⚖️ Crime and Policing Bill (Third sitting)

• The parliamentary session focused on the Crime and Policing Bill, particularly discussing amendments to the proposed “respect orders” aimed at tackling antisocial behaviour.

• Amendment 31: Proposed lowering the age limit for respect orders from 18 to 16. This amendment was debated extensively, with the argument that many incidents of antisocial behaviour are committed by those under 18. However, the amendment was rejected, with the Government preferring to use youth injunctions for those under 18 to avoid criminalizing children unnecessarily.

• Amendment 33: Suggested imposing a fine on individuals who receive multiple respect orders. The amendment aimed to reinforce the seriousness of respect orders and was debated as a means to deter repeat offenders. It was also rejected, with the Government arguing that the criminal sanctions for breaching respect orders are sufficient.

• Amendment 32: Proposed increasing the prison term for repeated breaches of respect orders to five years from two. This was also rejected, with the Government believing the current two-year maximum was appropriate for the preventive focus of respect orders.

• Amendment 30: Sought to expand the legal definition of antisocial behaviour for respect orders to include housing-related issues such as causing “nuisance or annoyance”. This amendment was rejected, with the Government maintaining that the current threshold of “harassment, alarm or distress” was suitable for respect orders, while housing-related issues are addressed through housing injunctions.

• Amendment 34: Proposed that individuals receiving a respect order could be moved to the bottom of the social housing waiting list. This amendment sparked debate about fairness and the potential impact on families. It was rejected, with concerns that it could lead to increased antisocial behaviour.

• Clause 1: Establishes the framework for respect orders to be imposed on adults over 18 to prevent antisocial behaviour. The clause was discussed in depth, with members expressing support for the measure but also concern about its effectiveness without further enhancements.

• Clause 2: Introduces youth and housing injunctions, maintaining current civil injunction powers for under-18s and housing-related antisocial behaviour. The clause was supported, with amendments made to refine the application of these injunctions.

• Clause 3: Extends the maximum period for dispersal directions and closure notices from 48 to 72 hours, with a mandatory review at the 48-hour mark. This was debated in the context of enhancing the police’s ability to manage antisocial behaviour effectively, especially during weekends and holidays.

• The session highlighted the balance between enforcing law and order and ensuring safeguards against unnecessary criminalization, particularly of young people. It also emphasized the need for effective measures to address antisocial behaviour while considering the broader implications for communities and individuals.

The session displayed significant disagreement, warranting a rating of 4 on a scale of 1 to 5 for disagreement. The rating is influenced by the following factors and examples:

1. Debate on Age for Respect Orders: A notable point of contention was the amendment proposing to lower the age threshold for respect orders from 18 to 16. Matt Vickers argued for the change, emphasizing the role of teenagers in antisocial behavior, while Dame Diana Johnson firmly opposed it, citing the government’s policy against criminalizing children unnecessarily. This disagreement was evident in the voting, with the amendment being defeated (Ayes: 4, Noes: 11).

2. Penalties for Repeated Breaches: Amendments 32 and 33, which proposed fines and increased prison sentences for repeated breaches of respect orders, were also contentious. Matt Vickers supported these measures as a needed deterrent, whereas Dame Diana Johnson argued they were punitive and unlikely to address the root causes of the behavior. These amendments were similarly defeated in the vote, indicating strong disagreement (Ayes: 4, Noes: 12 for both amendments).

3. Social Housing Allocation: Amendment 34, proposing to move individuals with respect orders to the bottom of social housing waiting lists, sparked a heated debate. Matt Vickers insisted it would incentivize good behavior, while Jess Phillips challenged the potential impact on families and the lack of evidence for its necessity. This amendment also faced significant opposition and was rejected in the vote (Ayes: 4, Noes: 12), reflecting a high level of disagreement.

4. General Tone and Interventions: The session included several pointed interventions and challenges between members, indicating a robust disagreement. For instance, Matt Vickers was questioned by multiple members about the evidence and rationale behind his amendments, with a particular focus on the social housing proposal. The interventions by Jess Phillips and Luke Taylor highlighted strong opposition to the amendment on social housing allocation.

5. Clause Stand Part Debate: Even during the debate on the clause standing part of the bill, there were areas of disagreement, particularly around the powers and mechanisms for enforcement. Matt Vickers raised concerns about the practical application of the orders and the capacity of agencies to implement them, which were addressed but not fully resolved in the discussion.

These examples illustrate a significant level of disagreement, particularly around the amendments and their implications for policy and community impact. The debates were robust and the divisions clear in the voting, thus justifying the high rating for disagreement.