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

Considered in Grand Committee

11:36:00

Moved by

Baroness LevittThat the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti-social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab): My Lords, I begin with a brief explanation of what this instrument is not. It is not a mechanism for extending legal aid, and it does not represent a change to legal aid policy. It does not introduce any new pressure on legal aid, and thus we do not expect it to result in any significant increase in cost.

It is a technical instrument—in effect, a piece of housekeeping—to ensure that the legal aid framework remains aligned with wider legislation and continues to operate in a clear and consistent way. It is needed because Parliament has approved several new measures, so this instrument ensures that the legal aid framework is appropriately updated. The instrument delivers three key things: continuity of legal aid where anti-social behaviour orders are being replaced; clarity in the legal aid framework for TPIMs; and consistency across the closely related TPIM and STPIM national security regimes.

I turn first to the anti-social behaviour measures. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 created or revised three anti-social behaviour injunctions: first, respect orders; secondly, youth injunctions; and thirdly, housing injunctions. All are new orders, but are broadly similar to the current anti-social behaviour injunctions that they are replacing. Civil legal aid is already available for anti-social behaviour injunctions under the existing legal aid legislation, but an amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act—known universally as LASPO—is needed to ensure that civil legal aid is available for these provisions.

The policy intention is one of continuity, because without these amendments there would be a risk of unintended gaps in legal aid availability. This instrument therefore ensures that individuals subject to new anti-social behaviour orders continue to have access to legal advice and representation, subject to the usual means and merits tests.

I turn now to the national security measures. There are two aspects of what the instrument does in relation to national security. First, it makes clarificatory amendments to the legal aid regulations in relation to terrorism prevention and investigation measures—or TPIMs—to make clear in legislation the framework that already operates in practice.

Secondly, it aligns the legal aid arrangements for state threats prevention and investigation measures—STPIMs—with those for TPIMs, which reflects the close similarity of the measures and ensures consistency in their handling. TPIMs are civil measures imposed by the Home Secretary with the aim of preventing or restricting an individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activities; STPIMs are a parallel regime designed to prevent and disrupt individuals who are involved in hostile state threat activity. Both can place restrictions on an individual’s movement, associations and daily life. Strong legal safeguards are required in order to ensure fairness, accountability and compliance with human rights obligations. It is therefore essential that the legal aid framework applying to these measures is coherent, clear and fair.

Currently, civil legal aid is available for advice and representation in proceedings relating to TPIMs and STPIMs for those who are subject to such measures, which will not change. However, although legal aid is already available for TPIM cases, the legislative framework is complex and has given rise to ambiguity. This instrument takes how the scheme already operates in practice and puts it into legislation, thus ensuring both transparency and consistency.

Generally speaking, legal aid covers a number of aspects of legal representation, not all of which are subject to the same regime in terms of means and merits testing. This is in order to ensure that taxpayers’ money is targeted so that it is used in the best way. In this instance, this instrument confirms that, for TPIMs, legal help is non-means-tested, thus ensuring access to early advice, but legal representation for TPIM proceedings is means-tested. This reflects the fact that TPIM proceedings are treated for legal aid purposes as judicial review cases, because they apply the same principles. Legal aid for judicial review proceedings is means-tested. Therefore, in order to ensure consistency, this instrument makes it clear that TPIMs are treated in the same way.

STPIMs are closely modelled on TPIMs. This instrument ensures that the legal aid scheme operates fairly and consistently across these two national security measures so, as with TPIMs, legal help is available on a non-means-tested basis for STPIMs, enabling individuals to access immediate advice where they are the subject of one. However, legal representation for proceedings in relation to an STPIM remains subject to the standard means and merits tests, consistent with TPIMs and for the same reasons that relate to judicial review proceedings.

As with the amendments made in relation to the anti-social behaviour measures, these amendments do not reflect a change in legal aid policy. Rather, their purpose is to remedy ambiguity and avoid differences in treatment between comparable regimes. This instrument is a necessary and important housekeeping measure: it preserves continuity of legal aid where existing anti-social behaviour injunctions are being replaced; it clarifies the legal aid framework for TPIMs; and it ensures that STPIMs are treated consistently with the comparable TPIM regime. It is a technical instrument that helps maintain access to justice, coherence in the legal aid scheme and consistency across related statutory regimes. I beg to move.

Lord Keen of Elie (Con)My Lords, I thank the Minister for laying this instrument. We on these Benches support the order. As the Minister explained, this is a largely technical instrument. It ensures that legal aid continues to be available where new civil orders introduced by the Crime and Policing Act replace or mirror existing arrangements. In particular, it extends legal aid to proceedings relating to respect orders, youth injunctions and housing injunctions, and makes sensible technical amendments concerning terrorism prevention and investigation measures, and state threats prevention.

Continuity in access to legal aid is an important principle. Where Parliament creates a new legal mechanism with potentially significant consequences for individuals, it is right that the legal aid framework keeps pace. This order achieves that objective without altering, as the Minister indicated, the underlying policy on eligibility or legal aid provision.

We particularly welcome the inclusion of respect orders. During the passage of the then Crime and Policing Bill, we consistently argued that these orders should be robust and effective tools for tackling persistent anti-social behaviour. Indeed, we sought to strengthen them further by amendments that would have lowered the age of eligibility. Communities clearly require swift action where anti-social behaviour blights neighbourhoods and damages public confidence but, if respect orders are to command confidence, it is equally important that proceedings are fair and that those subject to them have access to appropriate legal representation. This instrument sensibly preserves that continuity. In closing, I pose one question to the Minister. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Government do not expect this order to have any significant impact on the public or voluntary sectors. Can she confirm that the Legal Aid Agency and legal aid providers are fully prepared to implement these changes immediately upon commencement, so that there is no gap in provision before the relevant provisions of the Crime and Policing Act come into force? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Baroness Levitt (Lab)My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, for welcoming this statutory instrument. The answer to his question on the legal aid agencies is yes; we are ready for that. This instrument, as the noble and learned Lord said, is a necessary step to ensure that the legal aid framework remains aligned with wider legislation. It supports access to justice and ensures that the legal aid scheme operates coherently.

Motion agreed.