That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2D to Commons Amendment 2B and its Amendment 2E to Commons Amendment 2C, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2F to Commons Amendment 2B and Amendment 2G to Commons Amendment 2C in lieu.
2F: Line 2, leave out from “guidance)” to end of line 5 and insert—
“(a) at the beginning insert—
“(A1) The Secretary of State must issue—
(a) guidance to chief officers of police about the issue of fixed penalty notices under section 52 by officers under their direction or control, and
(b) guidance to local authorities about the issue of fixed penalty notices under section 52 by local authorities and persons designated under section 53(1)(c).”;
(b) in subsection (1)(a), after “those officers’” insert “other”;
(c) in subsection (1)(b)—
(i) after “their” insert “other”;
(ii) for “those” substitute “other functions”.”
2G: Line 2, leave out from “guidance)” to end of line 5 and insert—“(a) at the beginning insert—
“(A1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local authorities about the issue of fixed penalty notices under section 68 by persons authorised by local authorities under that section.”;
(b) in subsection (1)(a), for “those” substitute “other functions”.”
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak to Motions B, C and D.
Before I begin my main remarks, today marks Stephen Lawrence Day, 33 years to the day since the loss of Stephen. My noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon is in the Chamber today, and I pay tribute to her for her campaigning activity over those 33 years. I was pleased to join my noble friend earlier today for an event at the King’s Trust in Southwark to continue the campaigning work of the Stephen Lawrence Day Foundation. Today is a good opportunity for us to remember Stephen and to recommit to continue to make a stand against racism in all its forms. I wanted to place that on record on behalf of the whole House before we commenced the Crime and Policing Bill, which in itself deals with a number of issues that are important in combating racism and tackling knife crime.
As I said last week, I am grateful for the engagement that I have had with the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on these matters. There are a number of amendments to deal with and I am pleased that they are all to be considered now in one group.
As I also said last week, I understand the concern, particularly in relation to Motion A, about enforcement agencies potentially issuing fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour offences where there may be a financial incentive to do so. However, I remain of the view that it is not appropriate to put in place a blanket ban on the issuing of fixed penalty notices by enforcement companies and contractors. Introducing such a ban would be disproportionate and would significantly weaken enforcement capability. Contracting enforcement to third parties is a common arrangement, and it is for the local authority to ensure that the use of powers remains just and proportionate. It is for this reason that the Government last week tabled Amendments 2A to 2C in lieu, which would rightly ensure that statutory guidance addresses the very points that noble Lords are concerned about.
4:00 pm
The statutory guidance will also provide guidance on multi-agency engagement for orders involving respondents over the age of 18. Taking all this into account, I am confident that this will cover a broad range of expertise and ensure that the police take a variety of factors into account before applying for an order.
The Government have committed to issuing statutory guidance that will set out what the police should take into account in terms of proportionality before applying for an order. That will include the need to consider alternative interventions. The police will clearly need to take an individualised approach and it would not be helpful for the Government to set out a prescriptive list of alternatives in the guidance.
In addition to this, as I have previously set out, the courts will be required to consider whether an order is necessary or proportionate before granting any order. To be clear, the police, as the applicants, will need to provide the necessary evidence to enable the courts to make that decision, and this will necessarily involve consideration of what alternative options are available and relevant in each case.
However, having said all that, and notwithstanding the House of Commons rejecting Lords Amendment 342 by a majority of 233—interestingly, it was a vote in which the Official Opposition abstained—the Government have brought forward Amendments 342C and 342D in lieu, which make it clear that the statutory guidance will also include guidance to the police on the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for police to consult others beyond the multi-agency youth services. The police must have due regard to this guidance. In addition, these amendments in lieu make it clear that the guidance must address these matters. In summary, I hope that these additional reassurances in lieu are acceptable to the noble Baroness. Again, I am grateful to her for her engagement.
Finally, on Motion D, I stress again that it is the long-standing position adopted by successive Governments, including the previous one, that the Government do not provide a running commentary on which organisations are being considered for proscription. Furthermore, deciding whether an organisation needs proscribing requires intensive analysis, and it is not helpful to suggest that the Government should review every organisation linked to the Iranian Government within one month of Royal Assent. I note that the noble Lord has brought forward Amendment 439E, which would narrow the category of organisations within the scope of the duty, but my point is one of principle and still stands: we cannot reach decisions on proscription to an arbitrary timetable set in stone by statute.
The Government keep the list of proscribed organisations under close review. We do not comment on whether a specific organisation is being considered for proscription. We continue to take strong action to hold the Iranian regime to account. More than 550 Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC, are now sanctioned, and we have placed Iran on the newly provided enhanced foreign influence registration scheme.
The House should be in no doubt that the Government cannot and will not accept Amendment 439 or the new Amendment 439E, but that is not because we are against any action being taken on the Iranian regime. On the contrary, we strongly oppose its activities and have taken steps to do that.
As your Lordships’ House has insisted on Amendment 439 for a second time, we have, however, brought forward Amendments 439C and 439D in lieu, principally to keep the parliamentary process going, but I hope that they will also aid understanding of the proscription procedure. In terms, the amendment will require the Home Secretary to lay before Parliament within six months of Royal Assent a Statement about the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State in relation to the powers under Section 3 of the 2000 Act, which gives powers for the Government to proscribe organisations. I understand the points that the noble Lord has made, but I cannot agree with him. I ask him to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on this matter, and in the meantime I beg to move Motion A.
At end insert, “and do propose Amendment 2H as an amendment to Amendment 2F, and Amendment 2J as an amendment to Amendment 2G—
2H: In paragraph (a), at the end of inserted subsection (A1)(b), insert “, including how such persons can be disincentivised from issuing fixed penalty notices for the purpose of generating any direct or indirect financial benefit.
(A2) Any person found to be in breach of the guidance under subsection (A1)(b) may have their designation revoked by the relevant local authority.”
2J: In paragraph (a), at the end of inserted subsection (A1), insert “, including how such persons can be disincentivised from issuing fixed penalty notices for the purpose of generating any direct or indirect financial benefit.
(A2) Any person found to be in breach of the guidance under subsection (A1) may have their designation revoked by the relevant local authority.””
20 of 82 shown
I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has moved on this and tabled amendments in lieu to ensure that such guidance must, not may, address the need to ensure proportionality in the use of fixed penalty notices. I therefore hope that he is content with the further government amendments in lieu, Amendments 2F and 2G, which also seek to ensure that any guidance issued must address the issuing of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons.
In addition, in discussions with the noble Lord I have mentioned the Defra statutory guidance on litter enforcement powers. That guidance includes various entries relating to the need to exercise enforcement powers proportionately. It also addresses the use of contractors. I can give an undertaking to the noble Lord that we will adopt similar language in the guidance to be issued in respect of anti-social behaviour enforcement powers under the Bill. We commit to include a passage in the guidance which says:
“Where external contractors are used, private firms should not be able to receive greater revenue or profits just from increasing the volume of penalties”.
I will ensure that the statutory guidance reminds local authorities that contracted agencies are not expected to issue fines purely for profit, and, if they are found to do so, that local authorities may take appropriate remedial action, such as revocation, in line with the terms of their contract. I hope that provides the noble Lord with the reassurance he needs not to press Motion A1.
On Motion B, as I have said throughout the passage of this Bill, the Government fully agree with noble Lords on the need to do more to tackle fly-tipping. Our recently announced waste crime action plan, which I referred to in our last round of ping-pong and which was published over the Easter Recess, does just that.
On Amendment 11, I stress that local authorities already have powers to seize vehicles if they have reason to believe that the vehicle is being used, or is about to be used, to commit a fly-tipping offence. This is in addition to the police’s general power under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and its associated codes, to seize items as evidence if they believe they are being used in the commission of a criminal offence.
The Government want local authorities to use their powers fully to tackle fly-tipping. To that end, I have tabled Amendments 11C to 11F in lieu, which make it clear that the statutory guidance to be issued to waste authorities in England under Clause 9 must, not may, include advice to local authorities on exercising their powers, including the seizure of vehicles. I am grateful for the gentle discussion that we have had with the noble Lord on these matters and for the pressure that he has put. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on that matter.
On Motion C, we return to the issue of “must” versus “may”. Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, reiterated her concerns that the police are required to consult with youth offending teams only when applying for a youth diversion order. As I mentioned last week, multi-agency engagement will be crucial to the success of these orders. I want to be clear to the House that youth offending teams are already multi-agency by statute, and include representatives from health, education, social services and probation, as mandated by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Youth offending teams may also engage with child and adolescent mental health services, education inclusion teams, voluntary and community organisations, and local early help services.
I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has raised concerns about the involvement of parents. I would like to reassure her that engagement with parents or carers is a routine and integral part of the work of youth offending teams, beginning at assessment stage and continuing through any intervention. This engagement is led by practitioners who are trained to work with families, understand family dynamics and assess what engagement is appropriate, safe and in the child’s best interests. The nature and extent of parental involvement is therefore nuanced and individualised. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that it would not be right to prescribe a one-size-fits-all process for what could and very often will be complex and varied cases.