House of Commons · Bill Debate
15 April 2026 · 3 other contributors
Opened by Diana Johnson Lab Kingston upon Hull North
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Diana Johnson raised concerns about respect act 2023-24 - clause 1 - respect orders in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Ms Diana Johnson moved the clause, explaining that it allows magistrates to issue a respect order when a person has committed an anti-social act but does not merit a criminal conviction. She argued that the measure would help protect victims of low-level antisocial behaviour and reduce the burden on the police and courts system.
Ms Diana Johnson emphasised that respect orders would be an effective tool in addressing low-level antisocial behaviour, reducing the burden on police and courts. She cited a case study from her constituency where a respect order was issued to a young person who had engaged in disruptive behaviour but did not face criminal charges. This measure could help prevent future criminal activity.
Mr Chris Philp argued that respect orders would undermine the justice system by creating a new category of legal penalty without clear guidance on enforcement. He raised concerns about the potential for misuse and abuse of power, citing examples from other jurisdictions where similar measures led to unfair treatment of individuals.
Mr Karl McCartney opposed the clause, stating that it would lead to a lack of clarity in the justice system. He argued that respect orders could be open to interpretation by magistrates, leading to inconsistent application. Mr McCartney also raised concerns about the potential for these orders to infringe on individual liberties.