🗳️ Crime and Policing Bill (Fourth sitting)

• Maximum Period for Certain Directions, Notices, and Orders (Clause 3):
  • The session confirmed that certain measures from the previous Criminal Justice Bill are included in the Crime and Policing Bill. However, the proposal to lower the age for community protection notices (CPNs) from 16 to 10 years old was not adopted. The decision was made to avoid unnecessarily criminalizing children since breaching a CPN is a criminal offence.
  • Another proposal to extend the power of public spaces protection orders (PSPOs) to the police was also not included. It was determined that local authorities are better equipped to administer PSPOs as they generally focus on lower-level environmental issues.
• Fixed Penalty Notices (Clause 4):
  • The clause expands the community safety accreditation scheme, allowing accredited officers to issue fixed penalty notices for breaches of PSPOs and CPNs.
  • The upper limit for these fines will rise from £100 to £500, with the aim of providing a stronger deterrent against antisocial behavior. However, fines must remain proportionate and reasonable, and updated guidance will be provided.
  • Concerns were raised about possible misuse of these powers and how to ensure they are not used to unfairly penalize minor infractions. The Minister assured that there will be oversight mechanisms and approved standards to regulate their use.
• Closure of Premises by Registered Social Housing Provider (Clause 5 and Schedule 2):
  • This clause allows registered social housing providers to issue closure notices and orders for properties they manage where nuisance or disorder is likely. This change aims to allow quicker action and free up police and local authority resources.
  • The action is deemed serious, and safeguards are in place since social housing providers are regulated and must adhere to statutory criteria.
• Reviews of Responses to Complaints About Anti-social Behaviour (Clause 6 and Schedule 3):
  • This provision introduces a duty for police and crime commissioners (PCCs) to promote awareness of the antisocial behavior (ASB) case review process and provide a route for further review if victims are dissatisfied.
  • It aims to improve support for victims and ensure their concerns are effectively addressed. The PCCs can override the original case review recommendations if they believe further action could have been taken.
• Provision of Information About Anti-social Behaviour to Secretary of State (Clause 7):
  • This clause enables the Home Secretary to require key local agencies to report information about ASB to the government, helping to create a more comprehensive national picture.
  • The government aims to ensure the requirements are reasonable and proportionate, acknowledging possible burdens on local agencies and engaging with them ahead of any new requirements.
• Seizure of Motor Vehicles Used in Manner Causing Alarm, Distress, or Annoyance (Clause 8):
  • Aimed at addressing the antisocial use of vehicles, this clause removes the need for a prior warning before seizing vehicles used in a disruptive manner.
  • Additional suggestions from the opposition, such as adding driving license penalties for repeat offenders and destroying seized off-road bikes, were not adopted in the session, but discussions on tackling the issue further were welcomed.
  • Concerns about the impact of this behavior on public safety, community fear, and environmental damage were widely acknowledged. The need for a multi-faceted approach, including education, policing, and technology, was highlighted.
• Guidance on Fly-tipping Enforcement in England (Clause 9):
  • The clause aims to provide guidance to local councils to enhance their ability to tackle fly-tipping, a costly and environmentally damaging problem. The emphasis is on making enforcement more consistent and efficient.
  • Amendments proposed to ensure fly-tippers, rather than landowners, are liable for cleanup costs and to add penalty points to the driving licenses of convicted fly-tippers were debated but ultimately not passed.
• Possession of Weapon with Intent to Use Unlawful Violence (Clause 10 and 11):
  • A new offense was introduced for possessing a bladed or offensive weapon with intent to carry out unlawful violence, cause fear of violence, or inflict serious damage.
  • The maximum penalty for manufacturing, selling, or lending prohibited weapons will increase from six months to two years. These offenses will become triable either in the magistrates’ or Crown Court, allowing for better evidence gathering.
  • An amendment to increase the sentence for this offense from four to 14 years was debated but ultimately rejected. Concerns were also raised about empowering police to seize weapons found during unrelated searches.
• Power to Seize Bladed Articles (Clause 12 and 13):
  • These clauses provide the police and service police with the power to seize bladed articles in private premises if they have reasonable grounds to suspect their use in connection with unlawful violence.
  • The measures aim to empower law enforcement to remove dangerous knives, enhancing public safety. However, there were concerns about the subjective nature of reasonable grounds and potential intrusion into personal privacy.

The session exhibited a moderate level of disagreement, warranting a rating of 3 on a scale from 1 to 5. This rating is justified by the following observations and examples drawn from the transcript:

1. Variability in Support for Clauses and Amendments: Throughout the session, there was a general consensus on the need to address issues such as knife crime and antisocial vehicle use, as evidenced by the discussions on Clauses 10, 11, 12, and 13. However, there were points of disagreement on specific amendments and clauses:
   • Amendment 39 and New Clause 44: There was disagreement over increasing the maximum sentence for possessing a weapon with intent. The opposition sought to raise it from four to fourteen years, reflecting the recommendation of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. However, the government, while acknowledging the reviewer’s work, argued that this amendment misinterpreted the recommendation and suggested that a separate offense for mass casualty planning should be considered instead. This disagreement is clear in the speeches by Matt Vickers pushing for stronger sentencing and Alex Barros-Curtis arguing against the amendment, supported by the reviewer’s full context.
   • Clause 9 and Amendments: There was also discussion around Clause 9 which deals with fly-tipping. Amendment 35 aimed to ensure the perpetrator of fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, is responsible for cleanup costs. While there was general support for the aims of Clause 9, variations in agreement arose with amendments; for instance, Luke Taylor’s Amendment 4 to require parliamentary approval for guidance was met with opposition, arguing it could cause delays.
2. Constructive Criticism and Questioning: The session included numerous instances of constructive criticism and questioning, indicating a nuanced level of disagreement rather than outright opposition:
   • Harriet Cross questioned how youth hubs might inadvertently promote gang turf wars or recruitment, showing a disagreement with the assumption that such hubs would universally reduce crime without consideration for their placement and operation.
   • Anna Sabine expressed concerns about the impact of Clause 10 on schoolchildren bringing knives into schools for self-defense, indicating a potential unintended consequence of the law and disagreement over its application.
3. Balance and Proportionality: There were debates about the balance between enforcement and rights, suggesting disagreement on the proportionality of proposed measures:
   • Matt Vickers expressed concerns about the subjective nature of “reasonable grounds” in Clause 12, potentially leading to inconsistent enforcement and the unjust targeting of individuals, highlighting a disagreement over how the clause might be applied in practice.
4. Division Votes: Divisions were called, demonstrating clear disagreement, particularly on Amendment 39, which was negatived by a vote of 4 to 11. The voting pattern shows a polarized stance between supporters and opponents of the amendment.

The disagreements, while present, were often handled with constructive debate and focused on specific points of policy or application of law, suggesting a moderate level of disagreement rather than strong opposition.