Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Russell of Liverpool]

8: Clause 6, page 12, line 18, at end insert—
“(1A) Section 104 (review of response to complaints about anti-social behaviour) is amended as follows.(1B) In subsection (2)(b), after “published” insert “in their entirety”.(1C) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The relevant bodies in each local government area have a duty to promote awareness of the case review and review procedures.(2B) The relevant bodies in each local government area have a duty to publish the provision for victims dissatisfied with how the local bodies have dealt with or carried out the case review as per Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraph 3 (dissatisfaction with ASB case reviews).”(1D) In subsection (3)(b), after “area” insert “, and(c) specify the threshold for the case review including any timeframes and additional requirements which apply to that threshold.”(1E) In subsection (4)(b), omit “(or, if a different number is specified in the review procedures, at least that number of)”.(1F) In subsection (5)—(a) for “may” substitute “must”;(b) omit “any of”;(c) for “adequacy of the response to that behaviour” substitute “vulnerability of the victim(s)”.(1G) In subsection (6), after “decision” insert “, and, where the threshold is not met, they must—(a) provide that information in writing, and(b) with reference to review procedures specify the reason(s) for their determination that the threshold is not met.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Lord Russell of Liverpool, seeks to establish a statutory threshold for convening an Anti-Social Behaviour Case Review, that considers the victim’s vulnerability and removes discretion for authorities to apply additional caveats.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 8, 9 and 10 in my name, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is outside the Chamber at the moment—I think she is talking to the other Minister—has kindly added her name. I thank the Minister and his officials for the meetings that we have had since Committee to discuss these issues.

The three amendments could be called the Newlove and Waxman amendments, because, in effect, they articulate the views and concerns of the late lamented Baroness Newlove and her successor as Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, about the issues that people on the ground experience in dealing with anti-social behaviour, most particularly the experience of victims.

Amendments 8 and 9 seek to improve the accessibility of the ASB case review by removing local discretion over thresholds and the definition of a qualifying complaint, which currently are creating unnecessary barriers for victims. The anti-social behaviour case review was established as a mechanism that allows victims to trigger a multi-agency resolution-focused review of their case, as in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which set out a threshold for when a case review could be activated; it said three—or a different number, as set out under local review procedures —or more qualifying complaints within a six-month period.

However, the existing framework gives local organisations enormous discretion in setting local procedures, including defining the number of ASB complaints required and what constitutes a qualifying complaint. Consequently, authorities are able to add their own caveats, which creates yet another postcode lottery for victims. It creates inconsistencies in access to support and it delays intervention in situations where harm is escalating. For example, some authorities refuse to initiate a case review while an investigation is ongoing.

Similarly, the 2025 Local Government Association survey found that 62% of respondents applied additional local caveats, such as, as I mentioned, not allowing applications while an investigation is ongoing; requiring applications to be submitted within one month of the last reported incident; refusing a case review if one has already been conducted for behaviour of a similar nature; or rejecting complaints deemed to be “frivolous”, whatever the local authority’s definition of frivolous happens to be. This range of caveats presents a serious barrier to victims being able to seek timely relief.

Conditions such as prohibiting applications during ongoing investigations, imposing narrow time limits for reporting or refusing repeat applications, even where the behaviour is continuing, place the burden on the victim rather than on the system designed to protect them. Investigations can take months, during which victims may experience continued harm without any mechanism available to them to trigger a multi-agency response. As I mentioned, “frivolous” introduces subjective judgments that risk undermining victims’ credibility and, in particular, undermining confidence in the process. Collectively, this results in inconsistent access and contributes to the postcode lottery.

The Government’s response to these amendments in Committee referenced their newly launched ASB statutory guidance. While the Home Office’s updated guidance encourages a threshold of three complaints in six months, it is not legally binding and does not prevent authorities introducing additional conditions. Therefore, without legislative change, inconsistency and local caveats will continue. These amendments are designed to close these loopholes and establish firm national standards that the system currently unfortunately lacks.

Amendment 10 seeks to support the identification of gaps and barriers that victims face in the ASB case review process by ensuring what is surely a no-brainer: the consistent collection and publication of data. In this sort of situation, data really is king. One is flying slightly blind if one tries to make judgments about what is and is not going on if the data which one is relying upon to make those judgments are themselves seriously flawed and, as we have seen, open to individual interpretation to a significant degree across multiple local authorities.

In Committee, in response to the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I put forward on anti-social behaviour, the Government said they wished to see how the new ASB guidance beds in before considering further legislation. This was the position also on the proposals to require independent chairs for case reviews and to ensure that victims are able to attend, or at least have their views represented.

We accept that the guidance needs time to take effect. Guidance is one thing, but if you do not have any meaningful way to monitor whether that guidance is being applied consistently, how it is being applied and what effect it is having then it is quite difficult to judge whether the guidance is doing what you want it to do.

Currently, data collection on the ASB case review is sparse, inconsistent and fragmented. There is a patchwork of information and no adequate national oversight. The original legislative framework for the case review requires local bodies to publish the number of case reviews they conduct and refuse each year. However, this information is somewhat meaningless if we do not know the reasons why an application for review was refused. In particular, as we have heard before, local bodies can set their own parameters for qualifying incidents and set caveats on the thresholds.

I recognise that the Government have introduced Clause 7 on the provision of information to the Secretary of State, whereby authorities may be required to provide

“reports of anti-social behaviour made to the authority … responses of the authority to anti-social behaviour, and … ASB case reviews carried out by the relevant authority”.

However, this merely outlines the types of information that the Secretary of State could require from local bodies, which, in the view of the Victims’ Commissioner, does not go far enough. Without proper data, it is not possible to assess whether the guidance is working in practice.

In responding to this group, we would be enormously grateful if the Minister could tell us whether the Government will commit to ensuring that the relevant authorities are required by regulations to collect and provide to the Secretary of State the data points as in Amendment 10. Specifically, this would mean information in relation to: first, where local bodies determine the threshold for the case review was not met, by reference to the local review procedures, and the reasons why they made that determination; secondly, the number of case reviews carried out that were chaired by an independent person; thirdly, the number of reviews where the victim or their representative was given the opportunity to attend; and, finally, the number of reviews carried out where the victim or their representative attended the review in person.

I hope that we will have a positive response from the Government. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to this. I know that everything cannot be done simultaneously, but the case for more consistency, as required in the first two amendments, and for providing meaningful, useful data to judge whether the new guidance is working is important enough that I hope the Government will give this some serious attention. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I signed the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell. He spoke eloquently to the detail and, indeed, during the debate that we had in Committee on them. I want just to summarise the key reasons.

We understand why the Government want to see their guidance bed in, but we are already picking up concerns about some of the detail. The point of these three amendments is to set very clear ground rules for each of the stages, partly to make the data reliable but also partly to give absolute clarity about what happens at each stage of the review.

The first amendment is about the threshold for the case review, the second is about the nature of the ASB and whether that is a qualifying complaint, and the final one concerns collection and review of the data. The first two are important because we have already heard that local authorities respond very differently. Finally, as the noble Lord said, data is vital. If certain characteristics about each case review are published, having that collection of data would be extremely helpful. Then, by reviewing the data by authority and elsewhere, it would become very easy to see how the case reviews are happening nationally.

--- Later in debate ---

We are doing that for a purpose, and the purpose is, as the noble Lord rightly says, to know what is going on on the ground. I say to him, as I did in Committee and as I have tried to say privately—I make the same comments to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton—that under Clause 7 we have provided for that information. We have the statutory guidance issued in September, and I argue to the House today that the updated statutory guidance, coupled with the provisions in the Bill, covers the issues that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raise. We need to assess the impact of the changes that we have made or are going to make before we further look at legislative provisions. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his response, which was much as anticipated—so no surprises. I think we all understand the underlying issues and some of the bad things that victims are currently experiencing.

These three amendments come from a period during which the Victims’ Commissioner office has been scrutinising in detail the new guidance delivered last September. They were brought forward in the direct light of and in response to that new guidance. That is not to say that the new guidance is not welcome, but the experience of the Victims’ Commissioner and her office is that to understand whether the guidance is working as intended requires a level of data that is deeper and more detailed than is currently outlined in what the Government intend to get and what is covered in Clause 7. The concern is that while the guidance is very welcome, we will be unable to understand how effectively it is working to the level of detail that will be helpful to the Victims’ Commissioner, to victims and, thirdly, to the Government themselves.

After the Bill is enacted, it is certain that there will be meetings in the diary with the Victims’ Commissioner and her team, and they will be scrutinising the effects of the new guidance and the degree to which, from their observations, it is being implemented. I ask that the Government are open to having a constructive, interactive dialogue if the data raises more questions than it answers—which is, I think, what the Victims’ Commissioner anticipates may be the case—and that, if need be, they listen and adjust if the data is not telling us what we need.

I again thank the Minister and her team. I forgot to mention Andy Prophet, the ASB lead for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, who has been extremely helpful and supportive. His successor, Cath Akehurst, who I think takes over next week, is also very actively involved in this. We are trying to work with the police, the Victims’ Commissioner, the ASB charities and the Local Government Association to come up with solutions that work for victims and are enactable and enforceable in law and guidance. In that spirit, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.