Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Bailey of Paddington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Meston (CB)]

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

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

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