Dame Diana Johnson
MP for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham · Labour · United Kingdom
“Longer-term funding is subject to future spending reviews. The Department and NHS England are committed to prioritising funding for sepsis in future spending bids. The framework is a 10-year plan. I do not pretend that we will deliver everything overnight, but it sets clear targets to reduce deaths by a quarter over the next 10 years.”
“It is not acceptable that when someone has been through the worst experience of their life, they are just left to get on with it. That is why we are committed to improving access to post-discharge support and rehabilitation, with priority actions set out in the framework.”
“I encourage everyone who has not yet come forward to do so, and to ensure that they obtain both doses of the vaccine for proper protection. The framework commits to improving vaccine access. The shadow Minister put a number of questions to me. I will respond in writing, as I am conscious of the time.”
“No one knows a child better than his or her parents or carers, which is why listening to patients, carers and families is vital to supporting sepsis recognition and escalation. Too many cases have shown the devastating consequences when deterioration concerns are not heard.”
“During Sepsis Awareness Month, I pay tribute to the charities, such as the UK Sepsis Trust and Sepsis Research FEAT, that do so much to support families, raise awareness and fund research.”
“That will include research calls that cover sepsis improvement priorities, whether it is vaccination and screening, faster and more accurate diagnosis or innovative treatments. It is true that the most recent data from the Office for National Statistics suggests that sepsis deaths went down in 2024.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,801 lines we hold for Dame Diana Johnson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 18 of 97.
“For example, an assault against a child to ensure their compliance that amounts to causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so will be subject to the maximum penalty for that offence, which is life imprisonment. When deciding what sentence to impose, the courts are required to take into account the full circumstances of the offence and the offender. This includes the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused, and any aggravating or mitigating factors, to ensure that the overall sentence imposed on the offender is just and proportionate. Looking at the sentencing framework across the criminal law in England and Wales, the Government are of the view that a 10-year maximum penalty for child criminal exploitation is appropriate and comparable to offences that involve similar behaviours.”
“It reflects the damage done to a child’s life chances by inducing them into a criminal lifestyle, and to their welfare by subjecting them to coercive behaviours that may be traumatic and long-lasting. To be clear, the penalty imposed for the child criminal exploitation offence does not punish perpetrators for conduct that would amount to a separate offence. It does not punish the perpetrator for the offence that they intend the child to commit—for example, drug supply. Harmful acts done to a child as part of their exploitation that would amount to a separate offence can be punished under those offences in addition to the child criminal exploitation offence.”
“Yes, that is what I meant, Sir Roger. I am sorry to cause confusion. Amendment 1 seeks to increase the maximum penalty for the new offence of child criminal exploitation in clause 17 from 10 years’ imprisonment to life imprisonment. I fully support a maximum penalty that reflects the seriousness of the offence, which holds people who criminally exploit children to account and acts as a clear warning to would-be perpetrators who might target children for their own criminal gain. However, a maximum penalty must be fair and proportionate. A life sentence is an extremely high bar, reserved for the gravest offences such as murder and rape. Ten years’ imprisonment is a very serious maximum penalty that reflects the significant physical, psychological and emotional harm done to the child.”
“I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 17, page 26, line 29, at end insert— “(4) In Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply), after paragraph 36C insert— ‘ Crime and Policing Act 2025 (c. 00) 36D An offence under any of the following provisions of the Crime and Policing Act 2025— section 17 (child criminal exploitation)’.” This amendment excepts the offence of child criminal exploitation from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”
“Clause 17 provides for a new offence of child criminal exploitation. The offence will criminalise any adult who exploits a child by intentionally using them to commit criminal activity, and will carry a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. Child criminal exploitation is a form of child abuse that is often committed by criminal gangs, which prey on the vulnerability of a child to groom and manipulate them into committing crimes, such as county lines drug running, organised robbery and many more offences. Perpetrators expose victims to violence, threats and intimidation, causing serious physical, psychological and emotional harms, which have devastating and long-lasting impacts on their childhood, as well as their future life chances.”
“That is about recognising those children who are vulnerable and who might need extra support. We will create youth hubs and prevention partnerships, which are about the cohort of very vulnerable young people who might be getting themselves into difficult situations and who are perhaps on the verge of getting involved in criminality. That will involve identifying who they are, working with them and putting in place a plan of action to ensure that they are diverted away from involvement in the gangs that we know prey on very vulnerable young people. On that basis, I commend clause 17 and amendment 10 to the Committee. Amendment 10 agreed to. Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 18 Power to make CCE prevention order Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“That said, we do understand that the offence on its own is only part of the answer, and that is why we are working across Government to identify opportunities to improve the systems response and drive change and transformation. I do not wish to try your patience, Sir Roger, by going into the issue about the sentence that should be given for the new offence, as we discussed whether the maximum sentence should be life imprisonment in the debate on previous group. The Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley, is undertaking a full review of the NRM, as well as looking at the Modern Slavery Act more generally, because it does not always work as effectively as we would like. In terms of what else we can do, I want to highlight another manifesto commitment: the creation of Young Futures.”
“Obviously, we will not have had a CCE offence until this Bill gets on to the statute book, so the answer to that question is none. The comparator offence in terms of modern slavery and human trafficking is also excepted from the defences listed in section 45. The purpose of amendment 10 is to ensure that those prosecuted for this serious offence cannot benefit from the section 45 defence. The shadow Minister asked how the new offence will change the dial on the systems response to CCE. I take his point: introducing the bespoke, stand-alone offence of CCE, as well as CCE prevention orders, will raise the national consciousness of the issue and finally—I emphasise that word—place it on a level playing field with other harms.”
“I think it is clear that it is never reasonable to consider a child under the age of 13 as an adult. There is crossover from the approach taken around child sexual exploitation, and it would almost always be obvious when a child is under the age of 13. I hope that explains why that age limit was set. On the question of what is happening in Scotland and Northern Ireland, I have said in previous debates that we are in discussion with the devolved authorities, particularly with the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland’s Department of Justice, about the application of the CCE provisions to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I hope that offers reassurance. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan asked how many defendants had relied on the section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act in respect of CCE offences.”
“The debate on this group has been very full, and it is good to know that there is cross-party support for clause 17, which introduces the offence of child criminal exploitation. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, highlighted that the Modern Slavery Act, which the previous Government relied on to deal with the problem, has been failing for many years. The statistics that he cited on the very limited number of prosecutions that went through the courts emphasise how sad and unfortunate it is that this bespoke offence was not put on to the statute books years ago. Given the cross-party support for it today, I am surprised that such support did not exist years ago under the previous Government. I will deal with some of the questions about clause 17, particularly on the age limit of 13.”
“Clauses 18 to 31 and schedule 4 introduce child criminal exploitation prevention orders, which will be available on application to the courts, on conviction and at the end of criminal proceedings when there has not been a conviction. The provision for on-conviction orders is made by amendment of the sentencing code by schedule 4.”
“The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan raised a number of very interesting points of detail. I do not want to detain the Committee any further this afternoon by addressing each and every one of the very important questions that she posed, but I hope that she will take my assurance that I will reflect on all her points and consider them as part of the implementation planning for the new clauses. I commend clauses 18 to 31 and schedule 4 to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause s 19 to 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 4 agreed to. Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)”
“It enables youth courts to impose behavioural requirements on younger offenders, but without resulting in criminalisation. That is why we have retained that element of the existing civil injunction and renamed it the youth injunction. This will enable youth courts to continue to make orders against younger offenders—aged 10, when criminal responsibility kicks in, to 18—where the court deems it necessary. I am content that this provision covers the need for powers to deal with youth ASB. On that basis, I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.”
“Unlike the equivalent current power—the civil injunction—breach of a respect order is a criminal offence with criminal sanctions, and the Government do not believe that it is right to criminalise children unnecessarily, which is why we committed in our manifesto to introduce respect orders for adults only. However, we know that in some cases tough measures, including behavioural orders, can be useful for dealing with younger offenders. I absolutely agree with the shadow Minister that there should be consequences for the actions that cause distress and harm to local communities if they are committed by, for example, a 16-year-old. Stakeholders have told us that the current civil injunction can be a very useful tool for this cohort.”
“New part A1 of the 2014 Act, inserted by clause 1, also makes provision for interim respect orders, for the variation and discharge of orders, and for special measures for witnesses in proceedings—for example, to enable them to give evidence from behind a screen. Amendment 31 would reduce the age at which an offender can receive a respect order from 18 to 16, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, outlined. As I have indicated, the respect order is intended as a powerful deterrent for addressing the most harmful adult perpetrators of ASB.”
“First, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has engaged in or threatened to engage in ASB. ASB is defined as “conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress”. That is a well-established definition. Secondly, the court must be satisfied that issuing a respect order is just and convenient—again, an established test for the courts. As a further safeguard, we are introducing a new requirement for relevant authorities to carry out a risk assessment checklist prior to applying for a respect order. This will help to ensure proportionate use. We will pilot respect orders to ensure that they are as effective as possible before rolling them out across England and Wales. More details on the pilots and their location will be provided in due course.”
“That is not acceptable and the respect order will fix it. As a criminal offence, breach of a respect order will be heard in the criminal courts. This will allow judges to issue a wider range of sentences—including community orders, fines and up to two years’ imprisonment—than they can currently for civil injunctions. This is an important change. Community sentences enable judges to make ASB offenders repay, often visibly, their debt to their community. I assure the Committee that there are safeguards in place to ensure that the orders are used appropriately. These are not unilateral powers for the police and local authorities; the terms of an order must be agreed by the courts. For a respect order to be issued, two tests must be met.”
“They can also include rehabilitative positive requirements, such as attending an anger management course, to help to tackle the root cause of offending. I mentioned that the existing ASB powers do not always go far enough. Breach of a respect order, in contrast to the power it replaces, will be a criminal offence and therefore arrestable. That is not the case for the current civil injunction, which may include a power of arrest only in certain circumstances, where it is specified by the court or where there has been the use or threat of violence or significant risk of harm. I have heard from one local authority of a civil injunction that was breached over 100 times, with the police unable to take quick action to stop breaches because they had to reapply to the courts to arrest the offender.”
“Existing powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 do not always go far enough to tackle antisocial behaviour. That is why we committed in our manifesto to introduce the respect order to crack down on those making our neighbourhoods, town centres and communities feel unsafe and unwelcoming. The respect order partially replaces the existing civil injunctions power for persons aged 18 or over. It enables civil courts to make respect orders on application from a relevant authority in respect of individuals who have engaged in ASB. Authorities that can apply include the police, local authorities and registered housing providers, among others. Respect orders will contain prohibitive conditions set by the court to stop offenders engaging in a particular behaviour.”
“Good morning, Mr Pritchard; it is a pleasure to serve under you today. The Bill will start to implement our safer streets mission alongside our commitment to the 13,000 additional police officers and police community support officers in our communities. Before I respond to amendment 31, it may assist the Committee if I say a little about why we are introducing respect orders. My doing so now may obviate the need for a separate debate on clause stand part. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting out the history of successive Governments’ attempts to deal with antisocial behaviour. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a top priority for this Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. Last year, over a third of people experienced or witnessed some form of ASB, and there were 1 million police-recorded incidents.”
“Respect orders are preventive orders. They seek to prevent further antisocial behaviour by helping to address the root causes of the person’s behaviour.”
“Amendment 33 would make a person who has been given more than one respect order liable for a fine of up to £1,000. It is unlikely that a person would be given more than one respect order. An order may be given for a specified period of time or may state that it has effect until further notice. In practice, if changes are needed to a respect order after it has been approved, the applicant would return to court for the order to be varied if, for example, it was considered necessary to include additional requirements or prohibitions, or to extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect. However, a person may be given a separate order where they have engaged in antisocial behaviour that meets the legal test for use of another ASB power—for example, a housing injunction or a criminal behaviour order.”
“Other powers, such as criminal behaviour orders, are available on conviction for any criminal offence in any criminal court, and they carry a longer sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment. In the light of that, I hope that the shadow Minister will be content to withdraw his amendment.”
“Simply fining someone for receiving further orders would be a punitive measure and unlikely to help that individual change their behaviour. Amendment 32 would increase the maximum prison term available for repeated breaches of respect orders to five years. Currently, the maximum sentence for breaching a respect order is up to two years’ imprisonment upon conviction in the Crown court. We believe that is the appropriate level of sanction, and it is in line with the current civil injunction that it replaces. As I said, respect orders take a fundamentally preventive approach, and it is appropriate that the sentence reflects that. If the offender abides by the terms of the order, there will be no further sanctions. However, it is right that custodial sentences are still available for those who continue to cause havoc to our communities.”
“As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh pointed out, respect orders deter people from carrying on with their behaviour because a breach can lead to arrest, being brought before a criminal court and, potentially, imprisonment. My expectation is that, if there is a need to make changes to a respect order, the requirements will be changed and the prohibitions will be extended on the respect order that has already been issued, so I am not sure that I take the point about multiple respect orders. What we all want is that, when a respect order is issued, the individual will comply with it and no further steps are necessary by anybody because they will have stopped the antisocial behaviour and dealt with their underlying problems.”
“That is why we have retained the test for the new housing injunction in clause 2. The respect order goes further than the civil injunction, as I have set out, in making a breach a criminal offence and enabling a wider range of sentencing options. It is appropriate that the legal test should be behaviour that is causing, or likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress. It is also important to be mindful that the respect order sits alongside a suite of powers available to the police and local authorities to tackle ASB, which are designed to apply to the different scenarios and harm types that the amendment aims to capture. I hope I have assured the shadow Minister of our reasoning in setting the bar for a respect order at the level of harassment, alarm or distress, and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.”
“Amendment 30 would expand the legal definition of antisocial behaviour for respect orders, which is currently drafted as behaviour “that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.” The amendment seeks to include housing-related definitions of antisocial behaviour, including causing “nuisance or annoyance”, as in section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The test for nuisance and annoyance is a lower level of behaviour than that causing harassment, alarm or distress. That is appropriate in a housing context where a victim cannot easily escape from ASB that is occurring in the area where they live. We know that ASB can have devastating consequences in such situations, undermining the victim’s safety and security in their home.”
“They may either decide that a person with a history of antisocial behaviour does not qualify to go on the housing register, or accept the person on to the register but award them lower priority. I note what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, said about the effect that this amendment could have on other family members not associated with the antisocial behaviour. We need to consider the potential consequences of removing access to social housing. The respect order is intended to tackle the most harmful adult perpetrators of ASB, but also aims to prevent further ASB from occurring and help people to address the root causes of their behaviour. That is why respect orders may contain positive as well as prohibitive requirements.”
“Well, Mr Pritchard, that was a lively exchange. Clearly the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley, has had her three Weetabix this morning. We all recognise how devastating antisocial behaviour where you live can be, and I fully understand and appreciate the passion the debate on amendment 34 has prompted this morning. As the shadow Minister pointed out, amendment 34 would enable local authorities or housing providers to move a person who receives a respect order to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing. It is for local authorities to decide who should qualify for social housing. It might be helpful for hon. Members to know that many councils already consider antisocial behaviour or other criminal behaviour before allocating a social home.”
“The hon. Gentleman has made his point; I am not sure that I will respond to it. However, the point he made earlier about the need to ensure that innocent people are not caught up in this is one that I am willing to accept. We do not want to create further issues for individuals who have respect orders by removing access to social housing entirely, which may increase the risk of reoffending and reduce the likelihood of rehabilitation. I hope that, as I have explained that there is already the power for local authorities to choose to take into account the antisocial behaviour or criminal records of potential tenants, the shadow Minister will be willing to withdraw the amendment.”
“That is the same legal test as for the current injunction. I was pleased that the shadow Minister welcomed the fact that housing bodies will be able to seek orders from the courts; I think that is welcome across the House. Police are just one of the number of agencies, including councils and housing authorities, that can apply for respect orders. It is expected that a multi-agency approach will be taken when applying for respect orders. We are also introducing mandatory checklists for the relevant agency to complete prior to applying for a respect order, to ensure proportionate use.”
“We know that courts can issue without-notice respect orders when the matter is urgent—the shadow Minister referred to that. Courts are familiar with doing that and have done it for a very long time with civil injunctions. The shadow Minister also asked about the burden of proof required for the courts to approve a respect order and how much police will work with communities to ensure that repeated reporting and gathering of evidence has the desired effect. The court must be satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the respondent has engaged in, or threatened to engage in, conduct that has or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The court must also be satisfied that it is just and convenient to grant the respect order for the purposes of preventing the respondent from engaging in antisocial behaviour.”
“I can reassure him that it will be for the court, which is judicially independent, to set the conditions of a respect order. Courts are well practised in navigating types of circumstances, such as where a person works or lives, and we expect the courts to consider those issues when making respect orders. For example, a court is unlikely to prevent the respondent from entering a defined area if they need to access it to attend work. The shadow Minister asked how the Environment Agency will use respect orders. The Environment Agency can play a role, particularly where an environmental ASB offence is committed, for example vandalism of local open spaces or parks, or things like that. The shadow Minister was particularly concerned about without-notice applications for respect orders.”
“Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton made an important point about individuals with addiction problems and how it is absolutely vital that respect orders deal with the requirements to get to grips with antisocial behaviour and whether an addiction issue is driving it. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Windsor talked about the antisocial behaviour that occurs even in some of the more prosperous areas of the country—he talked about Eton. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh made an important point about prevention, the work around youth hubs and the prevention partnerships that we will be introducing. At the very start of the debate on the amendments, the shadow Minister asked whether respect orders would interfere with individuals’ work commitments.”
“That is why this Government are determined to start to deal with some of the problems around antisocial behaviour, crime and the fact that we do not have enough prison places. Getting back to clause 1 of this important Bill, I am pleased that there is acceptance across the House of the need for respect orders and a general welcoming of them. The shadow Minister asked some very detailed questions, which I will come to in a moment, but I want to comment on the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. The horrific case in his constituency of a child who cannot go out to play and the stress that antisocial behaviour puts on the family is clearly totally unacceptable. That is why respect orders will play their part, along with the housing civil injunctions, in tackling some of these problems. My hon.”
“We have had a wide-ranging debate on clause 1, moving from the specifics of the respect order through to policing numbers. I am very proud that we will have 13,000 additional police officers and PCSOs by the end of this Parliament. I have to say that the idea that there was the largest prison-building scheme since the Victorian times under the previous Conservative Government is utter bunkum—they built 500 places. That is why we are in the position we are in at the moment. I know that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East is a new Member, but those of us who have been in the House a little while remember what 14 years of Conservative government have delivered for this country.”
“I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 2, page 10, line 36, leave out “Schedule 1 amends Part 1 of” and insert “Part 1 of Schedule 1 amends”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 24.”
“Clause 2 introduces schedule 1, which makes consequential amendments to part 1 of the 2014 Act to provide for youth and housing injunctions. The purpose of the amendments in this group is to retain the existing civil injunction for cases that will not be covered by the respect order, namely those of offenders under 18 and housing-related nuisance ASB. Although in some cases powers are needed to address the behaviour of younger offenders, the Government do not want to unnecessarily criminalise children, as I said previously. Practitioners have told us that the existing injunction can be a useful power for addressing persistent ASB committed by under-18s and so it will remain in place for that cohort, operating in the same way as the civil injunction, although it will be renamed the “youth injunction”.”
“Finally, amendment 28 also amends the Police Reform Act 2002 to ensure that constables in uniform can continue to require a person engaging in antisocial behaviour to give their name and address. I commend the provisions to the Committee.”
“Consequential amendments are also needed to the Housing Acts 1985 and 1988 so that the breach of a respect order, a youth injunction or a housing injunction continues to be a ground for possession under those Housing Acts, as is the case with the current civil injunction. We know that taking possession of a property is an important tool for landlords to use to provide swift relief to victims when antisocial behaviour or criminality has already been proven by another court. It is therefore right to retain that tool with the new respect order. In addition, amendment 28 amends the Localism Act 2011 to ensure that landlords can refuse to surrender and grant tenancies on the basis that a tenant, or a person residing with the tenant, has been issued with a respect order.”
“Again, we heard from practitioners that the existing power is effective and proportionate for housing-related ASB, and the housing injunction therefore retains the effect of the current power in that context. Government amendments 6 to 8 and 24 to 28 make further technical and consequential amendments to existing antisocial behaviour legislation as a result of the introduction of respect orders. In relation to the 2014 Act, that means ensuring that definitions of antisocial behaviour are captured accurately elsewhere, under the existing powers, to account for the new respect orders and injunctions in part 1 of the Act.”
“We are retaining the existing provisions for civil injunctions. As I set out previously, the balance of probabilities, the test and the categorisation of the antisocial behaviour will all remain the same. We are just renaming it a “youth injunction” because we are focusing the respect order on the persistent antisocial behaviour of adults over 18. The youth injunction remains exactly as it is in law now. I am conscious of the profound problems that housing-related nuisance ASB can cause, as we have heard again in this debate. The housing injunction therefore retains the lower legal threshold of “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance” in a housing context—as previously discussed.”
“Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to . Clause 3 Maximum period for certain directions, notices and orders Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“Police Reform Act 2002 24 In section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (persons engaging in anti-social behaviour), for subsection (1A) substitute— ‘(1A) In subsection (1) “anti-social behaviour” means— (a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or (b) housing-related anti-social conduct, as defined by section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section).’ Localism Act 2011 25 In Schedule 14 to the Localism Act 2011 (grounds on which landlord may refuse to surrender and grant tenancies under section 158), in paragraph 6(4), in the definition of ‘relevant order’— (a) after paragraph (e) insert— ‘(ea) a respect order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,’; (b) in paragraph (f), for ‘section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014’ substitute ‘Part 1 of that Act’.”— (Dame Diana Johnson.) This amendment inserts into Schedule 1 a new Part 2 containing amendments of Acts other than the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in consequence of the amendments made to that Act by clause 1 and by the other provisions of Schedule 1 (which would by virtue of Amendment 24 become Part 1 of that Schedule).”
“(3) In the list of definitions for the purposes of Ground 7A, for the definition of ‘relevant proceedings’ substitute— ‘“relevant proceedings” means— (a) proceedings for an offence under section I1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, (b) proceedings under Schedule 2 to that Act, or (c) proceedings for contempt of court; “respect order” means an order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;’.”
“22 In Schedule 3 to that Act (grounds for withholding consent to assignment by way of exchange), in Ground 2A, in the definition of ‘relevant order’, for ‘an injunction under section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014’ substitute— ‘a respect order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014; an injunction under Part 1 of that Act;’ Housing Act 1988 23 (1) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 (grounds on which court must order possession of dwelling-houses let on assured tenancies), Ground 7A is amended as follows. (2) In condition 2, in the words before paragraph (a)— (a) for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘Part 1’; (b) after ‘2014’ insert ‘or a respect order’.”
“(2) In subsection (4)— (a) for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘Part 1’; (b) after ‘2014’ insert ‘or a respect order’. (3) In subsection (9), for the definition of ‘relevant proceedings’, substitute— ‘“relevant proceedings” means— (a) proceedings for an offence under section I1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, (b) proceedings under Schedule 2 to that Act, or (c) proceedings for contempt of court; “respect order” means an order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;’.”
“(3) In subsection (6), for the definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ substitute— ‘“anti-social behaviour” means— (a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or (b) housing-related anti-social conduct, as defined by section 2 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section);’.” This amendment inserts into Schedule 1 provision making amendments to the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 that are consequential on the amendments made to that Act by clause 1 and by the other provisions of Schedule 1. Amendment 28, in schedule 1, page 153, line 38, at end insert— “Part 2 Consequential amendments of other Acts Housing Act 1985 21 (1) Section 84A of the Housing Act 1985 (absolute ground for possession for anti-social behaviour) is amended as follows.”
“Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 153, line 33, at end insert— “19A In section 101 (the community remedy document), in subsection (9), for the definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ substitute— ‘“anti-social behaviour” means— (a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or (b) housing-related anti-social conduct as defined by section 2 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section);’. 19B (1) Section 102 (anti-social behaviour etc: out-of-court disposals) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1), in paragraph (c), for ‘an injunction under section 1’ substitute ‘a respect order under section A1 or an injunction under Part 1’.”
“Amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 150, line 4, leave out from “for” to end of line 5 and insert “‘section 1’ substitute ‘this Part’.” This amendment ensures that the definition in section 2(1)(b) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as amended by the Bill, applies to applications for youth injunctions as well as applications for housing injunctions. Amendment 26, in schedule 1, page 152, line 37, at end insert— “(za) in the words before paragraph (a), for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘this Part’;”. This amendment ensures that the consultation requirement under section 14(3) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as amended by the Bill, applies to applications to vary or discharge housing injunctions as well as youth injunctions.”