacher numbers were at an all time high. When we left office. But in relation to specialist teachers, whether it be in art or music or drama or the other subjects that have been mentioned in this question, one way to get the kind of specialism to which the noble Earl refers would be to allow those without qualified teacher status to continue to deliver, those being able to bring their specialism in these areas.

And I wonder whether that's something she would reconsider in the context of the bill. Yeah. the context of the bill. Yeah.

15:18

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

Well, I believe that good teachers bring a specialist knowledge and the particular skills that Titus brings alongside it, which is why I think pupils have an entitlement to ensure that those teaching them have both the specialism and the teaching specialism in order to give them the best possible opportunities. That's the reasoning behind this government's determination that all pupils should have the entitlement to a qualified teacher in the classroom in front of them, because, as we know, the quality of teaching is the single most important school.

15:19

Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)

- -

Does the noble Lady, the Minister, accept that the most important driver in this were if every single primary and secondary school should have access to a professional music teacher, be that full time, part time, peripatetic or distance learning. If that were to happen, that would create the demand for teachers and that would lead to the necessary supply. And in asking this question, I draw attention to my interest in my wife is a harp teacher. is a harp teacher.

15:19

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

Well, I'm sure the noble Lord's wife is doing an enormously important job in developing an interest in art in in the pupils that she is teaching. Of course, we need to make sure that we have the qualified teachers with access to support for the specialism that, for example, the government's new National Centre for Arts and Music Education will be aimed at providing for them in order to ensure that all children, not just fortunate children, have the opportunity to benefit from arts and music.

And that's what this government is putting in place.

15:20

Baroness Bousted (Labour)

- -

This Lord Alderdice. Agree that the recruitment of qualified teachers is clearly essential, and the government has made great strides here in the picture. Recruitment looks much better this year than it has done in the past ten years. But would you also agree.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the. Retention of mid-career teachers is equally important? The report of the Teaching Commission, which I the Teaching Commission, which I chaired, Shaping the Future of Education, revealed that it now takes ten newly qualified teachers to replace every seven more experienced teachers who leave teaching before retirement. Does the Minister agree that this trend the Minister agree that this trend must be reversed? If we are able to maintain educational standards and

15:21

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a broad and balanced curriculum, including the arts? My noble friend is absolutely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend is absolutely right. And, you know, I thank her for the the work that she has done to support teachers throughout her career and continues to do now with the work that she was alluding to. Not only do we need to get teachers into the classroom, but we need to keep them in the classroom, and I'm pleased that this government's investment in teachers through pay, yes, but also through broader support in the classroom, has not only brought more new teachers into teaching, but also reduced those leaving the profession to one of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the lowest ever levels. My Lords, that concludes our questions for today and any member who wishes to leave the chamber now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Lord Lilley Lord Lilley now Lord Lilley now come Lord Lilley now come to Lord Lilley now come to an instrument previously debated in Grand Committee. Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025 Baroness Hayman of Ullock. Baroness Hayman of Ullock.

15:23

Business of the House

My Lords, I beg leave to move that the motion standing in my name

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Order Paper be approved. The question. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content, the

15:23

Legislation: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill - third reading

that opinion will say content, the contrary not content. The contents have it. Third Reading of the Border Security, Asylum and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Border Security, Asylum and immigration Bill, the Lord Hanson of Flint. My Lords, I beg to move the bill. Be now read a third time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be now read a third time. The question is that this bill be now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion will say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the bill do now pass. My Lords, before we conclude the Lords stages of the Bill, I just wish to express my

15:24

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

Bill, I just wish to express my deep sadness following the news last week of the passing of the noble Baroness Newlove. I want to, on behalf of the Home Office, praise her dedication and work for supporting victims from drawing on her personal experience as Victims' Commissioner. I'm sure the whole House will join me in sending condolences and thoughts to the noble Baroness, family and friends at this time. My Lords, before I just come on to the Bill itself, I just want to say that the bill has been subject to many hours of debate across this House, and I thank all peers for their contributions.

The bill was introduced in the House of Commons back in January of this year, and is part of a serious and credible plan to protect the UK border security that sees the government working very closely with our international partners and with the colleagues across this country to ensure that we ensure law enforcement and have the powers and tools that we need to identify, disrupt and dismantle organised crime. The bill is about protecting those who need it swiftly, removing those with no right to be here and cracking down on criminal gangs.

And it establishes landmark new offences which deliver on manifesto commitments on counter-terrorism powers that will give law enforcement the ability to tackle those involved in putting lives in danger and threatening border security. It also establishes the new border security commander, about which we've had much discussion during debate in this House. Also, the government has introduced a new offence to criminalise those who advertise illegal migration services online and through social media. And we've also listened to your Lordships' House and to the Constitution Committee and Joint Committee on Human Rights, and amended the new offences in the Bill where appropriate.

And these proposals, alongside the Asylum Policy Statement being announced today by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are important matters, and I just want to thank all noble Lords who've tabled and spoken amendments during the passage of this bill. I just want to also, if I may, just give thanks to the Ministers in the Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh governments who have seen and supported the relevant provisions in the Bill and have had legislative consent from each of the relevant parliaments and assemblies.

I also, if I may just wish to thank the Bill team genuinely without who this bill would not be possible and my officials in the private office, my Lords, the passage of this bill by this House is an important step to develop and strengthen the UK's border security, and I beg to move the bill. Do now pass.

15:26

Lord German (Liberal Democrat)

- -

The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now pass. And. My Lords, before I begin, can I echo the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

echo the. Thanks that the noble Lord has made to his Bill team and also to thank him, because in the timing of this bill, the I can't recall the number of meetings which the number of meetings which the Minister has had with officials and members who have raised particular issues. Now, that doesn't mean to issues. Now, that doesn't mean to say that those meetings resulted in satisfaction for all those who are making the comments that they were and seeking them, but the fact that we were given those opportunities, we were given those opportunities, I think, is respected throughout this, throughout this House.

My Lords, it would be foolish to say that this bill marks a passing of an end point in in the immigration an end point in in the immigration and asylum seeking services of this country. We are told that we are country. We are told that we are about to have two statements, one today from the Home Secretary and one on Thursday, which will also one on Thursday, which will also deal with taking this matter further forward. It's rather like having the London bus coming along having the London bus coming along and then suddenly you've got more than one, and this is probably going to end up that we're going to going to end up that we're going to be in the in what is now becoming an annual event, which will be a new immigration bill.

And we we expect that to happen. And the question I have, first of all, to the Minister is, of course, you know, many of these issues that have been raised in the in the background to the statement, which is going to be made virtually at this time, I think, in a few minutes time in the other place have been made within the course of the debate on this bill. And so can I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, whether or not any amendments are going to be attached to this bill in order to give some speed to the Bill's passage of the questions which are being raised in the two statements that we're hearing today.

I would hope the answer to that is no, and that we actually don't for this bill properly, in a manner which is before us. I think we could say safely that what the bill has done, of course, is set out three distinct approaches from from the Labour government. It was a sort of pragmatic, law enforcement led control. The conservative opposition demands a policy of absolute deterrence based upon previous legislation, and we on these benches seek to balance necessary enforcement with safe, legal and humane routes, ensuring that international obligations are fully codified and respected.

In essence, a policy of control and compassion, which I think both go together. I think at the very outset of this bill, we laid out our concerns that it was dealing with only the really the supply side, which is the smugglers. These are the as long as the smugglers have have, have customers, then that is the problem which this side of the equation was being dealt with. But of course, our belief, and I hope that we will be proven that on Thursday's statement rather than today's statement, that the demand side needs also to be looked at appropriately.

And we are told that the proposals outlined today are that if you are more harsh on those making irregular routes, then this will stop people taking the dangerous journeys. And that's what this bill has been about, trying to reduce the and put a stop to the dangerous journeys which people are taking. That debate will now proceed because there are now the questions around the demand side issues which which the I understand the government is going to make. So in passing this bill, it seems to me appropriate that we've all had a learning experiences which are all going to be very useful for at least the next 12 months as we proceed to the next stage.

And perhaps a noble Lord, the Minister, say, are we going to have one in the year after as well? But I hope, I hope that given the strengths that he he has demonstrated, the amount of time that he's put in, the amount of time he's having to put into another bill, at least I hope he will have some respite over Christmas. But in so giving, so can I also thank those on my side who have been helpful to us in making sure this bill is being debated fully.

My colleagues Baroness Brinton, Baroness Hamwee and Baroness Ludford and Lord Oates, and also to Elizabeth Plummer in our office and here in Parliament. But I with that I thank the noble Lord, the Minister and and the his team behind him for their helpful way they've dealt with this bill.

15:31

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, it has been a long time since this bill was introduced in the other place, and since then much has happened. The government has brought forward the Immigration White Paper detailing changes to the immigration rules. They have established a one in, one out agreement with France, which has so far returned just over 100 migrants. Meanwhile, since that deal was announced on the 10th of July, almost 18,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats. We know the government is now bringing forward new measures relating to the asylum system.

We will have the opportunity to debate those once the Home Secretary has announced the full details today in the other place, but many of the plans have been trailed already, and it is evident that new legislation will be required to implement a number of those changes. The point is, my Lord, that events have moved at such a pace that this bill feels out of date before it has even become law. The Prime Minister has smashed the gang's pledge, has fallen flat so much that the government appears to have ditched the slogan.

But as we have consistently said, simply going after the gangs will not work. What is required is a credible deterrent. But unfortunately, as we know, this bill repeals the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024. We put our plan to the House, and it is a shame that the government and the Liberal Democrats appear to us unwilling to take the action necessary to put an end to the small boats crisis. That being said, I am pleased that we were able to amend the bill in a positive manner.

My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who sadly is not in his place today, has been pushing for the Home Office to release data on overseas students for a long time now. His successful amendment to the bill requiring the publication of those statistics is very welcome, and I hope the government will finally listen and agree to publish that data. It's also welcome that the government agreed with me that the new offences, in clauses 13 and 14 contained gaps as originally drafted, they didn't cover possession with intent to supply an article for use in immigration, crime nor handling by third parties.

And I'm very pleased the government took this on board and brought their own amendments forward. Finally, can I thank the noble Lord, the Minister? Well, I do not share his enthusiasm for this bill. I do know how hard he has worked to steer it through your Lordships' House. His willingness to meet members of this House privately, and can I extend my thanks to the Bill team and all noble Lords who contributed, particularly my noble friends, Lords Harper, Lord Murray of Blidworth, Baroness Lawlor, Viscount Goschen and Baroness Maclean of Redditch.

And I'm also grateful to all noble Lords who supported our amendments both at committee and report, particularly the noble Lord Lord Fox and noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. To conclude, my Lords, the government did have the opportunity, in our view, to take serious steps to fix the crisis in the asylum system. With this bill, they could have banned illegal migrants from getting asylum. They could have committed to detaining and removing anyone who enters illegally, and they could have committed to supporting all foreign criminals.

Unfortunately, they have not. And we will have to wait and see what new ideas the government brings forward and whether they will have any real impact. Because the Home Secretary was right when she said illegal migration is tearing this country apart. It is well past the time to take the comprehensive action necessary to protect this country's borders.

15:35

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful to both His Majesty's opposition and to the Liberal Democrats for their contributions in this debate. We've had some differences, but I think they will both accept that the government has a plan which is trying to deliver on its manifesto commitments, and where there are additional proposals being discussed, which are now being outlined very shortly in another place, they will form in answer to the noble Lord German proposals, not part of this legislation, but I will be outlining further the government's approach once my right hon.

Friend has made her statement during the course of today, I want to thank both noble Lords from the front benches for their contributions. They've helped generate discussion on this bill. And may I just say finally, that as well as the Bill team and my private office and my two colleagues on the government bench today from the whips Office have provided stalwart support, and I want to also place on record my thanks to the Chief Whip for ensuring that in this bill, only one defeat took place from the government, which I think is on an issue as contentious as immigration is, is a matter of of some joy for the government and some frustration, undoubtedly for the opposition.

But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do now commend this bill to the House and urge that this bill do now pass. Question is that this bill do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that this bill do now pass. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Yes, the contrary not content, but contents contrary not content, but contents have it consideration of Commons amendments and reasons on the

15:36

Legislation: Employment Rights Bill – consideration of Commons amendments and/or reasons (day two)

Employment Rights Bill, the Baroness Lloyd of Effra.

15:36

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I beg to move motion A that this House do not insist on its amendment one b to which the Commons have disagreed. For that reason 1CI will also speak to motion C and c one. In this group we will be debating the amendments relating to zero hour contracts and seasonal work. I will first spoke to motion A relating to amendment one B, which was tabled by the noble Lord Lord Foulkes. The amendment would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period, explaining the workers right to receive the guaranteed hours offer and giving them the option to accept or decline.

I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank the noble Lord Lord Fox for his contribution throughout the Bill. We agree on many of the fundamentals relating to the security of work, and we have commonality in wanting to protect workers from precarious employment. I recognise the intent and sentiment behind the amendment is to ensure a balanced and practical approach, and I share the noble Lords desire for this bill to work for businesses and workers alike. I look forward to further conversations with the noble Lord on this matter and beyond, when we will continue our programme of consultation to ensure the Bill's measures are delivered effectively and proportionately for business.

The amendment is drafted, however, would alter fundamental aspects of the bill. We are building an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers and fair reward for hard work. We need to tackle exploitative zero hours contracts that leave some staff unable to plan their working lives or manage their family finances. The provisions in this bill do that. We appreciate that some groups value the flexibility that zero hour contracts can provide.

These workers will be able to decline a guaranteed hours offer and remain on their existing arrangements, if that works best for them. My Lords, I hope you agree that ending exploitative zero hours contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most is imperative. Now, my Lords, I will speak on motion C relating to amendment 48 B, which was tabled by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The government is fully aware that work in certain sectors fluctuates throughout the year, and we recognise the importance of these sectors.

That is why consideration of seasonal work is built into the right to guaranteed hours. Provisions. There are several ways in which an employer could approach seasonal demand. One approach would be to use would be to using annualised hours contracts, which allow employers to vary the number of hours worked at different times of the year. Some businesses already use these contracts, ensuring they can account for fluctuating demands in work when planning, while enabling workers to plan for household budgeting.

Additionally, the bill has already drafted allows guaranteed hours offers to take the form of limited term contracts where reasonable. The bill also provides powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as needs evolve. We will consult with employers, trade unions and stakeholders before making regulations. It is paramount that stakeholders are engaged with before we make these necessary decisions. Through the introduction of the new right to guaranteed hours, work will become more secure and predictable. It will leave workers in some of the most deprived areas less exposed to the hidden costs of insecure work, which can add up to as much as £50 a month for some, while strengthening the foundations that underpin a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

modern economy. I beg to move. The noble Baroness is enthusiasm got the better of her because I got the better of her because I hadn't actually put the question that the amendments and reasons be now considered. I hope the House will take it that we did so do, will take it that we did so do, even though we didn't say it. The question is that motion A be agreed

15:40

Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to? Motion A one Lord Fox. I thank the Deputy Chair for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Deputy Chair for his guidance, expert guidance. My Lords, I beg to move motion A1 as an I beg to move motion A1 as an amendment to motion A leave out from House to end and insert do insist on its amendment one be my Lords. Your lordships could be excused for a sense of deja vu, perhaps because we're back in your Lordships' House with the same issues we discussed on the 28th of October. They remain unresolved, indeed not addressed in any meaningful way.

Since the last very similar session of ping pong, I had a very engaging meeting with the Lords, Ministers and their officials, and I thank them for that meeting. The prospect of that meeting set a gave me a sense of anticipation. I expected some sort of legislative rabbit to be pulled out of the government's hat at this point. But no, there was nothing. And at first, my Lords, I thought there was something substantive being concealed for tactical reasons, perhaps ready to be flourished in some dramatic prestige at the moment that pleased the Ministers.

But it's become increasingly clear that not only is there no rabbit in the care of the benches opposite, there is actually no hat. If there is a hat, it exists elsewhere. And for that I have some sympathy for the minister's opposite, because they sit bareheaded at the moment with nothing to offer. Time has passed, however, and if the government's position hasn't changed, what has? Well, my Lords, the business environment has got worse. September saw negative growth in GDP.

Per capita productivity fell in the past quarter, and unemployment rose to 5% as recruitment cooled. And yet this ping pong represents a doubling down. But for what, my Lords, the government's manifesto vowed to make work pay. And we agree with that. None of these amendments can confound this. My amendment A1 does not in any way dent the worker's right to convert zero hours to guaranteed hours. What it does do is streamline the administration of that right. I explained last time. A1 merely avoids unnecessary work helping SMEs who have limited administrative capacity get on with the focus of growing their business and hopefully creating more jobs.

But in the absence of an amendment in lieu today, I will insist on this. Moving on to the noble Lord Sharpe amendment motion C1, we have consistently raised concerns about seasonal work, and I welcome the Minister's very careful description of the issues within the current legislation. The problem being, of course, there is outstanding consultation and outstanding details which make it difficult. My Lords, we are not 100% happy with the noble Lords drafting, but we feel it is a starting point for further conversations of the nature that the Minister just brought up were the we will support motions C1 if it is voted.

My Lords, the way to sort the impasse on these motions and those in subsequent groups requires political gumption. And in the end, I suppose it will be up to number ten. And I understand they might be preoccupied with other issues at the moment. I close with just one last statistic, this time from the Work Foundation at Lancaster University. There are now 1.79 million people out of work and looking for a job. With the economic inactivity stable at a staggering 21%, the number out of work appears to be rising, not due to increasing inflow, but rather due to limited outflow caused by difficulties in finding work.

1.79 million people, my Lords, my Lord, the government did not address the arguments we put two weeks ago and therefore it deserves the same response as last time. I beg to move A1.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion A be agreed to? Since when? Motion A. Order, order Lord Oates.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order Lord Oates. Since when motion A1 has been moved as an amendment to motion A moved as an amendment to motion A leave out from house to end and insert to insist on its amendment insert to insist on its amendment one be. The question, therefore, is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that motion A one be agreed to? As Lord Fox.

15:45

Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)

- -

15:50

Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)

- -

15:54

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

focus sessions with SMEs specifically to look at the practical implementation, to understand any challenges and make understand any challenges and make sure we give the right guidance. I'd also like to just reflect on the point about business regulation the point about business regulation and the 25% target that we have. We have now established a baseline for have now established a baseline for the administrative burden, and the 25% target is about ensuring that regulation is proportionate, regulation is proportionate, efficient and works for business.

It's not about blocking regulation that is needed to deliver the that is needed to deliver the government's priorities. So we want to implement the this employment rights bill in a way that delivers rights bill in a way that delivers the intent, but in an efficient way as possible. For example, the Fair Work Agency is going to be consolidating the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and the director of the Labour Market Enforcement into a single body.

So Enforcement into a single body. So we are we are reforming as we go ahead with, with all of these, ahead with, with all of these, these measures. And we do believe that fundamentally this is about that fundamentally this is about balance. The noble Lord, Lord hunt, raised the issues of seasonality. Let me reassure the noble Lords that the government is fully conscious of the need to take account of the fluctuations in seasonal demand, while ensuring that workers are not the ones left holding all the risk.

And under the bill, there are several ways that an employer could approach seasonal demand while upholding the new rights, depending on circumstances. And I set out some of those in my my opening speech at the beginning. But they could be limited term contracts or guaranteed hours in various ways, such as an annualised hour contract. But we do think it is important to continue to consult on this on this issue of seasonality. Let me also just mention the point about about growth.

We have seen a huge amount of progress in terms of foreign direct investment, in terms of trade agreements. We are very we are very keen to continue to promote the economic prospects of the country. And we think this is fundamental to improving the productivity of the labour market. So with conclusion, I thank the noble Lords for their contributions today, and I look forward to further discussions on these on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these issues. She. She says she's had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She. She says she's had consultations with representative bodies of industry and commerce, by which I assume she means the FSB, which I assume she means the FSB, the IOD, the CBI. Would she like to give us a flavour of those conversations and in particular, conversations and in particular, identify any organisation which has given wholehearted support to this bill? CAID.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I mean, we of course, have had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean, we of course, have had many discussions and have been amendments, amendments in the bill during the passage of it as a during the passage of it as a result of some of the consultations with with all social partners as we've gone through. So we have made amendments to the bill at Report stage. We've made them in respect stage. We've made them in respect of fire and rehire, in respect of the school sport negotiating body. the school sport negotiating body.

All sorts of of changes have been made. All kind of amendments have been made through the consultation been made through the consultation process. So and I would just say that in terms of the implementation, that in terms of the implementation, we have also set out a very, very clear plan for implementation so that it is very clear each that it is very clear each milestone is there. There's a consultation before that so that all businesses, large and small,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can have the right amount of time to prepare and to get the guidance they need to implement these measures. Yeah.

15:58

Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, I thank the the noble Minister for her response. I think I very welcome the objective that she set out of reducing red tape. I would remind her that this bill contains 170 Statutory Instruments, in my experience, as the Statutory Instrument leads to at least one regulation. So perhaps when when regulation. So perhaps when when next the Baroness is standing up, she can commit to retiring at least she can commit to retiring at least one, if not two, regulations for each one.

The Statutory Instruments each one. The Statutory Instruments bring in on on the tail of this bill, if indeed it ever becomes an bill, if indeed it ever becomes an act. My Lords, the the the noble Lady also talked about moral duty on the subject of zero hours, and I on the subject of zero hours, and I share that moral duty and nothing in amendment A1 resiles from that in amendment A1 resiles from that moral duty. And on that basis I would like to test the will of the House.

15:59

Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Yeah.

15:59

Division: A1

16:11

Amendment:B Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Oates. I beg to move motion B that this house do not insist on its amendments. 23 and 106 to 120 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in and do agree with the Commons in their amendments. 120 C, 120 D and their amendments. 120 C, 120 D and 120 E in lieu of Lords Amendments 23 and 106 to 120. I will also 23 and 106 to 120. I will also speak on motions E, E, one F and F1.

My Lords in this group were debating amendments relating to unfair dismissal, trade union industrial action ballots and political funds. These are areas clearly linked to our manifesto commitments, which the government has an electoral mandate to deliver, and I would like to thank all members of the House for their engagement on these areas throughout the passage of the bill, and we have listened carefully to the concerns raised and in response,

16:12

Government Spokes. Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)

wherever possible, we are offering amendments in lieu that we believe strike a fair and workable compromise to the amendments made to the Bill. It may not be the rabbit that the noble Lord Lord Fox expected, but we are and we are. I would like to make it absolutely clear to the House none of the amendments tabled by the government will compromise the fundamental principles of the Bill, nor is it its intended impact which, as I would repeat, a commitment made in our manifesto.

Can I first start in relation to motion B, amendments 120 C, 120 D and 120 E tabled by the government? In the other place, we absolutely remain committed to delivering unfair to delivering unfair dismissal protections, ensuring that around 9 million employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years are protected from being arbitrarily fired. That's the principle we're addressing here now. The government has listened to

16:13

Government Spokes. Amendment:B Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)

stakeholders, and it's tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place, which ensures that the government consult on key aspects of the framework. This will ensure that there is a direct input from both employers and employees, enabling businesses to shape the legislation and ensuring that it is practical and proportional. And I would like to reiterate what was said in the other place. Day one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the ability of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or pass a probation period, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal where hard working employees are sacked without good reason.

That's what this bill is about a six month qualifying period threshold still leaves employees exposed to arbitrarily being fired during the early months of their new job. As we have said from the start, the implementation of day one unfair dismissal rights will be done with a light touch. There is a power in the bill to modify the test when employers can fairly dismiss employees during the statutory probationary period for specific reasons related to performance and suitability, the government will consult on our approach to ensure it has maximum flexibility so that the new framework works effectively for employers and employees.

The cost of its implementation and operation. Now, can I turn to motion F and amendment 62 C, tabled by the government in the other place relating to the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots, as the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, unnecessary red tape on union activity works against the core negotiation and dispute resolution that we all seek. Bureaucratic hurdles do not prevent strike action, only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining.

That settles dispute. And that is actually what our commitment to do in this bill in terms of ensuring the promotion of growth, the repeal of the 50% turnout threshold, also aligns union democracy with other democratic processes. And we should not forget that, such as parliamentary votes and local elections. But we do recognise concerns on turnout, and I'm grateful for the conversations I've had with the noble Lords opposite, including, of course, my noble brother. But I think it's absolutely right that we address those concerns, and that's why we tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place, which will require the Secretary of State to have regard to any effects of the introduction of non postal balloting, such as electronic balloting, on the proportion of those entitled to vote in industrial action ballots who actually do so.

That will be the test of removing that 50% threshold, and I hope the noble Lord opposite will understand our commitment. Our commitment is to ensure that there is effective turnout. My Lords, I now want to speak to motion E and amendment 72 C, tabled by the government. In the other place which relates to political funds. And I will also speak to motion E1 relating to the noble Lord Lord Burns amendment in lieu. And can I start by thanking the noble Lord for his engagement with me on this area, particularly ensuring that we both understand our respective positions? But I think I made it clear to him we cannot accept his latest amendment in lieu.

They effectively retain something similar to the arrangements in the 2016 act, as members will only be deemed to be a contributor to the political Fund if they opt in making these contributions, forcing members to make a choice to either opt out or opt in or opt out on the application forms, otherwise preventing them from joining a union if they do not do so. And that's an additional burden on unions. What we are doing in this bill is simply returning to the situation as it was prior to the Trade Union Act of 2016.

The noble Lords Amendment would also block the the government's delivering on that commitment to repeal that act. Now, we are, we are reinstating the long standing practice that existed for 70 years before the passage of the 2016 act, including that operated during the Thatcher and Major administrations. And I want to absolutely reiterate, as we have in previous debates, we are not removing choice. New members are opted in on the basis that they are actively joining a voluntary organisation, an organisation that has structures to determine policy, determine actions.

That's what they're doing. And a political fund that has already been established via a Democratic ballot of its members. Once part of the union, these members have control how the political fund is used through the same democratic structures, including on questions of union affiliation or financial support to political parties. That is absolutely clear. But what we have been very clear about, too, we have been careful to draft the bill to ensure that at the point of joining, every new member will be clearly informed on their application form that they have the right to opt out of that political fund, contributing to that political fund.

They can do this when joining or at any time afterwards. The same form will make it plain that opting out has no negative bearing whatsoever on any aspect of their union membership. These requirements for application forms must be set out in the rules of the Union, the operator, political fund and union rules are subject to for, from for approval from the certification Officer. Exercising the right to opt out will not be onerous. The bill specifies the union members are able to provide an opt out notice in various forms, including by post email, completion of an electronic form, all the modern ways CPD ways of communication that we now expect.

Today's and these options for opting out must also be included in the rules of the Union. The government has also tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place, which takes into account how opt out notices would take effect to ensure that unions can process these opt out notices as quickly as possible. Under amendment 72, opt out notices will now have the effect on either January the 1st or the following year after it's been provided, or on a day specified or determined in the rules of the Union.

Whichever these dates comes first, and this provides unions with flexibility under the legislation to act more quickly and process a member's request to opt out without having to wait until the subsequent 1st of January to do so. We are committing to engage with unions directly to continue to make clear our expectation that opt out notices will be honoured as swiftly as practical as possible. My Lords, I beg to move the motions in the name of my noble friend Baroness Lloyd.

16:22

Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)

- -

The question is that motion be be agreed to motion B one Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sharpe of Epsom. My Lords, I beg to move motion B-1 as as an amendment to motion B, B-1 as as an amendment to motion B, leave out from house to end and insert to insist on its amendments

16:22

Amendment:B1 Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)

insert to insist on its amendments 23 and 106 to 120. And do disagree with the Commons in their amendments. 120 C, 120 D and 120 E. My Lords, I'm very grateful to the Minister for outlining the government amendments and also for the noble Lords Opposite's willingness to meet. But, my Lords, to say that the amendments that have been offered are inadequate would be something of an understatement. In essence, it obliges the Secretary of State before making regulations, and, I quote, to consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

My Lords, who might those persons be? And that really is the extent of the amendment. We already know that so far, government consultations with business on this bill have been desultory at best. My Lords, I don't believe that amendment even qualifies as a bunny. Never mind a rabbit, my Lords, the chorus of disapproval for this proposed legislation has now been joined by Labour's most successful ever Prime Minister, Sir Tony Blair. As my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley pointed out, and to expend on my expand on my noble friend's remarks in their report, his foundation said, and I quote, at present, employees gain protection from unfair dismissal after only only after two years.

One of the longest qualifying periods in the OECD, the bill would move to the opposite extreme, granting such rights immediately. This would raise employment costs by increasing the legal and procedural risks attached to every new hire, and discourage firms from recruiting, a concern already raised by some of the UK's largest business groups, which have urged the government to amend the bill. End quote, addressing the government's intention to introduce regulations allowing an initial probationary period during which an employee could be dismissed under a light touch process, the institute said and I quote again, uncertainty over what rights apply during probation will do little to reassure employers nervous about taking on staff.

Introducing a six month qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection, which is more typical amongst advanced economies, including across much of northern Europe and Australia, is more likely to balance fairness. Fairness with flexibility. Meanwhile, my Lords billionaire Labour backer John Caldwell put it rather more succinctly. He said this will make Britain and I quote, less investable. And he continued it's not good for Britain, it's not good for workers. Spot on. So to summarise, my Lords, we have multiple business groups against this and perhaps we should recap who they are.

The Federation of Small Business, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, make UK, the aerospace Defence and Security Group, the British Retail Consortium, Care England, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Family Business UK, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, UK hospitality and the British Chambers of Commerce contacted me after the last debate to explain they would have signed the letter but were too late. My Lords, academia has added its voice to the chorus of disapproval. Professor Jonathan Haskell of Imperial College and a former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, said and I quote, using the OECD Index of Employment Regulation, there's a negative relationship, which is that more employment regulation means less intangible investment.

My best prediction is that the employment Rights bill is for the Employment Rights Bill is a rise in uncertainty for firms, and the reason is that these employment rights are set out in broad outline in the bill, but will then end up being interpreted by the courts, end quote. So they're all joined by the government's favourite think tank. As we discussed last time, the Resolution Foundation. And lest we forget, their former chief executive now sits in the Treasury. And I have to say, looking at the the benches opposite, they're also joined by quite a lot of Labour peers whose facial expressions the noble Lord, the Minister, cannot see.

My Lords, the government will, of course, say that business would say that, wouldn't they? But that is to miss the point. These are the people who make hiring decisions, who decide whether to offshore because it's cheaper and causes them fewer HR headaches, who decide whether to downside and who decide whether to just close down completely, as we just heard so powerfully in the last group from my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley and his correspondent, I think it was Mr. Dunham. Remember, my Lords, the impact assessment says that the measure is likely to have a disproportionate impact on small and micro businesses.

Additionally, following the decision by the government to double the Conciliating period to 12 weeks for Acas to resolve disputes, the Employment Lawyers Association have said we are apolitical, but the fact is that Parliament can pass all the reforming legislation it wants. But unless those laws can be enforced with cases heard within a reasonable time, its laws are placed over the horizon, de facto out of sight to both workers and employers alike. My Lords, these are the people who might be expected to benefit from the 10,500 increase in claims forecast to go before Acas in the government's own impact assessment.

Instead, they were expressing despair at the broken employment tribunal system. My Lords, as we saw last week, unemployment is rising and stands at almost 2 million. And it was reported yesterday half of the 170,000 jobs shed since Labour came to power from the under 25. Everyone who knows anything at all about wealth creation, about private sector hiring and about employment, Soar law says this bill will make it worse. Now, my Lords, I need to refer back to the Tony Blair Institute because they were very explicit about discouraging from hiring.

And I noticed that noble Lord, the Minister, did not engage with that particular point in his introduction because, my Lords, this debate is about the people, the party opposite claim to want to help. It's about the young person trying to find a job. It's about a long term unemployed person trying to rejoin the workforce. It's about a woman wanting to return to work after having children, and it's about somebody recovering from a long term health issue, getting back on their feet. This bill should be about helping them.

It is doing the complete opposite. The last time we debated this, the noble Lord, the Minister, constructed a tortuous analogy and said that I and my party were on some sort of journey. Well, if we are my Lords, our destination is common sense, and the government needs to listen to the wise voices on its on its own side and to join us. Turning to motion F1, all I'm going to do is quote what the Health Secretary said last week, quote, to be out on strike, setting back the NHS because you don't think we're going fast enough, and because the leadership of your union are not honest enough that some of this change takes time, is extremely irresponsible.

It is extremely unnecessary. It. The BMA is no longer a professional association and it is engaged in cartel like behaviour. The BMA leadership appear more interested in grandstanding and causing pain to patients than improving the lives of frontline resident doctors. Those are fairly damning words, my Lords, and according to the government's own analysis, the full time basic pay of resident doctors is expected to reach £54,300. Now, my Lords, this is where the farce becomes almost theatrical, because recently we heard that the Treasury considers any anyone earning above £45,000 a year is not a working person.

So it appears, my Lords, that the government has achieved something truly novel. They're actively creating a category, a category of so-called non-working people. Not my phrase, but the Chancellor's own definition. And then showering them with no strings attached pay rises. Meanwhile, the BMA, emboldened by these spineless handouts, continues to abuse its influence, holding our NHS hostage while the government waves through concessions without so much as a performance requirement or reform condition attached. So again, my Lords, the 50% threshold is not sort of some sort of draconian barrier.

It's a bare minimum, a line of defence against precisely this kind of chaos. Removing it will only accelerate the downward spiral that the government has set in motion with its desperate, unconditional giveaways. And they've now entirely predictable. The union bosses have now entirely predictably turned on them the moment it suited their agenda. My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I beg to move. The original question was that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion be agreed to? Since when a motion be one has been moved as an amendment to motion be leave out amendment to motion be leave out from house to end and insert? Do from house to end and insert? Do insist on its amendment 23 and 106 to 120, and do disagree with the to 120, and do disagree with the Commons in their amendments. 120 C 120 D and 120 E. The question,

16:31

Lord Burns (Crossbench)

- -

120 D and 120 E. The question, therefore, is that motion B1 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. My Lords, I speak in favour of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I speak in favour of motion E-1 as the noble Lord, the Minister set out. The government wishes to go back to an arrangement where all new members automatically where all new members automatically pay the contribution to the union's political fund, unless they take political fund, unless they take the initiative of opting out. My own view is that it should be equally easy for a person to choose to contribute, or not to contribute to the political fund at the point of applying to join a union.

And of applying to join a union. And that is what my amendment seeks to do. The alternative approach, supported by the government, is to have arrangements designed to minimise the number of new members who will exercise their legal right who will exercise their legal right not to contribute to the political funds. They want to do this by requiring action to opt out, but requiring action to opt out, but not requiring any action to opt in. But surely an equal choice can properly only be said is by respecting people's personal preference.

Clearly, the government preference. Clearly, the government wish to reduce the number of people exercising their right not to contribute. As one Labour member in contribute. As one Labour member in the House of Commons stated when opposing my amendment, they aim to avoid a reduction in the ability of avoid a reduction in the ability of working people to speak with a collective voice. Now, to me, this is a wonderful euphemism for putting barriers in the way of people exercising their true preference.

I accept that opting out arrangements have been the dominant arrangement for political funds since 1945. However, as I said last time, the rest of the world has moved on. Technology and widespread use of online applications and communications have made it much easier and less burdensome for members of an organisation to make a clear and convenient choice. Additionally, the standards that are now accepted for dealing fairly with people exercising their choice have changed significantly. Active, explicit consent has become the accepted standard.

I've examined the existing application forms for five unions, which have political funds, and whose application forms are easy to access without having to initiate the online application process myself, which I thought was a rather risky thing to do. Now two forms stand out the version of the unison form, which I have seen already provides a clear choice. There are two parts of the fund, one for the benefit of the Labour Party and another for general campaigning, and applicants are asked to tick their preference between the campaign funds, Labour link or no thank you.

The GMB form, which I've also seen, offers a clear choice to the question do you want to opt in for the political fund? There are two boxes and applicants are asked to select the yes or no box. The other three application forms simply ask if new members wish to contribute to the political fund. However, all of them, and this is an important point. All of them have clearly decided that it is in their own interests to ask applicants to opt in at the point that they apply to be members.

I'll come back to this in a moment. My goal remains to find a solution that provides genuine freedom of choice, avoiding the need for repeated arguments with each change of government. My amendment requires all unions to adopt the approach taken by the GMB and Unison unions. Under the present law. This amendment would give members a clear and transparent choice when joining a union gets away with it, gets away from a focus on opt in or opt out. And under this amendment, all applicants to join a union with the political fund will be required to answer a simple question do they wish to contribute to the political fund, or do they not? An equal choice with no bias? And that question will be on the application form.

I worry that this amendment, as it's set down in the Order Paper, may seem rather lengthy and complicated, but the essence lies in amendment 72. The remaining amendments are all subsidiary to the key provision of 72 D. In rejecting my previous amendment, the Minister in the House of Commons stated, and we've heard this from the Minister also again this afternoon, reinstating automatic contributions to the political fund unless members choose to opt out, would restore balance and fairness in union operations. But what could be more balanced and fairer than the present unison and GMB forms, where applicants have a clear choice which they exercise at the time that they apply to join? The Minister further claimed in the other House that the current opt in opt in system did not improve transparency or strengthen members choice.

But how can that possibly be true of the amendment I put forward today? What could be more transparent or strengthened choice than presenting two options side by side? Along with the case for having a political fund and allowing members to choose between them. Now the Minister and the House of Commons and the Minister this afternoon has emphasised that under the proposed arrangements in this Bill, members will be informed on the application form of their right to opt out of contributing to the political fund, and that opting out will have no impact on other aspects of their membership.

However, I noticed there has been no commitment to be able to exercise a choice to opt out by ticking a box on the application form. Perhaps the Minister could explain why this simple option wasn't mentioned, and apparently it won't be required even under the opt out system proposed by the government, it would improve transparency and strengthen choice if members could exercise their choice not to contribute on the application form if they are required to apply. Subsequently for an opt out form to complete.

Does this improve transparency? Does this strengthen choice? Of course not. I've had very helpful conversations with the with the Minister, and I must say, I'm very sorry to find myself in dispute with the government on this. I have no political interest in this debate, but continue to press the issue, because this is not the way we expect organisations to operate today. It's a step backwards from the hard fought cross-party compromise of 2016, and it's a stark reversal of everything we've learned in recent years about making choice more transparent and ensuring decisions better reflect people's true preferences.

people's true preferences.

16:38

Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)

- -

Rather than really good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speak to motion B1. I think, like many Labour Lords, start to become a bit uncomfortable when we have multiple rounds of ping pong have multiple rounds of ping pong and I generally hesitate to vote against the government in more than one round, but I'm expecting to one round, but I'm expecting to make an exception in this case for main reasons. Firstly, I firmly believe that introducing day one believe that introducing day one unfair dismissal rights will cause real and permanent harm to young real and permanent harm to young people and others who are seen as higher risk hires, such as those who have been on benefits for a long period.

Ex-Offenders people who've had long career breaks, perhaps because of parental or other caring obligations. And when other caring obligations. And when I say permanent, I mean that if you are unemployed for a year, it becomes considerably more difficult to get onto that ladder and to make to get onto that ladder and to make a success of your career. This is really important, my Lords. I'm really important, my Lords. I'm supported in that belief by every business group. The noble Lord Lord Sharpe has listed out many.

I'd add another, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I'm a member, the Resolution Foundation, the Tony Resolution Foundation, the Tony Blair Institute and perhaps most importantly, the government's own impact assessment, which is very impact assessment, which is very clear on this. I'd love to hear the Minister's views on his own impact assessment. He's never actually assessment. He's never actually addressed that point. None of the several Ministers in this place or the other place has made any coherent argument to the contrary.

So can I put the question very simply to the noble Lord? The Minister will restricting the reasons that may be used to dismiss someone during a probation period, and thereby opening up the risk of an employment tribunal from day one, make it more or less likely that an employer, especially a smaller employer, will take a risk on give a chance to a young person with no experience, more or less likely. It's very simple. I think most of us know the answer to that.

Is he going to argue that his own impact assessment is wrong? Secondly, this directly contradicts other government policy. The government's youth guarantee is something I'm strongly in favour of. Will offer every eligible young person who's been on Universal Credit for 18 months, guaranteed paid work. To do that, you need employers who are willing to give them a job to take that risk. Why would an employer do that if they can be taken to the employment tribunal from day one? If the employment doesn't work out, it doesn't make sense, my Lord.

Third, despite frankly the clear harm, the government hasn't provided any evidence at all that the change will create any material, tangible benefits for workers. No evidence has been provided to show that the qualifying period is being abused or is causing actual harm. There's no evidence provided in the impact assessment. There is evidence that the doing this will cause harm, but there's no evidence of the harm that we're trying to solve. None has been provided in this or the other place. The the Resolution Foundation is also very clear on that.

If we're going to harm the life chances of young people, which is what the government confirms in its impact assessment, we must have real evidence that there's a genuine greater benefit, not just the usual statement that it can't be right, that someone can ever be dismissed for no reason. Finally, I want to look more closely at the claim that this is a manifesto commitment. It is in the manifesto, but it's part of a wider commitment that includes the explicit commitment. And I quote, we will consult fully with businesses, workers and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation is passed.

Well, we've heard, my Lord, several times today that the government is going to consult afterwards. Now, they might argue that that is because the actual rules for the probationary period are going to be in the Statutory Instrument. But let's unpick this light touch probationary period they're talking about. The problem is that the bill expressly and specifically sets out the reasons why someone can be dismissed from day one during that probationary period. My Lords, that means it's not genuinely a probationary period, and the bill means that it cannot become a light touch probation period.

It's simply impossible the way the bill is currently drafted. I would love to understand more because it's talked about a lot this light touch probationary period. I'd love to understand what the government is actually talking about here, because we've not had any detail at all about what this really means, but what it cannot mean is that the employer can't. The employer is obligated by the bill, by the act. Should that come to pass to give specific reasons which are limited by this bill cannot be light touch, my Lords.

So I'd really like to understand better what he means by that. There is a possible way forward in that, however, which is where I start to perhaps part company a little bit with the noble Lords and the opposite benches. It is precisely the fact that in the Bill it sets out that there have to be specific reasons for the dismissal. That is the problem. That is what allows the employment tribunal to get involved during a probation period and all the rest of it.

I wonder, and I'm thinking aloud here, is there a solution to this problem by taking that element out? But anyway, for those reasons, I am inclined to support the opposition and its motion. B1 I urge the noble Lord, the Minister, to take this seriously as the as the Resolution Foundation put it. Very well. Let's not needlessly put employers off hiring.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A good. These. We've had three very good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We've had three very good speeches, and I don't intend to repeat what they have to say for very good speeches, because we heard the Minister and listened heard the Minister and listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say. And unusually, I will read what he said in Hansard rather read what he said in Hansard rather than just say I will. And because I think there's some interesting

16:44

Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)

- -

think there's some interesting stuff there, phrases I picked out was we will not compromise on the fundamental principles of the bill. And I think it would help, perhaps, if those could be set out because they are what they are in the eye of the beholder at the moment. The the Minister also picked out the the notion that someone who had worked just less than two years shouldn't be unfairly dismissed. And I think even the noble Lord Sharpe amendment recognises that point very fundamentally.

But there are 730 days between day one and two years. You don't have to go from 730 to 1. There are there are, there are stages. So perhaps we just disagree there. The noble Lord pulled out something that I was going to to to speak on the the issue around light touch rules and the criteria for fair dismissal within, within the the nature of the bill. I have a problem, some problems with the noble Lord, those suggestion. Because if it isn't in the bill, in primary legislation, it will come as secondary legislation.

And we all know that His Majesty's loyal opposition never kill secondary legislation. I'm looking at you and we would like to from time to time, because it should happen and there should be a sense of jeopardy in secondary legislation, which there is not at the moment, my Lords. And without that sense of jeopardy, I'm not happy with taking things out. However, if it is in primary legislation, then the consultation is not worth anything because it's already there, so we might as well forget about that.

So, my Lord, as drafted as we know, the bill would abolish a qualifying period altogether. And I think the the rationale behind that is clear. And we will support the noble Lord in the event that that motion is put. We also heard, I think, a compelling speech from the noble Lord Burns that I won't attempt to improve on, but I will make the point that I think when he talked about bringing this back into the political arena, I think the the noble Lords, the Minister should listen to that, because once the political pendulum is pushed, it can swing back.

And I think that's something that is is worth bearing in mind, my Lords. And finally, motion F1 reinstates the requirement that industrial action can only proceed if at least 50% vote. And this is something we've supported in the past, and we will continue to. My Lord, I just return to to to motion B1 very briefly in order to make jobs pay. As we've said, there needs to be jobs. And we learn that half the jobs lost since this government came to power were for workers under the age of 25.

The very people that the noble Lord talked about, the noble Lord Sharpe talked, talked, spoke, spoke about their future will not be helped. Indeed, it will be hindered by the nature within this bill. Neither will the millions on benefits the government seeks to move into employment. That's the 21% inactive that I talked about in group in in group one. My Lords, I hope that by voting today you can help common sense prevail by sorting, by supporting these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. My Lords, I apologise. I wanted

16:47

Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I apologise. I wanted to speak before Lord Fox spoke, but he went far too quickly. He never he went far too quickly. He never looked in my direction. The noble and learned Lord Phillips, a former Chief justice, first president of the Supreme Court, asked a question would you employ somebody who has got a criminal record without the qualifying period? He was never answered me, being like a a gramophone where the needle has stuck.

I am stuck in that groove. I'm going to ask it a second time. Would you employ somebody without any qualifying period if they've got a criminal record? I'm going to add on another category. Say somebody graduated from university, could have worked. They are not unwell and haven't actually worked for 30 years and they want to go back to work. Would you would you employ them without any probationary period? Would you? So the serious question here is, like Lord Fox said, from two years to just one day, 24 hours, and you are in.

And now there's another thing that worries me. We tend. To describe employers as if they're all rogues. There are some bad employers, but they are not. The majority actually abide by the law. Unfair dismissal. Today you're going to be before tribunal, so most people don't do it, but they want to have the security of knowing that. Yes, come in. There is a period, let's say six months of where we want to find out how you you are going to play in the firm, you're going to be loyal, you're going to be faithful.

This probationary period is not a bad thing. Most of us have been through it. I was I was a deacon for a year, and if they discovered that I was absolutely no good, that would be the end. The bishop would not priest you. He would say, I'll leave you as a deacon and somebody one day may use you. You know, the sort of things that he talked of people in the Army where the there is a gentleman who wanted to become a commanding officer and, and, and his trainer put on his report.

Men his trainer put on his report. Men will follow this gentleman. Out of. Out of nothing. In other words, don't take him. And those reports are still being written. So friends don't deny a lot of employers who like to take on a lot of young people, people who have actually been able to do some kind of mentoring work. I took on some, and that period was very useful, and quite a number ended up in the end being ordained.

One day, 24 hours. And you cannot be dismissed. I just reckon that actually is not how the world works. We want to protect workers rights, but do it properly. And then finally, this is a manifesto commitment. Yes it is, but always there is a hurdle to a manifesto commitment if you want to turn that into legislation. Because for me, the law is a public statement of policy. It's not just a manifesto commitment. Is this country going to go away because you are so keen to protect workers rights, for which all of us actually would want to do without any qualifying period? I support? Motion B1.

Motion B1.

16:52

My Lord. I can't resist telling the House that immediately after secretarial college I had a job for a fortnight and on the last day my employer said to me, what are you really wanting to do? And I said, be a barrister. Thank goodness. He said, you'd never make a career as

16:52

Government Spokes. Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)

a secretary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On to the debate, because with this we have had many days of debate and we're not going over the Committee stage in the Report stage. So I just want to bring matters to a conclusion. And can I just say a conclusion. And can I just say from the outset, there are changes will not prevent fair dismissal. will not prevent fair dismissal. The government will ensure employers can operate a statutory employers can operate a statutory probationary period to assess new hires.

So that's exactly what will be in this bill. And this is what we will be consulting on. I don't understand, we are committed to understand, we are committed to consulting on the light touch approach in relation to the probationary period. We've made probationary period. We've made that clear from each stage of this that clear from each stage of this bill. Our reforms also to the labour market. They are critical to growth because productivity is our growth because productivity is our biggest problem in this country.

Productivity. How do we ensure that we motivate good employers? I've got correspondence from some think tanks that Tony Blair, you know, they're actually protecting workers from unfair dismissal from day one of employment. Employers will respond to this, could respond to this by improving their people management vital ingredient to productivity which could boost labour productivity. And this must be the benefits that increases from job mobility issues that we discussed at Committee stage. So I don't want to to go on and Lord Sentamu the noble Lord, the right reverend Prelate the right word, the noble Lord, Lord, who raised the issue of conviction.

And I've repeatedly said that currently having a spent conviction is not a proper ground on which someone can be dismissed, unless it is from one of the roles listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The two year qualifying period applies, making an unfair dismissal claim in those circumstances at the moment. So actually what the Conservatives put and I do appreciate, I said to the noble Lord before the Conservative Party has been on a journey, you know, a journey from day one, right? Six months, 12 months and two years.

They're now back to six months. I urge them to think about going that one step further, because we can, through proper consultation, through I mean, most employment law has been subject to those Statutory Instruments, to those codes of practice, because actually you do need to respond. It's incredibly complicated. You can't just simply put it on the face of the bill. So I would also say in relation to the impact assessment, you know, of course the impact assessment is there.

I mean, if nothing else happens, of course there is a danger. But the point I'm making is that this is about creating a fairer and better workforce, a workforce where we encourage employers to set the best practice so that actually we do have a situation where productivity is increased. What are we afraid of? Nobody in this chamber, I believe, supports unfair dismissal. Nobody does. So actually what we're talking about ensuring is all those who are employed can actually sort of have that basic human right.

So I think it's absolutely important. And I just want to say that, you know, the whole point and I will repeat what I said to the noble Lord. Lord Sharpe, we've said from the start the implementation of were done with light touch. There will be a power in the bill to modify the test. When employers can fairly dismiss employees during the statutory probationary period, all the issues that noble Lords raised at Committee stage and at Report stage, you know, are we getting rid of probationary period? Are we, you know, as the noble Lady Butler said, you know, inhibiting employers? No, we just want it done properly and fairly.

Not an unreasonable demand in this modern age. And can I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, you know, there has been a burden on the tribunal systems because of unfair dismissals. And we certainly have seen, you know, the cost of that. And we recognise the volume of cases going both to Acas and the Employment Tribunal, and the government will be extending the Acas early conciliation time from six months, 6 to 12 weeks from the 1st of December, to allow Acas to manage and deal with demand for early conciliation services.

And DBT is also providing additional financing immediately to recruit 29 additional Conciliators, ensuring Acas can deal with that. So we're responding to those those issues and can I just say in terms of, you know, the BMA strike ballot is under those conditions that the noble Lord is talking about. It hasn't stopped that dispute. What will stop that dispute is having proper negotiations. And that's what's that's actually what the health Minister is absolutely focussed on ensuring, legislating in somehow to sort of undermine ballots is not the answer.

What we want to ensure is unions are representative, their ballots are representative, and we want to ensure that they have a modern way of balloting to ensure that we actually increase the participation. That will be the key to future fair and open collective bargaining. Now, can I turn to the noble Lord Lord Burns amendment on on political funds? And he knows I've made this point incredibly strongly to him. You know, a trade union is not a company. It's not a offering services.

It is a democratic body. There are collective decisions if we want to, you know, if trade union has a resolution at its conference to support X policy or Y policy, that's the collective decision. People can't well, they can opt out of that collective decision by leaving that trade union. And many do. Many do. You know if a union starts spouting things that are not representative of its members, members will walk. It's not compulsory to be a member of a trade union, but it is a collective body.

It is making collective decisions. And the noble Lord, Lord says, well, you know, we want to avoid this pendulum swing if it goes one way or and I admire the work that he did on his committee. His committee's work ensured that there was a bit of a soft landing for a decision made by the government in the then government in 2016, to break a consensus that had been in existence from 1945. And what we are trying to do is return to that consensus, return to recognising trade unions are important parts of our democracy.

They are absolutely. I mean, I've said it before, you know, the most important ingredient of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society. All of us need to be challenged. And that's what this is about. It's about collective decisions. Now, you know, whether, you know, the noble Lord thinks it or not. The fact is that his current amendment is basically maintaining the the processes of the 2016, the discussions I've engaged with him. And I think most trade union leaders will recognise this.

The world has changed in terms of, you know, when I first joined a trade union in the early 70s, you know, it required us to write a letter. The only information about contracting out was contained in the rulebook. Not many people read the rulebook. We now have online facilities email the possibility of someone exercising their right to opt out. And of course, the reasons for opt out aren't just political. They can be religious. And that's been part of that consensus since 1945.

So I know, I know, you know, the noble Lord Burns has a a very strong view about this. But where I think, you know, if we can make progress in the future, it's on the basis of understanding that collective responsibility, but actually ensuring that the people's ability to opt out, to contract out is properly and transparent and acted upon speedily, which is why we've put that amendment down in the other place. I hope the noble Lords will understand that we have tried to respond to the cases.

I think on the threshold it's very clear. I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his motion on. Well, I hope he'll consider withdrawing all of them. But, you know, we've said we won't implement that change without absolutely ensuring that the issue of turnout is properly addressed through members being able to vote, not just in terms of post, but in through other methods. I've banged on long enough, my Lord. So I hope I hope we can respond to this.

I beg to move the government's motion.

17:02

Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)

- -

I'm grateful to the Minister for his response. I'd have to say yet again he's failed to answer the noble Lord. Lord Sentamu, we know that you can't use a spent conviction as reason for a dismissal, and that's entirely appropriate. The point is, there won't be anybody with a spent conviction in work because no one will employ them. That is what the noble Lord was asking. And yet again, the government has failed to answer what is a very straightforward question. It also failed entirely to address the noble Lord Vaux excellent speech, highlighting the difficulties young people are likely to face and indeed are facing in the current workforce in workplace.

Because of this bill, I'm afraid the answers have not alleviated our concerns on these benches. I should say to the noble Lord Lord Burns, we entirely agree with you. It's not just the noble Lord who is obsessed with this. I think the whole house is. So if he wishes to move, we will support him. But in the meantime, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Motion B1 EA. Question is that motion B1 be agreed to, as many of that opinion

17:03

Deputy Lord Speaker.

agreed to, as many of that opinion will say, content. Content, the contrary, not content. No content. The question will be decided by a division. I will alert the House

17:04

Division: B1

17:16

amendment 48 b to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason. 40 8CI beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

8CI beg to move. Question is that motion be agreed to? Motion C1 Lord Sharpe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a move. Motion C1. The original question is that motion C be agreed to, since when

17:16

Deputy Lord Speaker.

motion C be agreed to, since when motion C1 has been moved as an motion C1 has been moved as an amendment to motion house to end and insist on its. The question therefore, is that motion C1 be agreed to as many as are of that opinion will say content. Consent

17:17

Division:C1

17:29

Lord Leong (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Lloyd are. My Lords I beg to move. Motion D

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I beg to move. Motion D do not insist on its amendments. 60 B and 60 c to which the Commons B and 60 c to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their amendments 60 and 60 e in lieu of Lords Amendment 60 B and 60 C my Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lords Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for their engagement on this issue.

The government's amendments, which was tabled in the other place and builds on Lord Parkinson's previous amendment, places a statutory duty on the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to produce guidance supporting 14 to 16 year olds volunteering on heritage railways. This guidance will offer a clear benchmark for reasonable activities and assist inspectors in enforcement decisions. The government is committed to this work, with publication targeted for 31st of March 2026. My Lords, by working with the regulators as well as those heritage railways that are already operating successful volunteering programme programmes for children, there can be clear and practical guidance to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of young people interested in volunteering on heritage railways.

This collaborative approach would provide practical guidance that empowers children to engage safely and meaningfully in heritage railway volunteering, and in turn, should provide the necessary bodies with reassurance. It is of utmost importance that young people get the opportunity to learn new skills, gain confidence as well as help the community, all whilst ensuring high risk activities are not carried out and only appropriate activities are undertaken. My Lords, I beg to move the motion in the name of my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

friend Baroness Lloyd. This motion be agreed to?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm going to be very brief, and the House has heard me speak on this subject a number of times over

17:32

Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)

- -

this subject a number of times over the last ten years, ever since the Council's opinion came through that the engagement of young people on heritage railways and tramways was illegal under the 1920 act. What this government, what the government amendment does, which bears a remarkable resemblance to the one that the noble Lord Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and I would discuss with Ministers during the process, during the process of this Bill's consideration, is that it removes that threat from heritage railways, provided that they follow the guidance which the Orer and the Health and Safety Executive are lay down for them.

I am grateful to them for their willingness to undertake the consultation which will produce those guidance. We hope, by the 31st of March. And meanwhile, heritage railways are now able to recruit youngsters in recruit youngsters legally and successfully, I believe, to to involve them in the running of the railway and thereby provide some certainty that the heritage railway movement will continue. I will, of course, support the amendment which my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble friend has moved. Briefer still, but I wanted to renew my thanks to the noble Lord

17:33

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)

- -

renew my thanks to the noble Lord Lord Leong and the government for listening on this issue and renew my gratitude to the noble Lord Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has campaigned on this issue for many years. This compromise from the government which the noble Lord very kindly outlined to us before tabling the motion in another place, puts beyond the the uncertainty of of recent years an issue that has prevented young people from gaining skills and opportunities in volunteering on heritage railways, which are often considerable employers in their local areas, and which are the lynchpin of the visitor economy.

So this is a measure which will help growth and employment, as well as extending opportunity, as it happens, when the government was inserting this, these new words into the bill, in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Falconer and I were both at the Heritage Railway Association's annual conference in Southampton, where the government was rightly getting the plaudits that it deserves for moving on this issue. So I'm very grateful that it has done so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And my support and thanks to the government for this amendment.

17:34

Lord Leong (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, firstly, may I thank all noble Lords for the very, very kind words. And I thank the Lord, my noble friend Lord Faulkner and noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for their engagement with the government and myself and my colleagues as well. My Lords, this amendment is good news to the thousands of volunteers working in heritage railways up and down the country, without having to worry about breaching any legislation. My Lords, that said, all I can say is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

let's choo choo along and I beg to move. Question is that motion be agreed to? As many as of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, not content. The contents have it motion e Baroness Lloyd. Lords, I've already spoken to

17:35

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I've already spoken to motion E that this has do not insist on its amendments 61 and 72, which the Commons have disagreed which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with Commons in their amendment 72 OSC in lieu of Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 61 and 72, I beg to move. That motion be agreed to. Motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That motion be agreed to. Motion E one Lord Burns. To test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion E be agreed to since one. Since one motion E one has been moved as an amendment to motion E leave out from disagreed to end and insert. Do disagree with the insert. Do disagree with the Commons in their amendment 72 c in lieu of the Lords amendments 61 and lieu of the Lords amendments 61 and 72, and do propose amendments 72 to 72 H in lieu. The question, 72 H in lieu. The question, therefore, is that motion E one be agreed to.

As many as are of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will be decided by a division. I will alert the House

17:36

Division E1

a division. I will alert the House when voting is open. Voting is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry, Sorry, mom.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry, mom. My Lords, the question is that motion E one be agreed to as many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion E one be agreed to as many as are that opinion will say content to the contrary. Not content. Content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content. Content will go to the right by the throne. The not contents to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ayes Ayes to Ayes to the Ayes to the right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is My Lords, the question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In In order In order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In order. I have voted contents 302, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have voted contents 302, not contents 135. So the contents have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My Lords. Motion F Baroness Lloyd are.

17:49

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lloyd are. Already spoken to. Motion F that this House do not insist on its amendment 62, to which the Commons amendment 62, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their amendment 62 c

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in lieu of amendment 62. I beg to move. The question is that motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion be agreed to? Motion F one Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I beg to move motion F one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move motion F one. Original question was that motion F be agreed to? Since when motion f one has been moved as an motion f one has been moved as an amendment? Motion F leave out from house to end and insert do insist house to end and insert do insist on its amendment 62 and do disagree with the Commons in their amendment 62 C the question, therefore, is 62 C the question, therefore, is that motion f one be agreed to.

As many as are of that opinion will say. Content. Content content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say. Content. Content content. Not content. The question will be decided by division. I will alert the House

17:50

Division F1

18:02

I've only just made it. If I could have like five seconds. Oh my Lords,

18:02

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

have like five seconds. Oh my Lords, I eventually rise to move amendment 40 in my name and also amendment 42. My Lords, the My amendment 40 suggests omitting subsection seven on forfeiture of vehicles from the Environmental Protection Act of 1990. So the first question is what is subsection seven actually say? Well, to start with, this whole part of the 1990 act deals with a criminal act of illegally fly-tipping, and they are massive amounts of rubbish dumped in the countryside, including controlled waste.

We saw an example of that at the weekend at Kidlington. That enormous amount of dumped. Their section 33 deals with the forfeiture of vehicles and rightly gives the appropriate authority, which may be a local authority or the Environment Agency power to ask the court to take possession of the vehicle using the commission of the crime and dispose of it. Excellent law, in my opinion, my Lords, that subsection seven. The point of my amendment is to remove a few hoops which the court has to consider before making the order, and they are not necessary, in my opinion, and make it more difficult to penalise the organised crime rackets behind most of the worst illegal dumping.

Thus, subsection seven says in considering whether to make an order under this section, a court must in particular have regard to the value of the vehicle, the likely financial and other effects on the offender of making the order, taken together with any other order that the court contemplates making. The offenders need to use a vehicle for lawful purposes, and whether, in a case where it appears to the court that the offender is engaged in a business which consists wholly or partly in activities which are unlawful by section 33 above, the making of the order is likely to inhibit the offender from endangering and engaging in further such activities and Lord Rose.

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

Then the court has to consider the criminals need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes. No doubt he will tell the court that he needs it to transport meals on wheels or medical supplies, or any number of bogus excuses. My Lords, I say, if a criminal uses a vehicle for criminal purposes and is making a lot of money by doing so, then he should forfeit it, forfeit the vehicle even if he can no longer use it for the school run. And let's not be naive, my Lords.

We're not looking here at a householder who drives in his Volvo to the countryside to dump a bag of garbage, but serious and organised criminals using their three ton tipper trucks. Or, as we saw recently, their 30 ton tipper trucks dumping thousands of tonnes of controlled waste, including asbestos, chemicals and other building rubble. They are. It is estimated that the organised gangs are making, according to our House of Lords select Committee report of two weeks ago, are making about £1 billion per annum from illegal dumping of controlled waste.

As I said in an earlier debate last week, the only thing which hurts these criminals is not a fine, but they might not pay, but depriving them of their property, and we should not have any get outs as we have in subsection seven, but confiscate any and all vehicles used in their criminal waste activities. I will not speak to amendment 42, since my noble friend on the front bench laying down their own amendment before mine, and I will make a better argument of it than I can.

All I would say is that I apologise that my explanatory statement is wrong here. I inadvertently attached the same one as for amendment 40. So back to amendment 40 and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause eight after clause eight, insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. My Lords, I would like to. Support my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble friend wholeheartedly. I think he's. Done the Committee a great

18:07

Viscount Goschen (Conservative)

- -

service by bringing forward these amendments. Yes, the bill is is very broad, and the question of fly-tipping falls very squarely within the within the the auspices of this bill. It is a very serious issue indeed, my Lords, and it is undertaken by a range of of criminals from small one man bands essentially to large organised gangs and everything in between. And the fact is we still have a really serious problem. And the fact is that it is not taken sufficiently seriously by law enforcement.

And so we really have to bring forward measures that the criminals are going to be frightened of and are not going to be just considering this as a cost of business, of being in the, in the, in the field that they are. They must be concerned about the potential loss of their vehicles. They must be concerned about the potential removal of, or at least adding a points to their driving licences. So my Lords, I really couldn't agree with my noble friend any more.

I think he's absolutely put his hit the nail on the head. Say, my Lords, I think there is another very important measure that we're going to hear from my noble friends on the on the official opposition frontbench in just a few moments to do with, with equity. It really is inequitable that the person who is the victim of this crime must be responsible for clearing it up. That is just completely wrong. I've never understood why that should be the case.

I declare an interest of some description. Have a small farm in in Devon, but I really do feel for land for for landowners and those who have responsibility for lands that they go into their fields to tend their stock and then see massive piles of, of, of waste that could contain everything from bio waste, asbestos, building products and so forth. And then somehow it becomes their problem to find the means to to clear this up. This is quite wrong. The Lords and I think we ought to use this Bill in a very positive way to remove that burden on the victims of crime and put it on the perpetrators, supported by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

local authorities. My Lords, I rise to respond briefly to this group of amendments.

18:09

Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)

- -

briefly to this group of amendments. Fly-tipping is out of control. And it's it's a very, very serious problem. And often, as we've heard, it's farmers and landowners who end up paying the cost for other people's criminality. The government's own statistics show that around 20% of all waste generated ends up being illegally managed. These figures highlight the absolute scale of the problem, with profits being up to £2,500 per lorry. If you start driving 30 lorries a day, the profit soon add up.

So this is no longer a small matter of of rural dumping. This, this is a major criminal enterprise. It certainly spreads into major criminal enterprises. It damages our ecosystems, it undermines legitimate businesses, and it leaves legitimate legal landowners with responsibilities. So on these benches, we start from the position that prevention is better than cure. And we call on the government to make rapid reforms and approaches to these issues from a lens of fairness, proportionality and effective enforcement. We stand firmly behind innocent landowners, and we want to see progress made on these, on these matters.

The law, as it stands at the moment, is certainly in need of fundamental and major reform, and we would like to see that happen. Turning to amendment 40. This concerns the forfeiture of vehicles under the Environmental Protection Act. We can see the logic in removing subsections seven, strengthening the ability to confiscate vehicles used for fly tipping offences. The removal of the Subclause clause concerns the offenders need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes. Well, really, they should have thought about that before they started doing illegal ones.

But enforcement agencies must ensure that these powers are used proportionately if the government agrees to them. Turning to amendment 41 and 42, these two amendments relate to landowners and the bills that they're facing from others. Criminality. We absolutely support the principle that the polluter should pay, and that those who dump waste should be caught and prosecuted. However, we do have some concerns with these amendments, my Lords. This is a complicated matter, and the truth is that most of these criminals are not caught.

Convictions are often far too lenient. And often when people are caught, the the authorities lack the financial capability to track down sufficient funds to meet cleanup costs. So and this can all take considerable periods of time over which time there's ongoing environmental damage. Amendment 42 really comes as a package deal with amendment 41. And it states categorically that any guidance issued under this section must state that the cost of removal of illegally tipped refuse will not fall on the landowner on whose property refuse was dumped.

What? The trouble with this, my Lord, is it doesn't say who does pick up the cost. So it kind of raises a lot of questions without providing enough answers. In some cases we are seeing criminals actually even buying land specifically for the purposes of dumping waste. It is so profitable to do so. So I'm worried about the nuance of the law in this. I fully recognise that the law needs full reform. I have every sympathy for what the noble Lords are trying to do here.

I'm just not certain that as drafted in these amendments, they would actually do what the noble Lords are intending to do. Turning to amendment 46, this adds a penalty point to driver licences for those convicted of fly tipping, and this is about creating a potentially powerful deterrent. I note that this was a policy, a hangover from the last conservative government that was not legislated for. Obviously, fly-tippers depend on their vehicles to carry out their criminal activities. This is an amendment that we generally welcome and support, and I'd be interested in the government's response to it.

Amendment 47 goes further by proposing that Police Reform Act be amended to allow vehicles used in fly tipping to be seized on this amendment. We note that local authorities already have a lot of these powers to seize vehicles, and this amendment would take it further. So I'd be interested in the minister's response to that particular amendment. If I could just take a moment separate to these amendments, I'd ask the government to go further and to consider giving local authorities greater powers to stop vehicles that are suspected of of taking part in fly tipping, and to look at creating greater cooperation and intelligence sharing between local authorities and the police.

My Lord. Also, I, I do think that some of the answers to these questions really revolve around our policy of a national fund to support innocent landowners who fall victim to landowners, rather than this this approach and these amendments here. So we call for that fund to to be enacted, for that to be from levies on waste carriers and for that money to help innocent landowners who find themselves the victims of others. Crime.

18:16

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, as others have said, the amendments in this group address the very serious blight that is fly-tipping. It's an issue which lies at the heart of community life, and it is vital that we make every effort to ensure environmental protection and community confidence in law enforcement. The scale of fly-tipping in the UK should not be understated. Between 2023 and 2024, local authorities in England dealt with around 1.1.1 5 million incidents, a 6% increase on the previous year.

The majority of these cases involved household waste, sometimes dumped in bulk. Unfortunately, the absolute number of prosecutions is tiny in relation to the problem, there were only 1498 prosecuted actions in that same year. Fly-tipping is organised crime, but it is local councils and private landowners who often bear the cost of clearing up the mess. My Lords, the amendments tabled in my name and the names of my noble friends Lord Davis and Lord Keen, seek to protect local communities from the destructive practice of fly-tipping by providing for harsher penalties and giving the police more powers to act.

Amendment 41 amends clause nine so as to ensure that the Secretary of State's guidance on Fly-tipping makes the person responsible for the Fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, liable for the costs of cleaning up. It is wrong that this is currently left to judicial discretion, and that risks inconsistent outcomes, and the amendment does identify the person responsible, the convicted offender. In this case, my amendment 46 introduces a further enforcement tool where a person is found to have committed a fly-tipping offence, authorities would have the power to add three points to their driving licence, rather than simply compelling fly-tipping offenders to pay a fine, which they may deem a worthy risk when compared to the profits of their actions.

This measure places the offender's ability to drive at risk by threatening points on driving licences. Repeat offenders will be less likely to fly-tip as their licences will be in jeopardy. Can I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his amendment 42, which aims to ensure in statute that the cost of cleaning up fly-tipping should not fall onto the landowners? In many ways, this amendment seeks to achieve the same outcome as my amendment 41, and I therefore welcome the amendment and hope the government will pay its due regard.

I also thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his amendment 40, which seeks to remove the provision of third party protection for seizure of vehicles in respect of Fly-tipping and which he spoke to most compellingly just now. This would mean offenders cannot escape punishment by using someone else's vehicle, and that local authorities are better equipped to tackle fly-tipping. And again, I look forward to hearing what the government's position on this proposal is if we are to take the issue of fly tackling fly-tipping seriously, it is important that the police are well equipped to act.

The amendment in my name seeks to amend section 49, sorry, section 59 of the Police Reform Act, 2002 so that the police can seize a vehicle which they reasonably believe has been used in association with fly tipping offences. That's amendment 47, and this empowers the police, not just local authorities, to take action. In conclusion, my Lords, these are practical, targeted interventions with a clear principle. Those who dump waste illegally should be held to account, and local communities should not be left footing the bill.

And I hope all noble Lords will recognise the importance of holding those who dump waste to account and protecting communities from the blight of illegal dumping. And I urgently, earnestly hope that the government will give careful consideration both to the practical measures proposed by myself and my noble friend Lord Blencathra, but also the broader structural steps proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, in the amendments which we're about to come to in Group two, because together they form a, a, a system of, of of tackling fly-tipping.

And I look forward with interest to the noble Lord. The Minister's response. The Minister's response.

18:20

Lord Katz (Labour)

- -

My Lords, we're debating again the Crime and Policing Bill second day of committee, which has as its core purpose making our community safer, protecting victims from harm and ensuring that they secure the justice they deserve. So it's fitting that I echo the words of my noble friend, the Minister Lord Hanson, earlier today when he spoke on the border security bill by paying my own tribute to that doughty campaigner for victims rights, the noble Baroness Lady Newlove, her tireless campaigning on behalf of victims and the bereaved was truly inspirational.

Like other members of your Lordships' House, I'm deeply saddened. Saddened to hear of her untimely passing. She'll be much missed and I'm sure all noble Lords will join me in passing on our condolences to her family and friends. Turning to the amendments in this group, I want to thank the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Davies of Gower for setting out the opposition's position on clause nine and Fly-tipping. More generally, my Lords, Fly-tipping is a serious issue as both Lord Houchen and Earl Russell said, it is environmental vandalism and you only have to consider the enormous pile of illegally dumped waste by the A34 and the River Cherwell in Kidlington, to which Lord Blencathra referred to see.

This is a very real problem which the government is absolutely committed to tackling. On that particular example of of egregious example of fly-tipping, the noble Lords will be, I hope, pleased to hear that the government is engaging with the Environment Agency on this specific case. I understand that an investigation is underway. An Environment Agency restriction order has been placed, has been served to prevent access to the site and further tipping, and the Local Resilience Forum has been notified to explore opportunities with multi-agency support.

My Lords, in 20 23, 24, local authorities in England reported 1.15 million fly-tipping incidents and 60% of Fly-tips involved household waste. Fly tipping is not only an eyesore blighting and blighting our streets and open spaces, it can pose a serious public health hazard when not effectively dealt with. It really impacts the quality of lives in communities across our land. Often the most deprived areas, both urban and rural. And that is why we as a government are committed to doing it, tackling it.

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

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

I do recognise the significant, significant burden that clearing fly-tipping waste places on landowner landowners. However, I do not believe that amendments 41 from Lord Bates and 42 from Lord Blencathra are is the right way or the right way to tackle the issue. Through section 33 B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, where local authorities prosecute Fly-tippers, a court can mandate that a cost order be made on the convicted person in order that landowners costs can be recovered from the perpetrator.

Such a cost order is a criminal penalty, and as such is properly imposed by the independent judiciary under the relevant provisions of the 1990 act. Where there is sufficient evidence, fly-tippers cannot be prosecuted and on conviction a court or a court order can be made by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

court so those landowners costs can be recovered. Just could you help the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just could you help the committee by telling us how often such an order has been brought

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward? I'm afraid, my Lords, I'll have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm afraid, my Lords, I'll have to write to the Lord that that that that detail. But I would do want to stress there's no statutory limit stress there's no statutory limit on the amount of compensation that may be imposed for an offence committed by an offender aged 18 or over. However, in determining whether to make a compensation order and the amount that should be paid under such an order, the court paid under such an order, the court must take into account the offender's means.

If the offender the means. If this. If this is limited, property must be given to the payment of compensation over a fine. The court may still impose a fine, and I suppose I would simply fine, and I suppose I would simply say that 20% of something is better than 100% of nothing, if I can put it that way. Having said that, it that way. Having said that, guidance on presenting court cases produced by the National Fly-tipping prevention Group, and this is a group which is chaired by DEFRA and includes a wide range of representatives from interested parties, central and local government enforcement authorities, the waste industry, police and fire services, private landowners and the devolved administration.

This guidance sets out that prosecutors should consider applying for compensation for the removal of waste. Defra will consider building on this advice in the statutory guidance that will be issued under clause nine once this bill becomes law. Noble Lords will also be interested. I hope to hear that local authorities can already issue fixed penalties of up to £1,000 to fly-tippers, the income from which must be spent on cleanup or enforcement. Local authorities issued 63,000 fixed penalty notices in total for Fly-tipping during 2002, 23, 24, and, and these were the second most common enforcement action, according to DEFRA data.

Whilst I fully understand the sentiment behind these amendments and entirely accept the principle that the polluter should pay, the government believes that the sentencing framework as set out in primary legislation, is the proper place to deal with this issue. I do recognise, however, there may be benefits in providing the court with an alternative disposal relating to penalty points as proposed in amendment 46 by the noble Lord, Lord Davis. DEFRA remains committed to considering such a move and they will provide an update in due course.

I would also stress, and in response to a member 47 as Earl Russell noted, that there is an existing power for local councils and the police to seize vehicles where there is a reasonable belief that it's being used or had been used for fly-tipping, which can lead to the vehicle being sold or crushed if it is not claimed. If the vehicle is claimed, the council can prosecute and a court can order that ownership rights are transferred to the council under which they can keep, sell or dispose of the vehicle.

There were nearly 400 vehicles seized in 2023 to 24 as an enforcement action. When such an order is being considered, it's appropriate. The court must consider certain factors that amendment 14, Lord Blencathra name seeks to remove the duty on the courts, my Lords, to consider these factors, such as the financial impacts of the forfeiture of the or the offenders need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes in bed. Principles of article one of protocol one of our friend, the European Convention on Human Rights.

This entitles a person to a peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, but allows the state to enforce laws to control use of that property when it's in the general interest. Any such interference with this right must be lawful for legitimate aim and be proportionate. Amendment 40 would remove these safeguards, my Lords, and I would say we would. We should always tread lightly when considering long held rights regarding property, something I'm sure I shouldn't. I wouldn't have to tell the benches opposite in light of my explanations.

I hope the noble Lord will be content to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw his amendment. I'm grateful for the Minister's response and to all those who have

18:28

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

spoken in this short but interesting debate. I start with the problem Fly-tipping doesn't sound as bad as the crime actually is, because many people, they all fly-tipping that's just dumping a mattress in a fridge in the countryside. But as we've seen recently, it holds, would 30,000 tonnes of contaminated garbage the weekend? Probably about 900,000 tonnes. It is. It is not fly-tipping. It is rubbish racketeering. Now, I'm not going to suggest an amendment to change the title of it, but we do really need to take it seriously now.

The other point I think my my noble friend in the front bench and I and nearly all of us agree on, is that the landowner ideally should not have to pay the cost of clearing it up. He, he or she is the victim by having it dumped on the on the place in the first place, and then the victim the second time round to pay for cleaning it up. On the other hand, it shouldn't be the ratepayers who pay for it either. Ideally, of course, it should be the people who do it, but in many cases we can't catch them.

We don't know who they are. And in those circumstances, it seems grossly unfair that the landowner then has to bear the cost of doing that. I would hope we may discuss this in the next group of amendments, but I would hope that, say the Kidlington thing, a couple of forensic experts can crawl over that and find something. There must be addresses. There must be some data. That rubbish hasn't come from 200 miles away. There must be intelligence to pin down who's been doing it and then hit them hard.

And I. I don't accept that the European Court of Human Rights would say that we need all those safeguards before taking away the vehicle of someone who's been involved in heavy crime. I think I would like to challenge the Minister on that. I do like the points about three points on the licence, although I go slightly further and make it three points for every load the person has dumped. But I do think there's various penalties we can add there as well. So I think we're all on the same side here.

The Nicolaou Lord Russell. My noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel on the front bench, myself and the Minister. We're all searching for slightly tougher penalties. I hear what the Minister said, but perhaps if all of us are on this side of the House, the opposition side possibly agree some simple conservative amendment for the Report stage where we can toughen up on this a bit, maybe adding the penalty points thing, maybe finding some way to make sure that the landowner doesn't pay, some way to penalise the the organised crime behind this, then that may be worthwhile coming back to report.

But in the meantime, in view of what the Minister said and his assurances, I beg leave to to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw my amendment. Is it your lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn in clause nine, amendment 41 Lord Davies of nine, amendment 41 Lord Davies of Gower not moved, and 42 Lord Blencathra not moved. The question is that clause nine stand part of is that clause nine stand part of the bill. As many as that opinion will say. Content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it after content. The contents have it after clause nine, amendment 43 Earl Russell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Russell. My Lords, I open this group of amendments and I move my amendments amendments and I move my amendments 43, 44, and 45 all on serious and organised waste crime. My Lords, by organised waste crime. My Lords, by chance I found myself involved in this. Since the Save Hoads Wood this. Since the Save Hoads Wood campaign came to me, that resulted in a ministerial direction and resulted in the clean up of wood at resulted in the clean up of wood at a cost of £15 million to the taxpayer, equivalent to the Environment Agency's annual budget for fighting waste crime.

It also for fighting waste crime. It also led to the Environment and Climate Change Committee doing a short inquiry into these matters, which inquiry into these matters, which has recently reported in the last couple of weeks. My Lords, my amendments are about moving some of the key findings from that report. I don't want to wish to jump the gun, but some of these matters are clear cut. They are urgent, and I

18:32

Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)

- -

want to keep up the pressure on them. And this bill also represents a vital opportunity to make a vital opportunity to make progress. And it's progress that I do not want to be missed. I know that the government have inherited broken systems and are committed to making reforms, particularly on the broker and dealer changes, which I broker and dealer changes, which I welcome. I thank them for that. The work done by the committee clearly work done by the committee clearly shows that all parties recognise that this is a problem, and it is out of control.

The findings paint a picture of fundamentally broken systems where criminality, systems where criminality, criminality is endemic in our waste sector. The key to all this, my Lords, is to treat it as an organised crime problem and provide the right tools to fight it. We need to fight fire with fire. While need to fight fire with fire. While we sit with bits of paper that are easily forged, criminal networks easily forged, criminal networks buy land under false ID, use the dark web and secret apps to communicate with each other.

I have communicate with each other. I have no wish to blame individuals, but broken systems are creating broken broken systems are creating broken results. And this is £1 billion a year problem. These criminal organised gangs are also involved organised gangs are also involved in drugs, firearms, money laundering and modern slavery. The sheer scale 38 million tonnes enough to fill Wembley Stadium 30 times over, is believed to be illegally managed every year. We need to look no further than the devastating environmental catastrophes unfolding in real time.

As already been mentioned by Lord Blencathra in Kidlington, Oxfordshire, just this weekend that have come to light. And my Lords, my heart sank when I saw this, because this dump, 150m long, six metres high, threatens to become an environmental disaster with toxic leachate running into the River Cherwell, which is only some metres away. It feels like Hoads wood has been allowed to happen all over again, and I don't understand how it can be that for months and months these lorries were allowed to dump this stuff and nothing has been done.

So I would kindly ask the Minister to seriously consider meeting the costs and to work with local residents and the council to ensure that that clear up takes place. This. This is extremely important, but without swift and decisive action, we will continue to draw ever more sophisticated criminal networks into the UK waste sector. The National Crime Agency itself warns that this is now a strategic threat beyond financial losses. This is not a victimless crime, my Lords. There are damaging consequences for public health, the natural environment and we, the taxpayer, are left to pick up the bill.

We welcome the Joint Unit on Waste crime, but this unit only has 12 individuals and it doesn't have a statutory footing or a clear strategic direction. And there needs to be better cooperation between partners. We the committee heard heard witnesses say this is the murder triangle of intelligence and information is simply lost between partners and falls between the cracks. So my amendment 43 requires the Secretary of State to take serious and organised waste crime as a strategic priority threat, and to mandate the Joint Unit on Waste Crime to establish a comprehensive National Action Plan.

This would focus on prevention from prosecution, underpinned by effective intelligence sharing. It would place a duty of cooperation on all relative public bodies and enforcement agencies, ensuring that

18:35

Amendment:43 Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)

intelligence and expert flows of information flows across the system. information flows across the system. The National Action Plan would create a single point for receiving and dismissing waste crime reports. and dismissing waste crime reports. Members of the public report this stuff, and they get rightly frustrated when nothing happens. frustrated when nothing happens. The need is clear for this, and these issues are falling between these issues are falling between organisations and jurisdictions. And all the while the criminals are And all the while the criminals are the ones that are benefiting.

So I think the need for that is clear. Amendment 44 calls for greater Amendment 44 calls for greater transparency and accountability. Openness and accountability are key to our understanding of the causes to our understanding of the causes and the scale of organised waste crime. A lack of transparency only crime. A lack of transparency only benefits the criminal networks. When the Environment Agency was asked at the Environment and asked at the Environment and Climate Change Committee how many sites existed of a similar size to Hoads Wood? The answer they gave us Hoads Wood? The answer they gave us was six.

But since then, Sky news has reported a site in Wigan. And has reported a site in Wigan. And as we've heard, we've got this other site in Kidlington, which has been publicised in the press this been publicised in the press this weekend. It's not clear if those two sites are additional or not, but time will tell and we need to know the true scale. We cannot effectively fight that which we do not know. More than numbers. It would require location, sizes, types of waste, and what action is being done to clear up these tremendous, huge waste piles.

So this this amendment also is is really of essential importance. And I think these matters need to be legislated because otherwise they will not be properly reported. Amendment 45 is a linchpin of the committee's recommendations. This is about establishing a root and branch review of serious organised waste crime, and for that review to be independent of DEFRA, the Environment Agency and the HMRC. The committee found multiple failures by the Environment Agency and criticised the regulators for being slow to respond.

To respond. Despite receiving over 24,000 reports of waste crime in three years from March 2025. The EA opened only 320 criminal investigations. HMRC has achieved zero criminal convictions for landfill tax fraud, despite the tax gap being estimated at £150 million annually. The independent review scrutinised the egregious events at Pose, wood, and the fact that they were reported for years between 2020 and 20, and it took till January 2024 for the EA to obtain a restriction order.

Clearing up all these six sites that are already known could be close to a cost of 1 billion. If the cost is similar to the cost of Hoads wood. So these are really important issues. Critically, we we want to see the financial rules set by the Treasury that prevent the Environment Agency from diverting income derived from environmental permits on legitimate businesses towards criminal activity. Additional funding. Funding provided to the Environment Agency for 2020 2526. We want to see that maintained.

To conclude, I recognise that the Minister has not had long to consider the committee's report and that a formal response is not due until the start of December. My hope is that there is time for a formal response to the committee's report prior to Report stage of this bill, and I hope that the government is minded to at least take an initial look at these set of amendments if it is helpful. I am fully prepared to work with and cooperate with the

18:39

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government in any way I can. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause nine. Insert a new clause as nine. Insert a new clause as printed on the Marshall List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. May God and my noble friends forgive me, but I think our Lib Dem peers here have got a good

18:40

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

Lib Dem peers here have got a good point, particularly with regard to their new clause 43. I will not repeat what the noble Lord, the Lord, Russell said, but the letter from our chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee is absolutely spot on. The crime is massive, costing the country £1 billion per annum and the environmental damage is enormous. Now, I was not aware, in fact, that our committee had done a short investigation of it, and I not focussed on these amendments 43, 44 and 45, until I saw the horrendous photos and videos last Friday and Saturday of a hundreds of tonnes, or possibly a thousand tonnes dumped on that back lane in Kidlington, just six yards from the River Cherwell.

Now the local MP and others have called it an environmental catastrophe and that is no exaggeration. My Lords, now this criminality is happening all across the country. I was on the board of the of Natural England, where our SSI at Hoads Wood, was destroyed by 30,000 tonnes of illegal waste dumped over a period of many, many months before the Environment Agency agency was aware of it. The agency then issued a notice barring further access to the site, and are now spending £15 million to clean it up.

Now, the cost of cleaning up the Kidlington dump is estimated to be greater than the local authority budget. Now, many have criticised the Environment Agency, but I will not slag them off. Well, at least not too hard. Their main response is to issue a notice stopping further dumping. But inevitably, my Lords, that is weeks or months too late. And the criminal gangs have then found new sites by then. At this level of mega and this level of mega organised crime is way beyond the EA's capability, I suggest there are licensing organisation and they can do good criminal investigations, but not of this complexity.

It's easy for them to investigate a leak into a river from a factory, or prosecute a farmer who illegally dredged the river. The River Lugg at this level of organised crime is way beyond the capacity to investigate, I suggest. Now conclusion number two in the noble Lady Baroness Shields letter to the Defra Secretary of State is so, so right. She says, quote, what we do know, however, is that criminality is endemic in the waste sector. It is widely acknowledged that there is little chance of criminals being brought to justice for committing waste offences.

The record of successful prosecutions and other penalties is woeful. Organised crime groups, she says, including those involved in drugs, firearms, money laundering and modern slavery are well established in the sector. They are attracted to the low risk opportunity to make large sums of money and commit crimes, from co-ordinated fly-tipping to illegal exports and landfill tax fraud and, quote. Well, when I was on the board of the Food Standards Agency until 12 months ago, I had responsibility for the National Food Crime Agency.

What we found was that the gangs involved in recirculating condemned food back into the food chain, usually to the catering sector, were also involved in moving stolen cars, high value cars, jcbs drugs, mobile phones, etc. they were simply movers and distributors of all of all high value stolen property or illegal items. If you have the network to move stolen vehicles, then you're the network to dump thousands of tonnes of rubbish also. So how much money do these organised crime teams make from illegal dumping? Well, the cost of legally disposing of mixed waste is up to about £150 per tonne.

Hazardous waste up to £200 per tonne. A legal company would have to charge that fee, which includes the landfill tax of £94 per tonne. Now, my Lords, all these crooks have to do is put in a bid slightly below 150 and they'll probably get the contract, including from possibly legitimate companies who did not know that they were dealing with crooks. But possibly more likely, they would know they're dealing with crooks and take the cheaper option and deny responsibility. The crooks who dumped at holds would probably made away with about £4 million, 30,000 tonnes at a profit of £130 per tonne and Kidlington, let's say, dumped ten loads of 30 tonnes each day for 30 days.

That's 900 tonnes or £120,000. Pure profit or dirty profit to be more exact. Whilst new clauses 44 and 45 are okay, they're not the important ones in this group, I suggest. Of course there's no harm in more data, but we already know how serious the problem is. As our Lords inquiry has shown, conducting a review to report by 2020 sounds a bit like that wonderful line from Sir Humphrey Appleby in the Yes Minister episode Doing the Honours, when he said, I recommend that we set up an inter-departmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference.

So at the end of the day, we'll be in a position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long term considerations, rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and possibly ill conceived actions, which might well have unforeseen consequences. To which hacker said, so you mean no, Sir Humphrey? However, My Lords, new clause 45 does have one good, namely, subsection two of the clause says the review must consider the extent and effectiveness of integrated working between the Environment Agency, HMRC, the National Crime Agency and local police forces in England and Wales and local authorities.

And that leads me on to the noble Lords new clause 43, which is a very sensible key suggestion, which is beefing up the joint unit for waste. Now, I know that the noble Lady Baroness Hayman of Ullock, whom we all respect, in answer to an oral question in this very chamber on the 15th of October, said that DEFRA had increased the budget for the EA to use on the joint unit by 50%, and the number of staff had doubled. I have no real criticism of DEFRA, but that will still not work because in my opinion, the Environment Agency agency is a wrong organisation to lead it.

We are talking here about massive organised crime of 1 billion. There is only one organisation capable of leading a multi-agency task force on that, and that is the National Crime Agency. I urge the noble Lord, the Minister and the Home Office to take to take this back to the Home Office, discuss it with DEFRA, EA and NCA and without changing everything, give the National Crime Agency the lead in tackling this. As I and the noble Lady Baroness Hayman have pointed out, the same criminals are involved in high value stolen goods of mobiles, construction equipment, drugs, etc.

all stuff way out of the league of EA. But bang in the bailiwick of the NCA. If the noble Lord, the Lord Russell, can come back with a simpler amendment and report on something like that, then I would be minded to support him.

18:46

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

Can I thank the noble Lord, noble Lord Russell, for his amendments in this matter? These include, as he said, requiring the Secretary of State to designate serious and organised waste crime as a strategic threat and create a national Action Plan to collect and publish quarterly information on waste crime and provide for an independent review of serious and organised waste crime. On the Strategic Priority Designation and National Action Plan, I, of course, support taking the issue of fly-tipping and organised waste much more seriously.

The issue of Fly-tipping goes far beyond simple domestic waste and is a widespread practice of criminals. And I point to the comments I made earlier in the preceding group. I earnestly hope the government takes this amendment seriously, and I look forward to hearing their thoughts on on a national action plan regarding the publishing of quarterly data. We on these benches are always sympathetic to the principle of transparency, which in turn drives government accountability. More granular and consistent data assists the government in formulating its efforts to tackle the Fly-tipping.

And on the third and final amendment in the group. Whilst I recognise the noble thought process behind an independent review and the importance of scrutiny. My one worry is that it may divert scarce government resources away from tackling the problem at hand to larger focus on reviewing may create undue delay on action. This government, in our view, are already all too keen to launch a review to solve every problem that comes their way. We do not need to give them any more incentive to do so.

It's our priority to give the police, the police, the power to act as soon as possible. But I nonetheless hope the government takes all these amendments in the name of the noble goal seriously. name of the noble goal seriously.

18:48

Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)

My Lords, as the noble Lord, noble Lord Russell has explained, the purpose of these amendments is to take forward some of the recommendations from the Lordships' House Environment and Climate Change Committee to tackle serious and organised crime in the waste sector, and I'd like, at this point in time, to pay tribute to Baroness Sheehan and the work of her committee in not just in the, the, the, the detailed examination of the issue, but indeed the whole the whole way the the committee's report has raised the profile of this important issue, and I'm glad we've had the opportunity this this afternoon, perhaps early evening to discuss waste crime in the round.

As we've noted, I think we're all in accord across the House that this is a serious issue at the end of the debate on the previous Lord Blencathra mooted that perhaps we need to rebrand Fly-tipping to make people take it more seriously. I think from reflecting on the debate we've had today, nobody can be in any doubt that indeed the the committee, the committee's report demonstrated this is a serious business and is a business. It incurs huge costs in terms of the damage done.

And it's obviously it is incredibly profitable business to those who engage in it. And I think we're all determined to tackle it. And there are certainly provisions, we would argue, in this bill that are that as well as other government actions that help to address this, as I believe, noble Lord Earl Russell said, and waste crime is cost the economy an estimated £1 billion annually. We are determined to tackle it, and this is why we're preparing significant reforms to waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime and the waste permit exemptions regime, bringing waste carrier brokers and dealers into the environmental permitting regime will give the Environment Agency more powers and resources to ensure compliance and hold operators to account.

Changes will make it harder for rogue operators to find work in this sector, and easier for regulators to take action against criminals. Our planned reforms will also introduce the possibility of up to five years imprisonment for those who breach these new laws. We are also introducing digital waste tracking to make it harder than ever to misidentify waste or dispose of it inappropriately by digitising waste records, we will make it easier for legitimate businesses to comply with their duty of care for waste and reduce the opportunities for criminals to operate.

Furthermore, better data will help us manage resources more sustainably, reduce waste, and protect the environment for future generations. And this is to be fair to him. The Lord Blencathra noted this the government has also increased the Environment Agency's funding, including the amount available to tackle illegal waste operators. We've raised the budget for budget for waste crime enforcement by over 50% this year to 15.6 million, the The Joint Unit for Waste Crime, which is hosted within the Environment Agency, has nearly doubled in size thanks to this extra funding.

Overall, the EA has been able to increase its front line criminal enforcement resource in the Joint Unit for waste, Crime and Area Environmental Crime Teams by 43 full time equivalent employees. They'll be targeted at identifying activities identified as waste crime priorities, using enforcement activity data and criminal intelligence, which includes tackling organised crime groups, increasing enforcement activity and closing down illegal waste sites more quickly, using intelligence more effectively and delivering successful major criminal investigations. There are noble Earl Russell touched on Kidlington, the the the terrible incident at Killington, which we discussed also in the previous group and I can all I can do really is repeat what I said to the noble Lord Blencathra in the previous group.

The government is engaging with the Environment Agency on the case with the utmost seriousness. There is an investigation underway and an Environment Agency restriction order has been served to prevent access to the site and further tipping. Understanding. Lord Blencathra point. It's bad now, but at least this way it can't get any worse. The Local Resilience Forum has been notified to explore opportunities for multi-agency support. Noble Lords may be aware there is an urgent question in the other place this afternoon, asked by the local MP, Callum Miller.

And I believe that my noble friend, the Minister Mayor Mary Cray, offered to meet with Mr. Miller to discuss this further. This is an issue that we are taking very, very seriously as the noble Earl Russell will appreciate, the Environment and Climate Change Committee wrote to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as recently as the 28th of October to set out the conclusions of its inquiry into waste crime. It will necessarily, I'm sure noble Lords will appreciate this.

Take a little time to fully consider the government's response, because having read the the letter that the committee sent this morning, it's a you know, it's a complex letter. It raises many points, rightly so. And so we don't want to not with not notwithstanding what Lord Blencathra offered from the annals of classic British comedy. We don't want to rush our response, and it certainly would be. It would behove me to offer to, to to to offer shoot off the hip in in my response, when my friend the Secretary of State will be responding, I can assure noble Lordships' House that the Secretary of State is carefully considering the report and will respond in due course.

Noble Lords will be aware of two facts. I'll put it no more strongly than this. Firstly, the committee asked for a response in its letter by the 9th of December. Secondly, we are due to continue in committee on this bill until the end of January at the earliest. I am not going to parade. Hooray, hooray! Indeed, I'm not going to commit any more strongly than that, but I'll let noble Lordships come to their own conclusions about the ability to take those considerations ahead of Report stage I, in light of the action that we are taking, ready to tackle waste crime and without pre-empting the response from my.

My right hon. Friend Emma Reynolds, the Secretary of State, I would hope, in responding, wanting to respond fully to the Environmental Committee's report. I hope the noble Lord Earl Russell would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content to withdraw his amendment. Responds to the debate today. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Responds to the debate today. I wonder if the Minister, when he does, come back to the House again does, come back to the House again with an update on the Kidlington issue, whether part of that could issue, whether part of that could be to explain to the House how this unravels in open sight. As I think we've heard, there must have been we've heard, there must have been hundreds of lorry loads and no doubt many, many, many, many doubt many, many, many, many complaints and missives to the police and to the environment, agencies and other bodies agencies and other bodies responsible it to the man and woman in the street.

It seems, if we can't deal with something enormous can't deal with something enormous and so obvious as this, what hope is there for smaller fly-tipping

**** Possible New Speaker ****

incidents? Well, I think the noble Lord Lord Gove for that and for that point and, and I, I appreciate what point and, and I, I appreciate what he's saying. I'm, I, I'm not aware of the events that led up to the time it took to to issue this time it took to to issue this enforcement action. It would be wrong for me to speculate. I'm afraid I haven't actually had the time to review the Hansard of the time to review the Hansard of the Urgent Question.

I suspect we may have some of the answers to that question. If we review the Commons Hansard of for for the for of of the Urgent Question that Colin Miller asked of the asked of the government today, I understand the point he's making, and should I be in the position in the future to report back? There may be some more information that I could that I can offer. I suppose all I'd all I'd say is one would hope, and I'm not speaking out of turn.

I simply don't know. In fact, there would be community action and community reporting of this in strength, because the Environment Agency only has so much resource, it cannot be all seeing, and so it cannot take enforcement when it doesn't know action. There. Now, I'm not suggesting that was the case in this particular situation in Kidlington, but I think it's an important that we should always we have a wider society responsibility to take, you know, to, to, to address these issues. I'm an avid user.

I'm fortunate the London Borough of Camden, my home borough, has an app where I can always report fly-tipping nowhere near on the scale of Kidlington, but I use it and I take responsibility. My my kids hate me stopping to take pictures of rubbish when I'm walking along with them, but I use it because that means that the, the, the the offence is noted, it's recorded and also action is taken and I would say contribute to Camden. It's usually taken pretty quickly.

18:57

Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I thank all those who have spoken in this, this group, and I thank the Minister for his response to my amendments. Of course, I recognise the government's inherited this problem. I recognise from the government's point of view they're putting more resources and indeed through the broker and dealers plans and digital waste tracking, which I hope are brought forward genuinely as soon as possible. That will start to make some concrete changes to these issues. However, my Lords, all that being said, this problem is out of control and it is not in the government's control and more does need to be done.

It is not acceptable that these serious organised criminal gangs are exploiting loopholes in the system or destroying our countryside are leaving a mess behind them. So I do want to see action on that. I fully recognise that the select committee report only came out two weeks ago. I recognise that the government isn't due to respond until the 9th of December. As the Minister said. I'm sure the Minister also recognises that if I didn't raise these points at committee, I can't bring them back at report.

So my hope is that all of us, I think there is a commonality here on the need to address these issues, and my hope is that between now and report that we can have further conversations and cooperate on these issues. Returning to Kidlington again, I know there was an urgent statement. I had an opportunity to have a word with my noble friend on that. Prior to the statement I it is important that this this site is cleared up and and that the government helps meet the costs for that.

I would encourage the Minister to consider using a ministerial direction again if needed, to make sure that that happens. But with that said, I do hope that the Minister also when the report when the response to the committee's report does come, that it recognises that it is a serious job of work and that it is actually taking a unique and a forward thinking perspective on genuinely trying to find ways to address and resolve these problems. But with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your lordships pleasure

19:00

Deputy Lord Speaker. Baroness Fookes (Conservative)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 44 is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 44 Earl Russell not moved and 45 and 46 Lord Davis of Gower not moved. In that case we move to 47 Lord Davies of Gower not moved in clause ten, amendment 47 a Lord Blencathra.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I rise to move my amendment 47 and speak to amendment amendment 47 and speak to amendment 47. B 47 is to seek clarification that the definition of premises as

19:00

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

that the definition of premises as any building, part of a building or enclosed area, will include gardens and grounds associated with private dwellings. The phrase enclosed area is a key part of the statutory definition. Gardens and grounds are private. Dwellings are typically surrounded by fences, walls or hedges, marking them as distinct

19:01

Amendment:47A Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

and separate from public areas. I hope that the intention behind the word enclosed here is to extend the word enclosed here is to extend the definition beyond the physical structure of the buildings, to include spaces that are set apart include spaces that are set apart for private use. Therefore, gardens and grounds, by virtue of their their possible enclosure and their possible enclosure and association with the dwelling, in my opinion, will fill the criteria set out in the definition I would set out in the definition I would suggest now the purpose of including enclosed area in the definition is to ensure that areas definition is to ensure that areas integral to the use and enjoyment of the dwelling are afforded the same legal protection as the building itself.

Gardens and grounds are not merely decorative. They serve as extensions of the home, providing space for home, providing space for recreation, privacy and domestic activities. To exclude them from the scope of premises would be to the scope of premises would be to ignore their functional role as part of a private dwelling. Now UK courts have in various contexts courts have in various contexts interpreted premises broadly in cases relating to trespass, burglary and other offences. The burglary and other offences. The courts have recognised that the protection of the law extends to driveways, front and back gardens and other external parts associated with dwelling.

This judicial approach underscores the recognition that the boundaries of recognition that the boundaries of a home are not limited to its external walls, but also encompasses immediate surroundings. But from a policy perspective, I suggest to the noble Lord, the Minister is logical and just to include gardens and grounds as premises, because these are areas where children play, families gather, individuals expect privacy there too, if they're excluded inadvertently from the legal definition. That would create loopholes undermining the protection the law seeks to provide to those within their own homes.

For example, in the cases of trespasser unauthorised entry. It would be unreasonable to require that an intruder must enter the building itself before the law is engaged. And I say if someone has a criminal intent, enter a property, then he must have that same criminal intent in mind when he enters the gardens or the driveway of the property. So in summary, my Lords gardens and grounds of a private dwelling should be considered as premises under UK law and in this Bill, this interpretation aligns with the plain meaning of enclosed area, the purpose and spirit of legal protection for dwellings, judicial precedent and sound policy considerations.

Now my amendment 47 B simply increases the level of the fine the clause was drafted says not exceeding level three. Now that's a maximum of £1,000. But at the time that the, in my view, discredited sentencing Council pronounces on it, no one will get near that level. They will water it down as they usually do. So it applies to very few trespassers. Now I'm a great supporter of minimum sentences prescribed, of course, by Parliament. Therefore, I suggest in this case that the that the minimum fine for someone illegally on property with intent to commit crime should be £500.

I think that said, level one isn't it with a maximum fine of 2500. Now that I've said it out loud, £500 seems ridiculously low for trespass with criminal intent. So never let it be said, my Lords, that I'm too harsh on criminals. Now, of course, the noble Lord, the Minister, will say that we do not set minimum sentences, but leave it to the court's discretion. Well, I could go along with that, but the courts have lost their discretion because of the interference of the Sentencing Council.

Therefore, my Lords, in this case, I want Parliament to dictate the minimum level of fines. And I cannot see anything constitutionally and morally wrong. It gives the courts great flexibility to fine from 500 to 2500 pounds for people who enter

19:04

Deputy Lord Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

premises with intent, with criminal intent. I beg to move amendment 47, a. Amendment proposed clause.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause. Ten. Page 18. Line 19 attend in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ten. Page 18. Line 19 attend in search or the gardens and grounds were private dwelling. My Lords, I've.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I've. Listened carefully to the noble Lord Blencathra and read the member's explanatory statement on these two amendments, and I will be these two amendments, and I will be brief. I can remember as a child signs indicating the barriers and signs indicating the barriers and limits of public access to certain parcels of land across the field. parcels of land across the field. There was a substantial area of public allotments, with a wide footpath running through the middle

19:05

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)

- -

footpath running through the middle to an empty field beyond which had public access. Nevertheless, there was a large hand-painted black sign at the start of this footpath which read trespassers will be prosecuted. Not that as a child I understood what this meant, except to say that I could not use the footpath to access the field beyond, but would have to walk a long way round to access the field, which was public open space. Trespass is a crime which has been with us for decades, but not always understood.

At a time when governments are trying to open up the countryside to those who have previously had limited access to be considering extending trespass to private gardens and grounds needs very careful consideration. Of course, if someone enters your property uninvited, even if the front door is temporarily open, they are trespassing. But those who are not intent on committing a crime, stealing the owner's valuables, or helping themselves to the contents of the fridge might have stayed strayed there by accident.

I think this is extremely unlikely. Strangers will generally only enter a private property uninvited if they have some nefarious project in mind. This, however, is unlikely to be the case in terms of grounds and gardens. Public footpaths are not always clearly signposted. The map the walker may be following might be inaccurate or out of date. Some footpaths may have been temporarily diverted due to the lambing season or some other stock grazing in the area. Stiles and bridges may have fallen into disrepair, causing walkers to look for an alternative route to complete their walk is the noble Lord Blencathra, suggesting that these unwitting miscreants should be dealt in the same way as those who have deliberately set out to commit a crime.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My amendment refers specifically to gardens and grounds of houses, not to farmers fields, the footpath wandering through them. Of course, even if a garden has a footpath going through it, then people have going through it, then people have the right to use the footpath and be very difficult then to prove that someone had criminal intent. But if someone enters the gardens But if someone enters the gardens of a private residence, the grounds and gardens of a private residence, then we must assume they've got the then we must assume they've got the criminal intent as if they want to enter the person's house.

It's nothing to do with farmers fields or footpaths.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or footpaths. I'm grateful for the noble Lords interjection. And for that clarification. However, as somebody clarification. However, as somebody who lived for 35 years with a footpath running through their footpath running through their garden, I have to say that I don't really agree with him. I believe we should be very careful about should be very careful about implementing these two amendments. They smacked me of the landed gentry attempting to keep the gentry attempting to keep the ordinary man and woman from enjoying the countryside.

I am not a lawyer, but it does seem to me a lawyer, but it does seem to me that it would not be an easy task to prove that deliberate trespass to prove that deliberate trespass had occurred over land and grounds or gardens, with the intent of causing harm or wanton, wanton damage to those grounds. In respect of 47 B, I do not support increasing the fee should an offence be proved. I am nevertheless keen to hear the Minister's views on this amendment, but at the moment I am not inclined

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to support Lord Blencathra. My Lords, I want to thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for tabling these amendments. The case he set out seems to me to be clear he set out seems to me to be clear and obvious. His amendment ensures that the offence of trespassing with intent to commit an offence extends to people's gardens and extends to people's gardens and grounds, and goes no further than that. Any intrusion into those grounds or gardens with a mal intent should be reflected in the level of criminal fines, and I level of criminal fines, and I think his amendment simply proceed on the assumption that gardens or grounds, in their simplest terms, grounds, in their simplest terms, should be treated the same in legislation as residences and legislation as residences and buildings.

Private property doesn't stop existing once you step out of a physical doorway. The grounds or a physical doorway. The grounds or gardens surrounding buildings are extensions to them to be bought and sold just as freely. I think the word curtilage often appears, but certainly in the law, but but often certainly in the law, but but often more widely to describe the the land or garden around someone's land or garden around someone's house. Indeed, there may be even as great a need to create an offence for this as there is for trespassing on a property with intent.

I can imagine criminals using back gardens to navigate between houses to commit burglary. I can imagine confrontations that take place not inside a building, but yet still on the in the garden or grounds owned by a victim. They are just as serious as entering a property to commit a crime. However,

19:10

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

my Lords, I can acknowledge that there is generally a difference between entering someone's house and entering their garden. The former is, in most cases far more intrusive, a far greater infringement on someone's rights to to private property. It therefore follows that entering a house follows that entering a house should regularly carry a harsher sentence than merely entering the grounds, but that can be the case grounds, but that can be the case whilst ensuring that both are offences. We don't have to supply the latter simply because it might the latter simply because it might carry a lower fine than the former.

And my noble friend Lord Blencathra And my noble friend Lord Blencathra is amendment 47 B as he set out provides for this. It gives the court the discretion to alter the court the discretion to alter the fines levied on an offender based on the seriousness of the offence, creating a higher maximum fine to be used for the most serious offences. Creating a minimum fine offences. Creating a minimum fine additionally, will ensure that any form of trespassing with the intent to commit another offence is dealt with to a minimum acceptable standard, whatever form it takes.

Trespassing in order to commit Trespassing in order to commit crime is incredibly invasive and often traumatic, and it is right that this is acknowledged in the that this is acknowledged in the range of the fine level. I do hope that the noble Order, order Minister has listened to these points, and I look forward to hearing his response.

19:11

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful. sort of half help him today, and in doing so, also assist the Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville as well. First of all, let me just confirm that the government will repeal the outdated Vagrancy Act of 1824. In clauses ten and 11, the government is legislating to introduce targeted replacement provisions for certain elements of the 1824 act to ensure the police have the powers they need to keep our community safe. Those targeted replacement measures include a new offensive facilitating begging for gain, which will come on to shortly, but also an offence of trespassing with the intention of committing a crime, both of which were previously provided for under the 1824 act and for which the police have told us, are useful to retain.

This, I hope, helps the noble Lady, because the new criminal offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence recreates an offence that's already set out in the 1824 act. It doesn't add to it, it recreates it as is currently the case. It will be an offence for a person to trespass on any premises, meaning any building, part of a building or enclosed area with the intention to commit an offence, and that is currently the legislation. The amendment 47 A from the noble Lord would seek to ensure that trespassing in gardens and grounds of a private dwelling is captured by the replacement offence, and this is where I think I can half help him by indicating that gardens and grounds would already be included in the definition of premises in the 1824 act.

And so essentially that is covered already. Now, his amendment 47 B would introduce a minimum level two fine and increase the maximum level fine from level three to level four for this offence. Now, again, the measure that is in the bill is replicated entirely again, going back to the noble Lady from the maximum penalties currently set out in the existing legislation that we are repealing, but replacing in part by the clauses that are before us in these amendments.

So again, this goes to potentially both the noble Lord and the noble Lady. I agree with the noble Lady in relation to the proportionality of the current level of fines. And I say to the noble Lord what he anticipated I would say to him, which is that sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary, and we need to afford them appropriate discretion. And the Parliament really specifies minimum sentences. And this is not an instance where we should depart from that general principle.

Now, I know we anticipated, I'd say that, which is as a good old Home Office Minister, that he is. I knew he would clock that. That was the potential line of defence on his amendment. But I think it's also important to say that the penalties set out in the current legislation, which we're replicating, are considered appropriate and proportionate to the nature of the offence. So with that, hopefully helpfully half clarification on the grounds and gardens and with my steady defence that he anticipated on the Second Amendment, I would ask him to withdraw his amendments.

19:15

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, half a loaf is better than no bread. Of course, all I'd say to the noble Lady Baroness. Is that she's got totally the wrong end of the stick. I'm not going into more detail to to argue against that, except to say I too had a footpath right across the middle of my garden in Cumbria. No problem with it at all. And that is quite separate from the guy who in the year 2000, threatened to come and burn my house down because he didn't like my view on hunting, and that's a quite a different matter.

He committed an offence there on my driveway, as opposed to all the thousands of people who use the footpath which I built. Special turnstiles at either end for them to use. Now I accept entirely the noble Lord, the Minister said. I'm delighted to see that grounds and gardens of public dwellings will be included in the definition. I knew he wouldn't accept. That's the half I'm very happy with. I knew he wouldn't accept my amendment on the penalties, he said. It's up. It's up to an independent judiciary.

I wish we had one in council tying their hands, but that's another matter for another debate. But with with the noble Lord, the Minister's courteous remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

19:16

Deputy Lord Speaker.

Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is mildly withdrawn. Amendment 47 be Lord Blencathra not moved. The question is that clause ten stamp out of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it after clause

19:16

Baroness Whitaker (Labour)

- -

ten. Amendment 49. Baroness Whitaker, Lords Amendment 49. In my

19:16

Amendment:49 Baroness Whitaker (Labour)

Whitaker, Lords Amendment 49. In my name and that of the right reverend Prelate Bishop of Lincoln, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, of noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, of Hardington Mandeville and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. My Castle, whose wide ranging support I most whose wide ranging support I most grateful would write an acknowledged wrong. The declared incompatibility with human rights of part of part four of of the police, crime, Sentencing and police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The right reverend Prelate regrets he can't at the Prelate regrets he can't at the last minute attend, but he hopes His Majesty's Government will help.

The amendment also tackles the whole of that discriminatory part of the 2022 act. I won't rehearse of the 2022 act. I won't rehearse again. The full range of unfair disadvantage which has resulted from these provisions, which I set from these provisions, which I set out at Second Reading. I'll briefly describe what our amendment will achieve to correct a manifest unfairness which harshly criminalises and confiscates the caravan homes and domestic possessions of a small number of possessions of a small number of families whose nomadic way of life is recognised in law.

I should first of all say that it is the shortage of authorised sites, which is the underlying problem. That is why that minority of and Travellers who live in that way have often no other choice than to park their family home on an unauthorised site. This is where the judge found race discrimination, he said I quote it means that will no longer be able to avoid the risk of criminal penalty by resort to transit pitches. The position might be different if transit pitches were readily available, but the evidence shows that this is not the case.

The amendment simply returns the situation to what it was before the cruel and discriminatory provisions of the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act were enacted in no way reduces the ample powers that the police already had in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to oblige unauthorised trespassers to leave if there had been threatening behaviour or damage. Previous case law has included squash grass in this category to issue temporary stop notices and injunctions to protect land. To direct unauthorised campus to an alternative site, and to prevent them returning within three months.

Our amendments main provisions are the elimination of the power of a landowner to command eviction on a subjective reason of being caused distress, and a return to 12 months, as the interval within which the travelling family cannot return to the land from three months, which was the discrimination that the incompatibility incompatibility declaration captured. I need hardly remind your Lordships' House that our Gypsy and Traveller population already suffer a degree of prejudice which has substantially contributed the worst life chances in health, employment, education and wellbeing of any minority ethnic group in our country.

The attitudes and conduct enabled by the provisions we seek to repeal can only further encourage that prejudice and disadvantage. Can your lordships imagine how it feels to have hanging over your head when you cannot find an authorised site? The fear that your family home might be impounded with all that is in it, and your family are turned out homeless to find shelter, all on the say so of a member of the public who feels distress simply at the presence of a travelling family, not the least of your fears will be that your children cannot get to their school, or that the medical regime of an elder in your family has to be abandoned.

So I urge my noble friend, the Minister, to heed the widespread condemnation of the provisions we seek to repeal by our Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and fulfil this government's acceptance of the obligation to comply with

19:21

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the court through our amendment. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause ten. Insert the following new List. My Lord, sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, sir. Manchester's famous Christmas markets. Are now. In full swing. If you're visiting my city any time in the next few weeks until about the last few days before Christmas, you are most welcome to patronise them. But most welcome to patronise them. But that wasn't the case for a number of young people. From a gypsy Roma traveller background. This time

19:21

The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)

- -

last year, they were turned away by police at the railway station on the supposition that they must have come to commit crime. Children were seen being forced onto trains heading to unknown destinations, separated from family members and subject to physical aggression. This included shoving, hair pulling and handcuffing. Several individuals reported officers making disparaging remarks about their ethnicity. My Lords, I say that to remind us it is a sad fact that in 2025, it remains acceptable in our society to treat Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people in ways that seek to drive them to the margins of society.

The PCSC act of 2022, which amended the 1994 act in respect of unauthorised encampments, included changes which, as we just heard from Baroness Whitaker, the High Court has made a declaration of incompatibility on under section four of the Human Rights Act 1998. Police powers were expanded beyond the original provision, allowing officers to arrest, to seize vehicles, to forfeit properties if individuals fail to leave when being directed. The PCSC act also extended powers to cover land on highways, increased the no return period from 3 to 12 months, and broaden the types of harm that justify eviction, removing the previous need to demonstrate threatening behaviour or damage.

My Lords, I oppose those changes in your Lordships' House then, and I do so still. The overwhelming reason why illegal encampments take place is simple, as the noble Baroness had just reminded us, it's down to the continuing failure of local authorities across the nation to provide sufficient legal sites. There are few votes for councillors in providing traveller sites. Alas, there are many more votes for those same councillors in closing or refusing permission for them. This, my Lords, is a direct consequence of the same prejudiced attitudes against the Gypsy Roma traveller community which underlay that distressing treatment of the young people in Manchester last year, amendment 49 can be a first step towards rectifying that institutionalised injustice.

So I hope that in responding to this debate, the noble Lord, the Minister, can give us some indication of how His Majesty's Government intends to legislate, both in this Bill and elsewhere, to tackle the persistent levels of discrimination against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. I wish to speak in support of the noble Lady, Baroness Whitaker and thank her for tabling

19:24

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Whitaker and thank her for tabling this important debate. Baroness amendment sorry, Baroness Whitaker has laid out the arguments

19:24

The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)

- -

extremely carefully and clearly. Romani and Traveller people

19:24

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Romani and Traveller people experience stark inequalities. They are subject to a wide range of enforcement powers against enforcement powers against encampments. Part four of the police, crime, Sentencing and Court police, crime, Sentencing and Court Act, introduced in 2022, created a new criminal offence relating to trespass and gave police tougher powers to ban and Travellers from an area for up to 12 months, alongside powers to fine, arrest, alongside powers to fine, arrest, imprison and seize the homes of and Travellers.

This draconian amendment was tabled and supported amendment was tabled and supported by the previous conservative government. It took no account of whether elderly relatives or whether elderly relatives or children were on site, whether a woman might be in the late stages woman might be in the late stages of pregnancy. It was a broad, sweeping power which the police had sweeping power which the police had not asked for, nor did they want it. On several occasions I have called on the previous government to on the previous government to require all local authorities to provide adequate permanent sites provide adequate permanent sites for Romani and people and travelling people, as well as temporary stopping sites to accommodate the cultural nomadic lifestyle, but to no avail.

His Majesty's Official Opposition prefer the scenario where, due to the absence of authorised stopping places or sites, illegal camping is dealt with in a draconian manner. The and Travellers are evicted and thrown in prison, their caravan homes and vehicles seized and their children are taken into care, all a burden on the taxpayer. With no fault to the humanitarian impact on the Romani people and travellers themselves, making a nomadic cultural way of life. A criminal activity was and is appalling and out of all proportion and in breach of section four of the Human Rights Acts of 1998.

Previously in Somerset, there were adequate provisions of both temporary and permanent sites for the travelling community, and I am pleased to say that I worked very hard to get those sites up and running against huge opposition. Some of these sites have since closed. I now live in Hampshire, where I am, to all intents and purposes, surrounded by traveller sites. They live round the corner. They live at the bottom of the road I live in. Their children go to the local schools, both primary and secondary.

Their babies are baptised in the church. One baby girl was baptised yesterday. Sorry. On Sunday. That was yesterday, wasn't it? Sorry. Yesterday. Surrounded by over a hundred well-wishers from her extended family, we bought our logs from the man who lived down the road. Sadly he died earlier this year but we now buy from his grandson who has taken over his grandfather's business. There is nothing but goodwill and respect between the travellers and the rest of the community. There will, of course, be those who live close to very large, unmanaged and sprawling traveller sites, and I have some sympathy with these people.

However, if their local authority had made adequate provision in the first place, with sites having adequate toilet and water facilities, maybe there would not be. In the current unfortunate circumstances we hear about. I thank the Right Reverend, the Bishop of Manchester, for reminding us of how and Travellers are still treated, and it is a disgrace. It really is time that proper provision is made for those who have a different culture. To those of us living in bricks and mortar, now is definitely the time to ditch the legislation of 2022.

It was not needed then and it is not needed now. I fully support this amendment and look forward to the Minister's response.

19:28

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

My Lords, I rise with pleasure to join the three other proposals of amendment 49. I apologise for not taking part in the Second Reading of the Bill, but as my noble friend Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb said then, I have two very specific issues that the only ones I'll be dealing with. And this, of course, is one of them. And I'm going to take I think the case for this amendment has already been overwhelmingly made. So I'm not going to repeat what what's already been said, but I am going to take your Lordships' House back to the House in December 2021, when I actually called a vote on whether part four should be part of the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act as it became of 2022.

I said then that this was a moral issue, to have a piece of the legislation explicitly targeting Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people, and what it was doing to them was such a moral issue that it could not be allowed to drift by. And I note that the first on the list of the people supporting me in that vote was the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester. There were four Cross-bench members who supported that, including Lord Alton, Baroness Grey-Thompson and Baroness O'Loan.

There were nine Labour members who supported me in that vote and I thank all of them. People can consult the list and I see 54 Liberal Democrats, so I thank them very much for supporting me then and for hearing the strong words from the noble Lady Baroness Bakewell now. But I think it's it is worth looking back to the debate then, because at the Second Reading, then the then conservative Minister said, oh, we have to have this. We're delivering on a manifesto commitment.

Now, I understand, I believe, I very much hope that maintaining part four of this bill was not a Labour manifesto commitment, and this is an opportunity for them to undo something that the previous Tory government did, that absolutely should be undone and could be done very simply, as the noble Lady, Baroness Whitaker, who's so much your Lordship's house champion on issues of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people over such a long period of time. And she leads all of us who follow that path so well.

This is a chance to very simply and clearly do something that needs to be done. I'll also go back to the discussion around that time, and I notes that the noble Lord Lord Dubs not currently, unfortunately, in his place, but the noble Lord wrote a very powerful piece for the independent opposing part for what we're essentially undoing here. And like the Bishop, the right reverend Prelate Lord Dubs, who of course, is a Kindertransport survivor himself, was thinking of the situation of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children.

They could see their worldly possessions wheeled away, their warmth and their shelter seized, their parents potentially imprisoned. And that is what this this part of the bill that we're seeking to remove actually does. I will just also point out that in April, a coalition of 22 civil society groups, including Amnesty International, Liberty Quakers in Britain, Homeless Link and of course, friends, Families and travellers, wrote to the policing Minister in the other place, calling for essentially what this amendment does.

The noble Lady, Baroness Whitaker, has already made these points, but it is worth noting that the High Court has has ruled previously that parts of this act are incompatible, and parts of this act as it relates to incompatible with the Human Rights Act and the Council of Europe. Commissioner for Human Rights, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have all raised concerns or made formal representations recommendations to the UK government.

So, my Lords, this is a very simple, very clear, very effective mechanism by which the government can do the right thing. Surely it's going to seize this chance to do that, if not right from the Dispatch Box this evening before we get to Report stage. But if we get to Report stage, then I think we would have to bring this before the House again to make a decision, because this is simply unconscionable to leave this in the bill. In the act.

19:33

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

Yes. noble Lords who have contributed, contributed to this debate and to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for her amendment. Contributions have been thoughtful and they've certainly highlighted some of the issues that certain communities face. There is no doubt at all that we are united in the belief that all communities should be treated with dignity and fairness, and that these considerations should guide interactions between them and local authorities. However, I must respectively state that we on these benches cannot support amendment 49.

The effect of this amendment would be to repeal the provisions introduced by the previous government in the police, crime, Courts and Sentencing Act of 2022. That act created the offence relating to unauthorised encampments and the accompanying enforcement powers. The powers introduced by a conservative government, after much consultation and representations from local authorities and members of the public who repeatedly expressed concern about the impact of unauthorised encampments on local communities and the provisions, My Lords, that this amendment seeks to remove were designed to address situations where unauthorised encampments cause significant harm, such as through damaging land, obstructing highways and shops, or creating fear and distress in local neighbourhoods.

We're not talking about minor inconveniences, we are talking about serious damage and serious disruption. And in many cases they have provided clarity and reassurance, enabling the police to respond more proportionately and local authorities to act more swiftly while still supporting negotiated stopping and offering lawful sites wherever possible. My Lords, the noble Baroness deployed the argument that these provisions have been declared incompatible with the Human Rights Act, but I don't think that is an overwhelming argument for repealing legislation passed by this Parliament.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but does he accept that there is no definition of alarm and distress, that it is in fact a distress, that it is in fact a subjective view on the part of the landowner? And also, does he also accept that majority of of the accept that majority of of the police did not want this provision when consulted?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when consulted? I think the the point is, is that that the lack of a definition that that the lack of a definition gives the police the ability to act within their discretion and moving within their discretion and moving to the to the issue around incompatibility. It's worth noting that where there is a declaration of incompatibility made by the courts, such a declaration is not a strike down power. It's not a strike down power. It's not a mandate for immediate legislative repeal.

And it will come as no repeal. And it will come as no surprise that on these benches, we believe that there has been there believe that there has been there have been too many instances of judicial overreach as to justify a judicial overreach as to justify a repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the ECHR. And if we cannot prevent unlawful encampments cannot prevent unlawful encampments by people with no right to reside on the land, which is, in our view, an absolutely legitimate aim, then that is an indication that those.

The Human Rights Act and the ECHR are not fit for purpose. My Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to conclude repealing these measures entirely. I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The noble Lord speaks giving way. The noble Lord speaks about so-called judicial overreach, but referring to building on what the noble Lady, Baroness Whitaker, the noble Lady, Baroness Whitaker, said in a consultation in 2018, 75% of police said they didn't want of police said they didn't want these extra powers and 85% did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments. This is across the justice system. It's not just what the judges are doing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just what the judges are doing. I that may be the case in the year that the noble Baroness Sater. year that the noble Baroness Sater. But but the fact remains that these these provisions have been brought these provisions have been brought into force, they have been effective and that they have responded to representations from responded to representations from both local authorities and members of the public who have repeatedly of the public who have repeatedly expressed concern about the impact of unauthorised encampments on of unauthorised encampments on their community.

And I earnestly believe that repealing these measures entirely would remove essential tools for managing the real and sometimes serious harms real and sometimes serious harms experienced by communities across the country. And for those reasons, these benches cannot support the amendment.

19:37

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful to my noble friend Baroness Whitaker for tabling the amendment, and she's obviously secured widespread support from Baroness Bakewell of Hartington, Mandeville, the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester and Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. As my noble friend explained the High Court ruling in May 24th found the specific changes made by the police, Crime and Sentencing and Courts Act of 2022 relating to traveller sites were incompatible with convention rights, and this is where I'm going to depart from the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel, because the government respects the decision of the court in making that decision.

And the government, I hope this is helpful to my noble friend is working now on a response to that court judgement, and I want to make it absolutely clear that I recognise the High Court ruling and the response is needed, and I hope I can help my noble friend by saying that I can undertake to update the House ahead of Report stage on this matter. We're not able to finalise the exact response as yet, but I hope that is helpful to my noble friend.

So I can't support her amendment today. But I think that it's important that we do give that signal to my noble friend that this matter is one that we have to resolve very speedily. In considering the court's judgement, the government will carefully balance the rights of individuals to live in a private life without discrimination, whilst recognising the importance of protecting public spaces and communities affected by unauthorised encampments. And that balance will be made. But I hope to be able to resolve that issue. As I've said by Report stage, a number of noble Lords and ladies have mentioned the question of the shortage of unauthorised sites available to and Travellers, and that is a important point.

Local authorities, as members will know, are required to assess the need for traveller pitches in their area and must plan to meet that need. These decisions are made locally. They reflect specific circumstances in each area, and they operate within the National Planning Policy for traveller sites, which is set by the government. We aim to ensure that fair and equal treatment for travellers in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of travellers, while respecting the interests of the settled community and planning.

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's a noble Lord. Accept that aggregate across the country. The effect of lots of local decisions by local authorities is that there by local authorities is that there is a calamitous shortage of legitimate sites for Gypsy, Roma, traveller people, and if so, what traveller people, and if so, what does the government plan to do about that? Rather than simply

**** Possible New Speaker ****

authority. It is up to each local authority, and that is that the position of the government. And I understand the government. And I understand the Right Reverend prelates point on that. But there is overarching on that. But there is overarching guidance in England provided by the National Planning Policy Framework, which basically indicates that which basically indicates that local authorities are required to assess the need for traveller pitches in their area and that that's a conflict. There is a shortage.

There's always a debate on these matters. There's always opposition, there's always conflict, there's always discussion. But ultimately local councils have to ultimately local councils have to settle on sites in their areas. And settle on sites in their areas. And I can't really help the right reverend Prelate more than more than that. There is there is guidance. There is there is a guidance. There is there is a process to be followed. Issues around the proportionality of enforcement action were also mentioned in passing today.

And again, our laws are designed to address unlawful behaviour, such as criminal damage or actions that cause harassment, alarm or distress, rather than to criminalise a way of life. This distinction is central to ensuring fair and proportionate policing. Harassment, alarm and distress are well established within our legal framework, so there is really a careful balance to be achieved and the response to unauthorised encampments. Locally LED does involve multi-agency collaboration between local councils, police and relevant services, and this approach supports community engagement and ensures that responses are tailored to local needs.

Now, my noble friend's amendments today does go slightly further than the court's judgement. She seeks to repeal the offence of residing on land without the consent of the occupier of the land, as well as the power for police to direct trespassers away from land where they are doing so for the purpose of residing there. Now I just say to my noble friend that those are matters the court did not rule on, and the government still considers these to be necessary and proportionate police powers.

But I give her the undertaking today that I have done in my earlier comments that we hope to be able to bring forward solutions by Report stage. And in the light of that undertaking, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hope that my noble friend can withdraw her amendment. My Lord, I should like to thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken, in particular my Co-signatories, Lady particular my Co-signatories, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, but also the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester, who spoke tellingly about recent experience. And I thank warmly my noble friend, the Minister, for being the first the Minister, for being the first Minister to offer a way through the sites issue. Will all the same be

19:43

Baroness Whitaker (Labour)

- -

pursued? But then there are other routes for us to to pursue that with areas that are not within home office responsibility. I would simply make one point. The 1994 act simply make one point. The 1994 act does give police powers to remove people when there's damage caused. people when there's damage caused. It's the criminalisation element of It's the criminalisation element of part four of the of the 2022 act, which is so, so, so discriminatory. which is so, so, so discriminatory.

But we shall discuss these aspects. But we shall discuss these aspects. I hope, if we can discuss the way through which my noble friend the through which my noble friend the Minister outlined before reports. So I hope we shall have the So I hope we shall have the opportunity to talk about that. On that basis. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. the amendment.

19:44

Deputy Lord Speaker. Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)

Is it your lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is finally withdrawn. The question is that clause 11 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 11, amendment 50 Lord Cameron of Lochiel.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this amendment seeks to repeal provisions of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 that permit the local authority to enter a person's property without their consent, to investigate complaints about high hedges. My Lords, I entirely accept this is a somewhat entirely accept this is a somewhat niche and technical amendment, but it is nevertheless an important one. without their consent, simply to measure that hedge.

Such a power is, and must always be exceptional. It should be tightly drawn and should be tightly drawn and robustly justified, and the. We submit that the matter of high submit that the matter of high hedges, however irritating, however capable of provoking neighbourhood disputes, simply does not meet that threshold. Section 74 was conceived at a time when the framework for powers of entry was far less coherent than it is today, and since then, Parliament has rightly legislated to reduce, rationalise and strengthen oversight of such powers.

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in particular, represents a significant step towards rebalancing the relationship between citizens and the state. Yet the power preserved in section 74 stands out as an anomaly, disproportionate in nature and insufficiently justified in practice. Nothing in this amendment, my Lords, removes the ability of local authorities to investigate complaints about high hedges. Those mechanisms remain entirely intact. What this amendment does is require them to do so without resorting to an intrusive power that, in most cases, is wholly unnecessary.

Local authorities already have ample means to assess complaints, photographic evidence, site visits with permission, communication with affected neighbours and, where appropriate, the use of warrants. If there is truly a pressing need. We know, my Lords, that the existence of a power of entry, even one rarely used, changes the character of the relationship between citizen and authority. And at a time when public confidence in local decision making is precious, and when we should be looking to promote proportionate approaches to neighbourhood disputes.

This is precisely the kind of redundant power that ought to be removed from the statute book. It's not only a matter of principle or the principle is certainly at stake. It's a matter of clarity and good governance and improving pruning back this outlier power. We would produce a statute book that is more coherent and consistent with long established protections for private amendment.

19:47

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And then after clause 11, insert the following new clause as printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Marshall List. I have listened attentively to the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel, the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and I'm inclined to agree with him in part. I start by declaring my in part. I start by declaring my interest as the part owner of a property that has high hedges on both sides of our home. One side is both sides of our home. One side is higher than the other, approximately 4 to 5m high. It may well keep the sun out of our well keep the sun out of our neighbour's front garden in winter, when the sun is low in the sky.

But since it is where they park their since it is where they park their cars and it is their hedge, they are not that worried. We cut our side of the hedge and bought the special three legged ladder, so that my husband didn't break his neck to ensure that this was

19:48

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)

- -

neck to ensure that this was conducted safely, I stress that neither hedge is leylandii. The

19:48

right to light is something many of us take for granted. However, travelling to Waterloo on the train

19:48

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)

- -

travelling to Waterloo on the train every day, I can see that many of those who live towards the bottom of high rise flats have little or of high rise flats have little or no right to light. I understand and sympathise with those who live close to a property which has a high hedge obscuring the sun from their house and garden, whilst good their house and garden, whilst good hedges and fences make for good neighbours, excessively tall and untidy hedges may not, and it is always better if neighbouring properties can come to some accommodation about what is acceptable for the height of the hedge, where this is not possible hedge, where this is not possible and communication has broken down, then there must be some recourse for those suffering from being on for those suffering from being on the wrong side of a very high hedge.

In the first instance, this will be the local authority current. Currently, local authorities have the right to enter the property without the owner's consent. To investigate a high hedge complaint. Given the current budget restrictions on local authorities, I cannot imagine that many officers will pitch up unannounced at a will pitch up unannounced at a property to investigate. They would much rather not have a wasted journey and hope to solve the problem easily. This, that is, unless they have previously been threatened when visiting the hedge.

The problem with the hedge will depend on what is growing in it. Leylandii cause a significant problem being dense and fast growing, enabling the hedge to reach unsatisfactory heights in a relatively short space of time. If there is a considerable problem with such a hedge hedge, then just how is it to be solved if local authorities are not involved in finding a solution, will one party have to continue with the disadvantages of living with the high hedge and all that involves? Whilst the owner of the hedge remains intransigent and deaf to the protests of his or her neighbour.

My Lords, this is unacceptable. I have sympathy and am keen in finding a solution for those who suffer from high hedges. The legislation, introduced into the Anti-social Behaviour Act of 2003, was not introduced on a whim, but in a serious attempt to tackle unpleasant situations arising between neighbours. Whilst the best solution is for difficulties to be sorted out between the interested parties, that is not always possible. In those cases, then the local authority should have the power to intervene, and I look forward to the noble Lords and forward to the noble Lords and Ministers response.

19:51

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful to the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel for tabling what he himself termed to be a niche amendment today. There's nothing wrong with the amendment. It's obviously generated a discussion, but this let us focus back in terms of what the noble Baroness Bakewell has just said. This focuses back on not the legislation, not even really the enforcement, but whether or not when parties do break down, whether the local authority should be and is the arbiter of the dispute.

And in order to be the arbiter of the dispute, whether the local authority can have access to the property. I think if we look at the issue, I think it's important that we say that when assessing a complaint or appeal, when issuing a remedial notice to an individual, or assessing whether an individual has taken the necessary action, then to enter a property to assess the hedging question surely is not a niche issue. It's part of the role of the local authority to be able to assess that issue.

The government believes that local authorities are best placed to consider unresolved disputes regarding high hedges. They were set out in national guidance. The Anti-social Behaviour Act of 2003 enables local authorities to intervene, going to the very point the noble Baroness Bakewell has mentioned as a last resort, it should be for neighbours to try and sort these matters out, but there are the opportunities for people who are unhappy with the council's decision also to have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

In cases in England, and the power of local authority officers to enter someone's property is an important part of ensuring such disputes are solved and any remedial action is taken. Now, if I can assure the noble Lord the power of entry to enter a neighbouring land, to order to carry out their functions on the date of the act. The term neighbouring land means the land on which the high hedge is situated, effectively someone's garden. A local authority must give 24 hours notice of their intended entry, and if the land is in occupied, leave it as effectively secured as they found it.

I would stress to the noble Lord that there's clear guidance on Gov.uk for local authorities in exercising their powers. The government will keep this guidance under review, but in the absence of disputes being resolved, as the noble Baroness has said by neighbours themselves amicably between the parties, it is therefore possible that there are therefore remedial powers for local authorities to step in and require the offending property owner to take action and where they fail to do so. It's also right that a local authority should be able to undertake the remedial work itself and charge the householder concerned, and to do this it is necessary for the local authority to undertake the niche point of entering someone's garden, to examine the fence or the hedge, or to erect a platform on the highway to do the same.

So if we accepted that the noble Lord Cameron's proposal today, I don't know how local authorities would be able to assess the legislation under the act. So if he's saying he doesn't believe the legislation under the act is appropriate and we shouldn't have high hedges legislation, that is a different point. If we do have that legislation, then we do need to have a mechanism whereby the local council can enter a premise, and there might well be occasions where the local council has to do that, because relations have broken down to such an extent that only the local council can solve it, and therefore they have to undertake that entry into a person's garden, or to erect a platform in order to assess the issue in the first place.

That is not a gross invasion of a householder's property. It is a sensible resolution by a third party, given the powers to do so under the 2003 act, in order to resolve an issue that neighbours haven't been able to resolve. And again, the local council may resolve it in favour of the complainant, or they may resolve it in favour of the person with the high hedge. That's a matter for them. But if they don't have access to the property to do that, then I'm afraid that the niche discussion will be we can't resolve that problem.

So I would hope that the noble Lord would withdraw his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. My Lords, can I thank all those your Lordships' House who've spoken

19:56

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

your Lordships' House who've spoken in this debate? I'm delighted to have a degree of support from Baroness Bakewell, who, as she recounted, has had some personal experience of this issue. I would just like to reiterate to the noble Lords Minister that it just seems entirely disproportionate for local authorities to be able to enter a person's private property without their consent to to investigate this issue. And that is what underpins this amendment. But my my Lords, I don't want to beat around the bush anymore.

And for now, I beg leave to withdraw.

19:56

Deputy Lord Speaker. Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)

As your Lordship's pleasure, this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is finally withdrawn. Amendment 51 Lord Cameron of Lochiel.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this group speaks to the two amendments in my name and in the names of my noble friends, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Keen of Elie, and they seek to address the long standing problems of gang involvement in our cities and to probe the government's approach to probe the government's approach to to this. And I'm grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for approaching me recently to discuss this, and I hope that we can continue that conversation.

My

19:57

Amendment:51 Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

continue that conversation. My Lords, gangs are groups of people whose entire identities are founded upon the control of a territory upon the control of a territory through the means of violence. They are established to exert power. They are maintained through They are maintained through coercion and grooming of the youth, and exist to establish themselves and exist to establish themselves over their counterparts by any means. They are exploitative organisations, and the very idea that groups of young men should be able to gain a de facto control of large parts of our cities through large parts of our cities through intimidation and aggression, is one that should have been stamped out long ago, but unfortunately we have long ago, but unfortunately we have let them fester.

The result is that the Metropolitan Police believe that there are 102 active gangs in London, each vying for their own share of territory that is not and cannot become theirs. They commit a litany of crimes, with the most horrific reports suggesting that they actually keep scoreboards of the number of rival gang members that they either stab or kill. This is not unique to the capital. It is the norm across many of our major cities, and unfortunately, it is almost impossible to legislate against gang involvement before a crime has taken place.

They are uncodified organisations and breaking them up or attempting to break them up, would require a large infringement upon every citizen's right to associate freely. But that doesn't lessen the need for legislative steps to be taken. Amendment 52 would implement, in our view, the next best thing. It would create the aggravating factor of committing an offence in connection to the activities of a gang. This would disincentivize group based crime, and would mean that criminals are identified and convicted as gang members, would be able to be imprisoned to be imprisoned for longer.

Similarly, it is well known that gangs often leave tags to mark their territories. This graffiti comes at enormous cost to either the taxpayer or private businesses. A small local businesses can see the fronts of their stores defaced, leaving them to choose between forking out repair costs or seeing customers potentially put off by Councils are faced with even more bills as they are forced to pay for the upkeep of their local areas. And it does seem entirely unfair on law abiding communities who are burdened with this.

But gang related violence does not end at the physical crime that is committed. It extends to the psychological. There is also the problem of the tone that gang related graffiti sets. It's bad enough seeing your neighbourhood vandalised by gangs, but it is far worse when it is vandalised by violent group marking their territory. It sends a signals to locals that their community is not, in fact, their shared property, but belongs to a small group of individuals with scant regard for the law.

It alarms them that these people live amongst them. It causes fear, it causes distress, and it causes alarm. It is an act of intimidation which makes society feel less safe. My Lords, on the subject of of graffiti, I don't know if noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat benches are aware, but my right hon. Friend, the shadow Lord Chancellor, has received a letter from one of their colleagues, the right hon. Member for Cheltenham, Max Wilkinson, and he said in that letter, the amendment submitted by your colleagues will see anyone who paints a Saint George's Cross on a public surface, jailed for up to two years.

I have to say I was rather baffled when I saw that the subject matter of amendment 51 is, in explicit terms, gang related graffiti. It is to say the amendment criminalises graffiti that utilises gang signs, symbols or slogans that are committed in the course of gang activity, and it uses the same definition of gang as section 51 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, and in our view, a person who simply paints a cross on a public building is a building is very clearly not in scope of this new offence.

I think that this is also the opportunity to clarify. This is not a group of amendments seeking to unfairly penalise innocent groups of people. The amendments are specifically targeted at people and symbols that are unquestionably identifiable as gang related. They create separate laws for specific form of crime, and go to the heart of one of the main issues making our cities attractive, sorry, unattractive and unsafe. Gangs, as I said, are intimidating. They prey on the weakest in our communities. They recruit them for their own ends.

They encourage violence and increased lawlessness. And we believe these amendments are necessary and are necessary steps that must be taken to kerb the issue. I look forward to hearing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister's response and I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 11, insert the following new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

11, insert the following new clause as printed on the marshalled list. My Lords. I rise to support my noble friend's amendment. I can tell the House that every week, coming from the North of England to this House, I see literally miles

20:02

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

this House, I see literally miles and miles of repulsive gang graffiti. On the outskirts of every station. Walls and buildings are plastered with it and crew, and near Euston, hundreds and hundreds of good goods wagons are covered in it, and even the walls of residential buildings. And why should it matter? We see it everywhere, so why worry about it? Of course it's unsightly and destroys any beauty there may be left on approaches to cities by rail, but it's much more insidious than that.

As my noble friend on the frontbench has pointed out, gang related graffiti we see in all urban areas is often seen as both a symptom and a catalyst of criminal activity. I suggest there is sufficient evidence available to conclude that gang graffiti leads to increased crime in affected neighbourhoods, and that it instils fear amongst local residents. Gang graffiti typically consists of symbols, tags or messages used by criminal gangs to mark their territory, send warning warnings, or communicate with other gangs.

It differs from other forms of graffiti, such as street art, due to its association with organised crime and territorial disputes. Now several studies and reports indicate a correlation between the presence of gang graffiti and higher rates of crime, particularly violent offences. Gang graffiti is often used to demarcate territory which can lead to turf wars and retaliatory violence. Areas marked by gang symbols may experience an increase in robberies, assaults, and drug related crimes, as gangs seek to assert dominance. A study published by the Journal of Criminal Justice found that neighbourhoods with visible gang graffiti reported higher levels of gang related crime and violence, suggesting that graffiti serves both as a warning and an invitation for conflict.

Police departments and cities such as London and Manchester have noted that the appearance of new grand graffiti graffiti often coincides with spikes in criminal activity, particularly when rival gangs respond by marking over existing tags, and crime prevention experts argue that gang graffiti is not merely a symptom, but a tool used to intimidate, recruit, claim control, thereby fostering an environment conducive to criminal behaviour. Now, my Lords, correlation does not necessarily necessarily imply causation. The consistent the consistent association between gang graffiti and increased crime rates supports the arguments that graffiti can contribute to localised crime.

The visual presence of gang graffiti can have a significant psychological impact on residents and visitors. As my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel said, research conducted by community safety organisations has shown that people perceive areas with gang graffiti as less safe, which can lead to heightened anxiety, avoidance behaviours and reduced community cohesion. Surveys by our local councils in the UK reveal that residents often cite gang graffiti as a major contributor to their fear of crime, even if they have not personally experienced gang violence.

And our own British Crime Survey found that the visibility of gang markers and threatening messages increases the perceived risk of victimisation, causing some individuals to alter their daily routines or to avoid certain neighbourhoods or streets altogether. And community leaders report that gang graffiti can erode trust in public institutions, as residents may feel that the authorities are unable to maintain law and order and prevent criminal groups from operating openly. So, in summary, gang graffiti acts as a visual clue that can frighten people, negatively impact mental well-being, and discourage positive social interaction within affected communities.

Now, last year, the met, the Metropolitan Police, as my noble friend said, estimated there were 102 active gangs in London engaged in violence and robbery, and they were responsible for a significant amount of serious violence, including half of all knife crimes with injury. 60% of shootings and 29% of reported child sexual exploitation. Exploitation, and I think it was 102. Gangs equate to about 4500 individuals. And it's not just London. The same is happening all over our major cities.

So let's be clear. My Lords gang related graffiti is not some kids with aerosol cans spray painting some walls for a bit of fun. They are making gangs are making powerful statements to their allies and enemies that this is their criminal territory. Therefore, my Lords, the solution has to be prompt removal. Expensive that is, that has to be part of gang prevention strategies. However, we also need the increased penalties, as suggested by my noble friend in his amendment 51. I do not need to speak in support of amendment 52.

I think I've just made the point that gangs are highly dangerous organisations, and there should be tougher sentences for any crimes which have gang connections. which have gang connections.

20:07

Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, everyone is concerned about gang activity. The dark web means it's never been easier for people to source and buy drugs independently, and this is contributing to the emergence of more loosely organised micro gangs, as once an individual has a large supply of illicit drugs, they need to recruit others to help distribute them. So I'm sympathetic to the intentions behind the tabled amendments on 51 on graffiti. I entirely agree with some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that this usually relates to gangs marking territory or expressing group affiliation.

It can result in public spaces feeling unsafe, and the fear is it could fuel turf wars between rival gangs. To many, it's also an unsightly nuisance, with the clean up costs high for homeowners, businesses and local authorities. However, we remain unconvinced that this amendment is the way forward. Graffiti without the property owner's permission is already a criminal offence, classified as vandalism or criminal damage, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment. I am also concerned that measures like this risk embedding racial bias in law enforcement and disproportionately affecting minority and marginalised communities.

The courts have already found that using graffiti as a marker of gang IOM entity can result in the unjust targeting of marginalised groups, especially people of colour. In 2022, a legal ruling forced the Metropolitan Police to admit that the operation of its gangs matrix was unlawful, breached human rights and had a disproportionate impact on black people. The matrix used factors including graffiti to label people as gang members, leading to life changing consequences for those who had been wrongly included.

Over a thousand individuals assessed as low risk subsequently had to be removed from the database. This demonstrates the danger of conflating graffiti, gangs and criminality. And while I understand the intention behind this amendment, the risk of unintended consequences is clear in relation to amendment 52. The definition of gang here feels worryingly broad, so we can't support it. As drafted. It raises significant concerns that outweigh its intended benefits. Prosecutors are already cautioned not to use the term gang without clear evidence because, used inappropriately, it can unfairly broaden liability for an individual's offending while disproportionately affecting ethnic minorities.

This proposal also feels overly prescriptive. It's important the courts retain discretion and that the law allows for nuanced sentencing. Where, example, someone was plainly being coerced, groomed or manipulated into gang activity. On these benches, we believe sentencing must account for individual circumstances and be based on specific individual criminal behaviour. Simply being in with the behaviour. Simply being in with the wrong people is not the same thing. Lord Moore Lord Davies of Gower Lord Cameron of Lochiel and the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen of Elie for tabling amendments 51 and 52.

These amendments are proposed and supported by three members of your Lordships' House, who between them have considerable experience in what might loosely be called the law and order space. They are, in rugby terms, a formidable front row, and as such I've considered what they've proposed with care. My Lords, I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Lord Lord Blencathra, and indeed your Lordships' House, that this government is definitely against gangs and absolutely against graffiti. But that said, we do not believe that these proposals are needed primarily because the activities criminalised in these measures are already covered by existing legislation dealing first with amendment 51.

My Lords, the intended effect of amendment 51 is to criminalise the kind of graffiti which gangs use to mark what they feel is their territory and or to threaten rival groups with violence. But as the noble Lady Baroness Doocey has already said, this criminal behaviour is already covered by the existing offence contained within section one of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Section one is broad enough to cover graffiti because case law establishes that the damage does not have to be permanent, and it catches behaviour such as using water soluble paint on a pavement or smearing mud on the walls of a police cell.

In addition, section one of the Criminal Damage Act has a higher maximum penalty than the proposed new offence, being

20:12

punishable in the Crown Court by a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment. Not only is the imprisonment. Not only is the proposed offence not needed, there are very real problems with the structure of what is proposed. I'm

20:13

Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)

- -

structure of what is proposed. I'm going to mention three, but there are others. First, this amendment creates an offence of strict liability. What that means is that the prosecution is not required to the prosecution is not required to prove intention, recklessness or even knowledge. The result is a criminal offence which could be criminal offence which could be committed by accident. Now the criminal law does not like strict liability offences, and they're liability offences, and they're very rare in our jurisprudence. And the reason is a simple one.

We do not usually criminalise people who not usually criminalise people who are not even aware that they were doing anything wrong. Second, whatever the intention is behind whatever the intention is behind the drafting of this proposed criminal offence, the way it is drafted, the definition of gang is so broad that it would capture both the brownies and the Church of England, as well as football teams, drama societies and many other drama societies and many other groups not normally regarded as criminal.

I do not think that the noble Lords intend that a Christian noble Lords intend that a Christian or a Christian cross chalked on a fence could potentially be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prosecuted as a criminal offence. Order! Coming up a bit later, I want to go back to an earlier comment that the graffiti could happen by accident. How on earth can graffiti accident graffiti artist by accident spray a wall with gang

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accident spray a wall with gang tags? The difficulty is that if you're not, for example, if you put not, for example, if you put something, if somebody were to put something on a fence, for example, and they were not aware that this was associated with a gang, potentially they'd be criminalised potentially they'd be criminalised by it. Thirdly, the requirements of the new proposed offence mean that expert evidence would need to be adduced in order that the the jury or the magistrates could decide or the magistrates could decide whether the prosecution had proved to the criminal standard, that is to say, beyond reasonable doubt, to say, beyond reasonable doubt, whether the graffiti is gang related within the meaning of the related within the meaning of the section.

Most judges, magistrates and juries are unlikely to understand the significance of understand the significance of particular names or symbols or tags. This is not just the sharks and the Jets that we're talking about, but Jets that we're talking about, but rather more abstruse versions than that. Then the requirement that a trial be fair would require that trial be fair would require that the defence would also have to be able to instruct an expert, usually at public expense. Your Lordships' House is well aware of the difficulties the criminal courts already have with delay.

The idea that these existing challenges should be added to by numerous battle of the expert trials about graffiti is as unpalatable as it is unnecessary, given that the conduct is already captured by the Criminal Damage Act. Turning now to amendment 52, this seeks to make gang involvement a statutory aggravating factor in the sentencing for any criminal offence. Thus it is very wide indeed. The definition of gang is once again so broad that it would capture a number of wholly innocuous groups.

And this is not a mere drafting issue. It encapsulates the fundamental problem with this provision, which is the difficulty of defining the conduct which it seeks to condemn with sufficient precision to make it workable, workable. Again, evidence might be needed at the sentencing stage. At present, chapter three of part four of the Sentencing Act 2020 creates only 11 statutory aggravating factors which a sentence must bear in mind when considering the seriousness of the offence. These statutory aggravating features include umbrella issues, such as whether the offence was committed whilst on bail, or whether the offender has previous convictions, but it also includes some offence specific ones, such as involving a minor child in the supply of controlled drugs.

This proposed amendment would create a 12th. My Lords, the government is satisfied that a further statutory aggravating factor is not needed. This is because the sentencing guidelines already require the Sentencer to consider additional non-statutory factors, and these include where the offence has been committed as part of a group, or where there is evidence of community or wider impact, and that list is not a closed one. The kind of gang related activity which is of concern to all right thinking people can and should be taken into account by sentences.

And my own recent experience as a judge sitting in a central London Crown Court, is that judges would and do already treat gang issues where clearly proved as an aggravating factor in terms of sentence. Put simply, I'm satisfied that the courts already have the tools necessary to respond robustly to serious gang related offending. And for that reason, my Lords, I consider both these amendments unnecessary. However, if there is something particular that they seek to address and to which I have not spoken, I would invite noble Lords to meet me and discuss it.

Notwithstanding this offer, and for the reasons I have set out, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

invite the noble Lord to withdraw these amendments. My Lords, I'm very grateful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and I thank the honourable Minister for thank the honourable Minister for her kind comments at the start of Slightly Undeserving. In my case, I

20:18

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

think. But given her her own experience. I listened carefully to to what she said. There are a couple of points I would just like to come come back on the the point about painting a Saint George's Cross or a saltire or whatever symbol might be chosen is, is that that action would not and never would be caught by this, because it is not, quote, gang related. In addition, I, I would, I would, I would suggest that it is not too difficult for juries to understand the concept of, of of something that is gang related.

And lastly, on the on the issue of the definition of gang at a point made both by the noble Baroness, the Minister, but also by the noble Baroness Baroness Doocey, the definition of gang is the same definition as used in section 51 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. It is the accepted definition, and in that respect I wouldn't accept that it's too too broad. But underpinning these amendments is, I think, something that we all want to see, which is clean, happy cities that do not face the persistent threat of crime of any form.

And unfortunately, a large part of the urban crime we currently face is the product of gang related feuds and violence. A centre for Social Justice has estimated that 60% of all shootings are gang related. Other reports suggest they are responsible for as much as half of all knife crime. And if we are serious about tackling crime, especially knife crime, then we must do all we can to punish criminal gang members and disincentivize those who have not yet joined a gang.

And it's for that reason that we've put forward these amendments to to make gang related offences specific and requiring a specific treatment in requiring a specific treatment in our law. Forgive me. our law. Forgive me. I our law. Forgive me. I could our law. Forgive me. I could say much more in in relation to these amendments, but for the time being, I'm very grateful to the comments from all noble Lords, particularly the support I have had from my noble friend Lord Blencathra.

But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at this stage I do beg leave to withdraw. Is it your lordships pleasure

20:21

Deputy Lord Speaker.

that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn.

20:21

Amendment:53 Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

Amendment 52 not moved. We come now to amendment 53. Lord Cameron of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lochiel. And my Lords, these amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And my Lords, these amendments require a little bit of legislative background to be given in 2022. The background to be given in 2022. The government accepted an amendment to the police, crime, Sentencing and the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act to repeal the Vagrancy Act of 1824. Section 81 of the 20 Act of 1824. Section 81 of the 20 of the 2022 act containing the repeal has not yet been commenced. The previous government stated its intention to only commence the repeal of the Vagrancy Act, once repeal of the Vagrancy Act, once appropriate replacement legislation was put in place.

The replacement legislative framework was included in the previous government's Criminal Justice Bill, the bill Criminal Justice Bill, the bill that this current bill we are debating is modelled after. But debating is modelled after. But whilst almost a third of the clauses of the Criminal Justice Bill have made their way into this bill, the provisions to replace the Vagrancy Act have not, and this Vagrancy Act have not, and this amendment is intended to ascertain why the Criminal Justice Bill why the Criminal Justice Bill proposed to create a new framework of nuisance begging and nuisance rough sleeping, as well as creating three new related criminal offences.

Now, I entirely accept that the government has carried forward the offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence and the offence of arranging or facilitating begging for gain, but we do not see anything relating to nuisance begging in this bill. And my question to the noble Lord, the Minister is simply why does the government believe that the police will have sufficient powers to deal with anti-social begging once the Vagrancy Act is repealed, and it appears somewhat counterintuitive for the government to seek to criminalise the facilitation of another person's begging, but not criminalise nuisance begging.

Does the government believe there is such a thing as nuisance or anti-social? Begging or not? Regardless of the government's response to that, it appears to us that there will be a legislative gap if the Vagrancy Act is repealed and nothing is put in place to substitute it. My amendment 53 therefore mirrors the proposals from the previous government's Criminal Justice Bill and would create a very narrowly defined offence of nuisance begging and would equip the police with a proportionate and practical tool, namely the power to require an individual to move on from a relevant location where disruptive or unsafe behaviour is occurring.

Let me state what this amendment does not do. It does not criminalise poverty, homelessness or the simple act of asking for help. It does not target those who are vulnerable or down on their luck, nor does it seek to sweep such people out of sight. What it does is draw a clear distinction between legitimate, peaceful begging on the one hand and conduct which crosses into harassment, intimidation or danger both to the public and often to the person begging themselves. On the other hand, my Lords, we believe that the public have a right to move through stations, transport hubs, shopfronts, busy pavements without being impeded, threatened or placed at risk.

Likewise, those who beg have a right to be treated with dignity. But it's precisely because dignity matters that we must address those situations where begging is carried out in a manner, or in locations that create real harm, and the amendment identifies particular locations, public transport, station entrances, ATM machines, business forecourts, taxi ranks. Because these are points where there is little practical ability for a member of the public to avoid unwanted confrontation. Now, places where one can simply one cannot simply walk around a challenging encounter.

A narrow station staircase is not somewhere to negotiate past, and and insistent or aggressive request for money. These are the very locations where nuisance behaviour is taking root, and where the police currently lack a clear and effective mechanism to act, and the amendment sets a threshold based not on the mere presence of a person asking for money, but on conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, fear of harm, risk to health or safety or disorder, and these are long established, widely understood standards in public order law, and they ensure that the power is used only when behaviour becomes unacceptable.

My Lords, the move on power in subsection two is at the heart of the proposal. It is preventative rather than punitive. It gives a constable the ability to intervene early, to de-escalate situations and to protect all involved before matters deteriorate. For the individual concerned, it avoids immediate criminalisation. It gives them an opportunity to comply and move on without penalty. Only wilful refusal to comply would constitute an offence for all those reasons, and with the balance that this amendment strikes so carefully, in our view, I commend it to the Committee and I urge noble Lords to

20:26

Deputy Lord Speaker. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lend their support. I beg to move. Amendment proposed by clause 11. Insert the following new clause as Insert the following new clause as printed on the marshalled list. Amendment 53 A is an amendment to

20:26

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 53 A is an amendment to 53 Lord Blencathra. My Lords, I rise to speak for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak for amendments 53 and 53 B in this group. And first of all, I completely support the comments of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel on the front bench. I support his amendments. I encounter this every day coming to this House where beggars lie on the pavement, half blocking it. Now possibly they think they're less frightening sitting down than standing up, but the nuisance is the same as the as as the chant asking for money.

Now, I haven't seen them for some months now, but for a couple of years we had different beggars every day. But then I realised it was the same dog they had. I presume that the dog got passed around between them, since the public are possibly more sympathetic to the dog than the beggars, because dogs are us. And then we had another one who when I first encountered him, was really scary. He was a beggar, but he was shouting and screaming, not at the public, I realised, but more to himself or to aether than anything else.

Clearly had a mental health problem. After I saw him a couple of times I had no problem. I just didn't make eye contact. But people who never met him before women came out of the shops were terrified of him and it was nuisance begging, but clearly there was a health problem behind it. Now, my Lords, my amendment 53 merely adds a little tweak to my noble friend's new clause. And it adds, outside any residential building to the list in subsection six. Now, in this Westminster area, I've seen them sitting not on the doorstep, but right beside the entrance to a residential block of flats.

Frankly, I think that is intimidating and residents should not have to face that fear, whether misplaced or not, that they may face beggars as they come and go from their own property. My amendment 53 amends my Noble Friends Amendment, subsection seven and states that, quote the judgement that the begging satisfies the conditions and A, B, and d is one to be made by the person who is the victim of the begging, unquote. So what is section seven C? It says this subsection applies if the person begs in a way that is caused or likely to cause a harassment, alarm or distress to another person, b a person reasonably believed that they or any other person may be harmed, or any property that may be damaged, C disorder or D or risk to the health or safety of any person except the person begging.

Someone knows. The purpose of my amendment is that I do not want a police officer to come along and say, oh no, that's not harassment or causing alarm. What are you worried about? There's no risk to your health and safety. I suggest that the judgement be made. That is, the judgement is be made by the person who is a victim of the nuisance begging. Now, some people will not be worried in alarm, as I was after I saw that chap with the mental health problem a few times, but others may be so it's likely.

And I came across this in the accusation of bullying in the civil service. If a civil servant believes someone is bullying, that is taken for granted, that is because one person felt it, even though others might feel differently. Now, I dealt with that in my capacity of serving on an alb. So in conclusion, my Lords, I want it made clear that if the if a person feels that begging is causing him or her alarm, distress or harassment or a risk to their health or safety, then it's the victim's view.

It must be considered, not that of anyone else applying their own test of what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that alarm might be. Lord Mair proposed after subsection six j insert k outside any residential building.

20:30

Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

any residential building. Genuine problem around aggressive begging and the involvement of organised criminal involvement of organised criminal gangs. That is why we support clause 11, which rightly focuses not on individuals who are begging, but on those orchestrating and profiting from this practice. Lots of things in life are a nuisance, but that doesn't mean we should criminalise them. Where begging is causing a genuine nuisance, police already have a range of powers to deal with it under anti-social behaviour legislation.

We think this amendment is the wrong solution at a time when charities such as crisis say the number of vulnerable people on the streets who survive by begging, including women and first time rough sleepers, is rising. In these circumstances, we should be looking at how we can better reach and support these in such straitened circumstances. By contrast, criminalising begging would push people away from support and it will not solve the problems of poverty, homelessness, addiction or exploitation. For all these reasons, we cannot support this amendment.

Indeed, I share the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones in the previous committee that the anti-social behaviour powers in this bill already fall disproportionately heavily on those without a home. The Bill should at the very least update statutory guidance to confirm that anti-social behaviour powers must not be used against people simply because they are homeless or sleeping rough. It should be clear that neither sleeping rough nor begging in itself amounts to anti-social behaviour. I also take this opportunity to raise the calls of crisis for repeal of the Vagrancy Act, to be matched by proper investment in housing support and homelessness provision.

They are absolutely right. In recent years, police intervention has become the default for dealing with societal problems such as homelessness, issues that are far more about social care and social support, and which should not be used with criminality. They need to be more effectively addressed not by the police, but by other agencies with the great expertise. As I said at Second Reading, if this bill is to deliver real change, we must resist continually expanding police responsibilities and instead back evidence based, effective solutions.

It is for this reason, I suspect, that some police forces have said they want guidance on the use of respect orders in relation to street homelessness. In responding to this group, can I ask the Minister to offer a clear timetable for issuing this guidance?

20:33

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

And I'm. as he explained, would introduce a new offence of nuisance begging and permit a constable to move on a person engaged in this behaviour. Failure to comply with this notice would constitute a criminal offence. And I note also the amendments 53 A and 53 B, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Blencathra, which seek to further extend what constitutes nuisance begging under the proposed new offence. Let me make a start by saying some noble Lords, that this government does not wish to target or criminalise individuals who are begging to sustain themselves, or rough sleeping because they have nowhere else to go.

That is why we are committed. As the noble Baroness has mentioned, Baroness Doocey, to repealing the outdated Vacancy Act of 1824, and it's why we will not be introducing measures to target or criminalise begging or rough sleeping. And it's also the very reason the noble Baroness Doocey has mentioned as to why the government is also investing more than £1 billion in homelessness and rough sleeping services this year, which is actually up £316 million compared to the last year.

So there is an increase in support to tackle the very issues that the noble Baroness has mentioned. However, we are legislating in this bill to introduce targeted replacement measures for certain elements of the 1824 act to ensure, I hope the noble Lord Cameron will welcome this, that the police retain the powers they need to keep our communities safe. These targeted replacement measures are in clauses ten and 11, and include a new offence of facilitating begging for gain and an offence of trespassing with the intention of committing a crime, both of which were previously provided for under the 1824 act.

Now, as noble Lords have mentioned, begging itself is a complex issue. It can cause significant harm or distress to communities. Local areas do need appropriate tools to maintain community safety. But where I come back to in this debate is that there are powers in the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act of 2014, which many police forces use to effectively tackle antisocial behaviour in the context of begging and rough sleeping. For example, the very point the noble Lord Blencathra has mentioned, where an individual may be harassing members of the public on a persistent basis, including potentially outside their own home, as in his amendment.

Now the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act of 2014 does provide for current statutory guidance and what we're going to be doing. And this, again, I hope in part answers the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, we will be updating that anti-social behaviour statutory guidance to ensure it is clear to agencies how ASB powers can be used in the context of harassment and this type of begging, how it can be used in this context. If an individual's behaviour reaches a threshold that will be set in the ASB statutory guidance, existing criminal offences can also, of course, be applied where the behaviour crosses criminal threshold currently, so the updating of the guidance I'm expecting will take place in very short order after any potential Royal Assent is given to the legislation through this House.

But I hope that in the light of that assurances that we do take this issue seriously, that the noble Lord Cameron will withdraw his amendment and that the noble Lord Blencathra is at least somewhat mollified in the fact that there are powers in place which will deal with the very issues that he has raised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry, I'm grateful for what the noble Lord has said, and the noble Lord, the Minister said. In fact, I, if I

20:37

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

the Minister said. In fact, I, if I may say so, I do admire his style of the Dispatch Box. He's courteous and thorough in his answers, and in view of his assurances that it's really covered by the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2014, I have no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intention of, I beg leave to withdraw my amendments. To this amendment be withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 53 be not moved and come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 53 be not moved and come back now to amendment 53. Lord Cameron. Thank you. This has been a most

20:38

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. This has been a most interesting debate and I thank all those who who contributed. And I listened very carefully to the listened very carefully to the noble, the Minister and his indication that, in his view, the government believes they have all the tools necessary to prevent anti-social begging. I think underpinning these amendments is the sense that those who work daily in town centres, in transport networks, in retail spaces, consistently report situations where members of the public feel frightened or cornered in some way.

And it's our view that the law, as it currently stands, doesn't provide a consistent, targeted response to these problems. And that's the basis of of this amendment, which seeks to ensure clarity for the public and for the police. We believe that it is carefully drawn. This amendment, it's limited, it's balanced. It's rooted in the principle that no one should be made to feel unsafe or when going about their daily business. And I think we cannot ignore, my Lords, the reality that some forms of begging today bear little resemblance to what many of us have known in the past.

We now see behaviour that is aggressive, persistent and sometimes strategically targeted at locations where people feel feel trapped. In all the circumstances, though, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have listened very carefully and at this point in time I do beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your lordships pleasure

20:39

Deputy Lord Speaker. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. We come now to amendment 54.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

come now to amendment 54. Lord Blencathra rise. I rise to move my amendment 54 and speak to amendment 55. Now. Amendments 5254

20:39

Amendment:54 Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

amendment 55. Now. Amendments 5254 seeks to amend schedule two of the Antisocial Crime and Behaviour Act of 2014. Now, the relevant section says. In that act, a youth court, if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person aged under 18 is in breach of a provision of an injunction under section one to which he or she is subject, the court may make in respect of that person a a supervision order or b a detention order. So dealing with the detention provisions first, the court may make a detention order.

My amendment says that it must make such an order, tying the court's discretion. If a person between the ages of 14 and 18 breaches three or more injunctions, as the noble Lord, the Minister knows. Indeed we all know the problem with juvenile crime is habitual offenders. Now, none of us want to lock up little kiddies who make a couple of mistakes or or commit minor crime. Of course not. But before any juvenile gets an injunction, the anti-social behaviour has to be fairly reasonably serious.

This is what the College of Policing says. The grounds for an injunction, a civil injunction is issued on the balance of probabilities. It must be just and convenient to grant the injunction to prevent anti-social behaviour, and the respondent must have engaged in, or threatened to engage in either conduct that has or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, or conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. A civil injunction sees the police in college is used for drug alcohol related anti-social behaviour, harassment, noise, tenure neutral, whatever that means.

Vandalism and aggressive begging. Now, I submit, therefore, that a juvenile between the ages of 14 to 18, if he or she breaches three of these, then we've passed the stage where the court may say, and I stress may make a detention order. Anyone who's breached three injunctions is rapidly heading to becoming an habitual offender. And if he does not get a detention order after all that behaviour, what signal will that send to him and his mates? It will signal that you can get away with it and nothing will happen.

But another appearance before the court. A rap on the knuckles and told to be a good boy. As parliamentarians, my Lords, I we owe it to the innocent members of the public to protect them from habitual troublemakers. And my amendment does just that. Now, the court, of course, also has discretion whether to make a detention order when a juvenile breaches 1 or 2 injunctions. I submit that I am happy with that. I submit that we only remove that discretion when the offender breaches three or more.

Now, on to supervision orders. The court could order a supervision order instead of detention. Such an order could impose one or more of three requirements supervision requirement and activity requirement a curfew requirement. We do not need to go into into what each of these requirements can do, or the obligations they might impose, but my amendment simply seeks to add an additional power that any person subject to a supervision order is eligible for an electronic tag. Note my wordings my Lord.

Eligible for an electronic tag. Not tying the court's hands here to make it compulsory. Now, one of my reasons for attaching electronic tags to juveniles under court imposed supervision orders is the enhancement of accountability. Electronic monitoring provides a reliable and reliable objective mechanism for tracking the whereabouts of young offenders. This not only helps to ensure compliance with curfews and exclusion zones stipulated by the court, but also gives our probation service immediate insight into any breaches, the knowledge that their movements are being monitored can act as a significant deterrent against further anti-social or criminal behaviour.

Electronic tagging, I suggest, offers reassurance to communities affected by persistent anti-social behaviour by enabling authorities to monitor offenders more closely, it reduces the risk of re-offending whilst under supervision, and this is particularly pertinent in cases where the offence involves intimidation, vandalism or harassment in a particular locality. The visible commitment to monitoring can help rebuild public confidence in the justice system's capacity to protect communities. Now, no doubt some will argue that tagging for juveniles is punitive. But, my Lords, I suggest it could also help rehabilitation.

Electronic monitoring allows for greater flexibility compared to secure detention, enabling juveniles to remain in their communities, continue education and maintain family relationships. The structure imposed by tagging can help young people develop routines and take responsibility for their actions, while still being held accountable. And I suggest for my Lords that for many, this balance of liberty and oversight provides a constructive framework for positive behavioural change. As we all know, and the Minister knows this, and I knew from his last experience in the Home Office early.

For many young offenders, early intervention is critical to prevent escalation into more serious criminal behaviour. Electronic tagging is a clear and immediate consequence can serve as a wake up call highlighting the seriousness of continued non-compliance. This timely intervention can disrupt cycles of offending and encourage reflection, potentially diverting young people from future criminality. With regard to my amendment 55, I will not speak to it since I think I got a bit of inadvertent duplication here. I was drafting an amendment for the act and then one for schedule two, and my amendment 55 is my first draft, which I should not have sent to the public bill office by mistake.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Therefore, I beg to move amendment 54. Just after clause 11, insert the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just after clause 11, insert the following new clause as printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we recognise the legitimate concerns about persistent antisocial behaviour. Repeat offenders represent a Repeat offenders represent a significant challenge within many communities, with a small core of individuals creating disproportionate amount of misery and distress to victims. However, and distress to victims. However, the Liberal Democrats remain sceptical about the approach taken sceptical about the approach taken by amendment 54 on these benches. We believe youth incarceration should be a last resort and not an automatic consequence. Mandatory detention after three breaches not

20:46

Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

detention after three breaches not only removes judicial discretion, it risks criminalising young people for behaviour which is below the criminal standard. The evidence shows detention is largely ineffective and often counterproductive. In reality, it increases the likelihood of future offending. Indeed, Chief Constable I spoke to told me that short term sentences simply equip people to be better at crime. The aim of these measures may be to help victims, but the risk is it could ultimately result in the creation of more of them on these benches.

We believe the key to tackling persistent antisocial behaviour is properly funded community policing. There are about 10,000 fewer police and PCSOs and neighbourhood teams now than in 2015. More than 4500 PCSOs have disappeared and their loss is continuing. Some forces simply haven't got enough personnel in neighbourhood teams to actively address anti-social behaviour. So in his response, could the Minister say what has been done to reverse the exodus of community officers? the exodus of community officers?

20:47

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, the contributions we've just heard demonstrate the seriousness of the issue and highlight why communities and victims need reassurance that persistent anti-social behaviour will be confronted robustly and effectively. And I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for bringing forward these amendments. They provide a welcome opportunity to examine whether the current response to repeat breaches of injunctions is sufficient. It goes without saying that ongoing and persistent anti-social behaviour has a profound impact on the lives of ordinary residents, including the feeling of individual safety and the wider sense of cohesion in our neighbourhoods.

Amendment 54 seeks to provide that if someone under 18 breaches three injunctions of supervision orders, then they must be given a detention. It seems likely to me at least, that someone who has broken three such injunctions is plainly on the path to becoming a habitual offender, and repeated breaches shouldn't simply be met with ineffective sanctions. But the communities have to know that the law has teeth, and that those who repeatedly defy court orders will face meaningful consequences. And the amendment before us seeks to reinforce that principle and to signal clearly that a cycle of breach, warning and further breach is unacceptable.

I hope the government gives the this amendment the thought and time that it deserves, and I look forward to hearing the response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lord for his amendment 54 and for his for his amendment 54 and for his fessing up to amendment 55, which we will accept as an honest mistake. we will accept as an honest mistake. And I welcome his honesty in raising that issue in the way that

20:49

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

raising that issue in the way that he did. I think there's a recognition that amendment 54, however, still wants to provide for minimum sentences for persistent breaches of youth injunctions. And I just want to start by emphasising the government does not want to unnecessarily criminalise children. That's an aspiration we share with the noble Lady Baroness Doocey, which is why the new respect order in this bill will not apply to those under the age of 18. However, we do know that in many cases, the behaviour of offenders under 18 does require a more formal deterrent and intervention, which is why we have retained the civil injunction, as is for those under 18.

Practitioners have told us this is a particularly helpful and useful tool to tackle youth anti-social behaviour and to ensure that both their rights and the safety of the community are upheld. Youth injunctions are civil orders and fundamentally preventative in nature, which again goes to the point the noble Baroness Dusi mentioned it's much more important to intervene to prevent than it is to punish afterwards, particularly when young people are the potential areas where individuals who are causing those challenges in the first place.

The youth injunctions. The important point on this, and this again goes to the heart of what the noble Lord himself has put in his amendment. If the respondent abides by the terms of the order, they will not be liable for any penalties. But self-evidently, where a respondent does breach an order, there needs to be some action. Now the noble Lord has suggested one course of action. I would say to him that the courts already have a range of responses, including supervision orders, electronic tagging, curfews and indeed, in the most serious cases, detention orders for up to three months for 14 to 17 year olds.

Now again, I hope there's a common theme across the chamber today in committee that the detention for children should only be used when absolutely necessary, and courts should consider the child's welfare and other risks before imposing such a response. This should be on a case by case basis, and the prescribing of a minimum sentence. Mandatory minimum sentence, even for repeat offenders, would undermine the ability of both the independent judiciary to determine the appropriate sentence, but also would, in my view, be potentially disproportionate in its response.

Now, there is a place within our sentencing framework for mandatory minimum sentences, but I would submit that this is not one of them. Now, the noble Lady Baroness Doocey was quite right again, that one of the best preventative measures that we can have is to have large numbers of boots on the ground with neighbourhood policing, and she will know that the government has a manifesto commitment to put 13,000 extra boots on the ground during the course of this Parliament. We have, in this first year or so of the government, brought an extra 3000 in place.

We're intending to increase the number of specials, where we can increase the number of PCSOs and increase the number of warranted officers to replace those that were frankly lost between the years 2010 and around 2017. Which, you know, when I was police Minister in 2009 ten, we had around 20,000 more officers than we had up to around 2017. That was because they were hollowed out and taken out by the two governments that ran the Home Office between 210 and 217, which is absolutely right.

Neighbourhood visible policing is critical in tackling anti-social behaviour, but today's amendment from the noble Lord Blencathra seeks to provide minimum sentences which I don't think will achieve the objective that he has. And, like the noble Lady, don't have my support, so I hope he will withdraw the amendments. Having listened to the argument.

20:53

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

Once again, I'm grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for his courteous and and detailed answer. I didn't realise that electronic tagging was already an option, and that's very important that it be applied in appropriate cases. Now we come to the minimum and I must say to the noble Lady Baroness Doocey, I'm not creating a new criminal offence here. The power of detention already exists to be used by the court when they think fit. Now, on this general principle of minimum sentences, why? Why do we fetter a judge's discretion by having a maximum sentence? If we want proper judicial discretion, then we should say the judge can sentence anything he likes, but we don't.

And I am glad we don't. But we say Parliament can set a minimum. Why is it appropriate in a democracy for Parliament to set a maximum sentence? But we're not allowed to set a minimum. Therefore, I know that I knew the noble Lord. The Minister, in his courteous way, would would say, we're fettering judicial discretion on that. But I simply say, at what point then can we say to a court, this has gone on three? I've suggested three breaches of injunctions. When do we say we have done six? Now you've done ten, Johnny.

When, when will a court then impose a disorder of a sentence of detention for continued breaches of injunctions? I think we as parliamentarians and in the other House where members constituents are suffering, I think as a democracy in our Parliament, it is perfectly legitimate for us to say the judge will have discretion to impose orders of detention up to a certain level. But once the injunctions go past a certain threshold, Parliament demands that you then impose a level of detention of whatever level it may be.

Okay, I've made the point and I should say to the noble friend, the Minister, you'll probably hear me make a similar point about minimum sentences at various other points in this bill. But in view of his remarks and his comments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

20:55

Deputy Lord Speaker. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)

That this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 55 not moved. Amendment 55 A not moved. The question is at clause 12 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content the contrary not content. The contents have it become now to clause 13, amendment 55 B Lord Blencathra.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Otherwise the House will be relieved to know. I'll be mercifully brief on this occasion. Until 1968, the met and other police forces use CAID officers to do soccer work, that is, collecting forensic evidence at the scenes of forensic evidence at the scenes of crimes for many was not the speciality, and they often damaged vital evidence. Police forces vital evidence. Police forces realised that teams of dedicated civilians, who specialise in gathering evidence at crime scenes, could do a better job. Naturally,

20:56

Amendment:55B Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

could do a better job. Naturally, the Police Federation opposed any civilians being brought in to do it. Now civilians do command, and Now civilians do command, and dispatch was used to be done by serving officers, investigations, support and crime analysis. The support and crime analysis. The Police Service has reluctantly, in my opinion, over the years, had to recognise that a constable of recognise that a constable of whatever rank may not be the best qualified person to undertake qualified person to undertake increasingly complex tasks.

We see credit card fraud going through the roof because there's practically no roof because there's practically no one in any police force capable of investigating it. Goodness knows who could do it. Maybe forensic accountants, perhaps. So, my Lords, accountants, perhaps. So, my Lords, all I am seeking here is an assurance from the noble Lord, the Minister, that this important coordinating role will not go to an inspector or a superintendent inspector or a superintendent unless he or she is an absolute expert on the internet and online sales.

This requires a switched on internet geek and not necessarily a uniform. Bobby. So can the noble Lord, the Minister, assure me that the police will recruit for this role the best qualified person and and the guidance also envisaged in the in the clause will say so. And the best qualified person from

20:57

Deputy Lord Speaker. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)

wherever that person comes from, providing, of course, that he or she passes all the integrity tests

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as well. I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 13, page 20, line seven. That end,

20:57

Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 20, line seven. That end, insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. I must say, my Lord, sir, I do admire the range of interventions made by the noble Lord Blencathra, and I don't want him to fall back on his seat. But on this particular occasion, my Lords, I think we have some sympathy with the two amendments that he's put forward. This group, as he's put forward, addresses the establishment of the new civil penalty penalty regime for online advertising, a measure which we on these benches support for its goal of strengthening accountability for online platforms and the introduction of civil penalties in this part of the bill, is intended to tackle the online grey market that facilitates the sale of illegal weapons, enabling earlier intervention and prevention of offensive weapon crimes.

And we must ensure that the framework we establish is not only robust legally, but also operationally effective in the digital age and Lord Deben as amendment 55 B, concerning clause 13, focuses specifically on the essential role of the Coordinating officer Claude. Clause 13 mandates that the Secretary of State designate a member of a relevant police force or a National Crime Agency officer as the co-ordinating officer for this chapter. Amendment 55 B proposes that the coordinating Officer, as the noble Lord Blencathra has explained, need not be a constable but must be someone versed in the internet and online sales and purchases.

On these benches. We recognise that 21st century crime fighting is no longer solely about boots on the ground. It relies heavily on specialised digital expertise to effectively police online marketplaces and hold search services and user to user services accountable. The designated officer must possess deep knowledge of digital platforms, sales techniques and online advertising mechanisms as the noble Lord, indicated by explicitly allowing this officer to be a non constable, professional and expert, we would ensure that law enforcement can deploy the most qualified individuals to secure content removal notices and apply civil penalties.

This pragmatic approach would ensure efficiency and maximum efficacy, in our view, against technologically sophisticated platforms and Lord Blencathra. As amendment 55 relates to clause 24, which governs the guidance issued by the Secretary of State regarding the operation of this new regime. All new intrusive powers, especially those concerning online services, require clear, precise guidance to avoid unintended consequences and ensure fairness. Proper statutory guidance is the mechanism by which the principles established in the Bill should be translated into proportionate and actionable requirements for online service providers.

My Lords, in short, these amendments, in our view, seek to guarantee that the architecture of this new regime is built on technical expertise and clarity. Both of those pillars are essential for ensuring that our online crime fighting tools are fit for purpose, and as such, we support them.

21:01

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

My Lords. Likewise, I hope to be equally brief as Lord, my noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones and my noble friend Lord Blencathra. When introducing these amendments, there is an urgent need to ensure that the mechanisms that we put in place under this bill is are both workable and effective, and my noble friend's amendments seek to ensure that the person appointed as the Co-ordinating Officer is simply the most qualified about the internet and online sales, and it seems to be that there is broad agreement that those responsible for enforcing penalties for illegal online sales must have the right skills.

Whether such individuals wear a uniform or not is less important than whether they understand the digital channels through which harmful goods are marketed and moved, and criminals should not be able to exploit technological advantage to stay one step ahead of enforcement. And I hope the government therefore takes these amendments seriously as practical suggestions to help practical suggestions to help tackle the serious problem.

21:02

Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)

I thank the noble Lord Lord Blencathra for his amendments, the clauses which implement this government's manifesto commitment to hold senior managers of online platforms, be they social media platforms, online marketplaces or search engines, personally liable for the failure to remove illegal online content relating to knives and offensive weapons. His amendment 55 requires the coordinating officer, that is, the person appointed by the Home Secretary to administer these new powers to have the necessary experience and skill with the internet and online sales, and that need not be a warranted officer.

Amendment 55 would have these criteria be made explicit in the statutory guidance for these measures. My Lords, I agree with the sentiment behind these amendments. It is, of course, really important that the coordinating officer responsible for the administration of these powers be suitably experienced. And I'd like to reassure the noble Lord that the government is providing £1.7 million for a new national police unit to tackle the illegal online sale of knives and weapons, including the issuing content removal notices. This unit will be dedicated to coordinating investigations into all aspects of online unlawful knife and offensive weapon sales, and bringing those responsible to justice.

It will also improve data collection and analysis capability to expand police understanding of the knife crime problem, and how enforcement activities can best be targeted. The intention is that a senior member of this specialist unit will be appointed as the coordinating Officer, and they will have the necessary skills and resources to administer these powers. I will also add that whoever is appointed as a content manager must be experienced with both aspects of the problem that we're trying to tackle here not only have experience of online sales, but also with the investigation of illegal online sales of knives and weapons i.e.

they must be able to understand the investigatory and evidential process, as well as having, of course, experience of the internet. This won't be to, I think, sort of paraphrase Lord Blencathra any old Bobby with a warrant with warrant card, it will be somebody who's highly experienced, both on the internet sales side of the piece, but also in the investigatory and evidential side of side of the role. That is why, in short, my Lords, the role must be held, we feel, by a warrant officer it is a police role.

They will be there will be issuing enforcement notices and as and as part of the criminal, criminal process. They need to have that experience as well as, of course, the essential online experience that both that all noble Lords who spoke in the debate mentioned. And we do agree with that, that is necessary, given that assurance that we are not neglecting the online side of things. I hope the noble Lord Lord Blencathra will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sufficiently reassured and is content to withdraw his amendments. My Lords, first of all, I must

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first of all, I must say I'm almost overcome with deep emotion that the noble Lord, Lord Clements and the Lib Dems have Clements and the Lib Dems have supported Lord Blencathra amendment. I. I wonder where I've gone wrong now. I say to the noble Lord, the

21:05

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

now. I say to the noble Lord, the Minister, I'm not totally reassured. I wasn't suggesting any or Bobby,

21:05

Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)

but I was afraid that the police would automatically look for someone of a senior rank Inspector, superintendent, chief

21:05

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

superintendent, chief superintendent. But the absolutely crucial thing is that that person must be fully qualified on internet must be fully qualified on internet sales, online stuff. And the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones set it out in rather elegant detail. I called the person a computer geek. If that superintendent is a senior investigating officer and he or she is a computer geek, then I'm satisfied. But I'm not going to satisfied. But I'm not going to suggest I'll take this back and report. But I don't think the minister's answer was totally satisfactory, that necessarily the satisfactory, that necessarily the best person will be will be recruited for the job.

Yes, of course, the person must have course, the person must have understanding of investigation techniques, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a high serving, high ranking police high serving, high ranking police officer to do that. The police have already got civilians doing investigation of things which are not require an officer to do it. not require an officer to do it. But having, as I say, I'm slightly equivocal in the minister's answer, slightly disappointing that they slightly disappointing that they will not countenance the possibility that this person may not be a warranted officer.

It's quite simple. If you recruited the quite simple. If you recruited the right computer geek, you make him a warrant officer. You can do it that

21:06

Deputy Lord Speaker. Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. So. But in the meantime, the Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Your lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is withdrawn. The question is that clause 13 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that clauses 14 to 17 stand part of the bill. En bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content.

The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it in clause 18, amendment 55. See Lord Blencathra. My Lord, I rise to move my amendment 55 see and speak to

21:07

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

amendment 55 see and speak to amendments 55 and 55. E my three amendments here are all similar, as

21:07

Amendment:55C Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

I argue that a value based penalty is more effective than a maximum fixed fine. The issue of a legal fixed fine. The issue of a legal knife sales in the internet is a matter of serious public concern. It is big business with big It is big business with big consequences. When those knives, machetes and zombie knives are used to kill and maim. As is to kill and maim. As is increasingly the case now, the proposals on the bill to fine individuals and businesses up to individuals and businesses up to £60,000 for selling illegal knives online seem hefty at first glance.

However, the effectiveness and fairness of such a fixed penalty are questionable. A more effective are questionable. A more effective approach would be to impose a fine equal to 500% of the total value of equal to 500% of the total value of all the legal goods advertised. Now, I want to convince the noble Lord, the Minister, that a proportional the Minister, that a proportional penalty in some cases is superior to a subjective, fixed maximum fine. to a subjective, fixed maximum fine. First of all, the subjectivity of the fixed maximum fine, setting a maximum fine of £60,000 for selling maximum fine of £60,000 for selling illegal knives leaves the final penalty to the discretion of the court.

This introduces subjectivity court. This introduces subjectivity into the process, as judges must determine what amount is appropriate in each case. The appropriate in each case. The outcome may vary significantly depending on the judge's interpretation of the offences, severity, the defendant's circumstances, and other factors. Consequently, similar offenders could face vastly different penalties, undermining the consistency and predictability of the law. And then, of course, my Lords, I come back to my favourite organisation, the Sentencing Council, advising that the £60,000 fine should never be imposed.

But let's leave that aside for the moment. However, I think, moreover, a fixed cap may not reflect the true scale of illegal activity. For example, a small scale individual seller and a large business operation could both face the same maximum penalty, despite the latter potentially profiting far more from illegal sales. This lack of proportionality can result in fines that are either too lenient or excessively harsh, depending on the specifics of the case. In contrast, by laws, my suggestion of a fine set at 500% of the value of all illegal knives advertised is directly linked to the scale of the offence and the profits.

This proportional penalty approach ensures that the penalty increases in line with the seriousness of the crime. Large scale operations, which are likely to profit more and cause greater harm, would face correspondingly larger fines. This not only achieve greater fairness, but also strengthens the deterrent effect. As we've said on many occasions, criminals are primarily motivated by profit. If the financial penalty reliably exceeds any potential gains by a factor of five, in this case, the risk outweighs the reward. And my Lords, I suggest this creates a strong disincentive for individuals and businesses to engage in illegal knife sales.

The proportional system also ensures that penalties remain meaningful, even as the market or profitability of legal knives fluctuates over time. A proportional penalty system, I submit, is more likely to deter criminal behaviour because it removes ambiguity and subjectivity from sentencing. Offenders know in advance that any profits from illegal activity will be entirely wiped out and replaced with a substantial loss. This clarity and certainty are crucial in discouraging would be offenders. Furthermore, tying the fine to the value of illegal goods ensures fairness across all cases, small time offenders are punished proportionally for their actions, while major players face penalties commensurate with the harm they cause and the profits they are making.

This upholds the principle that punishment should fit the crime. So in summary, my Lord, I submit that a fixed maximum fine of £60,000 for selling illegal knives alone, for selling illegal knives online introduces subjectivity and inconsistency, whilst a penalty of 500% of the value of all illegal goods advertised is fair, more predictable and far more likely to deter criminal activity, I don't need to speak to my amendment 55. It's the same concept, but suggesting a mere 100% proportionate penalty for this lesser offence.

I urge the noble Lord, the Minister, to consider adopting a proportionate, a proportionate penalty system to effectively combat the sale of illegal knives over the internet. I

21:11

Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move amendment 55 C. Proposed clause 18, page 22,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposed clause 18, page 22, line 24. Leave out an amount not exceeding £60,000 and insert a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

exceeding £60,000 and insert a minimum of 500% of the value of the illegal goods advertised. I know, as the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know, as the noble Lord Blencathra has so concisely described. He gets more concise as

21:12

Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)

- -

described. He gets more concise as the evening goes on. My Lords, this group deals with the sanctions applied under the online weapon advertising regime, and we very much welcome the government's commitment to ensuring accountability for businesses and sellers who facilitate the online sale of knives. However, if the penalties imposed are too small, they merely become a tolerable cost of doing business for large, wealthy online service providers. And the current bill, as the noble Lord explained, provides maximum proposes maximum civil penalties for service providers of up to £60,000 for failing to comply with content requirements, or for failing to comply with a content removal notice.

His amendments 55 C and 55 D directly challenge this maximum limit by proposing that the penalty for a service provider's non-compliance should instead be a minimum of 500% of the value of the illegal goods advertised, and in our view, this proposal shifts the focus decisively towards financial deterrence. I hate to agree with the noble Lord twice in one evening. The argument embedded within these amendments is sound. My Lords, fines should reflect the scale and profitability of the illegal advertising business they enable by linking the minimum fine directly to five times the value of the illegal goods advertised, we ensure that the penalty scales proportionately with the volume of the illicit trade facilitated by the platform, making it financially unsustainable to turn a blind eye to illegal weapon content.

Amendment 55 applies this same principle to the penalties imposed on the service providers content Manager. Clause 23 currently sets a maximum penalty for the content manager at £10,000. Amendment 55 E from the noble Lord Blencathra seeks to replace this cap with a minimum penalty of 100% of the value of the illegal goods advertised. My Lords. This would ensure that the individual responsible for overseeing compliance within the organisation also faces a penalty that reflects the seriousness of the content they fail to manage or remove, particularly where that content is directly tied to advertisement of unlawful weapons.

My Lords, in our view, these amendments force us to consider how we can make our laws genuinely tough on organised online crime. In our view, legislation must be proportionate and proportionality in the face of corporate digital crime means penalties should meaningfully exceed the profits derived from facilitating criminal activity. In my Lords, in our view, these amendments rightly push us to consider the financial consequences that would truly defer platforms from risking public safety for private gain.

21:15

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, can I state how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for these amendments and offer him the support from the front bench for them? The three amendments by my noble friend all have the same aim to tie the level of financial penalty directly to the value of the illegal knives being advertised and the profits generated from. Their sale. The logic behind them is obvious, and they also raise an important point fines that merely represent a modest operational cost to criminals will do little to deter those who deliberately trade in dangerous and illegal weapons.

If the economic reward remains greater than the economic risk, than the deterrent effect is minimal, and it therefore seems prudent to put into statute appropriate provisions to ensure that that never is the case. The purpose of penalties must be both to punish wrongdoing and to disrupt the business model that makes it worth pursuing. Knife crime and its associated sales shouldn't be thought of as back alley transactions conducted by a small handful of criminals, but instead, in the more accurate context of modern supply chains, marketing strategies, and online commercial structures that enable weapons to reach young and vulnerable people, the digital world has dramatically shifted the landscape of enforcement.

As we know, criminal enterprises operate across borders, across platforms, and enforcement agencies must be equipped both with the powers they possess and the sanctions available, and I hope the government will reflect thoughtfully on the arguments raised. raised.

21:17

Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)

My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his explanation of his amendments in this group. As he said, amendment 55 sets minimum fines for companies that fail to comply with an appointment notice that requires them to designate an executive to be held liable for failing to take down illegal knife and weapons content. 55 and 55 set minimum fines for companies and liable executives that fail to take down illegal content when requested to do so.

And as he explains, the proposed minimum fines, his proposed minimum fines are proportionate for companies. They're set at 500,500%, rather of the value of the knife or the weapon for companies, and 100% of the value for individuals. I hate to disappoint your Lordships' House with the to ruin the the spirit of accord that's broken out across the the benches opposite and but and and whilst the logic of the noble Lord Laming Lord Blencathra amendment is is good, I'm afraid it doesn't actually reflect the actual behaviour and experience of the, the marketplace.

And so therefore, if I can or try and explain why it wouldn't be as effective, effective, as impactful as he no doubt intends.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hate to interrupt the Minister. Well, I don't really, but but can Well, I don't really, but but can he explain what he means by that about the market? I didn't really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about the market? I didn't really sort of grasp what he meant by that. Well, a very good segue into my the words that are just just the words that are just just following. I was just about to get there. Many knives and weapons are sold illegally, are sold relatively sold illegally, are sold relatively cheaply in the order of tens and thousands, tens of pounds. Some sellers who sell knives and weapons sellers who sell knives and weapons over social media tend to hold and advertise small stock numbers.

Therefore, we contend the suggested Therefore, we contend the suggested minimum penalties are simply too low to incentivise the prompt removal of illegal content. My removal of illegal content. My Lords, the independent review of online safety of Knives shows a case study as an example, where an case study as an example, where an individual bought 30 knives to sell to sell legally over social media to sell legally over social media for under £50 each each. Should the social media company not take the illegal content down? In that case, illegal content down? In that case, the proposed minimum fine under these amendments would be £1,500 for the executive and £7,500 for the companies.

And these these penalties, I'm sure noble Lords would agree, would be too low for large tech companies and executives to be worried about at all. Not having a minimum penalty penalty will leave full discretion to the police, who specialise in investigating illegal knife sales online. This will allow them to use their judgement to issue firm to issue fines that are commensurate. In each case. The penalties for failing to comply with these have already noted. These measures are issued in the form of civil penalty notices by the police, and they can be up to £60,000 for companies and £10,000 for for individuals.

These penalties must remind noble Lords are for single violations, and they will add up if companies and executives repeatedly fail to comply with removal notices. The mayor the measure is not intended just to punish companies, but to facilitate behaviour change, and I trust that the police administering these measures will issue fines of an appropriate level to incentivise the prompt removal of illegal content. I hope, given the explanation of the experience particularly, I've found instructive personally, the experience of the independent review on on online sale of knives that actually a lot of the activity is is undertaken through very small stocks and cheap cheaply sold.

You wouldn't if you used a the proportionate measure of of proportionate regime proposed by Lord Blencathra you simply wouldn't generate. You might not think £60,000 is worth much, but certainly wouldn't generate anywhere near 60,000 in those examples. And it's worth bearing in mind that a lot of the grey market sellers do over do so over social media websites. The recipient of the fine is the tech tech tech company that doesn't take down the illegal material, rather than the person selling the knives or the weapons.

So obviously we understand the the intended recipient of the punishment of the fines. And that's why we think that having the the 60,000, 10,000 level is appropriate, because that is for single single offences. Any time a company fails to remove that, know that the the content they've received a notice for it will add up and accumulate and accumulate to make an impact, as we all agree will need to be done. I would just say that in response to another point Lord Blencathra made on the sentencing Council, we feel that Sentence Council is unlikely to comment on the level of a of a civil penalty.

That may be a little speculative from my perspective, but I think that's probably what experiences experience bears out. Given this explanation, and I hope a clarification of of our view of how the the environment for these cells. I shouldn't have used the word market early. The environment for these sales takes place. I hope the noble Lord is sufficiently reassured. These penalties will actually have a have an impact in the way they're set out in the bill, amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I almost had palpitations. For the second time tonight. The noble Lord Lord

21:22

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

tonight. The noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones and supported my amendment. But I do hear what the Minister has to say. I had not intended that the 500% penalty should just apply to 2 or 3 individuals selling a few knives. I intended it would apply to the supplier of the whole shooting match. The individuals are selling. A few knives have got them from somewhere. There's a supplier, a big source making these by the thousands. And I would hope that if someone at the centre has got a warehouse with £100,000 worth of knives, finding a penalty of five or half £1 million would clean them out completely, whereas a penalty of 60,000 would still leave them with £40,000 profit.

But I do accept the point that if it's small scale individuals, then the five the 500 penalty would could maybe not be as great as the, as a, as a as a penalty under the act. I wonder if it is worth looking at a possibility of either or offering it as an option. I think that's a possibility for the future. The other general point I'd make is and I woke up about a week ago at two in the morning and thought of this proportional system.

I think it may not be perfect for the knives one, but I think there's some merit in this concept of proportionate fines for certain offences where rather than just have a maximum penalty imposed by law, the penalty is a percentage 100, 200 or 300,000% of the value of the goods being advertised or sold or whatever. But bearing in mind what the Minister said, I think I would we would like to look again at the possibility of offering a fine and some proportional penalty.

But having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

21:24

Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)

Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 18 stamp out of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is at schedule four B the fourth schedule to the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. The question is that clauses 19 to 22 stamp part of the bill en bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content.

The contents have it. Clause 23, amendment 55 d Lord Blencathra not moved. Amendment 55 e not moved. The question is at clause 23 stamp out of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Clause 24, amendment 55 f Lord Blencathra not moved. The question is at clause 24 stamp out of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it.

The question is that clauses 25 and 26 stamp out of the bill as stamp out of the bill en bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it in clause 27, amendment 56 Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cameron of Lochiel. My Lords, the amendment 56. In my name and other of my noble friends, increases seeks to increase the maximum sentence for increase the maximum sentence for the new offence of possessing a weapon with intent, where conviction is conviction on indictment from 4 to 14 years, the principle behind the new offence of principle behind the new offence of possessing a weapon with intent to use violence is well intentioned. It is one that we support.

We're living through an epidemic of knife crime and the level of general offensive weapon offences have

21:26

Amendment:56 Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

offensive weapon offences have shown no signs of declining over the past decade. I appreciate that the past decade. I appreciate that the government is taking some of the necessary steps to attempt to kerb this situation, and this new kerb this situation, and this new offence is one of them, creating more offences to eliminate the problem at source is the right approach in our view, whilst adding additional measures that target the most dangerous in our society is most dangerous in our society is also necessary.

This bill creates a separate category for those who separate category for those who have violent intent, which in principle should achieve the latter. But my Lords, it is only worth implementing this offence if it is accompanied by a sufficient corresponding punishment. And we believe that the Bill as it stands does not achieve this. There is, of course, the current law that prohibits the carrying of a bladed article in public. That offence carries a maximum sentence of four years. It's a blanket offence.

It doesn't consider additional factors. It treats offenders the same regardless of whether or not they hold some kind of intent or ill intent. I suppose this new law, conversely, will consider intent. Violent intent will become an additional factor to be considered, and rightly so, because the extra element of meaning to commit damage or harm makes it a worse crime than simply carrying a weapon, it will differentiate those between those who might and those who intend to cause a threat to society.

And essentially, the question behind this amendment is why then, is this not reflected in the punishment? Why does the new law carry the same maximum four year sentence? This law should work to do two things. It should allow the justice system to differentiate between those who pose intentional threats and those who may not, and it should deter those who have intent from leaving the house of the weapon in the first place. If the penalty doesn't differ from the current law, it will do neither.

If the maximum sentence remains identical, the courts will not have the means to sufficiently differentiate criminals who have been convicted, and the criminals themselves will not be deterred in the first place, as there will be no greater threat of repercussion than that which already exists. Because if we are to treat carrying an offensive weapon with violent intent as a separate as a more serious crime, it must be reflected in the punishment. It is an incredibly serious offence that someone should not only break the law by carrying an offensive weapon, but to do so with the intent to inflict damage or harm.

It's self-evidently threatens the safety of our citizens. It shows complete disregard for the functioning of society and sentencing these criminals as if their violent intent is merely a secondary factor that doesn't deserve consideration. That will not do in my respectful submission. Amendment 56 seeks to solve this disparity. It increases the maximum sentence to 14 years. It's a maximum sentence. It's a ceiling. It's not the the sentence to be. Imposed whenever it's a maximum sentence that, in our view, is the right thing to do.

It will give the courts the means to reflect this. In practice, there is no reason why the government shouldn't wish to achieve both these things, but the punishment must be reflective of the crime.

21:30

And for all those reasons, and I do look forward to the government's response on this. I beg to beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to move. Amendment proposed clause 27,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 27, page 31. Line 16. Leave out for and insert 14 Lords. Just very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just very. Briefly, I'd like to align myself with the remarks of my noble myself with the remarks of my noble friend in terms of the question that he put to that he put to the that he put to that he put to the Minister. I just don't understand the situation. So I'd very much appreciate an explanation from the

21:30

Viscount Goschen (Conservative)

- -

appreciate an explanation from the noble Lord, the Minister, if there's an existing offence with the same maximum penalty for carrying an offensive weapon as there is for this new power of carrying an offensive weapon with intent to commit harm and so forth. Commit violence. I just don't understand what what the logic of that is. And I have a mild concern that I'm sure the Minister, with his usual skill can allay, which is if you have the four year maximum for the new offence, aggravated offence, if you will, of having intent to commit harm.

Is there not a danger that that could diminish the seriousness of the existing offence? If it's not possible or likely to prove the intent to commit violence or the other provisions of of of of the new clause? So I can absolutely support what the government is, is trying to do here. We're all on completely the same side. It would just be very helpful to for the Minister to explain how these two offences would differ in their application in practice, and therefore the implications for the maximum sentences.

21:32

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

Well, I rise for the final time tonight. The House will be pleased to know to support amendment moved by my noble friend, the Lord Cameron of Lochiel. I wish I'd put down my own amendment to clause 27 to draw attention to what I think is the complete disconnect between subsections one in this clause and subsections three. Let me try to explain. The bill in its current draft proposes in subsection one that it shall be an offence for any person to possess an article with a blade or point or offensive weapon with the intent the intent to use unlawful violence against another person.

To cause another person to believe that unlawful violence will be used against them or others, and to cause serious, unlawful damage to property. That's fairly serious stuff, my Lords. But the proposed penalties then in subsection three are a maximum of 12 months imprisonment in a magistrate's court or up to four years on indictment. My Lords, I contend that these penalties, like my noble friend, are insufficient given the gravity of the offence, and I support the argument for a substantial increase in sentencing powers to reflect the seriousness of the conduct involved.

Possession of an offensive weapon with intent to use it for violence or to cause fear is a profoundly serious criminal act. Now, such intent demonstrates a premeditated willingness to inflict harm, to intimidate or destroy property. It's not a spontaneous or lesser form of criminality, but rather a calculated and dangerous escalation, the mere possession of a weapon with such intent poses a direct threat to public safety. It undermines community trust and creates an atmosphere of fear and insecurity. Now, as the noble Lord, the Minister will know, offences involving offensive weapons are often precursors to more serious crimes involving grievous bodily harm, right up to homicide.

I maintain that actions which create an imminent risk of serious harm should be met with robust deterrence and sentencing, allowing relatively lenient penalties for those caused with weapons and with criminal intent, fails to deter potential offenders, and signals a lack of seriousness in addressing violent crime. The psychological impact on victims, those who are threatened or believe they are at risk of violence can be profound and long lasting, as many reports say, even if no injury actually occurs. So when compared with other offences of similar seriousness, the proposed penalties appear disproportionately low.

For instance, offences such as aggravated burglary or possession of firearms with intent to endanger life attract significantly higher sentences, often exceeding a decade in custody. This clause is about people going out with vicious knives or machetes, intending to use unlawful violence against another person. In other words, attack them and possibly kill them. Am I Lord Jones? Why on earth should there even be a summary trial for that sort of defence? That's why I wish I'd put down my own amendment to delete subsection three, a trial in a magistrates court.

And of course, my Lords, we must not look at this bill in isolation. We have got the sentencing bill coming along which will aim to ban anyone, if I understand this correctly, going to prison for a sentence of 12 months or less. So if one of these cases goes to a magistrates court and the magistrates impose the maximum sentence of 12 months, it will be automatically suspended and the perpetrator will get away with it. What signal does that send? If these criminals were going out with a knife to scratch cars or vandalise property, then somebody might be appropriate, but they're going out with knives to attack people and possibly kill them.

That's why, in my opinion, it has to be indictable only and a 14 year maximum sentence, which of course, as we know, will end up in seven. In any case, with automatic release at half time, the current proposal for a maximum of four years on indictment, I believe, is markedly out of step with comparable offences and markedly out of step with the seriousness of offences. Potential offences listed in subsection one. The criminal justice system must not only punish offenders but deter would be offenders and reassure the public that their safety is paramount.

Inadequate penalties like this one risk undermining public confidence in the legal system, and more severe sentencing framework would send a clear message that society will not tolerate the possession of weapons in the street with intent intent to commit violent acts or grievous bodily harm to people. And I think it would also be a stronger deterrent to those committing contemplating such conduct. So in conclusion, my Lords, I believe the government is absolutely right to introduce this new power, but I believe it's got the penalties wrong since they're disconnected from the seriousness of the offence.

And given the potential for severe physical and psychological harm, the premeditated nature of the crime and the need for effective deterrence, I also submit that the maximum penalties should be increased. And of course, it's not the judges discretion here not suggesting any minimum sentence, but a sentence of up to 14 years. And I should add that I've got exactly the same view for the suggested penalties in the massive group of amendments in the next group. But I made my arguments here, and I will not repeat them when we come to the next group on Wednesday.

21:37

Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Catherine. murders in the UK over the last three years are due to knife crime, so we recognise the vital importance of equipping police with the necessary tools to intervene when there is clear evidence of intent to commit serious violence. We give clause 27 of the bill our full backing. Before I turn to the amendment, there are a couple of points I want to make around the new offence. Will the government ensure that robust guidance and oversight is in place to prevent unjustified or discriminatory use of this power that needs to be accompanied by improved training for police and judiciary? The reality is young black men are already significantly overrepresented in knife crime prosecutions, and we must be careful not to compound that position.

Discrimination and justice are opposites. Secondly, I hope this may also help stem the rising number of incidents where people suffer life changing injuries after being attacked with acid or other corrosive substances. Reports of such offences increased by 75% in 2023, including 454 physical attacks. Half of these victims were women, with attacks often occurring in a domestic abuse context, but only 8% of these cases resulted in a charge or summons, partly due to the victims fear of reprisal.

The hope is that this new offence may allow prosecutions to be brought before harm is inflicted, since proving intent would not necessarily require the victim to testify. Can the Minister say how the government intends to use the offence? To this end? Turning to amendment 56, the Liberal Democrats agree with Jonathan Hall that four years in prison is insufficient when there is clear evidence of the intention to cause mass fatalities, the court must have the full weight of the law behind it.

In such hopefully rare cases where a lengthy sentence is thought necessary for public prosecution, I would expect the Sentencing Council to issue guidance around how to categorise levels of seriousness, and I hope this will guard against sentence inflation. Nevertheless, we are minded to support this amendment and I urge the government penalty.

21:39

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

Now the noble Viscount Goschen and others, including the noble Lord Blencathra, have. Asked legitimate Blencathra, have. Asked legitimate questions about what the difference is between existing offences and this new proposed offence. It is this new proposed offence. It is already an offence to carry a bladed article in public without bladed article in public without good reason. It is also an offence to then go on and threaten the person with a bladed article or person with a bladed article or weapon. Under section 52 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, it's an offence to intentionally threaten someone with an offensive weapon in public or private, but the introduction of this new offence introduction of this new offence bridges a gap which we believe is there between being in possession of a knife or offensive weapon in public or education premises, and it being used to threaten or harm anyone.

This offence will target those who equip themselves with bladed articles with the intent to endanger life, cause serious harm or intent to cause fear of violence, but are intercepted by the police before they've had the chance to carry out any attack on the intended victim. It will therefore empower the police to bring charges against those individuals, which in my view is a differentiation which I hope has clarified for the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Viscount. He shakes his head. Well, I'm mine. Not that not the Minister's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not that not the Minister's explanation. I'll have to think carefully. But if the police can already stop someone, and already already stop someone, and already with an easier test, bring a arrest and prosecute that individual for and prosecute that individual for the carrying of the knife. How does the carrying of the knife with the the carrying of the knife with the intent to commit harm make that easier to do? Surely it makes it more difficult to do, because not more difficult to do, because not only do you have to show the person was carrying a knife, you also have to prove their intent.

So I'm not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

criticising the minister's intent here. I'm just don't understand. Well. I hope he can examine Hansard

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope he can examine Hansard tomorrow, but I'll say to him that the maximum sentence is the same, but the intention will be reflected but the intention will be reflected in the courts being able to give a penalty close to the top end of the range, whereas a simple possession range, whereas a simple possession offence is likely to attract a sentence close to the bottom end of the range. So again, this is for the range. So again, this is for judicial interpretation, but it gives a flexibility within the clause proposed that allows for potentially a different level of maximum sentence within the four maximum sentence within the four year range that we have now.

Again, I would say, and this is where we have a difference with the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel, that the 14 years is disproportionate and I can't support that for for that particular reason. But I would say to him that we have introduced this new power, which I think will be an additional benefit for police forces to examine and work with at a local level. And the noble Baroness Doocey mentioned the report by Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of terrorism legislation which followed the Southport attack in July of 2024.

And he has certainly indicated that he wants us to examine creating a new offence proposed by the independent reviewer. He has said, and I quote from his report, that if the offence is created, then there is no need to reconsider the maximum sentence for the proposed offence of possessing an article with violent intent under the Crime and Policing Bill. But we are currently considering his recommendations. We're examining that with operational partners, and we want to look at how we can close that gap.

But as yet, we're not in a position to be able to announce still further on this issue. But I have said the maximum penalty of four years imprisonment is consistent with maximum penalties on other knife related possession offences. But to answer the noble Viscount's point gives a greater flexibility, I think, to police forces to be able to take action under the potential of clause 27 when it if it does become law in due course, the noble Baroness Doocey did go wide, which is perfectly legitimate on the issue of knife crime, we do have a clear government objective to reduce knife crime and to halve it as a government, and we're trying to do that.

There's an awful lot of work going on with my colleagues in the policing side of the Home Office, looking at how we can ensure that we tackle some of that disproportionality, that we focus on young black men particularly. But ultimately we want to focus on all individuals who are victims of knife crime. And there's a range of public education work that's being done at the moment. There's a range of new measures being talked about in terms of resilience. There is support for the neighbourhood policing, which again, is part of the backup that we will have to examine support for individuals, for high visible policing and also, again, to look at issues such as stop and search, which are still valuable in identifying and collecting weapons.

But coupled with the measures in the Police and Crime Bill here today, we're seeking to do what I hope all noble Lords and the noble Lady wishes, which is to send signals again, that there are significant penalties for carrying a knife, for possessing a weapon with intent, and that we think that the proposals in the bill are proportionate. There's a difference between us on that. If the noble Lord remains unsatisfied, we can examine those issues further at report, I'm sure, but that's the view of the government.

That's a firm commitment. It's new legislation. I hope it's welcomed. And if he wishes to pursue the issue of a higher penalty, we can discuss that. No doubt. Vote on that report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm grateful to you, my noble friends, Viscount Goschen and Lord Blencathra and to the noble Baroness, Lady Ducie, for noble Baroness, Lady Ducie, for their support for this amendment. And I really hope that the noble And I really hope that the noble Lords Minister reflects on the support for it from different support for it from different quarters in this House. And I particularly want to make a comment about the speech of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, when he pointed to Lord Blencathra, when he pointed to the 12 month summary conviction, because under the government's because under the government's sentencing bill, that sentence would be suspended, convicted, criminal having just been proven in criminal having just been proven in court to hold violent intent, will not go to prison, but will instead not go to prison, but will instead be released back into the public.

And I really hope that the Minister reflects on that very specific point, as well as the more general one, which is that it's self-evident that legislation must give the courts the necessarily give the courts the necessarily necessary flexibility to account for different levels of crime. And for different levels of crime. And if we cap the maximum sentence at four years, which is the same for the lesser crime of carrying a bladed article, we risk not effectively penalising those planning to commit the worst possible crimes, as he himself said.

21:47

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

Noble. The Minister said it's a differentiation, this new offence. It's a more serious offence and it it must be sufficiently different from the already existing law and from the already existing law and that difference must continue through to a different level of through to a different level of sentence. It's consistent that the maximum punishment is increased to reflect this additional consideration, and the bill does not yet do this. The maximum sentence remains at four years, even though it is for a more serious crime.

So I really hope serious crime. So I really hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, reflects on everything that has reflects on everything that has been said tonight and looks again at amendment 56, in my name. It's an amendment that I say solves these issues. It gives the courts ample room to adapt their sentences ample room to adapt their sentences based on the severity of a crime. It gives the judiciary the discretion to issue longer sentences than they are currently able to do, and it is a maximum.

I say again, it's a maximum sentence. It's a ceiling. It would allow the justice system to effectively deal justice system to effectively deal with citizens who pose a tangible risk to their fellow citizens. So I deal with criminals who pose a tangible risk to their fellow citizens and acts as a greater deterrent. We all want a system where the worst criminals are proportionately punished, and the courts are able to adapt to achieve this. And I, although I listen very carefully, I'm not convinced the legislation as it stands achieves achieves this.

And I really hope that the government reconsiders this. But for the time being, yes, I do beg leave to withdraw.

21:49

Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)

Is it your lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is withdrawn. The question is that clause 27 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move the house. Do now resume.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

house. Do now resume. The question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that opinion will say content, the opinion will say content, the contrary not content. The contents have it. have it. adjourn.

21:50

Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)

21:50

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page