Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Paula Barker

† Asser, James (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)

Brown Fuller, Jess (Chichester) (LD)

† Collier, Jacob (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)

† Costigan, Deirdre (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury)

† Francis, Daniel (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)

† Goldman, Marie (Chelmsford) (LD)

† Long Bailey, Rebecca (Salford) (Lab)

† Madders, Justin (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)

† Mullan, Dr Kieran (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)

† Obese Jecty, Ben (Huntingdon) (Con)

† Powell, Joe (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)

† Quigley, Richard (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)

† Richards, Jake (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice)

† Smith, Jeff (Manchester Withington) (Lab)

† Tugendhat, Tom (Tonbridge) (Con)

† White, Jo (Bassetlaw) (Lab)

† Wood, Mike (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)

George James, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 1 July 2026

[Paula Barker in the Chair]

Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026

I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The statutory instrument makes a series of technical but important amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and associated regulations. Its purpose is to ensure that legal aid legislation remains consistent and aligned with wider changes to the law around anti social behaviour orders and national security measures.

The instrument makes changes in three main areas. First, it updates the scope of civil legal aid to reflect the reforms to measures tackling anti social behaviour introduced by the Crime and Policing Act 2026. Secondly, it clarifies the legal aid framework for terrorism prevention and investigation measures, otherwise known as TPIMs. Thirdly, it aligns the legal aid framework for state threats prevention and investigation measures, or STPIMs, with the framework for TPIMs. Taken together, the changes ensure that legal aid will continue to support the vital principle of access to justice while maintaining a coherent and accessible system.

I will briefly discuss each of the main changes, starting with measures that tackle anti social behaviour. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced respect orders, youth injunctions and housing injunctions. Those measures replace or reform much of the existing anti social behaviour injunction regime. Civil legal aid is already available for current anti social behaviour injunctions. The instrument simply ensures that legal aid continues to be available for the new orders and injunctions.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. On the application of ASBIs, I noted in the equalities statement that according to a Department for Work and Pensions survey, in 2022-23, around 66% of those receiving legal aid had a disability. Some 40% had a mental health condition, and around 10% had some kind of learning disability. Those figures seem alarmingly large. I wonder whether the Minister has any thoughts on that, or perhaps he could go away and look into it.

That is certainly something we can look into. As my hon. Friend knows from his previous life before becoming a parliamentarian, legal aid is vital for access to justice, especially for those vulnerable groups. Although we are talking about antisocial behaviour measures and terrorism prevention orders, that still applies across the civil and criminal order regime. He is absolutely right, and I will make sure that the relevant Minister comes back to him with the details in due course.

Civil behaviour orders can have significant consequences for those subject to them, which is why legal aid access is so important. The change will make sure that individuals facing an order can continue to access civil legal aid, subject to the usual means and merits tests.

I turn to the amendments relating to national security. TPIMs are civil measures imposed by the Home Secretary to prevent an individual’s involvement in terrorism related activities. STPIMs are a parallel regime designed to prevent and disrupt hostile state threat activity. Both place significant restrictions on an individual’s daily life, including where they can go, who they can meet and who they can speak to.

Given the seriousness of those powers, it is right that the legal aid framework around them is coherent, clear and fair. Civil legal aid is already available for those who are subject to TPIMs and STPIMs, and that will not change. The instrument ensures consistency in legal aid availability for those two measures and fixes some ambiguities in the current drafting.

Legal aid is already available for TPIM cases, but the legislative framework is complex and has some ambiguity. The instrument clarifies the position and ensures that the legislation matches how the scheme already operates in practice. It confirms that legal aid is not subject to a means test, ensuring that individuals can obtain immediate access to legal advice to understand the restrictions on their rights, regardless of their finances. However, legal representation for proceedings is means tested. That reflects the fact that TPIM proceedings are treated for legal aid purposes as judicial review cases. As with all JR proceedings, the legal aid means test applies. Finally, the instrument aligns the legal aid framework for STPIMs with the framework already in place for TPIMs.

The amendments to national security measures do not change the underlying legal aid policy. Instead, they ensure that legislation reflects how legal aid operates in practice, and that there is a consistent approach across the two comparable national security measures. To conclude, this statutory instrument will help to maintain a coherent and effective legal aid framework. It ensures that legal aid continues to be available as anti social behaviour powers are reformed, clarifies the position in relation to TPIMs and ensures consistency with STPIMs. The changes provide greater clarity, support access to justice and ensure that the legal aid system continues to operate fairly and consistently. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the official Opposition in support of this statutory instrument. Over a million anti social behaviour incidents are recorded by the police every single year in England and Wales. That is not a statistic that should wash over us; behind every one of those incidents is a pensioner who is afraid to walk to the corner shop, a shopkeeper who has been harassed and threatened, or a community that has been slowly ground down.

When the Government brought forward the Crime and Policing Act, we supported the creation of respect orders; in fact, we wanted them to go further. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) tabled amendments in Committee that would have lowered the age of eligibility from 18 to 16. We argued for a fine on a second order, for a maximum prison term of five years for repeated breaches and for those who receive repeated orders to be deprioritised on social housing lists. The Government did not accept all those amendments; I still think they were right and the legislation would have been stronger, but we are where we are, and what matters now is that the respect order regime works as intended and in line with our other measures.

What makes respect orders different from what came before is simple: a breach is now a criminal offence and police can arrest immediately. There are no more long waits for civil contempt proceedings and no more watching someone breach their order again and again with no immediate consequences; when someone is made subject to a respect order, they face serious consequences if they breach it. Their liberty is at stake, and it is right that people in that position can access legal advice in line with our criminal norms, not because we are soft on anti social behaviour, but because a fair system is a stronger system, and an order made appropriately with appropriate legal process is an order that will stick.

This instrument, as the Minister explained, extends the legal framework for access to criminal aid not just to respect orders but to youth injunctions and housing injunctions under the Crime and Policing Act. We support that. Young people facing injunctions and residents facing housing injunctions deserve clarity on their rights. Although the position of the official Opposition is to support the SI, where we feel the intent and the legal aid provision are right, the Government must ensure that the police and court can handle what follows in the operation of these orders. Those of us who have been involved in policing and politics have heard various iterations of attempts to get anti social behaviour under control over various Governments and many decades, and this is just the latest version of it. We need something that will work; communities across this country are tired of tolerating anti social behaviour. Respect orders can be part of the answer, and the official Opposition will keep pressing to ensure that they are delivered as intended.

Briefly, the Liberal Democrats are supportive of this statutory instrument. We wanted to make the case that having fairness in the system through legal means is all very well, but the problem is that if there are not enough duty providers to provide legal advice, it is almost pointless; we are not actually serving justice because we are not allowing people to get the support that they need, even though they are legally entitled to it. We need to ensure that the wider system is fair and that people have the ability to access the support that they are legally entitled to.

I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions. I appreciate the uncharacteristically constructive tone from the official Opposition—there was a party political barb in there, but none the less, it was a welcome contribution. I greatly respect the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle’s previous career in the police; I know he comes to these issues with some expertise. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford, is absolutely right: there is no point having access to legal aid if there are no legal aid lawyers. The Government have taken huge steps to try to ensure that there are no legal aid deserts, including a huge upgrade in legal aid investment, but there is a lot more work to be done, and we will get on and do that. With that, I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee rose.