I am grateful to the noble Lord, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for discussing and tabling Amendment 23, and to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his Amendments 24 and 25. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for his broad support for the Government’s approach to the main thrust of the issues, although he, like us, slightly diverges from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which I will come back to in a moment.

I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—I am afraid that is the nature of political life. These offences are used for things such as dog fouling, littering, vandalism and drunken, aggressive behaviour. They are not trivial or low level; they are things that impact on people’s lives, and the abandonment of the Clause would mean the abandonment of the people who are victims of those particular instances. The debate for me is around whether £100 or the £500 that we have put in the Bill is a reasonable figure. I argue to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that it is practitioners who have said to us that the current £100 limit does not always carry enough weight to stop offenders committing further anti-social behaviour.

I also say to him that, under existing legislation, relevant agencies may already issue fixed penalty notices of up to £500 for environmental offences such as littering, graffiti or fly-posting. We expect that the prospect of a higher fine will act as a stronger deterrent, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has said. These measures were consulted on by the Home Office in 2023, before this Government came to office, and received Majority support as an effective deterrent to anti-social behaviour. I do not know offhand whether the Manifesto Club contributed to that consultation, but the point is that a majority in the consultation accepted that the increase was necessary. Increasing the upper limit does not mean that every person breaching an order will receive a fine of £500. The figure could be lower, proportionate to the individual circumstances and the severity of the case.

Even if an individual feels their fine is not reasonable or proportionate, they can make representations to the issuing agency on receipt of the notice to make their case and give reasons why they feel the notice should not be implemented. There will be statutory guidance, updated very shortly, to emphasise the importance of using these new limits proportionately, including a recommendation that local authorities include wording on this in any service level agreement with the contractors. I hope that those reassurances assist the noble Lord and that he will not, in due course, press those amendments.

The point that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has mentioned is important. It is important that individuals pay a fixed penalty notice and do not shirk their responsibilities. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that a robust process is already in place for non-payments of such notices, including—and this is quite a hefty penalty—a 50% increase in the fine amount and referral to a magistrates’ court, which could mean further costs falling on the individual.

Confiscation orders can also involve seizure of assets, bank accounts or property, and failure to pay can lead eventually to imprisonment. It would be disproportionate to introduce automatic confiscation orders for a failure to pay a fixed penalty notice of up to £500, but the current legislation already provides for escalation to the magistrates’ court for unpaid fixed penalty notices as well as a criminal conviction and fines for persistent breaches. This ensures accountability without resorting to confiscation powers designed for more serious crimes.

I recognise where the noble Lord is coming from. He shakes his head in slight unhappiness at my response, but I think this is a reasonable approach, and the Government’s intention is that, when fines are levied, they are paid. That is the key point on which we share common ground. With that, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.