The Crime and Policing Bill has now moved into the House of Lords after moving through the policy process in the House of Commons. Introduced on the 25^th of February 2025 and presented as a method to support the Safer Streets Mission of government, it has gone through the House of Commons after rigorous legislative scrutiny. After passing both the 1^st and 2^nd readings, it then moved to a Public Bill Committee, in which we provided written evidence to the committee. Then, moving on to the report stage, in which amendments were debated. Now, it stands at the House of Lords, having passed the first reading, now standing at the second reading in the House of Lords.

The Crime and Policing Bill look to be one of the major policy developments to community safety and anti-social behaviour since the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. We have tracked the progress of the Crime and Policing Bill for some time now and have provided commentary and analysis on some THE measures. You can view one of our pieces on the bill here. The bill has a large, broad scope, which aims to achieve a plethora of policy objectives. The bill’s main objectives are as below:

• Respect orders- allowing local authorities and police to impose restrictions on people who commit anti-social behaviour, and which would include a criminal sanction on breach. Other measures will amend existing powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, including removing the need for the police to issue a warning before seizing vehicles associated with anti-social behaviour.
• Knife Crime - would introduce a new offence of possessing a knife or offensive weapon with intent, increase the maximum penalty for manufacturing, selling, hiring, or lending prohibited weapons, and give the police greater powers to seize knives from properties.
• Cuckooing - would include measures aimed at protecting children and vulnerable people, including creating new offences of child criminal exploitation and ‘cuckooing’, often associated with county lines drug dealing.
• Child sexual abuse - introduce several measures aimed at tackling child sexual abuse and other sexual offending. This includes implementing two recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. It would make grooming a statutory aggravating factor when sentencing an adult for a child sex offence and create a statutory duty for certain individuals to report child sexual abuse.
• Protests - would reintroduce some of the previous government’s proposals to create new offences related to protests, such as banning face coverings, pyrotechnics, and climbing war memorials.
• Stolen goods and drugs - includes measures to allow the police to enter premises without a warrant to search for electronically tracked stolen goods and conduct drug tests in custody for a wider range of offences and drugs.
• Complaints to the police - would reform certain arrangements for the handling of complaints and conduct matters against the police, in the context of concerns about both complainants and the rights of officers under investigation. These measures were first proposed by the previous government as amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill.
• Youth radicalisation - would introduce measures aimed at tackling youth radicalisation, announced as the initial response to the ‘counter-extremism sprint’established by the government following the general election.
• Protect retail workers – introducing a new offence of assault a retail worker. Repeals section 176 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which downgraded the police response to so-called ‘low-value shop theft’.
• Protect emergency workers – new offences to protect emergency workers from racially or religiously aggravated behaviour.

Report Stage and third reading:

• Report stage took place in the House of Lords on the 17^th and 18^th of June 2025. MPs tabled hundreds of amendments in advance. 160 were government amendments including thirty-one new clauses and three new schedules.

All of the government’s amendments were agreed to. This included clauses that would:

• Create an offence of coerced internal concealment (clause 59)
• Clarify powers for law enforcement agencies to access remotely stored electronic data.
• Require specialist forces to establish barred persons lists and advisory lists to enhance the police vetting regime.
• Create an offence for a person to trespass on any premises with the intention of committing an offence.
• Create an offence of organised begging (clause 11)

The government supported the Liberal Democrats’ intentions but disagreed on issues such as the amendments’ timing, drafting, necessity and impact on existing regulatory processes.

Commons: Report Stage

Government Amendment NC60-1 Yvette Cooper (Lab) – Offence for threating or abusive behaviour likely to harass, alarm or distress emergency workers.

Government Amendment NC53  Yvette Cooper (Lab) – “Arranging or facilitating begging for gain, A person commits an offence if, for gain, the person arranges or facilitates another person’s begging”.

Key Messages from the second reading

The policy process in the House of Lords follows the same bill stages as in the Commons, however, has a few key differences:

• The Lords is self-regulating, so there is no limit on time spent on debate.
• During committee stage, rather than being sent to a public bill committee, the bill is usually debated on the floor of the House.
• At the third reading, a bill can be amended if the amendments focus on something that has not been voted on at a previous stage.

A bill is first debated in the second reading; a minister opens the debate with shadow ministers and backbench MPs having the opportunity to make their points about the proposed legislation.

An MP can table what is called a ‘reasoned amendment’ opposing the bill. If the Speaker selects the reasoned amendment for a decision, it will be voted on before the vote on second reading.

In the case that a bill is defeated at the second reading, it cannot be re-introduced during the same parliamentary session. Defeat at this stage is exceptionally rare, with the last one occurring in 1986. After a vote on the second reading, the House approves a programme motion which sets out the timetable for the stages remaining.  

Overall, during the second reading, while many Lords supported the bills main intentions and policy provisions, many did call for more nuanced approaches to policing and anti-social behaviour. Emphasising the need for resources, community engagement, and targeted, effective interventions.

Policing

Indeed, as we know, policing is at the forefront, not only for the various legislative developments that will directly affect policing, but for the very enforcement that this legislation requires. Various peers highlighted shortfalls in police funding, this follows from an estimate from the National Police Chiefs’ Council stating an apparent  £1.2 billion funding shortfall; Baroness Doocey noted this. Of course, there were also concerns about reduced neighbourhood policing and overall police capacity also. For a policing by consent model of policing, that we have in the UK, public confidence and trust is vital. This was raised repeatedly about Lords such as Viscount Goschen who spoke on declining public confidence in local policing, Lord Herbert of South Downs also discussed the need to rebuild trust in policing, and lastly, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate emphasised the importance of visible, community-engaged policing. Predictably, there were calls for more focus on street-level crime and visible policing, with an argument that police should focus on core crime-fighting activities.

Anti-social Behaviour and Respect Orders

Respect Orders, being one of the headline provisions in the bill, featured prominently in the second reading debate. Likely not to be amended at this stage, due to the policy process in the lords, despite this, it has been debated at length, particularly with accountability and scrutiny in mind. Lord Davies of Gower was notably sceptical about the new respect orders, suggesting, as others have, that they are essentially just renamed anti-social behaviour injunctions. We have argued in the Joint Committee of Human Rights on the Crime and Policing Bill that the Respect Orders offers a meaningful alternative, and that it differs from the injunction in a few crucial ways. In order to see this, please click here.

It was also encouraging to see stressed on the complexity of ASB, emphasizing that the distinction between perpetrator and victim is rarely absolute, and is often a blurred line. This is why we stress the importance of positive requirements and the adequate funding for the services that provide this, which is present in the application of the respect order. Lord Hanson defended respect orders as a substantial new power giving police and authorities effective levers to deal with ASB.

The democratic scrutiny of respect orders was also called in to question by Lord Clement Jones who stated “For antisocial behaviour measures, accountability and fairness are crucial. New respect orders must be subject to rigorous democratic scrutiny. Applications need to undergo full public consultation and should be approved by the relevant full council or its executive or cabinet before implementation.” While we argue that accountability and fairness, should indeed but built into the system, quick, timely resolution is also needed, and so a balance must be struck by

Amendments proposed at second reading:

Below is a comprehensive list of several amendments that directly or indirectly affect policing:

 Clause 125 - Live Facial Recognition and Public Assemblies ​

• BARONESS DOOCEY and LORD CLEMENT-JONES ​
  • Amendment: Ensures that live facial recognition technology cannot be used when imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions unless a specific code of practice is approved. ​
  • Impact on Policing: Regulates the use of surveillance technology by police forces, ensuring privacy and civil liberties are safeguarded. ​

After Clause 166 - Neighbourhood Policing ​

• BARONESS DOOCEY and LORD MARKS OF HENLEY-ON-THAMES ​
  • Amendment: Requires the Secretary of State to ensure every local authority area has a neighbourhood policing team focused on community-based duties like high-visibility patrols, community engagement, and crime prevention. ​
  • Impact on Policing: Mandates the establishment of resolute neighbourhood policing teams to enhance community safety and engagement. ​After Clause 166 - Minimum Levels of Neighbourhood Policing ​

• BARONESS DOOCEY and LORD MARKS OF HENLEY-ON-THAMES ​
  • Amendment: Proposes maintaining minimum levels of neighbourhood policing, including a plan to allocate funds for neighbourhood policing initiatives. ​
  • Impact on Policing: Ensures adequate resources and staffing for neighbourhood policing. ​

After Clause 166 - Police Training – Independent Review ​

• BARONESS DOOCEY and LORD MARKS OF HENLEY-ON-THAMES ​
  • Amendment: Requires an independent review of the quality of in-service police officer training, including digital skills, investigative skills, trauma awareness, and conflict management.
  • Impact on Policing: Aims to improve the effectiveness and consistency of police training to meet modern policing demands. ​

After Clause 166 - Mandatory Mental Health Training for Police Officers ​

• BARONESS DOOCEY and BARONESS BRINTON ​
  • Amendment: Requires all frontline police officers to receive regular training in dealing with individuals experiencing mental health crises, including de-escalation techniques and trauma-informed care. ​
  • Impact on Policing: Enhances police capacity to oversee mental health-related incidents effectively and sensitively. ​

Clause 138 - Restriction on Use of Facial Recognition Technology

• BARONESS DOOCEY and LORD CLEMENT-JONES ​
  • Amendment: Prohibits the use of the DVLA database for biometric searches using facial recognition technology. ​
  • Impact on Policing: Limits police access to certain databases for facial recognition purposes, safeguarding privacy.

After Clause 144 - CCTV on Railway Network ​

• BARONESS PIDGEON and BARONESS DOOCEY
  • Amendment: Enforces legal obligations on railway CCTV systems to be accessible by the British Transport Police and other relevant police forces for 30 days. ​
  • Impact on Policing: Improves police efficiency in investigations involving railway CCTV footage. ​

After Clause 166 - Police Training on Mental Health ​

• BARONESS DOOCEY and BARONESS BRINTON ​
  • Amendment: Mandates regular mental health training for frontline police officers, including de-escalation techniques and trauma-informed care.
  • Impact on Policing: Ensures police are better equipped to manage mental health crises. ​

Clause 129 - Service Police Powers

• LORD CLEMENT-JONES
  • Amendment: Requires the Secretary of State to produce a code of practice for the operation of clause 129, which relates to electronically tracked stolen goods and service police powers. ​
  • Impact on Policing: Establishes guidelines for service police powers, ensuring compliance with human rights and proper procedures. ​

After Clause 129 - Independent Oversight of Service Police Powers ​

• LORD CLEMENT-JONES
  • Amendment: Requires the establishment of an independent mechanism for investigating complaints related to service police powers under section 93ZA of the Armed Forces Act 2006. ​
  • Impact on Policing: Introduces accountability and oversight for service police actions.

After Clause 129 - Mandatory Training for Service Police Powers ​

• LORD CLEMENT-JONES
  • Amendment: Requires mandatory, certified training for service police personnel authorized to exercise powers under section 93ZA of the Armed Forces Act 2006. ​
  • Impact on Policing: Ensures service police are adequately trained in legal requirements, human rights compliance, and de-escalation techniques. ​

After Clause 166 - Police Training Review ​

• BARONESS DOOCEY and LORD MARKS OF HENLEY-ON-THAMES ​
  • Amendment: Requires an independent review of in-service police training, including digital skills, investigative skills, and trauma awareness.
  • Impact on Policing: Aims to improve police training and professional standards. ​

After Clause 166 - Mandatory Mental Health Training ​

• BARONESS DOOCEY and BARONESS BRINTON ​
  • Amendment: Mandates mental health training for all frontline police officers, including de-escalation techniques and trauma-informed care.
  • Impact on Policing: Enhances police response to mental health crises. ​

After Clause 166 - Neighbourhood Policing ​

• BARONESS DOOCEY and LORD MARKS OF HENLEY-ON-THAMES ​
  • Amendment: Requires neighbourhood policing teams in every local authority area to focus on community-based duties. ​
  • Impact on Policing: Strengthens community engagement and crime prevention. ​

After Clause 166 - Neighbourhood Policing Minimum Levels ​

• BARONESS DOOCEY and LORD MARKS OF HENLEY-ON-THAMES ​
  • Amendment: Proposes maintaining minimum levels of neighbourhood policing and allocating funds for such initiatives. ​
  • Impact on Policing: Ensures adequate resources for community policing. ​

After Clause 166 - Police Training Review ​

• BARONESS DOOCEY and LORD MARKS OF HENLEY-ON-THAMES ​
  • Amendment: Requires an independent review of police training, including digital skills, investigative skills, and trauma awareness.
  • Impact on Policing: Aims to improve police training and professional standards. ​

After Clause 166 - Mandatory Mental Health Training ​

• BARONESS DOOCEY and BARONESS BRINTON ​
  • Amendment: Mandates mental health training for all frontline police officers, including de-escalation techniques and trauma-informed care.
  • Impact on Policing: Enhances police response to mental health crises. ​

The following amendments in the document address issues related to respect orders, anti-social behaviour, closure orders, or injunctions:

          Clause 1 - Anti-social Behaviour Powers Review ​

1. • LORD CLEMENT-JONES and BARONESS DOOCEY ​
     • Amendment: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at the beginning insert: “Subject to a review of existing anti-social behaviour powers under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2014 being conducted and completed by an independent person appointed by the Secretary of State within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent,” ​
     • Member's explanatory statement: This amendment requires the Government to review current anti-social behaviour powers within six months of the Bill becoming law, before the new measures proposed in the Bill take effect. ​

Clause 1 - Public Consultation on Respect Orders ​

1. • LORD CLEMENT-JONES and BARONESS DOOCEY ​
     • Amendment: Clause 1, page 9, line 35, at the end insert: “(4) Prior to issuing any guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must conduct a full public consultation exercise.” ​
     • Member's explanatory statement: This amendment requires the Secretary of State to conduct a full public consultation prior to issuing any guidance relating to those who are entitled to apply for respect orders. ​

These amendments focus on ensuring a review of existing anti-social behaviour powers and requiring public consultation before implementing new measures related to respect orders. ​