Crime and Policing Bill
Monday 10th March 2025
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Crime and Policing Bill will make our streets safer, put neighbourhood policing back at the heart of communities after years of neglect, give law enforcement the powers it needs to protect the public and tackle the most serious violence, help communities to take back their town centres from thieves and thugs, and support the Government’s safer streets mission—a mission for the whole country—to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls in a decade and to rebuild confidence in policing and the criminal justice system by tackling the local crimes that most undermine our communities.
Across our countries, we have strong communities, a British tradition of respect for the rule of law and for each other, and a British policing tradition that goes back to Peel of policing by consent, with the police embedded in communities and residents pulling together to prevent and tackle crime. Yet, in recent years those traditions have become badly frayed. Too many town centres, neighbourhoods and public spaces are plagued by antisocial behaviour, and shoplifting and street theft have soared, while neighbourhood police have been heavily cut back. Too many families are forced to endure the agony of an empty chair at the dinner table night after night, having lost a loved one to knife crime, but it is easier than ever for children to get hold of lethal weapons online. There are barely any penalties for gangs who recruit children into crime—they get away with it.
Too many women and girls still face stalking, spiking, violence and abuse, and feel unsafe on the streets and in their homes, even now, nearly 50 years on from the first Reclaim the Night marches in Leeds. Too many children still experience sexual abuse and exploitation—including by grooming networks on the streets and online—and online abuse is getting worse and worse, yet the child protection reforms that we and others called for 10 years ago are still not in place. Trust in the police is undermined by vetting failures and abuses of power, but the action promised several years ago to raise standards is still not in place.
Across the country, too many of us just hear the same thing: people do not see the police on the streets any more, they worry that respect for law and order has disappeared, and they fear that if something goes wrong, no one will come and nothing will be done. That is why it is time for change and for the measures that we are setting out in the Bill. Safety and security are the bedrock of opportunity and the underpinning of every strong community. The safer streets mission is at the heart of our plan for change, because everyone has the right to live in freedom from fear.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The right hon. Lady makes an important point about neighbourhood policing. Does she agree that local police stations should be integral to this plan?
Yvette Cooper
Local police stations are a matter for local forces, but they can be a central part of neighbourhood policing, which, sadly, has been heavily cut back in recent years. In fact, in many areas of the country, neighbourhood policing has been cut by a third or nearly half. At the heart of the Government’s plan is rebuilding neighbourhood policing.
We plan to put 13,000 more neighbourhood police and police community support officers back on the beat over the course of this Parliament, kick-started with £200 million of funding in the next financial year. We will reverse the damage done by the Conservative Government through years of cuts to community police. There are half as many PCSOs as there were 14 years ago, and many thousands fewer neighbourhood police officers. Some 54% of people say that they never see an officer on the beat—that figure has doubled since 2010, as too many neighbourhood police have just disappeared.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty).
Chris Vince
A report by Harlow council in 2023 stated that fewer than half of residents in Harlow felt safe going outside after dark. Does my right hon. Friend see the neighbourhood policing guarantee as part of the way of solving that problem?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right: neighbourhood policing is crucial, but neighbourhood policing teams have been decimated, and even those that remained were often abstracted or merged with other teams. That has been deeply damaging. It is crucial to get those neighbourhood police back on the streets, back into our town centres, and back into our communities. I give way to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who I hope will apologise for the scale of cuts that his party’s Government brought in.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The right hon. Lady mentioned 13,000 neighbourhood police, but 3,000 of those will be new warranted officers; I believe that 3,000 will be operational police officers brought back from other places. When will police forces find out what their share of those police officers will be? How will the 3,000 officers currently in other roles be reassigned, given that operational matters are the responsibility of chief constables, not the Home Secretary?
Yvette Cooper
We have started with £200 million of funding for the next financial year to kick-start the drive to put 13,000 more neighbourhood police and police community support officers back on the beat. Already, police forces have been working with the Home Office on plans for recruiting new police officers and new PCSOs, and for redeploying existing police officers and backfilling by recruiting other officers to take their posts. We will set out in due course plans for the next financial year and that £200 million.
The cuts to neighbourhood policing over the past decade were even worse than we had thought. The previous Conservative Government were so indifferent to neighbourhood policing that they did not even keep a proper count of who was doing that work. Too often, they treated neighbourhood police officers just the same as 999 response officers or local detective teams, and Home Office guidance allowed forces to report some of their response officers as neighbourhood police. The last Government did not have proper checks in place, and as a result, hundreds, even thousands, of officers and PCSOs were miscounted. Later this month, the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council will have to publish revised force-by-force figures, so that communities can see properly what is happening in their area. This Government take seriously neighbourhood policing, which must be community-led policing in our towns and on our streets.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way; it is courteous of her. On miscounting numbers, can I drill down on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty)? Of the 13,000 new neighbourhood officers that the Home Secretary claims she is recruiting, 3,000 will be diverted from the existing workforce, so they are not new, are they? Will she also confirm that her police funding settlement will lead to 1,873 officers being withdrawn?
Yvette Cooper
Sadly, I did not hear an apology for the previous Conservative Government’s massive cuts to neighbourhood policing, which meant that many towns and cities right across the country saw neighbourhood police numbers slashed in half. Communities were badly let down. I am sure that the next Conservative Member to intervene will begin their question with a huge apology for the damage that their party and Government did.
Yvette Cooper
I am really pleased that the hon. Member is ready to give an apology for the deeply damaging legacy of his party in government.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way, but I think she should apologise for not answering the question. There were record levels of policing under the last Government; 20,000 extra police officers were recruited. I ask her again: she said that she is recruiting 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, but will she confirm that 3,000 of those will be diverted officers? They are not new, are they?
Yvette Cooper
Still no apology for the deep damage the Conservatives have done. Let us be clear: they halved the number of PCSOs, and they cut the number of neighbourhood police officers, probably by more than 10,000, but we cannot be precise about that, because their measuring of neighbourhood police officers was so ropey and all over the place that we cannot be certain what the cuts were precisely.
This Government are committed to increasing neighbourhood policing and PCSOs by 13,000. In the first year, the neighbourhood policing increase will be funded by £200 million. That funding is already delivering plans from police forces across the country, which we will set out in due course, to increase the recruitment of new police officers and PCSOs, and redeploy some police officers, whose posts will then be backfilled through the recruitment of other new police officers and staff—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should hugely welcome these measures, because they mean that we will get police back on the streets, and into our communities and neighbourhoods, for the first time in years.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Antisocial behaviour is breaking communities in places like Windhill, Baildon, Cottingley and Denholme. It is a direct result of the cuts made to neighbourhood policing by the Conservative party. When I speak to local residents, they express concerns about the misuse of fireworks, drug dealing, fly-tipping and the dangerous use of e-bikes and scooters. Will the Secretary of State reassure me and my residents that as part of the safer streets mission, the new neighbourhood police will tackle antisocial behaviour in communities like mine, as a matter of urgency?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right that we need the police back on the streets. Let us be honest: everyone can see this in their community. People know. Conservative Members may think that everything was hunky-dory at the end of their 14 years in government, but communities across the country can see the reality. As part of our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we need to get more boots on the beat, and we need more town centre patrols by officers who know the community and are trusted by them to go after local perpetrators and prevent persistent crime. These are not outlandish demands—they are just the basics. We need a return to the Peel principles that lie at the heart of British policing, including the principle that the police are the public and the public are the police. We need trusted officers in the community, working to keep people safe.
The Bill gives neighbourhood police more powers to tackle the local crimes that undermine and damage communities: antisocial behaviour, street theft, shoplifting, harassment in our town centres. In too many areas, those powers were too often weakened. Travelling around the country, I and many others will have heard the same story too many times—shop owners who say that thieves have become increasingly brazen; crime driven by organised gangs; elderly shoppers who say that they do not go into town any more because they do not feel safe; people who have had their phones stolen in the street, with all the details of their life ripped away from them; and residents driven mad by the soaring number of roaring off-road bikes and scooters driven in an antisocial and intimidating way.
In the two years before the election, shop theft went up by more than 60%. Snatch theft, mainly the theft of mobile phones, went up by more than 50% in two years. Thousands of such crimes were reported every single day, yet the police have been left with too few powers to act. Too often, because of changes made by the Conservative Government 10 years ago, they have been left with weakened powers to tackle those antisocial behaviours and crimes.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I welcome the introduction of a new offence of assaulting a shop worker. I have been in shops in Worksop where I have seen shop workers who are absolutely fearful of what will happen next, and I have seen food stolen before my eyes. Does the Secretary of State agree that local shops must become no-go areas for lawbreakers?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. The Bill introduces stronger action on retail crime. I thank the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the Co-op, the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores and more for their determined campaigning over many years to protect shop workers. They are the staff who kept their shops open and kept our local communities going through the pandemic, but in recent years they have had to face a truly disgraceful escalation in threats, abuse and violence. Our party has campaigned on this measure for very many years. Through the Bill, we will introduce a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker, sending the message loud and clear that these disgraceful crimes must not be tolerated, because everyone has a right to feel safe at work.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Home Secretary has talked about neighbourhoods and communities, but I have not heard her talk about the rural communities that I represent, and the rural crime force. What will the Bill deliver for them? I am very lucky to be in Leicestershire, where we have a rural crime team, which saw crime drop by 24% in its last report, but machinery being taken has a massive impact. Can she talk me through any measures that are being brought forward that will benefit my community?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is exactly right to draw attention to that. Our rural communities see different kinds and patterns of crime, but it is very often driven by organised gangs who think that rural communities will be a soft touch. We have sometimes seen that with GPS machinery for factories; we believe that stronger action is needed there. The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention is working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on a new rural crime strategy. I know that she would be happy to follow up on any specific issues that the hon. Gentleman wants to raise.
Too often, crimes are dismissed as low level, even though they leave residents in a living nightmare and corrode community life, so here are the things that this Labour Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will change. We are introducing new respect orders that the police and courts can use to ban repeat offenders from town centres, or to put new requirements on repeat perpetrators in order to prevent them causing havoc in the community—for example, requirements to take up drug or alcohol treatment.
Currently, the police cannot immediately seize bikes or vehicles that are being used in a dangerous, intimidating or antisocial way. They give a warning and have to hope that they catch the same person again, but that means that there can be two, three, four or endless strikes against the person, and the bike will still be on the road. Frankly, one strike should be enough. Under the Bill, if the police find somebody using a bike or a vehicle in a dangerous or antisocial way, they can seize it straightaway and get that dangerous, damaging bike off the road.
We will give the police stronger powers to tackle the rising amount of snatch theft. We will all know constituents, friends or family members who have had their phone stolen, and who could track it, maybe through Find My iPhone or a similar service, but when they told the police where their phone was, nothing was done. We will give the police new powers, so that where they have electronic evidence from tracking technology on the location of stolen goods, they can enter and search premises without waiting for warrants to be put in place. Ministers are also working with tech companies and the police to pursue stronger action on designing out and disincentivising phone theft, so that we can go after the criminal gangs making people’s lives a misery by stealing phones on the street.
We will take stronger action on shoplifting. Some 10 years ago, the Conservative Government introduced a new £200 rule, categorising shop theft below that amount as low value. That sent the signal, which has shaped the police response ever since, that such crime should not be taken seriously. It became a Tory shoplifters’ charter—a signal to thieves and gangs across the country that they could operate with impunity, wandering from shop to shop and stealing away because nothing would be done. That kind of crime spreads. It creates a sense of lawlessness, and huge anger and frustration among the law-abiding majority, who see criminals getting away with it and respect for the law hollowed out. This Government will finally end the damaging £200 rule.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that this is not just about the shoplifting, but about the fear it creates in our communities, including among our shopworkers? Our local corner shops and accessible shops are there for elderly people who cannot always get out to the big supermarkets or other people who have difficulty doing so, and shoplifting has put them in fear as well.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. This is about the fact of the crime—the disrespect—but also the sense of fear that it can create and the huge frustration among shopworkers about the crimes that they see.
I am glad to see some signs of a change in heart on the Conservative Benches, with Conservative Members recognising how damaging their approach to town centre crime has been. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), has written on Facebook that the police
“must have ZERO TOLERANCE to shoplifting and phone theft in Croydon…otherwise it will escalate. Stealing, even less than £200, is illegal…The police must focus ruthlessly on catching criminals and always pursue every line of inquiry.”
Who would have thought it? If that is what the right hon. Gentleman now believes, why on earth did he not take the opportunity during the two years that he was the policing Minister to scrap the £200 threshold, which sent all the wrong signals to the police?
We do know one part of the shadow Home Secretary’s remedy for the disappearance of neighbourhood police and the soaring levels of town centre crime. He has said that
“The wider public do have the power of citizen’s arrest and, where it’s safe to do so, I would encourage that to be used…including potentially a physical challenge”,
otherwise it “will just escalate.” Putting aside the intriguing suggestion that the shadow Home Secretary wanders around with handcuffs in his pocket, I wonder whether he has misunderstood the Peel principle that the police are the public and the public are the police. What that principle means is neighbourhood police in the community, not leaving the community to pick up arms because the neighbourhood police have gone. As for Reform Members, it looks as if they are too busy dealing with their own internal antisocial behaviour to even show up. This Government will be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, something that has not happened for far too long.
Alongside the action on community crimes, the Bill introduces much stronger measures on some of the most serious crimes of all, including the knife crime that is destroying young lives—teenagers and young people who do not get to achieve their ambitions or fulfil their dreams, with parents and families left bereft.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), and then I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda).
Warinder Juss
Last year, only four in 10 knife possessions resulted in any formal criminal justice outcome. Does the Home Secretary agree that by increasing police powers to seize, retain and destroy knives that may be legally owned but may be used in committing a crime, we will reduce the number of people carrying knives?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We need to prevent people—especially young people—getting access to those dangerous weapons in the first place, but also to make sure that there are proper interventions, including referrals to youth offending teams. We must not have a system that simply shrugs its shoulders when young people are caught carrying knives.
Knife-enabled offences recorded by the police rose by 9% in the two years up to last summer. Many people in this House will know the story of Ronan Kanda, who was just 16 when he was stabbed to death with a ninja sword just yards from his home. He was killed by two other teenagers who had bought, not just that sword, but more than 20 other lethal weapons online with no questions asked and no proper checks. It is because of the tireless campaigning of Ronan’s mum Pooja that we have already launched plans to ban ninja swords, following this summer’s implementation of the zombie knife ban, and commissioned Commander Stephen Clayman to do an end-to-end review of knife sales. That review was published a few weeks ago, and it is driving some of the new measures we are introducing as part of this Bill.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central, and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Huntingdon, but let me just make a couple of other points first. The Bill increases the maximum penalties for offences relating to the sale and possession of offensive weapons from six months to two years’ imprisonment. Following the Clayman review, we will also bring forward amendments to the Bill in this House to introduce stricter age verification checks, with a stringent two-step age verification system for online knife sales, so that customers have to submit photo ID at the point of purchase and again on delivery. It will be a legal requirement to hand a package containing a knife to the buyer alone.
Matt Rodda
I thank the Home Secretary wholeheartedly for her work on this important matter. In my constituency, 13-year-old Olly Stephens was attacked and brutally murdered by two other boys. They had seen hundreds of images of knives online on 11 different social media platforms. I warmly welcome in particular the consultation that she has announced to look into the potential penalties for tech executives who fail to act responsibly in this important area.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and he has raised the terrible case of the killing of Olly Stephens with me before. I know how incredibly devastating that has been for the whole community. He is right that the online system has made it far too easy for young people to get hold of lethal weapons. There is also the content that too many of our young people are seeing online. That is why the measures as part of the Online Safety Act 2023 to strengthen the requirements on tech companies around material visible to children will be important, too. Those are expected in the summer.
My hon. Friend is also right that we will bring forward amendments during the Bill’s passage to give effect to our manifesto commitment to introduce personal liability measures for senior managers of online platforms that fail to take action on illegal content concerning knives and offensive weapons. We will introduce a requirement for sellers to notify bulk or suspicious sales of knives to the police. We have seen cases where young people were able effectively to become arms traders, buying huge numbers of illegal weapons that should not have been sold to them and then distributing them in the community.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Knife crime is a grave issue, and I welcome any measures that can help to reduce it. I have a debate next Thursday on knife crime, and I hope to see good representation from all parts of the House in debating how we can reduce the number of children and young people involved in knife crime, whether as victim or perpetrator. The question I would like to ask is about knife sales online. Some 52% of fatal stabbings involve a kitchen knife, and only 3.6% involve a zombie knife. I appreciate that measures are in place to reduce the ability of people to obtain kitchen knives online, but everybody has a drawer full of knives at home. How can we take measures to reduce that?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member makes an important point. We know there is an issue with young people being able to get some of these lethal weapons. It becomes part of what they want to do, and part of the search for status is to carry particular kinds of weapons, but he is right that people can get access to dangerous knives in different ways. We need stronger prevention across the board. That is why the Young Futures programme we are working on is particularly important.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Government’s commitment to introducing a Young Futures programme to prevent young people from being drawn into crime is welcome, especially as youth services and hubs were hollowed out under the Conservatives. Does the Home Secretary agree that prevention must be at the centre of the mission to tackle knife crime in our communities and our country?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. To tackle this devastating crime, we must address prevention, whether online or in the community, and access to weapons. There is also the response when young people are found carrying knives, and the wider punishment and response as part of the youth justice system. There are the interventions to turn things around, too. We must also tackle the criminal gangs drawing young people into crime and violence in the first place. That includes drawing them into county lines, drug running and the kind of criminal activity that leads to violence, to the carrying of knives and to dangerous crimes at a later stage. For the first time, under the Bill, there will be a specific offence of child criminal exploitation, because gangs should never be able to get away with exploiting young people in that way.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) mentioned kitchen knives, which are the main weapons that are used. Will the Home Secretary look into the issue of pointed kitchen knives, which cause so many deaths? Existing knives can be blunted or rounded at the ends if there are incentives for that to be done, and manufacturers can be persuaded to sell knives with rounded ends, as some already do.
Yvette Cooper
That is an interesting point. It has been raised with us by the coalition against knife crime that we have formed, bringing together campaigning families and campaigning networks and organisations, and as a result it is being examined further.
A range of measures in the Bill, along with amendments that will be tabled, make up Ronan’s law. Pooja, Ronan’s mother, has said:
“I wish this was done years ago, and my son would be with me today.”
We are taking action in memory of Ronan, but also as a tribute to Pooja and all Ronan’s family who have campaigned so hard to keep other children safe.
The Bill also introduces stronger measures to tackle violence against women and girls, and the abuse and exploitation of children. According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, one in four women have experienced domestic abuse, one in four have suffered sexual assault, and one in five have been stalked. Those are the most traumatic and appalling crimes, and it is high time we treated this as the national emergency that it so clearly is. Decade after decade, we have uttered warm words in the House, but too little has changed. It is imperative that we take action, not just through the Bill but across the board. This is part of our ambition to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, an integral part of the safer streets mission, because no one should live in fear.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Those of us who represent Northern Ireland constituencies are very pleased to know about the 51 clauses that will affect Northern Ireland through a legislative consent motion. It is important to recognise the benefits that that will have not just here, but in Northern Ireland. However, there are one or two others that we might like to see in the future. Has the Home Secretary had an opportunity to speak to the policing and justice Minister in Northern Ireland about that?
Yvette Cooper
We have had discussions with Northern Ireland Ministers, and I am happy for them to continue.
I am very conscious of the time, and I know that many Members wish to speak, so I want to make some progress now. Through the Bill we will protect people better by making stalking protection orders more widely available and introducing a new criminal offence of administering a harmful substance, for instance by spiking. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has long campaigned for our measures to strengthen the management of offenders in the community and introduce enhanced notification requirements for registered sex offenders, as well as a bar on their changing their names when there is a risk of sexual harm.
We are also taking stronger measures to protect our children, which is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of all. The Bill will create a new duty to report child sexual abuse, backed up by criminal sanctions for those who seek to cover up abuse by preventing or deterring someone from carrying out the duty. That was recommended by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and the Prime Minister and I both called for it more than a decade ago. The Bill will make grooming an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offenders, because these are the most vile and damaging of crimes, and will introduce new criminal offences to combat the use of artificial intelligence technology in the making or sharing of child sexual abuse material, and stronger action against those who organise grooming online, where the scale of abuse and crime is increasing steeply.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State greatly for giving way. I recognise what clauses 45 to 54 say about the mandatory duty in England to report child sexual abuse, and I wonder if I might draw her attention to the fact that there are exceptions dating back to 1603, under canon law, for confessions relating to treason. There is also precedent in section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000, relating to terrorism, which covers faith leaders. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we might help the various churches, faith leaders and volunteers in England to make sure that they mandatorily report when they come across this stuff in confession?
Yvette Cooper
The Policing Minister is happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the detail. It is imperative that all institutions and organisations across communities take responsibility for tackling these appalling and damaging crimes.
We are also introducing measures around national security, including a new youth diversion order to help manage the increasing number of young people being investigated or arrested for terrorism-related activity. Counter-terror police have said that their case load of young people has trebled in just three years, and more action is needed.
There are further measures, which I am sure we will discuss later in this debate and in Committee, to strengthen standards in policing and ensure that chief officers and local policing boards have the right to appeal the result of misconduct boards to police appeals tribunals, to make sure that those who are not fit to serve can be removed from policing and that the standards of police officers, who do an incredible job across the country, can be maintained.
On accountability, we will bring forward amendments to establish a presumption that firearms officers who are charged with offences relating to, and committed during, their duties will have their anonymity preserved during the court process so that we can maintain their confidence, as well as the confidence of communities, in the work that they do.
Safety from harm is not a privilege; it is a fundamental right that should be afforded to everyone, no matter their circumstances. No one should be left to live in fear because of crime and antisocial behaviour in their community. Under this Government, safer streets is a mission for us all, to draw our communities together. We are putting police back on the beat, introducing respect orders and taking action on off-road bikes, shoplifting, street theft, stalking, spiking, grooming and child abuse, knife sales, terrorism and serious crime. We are taking stronger action against criminals, delivering stronger support for victims, restoring respect for the rule of law and restoring police to our streets. Ultimately, we are building a better, fairer Britain that is founded on safety and security for all. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I inform the House that because many people wish to contribute, Back Benchers will have a time limit of five minutes to begin with.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Let me start by paying tribute to the brave police officers up and down the country who, on a daily basis, put themselves in the line of danger to protect us and our constituencies. Every morning when an officer puts on their uniform, they do not know what they might encounter during their working day—they do not know whether they might be attacked—yet they take that risk to protect us. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing our thanks and gratitude to those brave men and women for the work that they do on our behalf every single day.
When I was the Policing Minister a year or two ago, I was moved at the national police memorial service—I think it was held in Cardiff that year—marking the memory of the officers who had lost their lives in the line of duty. I remember meeting their families, whose lives had been devastated by losing a wife or husband, son or daughter, father or mother. I am sure that all of us have come across such cases in our constituencies. I am thinking particularly of Sergeant Matt Ratana, who lost his life in the Croydon custody centre a few years ago—I attended his memorial service—and all of us will be thinking of PC Keith Palmer, who lost his life not far from here, protecting us in Parliament. We owe them all a debt of gratitude.
I would like to start by addressing one or two of the broader points the Home Secretary raised in her speech before turning to the substance of the Bill. The first point is about the question of police officer numbers, which she spoke about quite extensively. I noticed that she picked out one particular subset of police officer numbers, and I wondered why she kept doing so. I think I know why: it is because the total of police officers last March—on 31 March—stood at a record ever number. There were 149,679 police officers, which is more than we have ever had at any point in our country’s history.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Philp
What an appealing choice! I give way to the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra).
Navendu Mishra
The shadow Home Secretary is making an important point, but does he accept that, between 2010 and 2024, the population of the UK increased and so did the complexity of crime? I often meet police officers in my constituency and across Greater Manchester who are stressed out and working very long hours, often covering for other officers. Does he accept that the argument he is making is slightly flawed because the population has increased, the complexity of crime has increased and the amount of time officers spend on tackling crime has changed?
Chris Philp
As I said, there was a record ever number of police officers, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to measure police officer numbers against demand, one of the relevant metrics to consider—
Chris Philp
I am just going to answer the question, if I may.
One of the relevant metrics to consider is the overall volume of crime that the police have to investigate. That might be the number that one looks at in deciding whether police numbers need to go up.
Chris Philp
I am just going to actually make the point first, if I may.
According to the crime survey for England and Wales, which the Office for National Statistics says is the only statistically meaningful measure of crime, between 2010 and 2024—just to pick a couple of arbitrary dates at random—overall crime fell from 9.5 million to 4.7 million incidents, or a reduction of 51%. So over that period, we saw a 51% reduction in overall crime, but an increase in the number of police officers to that record number. Those are the facts.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Does the shadow Home Secretary recognise that the number of reported crimes involving sexual violence went up by 300% under his Government? When he talks about police numbers, would he also like to mention how many police officers left because of conditions in their police force and because of mental health and physical health issues?
Chris Philp
Attrition in the police forces is something we need to take very seriously. I am trying to recall the numbers, but from memory, each year approximately 3% to 4% of police officers leave owing to retirement, and a further approximately 3% to 3.5% leave before their retirement age. A 3% non-retirement rate of leaving is of course much lower than in most professions, but I am sure we would all like it to be lower. The last Government started doing work on mental health support for police officers, which I am sure the current Government will continue.
Let me say a word about the future, because having hit record ever police officer numbers, I am rather anxious to make sure—
Chris Philp
I am going to make some progress, but then I will give way.
I am rather anxious to make sure that those record ever numbers are maintained. The funding settlement for the police, announced by the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister a few weeks ago, increased by £1.089 billion, and they made a big play of that figure. However, when we go through the funding pressures that police forces across England and Wales face and add them all up, including the £230 million extra that police forces will have to pay in national insurance, the funding pressures add up not to £1.089 billion, but to £1.205 billion. The funding pressures in the coming financial year, which starts in just a few weeks’ time, are about £116 million more than the funding increase. There is a gap, and the consequence is that the 43 police forces across England and Wales may have to cut 1,800 officers to make up that funding shortfall.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman is showing extreme enthusiasm, which I feel should be rewarded.
Mr Brash
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for giving way. He makes play of the numbers from 2010 and 2024. As a former councillor, I can tell him that the ward I represented in 2010 had a full-time police officer and two full-time PCSOs. When his Government left office in June 2024, the ward had one part-time PCSO and was a third larger. Would he care to apologise to the people of Hartlepool for that disgraceful record?
Chris Philp
I will not apologise for delivering record police numbers. If the hon. Gentleman’s local force is not deploying those officers in the best way, he should take that up with his local police and crime commissioner. In the light of the number of Members who want to speak, I ought to get on to the Bill.
When I first picked up this Bill, I must confess to experiencing a frisson of excitement. The Home Secretary had been in opposition for 14 years—not quite long enough, but still 14 years—and I thought that, during those 14 years, she must have come up with lots of good new ideas. I picked up the Bill, excited to find out what new things it might contain. But as I turned the pages to scrutinise its contents, a strange feeling of familiarity came over me—almost a sense of déjà vu. I had seen quite a few of its measures somewhere before, mostly in the last Government’s Criminal Justice Bill.
The Government’s press release, which they modestly issued on First Reading a couple of weeks ago, highlighted 35 headline measures. I checked to see how many had been copied and pasted from the previous Government, and the answer was about 23 of them. Two thirds of this Bill has apparently been copied and pasted from the previous Government. Now, I know the Home Secretary works closely with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and views her as something of a role model, but emulating her copy-and-pasting is probably not the best thing to do.
These new measures—the spiking offence, the intimate image offence, the duty to report, the new criminal offence of possessing a bladed article with intent, and the new maximum penalty for selling dangerous weapons to under-18s—are all good measures introduced by the last Government. Of course, they would have been legislated for by now if not for the unfortunate early general election—[Interruption.] Yes, it was unfortunate. I congratulate the Home Secretary on using the ctrl-C and ctrl-V functions on her Home Office computer to emulate so many of the previous Bill’s measures.
Neil Coyle
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it increasingly sounds like he is saying that—on police powers, on the measures in this Bill, on police officer numbers and on resources—the voters got it wrong? That sounds incredibly insulting to the public. Frankly, an apology would be better. Is he aware that, in Southwark, we had fewer officers at the time of the last election, which he says came too soon? It did not come soon enough for my electors, who still have fewer police officers in 2025 than they had in 2010.
Chris Philp
The Metropolitan police, as a whole, does in fact have record officer numbers, but it could have had about an extra 1,500 officers had its police and crime commissioner, Sadiq Khan, bothered to recruit them. In fact, Sadiq Khan was the only police and crime commissioner in the country to miss his recruitment target.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the record of Conservative police and crime commissioners is unlike that of some police and crime commissioners representing other parties in this House? In Devon and Cornwall, Alison Hernandez has overseen the reopening of 14 police front desks. Perhaps police and crime commissioners representing other parties might like to take lessons from that.
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is quite right. Conservative police and crime commissioners do tend to have much better track records on keeping police stations open and delivering lower crime figures.
I want to ask the Home Secretary some questions, and maybe the Policing Minister will respond to them at the end of the debate. Some measures that were in the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill have disappeared from this Government’s Bill, and I would be genuinely interested to hear the Government’s thinking on them.
One area that is conspicuously missing from this Bill is the measures on nuisance begging. The previous Government intended to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824 using a statutory instrument once new replacement measures—contained in the old Bill—were on the statute books. I see that the new Bill, tabled by this Government, does not contain those nuisance begging measures.
Could the Policing Minister, either by intervening now, or in her winding-up speech, tell the House what the Government’s plans are around repealing the 1824 Act—or not—and around nuisance begging? Of course, were they to repeal that Act using a statutory instrument without introducing any new measures, there would be a lacuna in the criminal law. I am sure the whole House would appreciate an update.
Secondly, the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill contained a measure to compel perpetrators who had just been convicted of a criminal offence to appear in the dock for sentencing, with a power to use reasonable force to do so. There had been some distressing cases in which someone who had been convicted then refused to appear in the dock to face justice. That measure, as far as I can see, is not in the new Bill, and I would appreciate knowing the Government’s thinking on that.
The third omission I have noticed so far relates to the new offence of assaulting an emergency worker—also announced by the previous Government, I might add. The criminal behaviour order for people who assault a shop worker is welcome, but the previous Bill, as announced, contained a measure that said if someone repeatedly assaulted a retail worker—I think it was three times or more—they would be subject to electronic monitoring: a tag. I do not see that particular provision in this Bill. Again, I would be interested in the Policing Minister’s views on that.
I turn now to a matter that the Home Secretary made a great deal of in her speech, which is the change made in 2014 around shop theft involving goods worth £200 or less. Listening to the Home Secretary and Government communications around this matter, one might think it had ceased to be a criminal offence in 2014. That is, of course, not the case. Shoplifting goods of any value, including under £200, was and always has been a criminal offence, subject to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Philp
I am just going to develop a point, and then I will be happy to take interventions—particularly from the Home Secretary.
In 2014, it was changed from being an either-way offence to a summary-only offence. Either-way means the offence can be tried in the magistrates court or the Crown court; summary-only means magistrates court only. It was still a criminal offence, and people could still be convicted and sentenced to up to a year in prison for committing it—it certainly was not decriminalised. In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment says that about 90% of the charges for shoplifting involved goods under £200 and were tried in a magistrates court. If it was ineffective, why did 90% of charges relate to goods under £200?
The Home Secretary claims that this alteration will herald some sort of extraordinary change in the way shoplifting is treated, but I would respectfully refer her to page 28 of her economic note 1007, which I am sure Members present have all read—silence. Paragraph 144 says that the central scenario in the Government’s impact assessment assumes that the number of charges, with this change, will remain constant. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, there will be no change in the number of charges as a result of this alteration. The Home Secretary points to this matter as some kind of silver bullet, but I am afraid to say that her own impact assessment says something very different indeed.
The measure has potentially adverse consequences too. This is a serious point, and I genuinely ask the Home Secretary to think about it carefully. When the offence is made either-way, rather than summary only, lots of people who are charged will elect to have a Crown court jury trial instead of a magistrates court trial. A magistrates court trial, for a not guilty plea, is generally heard in six to eight weeks—it is relatively quick—but a Crown court jury trial could take a year and a half to be heard.
The first adverse consequence that I would caution about is that, instead—[Interruption.] I am making a serious point, so it would be good for hon. Members to think about it. Instead of those cases being heard in the magistrates court in six to eight weeks, there could be a delay of one and a half years. I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention, but that is what could happen if the change is made.
The second adverse consequence is that if lots of shoplifting cases that are currently heard in the magistrates court end up in the Crown court before a jury, valuable and scarce Crown court jury trial time that should be used for serious cases such as rape, murder and grievous bodily harm will be taken up with shoplifting. I understand that the Home Secretary wants to send a signal—I really do—but I ask the Government to reflect carefully on the potential unintended consequences. That is a serious point, and I ask the Government to consider it. The change may end up having the opposite effect from what they intend.
The Home Secretary raised one or two other things that I would like to talk about, the first of which is knife crime. There are some measures in the Bill that are designed to address knife crime. We will support those measures; I am sure that all hon. Members want to fight the scourge of knife crime, which is responsible for about a third of all homicides. Almost all hon. Members will have encountered a constituency case; I will never forget attending the funeral of 15-year-old Elianne Andam in Croydon. She was murdered at 8.30 am on the morning of 27 September 2023 on Wellesley Road in central Croydon by a 17-year-old perpetrator with a knife. I will never forget seeing the grief that her parents and her little brother Kobi suffered. I am sure that we would all want to fight knife crime for that reason.
In addition to the measures in the Bill, which we will support, I would be grateful if the Policing Minister could confirm that the patrolling of hotspots, started under the last Government, will continue in areas where knife crime is a problem, and that the funding will continue. That could make an important difference.
It is also important that stop-and-search powers are used. In my view, taking knives off the street is the most important thing. In London, in the past, stop and search took about 400 knives a month off the streets—knives that could have been used to kill someone like Elianne. I am concerned that stop-and-search numbers are down due to misplaced concerns about community tension. I encourage the Government to get police forces to use stop and search more, and to amend legislation, including PACE—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—code A, to make the use of stop and search easier.
I spoke to a police officer in Croydon last Sunday, and he said that he felt that the police were worried about misconduct proceedings if they used the power of stop and search. I would like to make it easier for police officers to use those powers to protect the public. I would like to hear the Government’s views on that, but we are minded to table amendments in this area to give the police more confidence to use stop-and-search powers to save the lives of people like Elianne.
When I was Policing Minister about a year ago, I provided some funding to invest in exploring new technology to scan for knives at a distance of perhaps 10 metres—not very far. That would mean that people walking down the street in areas where knife crime is a problem could be scanned and, if they had a knife concealed on their person, it would be identified. About a year ago, that technology was emerging and I put the money behind it to develop it to the point where it could be deployed. I was told by the company doing that, and by Home Office officials, that by about spring 2025, a version of that technology would be available that could be used experimentally on the street.
I would be grateful to know, perhaps in an intervention from the Policing Minister now, whether that work has been carried forward and whether that scanning technology is ready to deploy. It could, I think, help to take knives off our streets and save lives. I would be happy to take an intervention now.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
indicated dissent.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It seems to me that the Government’s good work in this Bill in criminalising the possession of knives with intent will be undermined if the police have to wait for someone to take out the knife and commit an attack before they can discover whether they have a knife. Surely, if there is a separate offence arising from mere possession, as my right hon. Friend says, it is particularly important to enable the police to discover that someone possesses that knife before they have had a chance to do harm with it.
Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are to prosecute these offences, put more potential perpetrators in prison and, critically, protect the public, we need to detect more of the knives that are routinely carried on our cities’ streets. That means more stop and search and the use of knife-scanning technology of the kind I just described to identify those knives before they are used. My right hon. Friend put it very powerfully.
The Opposition may also be minded to table amendments on the setting up of a statutory national inquiry into rape gangs. For some reason the Government have only set up local inquiries in five areas. Some local authorities are refusing to hold inquiries, which is scandalous. About 50 towns are affected, so inquiries into just five of them is not good enough. Moreover, those local inquiries do not have the statutory powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to compel witnesses to give evidence. The chairs of the Manchester local inquiry resigned last year because, even then, public authorities were covering this up. We need a national statutory inquiry, and we intend to amend the Bill to achieve that if the Government will not agree to one. Local councils and councillors, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service were all involved to a greater or lesser extent in ignoring or even covering up these terrible offences. We need to get to the truth.
Amanda Martin
Thank you for giving way. We as a Government are taking very seriously the culture of child grooming and gangs. In your previous role as Minister for crime and policing—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. You said “your”—I was not the Minister. A short and sharp intervention, please.
Amanda Martin
In the right hon. Member’s previous role he attended 352 meetings. Could he please explain why not one of those was on child grooming?
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady will know that child grooming falls under the portfolio of the Safeguarding Minister who, during the Conservatives’ time in office, had dozens of meetings on that topic. I had multiple meetings on Operation Soteria, which is designed to combat rape and serious sexual assault.
I think that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are keen to move on to Back-Bench speeches, since there is so much interest in this Bill.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
There are a lot of really good things in this Bill that my right hon. Friend has not mentioned, particularly around tackling violence against women and girls, with the legislation on stalking. Some of that work was carried out cross-party over the past few years, such as on increasing the age of consent for marriage from 16 to 18, and tackling forced marriage issues, hymenoplasty and virginity testing, which I helped put through in the last Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should try to convince the Government to introduce legislation around first cousin marriage—a very serious issue—and include in this legislation some of the sexual offences that relate to that?
Chris Philp
I support my hon. Friend’s proposals around first cousin marriage. The health implications are deeply alarming. We could take that forward in the Bill and put it to a vote of the House.
Lastly, will the Policing Minister provide an update on the use of technology to combat crime, particularly the use of retrospective and live facial recognition, which enables the police to catch criminals who would otherwise not be caught? She knows that I support that strongly, and I would gladly support her if she wants to continue that work.
Chris Philp
I have to finish now.
I am glad to see so many familiar clauses in the Bill. The Opposition broadly support the intent of the Bill, but what really matters is delivery—making sure that those record police numbers mean that we catch criminals and increase the conviction rate. Those police numbers and the results that they deliver are the yardstick by which the Government will be measured. I look forward to scrutinising the Bill as it passes through the House, and to tabling constructive amendments during its various stages.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
There is a five-minute time limit. I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I cannot possibly do justice to the Bill’s many needed and well-crafted measures in the few minutes I have, so I will just talk about its effect on the justice system and raise a couple of specific concerns.
The Bill introduces a number of new criminal offences—I have counted 27—and makes changes to existing offences. The Bill is being considered at a time when there is significant uncertainty about how the criminal justice system will operate in the future. There are two reasons for that. First, the criminal justice system is in a bad way. Last summer, prisons reached bursting point, and emergency measures were needed to ensure that convicted offenders could be sent to prison, rather than released. Secondly, in December, it was announced that the Crown court backlog had reached a record level of 73,105 cases, despite the previous Government setting a target of reducing it to 53,000 cases by now.
In response to both those crises, the Government have commissioned wide-ranging reviews: one on the criminal courts, chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, and one on sentencing, chaired by David Gauke. Both reviews are likely to have a significant effect on the justice measures in the Bill. The new criminal offences in the Bill will come into effect at a time when the criminal justice system is in flux. Parliament will be asked to consider whatever proposals the Government decide to take forward from the reviews. We are legislating to create a number of new offences, but it is difficult for anyone to know what their effect will be. Those are both problems left for the Government by the previous Government, but those difficult matters need to be addressed, as both issues are going on at the same time.
I turn briefly to knife crime, which I mentioned in my intervention. Between April 2023 and March 2024, 262 people were killed by sharp instruments. Home Office statistics can identify the type of sharp instrument in 169 of those cases; in 165 of them, it was a knife. Where the type of knife was identified, 109 were kitchen knives. In other words, two thirds of the identified knives used to kill people in that year were kitchen knives. There is a growing campaign to phase out kitchen knives with pointed tips as an everyday household item, and to introduce kitchen knives with rounded tips. Pointed knives are much more likely to pierce vital organs and sever arteries, and those injuries are far more likely to be fatal. Of course, there are millions of pointed knives in drawers all over the country.
The safer knives group, of which I am a member, supports a pilot scheme in which pointed kitchen knives would be converted into safer, rounded-tip knives. The Government could encourage manufacturers to replace pointed knives with rounded knives and discourage the sale of pointed knives by creating a price differential. They could also support the launch of a knife modification scheme to change pointed knives to rounded knives and collect more data on the types of knives used in any knife-related crime. That is now happening for homicides, but we ought to extend it. I am pleased to say that not all of that requires legislation—we do not need to add to the weight of the Bill—but those are all matters that need consideration. I am grateful for the indication that the Home Secretary gave earlier.
Finally, I will speak about something that should be in the Bill but is not: the law as it applies to Gypsy and Traveller communities, who face many inequalities and prejudice. They were seemingly sanctioned by the previous Government by the inclusion of part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which gave the police extra powers to ban Gypsies and Travellers from an area for 12 months, along with powers to arrest and fine them, and even seize their homes. A High Court ruling in 2024 determined that those powers were incompatible with the European convention on human rights. The Bill is the first vehicle that could rectify that injustice. Will the Minister, in winding up, indicate whether the Government will attend to that? They clearly have to, because of the determination of the High Court, so the sooner that is done, the better. The future of a very vulnerable community that is very much discriminated against depends on this. I hope the Government will, as they are doing in so many other ways, correct the faults of their predecessor.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Lisa Smart.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
There are elements of this Bill that we Liberal Democrats welcome; there are also some that we would not spend this much parliamentary time on, and some that we raise a weary Liberal eyebrow at, while we dust off the well-worn reasons why civil liberties really do matter to all of us. The biggest disappointment for us is the missed opportunities—the topics not covered and the chances not taken. We welcome the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill as it works its way through Committee and beyond. We will push the Government to go further in some areas; in others, we will suggest that they take themselves off for a little lie down in a quiet room, as they seem to have got themselves a little overwrought.
The key thing that Lib Dems will be pushing for is a serious commitment to restoring proper community policing, because without that, we simply will not deliver the frontline policing that my constituency and communities across the country need and deserve. We all agree that everyone should feel safe in their own home and their neighbourhood, but after years of Conservative mismanagement, that is not the reality in too many of our communities. The previous Government gutted neighbourhood policing by slashing over 4,500 police community support officers since 2015. It should come as no surprise that 6,000 cases are closed every day without a suspect even being identified, or that just 6% of reported crimes result in a charge.
Dan Aldridge
It is really important that we reflect on the impact of that under-investment in neighbourhood policing, and specifically on the cultural feeling of insecurity, and people’s feeling that crime will not be responded to. That has pervaded every society. I hear that on the doorsteps every time I go out. It will take a long time for us to get back from that.
Lisa Smart
I completely agree with the hon. Member that while crime stats are important, the way people feel about crime also is hugely important for all our communities. The issues are felt acutely in constituencies like mine. In Hazel Grove, in towns and villages such as Marple and Romiley, shop workers report that they face a real surge in shop theft. Many tell me that they have no expectation that the police will respond. Even charity shops have been burgled. These organisations just cannot afford to absorb the losses.
Another persistent concern raised by my constituents is the blight of illegal off-road bikes. I know that problem is felt in all our constituencies. From Offerton to High Lane, residents feel intimidated by this antisocial and often dangerous behaviour. Local officers tell me that although they do not lack the power to act, they lack the tools, resources and capacity to enforce existing laws, so we will scrutinise the Government’s proposals on this, especially as they relate to under-18s. The new Government must return to the neighbourhood policing model, with bobbies on the beat who are visible, trusted and properly resourced. Any element of the Bill that does that will receive Lib Dem support.
What else do we support in this Bill? Part 4 deals with the criminal exploitation of children and others, and it is welcome. Part 5 seeks to update the law on sexual offences. These parts will of course need close scrutiny to make them as effective as they can be, but they have Lib Dem support.
If this were a Lib Dem Bill, we would not be talking quite as much about criminalising those who climb on specific war memorials, and we would protect the important right to protest, rather than making it harder for this right to be exercised. We are surprised and more than a little bit disappointed that there is no mention in the Bill of bringing in domestic abuse aggravated offences. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for the work he has done in this area. We all agree that domestic abuse devastates lives, and that the criminal justice system must properly recognise its severity. Too many abusers escape appropriate justice because domestic abuse is prosecuted under general offences such as common assault or grievous bodily harm, which fails to capture the full nature of the crime. We urge the Government to back this change and ensure that victims and survivors receive the protections that they need and deserve. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have more to say on the matter in due course.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I want to be clear about what the hon. Member said a moment ago. Is she saying that climbing on and desecrating our war memorials is acceptable behaviour, and that she would be happy for that to carry on? That seems to be what she is saying. I am sure that is not the case, but I would love to hear her clarification.
Lisa Smart
It is always a genuine pleasure to be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for rising to his feet. What I said was that if this was a Lib Dem Bill—I look forward to one coming forward in the fullness of time—we would not spend as much time talking about this as a criminal act. There are many priorities for the Government, and I will talk about a number of measures that we were disappointed not to see included in this 340-page Bill, at the expense of the issue he raises.
For example, we have waited with bated breath for the new Government to crack down on water companies that pollute our rivers with impunity. Nowhere is that issue clearer than in my community; sewage has been dumped in our rivers, and part of the Chadkirk country estate, a beloved green space in my constituency, was turned into a sewage swamp after heavy rainfall in the new year. The field beside Otterspool Road, which the council planned to transform into a well-kept community meadow, was flooded with raw sewage. Current laws allow the water companies to get away with that. Liberal Democrats will continue to push to make sewage dumping a specific criminal offence, so that water company executives can be held accountable for the damage they do to our communities.
The Government’s failure to reference rural crime even once in the Bill is unacceptable. I heard the Home Secretary’s response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who is no longer in his place, and it is indeed welcome that a rural crime strategy is on the way, but we Lib Dems will push for a commitment to this issue in the Bill. Rural crime is not an inconvenience; it is a growing crisis. The National Farmers Union reported that the cost of rural crime soared to over £52 million in 2023, with organised gangs targeting farm machinery, vehicles and GPS equipment, yet fewer than 1% of police officers are in dedicated rural crime teams. I heard that for myself when I met a dozen local farmers at Far Benfield farm in Cowlishaw Brow last week. I clearly heard about the impact that organised fly-tipping and organised equipment theft has on farming families.
Finally, there is a gap in the Bill where a discussion of regulating or legislating for live facial recognition should be. The Liberal Democrats have been clear that the technology is a threat to privacy, is discriminatory and does not make our streets safer. The previous Government pushed ahead with its use, despite serious concerns from human rights organisations, legal experts and even their own independent biometrics commissioner. The police should focus on evidence-based crime prevention, not rolling out flawed and biased surveillance technology. Any use of it by the police must be transparent, unbiased and regulated. We can see police forces coming up with their own rules within which to operate. It is long past time for the Government to set the framework.
Chris Philp
The system being used is not biased. It has been tested by the National Physical Laboratory, and the bias problems that existed seven or eight years ago have been resolved. The hon. Lady says that the technology is unregulated; it is not. A Supreme Court case set out the parameters, and they are now enshrined in authorised professional practice, which is national College of Policing guidance.
Lisa Smart
I do not recall hearing a question from the shadow Home Secretary, but I am sure that he would welcome the matter being further clarified in the legislation. He said at the Dispatch Box that live facial recognition is not mentioned in the Bill. I agree. I am sure that we would both welcome scrutinising it, perhaps from different starting points, but ending up with a situation in which our police forces were confident that they knew exactly what the rules were, and exactly how to make best use of any new technology coming through.
The Government and this Bill have the potential to deliver real change, but only if the Government listen. That means a return to proper neighbourhood policing, to giving rural police the resources that they desperately need, and to protecting civil liberties. It is time for the Government to show that they are serious about preventing crime and enabling our police to act when crime has been committed. All our communities across the whole country deserve nothing less.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The time limit on speeches is five minutes.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
There are many areas in which the British people have had to put up with decline and decay over the past 14 years, but the breakdown of law and order might be the most profound. Victims have felt unprotected, criminals have gone unpunished and crimes have simply gone unchecked. Meanwhile, the law-abiding majority has looked on in horror and police officers have felt frustrated without the tools to act. I am delighted to support the Bill, which will start to turn the tide on 14 years of neglect.
I welcome the Government’s plans to introduce 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers and put a named officer in every community; to introduce respect orders and real punishments for the so-called low-level crime, such as antisocial behaviour and off-road bike crime, that has plagued our communities because of the Tory amnesty; and to protect retail workers, including by scrapping the Tory shoplifter’s charter, which decriminalised theft below £200. I remember speaking to shop workers in my constituency during the general election campaign. They talked about yobs walking into shops, nicking items off the shelves and walking straight out, because they knew that the police would take no action.
I welcome the Government’s plans to create a new duty to report child sexual abuse, and increase sentencing for the monsters who organise child grooming; to crack down on knife crime and the sale of weapons to under-18s; to give police the power to seize and destroy bladed articles; and so much more—all within months of the Home Secretary taking office.
I urge the Government to go further, however, by strengthening neighbourhood policing, which is at the heart of their mission to take back our streets. The increased powers for police officers to tackle antisocial behaviour are among the most important measures in the Bill, but we must not stop there. PCSOs and local authority enforcement officers do vital work to support the police and be friendly faces in our communities. They, too, should be given powers to deal with low-level antisocial behaviour and the yobs on our streets.
We can also make our streets safer by introducing stand-alone deportation orders for foreign national offenders who endanger public safety. The Government have deported more than 3,000 criminals since taking office, but often after several thousands of pounds have been spent in the criminal justice system.
I also welcome clause 105, which requires registered sex offenders to notify the authorities if they change their name. That is, again, about helping the public to feel safe and secure, as they will know that someone convicted of sex offences is not hiding among them, and victims will know that perpetrators are not repeating their crimes somewhere and going undetected because of that ridiculous legal loophole.
When we were elected, we promised our constituents that we would help them to take back control of their streets. The first priority of any Government is to keep their citizens safe—at home, at the border and around the world—and it has been a source of national shame that we have not done that for the past 14 years. There is a lot of work to do to restore public trust, but through the Bill we will make vital first steps towards protecting victims, punishing criminals and preventing crime.
Let me finish on this note. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), said that the general election was unnecessary or regrettable, but my Telford constituents voted for change, and I urge the Government to get on with it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I will be as brief as possible because I know that others want to get in.
Let me start with a general point. I have sat here long enough—not today, of course, but over the years—to know that every Government come in with a criminal justice Bill, then another a year later, and then another, before the next Government come in and start with a criminal justice Bill. I will not get into a political knockabout on that, but, as Members who have been here long enough will know, the reality is that there is always a reason why we need another criminal justice Bill, and so it goes on. To be a little more rational about it, if passing laws did the job of ending crime, we would have managed it long ago. This is about how we deal with the things that get behind the crime.
The Centre for Social Justice recently published a good report called the “Lost Boys”. It is about the generation, particularly post-covid, of young boys who have become dysfunctional with serious mental health problems, and who often end up on the street being sucked into gangs. The attitude and behaviour of those boys gives rise to the violence and subsequent murders that take place on the street. Putting a knife into someone’s hand does not make them a murderer; putting a knife into the hands of someone who has already been broken in the wrong attitude—that is where murder and violence come from. I recommend that Ministers read that report, because it makes staggering reading for us all.
Those young boys are becoming men. They will live in and out of prisons, and violence, drug taking and drug abuse will be a part of their lives, as will abuse towards women. It is boys and men who are responsible for the crime. Young women and girls are a tiny proportion of the criminals—the problem lies with men and boys. That is critical. If we want to get ahead of this problem and solve knife crime, we must understand that crime is committed in the heads and brains of those young boys, who are subsequently men, and the knife is only the final act. I say to those who recommend the rounding of blades, well perhaps, but a young guy will just go and grind that rounded blade into a sharp point and get on with it if that is what they want to do. Nothing will get in the way of that. I simply make that observation.
It is right that the Government are tackling assault on retail workers. I have struggled endlessly to get the police on to the streets and to arrest people who are shoplifting. People are not shoplifting for a sandwich; they are stripping stores of thousands of pounds’ worth of goods. It is a serious offence of antisocial behaviour, and anything more that the police can do to crack down on that is important, because it is the first crime that most of our constituents notice, and indeed fear. Shoplifters threaten people in the shops and those serving them, and it is important that we get on top of the issue.
I tabled an amendment to the previous criminal justice Bill on cycling and dangerous cycling. Has that gone? I have also spoken to the Department for Transport, and we need to sort out e-bikes and those dangerous fast bikes and cyclists on the road who commit offences.
Sir Julian Lewis
It would also help if it were made mandatory for all cyclists to have a bell, so that they could at least warn pedestrians of their approach.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I take my right hon. Friend’s point into consideration. The point I was making is that we have had deaths on the street yet cyclists could not be prosecuted for having killed someone, because we are still using a piece of legislation from the mid-19th century to address offensive and wild carriage driving. That is not acceptable and it hardly ever convicts anybody, so I encourage the Government to look again at dangerous cycling, because people genuinely abuse the Road Traffic Act 1988 and nothing ever seems to be done to them. That is particularly true for e-bikes, which are very dangerous when used on pathways. Even if people are not committing a criminal offence, they are causing major danger. Antisocial behaviour is a big thing which our constituents notice; they feel threatened by people who ride those bikes on the pavements. It may seem a small thing, but it is not.
I will end by congratulating the Government on introducing the offence of cuckooing. The Home Secretary will know that I tabled an amendment to the previous criminal justice Bill, and I am pleased that the Government have picked that up and put it into this Bill. There are big issues regarding people who feel threatened by brutal individuals who take over their houses and commit criminal offences from there. In the end, some of those threatened people get arrested themselves, having had no control over that house. Many of them have mental health problems; many are stuck in backrooms and abuse themselves. Having such an offence allows the police—I have said this all along—to move into the house if they have a suspicion that such things are taking place and deal with the issue straightaway. I congratulate the Government on that. The previous Government accepted my amendment. Hopefully, we can all join forces.
I have one question for the Minister responding to the debate. Offenders often use coercion, grooming and manipulation. The Bill refers to an absence of consent. Does she think that an absence of consent alone will be good enough to convict people who have carried out coercion, grooming and manipulation? That is the point I am slightly concerned about. I raise it with the Minister and I hope she can respond at the end of the debate. At the end of it all, a criminal justice Bill is a good thing.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
This is a huge Bill with more than 300 pages of measures, but I wish to focus on the extra powers it contains to police protests, and particularly clauses 86 and 95, about which civil liberties organisations such as Liberty, Amnesty International and Big Brother Watch, as well as trade unions, have raised loud alarm bells. I also wish to take the opportunity to recognise more broadly the dangerous direction of travel of the increasing criminalisation of legitimate and peaceful protest in this country which, as many will recognise, is being mirrored around the world.
In recent years we have seen the introduction of a vast swathe of anti-protest measures, including new police powers that have been used increasingly to clamp down on freedom of assembly and expression. Those powers are being extended yet again in the Bill. The Tories’ controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the Public Order Act 2023 and the “serious disruption” regulations all brought in wide-ranging new powers. Those include allowing the police to impose “conditions” on any protest that is deemed to be disruptive or to cause “serious annoyance” to the local community, and sentences of up to 10 years in prison for damaging memorials such as statues. Those of us who fought those measures tooth and nail have now seen our fears realised, with clampdowns on the right to protest peacefully.
Last month the aggressive policing of the national Palestine protest led to the arrest of an estimated 77 protesters. Even Members of this House were called in for police questioning, as was an 87-year-old Holocaust survivor who was carrying flowers to lay for the dead children of Gaza. We cannot underestimate the chilling impact that that heavy-handed policing of peaceful protests will have on our basic rights and freedoms. From striking workers to the national Palestine demos and farmers’ protests, huge demonstrations and protests are becoming more commonplace across the political spectrum, as people across the country and beyond feel that they are losing their voices in their workplaces and the political sphere. Instead of continuing down that dangerous road, we should be taking the opportunity that the Bill presents to roll back some of those powers, defend our civil liberties, and restore our proud traditions of freedom of speech, expression, and assembly.
Kim Johnson
No, I am not taking interventions—sorry.
In this country we have a proud tradition of standing up for what we believe in, but that has increasingly come under threat, and measures in the Bill continue on that trajectory. I hope that the Minister and Government will take those points on board and consider amendments in Committee to roll back some of the draconian anti-protest legislation and restore our civil liberties—moves on which I am sure we can find common ground across the House.
Lastly, I want to turn to the provisions in the Bill that will further criminalise Roma and Traveller communities, and the impact that certain clauses will have on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities such as those living on the Tara Park site in my Liverpool Riverside constituency. In particular, I want to raise concerns around clause 3 in part 1 of the Bill, which extends police dispersal powers and, as the Traveller movement has stated, risks leading to even more heavy-handed policing of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. As with the anti-protest provisions in the Bill, we must see such measures in the broader context of the increasing criminalisation of already marginalised communities. As such, I hope the Government will go back to the drawing board and consider using the Bill to repeal section 60C to 60E of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This Bill is the first under Labour of its kind for a generation. Let us use it as an opportunity to protect our most marginalised communities and defend civil liberties.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to thank Surrey police for all they do to keep us safe in Reigate and Banstead. I welcome much of what is in the Bill and I will not repeat what has already been said. Instead, I will focus my remarks on what I believe is required to tackle the scourge of commercial sexual exploitation in this country.
It is easy for people to think that sexual exploitation does not affect them and that it does not happen in their neighbourhood, but it is more common than many realise. It is happening behind closed doors on very normal, everyday streets. Sexual exploitation, often of young women, is an awful crime that destroys lives before they have barely had a chance to begin. Exploited repeatedly, day in, day out, those young people are treated as merchandise, with the sole purpose of turning a profit for pimps and traffickers. It is incumbent upon us to break the business model, starting by outlawing the advertising of individuals for prostitution. Classified ad sites, like Vivastreet, are rife with it. They are the Etsy of sexual exploitation, fuelling sex trafficking by providing a convenient centralised platform for sex buyers to access what they want in their local area. Buying sexual services can be as easy as ordering a pizza.
Although prostitution is legal, pimping, which is the provision of a prostitute to perform a sex act with a customer for gain, is not. There are often tell-tale signs on the adverts, like the same phone number being used for multiple ads, that the women are not acting freely and willingly, and that they are under the control of a pimp, who is profiting from their exploitation. Such sites have had years to get to grips with it, but still not enough is being done to weed out those adverts.
However, we must take some responsibility too. Hon. Members will no doubt be staggered to hear that such advertising of prostitution is entirely legal, because legislation has not kept pace with technology. Advertising prostitution in a phone box is illegal under section 46 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, yet when the same advert is online, it is not illegal. That is utterly absurd. In 2023, the Home Affairs Committee cited evidence in its report on human trafficking that 75% of victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation are advertised online. The cross-party group concluded:
"Websites advertising prostitution significantly facilitate trafficking for sexual exploitation.”
I strongly urge Ministers to take this opportunity to close that loophole.
There is a similar issue with the regulation of online pornography compared with offline pornography. Our current laws have not been updated quickly enough to recognise the huge shift online and the need to apply the same standards across the board. A survey by the Children’s Commissioner in November 2022 found that one in 10 children had seen pornography by the age of nine, with half having seen it before they turned 13. The impact of that travesty can be clearly seen, with 47% of young people between the ages of 16 and 21 stating that girls “expect” sex to involve aggression.
Huge damage is being done to young women and men by this damaging content, which normalises and sexualises the choking and strangling of women during sex—illegal in offline pornography but not online pornography. Although not illegal per se, degrading acts, like spitting on women, are commonplace in online porn, so is it any wonder that we are seeing such disdain for and poor treatment of girls in our society? If we are serious about tackling the issue and halving violence against women and girls, we must crack down on online porn and ensure it is regulated to the same standards as that which is offline.
The independent pornography review, led by Baroness Bertin, recommended that there be parity of regulation between online and offline pornography, which I very much welcome. The main statutory regulator of offline pornography is the British Board of Film Classification. It is responsible for classifying pornographic content before it can be published and ensuring it does not contain illegal content. Any such offline illegal content cannot be sold or supplied in the UK, and the same rule should apply online. That simple change could be transformational if effectively executed and properly enforced, although I recognise the technical and practical challenge of trying to regulate the worldwide web.
I thank the Secretary of State for listening to my two asks. I look forward to hearing from her whether she is receptive to accepting amendments to ban online prostitution adverts, and to bringing the regulation of online pornography in line with that for offline pornography.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
When I was serving as a police officer, the demands on policing were changing rapidly, and they continue to do so. During my time in the police service, we saw big increases in the reporting of domestic violence and sexual offences. Neighbourhood policing was decimated as the police scrambled to keep up with the huge increase in the reporting of these high-harm, previously hidden offences that are now, thankfully, no longer tolerated in our society.
However, at just that time, the Conservatives were busy slashing police budgets. The policing workforce shrank by 20,000 officers across the country, a statistic that hon. Members will be very familiar with. Less talked about, but just as important, was the fact that our already ancient technology systems fell further behind the criminals we seek to catch. The police national computer, the database that holds arrest and conviction data for offenders across this country, celebrated its 50th birthday last year. The call handling system used by my old force, the country’s biggest, was 40 years old last year. I welcome this Government’s focus on policing, which is vital in creating a fairer country where everyone feels safe and secure in their local community. The Bill signals our commitment to rebuild neighbourhood policing, and to modernise our police service in order to provide the tools required to keep up with changing crime patterns.
I welcome the modernisation of our criminal law in the Bill. The legislation finally takes stalking seriously, makes it easier to tackle spiking and provides common sense powers to go after the thieves using tracking data. I also welcome the focus on shoplifting and antisocial behaviour in our town centres, with the introduction of new respect orders for persistent offenders, as promised in our election manifesto. Every frontline police officer knows that a huge proportion of crime is committed by a tiny proportion of the population. Through a relentless focus on those individuals, we can make small towns, like those I represent in Nelson, Colne, Clitheroe and Barnoldswick, safe and welcoming for the law-abiding public once again.
I hope the Bill is the start of a debate about what we want our police to do and where our services are best placed to act. We need our officers to have the backing of this place to tackle both the high-harm offences, such as serious violence, domestic violence and sexual offences, but also the common, lower level crimes that blight our communities. If everything is a priority, then nothing is; if we can be clear-eyed about where the police should focus their time and efforts, then we can set them up to succeed and we can rebuild the public’s confidence that the police can keep them safe.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I will use my time to talk about domestic abuse. My mum and I know all too well what domestic abuse looks like, but I am sorry to say that the law does not go far enough to recognise that crime. Currently, there is no specific offence of domestic abuse in the law, which leaves many survivors without the respect and protection that they deserve. Instead, many domestic abusers are convicted of offences such as actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, assault or battery that do not reflect the full gravity of the crime. Someone could be convicted of ABH for domestic abuse, but they could also be convicted of ABH for a brawl in a pub with a stranger they had not met before.
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 went some way towards recognising domestic abuse in the law. It defined it formally and created a number of offences, such as coercive and controlling behaviour, but it did not provide a specific offence of domestic abuse, leading to all sorts of problems. For example, the Government’s early release scheme, which they had to implement in light of the state that the last Government left our prisons in, let out as many as 3,000 people early. The Government made a commitment to try to exclude domestic abusers from being released early, but it was not possible to comprehensively do that, in the words of the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), because people can be excluded from early release only on the basis of the offence that they committed and nothing else. Well, there is no offence of domestic abuse in the law, so many domestic abusers—people who were convicted of ABH, say—were released early.
One survivor affected by that situation is Elizabeth Hudson. Her abuser, her ex-husband, held a knife to her throat, among many other terrible incidents at home. He was convicted of actual bodily harm, and he qualified for early release under the standard determinate sentences 40% scheme. Were we to create a specific offence of domestic abuse, we could exclude those people from such a scheme. Specifically, if we created an offence of domestic abuse-aggravated GBH, ABH, assault, battery, criminal damage or whatever it may be, in exactly the same way that we have racially and religiously aggravated hate crimes, we would be able to protect survivors.
Another advantage of being able to recognise domestic abuse in that way—which this legislation, in all its 106,220 words, does not yet do—is that we could properly cohort those individuals. I asked the Ministry of Justice how many domestic abusers are in prison at the moment and what their reoffending rate is. That is very simple and basic. The response was:
“It is not possible to robustly calculate the number of domestic abusers in prison or their reoffending rate. This is because these crimes are recorded under the specific offences for which they are prosecuted”—
that is, there is no specific offence of domestic abuse to convict those people of. In the light of those challenges, the likes of Refuge, ManKind, Women’s Aid and many more organisations—whether it is lawyers, academics or survivors themselves—are backing my proposals to create a set of domestic abuse-aggravated offences in the law.
I also extend my thanks to those Members on the Government Benches who have privately written to me to express their support for the proposals that I am championing and for proposals that I hope the Government will accept in their Crime and Policing Bill throughout its passage. We need to ensure that we properly respect and protect survivors in Eastbourne and beyond, and I hope that Members across this House will work with me to help to make that a reality—my door is always open.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
Our communities deserve to feel safe on our streets, in our homes and in our shops. While I am referring to shops, it is only right to place on record the tireless campaigning that USDAW has done to get a specific offence for an assault on shop workers. That just shows the best of our movement.
The profile, perception and presence of the police need to be restored. We need police on our streets; they need to have the powers to do their jobs, and people need to feel safe again. Our police station in Corby was closed down in 2017. The perception was that the police were gone and that their presence was disappearing, because all people did was drive through what used to be their police station and the profile that went with that. Where something was formally opened, all of a sudden it was shut. Our dedicated response unit was moved out at the same time, and all we had left was a police hub on the upper floor of a public building that was sometimes open only two days a week. We had people on bail being told to take selfies and send them to a number to demonstrate and prove they met the conditions of their bail. That is not good enough for the people of Corby and East Northants.
Many people have lost faith. Why? Because for more than a decade, they have been let down. They call 999 and no one shows up. They report a crime and nothing happens. They see criminals getting away with it again and again. Here is the truth: when policing is cut, crime goes up, and everybody pays the price. Thousands of officers were ripped off our streets, police stations were closed down, PCSOs were cut and entire towns were left without proper policing. That is not good enough for the people of Corby and East Northants. People feel like the system has given up and do not feel safe in their communities.
The Bill toughens up policing so that crime has real consequences again. It gives the police stronger powers to tackle antisocial behaviour by introducing respect orders and strengthening existing powers, as well as removing the need for the police to issue a warning before seizing vehicles being used antisocially. The Bill is a key part of delivering the Government’s safer streets mission. Alongside it, the Government will recruit 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers, ensuring that every community has one. The 2025-26 final police funding settlement also provides up to £19.6 billion for policing in England and Wales, including £193 million for Northamptonshire forces—an increase of more than £11 million.
As I said, this is about profile, perception and presence. That is why I am not only urging Members to back the Bill, but leading the campaign to bring a police station and dedicated response unit back to Corby. The Government have ensured that the money is there to use, and there is consensus in the constituency on the need. We have businesses lined up to support us and massive support from people in the constituency, who have signed a petition for the return of their dedicated response unit and police station. With this Government and this Bill, and the funding that they have provided, now is the time for us to deliver.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
There is much that is good and necessary in the Bill, and I welcome the fact that 51 of its 137 clauses will apply to Northern Ireland. I have some disappointment about some of the clauses from which Northern Ireland is excluded—in particular clause 90, which relates to the desecration of war memorials. We have had a spate of such incidents in Northern Ireland; therefore, I am disappointed that that clause does not apply to it.
In relation to the all-important matter of child sexual abuse, part 5 of the Bill applies to Northern Ireland, with the exception of clause 36. I ask the Minister to look at why that is, because to apply the rest without clause 36 is quite incongruous. In clause 37 and so on, we will rightly make it illegal to have a paedophile manual to describe how to make child sexual abuse images, yet clause 36, which makes it an offence to possess a child sexual abuse image generator, does not apply to Northern Ireland. How can that be right? There is a logic that is absent there: clause 36 must apply if the rest of the part is to apply. I trust that that is an oversight that will be rectified.
In clause 123, we have hidden away something of particular interest to many in Northern Ireland: for the first time, it will be an offence to put something on a lamp post or to have a banner that glorifies a proscribed organisation. That is a good and necessary thing. I welcome the fact that that is the intent. The explanatory notes tell us that that is exactly the purpose of the clause: it would, for example,
“enable the seizure of a flag or poster which arouses reasonable suspicion the individual who displayed it was a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation”.
That is good, but it focuses attention on the failure of the Bill to deal with the inadequacy of the offence of glorification of terrorism, which is too limp and largely unused.
We will arrive at a situation in which somebody cannot legally put something on a lamp post or put up a banner that says, to use the republican mantra, “Up the Ra”, which means, “Up the IRA”—that organisation that murdered thousands of our citizens—and that is good, but under the glorification of terrorism legislation, they can say it.
That hideous, horrible republican mantra, “Up the Ra”, which is a chorus from a republican song that glorifies terrorism with lyrics like, “The Brits will never leave until they’re blown away. Ooh ah up the Ra! SAM missiles in the sky,” is glorification of terrorism—of course it is. Yet under our legislation, it is not defined as glorification of terrorism, because a person has to be advocating that which they would emulate and encouraging others to engage in terrorism. Some might think that is the case. If we took the offence described in clause 123 and made it apply to “that which promotes the interests of a proscribed organisation”, we would have done the right thing, but that language needs to be transferred across to the glorification of terrorism legislation. Why should it be right for it to be illegal to have a banner that says “Up the Ra” but legal to address thousands of kids and sing “Up the Ra”, as happens every August in Northern Ireland? That disparity needs to be reconciled and dealt with.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on this incredibly important Bill. Like many of my constituents, I welcome the measures the Government are taking to tackle serious crime and antisocial behaviour in order to make our streets safer. I pay tribute to the police—another public service that has been undervalued and underfunded for well over a decade. They put their lives on the line to keep us safe and uphold the law. Many measures in the Bill will directly impact them and my constituents, many of whom have become known to me through casework.
When I have knocked on doors in my constituency, residents have told me about the nuisance of off-road bikes that have blighted our streets and, often, our green public spaces—our parks—and intimidated the public. Often, those bikes and their owners were known to the police, but they lacked the powers to do anything other than give the owners a simple warning. I am pleased that the Bill would enable the seizure of vehicles that are being used antisocially.
The other issue that I heard about most often on the doorstep was fly-tipping—the disrespectful fly-tipping that is engaged in by so many organised criminals. A few years ago, Gravesham borough council started a fly-tipping enforcement team. It investigated many people and took many to court. Three years on, 386 community protection warnings have been issued, we have put people in prison, and 50 fly-tipping fines have been issued. That is incredible; it is what should be happening across the country, and I am grateful that the Bill looks to strengthen antisocial behaviour powers to deal with fly-tipping. That is incredibly welcome.
As a new MP, I hold many surgeries—as do many Members present—and I have been shocked by the terrible experiences that some of my constituents have had to face. I pay tribute to them for having the courage to come forward and tell their stories. I have heard from women dealing with stalking by an ex-partner who have changed their life routine for fear of attack and, as such, I welcome the Bill’s strengthening of stalking protection orders. I have heard from a retired paramedic, Peter Sheehan, who was violently assaulted after simply asking people in his woodland to stop their dogs tearing up the forest floor—it was a simple ask. After three years of legal issues, the man who seriously assaulted Peter was given a two-year suspended sentence and fined £750. The impact on Peter, who already suffers post-traumatic stress disorder from his work as a paramedic, was significant, and that money still has not been received.
We must let people who have experienced crime see the justice they deserve. Their trust in the criminal justice system must be restored, and they must know that if they call the police, they will come. There are consequences for crime, and this Bill is the first step towards backing people, not criminals.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
There is much in this Bill that I welcome, because of course it was announced by the last Government. However, this Government need to go further, and we will push them to do so.
A major part of the Bill is its increased focus on neighbourhood policing, which is commendable. I have always advocated in this Chamber for greater levels of neighbourhood policing on our streets and more visible policing in our communities. I pay tribute to my own neighbourhood policing team in Aldridge-Brownhills, who serve my local community day in, day out. They are truly locally based officers who care about our local community, and I thank them for all they do on our behalf.
Sadly, my neighbourhood policing team will soon find itself without a permanent, dedicated home, because the Labour police and crime commissioner has decided to sell off the family silver right across the west midlands. As well as selling off the police station in Aldridge in my patch, he is selling our next nearest police station in Sutton Coldfield. He has already sacrificed the next nearest one in Kingstanding—that building is going to become a Domino’s Pizza takeaway. The Government want more police officers. That is great, but in the west midlands, their own police and crime commissioner does not want to house them. It is unacceptable that police stations across the west midlands are slowly being phased out, diminishing the role of neighbourhood policing, all at a time when more power is being sucked towards central Birmingham and the PCC headquarters at Lloyd House.
Wendy Morton
I will not, because of time.
That headquarters has benefited from a staggering £33 million-worth of upgraded decoration as a result of local communities losing their local police stations—including the former Brownhills police station—in phase 1 of the closure programme. Surely, that is not right.
I draw the Minister’s attention to several written parliamentary questions to which I do not believe I have received a full answer—in particular, my question concerning the funding of the proposed 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers. While those new officers are welcome, as I have stated, the Government have not yet fully said how they will be funded after the first year, so I would be grateful for clarity on that. It is imperative that there is certainty that those are fully funded new officers who will be added to base budgets for future years, not a one-off Government expenditure, after which the local taxpayer will pick up the tab through an increase in the precept.
The Government face similar questions regarding their decision to fund national insurance increases. Once again, they have been circumspect in their responses to my questions in Westminster Hall and to written parliamentary questions. It is very important that the Minister comes clean today and clarifies that the grant given to police authorities to cover the Chancellor’s job tax is not just a one-off, but will be added to those authorities’ base budgets. As the Minister is very aware, if that is not the case, this will be yet another stealth tax by the back door by this Government, punishing our constituents.
There is so much in the Bill that I would like to talk about, but before I conclude I will touch briefly on knife crime. I welcome the Government’s commitment to halving knife crime, which comes on the back of a series of measures passed by the last Conservative Government. Sadly, in 2017, my constituent James Brindley lost his life to knife crime in Aldridge. Since then, his parents have dedicated their lives to helping eradicate the scourge of knife crime. They have established the James Brindley Foundation to help educate young people across the borough of Walsall to turn their backs on carrying a knife. Back in August 2022, I was really proud to be present at the unveiling of one of a number of knife bins across the borough, funded through that foundation with help from local businesses and sponsors. James’s parents have a simple ask, and I will be a bit cheeky and press the Minister on it today: will she work with her colleagues in the Department for Education to see whether knife crime prevention could be considered for inclusion in the national curriculum?
My constituents demand safety, which is why the last Conservative Government fully funded 20,000 new police officers. We welcome the 13,000 new police officers, but my constituents want them to be fully funded and housed in the neighbourhood. The Bill fails to give all the guarantees that I am looking for. On that basis, I hope the Minister can provide me with some clarity when she sums up the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. We have a very oversubscribed debate, so it is unlikely that everybody will get to speak. I am bringing in a four-minute time limit with immediate effect, just to try to get more people in.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Much within the Bill will bring significant positive changes to communities like mine in Hemel Hempstead, where crime and, in particular, antisocial behaviour continue to be a major issue. Under consecutive Conservative Governments, criminals got an easy ride. The Conservatives left a great mess, and this Bill helps to fix that.
I could speak at great length on many parts of the Bill, but I will focus on two that are almost always at the top of my postbag in Hemel Hempstead: antisocial behaviour and the current epidemic of shoplifting. I recently met a couple called Gary and Margaret—not their real names—whose case shocked me. For two years, Gary and Margaret have been harassed, including verbal abuse, trespassing and the damaging of their property, by an offender who lives on their street. The family feel unsafe and isolated, with the harassment worsening the mental health of their eight-year-old son, who suffers from severe anxiety and is too scared to play outside. They inform me that they have been in constant communication with the council and the police, but have faced rejection from the local council’s antisocial behaviour department, which stated that they would not intervene due to the low-level nature of the antisocial behaviour.
It is not just antisocial behaviour affecting people in Hemel Hempstead; we also face an epidemic of violence against retail staff, as other Members have mentioned. I met employees from the Co-op in Queens Square in Adeyfield, and I have also met people from the post office in the same square. I was grateful to those from the Co-op for the time they took to show me their store, including their CCTV room, but I was shocked by what I saw there: an entire table of CD after CD, each containing evidence of shoplifting in the store, with many people brazenly walking out of the shop, not even attempting to conceal their theft. What is more disturbing is what one of the store employees told me. A shoplifter had been caught, and the store had managed to get the police and the criminal justice system to take the case to court. That brave employee had been to court to testify against the shoplifter. Unfortunately, the case was thrown out and the perpetrator let off and able to walk free. Even more shockingly, the employee had to sit on the same bus home as the person she had just given evidence against.
Thankfully, provisions in the Bill will make a difference for that employee, for Gary and for others who have been the victims of crime and antisocial behaviour. First, clause 1 and respect orders will give the police and local authorities what they need. I have in the past asked for Hemel Hempstead to be considered for a respect order pilot, and I hope the Minister will forgive me for making another pitch for that today.
It disgusts me that hard-working people in Hemel Hempstead pay for their shopping while others can simply storm out without paying. It disgusts me that people in my constituency have to put up with antisocial behaviour on an almost daily basis, while the perpetrators walk away with impunity. I have been out with the police for ride-alongs, the purpose of which is to see at first hand the challenges that the police are facing. I have had meetings with Police Federation reps, so I am well aware of the extra equipment and support that they need. I will continue to do everything I can to support those brave police officers facing antisocial behaviour, and I am strongly in favour of this Bill, which I believe will give the police extra powers to do more to crack down on these yobs.
There is much more I would like to say, but much like our police force under George Osborne and Theresa May, I have had to subject my speech to brutal cuts, so I will finish there.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
There is much in the Bill with which my party agrees. In fact, many of its provisions were written by my party in government, so it was strange to hear the more partisan remarks from the Home Secretary earlier in the debate. After decades in which crime was falling, that happy trend has sadly begun to reverse. The Home Secretary noted that overall crime increased by 12% in the last year, but she did not admit that it is still far lower than when Labour was last in office. However, there is obviously much to be done.
The sentencing guidelines published last week explicitly instruct judges that a pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary if the perpetrator of a crime is from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, faith minority community or is female, transgender, a drug addict or a victim of modern slavery, trafficking, or exploitation. The guidelines are clear that minorities should receive lesser punishments than white people, especially white men. The provisions about slavery, trafficking and exploitation are an invitation for lawyers to help illegal immigrants to escape the reach of the law.
That is not the first official direction to tell judges to put identity politics before the once sacred principle of equality before the law. Last July, the Judicial College’s “Equal Treatment Bench Book” said that
“in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”
Putting that principle into practice, the bench book warns, for example, that the
“family impact of custodial sentences was particularly acute for black mothers, as far more black…families…are headed by a lone parent”.
Similar attitudes exist in policing. The “Police Race Action Plan”, published by the College of Policing, promised to stop the over-policing of black communities and complained that such communities are over-policed, but under-protected. The action plan noted that black people are more likely than white people to be murdered and to be victims of knife crime, but it failed to add that black people are more likely to commit these crimes, too.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about the Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill and its contents.
Nick Timothy
Indeed. I find it baffling that we are debating the future of the criminal justice system and not talking about the erosion of the principle of equality before the law. Disparities in policing and criminal justice do exist—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman again that, in order to speak in this debate, he needs to stay in scope of the content of the Bill in front of us.
Nick Timothy
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going to turn to some specific measures in relation to police reform and the Bill. According to the Government’s impact assessment, the Bill will
“provide an additional 13 to 55 prison places”,
yet the Government expect to see 5,000 additional crimes recorded by the police annually, resulting in 400 prosecutions and 300 convictions per year. Those numbers do not add up, unless the Government intend to continue their policy of releasing prisoners early.
Passing legislation is not a substitute for genuine and sophisticated police and criminal justice reform, and I will make some suggestions to the Government. First, we should abolish the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which represents centralised unaccountable power, and transfer its functions to more accountable entities. The College of Policing should be directed by the Home Secretary to ensure that forces focus more clearly on crime fighting. We need to reduce the size of the Met in London, with its national responsibilities transferred to the National Crime Agency. The Government need to give police chiefs the ability to clear out failing officers and recruit talent from all walks of life.
In the Met, there should be fewer deputy assistant commissioners and fewer commanders. Training needs to be professionalised and better recorded, and workforce planning needs to be improved. There should be better use of productivity-improving technology and streamlined processes from arrest to prosecution. We need to reform the police grant to make sure that forces focus on strategic threats. New technologies mean that fraud, identity theft and cyber-crimes will present a huge challenge. We can no longer expect police forces to recruit generalist officers, hoping that they can all offer the perfect blend of leadership, empathy, strength and investigatory skill. Instead, we need greater specialisation.
As I said, it seems crazy that we are debating this Bill without debating whether we remain equal before the law. There is much to be welcomed in the Bill, but I hope we will see far greater energy in the undeniably tough job of police reform.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Crime in Hyndburn and Haslingden is currently out of control. Robbery has skyrocketed in my constituency by 75% in the past year, which is far worse than the already shocking 17% increase that we have seen across Lancashire. Shoplifting has soared by 70%, which, again, is significantly worse than the 23% rise across the county. Those numbers are not just statistics; they represent victims—business owners whose livelihoods are threatened, families who feel unsafe and communities torn apart by lawlessness. Indeed, just last week local businesses in Accrington saw around 10 break-ins. Almost half of my constituents—44%—will experience violent crime. That is unacceptable, and I am speaking here today because I refuse to accept it any longer. Just over the weekend, an awful video has sadly been circulating on social media of yet another terrible incident of violent crime in Hyndburn.
This Government’s Crime and Policing Bill is the biggest crackdown on crime in decades. We are taking back our town centres from thugs and thieves and restoring respect for law and order, giving our communities and police the tools they need to fight back. For too long the crimes that have made Accrington’s town centre almost lawless, the so-called low-level offences, have been ignored. When shoplifting, antisocial behaviour and street crime go unpunished, our high streets suffer, our economy declines, and our community starts to lose hope. Accrington was once a thriving hub. It has been neglected for too long, but these new powers for the police are key to turning that around.
The Bill delivers real action. The police will no longer need a warrant to search premises when stolen goods are tracked electronically, and there will be no more safe havens for criminals. Respect orders will clamp down on public drinking and drug taking, ensuring that our streets are no longer places of disorder. Officers will have the power to seize nuisance vehicles—such as the off-road bikes I saw on Friday tearing up our parks in Rishton—on the spot. Crucially, the days of treating thefts under £200 with effective immunity are over. Stealing is stealing, and criminals will be held to account. It is also welcome that the Government listened to the campaign organised by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and other shop workers for the introduction of a new offence of assaulting a shop worker in this vital Bill.
The Labour Government are not just tough on crime; they are investing in solutions. I welcome the provision of 13,000 new police officers to ensure that every community has its named police officer. This is part of the Government’s £200 million investment, which will deliver a 6.6% funding uplift in Lancashire. Enough is enough: the people of Hyndburn and Haslingden deserve safe streets, a thriving town centre, and the right to live without fear. The Bill delivers that, and I am proud to support it.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Crime and policing in London is at a crisis point. Figures show that Government funding for the Metropolitan police has fallen by more than £1 billion in real terms since 2010, and those cuts mean that we do not just need more bobbies back; we need more beats. Park police no longer patrol, and now we see the prospect of safer schools officers across London being moved out of schools, where they would be working with young people at risk of gangs or county lines, to back-fill neighbourhood policing teams. Community policing is in tatters, officer numbers are insufficient, and PCSO numbers in London have fallen by more than 3,000 in the last 15 years, from 4,247 in 2008 to just 1,215 in 2023, which means that almost three out of every four officers have been lost in that time.
While we Liberal Democrats broadly welcome many aspects of the Bill, we are fundamentally concerned about the likelihood that without enough officers on the ground, community policing will continue to suffer. Over the years, successive Labour and Conservative Governments have introduced their own versions of a crime and policing Bill, but London nevertheless recorded more than 15,000 knife crime incidents, nearly half a million thefts and more than 24,000 cases of sexual violence last year. It is simply common sense that if we want to get a grip on these awful incidents, which undermine the very fabric of a trusting society, we must restore community policing.
For Londoners, that means sorting out recruitment in the Met across the whole of London. It means ending the practice of abstracting police officers from outer boroughs to assist inner ones, and instead focusing on recruiting more officers to be visible, engaged, and dedicated to protecting the communities that they serve. I cannot see the many welcome parts of this Bill being implemented effectively in my constituency and across London if that is not the case. The Bill, in its current form, should go further and faster in restoring proper community policing, reforming stalking laws to support victims, and implementing a meaningful public health approach to knife crime. I have spoken about both those issues a number of times in the House, and have received very positive responses from the Minister.
I am encouraged to see that assaults against retail workers are to be treated as the grave crimes that they are, but these provisions should go further to protect tradespeople from harm wherever they work. Tool theft is a devastating crime that cost tradespeople millions last year. Research from NFU Mutual shows that one in three tradespeople now live in constant fear of violent thieves. Some have been brutally attacked with crowbars and other weapons, just for trying to protect their tools from being ripped out of their vans. At a “Stop Tool Theft” rally in Parliament Square last month, organised by Trades United, I spoke to many tradespeople who had suffered thefts and attacks, and heard that they would not now let their vehicles out of their sight for fear of becoming victims. There have been discussions of better measures on the part of vehicle manufacturers to reduce the number of thefts, such as better locks and keyless systems security, but the descriptions of people literally cutting off the tops of vans to steal the tools inside demonstrate that such measures can only go so far to stop the thefts.
However, these attacks on tradespeople are more than just theft; they are an assault on their hard work and hard-earned livelihoods. It is time to acknowledge the escalating danger that they face and provide stronger legal safeguards to protect their livelihoods and wellbeing, and I hope the Government will take note of that in Committee.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
This Labour Government have made the unprecedented commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. I know that my colleagues on the Front Bench take it extremely seriously, and I agree with them that it will require a transformative approach. I welcome the measures in the Bill to tackle intimate image abuse, stalking, spiking and the sexual exploitation of children, which mark the beginning of the Government’s work to make good their ambition by giving victims the protections that they deserve and need.
In that spirit, I believe that the Bill presents an opportunity for the House to tackle commercial sexual exploitation—a key form and engine of violence against women and girls—in giving victims of the sex trade the measures and protections that they need, and I intend to table the appropriate amendments to reflect that. The majority of people exploited through the sex trade are women and girls, while the overwhelming majority of people who pay to exploit them sexually are men. Extensive evidence shows that most women exploited through this insidious trade were highly vulnerable before their involvement and suffer acute harms as a result, including a disproportionate risk of violence. I know that my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister, who chaired the Home Affairs Committee in the last Parliament, has done some excellent work in this area.
Sadly, the demand for sexual exploitation is not being deterred, and victims themselves face the threat of criminal sanctions. The Bill gives us an opportunity to change that: to end impunity for punters who pay to abuse women, to take concrete action against pimping websites, and to remove the threat of criminal sanctions from victims to offer those vulnerable women the support that they need. The Bill does much for victims of crime and abuse, and it is evidence of the Government treating violence against women and girls as the emergency that it is. I believe that by strengthening the response to commercial sexual exploitation we can make significant headway in halving that violence.
Speaking of highly vulnerable women—whose plight drives much of the work that I do—I want to say something about abortion. The law underpinning abortion dates back to 1861, before women even had the right to vote. Under that cruel and outdated law, about 100 women have been investigated by the police in the past five years alone, and another woman is set to go on trial in April. The women caught up in this law are very vulnerable and often desperate, but they are subject to the same laws that apply to violent partners who use physical abuse, coercion or poisoning to end a pregnancy without consent. The law should be a tool to protect those women, not to punish them for the effects of the abuse that they have suffered.
Westminster voted to repeal the laws criminalising women in Northern Ireland in 2019, but they remain in place in England and Wales. There should be parity in the law across the UK so that my constituents have the same rights as my colleagues’ constituents in Northern Ireland. Abortion remains a free vote issue, and I recognise that any changes in the law in this area must be led by Back Benchers. My right hon. Friend the Minister was committed to this change before the election last year, and Members on both sides of the House supported her amendment to remove these women from the criminal law. I hope that the Bill will give us an opportunity to revisit this issue in the same collegiate way.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I welcome many of the measures in the Bill, particularly those concerning knife crime and the protection of shop workers who all too often bear the brunt of antisocial behaviour. However, one of the biggest deterrents for criminals is the certainty of being caught, and reductions in police numbers nationally are as wrong as they are locally. In Avon and Somerset, the former Conservative police and crime commissioner cut PCSOs by a further 80 last year—a massive 28% reduction—and closed our Taunton police station.
I welcome clause 4’s provisions on public space protection orders, which I will come on to. I welcome the commitment to deliver 13,000 extra officers of various kinds, but worrying for me is the fact that my constituents have come to see me about their relatives who are serving police officers. Civilians have been replaced by officers in uniform doing the same civilian jobs, just so that it can be claimed that police numbers have increased. I hope the Minister will make sure that that does not continue to occur with the new recruitment, which is very welcome. Unless officers are seen in our communities and on the streets, they will not deter or catch the criminals we need them to catch.
Last autumn, I was contacted by businesses in Castle Green in Taunton, which are at their wit’s end because of the antisocial behaviour in the historic centre of our county town. I contacted the chief constable straightaway. I am really grateful to Avon and Somerset officers for the efforts they have put in, as I am to the chamber of commerce in Taunton, which has raised the general issue of town centre crime and convened the safe streets forum that I attended last week, but it is clear that we need to deter antisocial behaviour and crime where it is taking place. That is proven by the fact that Lib Dem-run Taunton town council has just appointed a street marshal, who is on duty in our town centre. I spent the afternoon with Nick last Friday. He is doing an excellent job and covering a huge range of work, from people climbing all over the rooftops to retrieving thousands of pounds’ worth of stock by simply asking the person responsible to hand it over. He must have been quite persuasive in asking the individual to do that.
I congratulate Nick, our street marshal, but when I returned to Castle Green with him, it was clear that the antisocial behaviour problems there have become intractable. I therefore suggest that we need to work with Somerset council to get a public space protection order, and I hope the Government will support its enforcement. Too many of our great community events are marred by the antisocial few, and we need to tackle that. We need the public space of Castle Green, with its superb independent market, our famous Castle Hotel, the scheduled ancient monument, which is the castle itself, and the Museum of Somerset where soon people will be able to see the Chew valley hoard of silver coins from the Norman conquest. I cannot use those coins to pay for the enforcement of the public space protection order, but I hope it will have Government support so that we can ensure that key public spaces are not subject to conquest by those who would disobey the law, wreak havoc among local people, damage livelihoods and tarnish the generally superb reputation of our county town.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I promised my constituents more police officers in Stockton, Billingham and Norton, and we are delivering on that. I promised a crackdown on antisocial behaviour on the high streets, and we are delivering on that. I promised a named police officer in every neighbourhood, and we are delivering on that. This is a serious Government rolling up their sleeves and getting on with delivering on the issues that matter most to the people to Teesside.
I have visited corner shops picking up the pieces after being attacked by balaclava-clad thugs. I have spoken to unions and retail workers about the devastating impact of shoplifting, theft and assaults on shop workers. Our high streets should be thriving, but too often they are overshadowed by antisocial behaviour that keeps families away. Crime erodes confidence in our communities, leaving people feeling unsafe in their neighbourhoods and making it harder for businesses to thrive, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the illegal use of off-road bikes. For too long, these bikes have been a menace as they maraud through estates, intimidate residents and are used by criminals to evade police. People have had enough.
I promised to come down hard on crime, increase police numbers, and make our high streets and communities safe, and that is exactly what we are doing. With £2.4 million invested in neighbourhood policing, Cleveland police, under our Labour police and crime commissioner Matt Storey, are delivering on that promise with 40 new officers on our streets, increasing the visible police presence in our communities. They are using new tactics to stop crime in its tracks, deploying police drones to track off-road bikes in real time. If criminals think they can evade justice, they are wrong. Their bikes will be tracked, seized and taken off our streets.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech about the challenges we face on Teesside. Just today, I heard from James in Easterside, who said that in two hours there was not 15 minutes when an illegal off-road bike, quad or e-scooter did not pass. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to seize such bikes, crush them and make our streets safe again?
Chris McDonald
I am sure that James in Easterside will be pleased to learn that Cleveland police have seized 359 vehicles linked to crime and dangerous driving since January alone, which is already making a big difference. Crime across Cleveland is now at its lowest level in five years following a more than 9% reduction, which means nearly 6,000 fewer victims of crime. This is what a proactive police and crime commissioner, a Labour Member of Parliament and a Labour Government working together looks like. We are putting police back at the heart of our communities, and ensuring that they have the necessary powers and the backing of a justice system that actually works.
We are introducing respect orders to tackle the worst antisocial behaviour offenders, and stamping out issues such as public drinking and drug use to ensure that our town centres are free from harm and nuisance. New offences, such as child criminal exploitation and cuckooing, will crack down on drug dealing. We will protect our high streets by ending the effective immunity for anyone caught shoplifting goods worth below £200 and introducing a new criminal offence to better protect retail workers from assault.
Stockton, Billingham and Norton deserve safer streets, and we are delivering. It should be clear to my residents that this Government and I, as their MP, are on the side of law and order. Although we are seeing green shoots of progress, there is still much more to do to reclaim our streets and town centres. The job is not done yet, but we are making real progress. Together, we will take back our streets and ensure that our towns are places of pride.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Today’s legislation contains welcome provisions to address some of the behaviours that plague my constituents, which were allowed to flourish under the previous Conservative Government. My constituents will welcome a serious and renewed focus on combating shoplifting and antisocial behaviour, because the Conservatives decimated our police community support officers—in Surrey, they fell by 29% between 2015 and 2022—and eroded the close relationship between the police and the communities they serve. Ultimately, the provisions in this Bill that are intended to make places such as Esher and Walton safer must be backed by a genuine and sustained commitment to community policing, and by giving officers the time and resources to build trust and understanding with those they protect.
In the past 12 months, arrests made by Surrey police for shop thefts have more than doubled. This is not merely a case of officers solving a higher percentage of crimes; in fact, the number of thefts detected by the police has also more than doubled. Surging levels of shoplifting are utterly corrosive for high streets in places such as Esher and Walton. They impose costs on retailers and may undercut residents’ faith in law enforcement and the ability of politicians to get things done, so I hope the Government will pursue this issue with urgency.
The same is true when antisocial behaviour is not dealt with. I have received far too many emails and letters from constituents struggling with the conduct of neighbours. In such cases, the actions of a few can impose severe strains on so many. As one constituent wrote to me, there is an issue of fairness: ordinary people come for a quiet life, have work to do and have been left exhausted by noise, disruptions and even threatening behaviour coming from a small group. I recognise that this Bill accordingly highlights housing providers as relevant agencies with a role to play in tackling antisocial behaviour. However, when people feel threatened, there is no substitute for recognisable neighbourhood police with deep links to the community. Given the criminal sanctions attached to breaches of a respect order, can the Minister assure the House that community police will receive funding in line with the vital role they have to play in ensuring that the Government’s new orders do not become meaningless?
Finally, I will address the protection of police officers. The police deserve protection from abuse. The Public Order Act 1986 was enhanced in 1998 to allow racially and religiously motivated abusive language or behaviour that is directed at emergency workers to be treated as an aggravating factor. However, there is a loophole in the legislation such that if this particular form of abuse occurs when both parties are in the perpetrator’s private dwellings, it is not treated as an aggravating factor. That is wrong. It leaves the mistaken impression that there are some circumstances in which the racial abuse of emergency workers is acceptable, and it fails to deter such behaviour. Will the Minister therefore commit to re-examining that issue and exploring the possibility of finally removing the anomaly?
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I have shared before with the House that I used to be a police officer, and I worked for three forces across England and Wales. That has given me a strong understanding of the challenges faced by both officers and the public in tackling crime. It is partly due to this experience that I fully support the Bill and the Government’s commitment to making our communities safer.
In my constituency of the Forest of Dean, crime and antisocial behaviour have a direct impact on families, businesses and communities. It is crucial that our police forces have the right powers, support and resources to tackle these issues effectively. The Bill empowers our officers, giving them the tools and the confidence that they need to make swift decisions and restore public trust. Those are things I wish I had had more of when I was serving. The Bill also addresses persistent antisocial behaviour with the introduction of the respect order, which will help restore order and send a strong message to offenders. It strengthens measures against theft, allowing police to enter properties without a warrant to search for stolen goods that have trackers on them.
Another key aspect of the Bill is its focus on domestic abuse. In Gloucestershire as a whole, a third of all arrests made in January related to domestic abuse, and I think we would all agree that this is unacceptable. The Bill includes crucial provisions to support victims and improve the management of such offenders, which is vital for both victims and law enforcement.
Another important factor for me is that the Bill focuses on tackling child sexual abuse. By introducing the mandatory duty to report, it will ensure that no case is overlooked. Having worked in the police but also in schools, I have seen at first hand how important it is to act quickly when it comes to protecting children from sexual exploitation. Another mantra of mine, which I hope is reflected in the Bill, is that prevention is always better than detection. That applies to any crime, but it is especially true of this hideous one of child sexual exploitation. The duty to report will help ensure that children are less vulnerable.
Finally, I urge all Members to support the Bill. It will not only empower our police, but support victims, take strong action against those who endanger our constituents’ safety and that of our children, and drive real change in our streets.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.
On the whole, the Bill is to be welcomed. A number of the provisions are already in place in Northern Ireland, such as the offensive weapons penalty, and there are others that the Northern Ireland Executive is in the process of introducing. In my intervention on the Home Secretary, I welcomed the 51 clauses that require a consent motion, because they are the sort of provisions that we want in Northern Ireland as well. On the things that are outstanding, the Home Secretary kindly said that she would, through the Minister and the Assembly, take them further, so that is also good news.
There are other measures that I agree with and some that I believe do not go far enough, such as the provisions on policing and investigation. I think of the absolutely heartbreaking interview with David Amess’s daughter about the refusal to carry out a public inquiry into her father’s murder by an ISIS supporter. David Amess was my friend, as he was to many in this House, and we are the poorer for his passing. With all due respect, I believe that the decision not to carry out an inquiry is the wrong decision. I hope this Bill, and perhaps the clauses on investigation in part 13, may lead to further powers being available for families to seek an inquiry into why the police have ceased their investigations. David Amess’s family deserve that inquiry and this House deserves that inquiry, but I will leave it at that.
I welcome the shoplifting provisions, and I very much welcome those on knife crime, which has been a scourge across this great nation, and the Government have accepted the need for such legislation. I wish the tightening of the provisions on child sexual exploitation was not necessary, but it certainly is. Between 2022 and 2023, recorded crimes relating to child pornography were up by 40.6%, which is a shocking figure. As a father and a grandfather, such statistics upset me, but as a parliamentarian, such statistics galvanise me to ensure that we shut down this horrific industry, including by jailing all those involved in sharing videos or producing them. None of those crimes are victimless, and we must take strides to address that. Consequently, I welcome those provisions.
No Bill can ever be perfect, and there are amendments to be made, but it is clear that our system currently allows too many criminals to slip through loopholes, and the police need greater powers of investigation and of drug testing as well. Security must, however, be balanced with—and the Bill should not impinge on—the existing rights of British citizens. The right to protest is a vital mechanism for freedom of speech, but it must be safe protest. I speak as someone who has protested for nearly all my life, and we have lived in a nation and a country where protesting became the name of the game. I have to say that those were always peaceful protests—I underline that very quickly—but a balance must be struck. I look forward to the Minister outlining how we can protect our freedoms in this Bill, such as the right to have a religious belief and to express it in a balanced way, and not be persecuted or discriminated against for that reason.
We also need protection for our service personnel, including by providing support in relation to the vexatious allegations that we are seeing in Northern Ireland. We will not recruit police services or armed forces personnel if they know they will be abandoned and hung out to dry at the first hint of an allegation. The Bill must strengthen that protection. That is one of the things I look forward to trying to do.
There is much in the Bill that we should welcome, and the Home Secretary and the Government are definitely on the right road. We will also see a difference in Northern Ireland, and the Bill is good news for everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I enormously welcome this Bill, in which there is so much that will make a real, positive difference for my constituents in North West Cambridgeshire. Due to time constraints, I will have to skip through a lot of the praise I had for the Bill and move straight to an area where I would like to have a conversation and a dialogue with the Minister about what we can do, and that is the area of mandatory reporting.
I enormously welcome the fact that this Bill will finally introduce a statutory duty to report the possible sexual abuse of children when those who have responsibility for children are made aware of it. It has been a long road. In March 2018, the previous Conservative Government said the case for mandatory reporting had “not currently been made” and that they would not introduce the policy. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, chaired by Alexis Jay, showed how misjudged that position was.
Luke Myer
I thank my hon. Friend for supporting me in my debate last week on Professor Jay’s recommendations for the Church of England. Does he agree with me that, alongside the Government implementing those recommendations, it is critical that faith organisations implement them as well?
Sam Carling
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank him for that intervention. As a society, we must move towards ensuring that children are protected.
When it comes to the detail, I am not fully sure that the Bill, as currently drafted, delivers on the Government’s pledge to implement the IICSA recommendations. That is mainly because, on my reading, it does not create criminal sanctions for non-compliance, which was a key part of the 13th IICSA recommendation. The only consequences spelled out in the Bill for failure to report are that someone could be referred to as their professional regulator, where relevant, or to the Disclosure and Barring Service, which, to quote the Bill’s explanatory notes, will
“consider their suitability to continue working in regulated activity with children.”
That is all really positive, but we have to go a little bit further. As currently drafted, is the Bill enough to tackle the chronic under-reporting of sexual abuse identified by the Jay inquiry?
The new offence of stopping someone else from reporting child sexual abuse is very welcome. For example, it should stop managers pressuring people who work under them not to report such abuse, but I do not think that it will cover such cases in religious groups. As an example, I would like to talk about the religious organisation in which I was raised, the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Most people know very little about them, but they are a very insular religious community with a deep distrust, in many cases, of secular authorities, much of which comes from the fundamental nature of some of their beliefs. Witnesses have a mindset in which the first port of call for any issues with another member of the faith is their local congregation’s body of religious elders, who are men—always men—appointed from within their ranks. The organisation denies that it stops these elders from referring allegations of sexual abuse to the police, but numbers speak louder than words.
Almost 10 years ago, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were one of the case studies examined by an Australian royal commission on institutional responses to child sexual abuse. The commission found that, in Australia alone, allegations had been documented by religious elders against 1,006 individuals, and not a single one was reported to the police. In the UK, elders sometimes say that it is a victim’s absolute right to go to the police, which is often the organisation’s response to such criticism. But behind the scenes, they heavily discourage it, telling victims that publicity would bring reproach on God’s name.
This secretive attitude is best exemplified by a recent speech by a member of the religion’s governing body: “Suppose that someone is convicted and put in jail, or someone is found guilty by men, as Jesus was. It does not mean that he is guilty in the sight of God.” I should flag that he was not specifically referring to child sexual abuse, but that attitude is pervasive. I describe this example to highlight just how critical it is that the duty to report is backed up by criminal consequences for ignoring it, because some of these organisations will do anything to avoid compliance.
Is the Minister willing to meet me to discuss this issue in more depth, and how we can address it? I would also appreciate it if she could comment on the scope of the individuals that the Bill places under a duty to report. I am not convinced at the moment that many religious leaders—who often hold very significant power and influence, as I have outlined—will be included. This goes back to the IICSA report, which recommended that the duty to report should fall on anyone who works in regulated activities, but also on anyone in a position of trust over a child, as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On my reading, the Bill does the former but not the latter, as currently drafted, and addressing this by using both criteria could significantly strengthen the legislation.
I welcome this Bill, which contains very powerful provisions to progress measures outlined in the manifesto on which Labour Members stood to make our streets safer and tackle crime. I look forward to voting for it this evening.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I rise to support this Bill, which will provide the necessary tools to restore public confidence in law and order. As a former warranted police officer, council portfolio-holder for enforcement and chair of Medway community safety partnership, I have been working with and within my community to challenge many of the issues that this Bill will counter. I thank Kent police and Kent county council staff for all the work they do every weekend, every day and every hour to help and support our residents.
However, this Bill does not come without context. For over a decade, the previous Government chipped away at our criminal justice system. They cut police funding. We all remember the Police Federation’s “Cuts Have Consequences” campaign, and the previous Government slashed officer numbers before recruiting more officers to lower levels per capita. They slashed PCSO numbers and weakened council enforcement teams. Court delays skyrocketed. Probation was privatised, then nationalised and then privatised again. Legal aid was gutted. Prisons were left full. These reckless acts have fuelled antisocial behaviour and shattered public confidence in law enforcement.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my shock that Cumbria police did not hand out a single penalty notice for disorder in 2023? That is down from 1,000 issued in 2010. Does he also share my enthusiasm for this Bill’s measures to introduce respect orders?
Tristan Osborne
I could not concur more. Police funding and police officer numbers have resulted in fewer fines being issued for many types of crime. In fact, the Bill will give the police more powers to challenge nuisance biking and other offences. The Bill is an absolutely necessary first step.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
On Saturday, I visited quite a few retailers in Wokingham. There was no police presence at all in the town, despite crime occurring hourly in our shops. Someone is always shoplifting. Thames Valley police has only 198 police officers per 100,000 people, which is well below the national average of 245. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that is not enough?
Tristan Osborne
I agree that insufficient police numbers in recent years resulted in a shoplifters’ charter under the last Government, when people were allowed to shoplift up to a set amount.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for her Westminster Hall debate last week, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for his ten-minute rule Bill on nuisance biking. The number of reckless bikers and boy racers who tear through our streets and churn up our parks has significantly increased in previous years. Under the previous Government, the weak section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 effectively allowed these bikers to get away with a slap on the wrist.
I welcome the measures in this Bill that will allow these vehicles to be seized, which will send a message that those who are caught with these vehicles will lose that asset immediately. Kent police called for these powers when I went on an operation in November and witnessed the cat-and-mouse tactics of perpetrators and the resources needed to impose these extremely weak penalties.
Knife crime has surged since 2010 and disproportionately affects younger people. The Bill gives the police new stop-and-search powers in high-crime areas, allowing law enforcement to be much more proactive in intercepting potential threats. I welcome this measure, specifically in areas of high knife crime in the urban centres of Chatham and Aylesford.
The digital age has produced new avenues for crime. As many colleagues have mentioned, that includes child sexual exploitation, as well as exploitation and violence against women. The Bill will introduce more powers to challenge stalkers and strengthen protections against child sexual exploitation. I am a former teacher, and I had to look at safeguarding cases involving online activity on a weekly basis. Without these additional powers, it will be increasingly difficult to catch the malign influences that are harming our young people.
I believe that the Bill will also enhance police transparency and accountability. It improves police training, focusing on de-escalation techniques and mental health awareness. It equips officers with the skills necessary to handle a wide range of situations with sensitivity and professionalism. We know police officers do this every day, but we also know that the diversity of challenges they face requires new training.
As colleagues have said so eloquently, domestic violence is often a hidden crime that leaves victims feeling trapped and powerless to escape. The Bill strengthens the legal framework for protecting victims by introducing new provisions for protective orders, including the ability to ban a perpetrator from returning to a victim’s home even before their trial. It also mandates better support for victims, offering increased access to legal and social services.
This Bill is not just about laws; it is about lives, safer streets, protecting communities, and justice that truly serves the people. It represents a forward-thinking, balanced approach to law and order and public safety. It provides our police with the powers they need to combat crime, supports our justice system to deliver fair and effective sentences, promotes greater community engagement and, most importantly, ensures that victims of crime and our communities receive the care and protection they deserve.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
I am pleased to support the Bill, which will be welcomed in urban and rural communities across Buckingham and Bletchley. Given the time constraints, I will focus my remarks on part 3, on the protection of retail workers.
I have a particular interest in Britain’s 3.5 million retail workers, not least because my mum is one of them, having worked on the shop floor at Morrisons for over 20 years. During that time, she has seen it all—the good, the bad and the ugly. In my conversations with her, particularly over the last decade, two themes have become much more prevalent, and they have already been raised by Members on both sides of the House.
The first theme is the increasingly casual and habitual nature of shoplifting and other retail crime. Data from the British Retail Consortium suggests that this is already costing businesses across the country more than £2 billion a year. In the Thames Valley police area, retail crime rose by over a third between April 2023 and February 2024. This year alone, the Co-op store in Winslow has faced two violent raids aiming to remove its cash machine. This is not just petty crime; too often, it is organised. It is this kind of emboldened criminality that must be stopped. Such activity is not just a blot on a company’s balance sheet; it punishes good-faith customers and demoralises the workers, who take pride in the work that they do. That is why I welcome the repeal of section 176 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, to finally call time on Britain’s open invitation to criminals to steal goods worth £200 or less.
Secondly, I want to touch on the growing occurrence of abuse and the threat of violence faced by too many shop workers in their workplace. In a 2024 survey of USDAW members, more than two thirds of retail workers revealed they had been verbally abused, almost half had been threatened, and one in five had been physically assaulted while doing their job. That is clearly totally intolerable. Nobody in this country should go to work fearing for their own physical safety. I believe that we in this House, with our security guards and our armed police, have a particular duty to ensure that those who work in our shops feel just as safe as we do.
Callum Anderson
I will not, just because there is so little time and too many people want to speak.
That is why the Bill’s introduction of the new offence of assaulting a retail worker is so important. It is also why I welcome the new respect orders, which will give the courts the power to ban repeat offenders from retail premises. Ultimately, this is a Bill that delivers for retail workers and ensures they are given the respect and dignity they deserve. That is why I will be supporting it tonight.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
I begin by declaring an interest: I am proud to be married to a serving Cheshire police officer.
In the year ending September 2024, there were 1 million incidents of antisocial behaviour, 490,000 shop theft offences and more than 55,000 knife or sharp instrument offences. Those are not just numbers; they are real people, real businesses and real communities who were let down by the previous Government.
In my constituency, Cheshire police officers continue to go above and beyond. Day in, day out, they put themselves on the line to protect us, despite rising demand and the failure of the previous Government to support them. I thank them for their dedication, service and unwavering commitment to keeping my constituency, towns and villages safe.
Cheshire police has led the way in tackling some of the key issues that we are discussing today. In February, the force received praise following an inspection by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which commended it
“on its excellent performance in keeping people safe, reducing crime and giving victims an effective service.”
I am in no doubt that that success is down to the leadership of Chief Constable Mark Roberts and the hard work of Cheshire police officers, staff and volunteers.
I welcome the tough new actions against perpetrators of stalking. The Bill takes a range of new measures to strengthen enforcement and better protect victims, such as making it easier for courts to issue stalking protection orders, introducing a new offence of spiking, and improving information sharing with victims. I pay tribute to Cheshire police’s Detective Sergeant David Thomason for his many years of work in this area, including the creation of Cheshire’s anti-stalking unit, which sees police, mental health professionals, outreach workers and victim advocates working together to protect victims of stalking and give them enhanced support, as well as to tackle the behaviour of stalkers and the root causes of their offending. DS Thomason has long been a leading advocate in this area, and I am delighted to see the Government give stalking the attention it rightly deserves.
The theme of this year’s National Stalking Awareness Week is “Health response: spotting stalking”. Like other forms of violence against women and girls, stalking is a public health issue and requires a whole-system approach. Through training, guidance and improved referral pathways, the goal is to support the healthcare sector and ensure that no victims of stalking fall through the gaps. Will the Minister say what action is being taken to ensure collaborative working with healthcare colleagues and the delivery of a whole-system approach?
As a member of USDAW and a Labour and Co-operative MP, I also welcome the new offence of assaulting a retail worker, which will give workers in shops up and down the country the protection they need. This is an area I have long campaigned in. I have spoken to many retail workers in my constituency, including at the local Co-op store in Latchford, where I heard about the devastating impact that assault and abuse have had on their lives. For too long, retail staff have been working in fear of the next incident of abuse, threat or violence, and the Bill provides a great opportunity to make a real difference to the retail industry and to workers’ lives.
This Labour Government are delivering where the Conservatives failed. This is a Bill that takes crime seriously. It is a Bill to rebuild public confidence, make our streets safer and give our police the power, support and resources they need to protect our communities.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
The 317 pages of the Bill make satisfying reading for this former Crown prosecutor—satisfying because I know it is packed full of measures that will make the streets safer for my constituents. Amber Valley is a brilliant place to live, but sadly it is not without incidents of antisocial behaviour. That is an important issue to my constituents, which is why I will focus what little time I have this evening on part 1 of the Bill.
I have heard the concerns of residents in our towns and villages about cars and off-road bikes being driven in an antisocial manner. I have listened to the frustrations of police officers, who explain to me how they are hamstrung, unable to do anything but issue warnings. The Labour-controlled borough council has made good use of the public spaces protection orders available to it, including by issuing fines for car cruising across Amber Valley and dispersing troublemakers in Heanor marketplace. The Bill will mean that troublemakers can be dispersed for longer and that the police will finally have the power to immediately seize and crush their cars and bikes, giving residents confidence that the police will, at long last, have the tools they need to crack down on such antisocial behaviour.
Antisocial behaviour comes in many forms and is often a legacy of Tory austerity. Youth provision has been drastically cut back by Conservative-controlled Derbyshire county council. Youth services are a crucial pillar in Amber Valley, linking young people with the wider community and the neighbourhood police, as I saw recently at the Railway Carriage in Ironville. This environment helps to steer young people away from choosing crime. This Labour Government understand that we need to give our young people chances, which is why, alongside the Bill, we are working at pace towards our opportunity mission, providing more apprenticeships and skilled jobs for our young people.
We know that antisocial behaviour is often committed by a small number of repeat offenders, young and older alike. The Bill will make it possible for individuals who persistently commit antisocial behaviour to be made subject to a respect order without waiting for them to be convicted of a criminal offence, thus speeding up the response, not least because it will avoid the huge backlogs in the Crown courts that we inherited from the Tories.
We must not forget that people who repeatedly act in an antisocial manner often have underlying issues or trauma driving their behaviour. Whether with alcohol awareness classes for those who persistently drink and are aggressive in our parks, or drug treatment orders for those who steal to fund their habit, these tough new orders will tackle the root causes of such behaviour. The 13,000 additional police officers and respect orders are central to our safer streets mission, but the orders will work only if the resources are available to support offenders to deal with their issues and change their behaviour, and I urge the Government to ensure that such provision is in place.
Antisocial behaviour is often described as low-level crime, but it does not feel low level to the people who have to endure it. The people of Amber Valley can be confident that this Government have acted on their concerns and that the antisocial behaviour will be stopped. I wholeheartedly support the Bill.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I speak in full support of the Bill, which is a crucial piece of legislation that will help to deliver on the Government’s safer streets mission. I was incredibly proud to stand on a platform of securing the safety of my constituents. It is the first responsibility of any Government to keep their communities safe, whether nationally or internationally. Our communities deserve safety, security and respect.
Too often, antisocial behaviour, violent crime and lawlessness undermine the very fabric of our society. I have seen that recently in Wildwood and Highfields and Western Downs in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, where confidence in public services has been eroded by antisocial behaviour. The Bill takes decisive action to restore public confidence in policing and protect those most vulnerable to crime.
The Bill strengthens police powers to tackle persistent offenders, introducing respect orders to hold perpetrators accountable and removing the bureaucratic barriers that delay much-needed enforcement. Whether it is vandalism or the reckless use of vehicles, our response must be swift and effective.
Furthermore, we cannot discuss crime prevention without addressing our duty to young people. Too many of our youth are drawn into criminal activity, whether through exploitation, gang violence or knife crime. Blame is often put in the wrong place; we need to tackle the adults who exploit those young people. The Bill introduces tougher measures to combat child criminal exploitation, ensuring that those who manipulate and abuse young people face the full force of the law.
At the same time, we must invest in preventive measures —education, youth services and intervention programmes that divert young people away from crime and towards opportunity. In my professional career, I worked with children and young people, and I know how amazing they are when they are given a chance. The Government will make sure that no children are left behind.
Another key pillar of the Bill is community policing. Our police officers do an extraordinary job under immense pressure, yet public confidence has eroded. The Bill equips our police with the tools they need—greater powers to tackle serious crime, retail theft and violent offenders—while ensuring robust accountability. By supporting our frontline officers, we send a clear message that law and order remain at the heart of our national priorities.
I was particularly pleased to see the named police officer guarantee, as my constituents in rural villages and settlements often tell me that they struggle to feel connected to the police, with long waits for their calls and a lack of oversight or regular patrols in their area. That is why I recently asked the Home Office in oral questions whether rural communities such as Tyrley in my constituency would receive the named police officer guarantee; I was delighted that the Policing Minister confirmed that they would. The Government are committed to delivering the safety for rural communities that we so desperately need.
The Bill protects victims, punishes criminals and strengthens the foundations of a safer society. It ensures that our high streets, our towns and villages, and our homes are protected from those who seek to harm or exploit. I urge hon. Members to support it in delivering justice, security and respect for all.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I speak in support of the Bill, not just because it is the biggest package of measures on crime and policing for decades, with 50 new laws to cut crime and make our streets safer, but because those new measures will tackle antisocial behaviour, shop theft and street crime head on by giving the police and our communities new powers to take back town and city centres, such as Newport, from thugs and thieves. Those are great reasons to welcome the Bill, but I also welcome it because it contains some of my own work.
Last year, I introduced my first private Member’s Bill to the House: the Community and Suspended Sentences (Notification of Details) Bill, which sought to amend the 2020 sentencing code to create a duty on offenders to notify the responsible officer of any change of name or contact details if they are sentenced to a community order, a suspended sentence order, a youth rehabilitation order or a referral order. Too often, at the moment, such offenders are able to change their names and slip under the radar to avoid scrutiny, and potentially go on to reoffend. Chapter 4 of part 5 of the Bill means that my private Member’s Bill has been noted and incorporated into the legislation. I am pleased that the Government are committed to utilising good ideas from all areas, including the Back Benches.
I do not wish to praise only the elements of the Bill that I contributed to, because it will seek to address some other serious issues. I particularly welcome the introduction of respect orders to stamp out issues such as public drinking and drug use. That will be particularly welcome in Cross Keys in my constituency, where residents’ lives are blighted by such antisocial behaviour outside their homes and along the canal—a natural beauty spot that is also suffering from individuals drinking and taking drugs during the day in full view of passersby.
Another issue that affects my constituents is off-road biking, which is dangerous and causes a great deal of damage to our beautiful countryside. I welcome the police’s new powers as a result of the Bill to seize vehicles and to stop off-road biking and the dangerous use of e-scooters on pavements. Removing the need for police to issue a warning before seizing off road bikes and e-scooters is particularly welcome, and great news for the people of Argoed and those living near Mynydd Maen in my constituency.
I must also mention the need to protect shop workers, because shop staff are a particularly targeted and vulnerable group. In introducing the new offence of assaulting a retail worker, the Government are showing that they are serious about tackling issues in communities to take back our shops and streets by confronting violence and antisocial behaviour head on.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on safeguarding in faith communities, I am also pleased to see a new duty in England for adults working in relevant activities to report instances of child sexual abuse, as already mentioned. The Government are working hard to implement the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, after years of inaction by the previous Government.
Finally, I am also pleased to see the new offence for spiking, which is predominantly an offence committed by men against women. Violence against women and girls is endemic in our society, and we need to take it seriously and tackle it directly. I am sad to say that that has not always been the case. There have been some solid campaigns, such as StopTopps, but placing the emphasis on the potential victim cannot solve the issue. The Bill makes a difference, and I thank the Front-Bench team for their diligence in bringing it forward. I could go on, but I am mindful of time and the need to get other speakers in, so I close by welcoming the Bill and urging all those involved to get it through the necessary stages and on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
On Friday, I attended an event organised by Age UK Mid Mersey at the Mansion House in Windle in my constituency, taking questions from service users and volunteers. It was no surprise to me that crime and policing, and specifically the threat of antisocial behaviour, was raised by those present. Older people told me that they were scared to leave their home, especially after dark. For their sake, and for all those in our communities, we need to take our streets back. The Bill is a step towards doing that.
Many of the Bill’s welcome measures are aimed at tackling what, for too long and by too many, has been thought of as low-level crime. Antisocial behaviour, whether public drinking, drug use, vandalism or off-road bikes tearing up sports pitches and parks, is completely unacceptable. It blights our communities and can ruin lives. People in St Helens North have great pride in where they live, but that has been tested too often by a mindless minority.
In recent weeks in Blackbrook, I have heard reports of some young people targeting buses and shops with objects, even causing some buses to be diverted. They are a minority, and I know most young people will be just as appalled by that sort of behaviour as most people of any age, but it is totally unacceptable. The introduction of respect orders will help to address some of that by targeting repeat offenders and ensuring that they face real consequences. Most of all, restoring neighbourhood policing will send a message that we will not stand for it.
Another crime that for too long has been seen as low level and has been effectively decriminalised is shoplifting. My mum was a shop worker, working in what was then the Co-op on West End Road in Blackbrook. She regularly encountered shoplifting—and, I am sad to say, much worse. She was assaulted at work, as were many other women she worked with. When it comes to violence against shop workers, we need the police and businesses to take every possible step to protect workers and customers, and to punish those responsible. I strongly welcome the proposals in the Bill.
People in St Helens North deserve and demand to feel safe. The Bill contains many steps in the right direction to ensure that crime does not dictate the way that we live our lives, and that those responsible face the consequences of their irresponsible actions. Our police must have the resources and the powers to tackle antisocial behaviour and violent crime—both prevention and punishment. It is about protecting our communities and ensuring that they are places to live, work and raise a family in peace. That is all most of us want, and we need to deliver it.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I rise to support the Bill, much of which is fulfilling Labour’s mission to make our streets safer by dealing with what sometimes is called low-level criminality but, in reality, are crimes that make people feel unsafe in their own community. Whether shoplifting, public drug and alcohol abuse, online harms or antisocial behaviour, law breaking must always be dealt with and never ignored.
I warmly acknowledge, in particular, the proposed changes to the law on retail crime. Sadly, law breaking is commonplace in retail. Many years ago, when I was a student working at a clothing shop in the centre of Glasgow, my colleagues and I had to deal with threats, intimidation and even the prospect of being stabbed with needles. I have seen at first hand how that kind of intimidation can affect people in their working environment. I went to the Co-op in Morpeth in my constituency recently, where I heard from USDAW colleagues and Co-op staff that the situation facing retail workers has only become worse, with workers at times facing industrial levels of shoplifting and threats of physical harm. That is why I welcome the removal of the Tories’ de facto £200 floor on shoplifting prosecution, as well as the new offence of assaulting a retail worker. As hon. Members have said, no one should have to fear for their safety in order to make a living.
However, I would welcome assurances from the Minister about some of the processes outlined for the new respect orders. The Bill defines antisocial behaviour as
“conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person”.
I ran a homelessness charity, and I can envisage a possible scenario in which a tenant with the potential to be troublesome is issued with a respect order that would bar them from entering the tower block in which they live. Let us imagine that they do not have alternative accommodation, so they enter the flat anyway. Upon doing so, they could be arrested, charged, put on trial and issued with a prison term. This hypothetical tenant may not be a saint, but it would be a surreal outcome in which a criminal is made out of someone who is simply trying to go home. I would appreciate some alleviation of my concerns on this matter.
Sticking with antisocial behaviour, I also know from my time working in homelessness that, alongside law and order, we need other tools to help those with multiple and complex needs. A Northumbria University research report that I commissioned in 2022 demonstrated that 94% of those facing homelessness have experienced serious trauma during their lives. That trauma underlies the often chaotic and unpleasant behaviours that we see in our towns and cities. Some of those who are causing misery to others are themselves deeply traumatised by the abuse, violence and neglect that they have experienced or continue to experience.
We should remember that being homeless itself is a trauma. We can most successfully address that behaviour by taking a trauma-informed approach and by offering appropriate support services. It is not about being soft—crime is crime—but if we genuinely want to stop the cycle of offending, we need multiple options at our disposal, including supportive options. When we witness antisocial behaviour, we should of course firmly say, “You must not do that or there will be consequences.” But we should also ask, “What happened to you that led you to this point in your life?”
Even as we pursue a much-needed focus on antisocial behaviour and crime, I would welcome clarification that traumatised people who are often stuck in a loop of failed systems will receive the support that they need. The Bill will do a lot of good, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to put my concerns to rest.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
The measures in this Bill are very much needed by my constituents. One of the first pieces of casework I dealt with as an MP was of young children riding recklessly around on small motorbikes with no helmets. My constituent Helen was at her wits’ end with the dreadful noise and the fear that one of the children or a passing pedestrian might get hurt. I recently asked for an update, and her husband Malcolm told me that although there has been some relief recently, they are concerned that the lighter nights will bring more problems. What frustrates them is the wait for a police response.
Recently in Morecambe we had a gang of lads causing havoc on the Branksome estate. Following reports of them threatening people and causing damage, the police gave chase and seized one of the bikes. Earlier that day, a town centre playground was taken over by people on bikes, with reports that they were being “purposefully menacing” and that their bikes had damaged the grassy area near the playground. It was simply luck that no one was hurt.
In Morecambe, local organisations are coming together to tackle the menace of antisocial behaviour. The Safe Morecambe initiative—which brings together Morecambe police, the Morecambe business improvement district, the city council, the town council and other key stakeholders—was formed last November. Its members collaborate to ensure a safe and welcoming environment for residents, businesses and visitors. I met one of them, Tim Barbary, to discuss the coalition, and I will continue to support them, including by supporting the continuation of Operation Centurion, for which I am glad to say that funding has continued.
Our high street in Morecambe has also been badly affected by theft. The Conservatives wrote off a lot of this as low-level, but it is not. Certain parts of Morecambe and some rural areas have suffered terribly with fly-tipping. I am glad to see all these issues covered in the Bill, and that the Labour Government are focused on the issues that matter to my constituents. The Bill will make it easier to seize bikes and scooters that are being used antisocially. It will enable stronger action on all types of antisocial behaviour. It will provide for statutory guidance on fly-tipping and an extra 13,000 police officers on the ground.
Finally, I would like to flag the decimation of youth services under the last Conservative Government, which has meant that so many young people, especially those struggling without strong family role models, have been left not only to be sucked into the grip of antisocial behaviour but in many cases to be groomed into far more serious criminality. I have already expressed interest in my constituency becoming a pilot area for the national youth strategy programme, as I believe that good youth services not only ensure that young people are able to reach their potential, but have a wider knock-on effect on our constituencies.
All in all, I am very pleased that this Labour Government are taking the concerns of my constituents in Morecambe and Lunesdale seriously, taking strong action to tackle the blight of the misuse of bikes and scooters, taking theft on our high streets seriously again, getting tough on fly-tippers and clamping down on the wider antisocial behaviour that we see in our constituencies.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in support of the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill, the most comprehensive package of such measures that we have seen for decades. As a member of the Justice Committee, I know that it will play a crucial part in tackling the serious violence and high-harm offences that have plagued our communities for far too long.
I will focus my contribution on knife crime. In my own constituency we have seen at first hand the impact of knife crime on our streets and the fear that local people feel as a result. However, we are also witnessing some remarkable local initiatives that are making a real difference in our fight against it. Last year, the Knife Angel, a 27-foot-tall sculpture made from over 100,000 seized knives, visited Colchester. It was a powerful symbol of our city’s commitment to tackling knife crime. Standing underneath our iconic Jumbo water tower, the Knife Angel serves as a poignant reminder of the lives lost and the urgent need for action. It brought our community together, fostering the shared determination to address this issue head on. I pay tribute to the Daily Gazette in Colchester for its campaign that ran alongside that striking exhibit.
I also pay tribute to the work of Essex police in tackling knife crime. Its violence and vulnerability unit brings together partners from across the county. It uses data evaluation, targeted interventions and communication campaigns to support young people to stay safe and to keep them away from the exploitation and vulnerabilities that can draw them into crime, as we have heard so many Members talk about today.
Finally, let me highlight the incredible work of a man named Peter Dutch and the ALB—the anti loo roll brigade—in Colchester. On another occasion I will happily explain the story behind that name. It has been pivotal in recent months in diverting young people away from trouble and is building local alliances to provide counselling, youth projects and other positive alternatives to crime. These local initiatives in Colchester exemplify the kind of community-driven efforts that are essential for tackling knife crime. The Bill will provide the necessary national tools that we also need to amplify those efforts and make our streets safer. I urge Members across the House—there are not so many on the Opposition Benches right now—to join me in supporting the Bill.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Ensuring the safety and security of our communities is one of the most fundamental duties of government. When that duty is neglected, the consequences are real, widespread and deeply felt by everyone—especially the most vulnerable in our society. In recent years, that neglect has reached the point where local authorities such as Doncaster city council have had to step in to take up the slack. I recognise the work it has done, which has included funding additional police and expanding CCTV networks to support the police in their work.
From walkarounds with the police, councillors and businesses in areas such as Thorne, I know the impact that rampant crime is having on our high streets and town centres. Shop owners and workers feel under constant fear of attack. That is wrong. That is not good enough for the people of Thorne, not good enough for the people of Doncaster East and definitely not good enough for the people of the Isle of Axholme. I am proud to be part of a Government who will clean up our streets and rid them from the thieves and the thugs.
I am glad to see that, with the Bill, the Government are taking antisocial behaviour seriously. It is too easy to write off ASB as nuisance or annoyance, but it is very much more than that. Continual antisocial behaviour can go on for months or even years, making people’s lives miserable. It was described to me at a recent surgery as a “living torture”. The introduction of respect orders is a welcome addition to the tools available to authorities to tackle persistent antisocial behaviour and take strong preventive action. I particularly welcome the provisions in the Bill that will allow for the instant seizure of motorbikes without the need for previous warnings.
Like many of my hon. Friends, I represent a rural area. I know from speaking to farmers in the Isle of Axholme how unsafe they can feel when they know that help is a long way off. I have heard from farmers in Hatfield about the attacks on animals that they have suffered from recently. The new powers in the Bill to track stolen farm equipment will help both to deter criminals and to stop them in their tracks before they can profit from their crimes. I ask the Government to keep in mind as the Bill progresses through Parliament how those ambitions will be successful in a rural context.
Finally, I turn to fly-tipping. Every part of my constituency suffers from fly-tipping, which is often done by organised professional groups making money by passing themselves off as legitimate waste removal companies. They will stop fly-tipping only when it stops being profitable for them. A boost to the use of powers to seize vehicles linked to fly-tipping and to issue fixed penalty notices for fly-tippers is a good step in the right direction and certainly very welcome. At home, at work and at leisure, my constituents in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme should feel safe and be safe 24/7. For that reason, I hope that every hon. Member in the House will join me in voting for the Bill tonight.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all the amazing speeches we have heard from Labour Members. It can be seen from how many of us are still here, hours into the debate—in contrast to the Opposition—how seriously the Government and the Labour party take law and order. I absolutely agree with all those speeches, but because of time I will focus on violence against women and girls.
Women in Milton Keynes are scared of going out, scared of going to the police and scared of going home, which is still the most dangerous place for a woman. Violence against women and girls slowly became consequence-free under the previous Government. Under the Conservatives, only 2% to 4% of reported rapes ever made it to trial. Convictions for domestic abuse halved under the Conservatives, and femicides, of which there have been 95, including two in my own constituency over Christmas, have continued to happen and not been taken seriously enough.
I am really proud of the Bill’s and the Government’s commitment to protect women and girls and halve violence against women and girls. I pay tribute to the Milton Keynes portion of Thames Valley police, who have been central to ensuring that Milton Keynes becomes the first white ribbon city, despite the Conservative police and crime commissioner,
I want to talk about stalking and how important our measures are on that. If I had had time, I would have shared my own story of how I was stalked. My stalking happened in person, but more and more of it is happening online. I am interested in hearing from the Minister about how the Bill will help to tackle that.
Spiking unfortunately continues to rise. Just two weeks ago, a young woman in my constituency approached me after being spiked at a Slug and Lettuce on her 20th birthday —she ended up in hospital. We have talked a lot about measures to protect women from being spiked, but what are we doing to tackle the availability of the drugs used in spiking?
Finally, I want to talk about being online. Hon. Members on the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee will have heard the weak and disappointing answers from representatives of the major social media firms which are using the umbrella of “freedom of speech” to allow threats to women in online spaces to continue. They are also using that to spread pretty radical pornography. I want to understand how the Bill will fit with the cross-Government plans to tackle violence against women and girls.
In my last few seconds, I will highlight two laws that are still on the statute book that I would like the Bill to repeal: the Abortion Act 1861, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi); and the Vagrancy Act 1824. Both of them target the most vulnerable in our society and should be repealed.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Crime and antisocial behaviour affect the whole community in which they take place. They erode social cohesion, trust and pride in a place, driving people away from our town centres and making them feel insecure in their own streets and workplaces and even in their own homes. I am therefore pleased to speak in support of the Crime and Policing Bill, which is the largest package of measures on crime and policing for decades.
Crime and antisocial behaviour increased under the previous Government, despite what the shadow Home Secretary said. The reality is known by my constituents. In the year ending September 2024, the Home Office recorded the highest ever increase in shoplifting offences. USDAW found that one in five shop workers had been physically assaulted in a year. Instances of theft from a person increased by 22%. In my community of Uxbridge and South Ruislip, I have heard from many constituents who are worried about rising levels of crime—knife crime, shoplifting, burglary, phone theft and car theft, to name but a few. On Sunday alone, 21 constituents wrote to me to share their concerns about burglary in South Ruislip. The news is deeply distressing to my constituents, many of whom feel unsafe in their own homes and believe that the police do not have the resources needed to protect them. That simply cannot go on.
Increases in antisocial behaviour are a symptom of a society in distress. Far too often it was dismissed by the last Government as low-level crime—they were unwilling and unable to act. I welcome the measures in the Bill to introduce respect orders on the worst offenders, banning persistent offenders from our town centres. That is welcome news for many of my constituents who have contacted me about such activities in Uxbridge town centre and Yiewsley high street.
Critically, the Bill will also keep my constituents safe and protect them from armed burglary. It will create a new power for the police to seize, retain and destroy bladed articles and create a new criminal offence of possessing a bladed article with the intent to cause harm. It will also ban the possession and distribution of electronic devices, which are far too often used in vehicle theft, and create a new targeted power for the police to enter premises and search and seize electronically tracked stolen goods, from mobile phones to stolen vehicles, ending the terrible situation that my constituents have reported where they can track their stolen phone or electronic item but the police are unable to go in and get it. I hope, too, that we will look at international vehicle crime and tougher measures at our ports, to stop the rapid removal from the country of stolen vehicles.
As well as tough laws, the police must also have the resources they need to apply them and a return to proactive neighbourhood policing. Although the uplift in police funding, including to London police forces, in the last year, is incredibly welcome, significant pressures on London policing remain, so I hope we can continue in this Parliament to increase the resources of the Metropolitan police. Unfortunately, my predecessor, while Mayor of London, closed a number of police stations and police counters. I welcome the present Mayor of London’s commitment to keep Uxbridge police station open, and I hope we can work together to reopen the front counter and the custody suite.
I strongly support this Bill and the new measures and increased police powers, along with the uplift in funding already agreed by this new Government. These measures will help to restore trust in the police and improve the safety of my constituents, and I wholeheartedly support them.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
This Bill presents an opportunity to confront the challenges facing our communities, protect the most vulnerable and ensure that justice serves everyone. I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling violence against women and girls, to tackling antisocial behaviour and to halving knife crime. This is a positive step forward, strengthening protections for the public and addressing some of the damaging policies of the previous Government. I must therefore turn my attention to the impact of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
In its rush to extend police powers, this legislation has had a devastating effect on Gypsy and Traveller communities. The Act introduced a new criminal offence related to trespass, and granted sweeping powers to ban those communities from areas for up to 12 months, as well as powers to fine, arrest, imprison and seize the homes of Gypsies and Travellers. Under these provisions, sanctions can be enforced based on damage, disruption or distress, often rooted in subjective perceptions of harm. This means that entire communities could face eviction or banishment from areas, with little regard for the cultural context or the lack of alternative places to settle.
These measures are a grave injustice and an affront to the rights and dignity of those who follow centuries-old ways of life. It is concerning that, in the supposed pursuit of law and order, the previous Government overlooked fundamental human rights protections. I must stress that the impact of these measures is not theoretical; it is real and it is being lived. It is affecting families, children and entire communities. Human rights bodies have raised their concerns. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in its formal recommendation, has called for the repeal of the provisions in question and, importantly, the High Court, in its ruling in 2024, found that certain provisions in the Act were incompatible with the European convention on human rights. This Parliament has a duty to address these human rights violations and to correct the injustices done.
The Crime and Policing Bill offers us the opportunity to right the wrongs of the past, to restore fairness and to ensure that we have laws that respect the rights of all people, regardless of their heritage or way of life. This Bill could be the means by which we address the discrimination faced by Gypsies and Travellers. We need bold action to ensure that their traditions are protected. All people and all communities have the right to fair treatment. If we really want to stand for justice and human dignity, that must apply to all, so as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, I urge the Government to undo the harm of the previous legislation. Let us stand for equality under the law and protection for all who live in the United Kingdom.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member and former employee of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I welcome the Bill brought forward by the Government. I want to discuss three broad areas: antisocial behaviour; retail crime; and measures to end commercial sexual exploitation.
Antisocial behaviour has been an increasing concern for my constituents in Edinburgh North and Leith. Over the past few months, they have relayed to me their concerns over a group of young people who have been dubbed the “baby gang”. Their name might not seem threatening, but their actions are. The actions of the “baby gang” have alarmed my constituents and made them afraid. The tragedy is that many of the gang members are only in their mid-teens. During the general election campaign, constituents told me repeatedly how they were fed up with off-road bikes being used in parks and on pavements. That is why I am so pleased to see that the Bill will include provisions to tackle not only antisocial behaviour but the use of off-road motorbikes used in this manner. These issues are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so I hope that the Scottish Government —although they are not represented here tonight—will look closely at these measures.
On retail crime, I congratulate the Government on the measures in the Bill to tackle the unacceptable attacks and assaults on shop workers. The provisions in part 3 of the Bill replicate legislation that has already been brought forward by a Member of the Scottish Parliament, my colleague Daniel Johnson MSP, when he secured the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021. We are beginning to see the positive impact of the legislation and the effects it has had in shops and supermarkets across Scotland, which is evidenced in the data. In USDAW’s latest Freedom from Fear research, 77% of shop workers across the UK reported abuse, 53% reported being threatened and 10% reported being assaulted. The data from Scotland is lower, demonstrating that within only a few years the introduction of a specific crime is helping to create a safer working environment for shop workers. I am proud that this Bill will extend this protection, because protection at work should not be limited by postcodes.
The Bill has no specific measures to reduce prostitution or sex trafficking. In 2023, the Home Affairs Committee found that legislation was needed in this area, as a report from the inquiry on human trafficking found that the collaboration between the National Crime Agency and the Home Office on pimping websites had produced no evidence of improvement. I believe that the Bill should go further in tackling this exploitation. It could afford the Government the opportunity to take the actions required to reduce demand and to tackle pimping websites. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister whether the Government would look favourably on amendments that seek to make profiting from the prostitution of another person a criminal offence. This Bill will go a long way in reducing crime, and I hope that when we next consider it in this place, it will contain measures that reduce the commercial exploitation of women.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Antisocial behaviour ruins lives. On Friday, I held an event at the Field Lane estate in Calder Valley, the first in a series of events across my constituency to listen to members of the community about antisocial behaviour, and their stories were heartbreaking. Families are being terrorised by problem residents, children are scared to go to school and residents fear for their property and personal safety. All the while, people have no trust that making reports to the police will bring an end to the fear their families are facing. Sadly, this lack of trust became all too common a feature in communities under the last Government. They know that, no matter how many reports they make or how much evidence they have, the police will either not turn up or turn up late and then not take people seriously, after the last Government hollowed out our policing services.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital for Members from the previous Government to be here to listen to the testimonies of our constituents about how the last Government failed them on so many facets of tackling crime?
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I absolutely agree that the last Government failed people on tackling crime, particularly due to its hollowing out of the police. Indeed, in West Yorkshire alone, within just six years of the Conservatives taking office, over 1,200 police officers had been let go, and 1,000 of those were in frontline roles, leaving their numbers even more depleted than the Opposition Benches. When the numbers rose back again, it was just not the same because the previous Government failed to recognise that police are more than just a number on a spreadsheet. They got rid of 1,200 officers who knew their communities, who added local intelligence and understanding of the local nuances, and who had experience supporting those neighbourhoods. We lost the heart of neighbourhood-based policing—the best tool to combat antisocial behaviour—and one of the best reassurances that evidence can have. The lack of local knowledge is why we have seen over 3,000 reports of antisocial behaviour in Calder Valley in three years, ruining lives. The lack of trust in police is why I know that so many more incidents simply go unreported.
After 14 years of the last Conservative Government allowing antisocial behaviour and other crime to grow unchecked, I am proud that this Labour Government are restoring respect for law and order, standing with and bringing communities and police closer together, with named officers in every community, backed by £2 million of funding to kickstart recruitment for the new neighbourhood police officers. The Government will end the impunity that criminals feel they can operate under by giving officers stronger powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, violent crime and persistent offenders who make people’s lives a misery. Against a backdrop of the lack of trust in our police service that was allowed to fester over 14 years, this Bill is an important step in the process of rebuilding trust and confidence and why, on behalf of my constituents from Calder Valley, who have suffered because of antisocial behaviour, I am backing the Bill to take action today.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
In Ashton, Orrell, Platt Bridge, Hindley and Hindley Green, one issue dominates life for so many: antisocial behaviour. For months, I have been promising my constituents the measures in the Bill, and I thank the Home Office team for the hard work required to bring it to the House so quickly. To my mind, the Bill is one of the strongest examples of this Labour Government delivering for working people on the issues they care about.
The Bill takes tough action against serious crime—drugs, knife crime and terrorism—but I want to talk about a different, more everyday type of crime. These are the crimes that make life demoralising and sometimes frightening for many people, and that shape how people feel about their town centre, community and security. It is the fly-tipping in Bickershaw that makes parents stop their kids playing outside. It is teenagers throwing mud at cars in Hindley, and groups intimidating people by the shops in Winstanley.
Some of the toughest calls I have received in this job have been people ringing to tell me that thugs have destroyed a local sports club: Ashton Town—an arson attack—Hindley FC, and Wigan Cosmos, as well as St Jude’s pitches being destroyed in minutes by vandals on dirt bikes. Those clubs are great community assets where kids that I represent learn to become Wigan Warriors, or the elderly play walking football—places where people feel pride in their communities. I have supported fundraisers to help those clubs, working with local councillors and Warriors players to help St Jude’s build a fence to keep the bikes out, but local residents should not have to reach into their already stretched pockets. Our streets should not feel so unsafe that people resort to self-protection. We are one of the world’s largest economies and greatest democracies. That is why I welcome the measures in the Bill, such as new powers to seize bikes that wake people up at night, as they did to me this Saturday. Every time one of those bikes tears past me in the town centre, I hold on to my kids that bit tighter.
The Bill matters because it is about standing up for the good, hard-working people who love their towns and want to feel pride in them again. It is about what it means to feel respect for those who we stand by and live near, and it shows that the Labour Government will not tolerate those who make others’ lives a misery.
The respect orders, for example, are wisely named, because vandalism, thuggery and mindless destruction are about a lack of respect for our public spaces and for each other. The Bill empowers groups in society—police, councils, housing associations—with restoring that respect, asking them to say, “Enough is enough” and to take control of their communities.
I want to make a wider point about respect in our society. Often when I am travelling on the bus or train, someone is playing videos loudly on their phone without headphones. That is not illegal, but it is off-putting, because it forces whatever that person is doing on to everyone else, as if they somehow own our shared public space. It demonstrates a lack of respect for our public realm and for those around us.
In the end, the strength of our communities and our country depends on the respect, and even the love, we have for one other. That is what resilience is in a community. Over the last 14 years, the Conservative Government have allowed that respect to erode. Too many no longer trust that the law will be upheld and applied equally and fairly to everyone, and that erodes people’s trust in one another. That is why antisocial behaviour is significant: it is about treating one another with a lack of respect, as if we do not care about the things we have in common. Only by rebuilding and reinvesting in our public realm, and restoring the strength and integrity of institutions such as the police, will we rebuild that respect and trust.
The Bill takes a vital step. It shows that we stand with law-abiding, hard-working people. It sends a strong message to those who fail to recognise their responsibility. Respect must return to our streets, and this Bill will start to make that happen.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the whole ministerial team for bringing forward the Bill and making significant progress on our mission to make our streets safer.
I want to cover three areas in which we promised change and we are delivering. The first is antisocial behaviour. We have heard much about it from across the House today, but it continues to blight my town centre. I hear time and again from constituents in Bournemouth West about how unsafe they feel, and antisocial behaviour is reportedly turning potential retailers away from the town centre. It is not just a question of low-level inconvenience; it is a matter of people’s everyday quality of life and the economic health of our towns. The rise in street crime and shoplifting, and the persistent nuisance, has made many people feel that they cannot enjoy the place they live in the way they used to.
I have spoken to retail workers and bosses from the Co-op and other retailers, who have had to deal over and over again with the same people coming into their stores, sweeping stock from the shelves and putting their staff at risk. The Conservatives should be ashamed of that record. After 14 years, our communities have been left vulnerable, and an epidemic of crime and antisocial behaviour has been ignored for far too long. We are taking action where the last Government failed to by removing the £200 shoplifting threshold, introducing 13,000 neighbourhood police officers and increasing police funding—including 6.5% more for Dorset police—and introducing respect orders, which will give police and local authorities new powers to tackle the worst offenders and prevent them from entering our towns and district centres.
Like many others, I also welcome the steps in the Bill to immediately seize those awful off-road bikes and dangerous scooters that cause such a nuisance, in particular up Kinson Road and Leybourne Avenue in my constituency. Students at Bishop Aldhelm’s primary school told me this morning that those nuisance bikes are destroying our woodlands and protected heathland.
Secondly, the Bill addresses serious crime and violence, such as knife crime. We see knife crime far too often in Bournemouth. Less than two weeks ago, there was a brutal double stabbing, and it was one in a long line of horrific attacks, including three fatalities in the past two years. I welcome the work this Government are doing to prevent such attacks with the creation of new offences, but despite the collaborative work of the police, the council and local charities, I also want to see a violence reduction unit in my local area.
The Bill is not just about punishing offenders; it also provides much-needed support for those who want to turn their lives around. Some amazing work is happening in my constituency, particularly through Changes Are Made, which provides positive outlets for young people. I encourage the Home Secretary to look for opportunities to support activities like those and to collaborate with effective charities through the Young Futures programme.
Finally, it is about time that we strengthened laws to protect women and girls. Just last week, I held an event to better understand women’s perception of their own safety in the town centre and to highlight the ways in which policing, the council, businesses and design can contribute to it. I welcome the creation of new spiking and stalking offences. It is shameful that previous Governments failed to make those changes.
I am proud of the Bill and the direction that the Labour Government are taking. We are not just talking about crime, but taking decisive action to reduce it. Although it may be unrealistic to expect Conservative Members to take responsibility and apologise for their failures—they would have to be in the Chamber to do that—perhaps they could join my constituents, who want to see cross-party support for these long-overdue changes, in welcoming the Bill.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I begin my remarks by reflecting on the non-attendance throughout the debate of Reform MPs. It appears that they spend more time these days litigating against each other than they do legislating in this place.
When I knock on doors in Crewe and Nantwich or sit in my constituency surgery, I too often meet people who live in perpetual fear in their own community. The thing that those people have in common is that they want to see neighbourhood policing restored, and I am proud that this Government are committed to doing that. Anybody with a set of eyes could see that neighbourhood policing was decimated under the previous Government, despite what the shadow Home Secretary said earlier.
Connor Naismith
I will not, because I am conscious that others wish to get in.
My constituents also tell me that they want to feel as if the police are equipped with the powers that they need to grip the problems that leave people fearful on the streets or, worse, in their homes. Rising antisocial behaviour has been a scourge on our streets, affecting my constituents’ businesses, their livelihoods and even their health.
A young woman contacted me recently about the young males who make her and her children’s lives a misery by bomb-knocking and kicking her door in the evenings, and shouting “bitch” as they pass her home. My constituent Steve told me at my constituency surgery over the weekend that his family’s life is being made a living hell by a small number of social housing tenants, and the housing provider has so far failed to take any action to address that. That is why I fully support the introduction of respect orders, which will allow a number of agencies, including housing providers, to place restrictions on that kind of behaviour.
I declare an interest: I started my working life as a shop worker, first in Woolworths—yes, I am old enough—and then in betting shops, a part of the retail sector that has, unfortunately, never been a stranger to violence and intimidation for workers. However, as I found out when I met James, the manager of my local Co-operative store in Crewe, brazen crime and the intimidation of shop workers have become commonplace, even in our local convenience stores.
I believe that the Bill will make a lasting difference to the lives of my constituents. Business owners, workers and decent law-abiding people just want to live in a community where they feel safe. These powers are ambitious, and we must ensure that they deliver real, lasting change for the people who need it most.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I am proud to speak in firm support of the Bill. Many of my constituents feel that crime, especially day-to-day antisocial behaviour, has grown exponentially over recent years. It impacts every part of my constituency, from the town centres in Ilkeston and Long Eaton, to villages such as Draycott and suburban estates such as Cotmanhay. The Bill is about making people feel safe, so that Erewash residents from Sawley to Shipley View can live their lives free from the fear of crime.
As our local police forces were gutted by austerity under the previous Government, so-called low-level offences such as antisocial behaviour, shoplifting and even burglary were increasingly ignored and functionally decriminalised by the Conservative party. Shoplifting was functionally decriminalised under the negligence of the previous Government, who set guidelines stating that it should not be dealt with if goods worth less than £200 were stolen. Although major supermarkets and surviving high street chains might be able to stomach that volume, our small businesses cannot. How were those businesses meant to grow, how were investments meant to be made, how were town centres meant to thrive and how were people meant to feel safe when criminals and thieves were given impunity by the previous Government’s shoplifters’ charter? The Bill repeals that thieves’ charter, which will surely come as a relief to business owners and the hard-working, law-abiding majority of constituents in Erewash and across the country.
Knife crime has more than doubled in Derbyshire in the past decade. The recent horrific stabbing and subsequent death of a teenager in my constituency has rightly given rise to a lot of anger in my community—some of which ended up being directed at me, as people asked bluntly, “What are you going to do about this?” That is why I will be very proud to vote for the Bill, which creates a new offence of possession of a bladed item with intent to cause harm. It will give our police the new and stronger powers that they need to seize, keep and destroy knives confiscated from private properties.
Finally, on violence against women and girls, 13,000 stalking and harassment offences were recorded in Derbyshire in 2024—the highest figure in the east midlands —along with more than 3,400 sexual offences. In that time, one of my great friends and constituents reported to police that she had been followed and had sexual abuse shouted at her. That abuse happened in broad daylight and in public, on West Park in Long Eaton. The Government’s mission is to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. If we are to do that, our police will need the measures in the Bill.
If we have now entered the decade of national renewal that the Government promised, yes we need to get the economy growing again, yes we need to get Britain building again, and yes we need to get the NHS back on its feet, but we must also ensure that crime is punished and that the police are given the powers that they need to properly enforce against offenders. We must take back our streets and excise the rot. If we restore social order and respect for our communities, we can fix broken Britain.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the clauses in this landmark Bill that will give greater protection to victims of stalking—including guidance for police about disclosing the identity of online stalkers to victims—and clarify what constitutes stalking so that the police have no excuse not to pursue incidents.
Some 91% of victims surveyed by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust had suffered from mental health problems as a result of being stalked. Being stalked is also an indicator of being at high risk of domestic homicide. It is vital that victims feel safe to report what they are suffering, which is why I welcome the opening of the purpose-built Acer House centre for victims of rape and sexual assault in York and North Yorkshire. It has been designed in consultation with victims to provide a safe and supportive environment in which evidence can be collected, and people can receive immediate health care and a medical examination if needed.
According to Women’s Aid, stalking by ex-partners accounts for the largest group of stalking victims, with the vast majority of victims being women. As with domestic abuse in general, rates of prosecution and conviction are shockingly low. In the year to March 2024, North Yorkshire police recorded 1,045 stalking offences, but only 75 resulted in a charge or summons. In just over half the original cases, the victim chose not to pursue the case. Work by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust helps to explain why, and argues that victims have been let down at every stage by the police, the CPS, and the courts. The trust’s super-complaint against the police in 2022 found that they were not even identifying stalking cases, and even when they were, they often did not properly investigate. The trust recommended that stalking protection orders should be applied for and put in place at as early a stage as possible.
After years of failure under the Tories, this Bill cannot come soon enough for victims of stalking. New domestic abuse protection orders have been piloted, which victims can apply for themselves. Stalking victims also feel that their lives are controlled by someone else, so giving them the chance to apply for a stalking protection order would hand power back to them. I am so pleased that the Government are considering wider changes to stalking protection orders, and I invite the Minister to comment on whether they will look at allowing victims to apply for them. To conclude, on behalf of my constituents in Scarborough and Whitby I am proud to support the Bill.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I firmly support the Bill—the most substantial of this Parliament so far. It will make streets in Wolverhampton North East and across the country safer, and it is frankly shocking that many of the proposed laws are not already in place. Just a glance on social media will show doorbell footage of where our streets have become a hunting ground for criminals. It is incredible that today criminals can carry sophisticated car theft devices such as signal jammers, keyless repeaters and signal amplifiers, but unless they are caught using those tools in the act, they cannot be arrested. That ends with the Bill, because simply possessing such tools will be a criminal offence. This is long overdue. More than 700,000 vehicles were broken into last year, with 40% of cases involving those high-tech devices.
The Bill will introduce around 50 new laws, finally cracking down on crime and antisocial behaviour. Some of the changes prompt a question about why such laws were not already in place. Violent attacks on shop workers will now be a stand-alone offence, and shoplifting will no longer be dismissed as a low-value crime, with a £200 loophole fuelling an epidemic of theft. New powers will ensure that repeat offenders are banned from retail areas more quickly, and that they will stay away. Illegal off-road bikes? Immediate seizure. No more warnings, no more second chances. If someone rides illegally, they will lose their bike, and instead of that bike being auctioned off and falling back into the hands of yobs, it will be crushed.
Just last Friday I went out on a walkabout with the neighbourhood police in Wednesfield high street. Wednesfield is a safe area, with lower crime than other high streets in Wolverhampton and Willenhall, but I was appalled to hear from shop workers about the brazen thefts that they endure. I spoke to a young lady who had just turned 19 and is petrified every time shop theft happens—and in her shop it happens every day. Theft has become so normalised that staff are struggling to report every incident because they simply cannot keep up. USDAW, the retail workers union, has been calling for stronger protection for years. It welcomes the Bill, stating:
“Tougher laws are needed to protect shop workers, and we welcome this legislation as a vital step in tackling retail violence.”
West Midlands police now has 540 fewer officers than it did in 2010.
Alex Ballinger
My hon. Friend and neighbour from the west midlands talks about there being 540 fewer officers in our area between 2010 and 2024, and I was also concerned to see that the highest level of knife crime in the country was reached in our part of the west midlands. Does she agree that since the Labour party has been elected, we have started to bring knife crime down, and does she welcome the fact that we are now on a trajectory to improve that situation?
Mrs Brackenridge
I certainly do support that. The west midlands is no longer the knife-crime capital of the world thanks to the effective work of the police, in partnership with local authorities, the combined authority, our violence reduction units, a lot of dedicated volunteers and our fantastic schools.
When it comes to reversing the decimation of neighbourhood policing, I am delighted that Wednesfield and Heath Town have recently received an extra police officer and PCSO, and Willenhall has received a new PCSO, but that is just the beginning. Labour is turning this situation around and we will rebuild neighbouring policing, because that is how to prevent crime before it happens: good, old-fashioned community intelligence and presence.
The Bill will make my constituents safer, and ensure that they feel safer. To the criminals who are getting away with stealing cars, intimidating shop staff, tearing up our green spaces with illegal bikes and terrorising our communities: enough is enough. I wholeheartedly support the Bill.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Perhaps the most pernicious effect of 14 years of Conservative Government is how they systematically undermined security in every part of our society, whether it was national security through the hollowing out of our armed forces, financial security with our economy crashed and wages stagnating, or security in our communities. Town centres are plagued by antisocial behaviour, off-road bikes terrorise estates and shoplifting is out of control. This Bill seeks to deal with those issues.
The consequence of that insecurity can be devastating. It breeds fear, anxiety and division, and it opens up a political space into which populists, with no real answers, can enter to further their own selfish ambitions. Speaking of populists with no answers, Reform Members have not spent a second in the Chamber during today’s debate about antisocial behaviour in our communities.
For far too long, the entrance to Hartlepool’s shopping centre on York Road, known locally as “the ramp”, has been plagued by individuals who seek to intimidate and disrupt the daily lives of decent, hard-working people. I am fed up of hearing families and pensioners tell me that they are too scared to walk through our town centre. Whatever the personal challenges of that small minority of disruptive individuals, they have no right to make the people of Hartlepool feel unsafe in their community.
As chair of the Safer Hartlepool Partnership, I have proposed a comprehensive action plan for the police and council to implement, including a range of targeted interventions designed to tackle the issue head-on, which the Bill enhances and extends. One key measure is the use of public space protection orders that allow us to prohibit certain behaviours in and around a particular geographic area. The Bill reinforces that tool by increasing the maximum fine for violating such an order from £100 to £500, ensuring stronger deterrents against antisocial behaviour.
I am also pushing for the greater use of enforcement powers, including dispersal orders, which the Bill extends from 48 hours to 72 hours, and community safety accreditation schemes, which grant police enforcement powers to council, shopping centre and other security teams, helping to free up police resources that, again, the Bill extends and strengthens.
The introduction of respect orders, which are new civil behavioural orders that allow courts to ban adult offenders from engaging in specific antisocial activities, will be a huge tool in Hartlepool. Breaching a respect order will be a criminal offence, enabling police to swiftly intervene and prevent further disruption. Importantly, those orders can also include positive requirements, compelling offenders to address the root causes of their behaviour, an approach that will be particularly useful in the communities that I represent where drug-related issues are often at the heart of the problem.
I welcome the Bill’s measures about off-road bikes, which terrorise many communities in Hartlepool. I have already spoken to the Minister about further powers that I would like to see included in the Bill to enhance it. The Bill also tackles wider issues, such as closure orders, shoplifting, fly-tipping and child protection. Those are not easy problems to fix, but with this Bill, we now have the toughest set of enforcement powers ever introduced by a Government. It is our duty to ensure that we use them.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The legacy of the Conservative Government’s 14 years in power is one of failure to keep us safe, and it is felt every day in my constituency of Ealing Southall. On Guru Nanak Road, King Street and Western Road in Southall, drug dealing is a common sight and makes the area feel unsafe for everyone. The police do not have enough resources, so the Singh Sabha gurdwara has had to employ its own patrols, at a cost of thousands of pounds, to keep its worshippers safe.
Hanwell clock tower has become a magnet for street drinkers. The police try to move them on, but they just do not have the powers under the weak laws left by the Conservatives. In west Ealing, drug dealers openly ply their trade, even sitting in residents’ front porches when they are out, while the police cannot do much about it. Across London, it is not safe to take a phone call on the street, as people are liable to have their phone snatched. On top of that, fly-tipping increased by one third under the previous Government, making local neighbourhoods feel neglected and unloved—of course the drug dealers, phone thieves and street drinkers moved in.
Under the last Labour Government, there were six police and community support officers for every single ward in Ealing Southall, but the Conservatives cut £1 billion from policing in London, so we are lucky to have a couple of local officers per ward. They are not dedicated to the area, like they used to be—they get pulled to Brent, Harrow or central London. Under the previous Labour Government, the police also had stronger powers; the Conservatives actually reduced police powers. Labour has already started the work to bring back neighbourhood policing and to recruit 13,000 new officers, with £320 million of extra funding for police in London. We will ensure that police officers get back out on the streets, instead of doing admin work like they were doing under the previous Government.
This Bill will give those new officers the tough powers they need to tackle antisocial behaviour and crime, with 50 new laws to make our streets safer. Our new respect orders will mean that the police can stop street drinkers from congregating at Hanwell clock tower and stop drug dealers from coming into west Ealing and Southall. If people break respect orders, the police will now be able to arrest them immediately and take them to court, where they can face up to two years in prison. The police will be able to drug test more people on arrest, and respect orders will require that drinkers and drug users access rehab services to break the cycle of dependency.
The Bill will also give police the power to search a property without a warrant where they have evidence that there is a stolen electronic device inside. I had my own phone stolen a while back; I could see on the internet that it was in east London, but the police could not do anything about it. This law will now mean that police can use “find my phone” apps to go after phone thieves and get stolen property back.
I am delighted that as part of this Bill, the Secretary of State will issue statutory guidance to local councils to help to ensure a more consistent approach to fly-tipping. Ealing Council is the No. 1 borough in the country when it comes to issuing fixed-penalty notices against fly-tippers, but it needs help to do more. Under the Conservatives, fly-tipping was allowed to spiral and was seen as a low-level crime, but it blights communities. I know that this Labour Government are looking at further steps we can take to punish fly-tippers and to reduce waste in the first place.
After 14 years of the Conservatives leaving local people in Ealing Southall to put up with open drug taking, street drinking and snatch thefts, Labour is giving the police back the power and the resources to take the tough action needed to make our streets safe again.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
This Bill will be very much welcomed back in my constituency, with this Government introducing 50 new laws that will help to cut crime and make my area’s streets safer. They include measures to tackle antisocial behaviour and stop theft, particularly in shops, and to tackle street crime head on, giving the police in our communities new powers to take back town centres from thugs and thieves and tackling knife crime, violence against women and girls, cyber-crime, child sexual abuse and terrorism.
That said, I am particularly pleased to see that this Bill deals with one particular issue. Illegal off-road bikes and e-scooters are a significant concern to many people in Mansfield. Antisocial behaviour connected to their inappropriate use was raised with me time and time again on the doorstep during the election campaign, and it is now raised in my casework inbox. I will share one such example, from a constituent who recently contacted me about this issue:
“Only yesterday whilst out with my husband doing ‘grandparent school duties’ we were yet again placed in a serious and dangerous situation. Several youths appeared out of nowhere wearing balaclavas weaving around our vehicle before racing off in different directions. The silence of them means you have no awareness of them before they appear in front of your car”.
Many constituents report similar concerns, and are exasperated that nothing can be done to deal with the issue. Enough is enough, and I am delighted to announce after discussions I have had with local officers in Mansfield that the police are launching a crackdown over the coming weeks to tackle antisocial behaviour in my constituency related to off-road bikes and e-scooters.
As part of this crackdown, officers are appealing to the public to come forward via a new dedicated police email address—set up with my office and by the 101 phone line— to report any illegal bike-related antisocial behaviour. Using that information, officers will take significant enforcement action to target those who are terrorising our communities in Mansfield. I will be working closely with the police during that campaign, and will be holding a public meeting with them on 21 March to explain how it will work. I would be delighted to update the Home Secretary on its progress. More information will be released by my office in the coming days, but this crackdown will rely on my constituents acting as the eyes and ears on the ground. Without their reports, the project will not be a success, so I urge local people in Mansfield to get involved.
To conclude, my message to those causing misery in Mansfield is this: “We see you. The police are coming for you, and our communities will not let you get away with it any longer.”
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I encourage all hon. Members to visit us in Derby and in Derby city centre. They will find a city that is firmly on the up, with a bright future ahead. Our city centre regeneration projects are full steam ahead. We are creating fantastic cultural and community hubs in Derby, whether that is our multimillion-pound revamp of our market hall, the completion of the Becketwell Live arena or the University of Derby’s new business school, all of which are set to open their doors in the coming months. I want everyone in our community to be able to take a walk around our city and feel proud and safe.
However, although we are rightly excited about the future that Derby holds, we have to acknowledge the problems that the city centre faces. Our pride is tested when we see fly-tipping on the side of the road. It is tested again when we are worried about walking on the pavement because e-scooters are being used antisocially, and it is tested further for shop workers who are worried about going to work because the previous day they were threatened during a shoplifting incident. Lots of fantastic work is under way on these issues at a local level, such as the work of our police and crime commissioner, Nicolle Ndiweni-Roberts, and of Derbyshire constabulary. They are clamping down on illegal e-scooters, seizing and disposing of more than 200 since last November alone. However, I and my constituents know that more needs to be done so that they can feel proud and safe in the city we call home.
For that reason, I welcome the measures introduced in today’s Bill, which will go further to protect city centres such as Derby and their residents from antisocial behaviour and crime. Whether they are employees at our central Co-op in Osmaston or at the Asda superstore in Sinfin, it is right that this Bill will introduce specific measures to protect them from retail crime. Shockingly, 18% of shop workers were assaulted in 2023. Nobody should fear going into work, which is why I am pleased that this Bill will make assaulting a shop worker a stand-alone offence.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
May I associate myself with my hon. Friend’s remarks? Does he find it as absurd as I do that under the Conservatives there was effective immunity from shoplifting goods under £200? That meant that shoplifting rose by 60%. Does he therefore welcome the fact that that effective immunity is ending, and that we are introducing a new criminal offence that will protect shop workers from being attacked and assaulted, including those in my constituency who have complained about that?
Baggy Shanker
I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. It is important that the £200 limit is being scrapped. I have spoken to many shop workers across Derby who have said that, literally on a daily basis, people are walking into the shops, loading their bags and walking straight out, almost apologetically.
This Bill also introduces tougher action on knife crime, more power to support councils to tackle fly-tipping and measures to let police seize vehicles such as e-scooters much faster if they are being used for antisocial purposes. The Bill will tackle violence against women and girls by introducing a specific new offence for spiking.
I want every single person in Derby—I am sure everybody in this House wants this for every single person across the country—to feel safe and to enjoy our city and the places where they live. This Bill represents a huge step forward in achieving that, and that is why I fully support it.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
After 14 years of Conservative Government, antisocial behaviour has become far too common. Last year, 36% of people reported experiencing antisocial behaviour. Police powers to tackle criminal behaviour have been consistently weakened. Our communities have been left exposed, and we have heard many powerful examples of that from Members across the House today. That is why the measures in this Bill are so badly needed.
Shoplifting, casual drug taking, reckless driving and neighbourhood intimidation may not seem overly significant on their own, but when committed persistently, these low-level acts of antisocial behaviour make our communities that bit less safe, one crime at a time. Speaking to residents on the doorsteps in Jennett’s Park in Great Hollands recently, I heard how a spate of car thefts was making people lose sleep at night. Bracknell Forest is an incredible place to live, with a comparatively low crime rate, but whether it is drug taking in our underpasses, motorised bikes being driven around our footpaths or shoplifting targeting our shops, our community is feeling the effects of the Tories’ weak response to crime and antisocial behaviour.
Last year, shoplifting in Bracknell and Wokingham went up by 46%. That is not just in the town centre, but across Bracknell Forest, including in Sandhurst, where one local convenience store has been repeatedly targeted and their staff threatened. I have seen it myself, sitting in a café of a local supermarket with the manager and watching as a shoplifter walked out of the shop. They were known to the staff, but there was little they could do to stop the frequent thefts.
I thank Thames Valley police for the work they are doing to tackle this endemic shoplifting, and I am pleased to say that the precipitous rise is now slowing down. However, the police need the right powers in place if they are to get to grips with the problem. That is why it is so welcome that the Crime and Policing Bill will introduce tough new respect orders to ban repeat offenders from antisocial hotspots. We are introducing a new criminal offence to protect retail workers from abuse, thanks to the fantastic campaigning by the Co-op party and USDAW. This Bill will scrap the Tory shoplifters’ charter, which meant that, under the previous Government, anyone caught shoplifting goods below £200 could escape prosecution.
Many of my constituents are also concerned by the increasing numbers of casual drug users on our streets. In September, a mother wrote to me with concerns about brazen drug dealing going on near the town centre and the impact that has on vulnerable groups in the area. I have also heard concerns from local parents that drug dealers are targeting young people as they leave school. That is why it is so important that the Crime and Policing Bill will introduce new police powers to make drug-testing suspects on arrest easier, and respect orders to allow police to crack down on those repeat offenders frequenting the same spots. These new powers are an important step in delivering Labour’s safer streets mission.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is doing a great job in explaining some of the new powers that the Bill will give our police. Police officers in my area to whom I have spoken find it absurd that it has taken until now to do so. Does my hon. Friend agree that these measures are such common sense that no reasonable party in the House should vote against them?
Peter Swallow
Absolutely—and it would be great to see more Opposition Members here to support the measures. The powers introduced by the Bill are indeed welcome, but under the last Government we saw a reduction in the use of powers that already existed. In 2010, Thames Valley police issued more than 6,000 antisocial behaviour notices—penalty notices for disorder—but in 2023 they issued only 412, which is a 93% decrease.
As I have said, these new powers are an important step in the delivery of Labour’s safer streets mission, but as well as giving police the right powers to crack down on antisocial behaviour—as my hon. Friend mentioned—we need to give them the right resources. That is why it is so important that this Government have increased police funding by more than £1 billion, and the budget of Thames Valley police has been increased by 6.6%. Our safer streets mission will see 13,000 additional police officers on Britain’s streets, along with a named, contactable officer in each community. That will help people to feel safe in their communities again. The Tories introduced chaos on our streets and in our communities, and Labour will do the hard work that is needed to bring back order and security.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
As the daughter and niece of retired police officers and with a cousin, Alex, currently serving for the same constabulary, I want to start by saying a huge thank you to Hampshire police.
It is a privilege to speak in this debate on a Bill that seeks to strengthen law enforcement and restore public confidence in policing. It is about the real experience of our constituents who have suffered as a result of crime and antisocial behaviour, and feel that the system is failing them. For example, in the first nine days of the financial year, the store manager of a Tesco Express in my constituency logged 22 incidents of shoplifting, trespass, verbal abuse and threats of violence. The Bill will ensure that the police have a mandate to act swiftly, especially in instances of repeat and organised retail crime, regardless of the value of the stolen goods.
Another constituent’s car has been vandalised twice, and one incident was so severe that the car was written off. Vandalism is not a minor inconvenience; it is costly and distressing, and leaves people feeling unsafe in their own communities. Car theft also continues to plague my constituents. One resident’s car has been stolen four times, and the daughter of another has had her moped stolen twice, even having to recover it herself on one occasion. That is not to mention the number of “tradies” who are subject to tool theft. The Bill will empower police forces to take property crimes more seriously, make it easier to track and recover stolen vehicles, and more importantly, ensure that victims of theft receive timely police responses.
The Scottish estate in Cosham, the London Road in Northend, Allaway Avenue in Paulsgrove and Tangiers Road in Baffins are just four of the many places where e-scooters, bikes and cars race deafeningly and dangerously in my constituency. I am pleased that the Bill removes the need of the police to issue a warning before seizing vehicles being used antisocially. This is the start of a real crackdown on vehicles being used to intimidate pedestrians and increasingly commit crime.
Antisocial behaviour is destroying the quality of life for so many people. One of my constituents, an 80-year-old woman, has suffered relentless harassment from a neighbour. Her garden has been vandalised, furniture has been thrown, and she has been physically intimidated. The Bill gives the police stronger powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, and strengthens the use of existing antisocial behaviour powers.
The shadow of knife crime hangs over my constituency. In the past two months alone, and even today, there have been two stabbings and an attempted murder involving two teenagers. Parents are writing to me, terrified for their children’s safety and demanding action. Some have even raised concerns about the advertising of chefs’ knives on television. I welcome the fact that this Bill provides the police with the powers they need to take knives off our streets, enforce tougher penalties for possession and intervene early to prevent young people from being drawn into violent crime, because knife crime kills.
Finally, a father has reached out to me to say he is deeply concerned about the safety of women and girls in Portsmouth. His 15-year-old daughter, who loves running, has been catcalled and harassed multiple times, and she has not reported it because she believes it would waste police time. As we know, low-level crime against women can be a gateway to more serious crimes, and I welcome the fact that this Bill brings in new protections for women.
This is not a Portsmouth-specific issue, and it is not a Labour issue, which is why it is shocking to see the lack of Opposition Members in this place today. All our constituents deserve to live in safe communities, and they deserve their MPs to make changes and put those changes into action.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in support of this vital Bill, which will see the Labour Government deliver on the promise made at the last election to return our town centres to our constituents and make our streets safe. This Bill addresses pressing issues that have long plagued our society, and its provisions are both timely and necessary, particularly on the sexual abuse of children, knife crime and economic crime.
First, on child sexual abuse, the NSPCC has found that over 100 child sexual abuse image crimes are recorded by the police every day. That is a horrifying statistic, and it should focus the minds of all of us in this place, which is why supporting victims and survivors is rightly the cornerstone of this Bill. I very much welcome the steps taken to ensure that our criminal justice system, which was neglected for far too long under previous Conservative Governments, is better equipped to handle such cases effectively.
Secondly, the Bill’s measures on knife crime, which has devastated families and communities across the country, will also safeguard our children.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I am one of the MPs for Croydon, a place that continues to pay the price for the previous Government’s inaction on knife crime and youth violence. Does my hon. Friend agree that when it comes to youth violence, we have to focus on prevention, and does he welcome the introduction of the Young Futures programme so that we can prevent young people from getting drawn into crime in the first place?
Phil Brickell
I absolutely agree that prevention is fundamental, especially when it comes to youth crime.
The senseless killing of seven-year-old Emily Jones in Queen’s park, Bolton, in 2020 was horrifying. Knife crime incidents have been on the rise in towns such as Bolton for a number of years, so we owe it to Emily and her family, and to all those who have been affected by knife crime, to take bold action and to take it now. To this end, I am pleased to see that the Bill introduces tougher sentencing for repeat offenders and strengthens the police’s powers to seize dangerous weapons before they are used to cause harm.
Thirdly, a number of the crimes that I have detailed are enabled by economic crimes, such as money laundering and fraud. Indeed, we heard earlier from the shadow Home Secretary about crime statistics. What I would say to those on the Opposition Benches is that we have seen a fraud epidemic over the last few years, and cases were allowed to spiral out of control under previous Conservative Administrations. Frankly, they were ignored by the shadow Home Secretary when he was a Minister. Indeed, April 2022 to March 2023 saw 3.5 million cases of fraud in this country—40% of all crime, according to the ONS.
By removing the ability of criminals to launder their ill-gotten gains in the clean economy, we can remove the primary incentive for the behaviour that drives so much of the criminal activity that we have been debating tonight. Indeed, having spent almost 15 years tackling economic crime, I particularly welcome the new provision in the Bill to cap court costs for enforcement agencies, which the Conservative party never addressed. Too often, our law enforcement bodies face intolerable financial risks when pursuing the recovery of ill-gotten gains from deep-pocketed crooks with expensive lawyers. One minor mistake by the National Crime Agency or the Serious Fraud Office can wipe out a whole year’s budget.
That has had a chilling effect on the risk appetite of agencies to tackle those suspected of serious and organised crime, which drives so much of the criminality that we are debating tonight. By introducing cost protection in clause 103, the Government are rightly levelling the playing field for enforcement agencies and those who are charged. This will send a powerful message about the rule of law in this country, which is that no matter how rich or well connected someone is, if they are engaged in criminal behaviour, justice will be done.
We are in a very challenging place when it comes to the public finances, and the tax burden bequeathed by the Conservative party to my constituents is already far too high, which brings me to a specific proposal that I would urge the Minister to consider as the Bill progresses through this place. Economic crime costs us around £300 billion every year, yet less than 1% of police resources are dedicated to tackling it, so why not make the criminals pay? A cross-governmental economic crime fighting fund would use the reinvested proceeds of regulatory and criminal fines, asset recoveries and deferred prosecution agreements to provide sustainable funding and increased firepower for our enforcement agencies’ capabilities. I hope the Minister will respond to this ask for a sustainable and innovative solution in her wind-up.
The Bill provides a much-needed shake-up for crime and policing in this country. It will return our streets and town centres to our constituents and deliver justice where too often it was denied.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
I am very happy to be able to speak and to add my support to this Bill, and I appreciate the depth and ambition of the measures that have been brought forward.
When I meet my local police officers in Bristol and South Gloucestershire, I see a committed group of men and women completely dedicated to public service, but I also see that morale is low. Police numbers in Avon and Somerset have fallen, with the number of PCSOs dropping from 424 in 2010 to 255 today. After 14 years of cuts, officers question if they are appreciated. For our police, I hope that this Bill is seen as a demonstration of the confidence that we have in them and the respect we have for the difficult job they do.
I welcome the steps taken to let police get on with their jobs, including searching premises where phones are geolocated, confiscating illegal road bikes and introducing respect orders, as well as lifting the £200 cap on when officers will investigate shoplifting. There are also the new protections for shop workers such as the women I have met working in Boots in Kingswood and the PDSA—People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals—charity shop in Kingswood, which are just two of the shops blighted day in and day out by shoplifters.
On a different aspect of the Bill, we have seen the struggles and confusion in relation to policing public order at protests. Protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, but we have seen examples of protests that have become hateful, have incited violence and have become violent. Fines for climbing on war memorials and banning face coverings will help maintain public order, and I hope the police know that they have our support to act when they see wrongdoing. As the Bill progresses, I would ask Ministers to consider how robust the exemptions are for face coverings, as they may be open to misuse. For example, the health exemptions could have very broad interpretations.
On knife crime, officers in my patch certainly welcome the changes, but they are concerned about how unscrupulous knife manufacturers could adapt to selling knives that, while technically legal, still glamorise violence. In the past year, I have got to know a woman called Hayley Ryall, the mother of Mikey Roynon from Kingswood, who was tragically killed at a birthday party when he was stabbed by three young men in June 2023. Mikey was a beautiful young man, and he was just 16 when he was killed. With the ongoing trials of serious violence reduction orders in Thames Valley, the West Midlands, Merseyside and Sussex coming to their conclusion this year, Hayley has asked me when a decision will be made on the wider roll-out of serious violence reduction orders and when that will take place.
All these measures will only have the full effect if we have the officers on our streets to police them. Avon and Somerset recently received a £27 million uplift in funding, and I look forward to seeing this money used for more recruitment and to support our existing officers. There is much to fix—we all know that—and these measures go a good way to putting the balance of power back towards law and order.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I rise to support the Bill and to commend the Government for bringing forward such a robust response to the scourge of retail crime that affects communities across our country, including my constituents in Banbury, Chipping Norton, Charlbury and the villages of north and west Oxfordshire.
In my constituency, shoplifting offences increased by 25% between March 2022 and March 2024. This is a deeply concerning trend, not only for shopkeepers but for the local communities they serve. Shoplifting costs the average UK convenience store £6,259 a year. These costs are often passed on through the prices that customers pay, or are reflected in the serious questions that those shops face about their viability. The importance of our local shops’ financial viability is particularly pronounced in rural areas such as Hook Norton, Enstone and Bloxham in my constituency, where they are not just businesses but essential services that form part of the fabric of the community.
This Bill sends a clear and powerful message that rising rates of shoplifting will not be tolerated under this Government. The removal of the effective immunity for shop thefts under £200 will help to deter petty thieves and repeat offenders who have exploited that loophole. By closing the gap, the Bill ensures that every crime, no matter how small and seemingly petty, will be taken seriously.
The measures outlined in the Bill are precisely what shopkeepers in my constituency have been calling for. Not only does the Bill clamp down on shoplifting, but it introduces a new offence of assaulting a retail worker. This provision stands firmly by those who serve our communities day in and day out. Shop workers deserve to feel safe in their workplace, and this new offence rightly acknowledges the seriousness of the threats and violence they face on a daily basis.
This comprehensive and well-considered Bill delivers on this Government’s promise to make our streets safer and to protect the people who keep our communities running. I commend the Home Secretary, the ministerial team and the Government for their decisive action, which will benefit rural communities, as well as communities the length and breadth of the country. I urge all hon. Members to support it.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill, which responds to the concerns of many in Leyton and Wanstead.
In October, my Adjournment debate highlighted the terrible impacts of antisocial behaviour in Leytonstone, including in the Avenue Road estate, Selby Road and the surrounding area. Despite good engagement from the police and council leaders, residents still face hotspots of drug injecting, vandalism and abuse in public spaces. This creates fear and makes families feel that their streets no longer belong to them. The response of the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention was encouraging, committing to the respect orders now in this Bill, and I thank her for her visit to Leyton and Wanstead last November.
This Bill addresses key issues. The new legislation on cuckooing in chapter 2 of part 4 will tackle homes used for drug taking, which are particularly seen in areas such as Leytonstone. Respect orders will enhance local initiatives such as mandatory drug programmes, Project Adder and addressing public drinking in areas such as Jubilee Road.
Part 3 delivers on our pledge to introduce a special offence for assaults on shop workers, and it strengthens penalties for shoplifting. Persistent, violent shoplifting has taken hold. A staff member at Church Lane Sainsbury’s in Leytonstone said, “Each and every day it’s going mad. Shoplifters roam the streets from six in the morning every day. We are losing more than £500. Our safety is on the line.” In South Woodford, the Co-op has repeatedly been attacked. When a constituent stepped in to help, they were threatened with a glass bottle. The nearby Boots has faced repeated thefts, with some shoplifters returning four or five times a day.
Constituents describe the fear of retail staff and sadness that children might grow up seeing this situation as normal. It is not normal. We must ensure that our children do not grow up thinking that the high street is a criminals’ playground. We must ensure that no shop worker faces daily threats. We must acknowledge the role that USDAW has played in addressing these issues. I ask the Minister to provide a view on how the law may be extended to protect transport workers, as proposed by the Transport Salaried Staffs Association in its recent report, which highlights the extent of the violence its members face.
I welcome the measures enabling police to target locations storing stolen goods, which often double as hubs for drug dealing. The Bill will enable more effective, co-ordinated police responses, but we must go further. The return of 13,500 police officers is vital, as are our named neighbourhood police officers, but we must also reduce the high abstraction rates that remove those officers from our streets. That is what the people of Leyton and Wanstead deserve, and I hope the Government will go further in this regard. I am proud to support the Bill today.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
In High Peak, our five major towns—Buxton, Glossop, New Mills, Chapel-en-le-Frith and Whaley Bridge—have all been affected in different ways by the crimes the Bill seeks to address. Our town centres are the hearts of our community. At their best, they bring people together and create a sense of pride and belonging. When antisocial behaviour, theft and shoplifting are allowed to take root, it affects not just the victims, but the whole community. Sadly, the previous Government all too often wrote those crimes off as low level and left our communities feeling powerless. This Bill is for all the people I have met on the doorstep and who have come to my surgeries in High Peak—people who wanted a Government on their side, who would take these crimes seriously.
This Bill is for the retail workers and business owners who have to deal with shoplifting day in, day out. The previous Government effectively decriminalised shoplifting of goods worth less than £200, but this Bill will end the Tory shoplifters’ charter and go further by introducing a new criminal offence to better protect retail workers from assault.
This Bill is for all those who want our streets to be safer and pride to be restored to our communities. At the end of February, Derbyshire police had to put in place a dispersal order for two whole days in Glossop in order to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Bill will extend those powers to 72 hours. Through the new respect orders, it sends a clear message to persistent troublemakers: “We see you, we will disrupt you, and we will make your life as difficult as you have made the lives of others.”
Ben Coleman
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is good news that at last we have a Government who are doing something about the scourge of off-road bikes and dangerous e-scooters on the pavements and in our parks by giving the police new powers to seize those vehicles immediately, instead of letting the problem continue? Although this should have happened much sooner, it will make the lives of my residents in Chelsea and Fulham, and people across the country, happier and safer.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. By way of being helpful, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that when they make interventions, they should address them to the Chair, and not to other Members, so there can be no confusion in the debate.
Jon Pearce
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I thoroughly agree that the new powers will be hugely helpful, both in his constituency and in my own.
This Bill is for our children and the most vulnerable in our communities. The hottest circle of hell is reserved for anyone who exploits and abuses a child. The independent inquiry into child sex abuse, which was set up by the Conservatives in 2015, took seven years to complete and cost £200 million, made 20 recommendations. Shamefully, the previous Government did not implement a single one. This Bill will right that wrong. We will introduce statutory reporting for instances of child sex abuse, grooming behaviour will be an aggravating factor, and there will be new powers to search for instances of child sex abuse on digital devices of individuals arriving in the UK.
We will go further by going after the gangs that seek to exploit children for criminal purposes. It is estimated that 14,000 children are at risk or involved in criminal exploitation, and sadly, some of those victims are in High Peak. From police and schools, I have heard heartbreaking stories of children being forced into drug dealing, of homes being taken over by drug dealers, and of young lives ruined. The weak laws that the previous Government left us meant that authorities were powerless to act in many cases. Our new laws will make it a criminal offence for adults to use children to commit criminal offences such as drug running, organised robbery and the new offence of cuckooing. The vile gangs that exploit children in High Peak for criminal gain are the lowest of the low, and I will be supporting Derbyshire police to use the full extent of the new laws to drive them out of our communities.
This Bill is for women and girls. For International Women’s Day, I held a joint event with Crossroads Derbyshire, an incredible charity that works to support domestic abuse survivors. Crossroads has a new stalking advocacy service, funded by the Labour police and crime commissioner’s office. The Bill will strengthen the police’s response to stalking and give victims the right to know the identity of online stalkers. Let the message go out from here today to stalkers: “There will be no hiding place for you on our streets or online.”
This Bill is for everyone who believes in the rule of law and that there should be zero tolerance for those who threaten our security and safety. It is for those who want to take back control of our streets and communities.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate as the son of a local bobby—my mum worked for 20 years in the local police, serving her community, and I could not be more proud of her. My father, too, was a local bobby, as was his father before him, so my family have something of a reputation.
I am, of course, delighted to see the Government’s recommitment to neighbourhood policing after 14 years of neglect. My mum often spoke about the importance of a neighbourhood police officer understanding her community, who the troublemakers are, how to calm tensions and how to make people feel safe. For people across my constituency, feeling safe is what they care about most. They do not feel safe when they see rising rates of knife crime among our young people, or antisocial behaviour on our high streets. They worry that they never see the police on the streets any more.
How we got into this situation is no mystery. Cuts to neighbourhood policing by the last Government left a huge gap in our communities. Before the recent uplift, the west midlands had 700 fewer police officers than it did under the last Labour Government in 2010. People in Halesowen want to feel safe in their homes, on their streets and in their public spaces. They want to trust that the police have the resources, funding and support necessary to do their job.
Two of my constituents, Mr and Mrs Lobodzic, have been in touch to tell me about the impact that antisocial behaviour has had on their lives. Residents of Cradley Heath, they have been subject to harassment, intimidation and unchecked antisocial behaviour, and they have felt unsafe in their own home. The lack of accountability for those responsible has left them feeling hopeless and abandoned. The Bill takes the essential steps needed to address antisocial behaviour such as that experienced by my constituents.
The new respect order can be imposed on individuals who have engaged in, or threatened to engage in, antisocial behaviour. Importantly, breaching a respect order now constitutes a criminal offence. For my constituents in Halesowen, that will provide much-needed reassurance that their concerns are being taken seriously, and that those who disrupt the peace will face real consequences. Deputy Chief Constable Andy Prophet, who leads on antisocial behaviour for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, said:
“Respect orders will give the police and councils the ability to crack down on those who persistently make our streets and public spaces feel unsafe.”
Although those measures are promising, it is important that they go hand in hand with another critical demand from my constituents: the visible presence of police officers. People want to see their local officers regularly patrolling their streets, just as my mum used to do. That is why I am pleased to see, alongside the Bill, the introduction of the neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will ensure the deployment of an additional 13,000 police officers, PCSOs and special constables into neighbourhood policing roles. By reinforcing community policing, we will not only deter and prevent crime, but strengthen the response to emergencies and enhance trust between the police and the public.
In Halesowen we are fortunate to have dedicated and exemplary police officers such as Sergeant Nichola Chester, and PCSOs such as Nathan Fung, as members of our excellent but stretched neighbourhood team. It is vital that their efforts are bolstered with the resources and manpower that they need to maintain safety and security. The Bill is a critical step towards achieving that goal.
The people of Halesowen deserve to live without fear, to walk our streets with confidence and to know that their Government are steadfast in their commitment to their safety. The Bill, with its focus on tackling antisocial behaviour and reinvigorating neighbourhood policing, represents a decisive step in the right direction, and I am pleased to support it.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I rise to support the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill. The last time I addressed the House on policing I shared the fact that the borough of Redbridge, which I led, once had five police stations, but after a decade of Conservative cuts only one remains standing. That is not just a fact but a direct reflection of how the Conservative party deprioritised policing and failed to protect our residents, friends and neighbours. When we deprioritise policing, we do more than weaken law enforcement; we allow crime to spiral out of control, we expose our communities to harm and we erode the very fabric of our society.
The Bill is a crucial step in reversing 14 years of neglect and ensuring tougher consequences for criminal behaviour. It tackles a wide range of issues, from knife crime to terrorism, but I want to focus on a matter that affects our daily lives: antisocial behaviour. For too long it has been treated as low-level or even trivial crime, but in Ilford South and across the UK it is anything but trivial. It erodes community trust and often paves the way for more serious criminal activity. We see antisocial behaviour on the ground, in the nitrous oxide canisters littering our streets. We see it in our local shops, where retail workers face shoplifters daily. We see it on our streets, where young girls, often in school uniform, endure harassment from men much older than them.
Antisocial behaviour is not just an inconvenience but a warning sign. Last year, two teenagers stabbed staff members at Goodmayes station. They were also charged with a prior robbery incident at a nearby Tesco. That is what happens when we turn a blind eye to so-called low-level crime: it escalates, posing an even bigger threat to our communities. That is why I welcome the Bill. It makes a clear statement that antisocial behaviour will no longer be tolerated.
I am particularly pleased to see the scrapping of the effective immunity for shoplifting of goods under £200, and stronger protections for retail workers against assault. When workers in our shops, supermarkets and local businesses cannot feel safe, and we cannot feel safe doing our weekly shopping, the system has failed. By ending the decriminalisation of so-called low-level theft, we are ensuring that our local town centres are protected to thrive. Safety is about not just theft of property but the right to go about our daily lives and walk our streets without fear or intimidation.
When I was leader of Redbridge council, we took decisive action to make our streets safe for women and girls. We were the first council to use public spaces protection orders to punish those catcalling and harassing women and girls. I am pleased to see the strengthening of those protection orders in the Bill, and the introduction of respect orders, which will ensure that communities across the country have the power to tackle nuisance, harassment and intimidation on our streets.
We all deserve to feel safe in our homes, on our streets, in our shops and in our schools. The Bill begins to turn our promise into reality.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
In common with hon. Members from across the House, this debate is of paramount importance to the people in my constituency. The Labour Government have inherited a shameful legacy from the Conservative party, which had 14 years to address criminality and antisocial behaviour but instead left our communities feeling unsafe.
The situation in Scotland has frightening similarities, with the SNP Government failing communities across Scotland. Since the SNP introduced its under-22 bus pass initiative, many of my constituents have told me that they are now afraid to visit Kilmarnock bus station or even use local bus services. This is not about demonising young people—far from it, as they are more likely to be victims of crime and antisocial behaviour than the perpetrators of it—but it is wrong to ignore the significant minority who make life a misery for others. Scotland badly needs Labour’s respect orders to effectively tackle the minorities’ behaviour that has been intimidating our communities for far too long.
Labour’s respect orders will deliver stronger powers for our police in Scotland, helping them to keep our communities safe, but, yet again, Scotland is being let down by the SNP and its inaction. Similarly, the bus pass scheme, which should be something to be celebrated, has created a situation where people of all ages are now thinking twice about using their local bus services. As my friend the Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar said,
“under-22s that are found to have repeatedly acted violently on buses”
should have their free bus passes taken off them. That should be obvious—rights should come with responsibilities —and it is shameful that there is currently no mechanism to withdraw a free bus pass from someone who has been abusing one. That needs to change.
It is totally unacceptable to see chronic antisocial behaviour continue with no effective action from the SNP. The Crime and Policing Bill demonstrates that Labour is on the side of law-abiding people, and I will be proud to vote for the Bill at the conclusion of the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I take this opportunity to thank our brave, hard-working police officers, PCSOs, police staff and volunteers for the huge sacrifices they make to keep our streets safe. I thank all hon. Members across the House for their considered and concise contributions.
The Bill covers a wide array of offences, and we all welcome that. Tackling criminality means equipping the police and enforcement agencies with the powers that they need to lock up dangerous perpetrators to make our streets safer. The Bill contains meaningful and impactful provisions, particularly in relation to knife crime, car theft, retail crime, the sharing of intimate images, child sexual abuse, drug testing and cuckooing among many others.
It is generous of the Government to hold the previous Conservative Government’s work in such high esteem: in fact, about two thirds of the measures in the Bill are copied straight from the previous Government. As was said—I think on several occasions—it is a copy-and-paste job that even the Chancellor would blush over. I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), alongside many other past and current Members of the House, for their significant work in ensuring that those offences are included in the scope of the Bill. That work will ultimately have a positive impact on the lives of all our constituents. Time does not allow me to talk through all the measures in the Bill [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I know that hon. Members are disappointed, but I will focus on a few important provisions.
First, let me turn to retail crime. As hon. Members across this House may know, having served as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the future of retail and as a former Woolies worker—no one ever questions whether I am old enough—I have been very involved in the campaign to protect our retail workers. I have joined the likes of the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), Paul Gerrard from the Co-op, Helen Dickinson and the team at the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores, USDAW, numerous retailers and others who have worked to deliver more protection for our retail workers.
Back in 2021—during my slightly rebellious phase—I tabled an amendment that helped us to make an assault on a person providing a service to the public a statutory aggravating offence. More recently in April 2024, alongside a suite of measures designed to tackle retail crime, we saw the last Government agree to the creation of a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker. I am glad that that will be taken up by the incumbent Government and hope that it will have a real impact and improve the lives of these important key workers in high streets and stores across the country.
I have two concerns, however, about the Bill regarding retail crime. First, the previous Government’s plans had proposed to make it mandatory for the courts to impose at least a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement or an electronic monitoring requirement on repeat offenders convicted of shoplifting or the new offence of assaulting a retail worker and sentenced to a community order or a suspended sentence. That had been welcomed by retailers, but the Bill does not include any provisions to this effect. I urge the Government to look again at this, to ensure that we are doing all we can to protect retail workers and avoid what appears to be the watering down of potential protections.
Secondly, on the plans to remove the £200 threshold for shoplifting, while the rhetoric sounds positive, it is untrue to say that theft under £200 was ever decriminalised. In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment tells us that 90% of charges for shoplifting relate to property worth less than £200. There is a fear that measures will lead to further delays to justice being done while not leading to tougher or longer sentences. Victims of retail crime deserve swift justice, not year-long delays while perpetrators continue to offend.
I turn now to further legislative steps that I hope Members across the House will find difficult to oppose. One hugely important measure is the introduction of a statutory aggravating factor, requiring sentencing courts to treat grooming behaviour as an aggravating factor when considering the seriousness of child sexual offences. The Opposition believe that the Government should go further and establish a national statutory inquiry, but it is right that they have brought forward this measure from the Criminal Justice Bill. It recognises the severity of the offence and ensures that third parties involved in the heinous practices of these rape gangs face justice and punishment. We must take every step possible to protect the most vulnerable and ensure that stronger laws are in place so that the terrible crimes of the past cannot be repeated.
Another key measure in the Bill, contained in clauses 96 to 100, expands the ability to conduct drug tests upon arrest. The expansion of the drug testing on arrival programme, introduced by the previous Conservative Government, has already demonstrated the sheer number of individuals found to be under the influence of substances when arrested. Between March 2022 and September 2024, police forces reported a total of 154,295 tests to the Home Office. Of these, 86,207, or 56%, were positive for cocaine, opiates or both. It is therefore right that we expand the drug testing programme to cover as wide a range of class B and C drugs as possible, allowing the police to access the information they need to manage offenders appropriately within the criminal justice system.
I also welcome the efforts to tackle off-road bikes. Having seen their impact on my constituents, I hope that during the passage of the Bill we might consider going even further, maybe even considering suggestions made by Government Back Benchers. We must use this opportunity to ensure that the police have the powers they need, and to examine where further powers are required to ensure that the law truly serves the victims of crime and provides a level of openness and transparency for our police forces so that people can have confidence in our justice system.
Additionally, we should all want to see the police doing what they do best: on the beat, preventing and investigating crime. Their time should not be wasted on matters that the public do not consider a priority. Time and again, we see reports of police officers being sent to respond to incidents that are not criminal in nature while serious offences on our streets go unchallenged. The measures in this Bill to tackle antisocial behaviour signal an understanding that removing crime from our streets must be a priority. However, we must consider whether more can be done legislatively to ensure that police time is used effectively.
I must stress that all the well-meaning measures contained in the Bill are meaningless without a well-funded police force. Forces are—[Interruption.] Forces—some led by Labour police and crime commissioners—are raising legitimate concerns about the level of funding they will receive from the Government. Any reduction in police numbers undermines every element of this Bill, weakening the police’s ability to tackle crime across the country. The head of the Metropolitan police has raised his concerns about potential job losses in our capital city—a city where 30% of England and Wales’s knife crime occurs.
I should note at this point that it is very welcome to see the Government reintroducing many of the measures on tackling knife crime put forward in the Criminal Justice Bill by the previous Conservative Government, including a power to retain and destroy bladed articles on private property and to increase the maximum penalty for the sale of dangerous weapons to under-18s. Given that the financial pressures faced by police forces amount to an estimated £118 million shortfall, there is a real concern that the Government’s actions will contribute to a decline in police numbers. The Government’s police funding increase masks the Chancellor’s national insurance hike on our police forces and their failure to build police pay awards into the baseline.
Moving forward, we will have ample opportunities as a House to scrutinise the legislation and consider potential improvements. Reading the impact assessments and economic notes accompanying the Bill reveals uncertainty about the effects of its various measures. Notably, there is a lack of clarity regarding the number of individuals expected to be imprisoned for certain offences, with significant variation in the estimates provided. The Government must back our police over the criminals and demonstrate the political will to do so. They must provide police with the resources and robust powers they need to keep officers on the beat, deliver swift justice for victims and, in turn, make our streets safer. This Bill is a step forward. Across the House, we all need to support our police officers to tackle the heinous crimes—
Neil Coyle
Thank you. On swift justice, will the Opposition Front Bench bring forward amendments regarding the shadow Home Secretary’s position on citizen’s arrest? How many amendments can we expect to see about how the police should respond to citizen’s arrests?
Matt Vickers
What the shadow Home Secretary was doing in office was putting more police on the country’s streets than ever before—149,679 police officers. We hope the Government will maintain that as we move forward, but there are lots of question marks around that.
We all need to support our police officers to tackle the heinous crimes that we have heard about in the debate. I hope the Government remain open to considering measures proposed by Opposition and Government Members who are committed to robustly tackling the very behaviours that this legislation seeks to prevent.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is an honour and privilege to wind up the debate on what is, as the Home Secretary set out in her opening speech, a critically important Bill. It is critically important for all sorts of reasons, many of which have been highlighted during the debate. It has been a wide-ranging discussion, which is unsurprising given the Bill’s scope and breadth.
There have been many excellent and powerful contributions, particularly from the Government Benches, with over 57 Back-Bench speakers. There is a thread that binds all the Bill’s measures together: this Government’s unwavering commitment to the security of our country and the safety of our communities and people we all represent. We are on the side of the law-abiding majority, who have had enough after 14 years of Conservative Governments.
This Bill will support and progress our safer streets mission, which is integral to the Government’s plan for change. We are determined to rebuild neighbourhood policing, restore confidence in the criminal justice system and reduce the harm caused by crime. We have already taken action to strengthen the response to threats, including knife crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls, but to deliver the change that the British people want and deserve, we must go further, and this Bill will allow us to do that.
It is evident from the debate that there is broad cross-party support for many of the Bill’s measures. It has been helpful to have the insights and experience of hon. Members who have previously served as police officers—my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) and for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop)—as well as the wise words from a former Crown prosecutor who now sits on the Government Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth).
Many of my hon. Friends welcomed the commitment to neighbourhood policing, the focus on antisocial behaviour, the introduction of respect orders and the new powers for vehicles being used for antisocial behaviour. In fact, there is a very long list of those Members: my hon. Friends the Members for Telford (Shaun Davies), for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith), for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Makerfield (Josh Simons), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert), for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Mansfield (Steve Yemm). They all spoke with great passion about their constituencies and the effect that antisocial behaviour has had on their communities.
Similarly, many hon. Friends spoke about retail crime and the ending of the shoplifters’ charter, and welcomed the new offence that will better protect retail workers. We heard about that from my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson), for St Helens North (David Baines), for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) and for High Peak (Jon Pearce).
Members spoke eloquently in support of the new offences to tackle child criminal exploitation, stalking, cuckooing, spiking and knife crime, including my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington South (Sarah Hall), for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey).
I also pay tribute to the Members who have campaigned on these issues for some time, including the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones). The measures for which they have been campaigning are in the Bill. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who we recognise is a doughty campaigner, that we are certainly considering dangerous cycling in detail.
In the limited time available to me, I will focus on a few of the points raised throughout the debate, but there will clearly be opportunities during line-by-line scrutiny in Committee to debate all the matters raised this evening fully and properly. I will start with the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who asked a number of questions—some of which were not a surprise, given his focus on technology in particular. In his speech, he seemed to be suffering from amnesia about what has happened to policing and crime over the past 14 years. It is worth gently reminding him that, in the period from April to June last year, when his Government were still in post and, in fact, he was Policing Minister, police numbers were going down. I just thought that I would gently remind him of that, because he obviously needs a bit of help to recall what was happening on his watch. Of course, neighbourhood policing was decimated under the previous Government.
Let me get to some of the specific questions that the shadow Home Secretary wanted me to answer. We all agree that rough sleeping and nuisance begging are complex issues. We are working closely with the Deputy Prime Minister and her Department to ensure that such individuals, who are often vulnerable, are appropriately supported—that is set against our commitment to stand by the police and effectively tackle crime and antisocial behaviour. As it stands, the Vagrancy Act 1824 remains in force, and we know that police forces in many areas also use the ASB powers to tackle the antisocial behaviour associated with begging and rough sleeping.
The shadow Home Secretary also asked about the provisions to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings. As announced in the King’s Speech in 2024, those measures will be introduced in the forthcoming victims, courts and public protection Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
I would really like to get on actually. The shadow Home Secretary had quite a lot of time at the beginning of the debate, and I would like to respond to the Back Benchers who have spent many hours in the Chamber in order to make their points. However, in response to a question that he asked about knife scanning technology, the Home Office is still working with industry partners to develop systems that are specifically designed to detect at a distance knives concealed on a person. That work is part of the Innovation competitions that were launched last year, and phase one is expected to be delivered by the end of May, resulting in the first prototype systems.
Facial recognition was mentioned by the shadow Home Secretary and a number of hon. Members, and such technology is an important tool to help the police to identify offenders more quickly and accurately. It is showing significant potential to increase police productivity and effectiveness, and it could substantially contribute to our safer streets mission. We need to support the police by ensuring that they have clarity, especially where there is a balance to strike between ensuring public safety and safeguarding the rights of individuals. I will be considering the options for that, alongside broader police reforms that will be in the White Paper later in the spring.
Public order, particularly the issue of protest, was raised by a number of hon. Members including my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Bristol North East (Damien Egan), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, and we are fully committed to protecting and preserving that right. However, it is vital that we strike the right balance between the right to protest and the rights of the wider community. I am sure we will debate that issue more fully in Committee. We will also be carrying out expedited post-legislative scrutiny of the Public Order Act 2023, beginning in May. That process will look at how the legislation has operated since coming into force, and we will consider carefully the outputs of that review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) asked me to confirm that any amendments to the Bill on the subject of abortion will be subject to a free vote. All women have access to safe legal abortions on the NHS up to 24 weeks, including taking early medical abortion pills at home where eligible. We recognise that this is an extremely sensitive issue, and there are strongly held views on all sides of the discussion. My hon. Friend will understand that whipping on the Government Benches is a matter for the Government Chief Whip.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) spoke knowledgably about the issue of mandatory reporting. He referred particularly to religious groups and spoke about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and he asked for a meeting to discuss the matter further. The purpose of mandatory reporting is obviously to improve the protection of children, and our aim is to create a culture of support, knowledge and openness when dealing with child sexual abuse. That is why we consider it more appropriate for those who fail to discharge their duty to face referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service, and professional regulators where applicable. Those bodies can prevent individuals from working with children, potentially losing their livelihood, which is a serious consequence. The strongest possible sanctions will apply to individuals where deliberate actions have been taken to obstruct a report being made under the duty. Anyone who seeks to prevent a reporter from carrying out their duty to report will face the prospect of up to seven years’ imprisonment.
My hon. Friends the Members for Gower and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert), and the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) asked whether the Bill could be used to reform our prostitution laws. I assure hon. Members that the Government are committed to tackling the harms and exploitation that can be associated with prostitution, and ensuring that women who want to leave prostitution are given every opportunity to find routes out. The Government are closely monitoring new approaches that are being developed in Northern Ireland and parts of mainland Europe, working closely with the voluntary and community sector, and the police, to ensure that the safeguarding of women remains at the heart of our approach.
The repeal of part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 was also raised regarding unauthorised encampments, including by my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Liverpool Riverside. I thank my hon. Friends for raising that issue. The Government are considering the High Court’s decision and will respond in due course.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) raised questions about the application of certain provisions in the Bill to Northern Ireland. I assure him and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who raised similar questions, that we are continuing to discuss with the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland whether further provisions in the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland.
Questions about domestic abuse were raised by the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). As was discussed in the debate, domestic abuse covers a wide range of behaviours and is already considered by the courts as a factor that increases the seriousness of offending, which may lead to an increase in the length of a sentence. I am sure that the Minister for Safeguarding would be happy to talk to the hon. Member for Eastbourne about his specific concerns about the current legislation.
In conclusion, this is a wide-ranging and ambitious Bill. It has the straightforward purpose of making our country safer. It will achieve that by restoring neighbourhood policing, by giving law enforcement stronger powers to combat threats that ruin lives and livelihoods, and by rebuilding public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is clear that people around the country want change. They want to feel protected by a visible, responsive police service; they want to know that when our laws our broken, justice will be sought and served; and they want to have a sense of security and confidence, so that they can go about their lives freely and without fear. That is why we have put the safer streets mission at the heart of our plan for change, and it is why we have brought forward this Bill, which I wholeheartedly commend to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Crime and Policing Bill: Programme
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Crime and Policing Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 13 May 2025.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Question agreed to.
Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting)
Thursday 27th March 2025
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 March 2025 - (27 Mar 2025)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent, please. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Today, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally, without debate.
I first call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in her name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
Good morning, Dr Allin-Khan. I am minded that we have a busy day ahead of us, so I will move the preliminary motions formally. Time Witness Until no later than 12.15 pm National Police Chiefs’ Council; Police Superintendents’ Association; Police Federation of England and Wales Until no later than 12.45 pm Oliver Sells KC; Rt Hon Sir Robert Buckland KBE KC Until no later than 1.00 pm Spike Aware Until no later than 2.40 pm The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers; Co-operative Group Limited; British Retail Consortium Until no later than 3.10 pm The Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales; The Suzy Lamplugh Trust Until no later than 3.40 pm Internet Watch Foundation; Action for Children Until no later than 4.10 pm Local Government Association; Neil Garratt AM Until no later than 4.50 pm The Police and Crime Commissioner for Humberside; The Police and Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley; The Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Essex; The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners Until no later than 5.05 pm Dr Lawrence Newport Until no later than 5.20 pm The National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales Until no later than 5.35 pm Stand with Hong Kong Until no later than 5.55 pm Home Office; Ministry of Justice
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 27 March) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 March;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 1 April;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 3 April;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 8 April;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 24 April;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 29 April;
(g) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 1 May;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 8 May;
(i) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 13 May;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence on Thursday 27 March in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2; Schedule 1; Clauses 3 to 5; Schedule 2; Clause 6; Schedule 3; Clauses 7 to 30; Schedule 4; Clauses 31 and 32; Schedule 5; Clauses 33 to 38; Schedule 6; Clauses 39 to 45; Schedule 7; Clauses 46 to 56; Schedule 8; Clauses 57 to 68; Schedule 9; Clauses 69 to 82; Schedule 10; Clauses 83 to 90; Schedule 11; Clauses 91 and 92; Schedule 12; Clauses 93 to 96; Schedule 13; Clauses 97 to 102; Schedules 14 and 15; Clauses 103 to 124; Schedule 16; Clauses 125 to 130; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 131 to 137; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 13 May.—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I declare my former occupation as a police officer. I am a member of NARPO, the National Association of Retired Police Officers.
The Chair
If any interests are particularly relevant to a Member’s questioning or speech, they should declare them again at the appropriate time.
Examination of Witnesses
Chief Constable Tim De Meyer, Dan Murphy KPM and Tiff Lynch gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, and the Police Federation of England and Wales. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 12.15 pm. Will witnesses introduce themselves briefly for the record?
Chief Constable De Meyer: I am Tim De Meyer, chief constable of Surrey and the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for disclosure.
Tiff Lynch: Good morning. I am Tiff Lynch, acting national chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales.
Dan Murphy: Morning. I am Dan Murphy, assistant national secretary of the Police Superintendents Association.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Q
Chief Constable De Meyer: The NPCC does not see any measures that have been omitted, save perhaps for the provision on begging, which was in an initial draft, but we understand there were concerns in respect of how that might be enforced. Overall, the NPCC is extremely supportive of the Bill. It seems to us that it brings a lot of laws up to date and frames the law in a way that is much more consistent with the way that a lot of crimes are now committed. It generally enables much earlier intervention and prevention on the back of the new or adapted offences that are created.
Matt Vickers
Q
Chief Constable De Meyer: The point in respect of begging is that, although we were generally supportive of the inclusion of nuisance begging in the provisions, it would require a certain amount of judgment in how to enforce that. That was the only point that NPCC colleagues noted was in the original provisions but is not here. Other than that, they are extremely supportive.
Tiff Lynch: In relation to the overarching Bill, we concur with Chief Constable De Meyer. We are supportive of new legislation that brings us up to societal issues. I do not want to sound like a broken record throughout all the questions, but our main concerns are the infrastructure that sits behind the legislation; the demand that is placed upon the officers we represent, who will be out there on the streets enacting this legislation; resourcing; and the learning, training and development of the officers who will be required to carry it out.
Dan Murphy: The Police Superintendents Association also supports the Bill and the provisions within it. With any legislation, there will obviously need to be clarity through the courts, training or the guidance that comes with the Bill. I have read with interest the debates for and against some of the clauses. On the power of entry, electronic devices and public order, some of the definitions are not defined within the legislation. There is a specific concern that I have read—it might not be a concern—about mandatory reporting in clauses 45 to 54 and whether the covert nature of policing would be dealt with through an exception or some kind of exemption with regard to that route.
Matt Vickers
Q
Dan Murphy: I think it gives you the tools to do the job, but whenever you enter private homes, you only have to look at the case law on warrants, where we have full powers, to see that they are challenged regularly. We need to make sure we are trained and get it right. As this is a new bit of legislation, I am sure there will be challenges either way as and when it is used.
Matt Vickers
Q
Dan Murphy: I think there is a role for the Government and Parliament to communicate that it is a power that has been given to policing. It is not something that policing is searching for and trying to use. The public need to understand that it has been given to us for a reason, and we are using it.
Tiff Lynch: I would go one step further in relation to the public having knowledge of the powers. That also gives our police officers confidence that the Government are behind them when they are enforcing these laws, and the knowledge that they are supported in what they are doing.
Chief Constable De Meyer: We know that the ability to track mobile devices is not sufficiently accurate at the moment for it to be relied upon without some form of corroboration. Therefore, one understands why things are more tightly framed. Where there is good intelligence for its use, this ability to enter swiftly to search for stolen goods without the need to get a warrant will mean that we are able to recover stolen property more swiftly, and that investigations are less likely to be frustrated. To ensure legitimacy in the eyes of the public, that obviously needs to be carried out carefully, but overall it will make it less likely that property, whether electronic property or property linked to rural crime, can be swiftly disposed of. Our current inability to deal expeditiously with those sorts of crimes can adversely impact public confidence. Overall, it is a very positive operational thing.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Chief Constable De Meyer: The requirement of belief is obviously a relatively high bar; for example, it is above suspicion. I think that that reflects the need to ensure that a new power such as this is applied carefully and with appropriate corroboration. Crucially, an inspector is going to be readily operationally available for an officer in this sort of dynamic circumstance, so the officer will be able to make contact with and get the authorisation from them. It seems to me that the thrust of the power is very much towards enabling the police to recover property quickly, so belief is a good safeguard and the inspector is appropriately senior and accessible. I would agree on those two points.
Dame Diana Johnson
Does any other panel member want to comment?
Dan Murphy: I think we need to make sure that we have the right training and guidance. Because of the power that we have, we should expect challenge. There will be challenge. My “reasonable grounds to believe” may be different from those of somebody else around the table. To form that belief, we would have gone through a process of using proportionate, necessary and justified means, and looking at the intelligence and evidence in front of us, but that is different for everyone. There is not a black and white answer to how that will be decided.
Dame Diana Johnson
But do you think that inspector-level authorisation is the appropriate level?
Dan Murphy: Yes.
Tiff Lynch: Good morning, Minister. I agree with both Chief Constable De Meyer and Dan Murphy in relation to the authorisation level. Again, I would say that we have to manage the expectations of victims of crime as to how speedy the recovery of technical equipment will be, given that we have identified locations and given that demand is already being placed on officers who are out there. It is also about managing expectations.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Chief Constable De Meyer: We think that the new powers—placing, as they will, requirements on those who have committed ASB, including positive requirements to carry out certain actions—will give us rather more flexibility in dealing with this type of behaviour. They are also preventive and, in some cases, restorative. We think the deterrent value will be greater, and making the breach of the order a criminal offence will allow us to quickly arrest where there has not been compliance. Overall, the NPCC thinks that this will enable earlier intervention. We know that antisocial behaviour has a very serious effect on community confidence and on people’s ability to engage in educational, social and economic life, so anything that enables us to deal more swiftly with problems when they are in their infancy is to be welcomed.
Tiff Lynch: Without repeating, we agree. Perpetrators can be required to address the root cause of the problems, once they have been dealt with. Again, I come back to resource and demand. Certainly on the arrest element, perpetrators going into custody places a huge demand on the custody department and police officers. We need the infrastructure that is placed behind it. We are already seeing, certainly on custodial sentences, a backlog of cases in the criminal justice system, and then prison spaces overcrowding. We need to have the infrastructure behind this to make it effective and believable.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Tiff Lynch: Yes, it does, but I come back to the time required for the follow-on processes. Once you have dealt with a perpetrator, there are hours spent with paperwork and systems following that. That could wipe out our neighbourhood officers in one shift. Sadly, until we get that infrastructure and the systems that back up any law—certainly with these new laws—demand and all the other priorities could wipe out those additional officers in one shift.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Dan Murphy: It has come under the banner of antisocial behaviour, which it is. A lot of antisocial behaviour issues that police deal with are for those who are under the age of 18. This applies to those 18 and over. The power is good, but if the public think we will be able to use this for teenagers, there will be a mismatch. I think the power of arrest is good, but I note that there is a requirement to give a warning if there is a positive requirement in the respect order. The public might think that since the respect order has been issued, we can just go out and arrest the person, but we cannot. There are a few caveats, which are obviously to make the law fair and ensure people subject to it understand what is happening. I think the power of arrest will be extremely useful, but as Tiff said, someone has to make that arrest and then someone has to put a case file together to prove the breach, so there is work to be done and resource to be put into this. It does need to be resourced if it is going to be successful, but the main point is that it is for over-18s.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Chief Constable De Meyer: When I appear at community events, I often find that the £200 point is a source of great confusion and misunderstanding. To resolve that ambiguity is extremely welcome, as it has wrongly been supposed that shoplifting under that threshold is legal, which plainly is not the case. To resolve that ambiguity is a good thing.
The specific offence of assaulting a retail worker acknowledges the vital role that retail workers play in community and local economic life, and the disproport- ionate likelihood of their being assaulted in the course of their work. By creating this offence, it enables us to identify much more precisely the extent of the problem and to deal with the crime in circumstances that the law much more closely reflects. It is certainly welcome from our perspective.
Tiff Lynch: I would like to focus on the assaults on retail workers offence. We support this. Nobody should go to their place of work with the expectation that they will be assaulted—absolutely nobody. Again, it comes down to resourcing, but it is worth mentioning that the same principle was applied for the assaults on emergency workers offence only a few years ago, which was championed by the Police Federation of England and Wales. Unfortunately, due to the backlog within the criminal justice system, we have now seen that that legislation is not being used effectively. Actually, with the assaults on emergency workers legislation, they are now reverting to the assaults on police constables legislation. If we bring in this law, we need to see strong execution of it and support for retail workers in the same way as for emergency service workers.
Dame Diana Johnson
Mr Murphy, do you have a view on this?
Dan Murphy: No, nothing further.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Tiff Lynch: It is simply about time and the length of investigations. For far too long, the length of the investigations has been an issue for police conduct. We expect that officers who do not uphold the warrant they carry should be exited from the organisation swiftly. Those referrals will cut down the time it takes to deal with those investigations dealt with. Essentially, that will prevent any disillusionment from the public, the complainant or the victim, but also the officer concerned.
Dame Diana Johnson
So your view is that it will speed up proceedings.
Tiff Lynch: One would hope so.
Dame Diana Johnson
But you support the change in threshold.
Tiff Lynch: Yes.
Dame Diana Johnson
Would either of the other members of the panel like to say anything on that?
Dan Murphy: I agree with all that. The Police Superintendents Association supports that change.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Q
Obviously, protesting—being able to exercise our rights in a democracy to demonstrate our displeasure with something—is incredibly important. What is your understanding of the definition of a protest? In what situations would these measures be imposed on a protest? How would somebody at one of those protests—the Chinese protests are a good example—be treated by officers if a designation was put in place and they were concealing their identities?
Chief Constable De Meyer: It is extremely challenging to give a definitive answer, as the question implies.
On the point about the definition of protest, first, there is of course no single definition of protest. A broad range of activities could qualify as a protest—one person, a gathering, a vigil, a march, the playing of music, chanting or other sorts of activities. It is a very challenging area of law and operational policing.
On the point about concealing identity and the potential threat to safety in respect of transnational repression, I am afraid that, again, my response is going to be not quite as definitive as might be hoped for. We would have to apply the same judgment as we do in other areas of public order operational life, such as in relation to searching. That means if an offence is suspected, it is for the officer to engage with the individuals in question and to carry out a dynamic investigation of what is going on, seeking expert tactical advice where appropriate, or senior authority as well.
It is important to point out that the provision does not say that the power has to be used; it is what may be done, not what must be done. It does very much come down to circumstances and the engagement and judgment of the officer. The advice will be vital. One would expect sensitivities such as this to be addressed through the training of the various public order operatives—the gold commanders, the silver commanders, the bronze commanders and the public order officers themselves. Inevitably, there will be some learning through case law as well.
Tiff Lynch: I agree with the chief constable. I come back to what I said earlier about training and learning the law. Our police officers who are out there during protests work within the confines of the law. They utilise the national decision-making model. It is all about what they see in front of them on the day. We pride ourselves on people being able to protest lawfully, within the confines of the law. How the officers act on the day, depending on what they are presented with, will be determined on the day.
Dan Murphy: It is a long time since I ran a public order operation. To me, as a police officer and a commander—we have talked about neighbourhood policing—it is about talking to people. If you are presented with what you as a commander think is a protest that you can justify, if you have a protest that is not going to cause any particular problems, why would you go down this route, even as a preventive thing? If you have people present who are covering their faces and you think it might raise an issue, you could just send an officer to go and speak to them and say, “Would you mind identifying yourself, so that we know who you are?” You deal with it by talking to people.
Luke Taylor
Q
Chief Constable De Meyer: It is an extremely good point in respect of the judgment that the officer would exercise. There have plainly been circumstances where people have concealed their identity as a means of escaping detection and frustrating the efforts of the authorities to identify those responsible for offences within protests, and their doing so meant that we were not able to prevent further criminal activity. So I think the powers are necessary, but they are to be exercised with caution and good judgment.
The Chair
Many Members have caught my eye. I will only be able to get everybody in if Members keep their questions very brief.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Q
“with intent to use unlawful violence”.
Can you explain how operationally that bridges the gap between the current legislation on simple possession and using a bladed article or offensive weapon to threaten or harm somebody? How is this going to help us to drive down knife crime?
Chief Constable De Meyer: This allows for greater sanctions against those who are evidenced as having caused harm or are known to be intending to cause harm. The important point here—it goes to the point I made at the beginning—is that the law will now more closely reflect the circumstances of the case, because regard can be had to the totality of the circumstances when the investigation is being carried out, when the case is being presented at court, and ultimately when the sentence is being passed if the person is convicted. Rather than relying only on the simple act of possession, the investigation and the court can have regard to the intent of the individual and the much greater seriousness of the circumstances that that implies.
It also means we will be much better able to deliver what we term “sustained public protection”. Rather than simply bringing someone to justice for possessing a knife without being able to produce evidence as to what their intention might have been, we can now adduce that evidence and, one imagines, come up with a tougher sentence that has much more preventive power.
The Chair
If the witnesses are in broad agreement, it is fine if only one person answers, unless there is something else you want to raise.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Q
“‘anti-social behaviour’ means conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.”
My direct question would be: is it therefore being restricted to just a “person”, or does it include instances of neighbourhood or property nuisance, where there is a large-scale impact but no single person can be identified as the recipient?
Dan Murphy: On your first point, it would obviously capture more incidents and issues if the threshold was set at a lower age, but do we want to be criminalising children with this type of offence? There is a balance, and it is a matter for Parliament and society as to whether they would like to lower that age. I can understand why it has been set at 18, but I wanted to make the point that, as it is set at 18, that power could not be used for young people.
On harassment, alarm and distress, that is a person-specific issue, compared with a community or area. In policing, if we could have something that captured that as well, we would welcome it—again, it is an extension of powers. You are putting me on the spot here, as I am thinking, “How would you prove that? Who would be your witness or injured party for a community?” I think what is provided at the moment is useful. Would it be good if it could be widened? Yes. Practically, could it be widened? I think we would probably need a whole other Committee and some lawyers to discuss that one.
Matt Bishop
Q
Chief Constable De Meyer: It is important to point out how rare it is in this country for a firearms officer to discharge their weapon; reassuringly, it is rarer still that someone dies as a result. Obviously, it is right that there is a proper investigation wherever that happens, but I do not think it is in the interest of public safety for an officer doing such an important job to feel inhibited from doing what might be necessary, and what they are trained to do, in rare and extreme circumstances, because they are concerned that their name will be made public in a subsequent investigation, with all the risk to them personally that that entails. I cannot say for certain, and colleagues here would give a better indication as to the extent that such a measure might assuage their concerns, but it seems to me to be a necessary and sensible move.
Tiff Lynch: Without repeating what Chief Constable De Meyer has said, certainly we were pleased with the Home Secretary’s announcement on the granting of anonymity to firearms officers in those situations, particularly with NX121 and the case that followed.
Our firearms officers are volunteers. That is key and it really needs to be noted. They put themselves and their lives at risk to protect society. In these cases, for their families and their own wellbeing, and because of what may follow, it is absolutely right for them to be granted anonymity for a required period of time. To answer your question specifically about reassuring our firearms officers out there today, there is some reassurance, but again, it is a matter of time passing until they actually feel that that will continue.
Dan Murphy: It is definitely a step in the right direction. Firearms officers, like all police officers, are interested in actions rather than words. They would like to see a difference, so once they start seeing that difference, it will make a difference to them. I know that there will be some announcements on the accountability review soon. I think Dame Diana is involved in that, and I know the Government are looking at it. We are really encouraged that there may be some more positive steps that will lead to actions that support officers who put themselves in those more difficult situations.
Matt Vickers
Q
Tiff Lynch: In relation to the powers, this is something that I find myself repeating not in this forum but in other interviews: you can bring in many laws and powers, but we need to have the infrastructure and the resources to use them. We have officers out there with casefiles that are getting longer and longer. There is only so much that can be highlighted as a priority, because if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. Yes, we support the laws. It is for Government to make the laws and for us to carry them out. We will do so, but it is about managing expectations not just from policing but from society.
Matt Vickers
Q
Dan Murphy: If you have someone who is a prolific offender, and the police are constantly dealing with them and there are constant victims, the best place for that person is in prison. Getting them into prison is sometimes not easy, but I think that is the answer.
The Chair
Just a reminder that we need to keep things really short if we want to get everybody in. It may not be possible to do so.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
Q
Chief Constable De Meyer: ASB or counter-terrorism?
Dr Sullivan
A bit of both. We have the youth injunctions, which could help with ASB in our communities, but how do the youth diversion orders intersect with that?
Chief Constable De Meyer: I agree that there is an intersection between the two. Counter-terrorism policing is certainly extremely supportive of youth diversion orders. Interestingly and worryingly, there has been a significant increase in the number of young people featuring in the casework of counter-terrorism policing. In 2019, just 4% of those arrested for counter-terrorism offences were aged under 18, but by 2023 that had become 19%. That poses serious challenges in respect of not just the threat but the caseload. Naturally, counter-terrorism policing wants wherever possible to avoid criminalising at a very young age people who might themselves have been exploited by extremists.
It is felt that these orders will divert a young person away from being labelled a terrorist, if I can put it that way, and engaging in further offending. They open up the possibility of some supportive and some prohibitive measures, so there is both a carrot and a stick. They enable colleagues to manage the risk at a much earlier stage than is currently the case.
On the matter of Prevent, which is of long standing, it has been essentially voluntary for young people. There has not been any need to compel their involvement in the necessary diversion. We see this measure as a means of introducing just about the right amount of compulsion to the Prevent set of activities, without making it entirely mandatory.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Q
Chief Constable De Meyer: It is important to emphasise, first of all, that we will not have to exercise the power. It is a power that is available to us that we may use, and not one that we must necessarily use. That having been said, one accepts entirely the potential for people on one side of a debate to suggest that the power ought to have been used and that it has not been used on another side. I can only say that it is for commanders in each individual circumstance to ensure that they abide by the principle of policing without fear or favour, impartially. It is difficult for me to say much more than that, because there are so many circumstances in which it might come to pass, but I do recognise the difficulty.
Tiff Lynch: It is down to interpretation. It is also relevant to communication and how the general public have an understanding of what police officers are out there doing. We are seeing actions of police officers at these protests being placed all over social media. It is a snippet of information, and as a result you get misinformation and disinformation, which then heightens society’s frustration. I think there is a role to be played by everyone, certainly within Government, to communicate those powers and actions to the public so that everyone has that clear understanding. Then it is important, again, to have the support, certainly for the officers we represent, out there on the frontline, in doing what they are doing.
The Chair
I am afraid this will probably have to be the last question to this set of witnesses.
Keir Mather (Selby) (Lab)
Q
Chief Constable De Meyer: I agree entirely with the point in respect of rural crime. We need to acknowledge how important the rural economy and the custodians of our countryside are, and policing needs to do more to bring offenders to justice.
If I am not mistaken, one provision in the Bill relates to the point about the swift recovery of electronic devices. I think that that enables us to act more swiftly in respect of the proceeds of some rural crime offences as well. This is a category of crime where the proceeds are often disposed of very quickly to other parts of the country and, indeed, overseas. Very often, of course, those pieces of equipment or devices have a tracking capability, so anything that enables us more swiftly to respond and recover that property gives us a much better chance of bringing those offenders to justice than has been the case in the past. It is also likely to have a considerable deterrent value for organised crime groups, and opportunistic criminals too.
Dan Murphy: There is provision for seizing vehicles without giving notice. Without going into detail, I think that that will definitely assist.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Q
Tiff Lynch: Neighbourhood policing is the bedrock of policing; that is something I have always believed, and we have discussed it privately. The police officers and police community support officers out there work with communities, and this Bill—I come back to what I said before—will go some way towards bringing us into line with how society is changing, so that we can actually use laws to keep the public safe. But, again, it comes down to the investment that is made in policing so that we are able to enact those laws, and when I talk about investment, that is about people, systems and infrastructure.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions of this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Oliver Sells KC and Rt Hon Sir Robert Buckland KBE KC gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the right hon. Sir Robert Buckland KBE KC and Oliver Sells KC. Again, we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this evidence session, we will have until 12.45 pm. Those who want to ask questions should catch my eye. I will try to prioritise those I was not able to get in last time. Could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Sir Robert Buckland: I am Sir Robert Buckland, former Member of this place, and former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Solicitor General, Secretary of State for Wales and Minister of State for prisons.
Oliver Sells: I am Oliver Sells. I practised in the world of criminal justice for many years, and I have sat at the Old Bailey for many years.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Sir Robert Buckland: There is a lot to welcome in every crime Bill, particularly given the need to update the response of police and law enforcement to the growing risks posed by technology. We are now living in an age with the extrinsic challenge of technologies, right through from digital to artificial intelligence and machine learning. It is absolutely reasonable for the public to expect that the police and our other law enforcement agencies are up to speed, most notably on the seizure of mobile telephone devices and the analysis of evidence.
There is a growing crisis—we see it in our court backlogs —which is, sadly, largely caused by the failure of the system to deal at speed with the vast amount of data that needs to be analysed in order to build up a case or properly challenge it in accordance with tried and tested rules. I should have added that I am back at the Bar and that I was a part-time judge, and I obviously make any appropriate declarations.
There is a lot to welcome in the Bill. I am pleased to see the child criminal exploitation offence, although I might want to say more about that if we can have that conversation. As with all Bills with a wide scope of this nature, one is always left thinking what else we can do. I am sure that lots of challenges will be posed as the Bill goes through both Houses, and hopefully you will adopt some of the suggestions made by the many people who take a great interest in this legislation.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Sir Robert Buckland: I noted the way in which it is defined. I entirely understand that there needs to be clarity about the criminal activities of children but, on the position of children who are exploited—you will be familiar with this from our work when I was here—I do not think it will always be exploitation that results in their commission of a criminal offence. The forced labour, sexual exploitation and financial abuse of children will often not involve them committing a criminal offence at all.
I am not being glib here. I see this particular offence being characterised as a Fagin-type offence, rather than something wider that could actually serve to protect children, and allow the police and enforcing authorities to take that early action where they see children at risk. That is why I think some of the ideas from Every Child Protected Against Trafficking and others about expanding the definition, so that you are clearly defining what exploitation is, rather than just leaving it to the courts to decide, would be a real opportunity seized. I think you might miss it if you restrict clause 17 in those terms.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Sir Robert Buckland: I am very supportive of that proposal. I signed an amendment with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I had a lot of evidence of cuckooing issues in my constituency, including the exploitation of vulnerable people—often adults with a learning disability —and vulnerable people being befriended by unscrupulous criminals and having their premises used and abused for the supply of drugs and other criminal activities. I strongly support the measures on cuckooing.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Oliver Sells: I think it is a very important measure. The range of novel criminal offences is exponential, in my experience. We are seeing a complete change in the criminal code and conduct in relation to SIMs and the use of people in those contexts.
I particularly want to refer to the backlog in the criminal courts. I feel very strongly for victims of serious crime. Most of the crimes that I try are serious sexual offences, where young female or male complainants are waiting to give evidence in their cases for two or three years, routinely. That is a completely unacceptable situation, and Parliament and this Committee should be focusing all their laser energy on reducing the backlog in the Crown court, because that is where this is.
They should be looking at productivity, because it is too low, if I am honest. I also think you should be looking at the number of courts sitting. I looked today; you can go online and look at the central criminal court and the percentage of the courts there that are sitting on a routine basis. In my judgment, now, it is too low, whatever the complex reasons may be.
One of the clauses I wanted particularly to speak about today was clause 16, on theft from shops. I recognise that there is a great public anxiety about this particular issue. Shoplifting has become endemic and almost non-criminal at the same time. It is a curious dichotomy, it seems to me, but I do not think for a moment—I am sorry to be critical—that making theft from a shop, irrespective of value, triable either way is the right answer. What that will do, inevitably, is push some of these cases up into the Crown court from the magistrates court.
I understand the reasons behind it and the concerns of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the like. However, I think it is the wrong way. One of the things we must do now in this country is reinforce the use and the range of magistrates courts, and bring them back to deal with serious low-level crimes that are very frequent in their areas. They know how to deal with them. They need the powers to deal with them. I still do not think their range of powers is strong enough. You need to take cases such as these out of the Crown court, in my judgment. I think it is a serious mistake. I can see why people want to do it, because they want to signify that an offence is a very important in relation to shop workers. I recognise that; I have tried many cases of assaults on shop workers and the like, which come up to the Crown court on appeal, and we all know the difficulties they cause, but you will not solve the problem.
I also think you need to look more widely. This Bill does begin to look at where the line is to be drawn between the magistrates courts and the Crown court and at what offences should be triable in the magistrates court. I am going to range a little wider into the third tier, which has been suggested as a proposal. I am not convinced there is a need for a third tier myself. I think you need to enhance the first tier, magistrates courts, which is, in effect, small local juries. The composition of magistrates courts has changed completely in the last five or 10 years. You are now getting people who are local, experienced, young—a range of people. They are perfectly able to try these cases, in my judgment. You should take it out of the Crown court and leave the Crown court for really serious offences. That is my view.
Matt Vickers
Q
Sir Robert Buckland: There are a couple of things, Mr Vickers. First of all, just to build on Mr Sells’s point on clause 16, I understand the huge concern about shoplifting and the perception among many shop proprietors in our towns and cities that, in some ways, it was almost becoming decriminalised and that action has to be taken. But the danger in changing primary legislation in this way is that we send mixed messages, and that the Government are sending mixed messages about what its policy intentions are.
Sir Brian Leveson is conducting an independent review into criminal procedure. We do not know yet what the first part of that review will produce, but I would be very surprised if there was not at least some nod to the need to keep cases out of the Crown court, bearing in mind the very dramatic and increasing backlog that we have. I think that anything that ran contrary to that view risks the Government looking as if it is really a house divided against itself.
It seems to me that there was a simpler way of doing this. When the law was changed back in 2014, there was an accompanying policy guideline document that allowed for the police to conduct their own prosecutions for shoplifting items with a value of under £200, if the offender had not done it before, if there were not other offences linked with it, if there was not a combined amount that took it over £200 and if there was a guilty plea.
What seems to have happened in the ensuing years is that that has built and developed, frankly, into a culture that has moved away from the use of prosecuting as a tool in its entirety. I think that that is wrong, but I do think that it is within the gift of Ministers in the Home Office and of officials in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to say, “That guidance is superseded. We hope, want and expect all offences to be prosecuted.” That would then allow offences of under £200 to be prosecuted in the magistrates court. There is nothing in the current legislation that prevents any of that, by the way, and I think it would send a very clear message to the police that they are expected to do far more when it comes to the protection of retail premises.
On clause 14, which covers assault on retail workers, I was a little surprised to see that there had been a departure from what was a rather interesting amendment tabled in the previous Session to the 2023-24 Criminal Justice Bill by, I think, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris); in fact, I think it was supported by you and others. It sought to amend the law to increase protections for shop workers, but with an important expansion: the offence would be not just an assault, but a threatening or abuse offence as well, which would encompass some of the public order concerns that many of us have about shop premises, corner shops and sole proprietor retail outlets. Yet, we have gone back here to a straight assault clause, which in my mind does not seem to add anything to the criminal code at all.
We have existing laws of assault, which was often the argument of Ministers, including me, when we debated these issues in the past. Again, it seems to me that the opportunity to widen the offence to cover different types of abuse against important retail workers is being missed at the moment. If I was advising the Government, which of course I am not, I would ask them to look again at the clause and to consider expanding it to make it much more meaningful for the people I think all of us want to protect.
Matt Vickers
Q
Sir Robert Buckland: Again, it is a missed opportunity. I think that, accompanying that type of behaviour, is a natural community concern about the prevalence of people who are—well, they are worse than nuisances—real menaces to the wellbeing of the local community. An attack on a shop, in my view, is an attack on the wellbeing of the whole local community. Given how important the local shop is as a lifeline for many people, including older and vulnerable customers, any attack on it that means that its services are lost, even temporarily, is a very serious attack on the community. Therefore, using this opportunity to increase the suite of preventive measures available would seem a very sensible thing to do, and I hope the Government will consider accepting any amendments that will no doubt be tabled with that aim in mind.
Matt Vickers
Q
Sir Robert Buckland: That is a very difficult issue that I looked at carefully when I was in the Government. One of the challenges, of course, is that the offences might be prolific but the sentences they carry often do not even cross the custody threshold.
There are two ways of looking at this. First, the community-based intensive intervention solution seems to be working, particularly in the case of young offenders, and we should look at expanding it to apply to adult offenders as well. There would, of course, be a huge concomitant cost, particularly for the probation service and all the agencies tasked with the intensive supervision of, perhaps, a drug or alcohol addiction. That is the sort of work that will take them off the streets and get them cleaned up, without sending them to a meaningless short-term sentence.
At the other end, there are people committing hundreds of offences, for whom the law cannot as yet provide a cumulative answer. It is difficult for me to suggest on the hoof how we would encompass a sentencing option that allows a roll-up, so that there was a longer term of imprisonment for someone prolific. The danger is that there is always a cliff edge: if someone has committed 24 rather than 25 offences, why should there be such a differential? The long-term answer lies in prevention. I strongly endorse the intensive community-based approach, which is not currently available to the courts.
Matt Vickers
Q
Oliver Sells: Could I touch on a subject that troubles me? It is implicit in the Bill, and it is not necessarily a popular view. The trend towards sentencing inflation has created a growing prison population of particularly young serial offenders who are serving longer and longer sentences. That is causing difficulties with the cost of the prison population and with what to do with people we cannot send to prison. The courts struggle the whole time not to send people to prison unless it is absolutely necessary. The idea that we could, for instance, abolish short sentences—there is a proposal for their removal—seems to me to be very double-edged indeed. We need to be very careful.
The courts, including the magistrates court, must have the powers to move swiftly. This is one of the problems in our system, particularly in respect of the kind of crime we are talking about. When I started out at the Bar, cases were dealt with overnight, and the next day were done and dusted in the magistrates court. It was effective and speedy. Speedy justice is much more effective than slow justice. We have created a situation and a structure, over many years now, where there is almost an acceptance of delay in the system, and I do not accept that at all. If you go to a magistrates court, you will see so many cases adjourned because it is not ready. They are piffling reasons, on the whole—complete nonsense, in my view. When a case is prepared overnight, it should be in the court within a matter of days and dealt with straight away. I do not think we have really understood that in the Bill. It is not quite there yet, in my view.
Sir Robert Buckland: With its wide scope, the Bill is an opportunity for the Government to act on, for example, the recommendations of Jonathan Fisher KC on the overdue reform of disclosure. The disclosure rules were created back in 1996 and are no longer fit for proper purpose. Anything the Bill can do to help to future-proof the use of assistive technologies would be a great opportunity for Ministers and officials. I am convinced that the use of assistive technology—I use the word “assistive” because it is technology not to replace the judge or the jury but to assist them in their deliberations, as well as assisting disclosure officers and the police in their investigations—is absolutely right.
The Chair
Thank you, Sir Robert. We have already used two thirds of the time allotted for our eminent witnesses. As time is fleeting, I request that people keep their contributions as short as possible so that we can cover the greatest amount of content and allow Committee members to ask a question.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Q
Oliver Sells: Oh dear. I do not think time permits me to answer that question in the way that I would like. Goodness gracious!
Anna Sabine
Give it your best shot.
Oliver Sells: I will give you the short answer. Yes, there are a whole load of things, but I do not have time to spell them out for you now. I do not think people understand that the courts want to strive to get cases through but are struggling to do so. There is an enormous amount of good will, both in the magistrates court and the Crown court.
Let me give you one example: prison transport. Why are we so reliant on defendants being brought long distances from prison every day to Crown courts? I see no justification for that in many cases. I have recently tried cases in which the defendant was sitting in Reading prison and the complainant was giving evidence on her phone in a Tesco car park. There is nothing wrong with that at all in my view; it is perfectly satisfactory and prevents all the difficulties and delay of people coming to court.
If I had my way, I would change very radically the procedural rules in the Crown court and the magistrates court. We are too slow and too timid, and I think there is a form of institutionalised idleness in some parts of the sector.
Matt Bishop
Q
Sir Robert Buckland: Thank you for asking that question, because how to deal with what were unacceptable figures was a real judgment call on my part. I thought it was far better, as the responsible Secretary of State, to fess up and apologise, frankly, for the way in which things had happened.
It was through nobody’s deliberate fault, but you may remember the case of a young man called Liam Allan, who was accused of rape and was about to face trial when the disclosure of very important text messages totally undermined the prosecution case, and rightly it was dropped. That, and other cases of that nature, had a bit of a chilling effect—to use a well-worn phrase in these precincts—on prosecutors’ appetite for risk when it came to rape. We then entered a sort of cul-de-sac, whereby, because of concerns about disclosure and the threshold, we saw fewer and fewer cases being brought.
The situation was compounded by the fact that many complainants and victims, when faced with the rather Manichean choice between giving over your phone for months or carrying on with your phone—which is, let us face it, the basis of your life—were saying, “No, thank you. I don’t want any more of this. Frankly, I don’t want to be put through the mill again, bearing in mind the trauma I’ve already suffered,” so the attrition rates were really high.
I therefore thought it was very important that we, the police and the CPS really looked again at the way in which the cases were investigated. That is why I thought it was important that we had things such as the 24-hour guarantee on the return of phones, and Operation Soteria, which was the roll-out operation, refocusing the way in which the police and the CPS worked together on cases to yield results. I am glad to say that we have seen a progressive increase in the number of cases brought. I do not think we are there yet, and we still have to give it a bit of time and a lot more will to get to a position where we can look back.
Let us go back to the Stern review, which was done over 10 years ago. Baroness Stern produced an impressive piece of work that acknowledged the fact that there are many victims and complainants who do not want to through prosecution, and want other means by which they can come to terms with, and get to support for, their trauma. Until we get the prosecution element right and we see the right balance, I do not think we can offer a wide range of different options so that victims feel that they are respected and listened to, that action is taken early, and that they are not having to relive the trauma all over again in a way that, frankly, causes the attrition rates.
From what I see in the Bill, there are certain measures and initiatives that will help in that process, but it does require—and I emphasise this—a huge amount of political will, and the attention of this place, to make sure that the authorities are doing what you want, on behalf of your constituents, them to do.
Harriet Cross
Q
Oliver Sells: I am not sure I am able to answer that question. I have not considered the matter in great detail, and when I have not considered something I tend not to answer the question. You must forgive me if I pass that one on to a politician who no doubt has no such inhibitions.
Sir Robert Buckland: No, I have never had any inhibitions, as I think you all well know!
We have to go back to the fundamentals. We should not be bringing prosecution cases unless there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest. That is the very simple test for prosecutors. You need the evidence, and that is the task that can often be very difficult for the investigating authorities. I will labour the point, because it is really important. We are faced with extrinsic challenges, in which digital and assistive technologies are being used on a scale and at a pace that are at once awe-inspiring and terrifying. Unless we can enable our police and investigative agencies to have the same level of firepower, we are never going to win, and we are going to have increasing difficulty in piecing together cases that can then be prosecuted. I think particularly about fraud and the use of blockchain and virtual technology. I want to make sure that in all the work that is being done to try to improve our response to fraud—whether by the Serious Fraud Office, the CPS or the City of London police—we are really on it when it comes to technology.
As Ministers will know, the Criminal Justice Board is the ideal forum for this work to be prioritised in. Ministers can make it the board’s priority and give tasks to all the arms of the criminal justice system to get it right. We did it with rape and we have done it with other types of criminality. I think this is the moment—if it is not being seized already—at which the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary can really step up and make sure that our response to cyber-crime is not just as good as but ahead of the trends that we now see, not just here but internationally. The extrinsic threats are a wake-up call.
Keir Mather
Q
Sir Robert Buckland: Well, we do not have all day, Mr Mather, but there is a lot I can say. The Bill is a relative minnow compared with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was the combined Bill that I worked on with the then Home Secretary.
The important thing is to make sure that legislative and political intent do not run too far ahead of operational reality. I will give the example of when we changed the law on stalking. This is going back a bit now, when I was still a Back Bencher. Dame Diana was certainly involved; it was a cross-party achievement. We did it in record time and got the law changed within months—it was an incredible achievement—but the police were not operationally ready. I still see evidence even now, 10 years on, of a lack of training about and awareness of the tell-tale signs of stalking.
The message I give to you all—particularly the parliamentarians who are cutting their teeth on this Bill—is to make sure that you read the impact assessments, that Ministers can answer your questions about operational reality, and that the police chiefs, the CPS and all the agencies that have the job of doing this are ready and resourced to make the legislative intent a reality. Otherwise, your constituents are going to be coming back to you in a few years, saying, “Why haven’t there been any prosecutions under this new offence?”
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Colin Mackie gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Spike Aware UK. Once again, we must stick to the timings in the programme motion. The Committee has agreed that, for this session, we will have until 1 o’clock. Could you please introduce yourself for the record?
Colin Mackie: Good afternoon. I am Colin Mackie. I am the chair and co-founding member of Spike Aware UK.
Matt Vickers
Q
How important are the measures in the Bill, and why? Is there anything that you think the Government should be doing beyond what is in the Bill?
Colin Mackie: I think this is majorly important. It is a giant step forward. Up until now, spiking has been a very grey area. It is charged as assault, theft, poisoning or whatever; it has been such a grey area that it has been hard to process it. That has the knock-on effect of putting victims off coming forward, because they do not know where they are going to go or what is going to be talked about, and they are unsure. Perpetrators of spiking feel, “Well, nothing’s really happening over this. I don’t hear of anybody getting charged for it, and it’s only a bit of fun; we don’t think we’re going to do any harm,” so they carry on doing it.
Having a stand-alone offence is beneficial for the victims, and I also think it is beneficial for the police. I feel that once a law is in place, you are going to get a co-ordinated response from police. Currently, victims in Newcastle are treated differently from victims in Newquay, and it is the same across the whole country. That is one of the major problems that victims tell us about all the time: some forces are great, while others are not so good. I have had one victim tell me that the police said they did not have the manpower or the time to go in and check the CCTV at the club where they were spiked. Another victim told me that uniformed officers turned up and were not sure how to deal with it, but half an hour later, the CID were there and straight into the club. We cannot have that inconsistency; we need to move forward with that.
You were asking earlier, “What can we do to help?” In bringing in the Bill, we have to involve A&E, because A&E has a big part to play in this as well. All too often, as you know, it is the job of the police to gather the evidence, but a spiking victim is likely to appear at a hospital—at A&E—unconscious or confused and not sure what is going on. They are not going to think about asking for a police officer to attend—they are not in a state to do that—so unless they have a family member or a friend there, that is not going to happen. By the time they get maybe two days down the line and think, “Yeah, this is what’s happened to me; I want to report this,” there is a good chance that a lot of the evidence has gone. We need that in the Bill as well: for A&E to play a bigger part by gathering evidence and holding it for the police. Then, if the victim wants to take it forward, it is there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Q
You mentioned that you welcome the clarification in the Bill, which will create a specific offence of spiking by using the word “spiking”. Can you expand on why that will make such a difference for victims? You mentioned some of the issues with the police using different types of offences. Why will it make such a difference to have a specific offence?
Colin Mackie: A victim will recognise that spiking is an offence when they approach the police. Currently they are not sure if they can report it. They are nervous and they are not sure if it is an offence. That has been a big thing that we get fed to us. Away from just the girls, there is a lot of spiking going on with boys now. Males are being spiked as well. It is possible that anybody could be spiked. That is a big thing, because we find that a lot of males think it is a girls’ problem. They think it is tied in with a sexual assault or whatever. If you just say “spiking” males will think, “Yeah, I have been spiked,” and that is it—it is the fact that they have been spiked.
A lot of spiking is now taking place and nothing else is happening. People are not being sexually assaulted or robbed; they are just being spiked. It is what we call prank spiking. People are doing it because they can. I think the ability for someone to come forward and just say, “Yes, I have been spiked and there is a law on spiking,” is the way forward.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Colin Mackie: We certainly want to get the night-time industry more involved and get stewards more aware, because all too often one of the first things said to someone who has been spiked or their friends is, “They’re drunk. I want them out the club. They’ve had too much to drink.” When we talk to nightclubs, bars and so on, we say to the stewards, “Listen to what their friends are saying. Don’t make the assumption that that person’s drunk just because they look drunk. If their friends are saying, ‘We’ve had one or two drinks,’ take on board what they’re saying. Don’t just think, ‘Oh, no, I’ve got to get this person out of here.’” They have a duty of care to look after people, and we want them to take on that responsibility.
Just at the weekend, I was reading an article on the BBC and it was talking about nightclubs in general and how footfall is falling. One of the examples was that youngsters are stopping going to nightclubs because of the fear of spiking. The industry has to look at the bigger picture and realise that if it puts in lids and deterrents, better security and better CCTV, and, as we hope with this Bill, if we start to see people being prosecuted, the numbers will come back up. People will have the confidence to come out. If they think they are going to a venue where they feel they are going to be safe, they are more likely to come, whereas currently they are walking away and finding something else to do. It is going to affect the night-time industry as well, so it really has to take it more seriously.
Luke Taylor
Q
I have a broader question. Do the measures included in the Bill cover all the issues that you see around the offence? Do you think the Bill is a comprehensive measure to enable action to be taken to combat the horrible offence of spiking?
Colin Mackie: It is moving forward to that level where I think it is good. I would like to see a wee bit more on the sentencing side of it. Just listening to the previous witnesses, I know that there is a backlog through the courts and everything, and I can see that being a problem. If the people who want to report spiking, especially young women, think it is going to last two years, how much of a deterrent is it going to be for them to come forward if they think it is going to drag on? That is one bit: when it comes to the sentencing and how quickly it will be processed, will that put people off reporting it?
David Burton-Sampson
Q
Colin Mackie: It is certainly very important, because girls are still are the highest target in the group. People want to go out and enjoy themselves, and women should be able to have a night out with friends and be confident that they are safe. If they want to leave that drink for second, they should be able to. They should not have to worry that someone will add something to their drink if they go to dance, go to the toilet or are distracted. This measure is a great way of moving forward, because in the future you want all youngsters to be able to say, “I’m going for a night out, and I want to have a nice, safe night out.” That is the way forward—it has to be the way forward.
Joe Robertson
Q
Colin Mackie: Revenge, possibly. A girl could spike another girl because she is jealous, for example, about something that has already happened. An ex-boyfriend, in particular—or an ex-girlfriend, in some cases—could spike someone. To me, revenge is another possibility.
Joe Robertson
Q
Colin Mackie: Pranking is probably the one. That is what people will do—it is totally random, and there is no reason for a lot of what they do. They pick a victim out. I have spoken to police officers, and one of the things they say is that prank spiking is growing a bit because drugs have become so easily accessible and cheap. I spoke to a group from Australia who said spiking had dropped slightly because the police had done a blitz on drugs, so the price of drugs had gone up; when the price of drugs went up, spiking came down. There is always a chance that it happens just because people can easily access these drugs and they will use them.
The Chair
I am afraid that this will probably have to be the final question to this witness.
Dr Sullivan
Q
Colin Mackie: That is what I would like to see happen once a person appears there. I have spoken to some medics about this. Again, it goes back to listening to what friends say: if they say that their friend has had only one or two drinks, but they are unconscious, hallucinating and obviously under the influence of something, you have to gather that early doors. If you do not do it, you are going to lose that evidence, which is so vital.
Again, it is about giving people the confidence that, if they get taken to A&E, they are going to be taken seriously. They are not going to be two days down the line saying, “I just wish someone had taken the sample then.” Some may suspect that they know who did it, but it may be two or three days down the line before they say, “I think it was that person, and it happened at that bar around that time,” and that evidence has gone. You really want to gather it there. When someone appears in A&E having suffered sexual assault, you gather the evidence quite quickly. I would like to see the same happening with spiking.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witness for his evidence, which has been very helpful.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)
Crime and Policing Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 1st April 2025
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 1 April 2025 - (1 Apr 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please will everyone switch electronic devices off or to silent? I am afraid that no food or drinks are permitted in the sittings, except for water, which is provided. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or pass their written notes to the Hansard colleague in the room, to my left.
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. The purpose of grouping is to limit, in so far as that is possible, the repetition of the same points in debate. The amendments appear on the amendment paper in the order in which they relate to the Bill.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first or, in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing—please do bob, because if you do not, I will not see you. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment, or new clause or new schedule, again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote—that includes grouped new clauses and new schedules—the Member needs to let me know.
I remind Members of the rules on the declaration of interests as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 1
Respect orders
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “18” and insert “16”.
This amendment would lower the age to 16 at which a court can impose a respect order on a person to prevent them from engaging in anti-social behaviour.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
We welcome this Bill, the many of the last Government’s measures it takes forward, and the opportunity to constructively debate and potentially improve it in the coming weeks.
The clause establishes the legal framework for courts to impose respect orders on individuals aged 18 or older who have engaged, or threatened to engage, in antisocial behaviour, where the court considers it just and convenient to make such an order for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour has serious and far-reaching consequences. It can fracture communities, erode trust among neighbours and make people feel unwelcome or unsafe in their own local areas. For women and girls, it can create a climate of fear, making something as simple as walking home at night a distressing and dangerous experience. It also takes a significant toll on businesses, discouraging customers from visiting high streets and town centres, and ultimately harming local economies and livelihoods. Left unchecked, antisocial behaviour can strip communities of their vibrancy and sense of security, turning once thriving areas into places that people avoid.
We must do everything we can to tackle antisocial behaviour, and the proposed respect orders can be a useful tool. Past Governments have made many and varied efforts to tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour. Both respect orders and antisocial behaviour orders aim to prevent antisocial behaviour that causes harassment, alarm or distress to others. The Bill defines antisocial behaviour for respect orders, in proposed new section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as
“conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.”
That mirrors the definition for ASBOs under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In some ways, ASBOs were effective in targeting repeat offenders, providing a quicker alternative to prosecution and offering communities reassurance. However, their breach rates—as high as 50%—suggested that they lacked deterrent power, with some offenders even seeing them as a badge of honour.
The civil injunctions introduced by the 2014 Act also target antisocial behaviour. They use a similar definition, but have a broader scope, including, for example, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance in housing contexts. Civil injunctions have been more successful than ASBOs in reducing breaches, likely due to their more tailored restrictions and integrated support options. Unlike ASBOs, which often acted as punitive measures, injunctions take a preventive approach by aiming to stop antisocial behaviour before it escalates. They also incorporate positive requirements, such as attending rehabilitation programmes, which help individuals address the root causes of their behaviour rather than simply penalising them.
Many would argue that that shift towards early intervention and rehabilitation contributed to the greater effectiveness of civil injunctions in managing antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour can be committed by young teenage offenders, and while some cases are minor, others can have a serious impact on communities and make lives a misery for residents, denied peace in their own homes and communities. Just look at Witham library in Newland Street, which has reportedly hired a private security guard owing to a rising number of incidents, which have been blamed on local teenagers. Now, Essex county council is considering stepping up its response by issuing bodycams to librarians to deter antisocial behaviour further.
I draw attention to proposed new section A1(3), which requires that prohibitions and requirements avoid interference with the respondent’s work or education. Will the Minister outline how courts are expected to strike a balance between preventing antisocial behaviour and ensuring that individuals can continue their employment or studies? What factors will be taken into account when determining the appropriate restrictions, and how will the courts ensure that any conditions imposed remain proportionate and effective in addressing antisocial behaviour while safeguarding access to work and education?
Proposed new section A1(8) of the 2014 Act, alongside proposed new section 1A(9) introduced by schedule 1, provides that an application for a respect order may be treated as an application for a housing injunction and vice versa. That appears to be a sensible addition to allow the court flexibility. However, it would be useful for the Minister to clarify whether the Government expect one of the tools to be used more frequently than the other. Additionally, will the “harassment, alarm or distress” threshold allow the orders to be applied sufficiently broadly among housing providers?
Proposed new section B1 sets out the relevant authorities that can make applications for respect orders to the High Court or county court. Those include local authorities, housing providers, the chief officer of police for a police force area, or the chief constable of British Transport police and several other appropriate bodies. It is encouraging to see housing providers recognised as registered authorities, in particular when it comes to addressing antisocial behaviour.
The Chair
Order. Forgive me for interrupting, shadow Minister. To be clear, we are talking about amendment 31, rather than the clause as a whole.
The Chair
We will deal with clause stand part later; we are talking about the amendment at this point. That is to save us the repetition, the point that I made earlier. Thank you, shadow Minister.
Matt Vickers
Opposition amendment 31 would lower to 16 the age at which a court can impose a respect order on a person to prevent them from engaging in antisocial behaviour.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Last Thursday, in the evidence session, we heard that a large number of under-18s engage in antisocial behaviour. Does the shadow Minister agree with me and some of the witnesses we heard from that, without the age being reduced to 16, the measure will have less impact, given where a lot of the antisocial behaviour in our communities is coming from?
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend is entirely right. When you speak to some of the people who are at the sharp end of this antisocial behaviour, many of them will tell you that it is inflicted by those under 18. We heard witnesses’ concerns about where the line should be drawn. Obviously, there is a balance with respect to criminalising young people, but there is a point at which there have to be real consequences, and communities need to know that there are consequences, for those youngsters who engage in this behaviour.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
Over the past 14 or 15 years, young people have not had diversionary activities. Youth centres across the country have closed in their tens of thousands. Will the shadow Minister reflect on the fact that young people need diversionary activity, so that they are not lured into antisocial behaviour?
Matt Vickers
With a lot of these things, we need that diversionary activity and to find meaningful things for youngsters to spend their time doing. It is a big, complex mix, and we will probably address this again when we talk about knife crime. It is a big part of what we do, but there have to be sanctions for young people as well. It is not just about the young people committing antisocial behaviour; it is about the communities and the other young people that might have the antisocial behaviour—which often leads to crime—inflicted on them. It is about putting that ladder in there so that people know that, as their behaviour gets worse, the consequences and sanctions get bigger.
This is not just about punishment; but is about intervention, responsibility and, ultimately, protecting both young people and the communities in which they live. At 16, young people can work, pay taxes and make important life decisions. They are entrusted with responsibilities, and it is only right that they are also held accountable for their actions. If an individual is engaging in persistent antisocial behaviour, the courts must have the tools to intervene early, before those patterns escalate into more serious criminality.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Will the shadow Minister clarify whether it is the Conservative party’s position that we should criminalise 16-year-olds but not give them the vote?
Matt Vickers
Well, yes. The Government seem to think that we should not criminalise 16-year-olds but they should have the right to vote. I think it is the other way around: responsibilities come after people show their part in the world. I think we should be voting at 18, which allows people to become informed and knowledgeable about the process and the world around them.
If you go back to families in my constituency, some of the antisocial behaviour that they are suffering at the hands of 16-year-olds has real consequences for them, and there should be real consequences for those who inflict it upon them.
The Chair
Order. I hope Members will forgive me for saying this, but can we try not to use the word “you”? I have heard three different speakers say “you”. All speeches need to come through the Chair, and there is a reason for that—those are the courtesies of the House. Forgive me for saying that, but I think it will help the whole Committee.
Matt Vickers
I am on a mission: there will not be another infringement, Mr Pritchard.
Antisocial behaviour can devastate communities, causing distress and insecurity for residents. We cannot stand by and allow that to continue unchecked. Lowering the age to 16 would mean that we can address these issues sooner and ensure that young people receive the support and guidance—and, potentially, sanctions and deterrents—they need to change course.
Respect orders are not simply punitive measures. They come with conditions that promote rehabilitation, and provide access to education, counselling and the opportunity to turn things around. As the Minister will know, this is as much about deterrence as it is about enforcement. When young people know that there are consequences for their actions, they are less likely to engage in behaviour that harms others. By making the amendment, we would strengthen our communities, support young people and ensure that respect for others remains at the heart of society. During the evidence sessions, we heard the views of witnesses about the 16 to 18 age bracket, and I would welcome further explanation from Ministers on why 18 has been chosen as the minimum age.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 1, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(9) If a court makes a respect order against a person (P) more than once, then P is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”
This amendment means that if a person gets more than one Respect Order, they are liable for a fine.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 32, in clause 1, page 8, line 2, at end insert—
“(4) A person who commits further offences under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).”
This amendment sets out the penalties for repeated breaches of a respect order with a prison sentence of up to 5 years.
Matt Vickers
Amendment 33 would impose a financial penalty on those who receive multiple respect orders. This is about fairness, accountability and ensuring that our justice system is taken seriously.
A respect order is not a punishment; it is an opportunity. It gives individuals a chance to correct their behaviour and change course before more serious consequences arise, but what happens when someone repeatedly ignores that chance? What message do we send if the courts impose an order only for it to be disregarded time and again, with no further repercussions? The amendment would ensure that those who continue to defy the law will face meaningful consequences.
Antisocial behaviour has real victims. It disrupts neighbourhoods, damages businesses and makes people feel unsafe in their own communities. We cannot allow repeat offenders to believe they can break these orders without consequence. A fine is a clear, tangible penalty that reinforces the message that respect orders must be obeyed. We already have fines in place for many other public order offences. They are nothing new. The amendment would bring respect orders in line with other legal measures, ensuring that persistent offenders face escalating consequences.
Crucially, funds from the fines could be reinvested in tackling the very issues that led to the order in the first place, helping communities affected by antisocial behaviour. This is a common-sense amendment. It would give our justice system the tools that it needs to properly enforce respect orders.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that without this amendment the power of a respect order would be greatly diminished? As we have seen with antisocial behaviour orders and convictions for relatively minor offences, repeat offending is the problem. Without the weight of this amendment sitting behind respect orders, they are sufficiently diminished in value as a stand-alone.
Matt Vickers
We saw what happened with ASBOs: people started wearing them as a badge of honour. This amendment could strengthen respect orders, providing real sanctions and consequences for people who fail to engage with what is on offer and with the opportunity to change their behaviour. It is the right thing to do not only by the people who commit offences and need setting in a new direction but for the communities who suffer at their hands. Those communities want to see that there are real consequences for them, and that such people do not think that they are above the law and can get away with anything. It is entirely right to strengthen respect orders further.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that breaches of respect orders will result in a criminal offence that is triable either way is enough of a deterrent? The consequences of breaches will be much greater than they are now.
Matt Vickers
We need to give the justice system and agencies all the powers that they can have, because at the end of the day, it is their discretion that will determine which of these things are applied. If someone breaches an order more than once, and they are subject to several respect orders, which is what the amendment relates to, there should be a stepladder of consequences. We should give the agencies and the Ministry of Justice all the tools and powers that they can use to deter people from committing another offence or indeed being subject to yet another respect order.
This is a common-sense amendment. It gives our justice system the tools that it needs to enforce respect orders properly, protects communities from persistent offenders and upholds the principle that the law must be respected.
Dame Diana Johnson
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. Respect orders are preventive orders. They seek to prevent further antisocial behaviour by helping to address the root causes of the person’s behaviour.
Harriet Cross
Respect orders are indeed meant to be preventive, and everyone on the Committee wants them to work, but part of prevention is deterrence. Knowing that it will hit them in their pocket if they get a respect order is a huge deterrent for people who otherwise, as the shadow Minister said, wear these things as a badge of honour. It is not that people will receive multiple respect orders at the same time; they may receive them sequentially. They may have had one in the past, but it has lapsed or they have served it—whatever word is used—and then, down the line, they get another one and then another. A fine would ensure that respect orders have a direct financial impact on them, to prevent them from getting into a cycle of receiving one after another.
Dame Diana Johnson
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. 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. 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.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for her response. As we know, a small number of people are responsible for the vast majority of crimes. It is right that we put these ladders in place for the communities out there who are frustrated because they do not think the system has consequences for the same young people who are offending again and again, and creating lots of havoc on our streets. We would like to press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matt Vickers
Amendment 32 sets out proposed penalties for repeated breaches of a respect order, with a prison sentence of up to five years. It would strengthen the enforcement of respect orders by introducing clear and proportionate penalties.
The Chair
Order. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but we are meant to be discussing amendment 30. The shadow Minister mentioned amendment 32, which we will vote on later. I just want to make sure he is speaking to the right amendment.
Matt Vickers
Thank you, Mr Pritchard.
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 1, page 2, line 30, leave out from “behaviour” to the end of line 31 and insert
“has the same meaning as under section 2 of this Act.”
This amendment would give “anti-social behaviour” in clause 1 the same definition as in section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
The 2014 definition of antisocial behaviour, as outlined in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, provides a crucial framework for tackling the real, everyday issues that affect communities across the country. It recognises that antisocial behaviour is about not just criminal activity but the negative impact that certain behaviours have on the lives of ordinary people. By encompassing actions that cause harassment, alarm or distress, the definition offers a broad, flexible approach that allows authorities to respond effectively to a wide range of disruptive activities.
The definition also strikes a vital balance between protecting individual freedoms and ensuring the safety and wellbeing of the wider community. It does not overreach, but rather targets conduct that directly harms or threatens public peace, whether it be noise disturbances, vandalism or other forms of nuisance. That makes it a vital tool for local police forces, housing authorities and community groups to act swiftly and proportionately. Rather than offering an overtly wide-ranging definition, it draws a clear connection between antisocial behaviour and housing-related issues. The definition acknowledges the complex nature of the problems. It ensures that disruptive behaviour in homes, whether public or private, is tackled with the same urgency as antisocial behaviour and actions in public spaces.
Dame Diana Johnson
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. 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.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for her response, but I would like to press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 1, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
“D1 Power to move person down list for social housing
A respect order may have the effect of moving any application the respondent may have for social housing to the end of the waiting list.”
This amendment would mean that a person who receives a respect order would move to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing, if applicable.
Amendment 34 would mean that a person who receives a respect order would move to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing, if applicable. This is a crucial measure that can play an essential role in ensuring that the allocation of social housing is fair, responsible and aligned with the values of respect and community responsibility. The key benefit of the provision is that it provides an additional incentive for individuals to behave in a way that upholds community standards.
David Burton-Sampson
On that point, does the shadow Minister not believe that everybody has the right to decent housing?
Matt Vickers
I do. At the moment there are huge challenges around housing. People who live in social housing want to live next to someone who treats them with the dignity and respect that they deserve. That is fair on the people who might be their neighbours and fair on the other people in that list. There is a list for a reason, and the people who misbehave should feel the consequences of doing so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
As a constituency Member of Parliament, the shadow Minister will have handled cases where people want their neighbours to move because of the neighbours’ antisocial behaviour. Would he be willing to tell his constituents that those neighbours cannot move because they are at the bottom of the list?
Matt Vickers
Well, I will give the Ministers the reasons for it. We are talking more broadly about the powers and sanctions given to help us to tackle antisocial people who create havoc on some estates and cause absolute uproar. No one wants such people to move in next to them. Does the Minister want the empty house next door to be occupied by someone who is committing antisocial behaviour and failing to comply with the responsibility of being a civilised member of society?
Matt Vickers
They are not going to jump the queue ahead of law-abiding citizens who do the right thing. That is what the queue is about, and there is a queue because there is not space.
Matt Vickers
We are saying that they will not get ahead of others. They will join the back of the queue; they will be put down the list. The people who behave, who are responsible, who are fair, and who play by the rules will carry on in their place while others are moved down the list for misbehaving.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The shadow Minister talks about the victims of antisocial behaviour and the offenders. I completely agree with his desire to provide an incentive for those are offending, but offenders often live with their families and children, who are often equally the victims of the antisocial behaviour. Does he agree that to punish offenders’ children and partners in a way that makes their housing situation more precarious and denies them a good home and an aspirational move to a better area, is an inappropriate punishment for an individual and becomes, effectively, a group punishment?
Matt Vickers
In my part of the world, the antisocial behaviour is more often wreaked by young people. Parents should be responsible for those young people, and there should be consequences so that people help their families to fall in line and behave. I think this is the right thing to do. Those on a housing list who play by the rules should carry on, while those who misbehave, who do not play by the rules and cause absolute hell for other people, should be pushed to the bottom of the list. I stand by that.
Luke Taylor
I am not sure that the shadow Minister understands the severity of the difficulties that families find themselves in. I have a certain sympathy with wanting to sound like there is a serious consequence for families and individuals who are breaching orders, but this amendment is an extreme measure that would lead to misery for whole families. It seems an overreaction and an extreme punishment for a whole family to suffer in that circumstance.
Matt Vickers
There are decisions to make about the extremity of the consequences and sanctions, but there is a choice. Is it about the victims who suffer sleepless nights and all this havoc, whose windows have gone through, who are abused and are petrified to live in their own home, or are we on the side of the families who wreak this behaviour and the young people who terrorise others? There is a choice there.
Joe Robertson
Government Members’ interventions suggest that they may have misread and misunderstood the amendment. They seem to think it means that someone with a respect order would be removed from the housing list. That is not what the amendment says; it is about prioritisation within the waiting list. These waiting lists are based on a set of a criteria that lead to a prioritisation. It seems to me uncontroversial—although it is possible to disagree with it, of course—to add another criterion to compiling a housing waiting list: does someone have a respect order? The amendment is not a mandatory provision. It states:
“A respect order may have the effect of moving any application”
down the list. The provision is discretionary, which addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. It may be that an overriding need of the family would mean that the power would not be used. There is nothing mandatory about this. It is entirely consistent with how waiting lists are compiled.
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. The fact that housing authorities are made a relevant authority by the Bill is really powerful. We should give all these agencies—the housing associations, the police and the justice system—all the tools, the carrots and the sticks, that they need to manage and induce the correct behaviour. This measure would do that.
Jess Phillips
How does the shadow Minister not see that, if my neighbour is an absolute nightmare who engages in antisocial behaviour, I would not report them or want them to get a respect order if I thought that would make it less likely that they could move? I would want them to move, so I would not want them to be at the bottom of the social housing waiting list.
Matt Vickers
We have some really good people working in housing authorities across the country who will use all the powers we give them in a meaningful, proportionate and sensible way to get the best possible outcomes for their tenants and communities. This power would be one string on that bow. As we have said, using it would not be mandatory; it would be an option available to them.
I am glad that the Government have said that housing authorities should be a relevant authority that should be able to bring forward orders, including respect orders. That is a really powerful thing, and we should give them all the powers they need and let them get on with the job that they are qualified to do—working hard to deliver for those communities.
Dr Sullivan
To take a slightly different tack, does the shadow Minister recognise that some landlords, social landlords and councils evict tenants who exhibit the kind of antisocial behaviour he describes, which is an absolute travesty and a blight on some communities, but that if they get a respect order and these people are placed at the bottom of the list, they will not be able to be evicted. That will hamper some of our councils from moving tenants on and addressing the various issues he has raised.
Matt Vickers
As I have said, this is not a mandatory measure. It is something that housing authorities and local enforcement agencies would be able to use at their discretion, looking at all of the facts surrounding the case, to try to get the best possible outcome for communities and tenants, many of whom are suffering sleepless nights and are miserable in their own home as a result of the behaviour of some awful people. It is right that there are consequences for these people and that we empower the agencies to deal with them as they see fit.
Jess Phillips
Have any particular social housing providers or local authorities requested the amendment from the shadow Minister?
Matt Vickers
As yet, they have not—I do not know. The Minister is very good at these questions, is she not? She does not like the “name a business” questions, but I suppose we can play it both ways. The reality is that I speak to housing associations that are deeply frustrated about their lack of powers and ability to tackle some of these issues. We would give them and other agencies this power as an option; its use would not be mandatory or stipulated. It is a very sensible thing to do. We should support and empower the authorities and agencies in every way we can.
Jess Phillips
The shadow Minister is right; I am very good at those questions. He made a good point about how we need to trust the experts, and I wondered where this amendment had come from if the experts are not the ones calling for it. I have tabled a lot of Opposition amendments in my time, and I was usually working with a team of experts.
Matt Vickers
How many housing authorities did we invite to the evidence session?
Matt Vickers
We did not invite any to the evidence session. I think the amendment would be welcomed, but I am sure we will hear from the relevant agencies and authorities in due course.
Jess Phillips
When tabling amendments to Government Bills in opposition, I never relied only on evidence given in evidence sessions. I believe the shadow Minister has an email address where those people could have lobbied him—it happens to us all the time. Have any housing or antisocial behaviour experts got in touch with him and said this is an appropriate action?
Matt Vickers
I am sure they will be in touch and can ask them that question, but I think empowering these organisations in this way is really powerful and will really help them to deal with some of the horrific antisocial behaviour their tenants are subjected to.
Harriet Cross
On this amendment and amendment 31, on reducing the age threshold to 16, we heard from the experts and people who gave evidence that we should reduce it to 16 because that is where most of the criminality of the antisocial behaviour comes from. By that same argument, because we are not hearing from housing authorities or experts does not necessarily mean that this is not a good amendment.
Matt Vickers
Some of the real experts in this Bill are the people on housing lists, feeling that they are waiting to get a house while others are getting ahead of them in the queue. This is an essential measure.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I have listened intently to the remarks, and I must say it is astounding to hear the shadow Minister suddenly become a champion for social housing. The problems due to antisocial behaviour in my constituency are, first, that families are stuck next to a problem family and cannot move because the Conservative party sold off so much council housing in my constituency and, crucially, did not replace it with new council housing stock; and secondly, my housing associations do not have enough resources from the local police, because the Conservative party slashed police numbers.
Matt Vickers
Police numbers are at a record level. There are more police on the streets of the UK than ever before. There is more funding going into the police than ever before. We toughened up sentencing for some of the worst offences. I am sure the hon. Member has lots of views on social housing, but in terms of this amendment, I think the right thing to do is to empower the agencies and ensure that some of the frustrated people in his constituency who want to move house can move ahead of those committing antisocial behaviour.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I will just draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that one of my other former roles was as a tenancy enforcement caseworker for a social housing company. I can assure the Committee that I would not be asking for this amendment. I think it would have a detrimental effect, and would actually cause more antisocial behaviour further down the line.
Matt Vickers
I thank the hon. Member for his evidence.
The amendment is a crucial measure that could play an essential role in ensuring that the allocation of social housing is fair, responsible, and aligned with the values of respect and community responsibility. The key benefit is that it provides an additional incentive for individuals to behave in a way that upholds community standards. When someone is found to have caused disruption or engaged in antisocial behaviour that harms others, placing them at the bottom of the waiting list for social housing serves as a tangible consequence of their actions. It encourages personal responsibility and reinforces the idea that those who choose to respect the rules and the people around them should be rewarded, while those who engage in disruptive behaviour should face appropriate consequences.
Moreover, this approach supports the integrity of the social housing system. Social housing is in high demand, and it is vital that we prioritise those who are not only in need, but demonstrate a commitment to being good tenants and positive members of the community. By introducing this measure, we would ensure that social housing was allocated in a manner that rewards responsible behaviour, thus safeguarding the quality of life for everyone in the community. Importantly, it would allow local authorities to manage the housing waiting list in a way that aligns with the broader objectives of social housing policy, promoting both fairness and the values that underpin our society. It is a sensible, measured approach that encourages respect for others and the community as a whole.
Dame Diana Johnson
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. 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.
Luke Taylor
To pick up the point on the root cause of antisocial behaviour, does the right hon. Lady agree that being in unsuitable housing, and then being trapped in unsuitable housing through a measure like this, may well make antisocial behaviour even worse, leading to further reactions and disruption within communities?
Dame Diana Johnson
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.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for her response. I am glad that we provoked a bit of passion and got people engaged in the debate. I would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Diana Johnson
As we have talked at length about the respect orders, I will not say anything further at this stage.
Matt Vickers
It is encouraging to see housing providers recognised as registered authorities in proposed new section B1 of the 2014 Act, particularly when it comes to addressing antisocial behaviour, which continues to plague many residents in housing communities. Registered housing providers, including housing associations and local authority landlords, serve as the backbone of the social housing sector, ensuring that tenants have access to safe, stable and well-managed homes. Their role extends beyond simply providing houses; they are legally and morally responsible for fostering strong, liveable communities where residents feel secure and supported. As designated authorities with specific legal powers, these providers are uniquely positioned to tackle antisocial behaviour head-on. This responsibility is crucial in preventing communities from becoming blighted by persistent nuisance and intimidation or criminal activity.
Rather than leaving tenants to endure these issues alone, or to rely solely on already overstretched police and council services, housing providers have the tools to intervene directly, whether through tenancy enforcement, mediation or legal action. By taking a proactive stance against antisocial behaviour, registered housing providers help maintain the quality of life for all residents, ensuring that social housing remains a place not just to live, but to thrive. Their ability to act swiftly and decisively is vital in upholding community standards and reinforcing the fundamental principle that everyone deserves to live in a safe and respectful environment.
Response times can still lag, and not all providers have the resources or the will to tackle complex cases effectively. Victims of persistent antisocial behaviour often face a daunting process: logging multiple complaints, gathering evidence and navigating bureaucracy. How will the Government ensure that all housing providers have the capacity to utilise these powers effectively?
The Environment Agency is listed as a relevant authority with the power to issue a respect order. Could the Minister clarify the specific role that the agency will play in enforcing these orders? Under what circumstances would the Environment Agency be expected to exercise this power, and what specific outcomes do the Government seek to achieve by including it? Could the Minister provide a concrete example of how the Environment Agency might use a respect order in practice? Proposed new section C1 of the 2014 Act sets out that the respect order
“may have the effect of excluding the respondent from the place where the respondent normally lives”
and that a condition the court considers is that
“the anti-social behaviour in which the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage consists of or includes the use or threatened use of violence against other persons, or…there is a significant risk of harm to other persons from the respondent.”
What implications could that have for respondents who have been issued with an order? Where will they live? What role will their local authority have in supporting them?
David Taylor
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. In Hemel Hempstead, antisocial behaviour is regularly at the top of my inbox. Ahead of joining the Committee, I carried out information-gathering exercises in addition to my regular surgery and casework, including a recent public event alongside the police and the Police Federation. I found that hundreds of people are unable to go about their daily lives because of antisocial behaviour. A rot was allowed to set in by the Conservatives when they were in government, with crime doubling in my constituency between 2014 and 2024. A retired police officer locally has pinpointed the fact that the cuts that were made to neighbourhood policing during that time is having a massive and detrimental effect on policing in Hemel Hempstead.
I have spoken before about a family who live locally who have suffered from terrible antisocial behaviour, and I will refer to them again today. This family, who have a boy, have been harassed for more than two years, including verbal abuse, trespassing, damage to property and their neighbours generally causing them distress. What is really disturbing is that the child does not feel comfortable going out to play in their local neighbourhood because of the impact that the abuse from those terrible neighbours has had on his mental health. The family have recorded these incidents on their Ring doorbell device, and the recordings have been submitted to the police and local authority. However, despite multiple reports to the council, the police and other agencies, no resolution has been reached. They are currently unable to move away to another area because of the lack of social housing, which I mentioned earlier. It is not okay that the son is fearful of going outside, and that the anxiety is so bad that he cannot sleep alone. I have met the family and have had to console them as they have broken down in tears owing to the stress. It is unacceptable.
In reading the Bill, I have been applying a simple test: what will each clause mean for Hemel Hempstead residents? I strongly believe that clause 1 will have a considerable impact on residents. Why? First, unlike previous measures, respect orders come with criminal penalties for breaches, which paves the way for the police to immediately act when individuals are in breach. It will help to ensure that residents such as the family I referenced will not suffer prolonged harm from persistent offenders, and that authorities have the tools to act decisively.
Secondly, residents have informed me that when antisocial behaviour injunctions and other parts of enforcement measures have been applied, they were too slow to be enforced, so lacked any real deterrent. In contrast, the measures introduced in clause 1 simplify the legal framework, providing enforceable rules that local authorities, housing providers and the police can use. Further, one of the problems reported to me by the family is that the neighbours’ drug use is the driver of much of the antisocial behaviour.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is very kind. In my constituency, ASB is conducted by people who have alcohol and drug problems. Does he agree that the fact that the new respect orders have positive requirements, such as attending drug or alcohol support services, will get to the root of the problem?
David Taylor
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have spoken about members of my family who have suffered drug abuse; sometimes that did lead to antisocial behaviour and they suffered the penalties of it. It is right that we need to look at dealing with some of the root causes.
This issue is a scourge in my community and it has been for many years. I recall another couple who came up to me at a community event just before Christmas. They said that they lived on a completely normal street but then, at one point, a house on the street turned into a drug den, where there was a drug dealer. They told me, “It is striking. This is just a normal street and all of a sudden, we are dealing with people coming at all hours of the day, leaving drugs and paraphernalia all over the place. There is swearing and antisocial behaviour.” A neighbour went out to confront the people coming to buy the drugs, and one of them turned on the neighbour and drove at him with their vehicle—that is how bad some of these offences are.
I therefore welcome that the new respect orders allow courts to impose restrictions and positive obligations, which my hon. Friend referenced. As a result, offenders can be required not just to stop harmful behaviour but to engage in programmes of drug rehabilitation, which I hope will get to the root cause of this problem.
The overarching issue with antisocial behaviour in Hemel Hempstead is that it has been ignored in the past, with one resident telling me that authorities do not really think it is that bad. The new respect orders send a strong message that such behaviour will have real consequences, therefore restoring trust in policing and the justice system. I have made the case several times that Hemel would very much welcome being included in the pilot for the new respect orders, should the Bill pass, and I reiterate that today. I thank the Government for taking seriously the plight of antisocial behaviour, as demonstrated by clause 1, and I hope that we can work together to ensure that it is enforceable as quickly as possible, and to bring about real change for residents across our country and in my Hemel Hempstead.
Jack Rankin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. As members of the Committee have said, antisocial behaviour really is one of the scourges of our communities right across the country. Although it might often be described as low-level, compared with more serious crimes, it is deleterious to community cohesion, and it clearly has significant effects on people’s mental health.
I was looking at some YouGov statistics earlier: 28% of people in the country at some point felt unsafe where they live because of antisocial behaviour; 14% said that antisocial behaviour where they live has affected their mental health; and 15% have said that they have been scared at some points to visit their local shop. That is reflected in my surgeries, as I am sure it is in the surgeries of Members across the House.
Last month, I went to Eton town council. Eton is a prosperous place, as people might recognise, but even for Eton as a town, there were two primary issues that the council brought up with me relating to antisocial behaviour. That included from the night-time economy, whether that is shop windows being smashed, indecent exposure or laughing gas. We also have problems with BB guns being shot at swans—indeed, youths not too far in the past killed a swan. What we find, in many instances, is that an incredibly small number of individuals create havoc for a whole town, so I welcome clause 1 and the powers that respect orders will give the authorities. The clause can give them more teeth to get at the repeat offenders who are causing this kind of damage across our town.
I know it is not necessarily appropriate at this point for me to speak to the amendments, but I would like to say two sentences on amendment 31, if you would allow me, Mr Pritchard. I think this behaviour is often done by 16 to 17-year-olds, so it is a bit of a shame that that has been put to one side.
The Chair
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman was seeking advice, so may I kindly offer it? Please stick to the particular issue in the clause.
Jack Rankin
On the more substantive point, there were some missed opportunities to toughen the clause up a bit. The perception of respect orders is that they could become ASBO mark 2. I recognise that they are a little tougher than past measures, but there is bit of a missed opportunity.
David Burton-Sampson
As other Members have said, antisocial behaviour is out of control. Around 35% of respondents to the crime survey for England and Wales in March 2024 said they had witnessed or experienced antisocial behaviour in their area. We must remember that a significant amount of antisocial behaviour goes unreported, so the reports that we get are probably a misrepresentation of the level of antisocial behaviour that is actually out there. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead that it is an indictment of the previous Government’s record that action was not taken on this issue, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Windsor welcomes the respect orders and can see that this Government are starting to take control of antisocial behaviour.
Joe Robertson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Like every Member in the Committee and across the House, my constituency struggles with antisocial behaviour, particularly but not exclusively in towns. Individual instances of antisocial behaviour often are referred to—perhaps correctly—as low-level crime, but the problem is the combination of those activities, the hyper-prolific nature of antisocial behaviour, whereby a few individuals cause a huge amount of the problems, and the knock-on effect for the rest of the people living in those neighbourhoods, who are law-abiding citizens trying to go about their daily lives. Antisocial behaviour also feeds into the fear of crime, which is relevant—not just the level of crime, but fear of it among a given population.
In the town of Sandown in my constituency on the Isle of Wight, antisocial behaviour feeds into a major regeneration issue, as the state of some key buildings, which have been left to deteriorate, attracts antisocial behaviour. That is not to say that there is any justification for criminality or antisocial behaviour, but it would be false to assume that the physical environment in which people live does not have an effect, particularly on younger people who may be struggling to fill their time, as they look for work or further education opportunities.
I welcome the new respect orders, in line with most of the things that have been said today, because of the beefing up of the current rules and the attempt to add weight to the deterrent available to law enforcement. However, as the measure includes criminal sanctions for an offence that can be tried and heard in the Crown court, the Government have to be alive to the potential—indeed, the almost certainty—that it will increase the workload of the courts. It is all very well for Members such as the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh to talk about the previous Government not having done enough, but to assume that words, even good words, in a Bill will solve everything on their own, I suggest might be a little simplistic. The Government will have to do more.
David Taylor
The hon. Member is being a bit unfair. The Bill is not being presented in isolation. As a Government, we are also recruiting 13,000 new officers, a starting point to getting neighbourhood policing back in a fit and proper state. Does he not welcome that move?
Matt Vickers
Recruiting 13,000 police officers sounds really good, but about a third of them will be special constables and about a third redeployed from other parts of the police force. When someone rings 999, because they want that emergency response service, they may wait even longer, because the response police officers will have been moved into neighbourhoods.
Matt Vickers
The Government are redeploying them, so they are taking them from somewhere. We would welcome any information about where the Government will or will not redeploy them from, but this is important. The Government cannot say 13,000 more are arriving, when it is about 3,000 more.
Joe Robertson
My hon. Friend makes a good point. To respond to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, we can debate policing all he likes—indeed, the previous Government increased police numbers—but the point I was making was about the courts, because we are talking about increasing the burden on Crown courts. I am not making a point against him or the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh, but I am sure they would both agree that the Government have to address the pressure on the court system. I support this provision, but although Bills such as this are well intended, they will add pressure to the prison population and the court systems if the Government do not make further provision.
Matt Bishop
Perhaps the hon. Member can offer some thoughts as to why we might have huge backlogs in the court system.
Joe Robertson
I am slightly surprised that such an uncontroversial point is being met with such incredulity and that I am being asked to provide the hon. Member’s Government with solutions. He has to get used to the fact that his Government are in power now. They will have to find their own solutions.
Matt Vickers
I would never seek to defend anything that any Government have ever done—people do get things wrong—but the previous Government were right to toughen up sentences for the worst and most violent offences. It was right that we put people away for longer. It was right that we did not release people during the pandemic, or at anything like the levels that some other countries did. It was right, therefore, that the Government had the biggest prison-building programme since the Victorian era. It is right that we put those people in prison. It is right that in another Bill Committee I have been saying for weeks that foreign national offenders should be removed without the need for a 12-month prison sentence in the meantime. We have got to where we have got to for lots of reasons. I think tougher sentences were a good thing, and that it was right that we did not release people early and that we built more prison places than have been built since the Victorian era.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Order. We need to warm up, because it is cold, so people bobbing up and down is fantastic, but may we stick to what we are supposed to be debating, however excitable the other things make us?
Joe Robertson
Thank you for that advice, Mr Pritchard. I am too generous in giving way, but the shadow Minister put it much better than I could myself.
Matt Bishop
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. To clarify, I did not ask for solutions; our Government have the solutions.
Joe Robertson
I think we will have to leave the debate about which Government have the solutions to another day, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
I repeat my point, which I do not think is controversial and would hope is accepted: the Labour party will have to pay extra attention to court backlogs when provisions such as this, which I support, are introduced.
Dame Diana Johnson
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Dame Diana Johnson
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.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 7 and 8.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 24 to 28.
Schedule 1.
Dame Diana Johnson
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”.
Harriet Cross
For clarity, will the threshold at which a youth injunction is given be at the same sort of level as for a respect order, but with the age element added in, or will there be a different threshold for the level of antisocial behaviour, or the sort of disruption caused?
Dame Diana Johnson
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. 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. 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.
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.
Matt Vickers
Clause 2 amends the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to provide for the granting of youth and housing injunctions; I thank the Minister for outlining that. Clause 2 will limit powers under section 1 of the 2014 Act so that injunctions can be granted only to individuals aged 10 to 17. Will the Minister confirm the rationale behind that age restriction?
The clause also introduces a new type of injunction for adults aged 18 and over, specifically aimed at preventing behaviour that causes nuisance or annoyance related to housing. It shifts the approach to tackling community-specific antisocial conduct, rather than broader public disorder. How do the Government justify treating adult antisocial behaviour differently depending on whether it is housing-related or not? Is the Minister concerned that limiting injunctions for housing-related issues to adults might create enforcement gaps? What mechanisms are in place to ensure that local authorities and housing providers have the necessary resources to enforce housing-related injunctions effectively? Realising that Ministers are keen to hear exactly who wants what measures in the Bill, can she name any housing associations who specifically asked for this measure?
Dame Diana Johnson
A number of the points that the shadow Minister has raised were discussed earlier. We have set out very clearly why we believe that the respect orders should only apply to adults, because we are talking about the most serious antisocial behaviour. We believe that children and young people up to the age of 18 should not be caught by a respect order because of the criminalisation attached—if it is breached, they can be immediately arrested and brought before the criminal courts. That is why we have retained what is working well with the civil injunctions and renamed them the youth injunction and the housing injunction. On the latter, again, we heard very passionate contributions about how antisocial behaviour where people live, next to their home, and caused by neighbours, can absolutely destroy people’s lives, causing stress, distress and mental health issues, as well as sometimes breaking up families. That is why the threshold for the housing injunction is lower than that for the respect order, but for the threshold we are using what is already on the statute books and I think it is right that it is at that lower level.
On the question about whether any social housing authority has supported the plans for housing injunctions, there is a genuine view in the sector that this is a positive step to enable them to deal with the antisocial behaviour that housing authorities often have to deal with. I am very conscious that the antisocial behaviour charity Resolve has much welcomed the work that has gone into the Bill on both the respect orders and the civil injunctions. Resolve would say that there is a general view that this is a positive way forward. The approach that seems sensible is using what works well now, and keeping that—as I have said, that is why the housing and youth injunctions are doing that and are adapting it—while bringing in this tougher response through the respect order, and getting that on the statute books to deal with people who persistently engage in antisocial behaviour, to try to get to the root cause of what they are doing. I hope that deals with the questions posed by the shadow Minister.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendments made: 7, in clause 2, page 10, line 37, leave out “(injunctions)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 11, line 2, at end insert—
“(1A) Part 2 of Schedule 1 contains consequential amendments of other Acts.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 28.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Amendments of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
Amendments made: 24, in schedule 1, page 148, line 4, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
“Part 1
Amendments of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
1 The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is amended as set out in this Part.”
This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 28, makes the existing text of Schedule 1 become Part 1 of that Schedule.
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.
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’.
(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.
(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;’.
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’.
(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;’.
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).
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.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 3 provides for extensions to the maximum timeframes for dispersal directions and closure orders under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and I will address each of these in turn.
The clause extends the maximum period for which a dispersal order can be in place from 48 to 72 hours and introduces a mandatory review at 48 hours. We know that the dispersal power is an effective tool that police can use in a range of situations to move on individuals who are committing, or who are likely to commit, antisocial behaviour. Despite that, feedback from police and from police and crime commissioners has highlighted operational challenges in implementing this power.
Under current legislation, the police can issue a dispersal order to require a person to leave an area for a maximum of only 48 hours. That makes no allowance or and allows no extensions for weekends or bank holidays, when incidents of antisocial behaviour are often high. The 48-hour window also allows little time for relevant authorities to identify the root causes of the issue in order to implement longer-term solutions. Extending the timeframe of the dispersal power to up to 72 hours will ensure that police can effectively cover these problem periods, such as bank holidays. It will also give local agencies more time to come together to develop long-term solutions to tackle antisocial behaviour.
Harriet Cross
Although I completely agree with the need to extend the power, why was 72 hours chosen? Was there work or analysis behind that figure?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very pleased to hear that the shadow Minister supports the 72-hour limit, because it was in the Criminal Justice Bill that her Government brought forward and that, because of the general election, never got on to the statute books. Work was done with stakeholders on what would be required. Clearly we do not want to extend it too far, but 72 hours seemed to be the best period of time to take into account what I was just saying about weekends and bank holidays in particular.
Let me move on to closure orders. The clause extends the timeframe that the relevant agencies, after issuing a closure notice, can apply to a magistrates court for a closure order from 48 hours to 72 hours. Again, that is based on feedback from practitioners who have noted operational challenges in applying for a closure order. The 48-hour window is not always enough time to prepare evidence and serve it to the courts, particularly on weekends or bank holidays. The closure order is an important power that agencies can use to provide immediate respite to the local community, so we must ensure that it is practicable and viable for practitioners to use.
Extending the timeframe to 72 hours will allow practitioners adequate time to gather evidence and inform interested parties. It also allows respondents more time to seek legal advice, in turn reducing the number of cases adjourned by the courts. In short, the provisions will help to address operational challenges, allowing local agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour more efficiently and effectively.
Matt Vickers
Clause 3 sets out the maximum period for certain directions, notices and orders. On exclusion directions, the Bill amends section 35 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 whereby a police officer could direct a person to leave a specified area for up to 48 hours. The Bill extends this to 72 hours. If an exclusion period exceeds 48 hours, a police inspector must review the direction as soon as possible after the 48-hour mark to ensure its necessity.
Closure notices allow the police to shut down premises that cause nuisance or disorder, and could previously last 24 hours before requiring further action. The Bill extends that to 48 hours. The maximum period for an initial closure notice before a magistrates court order will be required has been extended from 48 to 72 hours. Those efforts will give greater flexibility for police and officers will have more time to manage antisocial behaviour without requiring immediate escalation to the courts. That will allow for a stronger deterrent, meaning that longer exclusion periods and closure notices could have a greater impact in preventing repeated antisocial behaviour.
In 2023, the previous Government ran a consultation on proposals to strengthen powers available to address antisocial behaviour under the 2014 Act. It is true that the Government have opted to reintroduce some of these provisions into the Crime and Policing Bill. However, I would be grateful for an understanding of why certain measures have not been taken forward. For example, provisions to remove the need for authorisation by a senior police officer for a dispersal order have not been reintroduced. Although a Member could argue that a mandatory review by an inspector for exclusion periods of over 48 hours ensures accountability, why was the decision made to require an inspector’s review for exclusion directions only after 48 hours, rather than immediately on extending them?
The Bill also removes provisions to grant senior police officers the power to make public space protection orders, meaning that it arguably becomes harder in certain instances to control disorder. In November 2024, an extraordinary and unprecedented legal order was enacted, imposing a complete closure on an entire housing estate of 376 properties. That sweeping measure was introduced as a direct response to escalating concerns over severe and persistent antisocial behaviour and rampant drug dealing that had reached intolerable levels. The closure order strictly prohibited non-residents from gathering or loitering in key communal areas, including stairwells, landings, bridges and spaces near bin chutes, as well as within open areas adjacent to residential properties. The decision was driven by an urgent need to restore safety and security for the law-abiding residents, whose daily lives had been severely disrupted by the ongoing disturbances. Authorities deemed that intervention necessary to curb the relentless activities of those engaged in criminal behaviour and to ensure that the estate could once again become a liveable and peaceful environment for its rightful occupants.
The Bill has notably failed to carry forward provisions to lower the minimum age for issuing a community protection notice to 10 years old. Why has that decision been made? As the Minister will be well aware, antisocial behaviour is frequently perpetrated by individuals under the age of 18, often causing significant disruption and distress within communities. Local residents, businesses and authorities alike have long struggled with the challenges posed by persistent youth-related disorder. Given that reality, is the Minister fully confident that the removal of this provision will not inadvertently weaken the ability of law enforcement and local councils to tackle antisocial behaviour committed by teenagers? Without appropriate measures in place, there is a real risk that communities will continue to bear the brunt of unchecked disorder and that would undermine efforts to create safer and more harmonious neighbourhoods. What safeguards are in place to prevent these extended powers from being misused or disproportionately applied to certain groups or businesses? What role will local authorities and community organisations play in reviewing the effectiveness of these measures?
Dame Diana Johnson
The shadow Minister asked a number of questions about measures that were in the Criminal Justice Bill and are not in the Crime and Policing Bill. Clearly, what we are referring to was, and it is the same, as I understand it. We carefully considered the merits of all the measures that were in the Criminal Justice Bill on a case-by-case basis, and we reintroduced the ones that we thought had clear operational benefits, would help to cut crime and antisocial behaviour and would rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system.
The shadow Minister asked about the requirement for dispersal orders to be authorised by an inspector. The Criminal Justice Bill included a measure to remove the current requirement for an inspector to authorise a dispersal order. When considering that measure and what it would deliver, we were concerned that restricting people’s freedom of movement is a serious matter and that it is important that the dispersal order is used proportionately and reasonably. Ensuring that that power is authorised by an officer of at least the rank of inspector provides an additional safeguard and ensures that the power is used only to stop activities that are causing antisocial behaviour.
The Criminal Justice Bill sought to reduce the age that someone can receive a community protection notice from 16 to 10. We take the view that the breach of a CPN is a criminal offence and this Government, as I have said a number of times, do not wish to risk funnelling children into the criminal justice system unnecessarily by lowering the age at which someone can receive a CPN to 10 years of age. As we have discussed, the civil injunction will remain in place to be used against those under the age of 16—
Crime and Policing Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 1st April 2025
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 1 April 2025 - (1 Apr 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is slightly warmer in the room this afternoon. The point I was making before the break was that a number of the measures in this Bill were in the Criminal Justice Bill, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, set out in his questioning of me, but that a clause included in that Bill to lower the age at which someone can receive a community protection notice from 16 to 10 has not been taken forward.
I started my remarks by saying that we had carefully considered the merits of each of the measures in the Criminal Justice Bill on a case-by-case basis to see which ones we wanted to take forward according to this Government’s priorities and where we believed there was a clear operational benefit. I set out before lunch that we did not believe that it was appropriate to lower the age for community protection notices from 16 to 10, because breach of a CPN is a criminal offence and the Government do not wish to risk criminalising children unnecessarily.
The other measure in the Criminal Justice Bill that it is worth reflecting on was to extend the use of public spaces protection orders to the police, allowing a greater number of agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour. The responses to the consultation that the Government at the time carried out were mixed, with a significant proportion of respondents opposed to extending PSPO powers to police. PSPOs are generally focused on lower-level environmental ASB in public places, meaning that local authorities are better suited to issue PSPOs than the police are. Given all the pressures we know the police are under and having regard to police resources, we believe that local authorities are still best placed to carry out the administrative elements of PSPOs. That is why that measure is not included in this Bill.
The provisions in clause 3, as we have already said, were in the Criminal Justice Bill and I think they should garner support across the House in this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Fixed penalty notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 4 serves two purposes. First, it extends the remit of the community safety accreditation scheme, to enable accredited officers to issue fixed penalty notices to tackle antisocial behaviour. Secondly, it increases the upper limit for fixed penalty notices from £100 to £500 for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices. Under the community safety accreditation scheme, a chief constable may delegate a range of powers usually reserved for the police to accredited officers involved in a community safety or traffic management role. That includes issuing fixed penalty notices for specific offences. This clause expands the list of offences to allow officers to issue fines for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices as well.
I can assure hon. Members that appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that these powers are used appropriately. To be awarded accredited status an organisation must satisfy strict criteria, and the scheme itself is accredited only through approval from a chief constable. Also, accredited officers must, rightly, undergo strict vetting and be appropriately trained in use of their powers. By expanding the range of agencies that can tackle antisocial behaviour, we will free up valuable police resources to tackle other antisocial issues and other types of crime.
The second element of the clause increases the upper limit for fines issued for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices from £100 to £500. Public spaces protection orders and community protection notices are issued where antisocial behaviour has a detrimental effect on the community’s quality of life. It is right that anyone breaching the orders is met with a proportionate punishment. The current £100 upper limit does not always carry enough weight to stop people committing further antisocial behaviour. We expect that the threat of an increased fine will act as a stronger deterrent, and in many cases will be enough to prevent reoffending.
We are clear that, although we are increasing the upper limit, the police, local authorities and CSAS officers must ensure that fines are reasonable and proportionate to the severity of the behaviour. The statutory guidance will, of course, be updated to reflect that.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Clause 4 increases the maximum fixed penalty notice that can be issued for a breach of a community protection notice or public spaces protection order from £100 to £500. In 2023 the previous Conservative Government ran a consultation on proposals to strengthen the powers available to address antisocial behaviour. That included a proposal to increase the upper limit of fixed penalty notices to £500. Following the consultation, the Government included a proposal in their 2023-24 Criminal Justice Bill to increase the value of fixed penalty notices to £500.
How will the Government ensure that public spaces protection orders and community protection notices are not used disproportionately to penalise minor or everyday behaviours? Can the Minister speak further on what oversight mechanisms and approved standards will be in place to regulate the activities of private enforcement officers issuing fines under those orders? How will the Government respond to concerns that private enforcement officers have financial incentives to issue excessive fines, and what action can be taken if that occurs? How will the Government balance the need for public order with concerns that PSPOs and CPNs might unfairly target individuals for minor infractions? What mechanisms are in place to review or challenge PSPOs and CPNs if they are deemed unfair or excessive, and how will the Government ensure that the measures are not used as revenue-generating tools, rather than as genuine deterrents against antisocial behaviour?
Dame Diana Johnson
As I set out in my opening remarks, there will be statutory guidance on the use of the powers. I hope that provides some reassurance about how they will be used. I also set out the role of the chief constable in authorising officers and extending the powers to them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about local authorities perhaps using pay-by-commission contractors to issue fixed penalty notices and how there will not be abuse of that. To make it clear, it is for local authorities to determine how to operate the powers granted to them in legislation. Only the upper limit is being increased. Local agencies that issue fixed penalty notices can of course issue fines of less than £500 if appropriate, and it is expected that the fines issued will be based on the individual circumstances and severity of the case. Contracting enforcement to third parties is now a common arrangement and it is for the local authority to ensure that the use of powers remains just and proportionate. As I said at the outset, there will also be statutory guidance.
On the other safeguards and preventing the misuse of PSPOs, it is clear from the legislation that the local authority must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to consider a PSPO appropriate and that the legal test is met. Before making a PSPO, the council must consult the police and any community representatives they think appropriate. Before making, varying, extending or discharging a PSPO, the council must carry out the necessary publicity and notification in accordance with section 72(3) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. That includes publishing the text of a proposed order or variation and publishing the proposal for an extension or variation. Anyone who lives in, regularly works in or visits the area may apply to the High Court to question the validity of a PSPO.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Closure of premises by registered social housing provider
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 5 and schedule 2 provide registered social housing providers with the power to issue closure notices and closure orders, to enable them to quickly close premises that they own or manage that are being used, or are likely to be used, to commit nuisance or disorder. Despite registered social housing providers often being the initial point of contact for tenants suffering from antisocial behaviour, the current legislation does not allow them to use closure powers. Rather, they must contact the police or local authority to issue a closure notice and subsequently apply to the courts for a closure order on their behalf. This clause changes that.
Registered social housing providers will now be able to issue a closure notice and apply for a closure order themselves, meaning that the power can be used more quickly to disrupt antisocial behaviour, in turn freeing up police and local authority time. We of course understand that closing a premises is a serious action, so it is important to note that registered social housing providers are regulated bodies, subject to criteria set out in statute before they can become registered, and that they must meet the regulatory standards set by the Regulator of Social Housing. Having those safeguards is necessary to ensure that these powers are used responsibly by providers.
Matt Vickers
Clause 5 amends the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to enable registered social housing providers to close premises that they own or manage that are associated with nuisance and disorder. We very much welcome this measure—it is right that we empower social housing providers to deal with disorder in order to support and protect tenants.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very pleased that the shadow Minister agrees.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 6
Reviews of responses to complaints about anti-social behaviour
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 6 and schedule 3 provide a new duty for police and crime commissioners to promote awareness of the antisocial behaviour case review in the police force area, and provides a route for victims to request a further review where they are unsatisfied with an ASB case review outcome. As well as tackling the causes of antisocial behaviour, we know that much more must be done to help victims. The ASB case review is an important tool that gives victims of persistent antisocial behaviour the ability to request a formal case review.
As we know from the Victims’ Commissioner’s report, “Still living a nightmare”, published 6 September 2024, the case review is not always used as effectively as it could be to support victims. We want to improve resolutions for victims involved in these case reviews. Of course we hope that a resolution is found before there is a need for a case review, but it is important that this option is available, as there is currently no formal process for victims to appeal the outcome of a case review, even in situations where the review has not addressed the antisocial behaviour that the person is complaining about and experiencing.
This clause gives victims the right to request a further review of their antisocial behaviour case review by the police and crime commissioner where they are dissatisfied with the original outcome. It also allows victims to request a review by the PCC where the relevant agencies determined that the threshold was not met for the initial antisocial behaviour case review. In turn, the PCC will be able to override original case review recommendations and make new ones where they consider further action could have been taken.
Although local agencies will not be mandated to implement the recommendations, they will need to demonstrate consideration. To ensure that victims know where to access the right support, PCCs will also be required to promote awareness of the antisocial behaviour case review and the process for when victims are dissatisfied with the outcome.
Matt Vickers
Clause 6 and schedule 3 enable local policing bodies—police and crime commissioners and their equivalents—to conduct reviews into how authorities in their area have handled reports of antisocial behaviour. Someone could request a local policing body case review if they were dissatisfied with the outcome of an antisocial behaviour case review conducted by another agency, such as the local police force.
Proposed new section 104A of the 2014 Act requires local policing bodies to publish data on LPB case reviews, including the number of applications, the number of reviews conducted and their outcomes. As the Minister knows, it does not specify how that data should be published, which raises questions about delivering an inconsistent approach to publishing data on ASB case reviews. Without a clear specification on publication methods, does the Minister believe there is a risk that data could be inaccessible or difficult to compare across different areas? Will there be any independent oversight or monitoring to ensure that local policing bodies comply with the new transparency requirements?
Clause 6 also modifies schedule 4 of the 2014 Act to mandate that local policing bodies actively raise awareness of antisocial behaviour case reviews within their respective police areas. How does the Minister foresee each force undertaking that work, and will she work with forces to ensure that good and accessible awareness is not a postcode lottery?
Dame Diana Johnson
We have obviously been working closely with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners on how these provisions will work, to ensure that PCCs feel comfortable about what is expected of them and that there is clear guidance in place on what the provisions will actually mean. The legislation clearly sets out minimum requirements that PCCs must comply with when they are setting up and carrying out the PCC case review, including, as I have said, publicising the complaints procedure, consulting with key agencies and setting up the process. We will continue to work with the APCC to develop guidance and best practice to support PCCs in making effective use of the PCC case review.
I fully understand that the data issue is a challenge. It is clear that most partners are collecting data on antisocial behaviour. There are sometimes issues with being able to share that data effectively, and information on how data can be used by all the partners who need to see it will certainly be part of the guidance.
On the whole, however, I think this provision, which supports victims by giving them the right to a further review through the PCC, is the correct approach. I know that the Victims’ Commissioner is keen to see more use of the review procedure. One of her big complaints in the document she produced last year was that the procedure is not well known. We certainly want PCCs to ensure that information about the further right of appeal is given out as clearly as possible to the victims of antisocial behaviour.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 7
Provision of information about anti-social behaviour to Secretary of State
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
The clause introduces a power for the Home Secretary to make regulations requiring key local agencies to report information about antisocial behaviour to the Government. Regulations will be laid at a later date to specify the information that agencies must provide.
Information held by central Government on antisocial behaviour is, in some areas, limited. Despite non-police agencies, such as local authorities and housing providers, playing a crucial role in the response to antisocial behaviour, there are currently no requirements for those agencies to share information about ASB with the Government. That has resulted in a significant evidence gap in the national picture of antisocial behaviour, particularly around how many reports of antisocial behaviour are made to non-police agencies, how they are responded to, and how many antisocial behaviour case reviews they conduct.
Clause 7 takes steps to address the gap by requiring agencies to report that information to the Government. As it is a new duty, I reassure the Committee that we have considered possible new burdens on local agencies, and we have been engaging with local authorities and social housing providers to understand what information they already hold, and the impact that the requirement may have on them. We will ensure that any new requirements will be reasonable and proportionate. By collecting the information, we will be in a much better place: able to get a more accurate and granular picture of antisocial behaviour incidents across England and Wales, as well as the interventions used to tackle it. That, in turn, will help to inform future local and national activity so that we can better tackle antisocial behaviour.
Matt Vickers
Clause 7 grants the Secretary of State the authority to determine through secondary legislation the specific data on antisocial behaviour that local agencies are required to provide to the Government. At its core, the provision is about understanding the problem better. It allows the Government to demand reports on antisocial behaviour incidents, details of how authorities respond, and records of case reviews where communities hold those responses to account.
The idea is simple: if we know more about graffiti spoiling our streets, noise disrupting people’s sleep or disorder plaguing our neighbourhoods, we can do more. The Secretary of State could use that data to spot trends, allocate resources or craft policies that hit the mark. But let us not view the clause through rose-tinted glasses; it raises serious questions we cannot ignore. How much information will be demanded and how often? Will small councils, already stretched thin, buckle under the weight of collecting, creating and analysing data? How much detail will they be asked to provide? Will it be every caller, incident log, or every follow-up? How often will it be—daily updates, weekly summaries or monthly deep-dives?
Police forces, especially in rural and underfunded areas, are already juggling tight budgets and rising demands. Could the burden of gathering, generating and sifting through antisocial behaviour data pull officers away from the streets where they are needed most? A Government armed with better information could target support where it is needed most—perhaps more officers in high-crime areas or funding for youth programmes to prevent trouble before it starts. I am interested in the Minister’s view on how this will be balanced.
Dame Diana Johnson
I listened carefully to what the shadow Minister said, and in my remarks I also indicated that we wanted to be proportionate in the information we will request. It is clear that tackling antisocial behaviour is a top priority for this Government, and many of our partners, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the ASB sector, have called for better data on antisocial behaviour. Our engagement indicates that the majority of relevant agencies already have access to this data, but are not sharing it. That is the key point.
Requiring agencies to share that information with Government will enable the significant benefit of a national dataset on non-police ASB incidents and interventions, which will mean that we are then in a much better position to produce policy that fits with the issues that communities are facing up and down the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Seizure of motor vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 30—Seizure of motor vehicles: driving licence penalties—
“(1) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 59 (Vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance), after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) A person who is convicted of repeat offences under subsection (6) will have their driving licence endorsed with penalty points up to and including the revocation of their driving licence.’”
This new clause would make a person guilty of repeat offences of using vehicles in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance liable to penalty points on their driving licence or the revocation of their licence.
New clause 36—Removal of prohibition on entering a private dwelling to confiscate an off-road bike—
“(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 165A, after subsection (5)(c) insert—
‘(5A) In exercising their powers under subsection (5), a constable may enter a private dwelling house for the purposes of seizing an off-road bike’.
(3) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.
(4) In section 59(7), at end insert ‘, except where the intention is to seize an off-road bike.’”
This new clause would remove the prohibition on the police entering a private dwelling to confiscate an off-road bike that is driven without a licence, uninsured, or being used illegally.
New clause 37—Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance—
“(1) The Road Traffic Accident Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 165A, omit ‘within the period of 24 hours’.”
This new clause would remove the 24-hour time limit for the seizing of vehicles where a person has failed to produce a licence or evidence of insurance.
New clause 39—Duty to destroy seized off-road bikes—
“(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 165B(2), at end insert ‘;
(g) where the seized motor vehicle is an off-road bike, to ensure its destruction by the police’.
(3) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.
(4) In section 60(2), at end insert ‘;
(g) where the seized motor vehicle is an off-road bike, to ensure its destruction by the police.’”
New clause 40—Registration of off-road bikes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue a consultation on a registration scheme for the sale of off-road bikes.
(2) The consultation must consider the merits of—
(i) requiring sellers to record the details of buyers, and
(ii) verifying that buyers have purchased insurance.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on a registration scheme for the resale off-road bikes.
Dame Diana Johnson
We all accept that antisocial behaviour is unacceptable, which is why the Government are undertaking this ambitious programme of work to tackle it, including the proposals that we have discussed in Committee today. The antisocial use of vehicles, such as e-scooters and off-road bikes, causes havoc in local communities. It is not, as it has perhaps been described in the past, low-level behaviour. It leaves law-abiding citizens feeling intimidated and unsafe in their town centres, local parks and neighbourhoods, and it happens across the country.
I fully understand the strength of feeling among the public and Members, and their desire for the Government to take swift action. We will treat antisocial driving as the blight on society that it is. That is why we are making it easier for the police to seize offenders’ vehicles and dispose of them. Clearly, the Bill will strengthen the law so that vehicles being used antisocially can be seized by police immediately without the need to first provide a warning.
Matt Vickers
I rise to speak to clause 8 as well as new clauses 30 and 36, 37, 39 and 40, which were tabled by the Opposition. Clause 8 relates to the seizure of motor vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance. It will omit section 59(4) and (5) of the Police Reform Act 2002, removing the requirement to first issue a warning prior to seizing a vehicle being used in an antisocial manner.
This issue is of particular concern to me, and many hon. Members across the House. The Opposition welcome this measure to enable police to remove bikes without warning when using this power. Off-road bikes, e-bikes and other non-road-legal bikes are a huge concern to local communities across the country. The issue has been raised time and again in this place, with increasing regularity, in Westminster Hall debates, parliamentary questions, and private Member’s Bills, which have shown the huge and increasing impact it has on communities in different parts of the country, represented by MPs of different political parties.
The antisocial use of motor vehicles is a growing concern across the UK. When vehicles are driven recklessly, dangerously or in a disruptive manner, they can cause significant harm—both physical and psychological—to individuals and the wider community. The consequences of such behaviour range from increased public fear and distress to serious injury, and even loss of life.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
This is about the impact on not just communities and individuals but on farmers, livestock and rural businesses. In many cases people are seeing their livelihoods disrupted and their livestock injured or, at worst, killed by these bikes. What are the shadow Minister’s views on the need to tackle that?
Matt Vickers
This huge problem has many different faces in many different communities. Sometimes the problem is antisocial behaviour, and sometimes it is outright crime. We should be doing more, in terms of sanctions, to get these bikes off the streets.
One of the most immediate and severe dangers posed by antisocial use of motor vehicles is the threat to public safety. Reckless driving, illegal street racing and the misuse of off-road vehicles in pedestrian areas create an environment where accidents are not just possible but inevitable. Instances of vehicles being driven at high speed through residential streets or public spaces increase the likelihood of collisions with pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users. Children, the elderly and individuals with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to such risks. Parents often express concerns about their children’s safety when motorbikes or modified cars are recklessly raced through parks and playgrounds: areas that should be havens for relaxation and recreation.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that such antisocial behaviour is particularly intimidating because noise travels, creating the perception of vehicles going at speed and the fear of accidents? Even if there is no intent to cause antisocial behaviour or injury, the fact that reckless use of these vehicles can lead to accidents makes them menacing, particularly in the minds of older and more vulnerable people but also, frankly, for any resident in the vicinity.
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a sliding scale. There are people who use these things to intimidate and cause fear: driving around with a balaclava on their head, making as much of a racket as possible, and driving as close to people as possible in what should be a normal residential street, where families should be able to grow up. There is also the other extreme, where green spaces are torn apart by people recklessly creating a lot of havoc. But my hon. Friend is right: this behaviour intimidates and causes fear even where there is no intention to do so.
Even in cases where reckless driving does not result in physical harm, the psychological impact on communities cannot be overestimated. The noise and unpredictability of vehicles, especially motorbikes and modified cars, being misused can create a climate of fear. Residents often report feeling unsafe in their own neighbourhoods, deterred from using local parks or walking near roads where such behaviour is common. For many elderly individuals, loud and erratic vehicle activity can be particularly distressing. The sound of revving engines, screeching tyres and aggressive acceleration, especially at night, can cause severe anxiety, disrupting sleep patterns and diminishing overall quality of life for those affected.
Joe Robertson
It sounds as though my hon. Friend may have a greater problem with this sort of antisocial behaviour in his constituency, but that is not to say that, in constituencies such as mine where there is a problem, that problem will not get worse if these powers are not made available to the police. It is much harder to remove and stop a type of behaviour that has set in than to stop it ever happening in the first place. I hope he agrees that the powers will help all constituencies across the UK, regardless of the extent to which they are perceived to have a problem at the moment.
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend makes a good point. In my constituency, the problem has spread. It started on estates; people may make assumptions about where it might have started. But it is now everywhere. Areas filled with old people, and normal, quiet and well-heeled streets are now being tortured by it. It is also enabling crime on a massive scale, including drugs, child exploitation, theft and offences against the person.
Balaclavas and the speed of the vehicles are being used to evade detection and capture, and the teenagers are sometimes actively goading law enforcement. We have heard some of the public debate about direct contact to take people off the bikes, and we have also seen the tragic consequences when young people lose their lives as a result. While I welcome the change, I feel that we need to go much further in order to grip the problem. We cannot wait for another person to lose their life, or indeed for yet more people in communities across the country to lose their quality of life.
The problem is continuing to grow month on month. If anyone thinks I am being over the top, they can think again, or they could speak to a couple of MPs whose constituencies are affected. The problem is growing on a huge scale. Over recent years and, particularly, recent months, it has increasingly spread across my constituency. The police have been innovative in their efforts to tackle the issue of off-road bikes. Some forces have deployed officers on off-road bikes; others have used drones and other technology to trace where bikes are being held. All forces use an intelligence-led response and the powers they have to safely seize bikes when they are not being ridden.
I have spoken to many police officers, in my locality and across the country, about the issue. All are frustrated by the challenges of trying to deal with the problem. One such officer is neighbourhood police sergeant Gary Cookland, from my local police force in Cleveland, who submitted written evidence to the Committee. Gary is an incredibly hard-working police officer, who spends a large amount of time dealing with antisocial behaviour and, in particular, off-road bikes.
Gary explains that tackling the bikes is a high priority for all the communities he serves. He describes the bikes’ role in criminal activities and the misery they cause for so many families. He says that many of the vehicles are not roadworthy and not registered vehicles. The vehicles are sold without any restrictions and are readily available to any person who wishes to purchase one; they do not even need a driving licence. That has caused an influx of dangerous imports, a high number of which are afflicting our streets. He urges the Government to amend the Bill to include some form of regulation, and to include the need to supply the name of the owner, as well as an address and driving licence, at the point of sale.
Gary explains the ridiculous situation in which some of the bikes seized by police are then resold by them and returned to the streets. He talks about the fact that in some cases, when vehicles are deemed roadworthy, they can be reclaimed by people without relevant documentation such as an accurate or up-to-date registration. He points out that section 59 recoveries do not currently need all of those documents to be in order—only proof of ownership and payment of recovery fees. Sergeant Cookland puts forward a number of suggestions to help tackle the issue, including restrictions on fuel stations selling to vehicles that are clearly illegal and driven by people without helmets or driving licences. He also talks about restricting the use of balaclavas, which is now at epidemic levels in many communities and cause huge fear among law-abiding citizens.
Gary very much welcomes the change being put forward by the Government, as do I, but we need to think about the scale of the impact it can have. The clause changes just one piece of legislation used to seize the vehicles, but in practice the police use different powers within existing legislation. In this case, we are amending section 59 of the Police Reform Act, but many seizures are made under section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988—the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 revision, which I believe does not require notice or warning as it stands. It allows for the seizure of vehicles with no insurance. Obviously, many of the offending vehicles are not road legal anyway, so by default, they cannot be insured for use in public spaces. As I understand it, there are no records of what powers police forces are using to seize bikes, and to what scale. Therefore, it is difficult to determine with any confidence the scale of any impact the measure in the Bill will have. I am keen to hear from the Minister the size or scale of the impact that she anticipates it might have.
While it is a positive move, the provision is unlikely to have a sizeable impact on the problem. Therefore, informed by conversations with many on the frontline, I have tabled a number of new clauses on the subject in the hope that the Government might consider going further. I was certainly not afraid to question Ministers on this subject when my party was in office. I hope that my new clauses might be accepted as constructive suggestions to help solve what is a huge problem in so many areas across the country.
New clause 36 would remove the prohibition on the police entering a private dwelling to confiscate an off-road bike that is being driven without a licence, uninsured or being used illegally. Bizarrely, police officers are not able to seize these bikes under either the Road Traffic Act 1988 or the Police Reform Act 2002. A person can terrorise people, cause untold misery to local communities and use such a vehicle to evade law enforcement, but law enforcement cannot come into that person’s house and seize their off-road bike using existing powers. I hope people will see this as a logical measure; in fact, it was previously put forward by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), a Labour Member.
New clause 37 would amend section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to remove the 24-hour time limit for the seizing of vehicles where a person has failed to produce a licence or evidence of insurance. This is a simple change suggested by the neighbourhood police sergeant that could make a real and meaningful difference, helping those on the frontline to seize bikes with less restriction.
Harriet Cross
Earlier, we considered extending timelines from 48 hours to 72 hours to take in, for example, weekends and bank holidays. The new clause fits quite nicely with that, and would make sure that wherever we are in the week or year we are tackling this issue effectively.
Matt Vickers
Very much so. We can end up in a perverse situation where someone who has been seen riding one of these bikes just hides it for 24 hours, knowing that the police will have a scrap to go and recover it on that basis. At the time the provision was written, I do not think it would have been foreseen that this was where things would end. We did not write the Road Traffic Act with a view that we would need to seize bikes within 24 hours. It just was not a thing at the time. When that legislation was put forward, the problems with off-road bikes would never have even been considered. The new clause would bring the measure up to date and make it relevant to the challenges faced by modern policing. It would also prevent those who know the law from hiding a vehicle away for a period before returning to their illegal activity.
New clause 39 would amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Police Reform Act 2002 to create a duty to destroy seized off-road bikes. As frontline police officers have said, all too often they go to great lengths to seize these bikes, only to then see police forces sell them back on to the streets, often landing straight back into the hands of those from whom they were removed. Police forces use this as a form of revenue, but it is hugely damaging for the morale of many officers and hugely counterproductive in tackling the problem.
New clause 40 would invite the Secretary of State to issue a consultation on a registration scheme for the sale of off-road bikes. It would consider the merits of requiring those selling off-road bikes to record the details of those buying them and verify that they have any relevant insurance. Schemes exist for the registration of farm plant equipment. Crikey, we even have to register the likes of Microsoft Windows and various apps. Why should we not look at the merits of registering the sale of these dangerous bikes, which, when misused, are now enabling crime and causing misery in our communities?
New clause 30 would amend the Police Reform Act and make a person guilty of repeat offences of using vehicles in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance liable to penalty points on their driving licence or the revocation of their licence. This is not only a matter of enforcement; it is a matter of public safety, community wellbeing and ensuring that those who repeatedly flout the law face appropriate consequences. For too long, communities across the country have suffered from the reckless and inconsiderate use of motor vehicles. Whether it is illegal street racing, off-road bikes terrorising neighbourhoods or aggressive driving that endangers pedestrians and cyclists, the misuse of vehicles is a persistent issue that affects both urban and rural areas. The current legal framework allows for vehicle seizure, but does not go far enough in deterring repeat offenders. By introducing driving licence penalties, we send a clear message that persistent antisocial behaviour involving motor vehicles will have lasting consequences.
This new clause will support our police forces, who often already struggle to tackle the volume of complaints regarding reckless vehicle use. It presents an additional tool to discourage repeat offenders without having to repeatedly seize vehicles, which is often a short-term fix. I think most Members in the room would agree with that a driver facing potential disqualification is less likely to engage in dangerous behaviour than one who simply risks losing a single vehicle.
I hope that the Minister might consider these measures before the Committee comes to vote on them later, and would welcome any reflection she might have on them. Are the Government considering any other measures to tackle the problem, and is any financial support being offered to forces to help them to make the best use of technology in this area?
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I find myself agreeing with the shadow Minister on the menace that unauthorised, misused motorised vehicles cause to our society. Untaxed bikes are roaring through our housing estates. Just this weekend, I was taking my dog for a walk and three untaxed motorbikes were roaring up and down the road, where there were young children and families walking along. My dog got scared every time they went past.
These vehicles are a real menace. Illegal e-scooters whizz along the pavements. In Basildon, in south Essex, two young people were killed on an illegal e-scooter only recently. That is really sad: two young children had their lives ended on one of these illegal e-scooters. Modified electric bikes are also being dangerously driven on our roads. In my constituency, this is very much an urban problem, but the problem exists in different forms in rural areas. It affects all communities in one way or another.
There is also the issue of crime associated with illegal bikes and illegal e-scooters. The shadow Minister has lots of ideas on how to solve this problem, but during the last year of the Conservative Government, there were an average of 214 snatch thefts, often facilitated by e-bikes and e-scooters, every day on our streets in England and Wales. That was a 150% increase on the previous year. That shows the former Government’s massive disregard for law and order. The Conservative party now comes here with ideas for improvement, but we are actually taking action to stop this problem.
The fact that a warning is needed before these ridiculous illegal vehicles are seized creates an element of immunity for users—if they are going to get a warning, they will keep trying to push their luck—so I welcome the removal of that requirement. It is time to get tough in this area and give the police the powers they need to act promptly.
Harriet Cross
I completely agree that it is time to get serious about this issue. Will the hon. Member support our new clause that would give police the power to confiscate these vehicles from people’s houses?
David Burton-Sampson
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, but the key is to get these vehicles as soon as they are spotted on the streets.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Where the community comes in is a game changer, because it is all about intelligence. What will make the difference in seizing these off-road bikes is the police working with our local authorities and communities.
David Burton-Sampson
Absolutely. I could not have said it better myself.
We need to get this provision into law as quickly as possible, as part of this whole raft of changes. The police need to be able to act promptly when they see these ridiculous vehicles causing so many problems on our roads and in our communities.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
These vehicles are also having a huge impact in Riverview and Coldharbour, in my community. The police have been doing some good work with drones to follow these people to their home addresses. With the change in the law to allow police to seize the vehicles straight away, does my hon. Friend think that such interventions could support the police and communities in cracking down on the problem?
David Burton-Sampson
I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. Over the past couple of weeks, Essex police has focused particularly on using similar techniques to drive down the use of illegal e-scooters.
It is time to get tough. We need to act promptly when we come across these perpetrators and get these vehicles off the road. I am pleased with the change to the law that will be made by clause 8.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
First, I express general support for the clause. I welcome the measures to combat this menace in our communities, which we have heard about in the room here today and also in the Chamber on Second Reading. We have not only the risk of the antisocial behaviour itself, but the enabled crime that it is linked to such as phone snatching and similar offences. Again, it is welcome to try to reduce those incidents where possible.
This weekend, I was in a discussion with a resident who talked about the impact of illegal off-road bikes in Overton Park in my constituency. They talked about their fear that if one of those vehicles hit their child—they are often not even full-sized off-road vehicles, but small, children’s off-road bikes—it could cause serious injury. There is a real fear among residents.
We also have an issue around illegal e-bikes being driven on our high streets, often in zones shared between pedestrians and cycles. Heavier, illegally modified bikes are used often by food delivery companies that absolve themselves of any responsibility because the bikers are all independent contractors or independent riders. The companies take no responsibility and have no interest in cracking down, so enforcement is left to the local police. They have problems spotting whether the vehicles are illegally modified and then there is the issue of police resources. Many of us sound like a broken record on this: the powers are all very well, but the challenge is actually having the resources in our neighbourhood policing units to enforce them.
I have a concern not only linked to the manpower required to police the bikes, but on some of the details and practicalities of the powers, so I would welcome further details from the Minister. Will there be any process of appeal for the individual if the bike or vehicle is taken away in the first instance without a warning? Would it just be down to a single officer who says a particular offence is antisocial? I have had people contact me with concerns because they have been stopped in a vehicle for fast acceleration or for driving in a particular way on a single occasion. They worry that under the powers granted in the Bill their vehicle could be immediately confiscated. They feel that the powers might be misused by individual police officers, so there is a concern over that process, and how the power given to a police officer can be used in a single instance.
Would vehicles be fully traced and tracked to see whether they are stolen? We should ensure that we do not crush or dispose of vehicles that can be returned to their owners. Would the powers be enforced on the owner alone? If a vehicle had been taken without permission or was being used without the knowledge of the owner, would there be a process to ensure that the vehicle was not used again without the understanding of the owner? The removal and disposal would seem to be an overreach in that circumstance.
On the timescale of disposal and how that would be done, I heard the concerns about the immediate re-selling of vehicles back to the wrong ’uns they were taken off in the first place. It is a valid concern. Will that disposal mean cubing it and putting it in the recycling, or does it mean selling it on? What constraints will be put on the police to deal with vehicles that are taken?
My understanding of the current guidance is that warnings are necessary only where repeated tickets are impractical. Can the Minister talk about where the existing description of “where impractical” is insufficient for police officers? In discussions with the police, I imagine that the phrase “where impractical” has been identified as problematic. Can we draw out a bit why it is causing issues?
There is a question around whether the powers would apply to problem areas, particularly in central London where high-powered, very expensive vehicles have been reported as causing noise nuisance and alarm to local residents. We have all read stories of vehicles being imported from the middle east by foreign owners, and these vehicles causing noise nuisance in central London, in the Kensington and Chelsea areas. Would the powers allow those vehicles, which are often very high-value vehicles, to be taken without a warning in the first place? I think there is an appetite from many for that to be the case, but there would be concerns over the sheer value of those vehicles and how the police would deal with that.
I find some of the new clauses interesting and there is actually a lot of sense in many of them. Again, I would be interested to hear the Minister explain why each power they provide for is either undesirable or already covered in the Bill.
Joe Robertson
It is good to hear that there is a universal view—at least among those who have spoken—about the intimidating nature of driving motor vehicles in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance. I am pleased that the Bill does not require that to be the intent of the use of the vehicle; if there is flagrant disregard for others, that behaviour is captured here and could and should lead to the seizing of that vehicle. There are clearly issues with existing law that are improved here, not least seizing a vehicle without warning. Plainly, people who use vehicles in this way are likely to be quite clever at avoiding the system taking their vehicle when they are warned that they are being watched and have been seen. Removing the necessity for a warning is welcome.
There are a number of issues that are not dealt with in the Bill. I will not repeat the words of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, but I wish to highlight the inability to seize a vehicle once it has entered the home. Again, the sorts of people who are using vehicles in this way will be quite clever about protecting their property when they see the police coming. Can the Minster help with this idea of the home; if a bike is removed into a garage, for example, can it still be seized? Does it matter if that garage is integral to the home or separate from it? Any loopholes that can be closed for those driving their vehicles in this way to avoid having them seized would be welcome.
The shadow Minister and the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, both referred to the idea of a vehicle being seized and then resold—and possibly sold back to the perpetrator of the antisocial behaviour in the first place. That is plainly ridiculous. Crushing these vehicles, with all the caveats around ensuring that the vehicle belongs to the person who had been using it in that way—that they were not joyriding, leading to somebody else’s property getting crushed—is a sensible way forward.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I want to make a brief point about the noise nuisance of vehicles. We are rightly focusing a lot of remarks on how dangerous these vehicles are for ordinary citizens trying to go about their day, but to reinforce a point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, about modified exhausts, I will share mine and my constituents’ annoyance at these things. It is unreasonable that someone in their own house with their windows closed should have to listen to a vehicle going by. Someone going for a walk on a nice sunny day has to listen to this antisocial behaviour, which has no benefit at all, as far as I can tell, in terms of the quality of the vehicle.
Harriet Cross
If one way to help reduce the likelihood that someone in their private house with the windows closed would not have to listen to these vehicles—as no one should—was to have powers to seize them from inside someone’s house, would the hon. Member support that?
David Taylor
I am not convinced. I am primarily talking about big vehicles such as SUVs and other cars, which are not often inside garages—not many people have garages these days.
I really hope the Bill enables, and gives confidence to, the police to take more action against modified exhausts because, unfortunately, they do not always prioritise this particular nuisance.
Dame Diana Johnson
The shadow Minister and other members of the Committee have set out clearly how concerned we are about the antisocial use of vehicles and the real problems they are causing communities all around the country. I think we can all identify with the menace they cause in our parks, on our pavements and in our streets and neighbourhoods. Certainly, as the nights get lighter, the problem seems to get worse. In Orchard Park in my constituency, we seem to be plagued by mini motos causing noise nuisance and intimidating local people, making the situation really unpleasant for people trying to enjoy the good weather as we move into spring and summer. I fully appreciate all of that, and as the shadow Minister pointed out, there are also real issues about the way vehicles are used for crime—drugs, theft and everything else.
It is absolutely right to say that the police have been as innovative as they can be in the use of drones or off-road bikes. The police may, where appropriate, pursue motorbikes and off-road bikes being ridden in an antisocial manner and may employ tactical options to bring the vehicles to a stop. The College of Policing’s authorised professional practice on roads policing and police pursuits provides guidance for police taking part in such pursuits. However, the APP makes it clear that the pursuit should be necessary, proportionate and balanced against the threat, risk and harm of the pursuit to the person being pursued, the officers involved and others who may be affected.
Luke Taylor
Has the Minister considered additional funding and support for the police? The suggestion is that those actions—the pursuit and physical taking of the vehicle—would require more resource and training, and that is a point that I will make repeatedly. Does the Minister agree that that is important and that support will be provided?
Dame Diana Johnson
An additional £1.2 billion is going into policing—from today, actually—for this financial year. So there is a clear commitment from the Government to fund police forces. I understand that the police face many challenges, but financial support is certainly going in. The work of the College of Policing in setting out best practice—that authorised professional practice—is really important in giving police officers confidence to take the steps they need to in order to deal with antisocial behaviour.
The other point I wanted to make is that work is being undertaken by the Home Office and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory to progress research and development on a novel technology solution to safely stop e-bikes and enhance the ability of the police to prevent them from being used to commit criminal acts.
Matt Vickers
Of course we want more resources—we will not play politics and debate that—but using direct contact to get someone off one of these bikes comes with huge consequences for the police officers who take that risk. There are parts of the country where young people have lost their lives—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam talked about “wrong ‘uns” riding these bikes, but they are often somebody’s son—so this comes with a huge risk and a huge life cost. Of course police officers want to bring that to an end, but the solution is usually an intelligence-led response that means that bikes are picked up when they are parked in a garage or—well, not parked in somebody’s house.
Dame Diana Johnson
The shadow Minister makes an important point. This must be about intelligence-led policing, but there will be circumstances in which police officers find themselves having to pursue an individual. There is clear guidance from the College of Policing on how police officers should do that. It should be necessary, proportionate and balanced. Of course, we want to keep police officers safe and make sure that the person being pursued is not at risk of being injured or losing their life, as in the very sad cases the shadow Minister mentioned.
It is worth pointing out the powers available to the police to tackle the misuse of off-road bikes and other vehicles. The Police Reform Act 2002 provides the police with the power to seize vehicles that are driven carelessly or inconsiderately on-road or without authorisation off-road, and in a manner causing, or likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance. Section 59 of the Act enables the police to put a stop to this dangerous and antisocial behaviour. The seizure depends not on prosecution for, or proof of, these offences, but only on reasonable belief as to their commission.
Under section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the police are also empowered to seize vehicles driven without insurance or a driving licence. Under section 165B, they have the power to make regulations regarding the disposal of seized vehicles. The police can also deal with antisocial behaviour involving vehicles, such as off-road bikes racing around estates or illegally driving across public open spaces, in the same way as they deal with any other antisocial behaviour.
A number of questions were asked, but I want to deal first with the issue of when a vehicle is seized and what happens to the owner. When the police seize a vehicle, they will not immediately crush it. They need to spend time finding the registered owner in case the vehicle was stolen. Before reclaiming a vehicle, the individual must prove that they are the legal owner of the vehicle. They may be asked to prove that they have valid insurance and a driving licence. We will be consulting in the spring on proposals to allow the police to dispose of seized vehicles more quickly.
I will now turn to the constructive suggestions in the shadow Minister’s new clauses. New clause 30 would render antisocial drivers who fail to stop liable to penalty points on their licence for repeat offending. It is an offence under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 for a driver using a vehicle carelessly or antisocially to fail to stop when instructed to do so by a police officer. Offenders are liable for fines of up to £1,000, which we believe is a more effective deterrent. The police may also, where appropriate, issue penalty points for careless or inconsiderate driving or speeding, so antisocial drivers may already be liable for points. I entirely agree with the shadow Minister that the behaviour of antisocial drivers should not be tolerated. That is why we are making it easier for the police to seize their vehicles, and we will consider how to make it easier for seized vehicles to be disposed of, which we believe will be even more of a deterrent.
New clause 36 would permit the police to enter private dwellings to seize an off-road bike where it has been used antisocially or without licence. As I have already set out, the Government are keen to make it as easy as possible for the police to take these bikes off our streets. We do not, however, believe that giving the police powers to enter a private dwelling for the purpose of seizing an off-road bike is necessary or proportionate. The bar for entry to private dwellings is, rightly, extremely high. Police currently have a range of specific powers to seize vehicles being used antisocially or without a licence or insurance, and can already enter property, including gardens, garages and sheds, which is where they are most likely to be store, to seize them.
The police also have a general power of entry, search and seizure under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That means that when police are lawfully on the premises, they may seize any item reasonably believed to be evidence of any offence, where it is necessary to do so. That would include, for example, off-road bikes believed to have been used in crimes such as robbery. Magistrates may grant warrants to search for evidence in relation to indictable offences, and police may in some circumstances enter properties without a warrant being required—for example, to arrest someone for an indictable offence.
Later on in our deliberations, we will come to clause 93, which sets out the right of the police to enter a premises containing electronically tagged stolen goods when the GPS shows that that equipment—or whatever it is, and that includes a bike—with that electronic tag on it is in there. Police officers will be able to search without a warrant, on the basis that that is a stolen item. That is something to think about when we debate clause 93.
Having said all that, we believe that the measures we have brought forward to make it easier for the police to seize off-road bikes at the point of offending, as a number of my hon. Friends have discussed, are a better deterrent. That is intended to suppress the offending immediately, before it escalates, and to deliver swift justice.
New clause 37 would remove the 24-hour limit within which the police may seize an unlicensed or uninsured vehicle. Currently, the police may seize a vehicle that is being driven without a licence or insurance, either at the roadside or within 24 hours of being satisfied that the vehicle is unlicensed or uninsured. The point of that seizure power for uninsured vehicles is to instantly prevent the uninsured driver from driving. There is a separate penalty for the offence: if the vehicle is still uninsured after 24 hours, the police can seize the vehicle and give the driver a second uninsured driving penalty.
New clause 39 would expressly permit the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to ensure that the police destroy any off-road bikes they have seized. Currently, the police may dispose of seized vehicles after holding them for a certain period, but they are not required to destroy any off-road bikes. We are considering how we can make changes to the secondary legislation to allow the police to dispose of seized vehicles more quickly—to reduce reoffending and prevent those vehicles from ending up back in the hands of those who should not have them. However, we do not believe that we should restrict the ability of the police to dispose of off-road bikes as they see fit. They may, for example, auction them off to recover costs, which would not be possible under the terms of new clause 39.
Finally, new clause 40 would require the Government to consult on a registration scheme for the sale of off-road bikes, requiring sellers to record the details of buyers and to verify that they hold valid insurance. Of course, antisocial behaviour associated with off-road bikes is completely unacceptable and, as I have set out, we are taking strong measures to deal with this menace. The police already have a suite of powers to deal with those who do not use their off-road bikes responsibly. It is an offence to use an unlicensed vehicle on a public road, or off-road without the permission of the landowner, and the police can immediately seize vehicles being used in that way.
As the Committee will know, the police are operationally independent, and the Government cannot instruct them to take action in particular cases of antisocial vehicle use, but I hope I have been able to set out, and to reassure the shadow Minister, how seriously we take this unacceptable behaviour and how much we value the role the police have in tackling it.
I would also like to recognise the strength of feeling in the Committee and outside about this behaviour and the disruptive effect it has on communities. I recently met the Roads Minister and we agreed our commitment to a cross-Government approach to tackling this unacceptable antisocial use of vehicles and of course to improving road safety. I am really keen to take forward considerations about how we can go further, outside of the scope of this Bill.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move amendment 35 in clause 9, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
“(c) section 33B (Section 33 offences: clean-up costs).”.
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State’s guidance on flytipping makes the person responsible for fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, liable for the costs of cleaning up.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 18, line 5, at end insert—
“(5A) Within a month of any guidance, or revised guidance, issued under this section being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must ensure that a motion is tabled, and moved, in both Houses of Parliament to approve the guidance.”.
Clause stand part.
New clause 24—Points on driving licence for fly tipping—
“(1) The Environmental Protection Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section 33, subsection 8(a) at end insert—
‘and endorse their driving record with 3 penalty points;’.”
This new clause would add penalty points to the driving licence of a person convicted of a fly-tipping offence.
Matt Vickers
The clause seeks to address a scourge that affects all communities across Britain and all our constituencies. Fly-tipping is an inherent problem, and I welcome any provisions to help tackle this costly and environmentally damaging issue.
The clause is a step in seeking to combat this growing issue. It has been a persistent problem in the UK, causing environmental damage, undermining public health and placing an economic burden on local authorities, which are responsible for cleaning up illegal waste. Empowering local councils to take more immediate and decisive action against fly-tipping is key to making enforcement more efficient and consistent. With more resources, authority and tools, councils will be better equipped to prevent fly-tipping, address existing problems and ensure that offenders are held accountable.
Although fly-tipping is largely seen as a waste disposal issue, it is also an environmental one. Waste that is illegally dumped has far-reaching effects on local ecosystems, water sources and wildlife. Existing laws do not always capture the broader environmental harm caused by fly-tipping. Previous Governments have looked to make progress on tackling fly-tipping by increasing the fines and sanctions available to combat it.
In the evidence session, there was some criticism of the measure in the Bill, with the suggestion that it was just guidance and could be considered patronising by some councils. Although I understand that view, doing more to ensure that local authorities are aware of their responsibilities and the powers available to them by providing meaningful guidance can only be helpful.
I am sure we can all agree that fly-tipping is a scourge and a blight on our communities. Many of us will have some fantastic litter-picking groups in our constituencies —I know I do. I thoroughly enjoy getting out with the Thornaby litter pickers, who do an amazing job. It is great to see people coming together to better their communities, but it is a sad reality that more and more groups of selfless volunteers need to form because people are sick of the endless amounts of rubbish strewn in our streets and by our roads.
Britain has a long-established record of trying to tackle fly-tipping and litter. Keep Britain Tidy was set up as a result of a conference of 26 organisations in 1955. Today, it continues that hard and important work.
Fly-tipping is a significant financial burden on local councils. The annual cost of clearing up illegally dumped waste in the UK is estimated to be more than £50 million. That includes the direct costs of waste removal, disposal fees and the administrative costs involved in managing fly-tipping incidents. According to data for 2019-20 published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in that year alone local authorities in England spent approximately £11 million on clearing up over 1 million reported fly-tipping incidents. That money could be better spent on frontline services such as filling potholes, or on providing community services. Instead, it is used to clean up after those who have no respect for others. The Opposition have tabled amendment 35, which I hope the Committee will support, to complement and strengthen the Bill. Fly-tipping, as defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, is the illegal disposal of waste on land or in public spaces, but some types of fly-tipping are defined less clearly. For example, small-scale littering, such as dumping a few bags of rubbish on a roadside or on private property, may not always be captured by existing laws.
Amendment 35 seeks to define some of the guidance that the Bill will require the Secretary of State to set. The Opposition believe it is important that the heart of the legislation’s approach should be make the person responsible for fly-tipping liable for the costs of cleaning up, rather than the landowner. The amendment would require that to be a feature of the guidance, making it loud and clear to all our local authorities that such powers are available to them.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that this might be important for rural communities, and particularly for farmers? Farmers in my constituency tell me that they struggle with being responsible for clearing up after other people’s fly-tipping, for which they have to use their own time and resources.
Matt Vickers
I completely agree. Many farmers in my patch would say exactly the same. When rubbish is dumped in a park or local authority area, it gets cleaned up, at huge cost to the taxpayer, but when it is dumped beyond the farm gate, or in a field owned by a farmer—or anyone else with any scale of land in a rural area—too often they have to pick up the cost, and all the consequences beyond cost.
Currently, fly-tipping offences typically result in a fine and, in some cases, a criminal record. However, repeat offenders are often penalised in a way that does not sufficiently discourage further violations. The fines can sometimes be seen as a mere cost of doing business, especially by individuals or companies who repeatedly dump waste, often for profit. The Opposition’s new clause 24 proposes adding penalty points to the driving licence of any individual convicted of a fly-tipping offence. It is a significant proposal that aims to deter people from illegally dumping waste by linking that to driving penalties, which would impact an individual’s driving record, and potentially their ability to drive. Our new clause shows that we are serious about tackling the issue of fly-tipping. By linking fly-tipping to driving penalties, the new clause would create an additional layer of consequence for those involved in illegal dumping. People with driving licences may be more cautious if they know that their ability to drive could be impacted.
I note amendment 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, but it is unclear what that amendment would achieve. I am concerned that it would not complement clause 9, and would be counterproductive. The requirement for parliamentary approval of guidance within a month could lead to delays in the implementation of important policies or updates, particularly if there are disagreements or procedural delays in Parliament. I would not want anything to impede, by overreach, our ability to tackle and curtail fly-tipping.
Luke Taylor
We welcome measures to combat fly-tipping. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset has already mentioned, the problem is particularly concerning for rural landowners and farmers, who often have to deal with the cost of this environmental crime on their land. Amendment 4 intends to give parliamentary oversight and democratic control over the guidance. That is a good thing, which we should all support. However, I understand the concerns about delays. I think there is a balance between accountability, parliamentary approval and delays. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I am glad to see clause 9 because, as several hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have mentioned, fly-tipping is a particular problem in many rural constituencies. In Berkshire, where the majority of my seat lies, there were 7,700 instances of fly-tipping in 2023-24. We are a small county, but that is 20 reports a day. In the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, where most of my constituency is, the figure rose to 1,902 in the past year, which is up 52% on the year before, when we had 1,249. The issue is of greater prevalence than in the past, and I welcome the Government including clauses to try to make a difference.
We have also seen a change in the nature of fly-tipping. Two or three years ago, in Berkshire, most of it was on council land, in car parks or parks, in the hope that the local authority might pick it up, but now we see what might be called smaller-scale highways incidents, with the dumping of waste on public roads, pavements or grass verges. In the past year, 778 of the 900 instances in the royal borough consisted of what were described as a car boot or less. To me, that indicates a prevalence of individuals or waste from small-scale dumpsters, perhaps from small businesses—perhaps we are seeing fewer large-scale illegal waste operations. I put that very much in the bucket of antisocial behaviour.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West and the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said, that is a particular concern to local farmers. I will quote Colin Rayner, a constituent of mine and a farmer. I will first declare an interest, that Colin is a personal friend and the president of Windsor Conservatives, but he is well placed and I pick him for his expertise rather than my relationship with him. To quote the Maidenhead Advertiser, he said that
“the family farms have incidents of fly-tipping every day, from a bag of garden waste to lorry loads of waste…‘We have made our farms into medieval forts to try to reduce large loads of waste been tipped on the farms’.”
He has also spoken to me about the cost to his business of extra security and, indeed, of the cleaning up.
That last point is why I welcome the amendment moved by the Opposition to make the cost sit with the offender and not with the landowner. It is not appropriate that Mr Rayner and his companies pay; the person who is offending should. Also, new clause 24 on driving licences, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, seems to be a way to get at just such small-scale operations. That might be something that is tangible and real to a small business or an individual doing the fly-tipping. I absolutely welcome the amendment and the new clause.
When the guidance comes forward, I encourage the Minister to be as tough as possible—which I think is her intent, but perhaps she will speak to that in her wind-up. We should use the power to search and seize vehicles in the case of persistent offenders. I want to see serious fixed penalty notices for people caught fly-tipping, and I want extra powers of investigation and prosecution. I will welcome the Minister’s comments.
Dr Sullivan
Fly-tipping is a blight on our communities—I think we all share that view. The misconception is that fly-tipping is small scale, but it is committed by criminals and unscrupulous small waste-removal businesses that can have links to organised crime. It is a huge money-making machine. It is an issue that local authorities have had to grapple with for many decades. In many cases, it has been worsened by environmental measures and stronger recycling and waste collection rules.
I pay tribute and give credit to my local authority, Gravesham borough council. In 2019, it set out a bold antisocial behaviour strategy, which looked at fly-tipping at its source and at its heart. In 2020, the council set up the environment enforcement team, which has used a variety of different techniques to prevent, to tackle, to educate and to prosecute. Since then, 386 community protection warnings, 50 fly-tipping fines and 12 duty-of-care fines for waste carriage breaches have been issued, as well as 39 cases resulting in successful prosecutions in court.
The council and its media team work closely with Kent police to raise awareness and deter potential offenders. I would like to put on record my thanks to its team. The council was able to take that action because of past legislation, including the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. I could go on, but there are now many legislative options for local authorities to tackle the issue and take people to court. Where fines are handed out, there is an issue with the backlog in the courts, but I know that the Minister is looking at streamlining some of those court issues, which arose from the neglect of the last 14 years.
Harriet Cross
I welcome the intention of the Bill to tighten up regulations for fly-tipping, which is such a blight in our communities up and down the country. I know that the Bill refers directly to England, but up in my constituency of Gordan and Buchan, in Aberdeenshire, it is just as prevalent. It is a growing concern across the country. As the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor said, it has both an environmental and antisocial impact, but the impact on community cohesion is particularly important. It can be seen as a gateway, as once there are instances of fly-tipping, they escalate and escalate.
There is an example from my constituency that always sticks in my mind. There are quite a few mountain passes in and around my area. One day, I drove over one and there was a bath at the top. The next time I drove past, there was a bath and a sofa, and then it was a bath, a sofa and a bike. Eventually, I could have probably furnished a house and garden after just a few trips up and over this pass. That is how this escalates. Once incidents start happening, people think, “It’s there already, so I’ll just keep adding to it.” We must crack down on it.
We must also recognise the impact on landowners and farmers. It cannot be fair that someone who farms land has to deal with fly-tipping, on top of everything else. This is not to conflate two issues, but we have heard a lot in the last year about how farming is low on profits, at about 1%. We cannot expect farmers to bear the burden of having to put some of that money into clearing up someone else’s mess. That is why I welcome amendment 35, which seeks to ensure that, where and when perpetrators of fly-tipping are identified, they are made to pay the cost of clearing it up. That is not a burden that anyone other than the perpetrator should have to face.
Will the Minister say what conversations have been had with the devolved nations? If people are putting waste into the back of a van and driving it around, the borders are no barriers, whether they are on one side of the Scottish or Welsh border or the other. This is a cross-border issue. What implication might this have, and what conversations has the Minister had with her Scottish and Welsh counterparts to tackle this across the board?
Joe Robertson
A lot of good comments have been made on this provision in the Bill, which I do not wish to repeat. I note the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan about consistency with the devolved nations and how people seeking to dump do not recognise borders. I can probably assure her that fly-tippers on the Isle of Wight are not likely to reach her constituency in order to perpetrate their dumping, but if the law in Scotland is not equally as strong, who knows what lengths people will go to? I want to reinforce that point, and I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept this amendment to make the guidance as strong as possible around the fly-tipper being the payer. Clearly, we are all victims of fly-tipping, but the landowner in particular is a victim. It is completely unacceptable to any right-minded individual that the landowner should pay the costs of being a victim of a crime. I urge the Government to accept amendment 35 and make the guidance as strong as possible on that point.
Dame Diana Johnson
This has been an interesting debate. We have been up mountain passes, we have been on the Isle of Wight and we have had the shadow Minister out with the Thornaby litter pickers. This debate has been very visual. Fly-tipping is a really serious crime that is blighting communities. It is placing a huge burden on taxpayers and businesses, and it harms the environment. Unfortunately, it is all too common, with local councils reporting 1.15 million incidents in 2023-24.
I want to address the issue of what we are doing in rural areas and on private land. Through the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Countryside Alliance and local authorities to share good practice on tackling fly-tipping on private land. Where there is sufficient evidence, councils can prosecute fly-tippers.
In relation to the issue of serious and organised waste crime, the Environment Agency hosts the joint unit for waste crime, which is a multi-agency taskforce that brings together His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency, the police, waste regulators from across the UK and other operational partners to share intelligence and disrupt and prevent serious organised waste crime. Since 2020, the joint unit for waste crime has worked with over 130 partner organisations, and led or attended 324 multi-agency days of action resulting in 177 associated arrests.
On the issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, we have engaged closely with the devolved Government across the Bill. As she will know, fly-tipping is a devolved matter in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so accordingly this provision applies only in England.
We want to see consistent and effective enforcement action at the centre of local efforts to combat the issue of fly-tipping. That will ensure not only that those who dump rubbish in our communities face the consequences, but that would-be perpetrators are deterred. Councils currently have a range of enforcement powers. Those include prosecution, which can lead to a significant fine, community sentences, or even imprisonment. They can also issue fixed penalty notices of up to £1,000 and seize the vehicles suspected of being used for fly-tipping.
The use of those powers, however, varies significantly across the country, with some councils taking little or no enforcement action at all. Indeed, just two councils—West Northamptonshire and Kingston upon Thames —accounted for the majority of vehicles seized in 2023-24. DEFRA also regularly receives reports of local authorities exercising their enforcement powers inappropriately, for example against householders who leave reusable items at the edge of their property for others to take for free. Through the Bill we intend to enable the Secretary of State to issue fly-tipping enforcement guidance that councils must have regard to.
I want to be clear that the guidance is not about setting top-down targets. We want to empower councils to respond to fly-tipping in ways that work for their communities, while making Government expectations crystal clear. The guidance, which must be subject to consultation, will likely cover areas such as policy and financial objectives of enforcement, how to operate a professional service, the use of private enforcement firms, and advice on how to respond in certain circumstances. Local authorities will, of course, be key stakeholders in the development of the guidance; after all, they are on the frontline in the fight against fly-tipping, and we want to ensure that the guidance provides them with the advice that they will find most helpful.
Amendment 35 aims to ensure that the person responsible for fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, is liable for the costs of cleaning up. I recognise the significant burden that clearing fly-tipped waste places on landowners. It is already the case that, where a local authority prosecutes a fly-tipper and secures a conviction, the court can make a cost order so that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. That is made clear in section 33B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, although sentencing is of course a matter for the courts. Guidance on presenting court cases produced by the national fly-tipping prevention group, which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chairs, explains that prosecutors should consider applying for compensation for the removal of waste. We will consider building on that advice in the statutory guidance issued under clause 9. We also committed, in our manifesto, to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess that they create. DEFRA will provide further details on that commitment in due course.
Amendment 4 would introduce a requirement for any fly-tipping guidance issued under clause 9 to be subject to parliamentary approval. I do not believe that there is any need for such guidance to be subject to any parliamentary procedure beyond a requirement to lay the guidance before Parliament. That is because the guidance will provide technical and practical advice to local authorities on how to conduct enforcement against fly-tipping and breaches of the household waste duty of care. The guidance will not conflict with, or alter the scope of, the enforcement powers, so I do not believe that it requires parliamentary oversight.
The requirement to lay the guidance before Parliament, without any further parliamentary procedure, is consistent with the position taken with the analogous power in section 88B of the 1990 Act and the recommendation of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the then Environment Bill in the 2021-22 Session. We will, of course, consider carefully any recommendations by that Committee in relation to this clause.
New clause 24 seeks to add three penalty points to the driving licence of a person convicted of a fly-tipping offence. As I have said, fly-tipping is a disgraceful act and those who dump rubbish in our communities should face the full force of the law, which could include spot fines of up to £1,000, prosecution or vehicle seizure. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, will appreciate that sentencing is a matter for the courts and that to direct them to place penalty points on the driving licence of a convicted fly-tipper would undermine their ability to hand down a sentence proportionate to the offence, but I will ask my DEFRA counterpart who is responsible for policy on fly-tipping to consider the benefits of enabling endorsement with penalty points for fly-tippers.
I also stress that there is an existing power for local councils to seize a vehicle suspected of being used for fly-tipping. If a council prosecutes, the court can order the transferral to the council of the ownership rights to the vehicle, under which the council can keep, sell or dispose of it.
I hope that, in the light of my explanations, the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Sutton and Cheam will be content to withdraw their amendments and to support clause 9.
Matt Vickers
It would be remiss of us to have this debate today and not mention that the Great British spring clean is happening at the moment, thanks to Keep Britain Tidy. I thought I would just put that out there; the Minister need not respond.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 10, page 18, line 38, leave out “4” and insert “14”.
This amendment would increase the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four to 14 years. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation recommended an increase in his review following the Southport attack.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 9.
Clause stand part.
Clause 11 stand part.
New clause 44—Individual preparation for mass casualty attack—
“(1) A person commits an offence, if, with the intention of—
(a) killing two or more people, or
(b) attempting to kill two or more people,
they engage in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to their intention.
(2) A person found guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.”
This new clause would allow the police to intervene early to prevent attacks, like in terrorism cases, without causing unintended consequences for wider counter-terrorism efforts. It gives effect to a recommendation by the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation following the Southport attack.
Matt Vickers
Clause 10, which creates new section 139AB of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, makes it illegal to possess a bladed or offensive weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence, cause fear of violence, inflict serious damage to property or enable another to do so. A “relevant weapon” for the purpose of the clause includes a bladed article covered by section 139 of the 1988 Act or an offensive weapon within the meaning of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. Additionally, the clause amends section 315 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to bring the offence under the mandatory minimum sentencing regime for repeat offenders, ensuring consistency with existing laws on knife possession and threats involving weapons.
Clause 11 amends the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to increase the maximum penalty for manufacturing, selling, hiring or lending prohibited weapons. In England and Wales, those offences are currently summary-only, which means they can be tried only in the magistrates court. The Bill makes them triable either way, meaning they could be tried in either the magistrates court or the Crown court.
Offensive weapons, in particular bladed articles and corrosive substances, have become one of the most pressing concerns in our fight against violent crime. The alarming rise in the use of these dangerous items in criminal activities has not only led to an increase in injuries and fatalities, but instilled fear and a sense of insecurity in communities across the country. The harm caused by these weapons, from knives to acid, is devastating; victims of attacks are often left with life-altering injuries and long-term psychological trauma.
I am sure that all Members, regardless of their party, are united in their determination to ensure that the strictest rules are in place to limit the use of such weapons and ensure that those possessing them feel the full force of the law. It is crucial that we ensure the provisions in the Bill are fair, effective and targeted. The Opposition amendments propose key constructive changes that would strengthen and complement the Bill by ensuring that it is balanced, focused and respectful of individual rights, while still taking robust action to combat the possession and use of offensive weapons in our communities.
Offensive weapons, including knives, blades and corrosive substances, have become tools of shameless violence, often used in serious criminal activities that devastate individuals and communities. We cannot help but remember the countless victims of stabbings in recent years. They are all too many and all too tragic—from PC Keith Palmer, who died in the line of duty protecting Members in this place, to Sir David Amess, one of the gentlest and most genuinely kind individuals you could ever wish to meet, who was barbarically murdered. Those two brave men were murdered not simply by evil and vile terrorists, but by evil and vile terrorists wielding bladed weapons.
I know that tragic instances of stabbing have taken place in the constituencies of many Members, with young lives extinguished or endangered by these weapons. Just recently, a group of individuals armed with knives forcibly entered a private event at Elm Park primary school in London. The assailants assaulted and robbed attendees, and a 16-year-old boy and a 19-year-old man were hospitalised after being stabbed. Twelve individuals were arrested in connection with the incident. One of the most shocking facts is that the youngest of those arrested was just 12 years old.
Already in 2025, there have been far too many cases involving knives and the extinguishing of young lives. In February, a 15-year-old boy was fatally stabbed at All Saints high school in Sheffield. He was attacked three times on his way to lessons—attacks that were witnessed by other students. The emergency services were called and, although the boy was taken to hospital, he succumbed to his injuries shortly afterwards. A fellow 15-year-old student was arrested on suspicion of murder and is in police custody.
Our aim with amendment 39 is not to obstruct but to help strengthen the Bill, so that such cases can never be repeated. The Bill includes several provisions to criminalise the possession of these items in public spaces and introduces serious penalties for individuals caught with them. The goal is to deter violent crimes and reduce the risk posed by such weapons on our streets. The amendment would make a crucial change to clause 10 by increasing the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four years to 14 years. The amendment is not only justified but necessary to ensure that our laws properly reflect the severity of such offences.
The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation recommended an increase in the maximum sentence following the Southport attack. It is clear to many that the current four-year maximum does not adequately address the serious threat posed by individuals who arm themselves with the intent to cause harm. By increasing the penalty to 14 years, we would send a clear and unequivocal message that such dangerous behaviour will not be tolerated, and that those who pose a risk to the public will face appropriately severe consequences.
Weapons in the hands of those with violent intent represent a grave danger to both individuals and society at large. The possession of a weapon with the clear purpose of causing harm, whether in a terror-related incident, gang violence or a premeditated attack, is an extreme and deliberate act. It is right, therefore, that the law provides sufficient deterrence and punishment. A 14-year maximum would better reflect the devastation that these crimes can cause and align sentences with those for similarly grave offences such as attempted murder and serious violent crimes.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
I rise in support of clauses 10 and 11 and to speak against amendment 39 and new clause 44, well-intentioned though I am sure they are. The shadow Minister mentioned Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. I want to focus briefly on his March report, to which I believe the shadow Minister was referring.
The explanatory statements to amendment 39 and new clause 44 state—I paraphrase—that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation recommended an increase in sentence in his review following the Southport attack. His report, titled “Independent Review on Classification of Extreme Violence Used in Southport Attack on 29 July 2024” and dated 13 March this year, is one that I am sure many colleagues across the House have read. I put on the record my sympathies to everybody involved in that heinous attack and to the victims of the other attacks that the shadow Minister mentioned—and, of course, we think of Jo Cox, a friend much missed and loved in all parts of the House.
There is a risk of misunderstanding in the amendments, albeit I am sure they are well-intentioned. If one looks at Mr Hall’s quite lengthy report in detail, it says a number of things about what is proposed in clause 10. He states that the new offence that we propose to create here
“appears to fill an important gap”.
He goes on to say that
“where a killing is contemplated, the available penalty appears too low for long-term disruption through lengthy imprisonment.”
He concludes by recommending that the Government bring forward legislation to create a different, new offence,
“where an individual, with the intention of killing two or more persons, engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to this intention. The maximum sentence should be life imprisonment.”
Importantly, he says:
“If this offence is created, then there is no need to reconsider the maximum sentence for the proposed offence of possessing an article with violent intent under the Crime and Policing Bill.”
I pay tribute to Mr Hall for his work. The Prime Minister and the Government have committed to acting urgently on the points that he has identified, and to considering the new offence that he references at the end of his report. Given the complexity and the interplay between terrorism and non-terrorism legislation, which Mr Hall acknowledges, they should do so with great care and in consultation with appropriate stakeholders such as the Law Commission. That must be done, in order to ensure that whatever new offence is arrived at is practical, workable and absolutely unimpeachable. That work must continue and conclude, but in the interim, clause 10 does the job.
I point out to Opposition Members that the Bill does not just create a new offence in clause 10, which in itself is sufficient, but does much on youth diversion orders—we will come to those when we debate clauses 110 to 121—and, in clause 122, on the banning of dangerous weapons such as corrosive substances. In written evidence to the Committee, Jonathan Hall himself broadly welcomed those additional measures. For the record, the written evidence reference is CPB 02. He states that youth diversion orders are “extensions” to his original recommendations and that they “are justified”. In respect of clause 122, he states that this is gap that he has previously recommended filling and that the power is much needed. Of course, the Government have done other great work, often with support from both sides of the House. On the statute book right now is Martyn’s law, which will better allow venues to tighten counter-terrorism measures.
There is a package of measures—some already on the statute book, and other important measures, which we are discussing today, that we will hopefully get on the statute book without undue delay. I therefore submit to the shadow Minister that, while they are no doubt well-intentioned, amendment 39 and new clause 44 are not needed at this time. Let the work that I have referenced, and that the Government have committed to, get under way, so that that can be done properly, in line with, and not in contradiction to, what Mr Hall has said, and let us proceed with clauses 10 and 11 as they stand.
Jack Rankin
Clause 10 introduces a new offence of
“possessing an article with a blade or point or offensive weapon with intent to use unlawful violence…to cause another person to believe that unlawful violence will be used…or…to cause serious unlawful damage”.
The introduction of this new offence bridges the gap between being in possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon and threatening somebody with a bladed article or offensive weapon. I commend the intent of the clause wholeheartedly, and thank the Government for it.
I do, however, support amendment 39 and new clause 44, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, although I do thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West for his thoughtful interaction, which has given me pause to consider how these might interact. Perhaps in his summing up the Minister could comment on where, between the two of us, the truth lies.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff West mentioned, the two measures that have been tabled by the Opposition attempt to bring forward some of the recommendations from the report by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, following the heinous Southport attack—and I would like to associate myself with hon. Members’ comments of sympathy with those families. I have had cause to read that report, which I had not done ahead of this Bill Committee. I will quote relatively extensively from page 27, which I think is appropriate given the serious nature of these matters. Paragraph 5.25 says:
“Firstly, possession of an article in private where it is held with intent to carry out a mass casualty attack or other offence of extreme violence. Aside from firearms, it is not, with some limited exceptions, an offence to possess a weapon in private…One can envisage a scenario in which the police, acting on intelligence, find a crossbow, notes about a proposed attack, and material idolising the Columbine killers. At present, the defendant might be arrested on suspicion of terrorism but could not be prosecuted for this conduct. The government is proposing an offence of possessing an offensive weapon in public or in private with intent for violence, with a maximum of 4 years imprisonment in the Crime and Policing Bill.”
As the hon. Member for Cardiff West also quoted, the report goes on to state:
“This offence appears to fill an important gap, although where a killing is contemplated, the available penalty appears too low for long-term disruption through lengthy imprisonment.”
From my understanding, in changing that maximum sentence from four to 14 years, the Opposition’s amendment 39 seems to be an expert-led example of where we are trying to constructively add to the Government’s legislation.
New clause 44 seeks to fill a gap, given the need for a more general offence on planning mass casualty attacks, outside of terrorism legislation. Again, I will quote from Jonathan Hall KC’s report. He says on page 28, in paragraph 5.26:
“The law is flexible where multiple individuals are involved. It is therefore an offence for two individuals to make an agreement (conspiracy to murder), for one individual to encourage or assist another, or for murder to be solicited, even though the contemplated attack is never carried out. But it not an offence to prepare for an attack on one’s own unless sufficient steps are taken that the conduct amounts to an attempt. This means that no prosecution would be available if the police raided an address and found careful handwritten but uncommunicated plans for carrying out a massacre.
By contrast, under terrorism legislation it is an offence to engage in any preparatory conduct with the intention of committing acts of terrorism. This includes making written plans. The fact that the prosecution must prove terrorism, not just intended violence, is some sort of safeguard against overbroad criminal liability.”
It seems to me that new clause 44 is an attempt to close that gap. I welcome clause 10, but our amendment and new clause simply reflect the suggestions of the KC, who wrote quite a considered report. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
Something that I think we in this House agree on, that I know the police agree on, and that I think the wider public agree on—hon. Members might hear me say this a lot in Committee—is that prevention is always better than detection. I rise to speak having lost, in my previous career, a close colleague and friend to a crime involving an offensive weapon. I only wish we could have prevented that incident.
In essence, the clause is about preventing violence before it occurs. It strengthens penalties for repeat offenders, and aligns with the Government’s broader goal of making communities safer by addressing growing concerns around weapon possession and use in violent crimes. Given the increasing prevalence of offensive weapons such as knives, bladed articles or even corrosive substances, the Bill updates the law to better reflect modern threats. By including a broader range of dangerous items and increasing the focus on intent, the Bill addresses the changing patterns of criminal activity.
I am particularly pleased that the intent provision covers the possession of a corrosive substance, given the rise in acid attacks across the UK. This change is crucial to addressing the growing threat of individuals carrying dangerous substances, such as acid or other corrosive materials, with the intention to cause harm or instil fear. The reference to intent highlights the Government’s commitment to protecting citizens. By targeting the intention to cause harm before it escalates, the clause will help to prevent violent crime and make communities safer.
Clause 11 is vital in addressing the growing severity of offences relating to offensive weapons, including the possession, sale and manufacture of dangerous weapons. By increasing the maximum penalty from six months’ to two years’ imprisonment, the clause will significantly strengthen the deterrence against these crimes and ensure that offenders face stringent consequences. The introduction of either-way offences—allowing cases to be tried in either magistrates courts or the Crown court—will provide the police with additional time to investigate and gather sufficient evidence. That will improve the effectiveness of the justice system in tackling weapon-related crimes, reduce the availability of dangerous weapons and, ultimately, enhance public safety. It will also give police confidence in the laws that they are trying to uphold.
Finally, I broadly support the intent and understand the sentiments behind new clause 44. However, having sat on the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill Committee, which dealt with Martyn’s law, I believe that this issue has been covered elsewhere, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West said. I therefore do not think it is needed.
Anna Sabine
Broadly speaking, we welcome any effort to reduce knife crime, which is obviously a terrible and growing problem. We note Chief Constable De Meyer’s comment, in the oral evidence last week, that the police felt that the measure would allow them to deliver more sustained public protection, which is a good thing, and to have more preventive power. That is all great.
I have two specific questions for the Minister. The first concerns the offence of possessing an article with a blade or an offensive weapon with the intent to use unlawful violence. I represent a fairly rural constituency that comprises some market towns and a selection of villages. Even there, local headteachers tell me that a growing number of schoolchildren, usually boys, are bringing knives into school, because they wrongly think that bringing a knife will somehow defend them against other boys with knives. How do we ensure that no other schoolchildren will get caught up in an offence aimed at the kind of people we might think of as bringing a knife with the aim of committing an unlawful action?
My second question relates to the National Farmers Union’s evidence from last week. The NFU talked about the challenge of catapults often being used not just in wildlife crime but in damaging farming equipment. It said that it understands that it is an offence to carry in public something that is intended to be used as an offensive weapon, but with catapults, it is particularly difficult to prove that intent. It wondered if more consideration could be given to listing catapults as offensive weapons.
David Burton-Sampson
We all know that knife crime ruins lives—for the victim, their family and friends, the perpetrator’s family, and even for the perpetrator. My constituent Julie Taylor is the grandmother of a knife crime victim. On 31 January 2020, Liam Taylor was murdered outside a pub in Writtle—a pleasant place that not many would associate with violent crime. Four individuals approached Liam and three of them attacked him, resulting in Liam being stabbed to death and his friend receiving a serious injury. The attack came in retaliation for an earlier incident, which neither Liam nor his friend were involved in.
Since Liam’s murder, Julie has become an amazing campaigner in the battle against knife crime. She regularly visits schools, universities, colleges, football clubs, scout groups and the like to share Liam’s story and highlight how knife crime destroys lives. She has placed over 500 bleed control bags and 26 bleed control units in key locations across Essex. Sadly, 12 of those have already been used to help 13 people—yes, there was a double stabbing. Her work is all voluntary; she does it in her free time. That is how passionately she feels about the issue. When we met last week, Julie told me:
“All I want is to stop these young people carrying weapons as I can tell you once you lose a loved one to any violent crime, your family is never the same again.”
I shared with Julie the Government’s plans to tackle knife crime through the Bill, and she was delighted. She told me that clauses 10 and 11—and, if the Committee will indulge me, clause 12—are what campaigners have been calling for for so long.
With 1,539 knife crimes taking place in Essex in the year to March 2024 alone, tough action is needed now. These clauses, alongside other measures, will help with the Government’s goal of halving knife crime over the next decade. We must take a truly multi-agency approach, working with the police, charities, young people, victims’ family members, like Julie—they have a real part to play—and businesses, tech companies and sports organisations. I thank the Government for introducing the clauses; they have my full support.
Joe Robertson
I find myself again speaking after a number of others who have spoken eloquently, and broadly with consensus, about the direction of travel of this provision. I obviously support amendment 39 and new clause 44. Knife crime and the way it destroys lives is such a specific and horrific problem for law enforcement. The hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh gave a good summary of those affected, including young perpetrators and their families. Through using knives at a young age, those perpetrators often get swept into the worst of criminality. Once they are in that world, it is incredibly difficult for them to be brought out of it. Of course, there can be numerous innocent victims, who might stand in the way and get hurt too. I urge the Government to understand that the best possible way of tackling this is to ensure that the courts have the strongest possible sentencing powers. Clearly, 14 years for possessing an offensive weapon would not be appropriate in all cases, but there are cases where it would be—and if the courts do not have those powers, they cannot sentence people to 14 years.
Harriet Cross
I will comment briefly on clause 10, which is on the possession of a weapon with the intent to use it unlawfully for violence. The provision is much needed and, if implemented properly, would be welcome. I have a couple of questions for the Minister, though. First, how does the clause differ from existing legislation with respect to intent to cause harm or carrying an offensive weapon? Are there any nuances specific to knife crime, outwith those covered by existing legislation?
More generally, the Bill is restricted to the clauses before us, but we know that knife crime is multi-faceted—there are an awful lot of reasons why people get involved. As has been said, some feel that they need protection themselves and others do it to fit in, while for others it is to do with the environment in which they grow up. We welcome that the Government have banned zombie knives—the Conservative Government started on the road to that ban and we are glad to see that it has been implemented—but those knives are only responsible for about 3.5 % of knife attacks; every house in the country has a kitchen with knives in. What more are the Government doing, either in this Bill or outside it, to reduce knife crime by tackling the manner in which knives can be accessed and used?
The Government are setting a lot of store by the use of youth hubs to address knife crime, young offending and antisocial behaviour. Although the principle of youth hubs is admirable—and I do mean that—I have heard concerns from Members outwith this room, but certainly invested in this matter, that they may have unintended consequences. For example, where will the hubs be located? Could they entrench more turf wars? Will there be more of an impact if one is located on one gang’s land or another’s? Will some people be completely excluded simply because of their location? I ask these questions to be constructive, because I want the hubs to work for everyone. Similarly, if many different people come to the hubs—for rehabilitation reasons or if we use them to keep people off the streets for many other reasons—what is it that will prevent them from being a recruiting ground for other types of crimes? I reiterate that I am asking these questions to be constructive; I want the hubs to work, but I also do not want anyone to be pulled into more crime as a result.
Dame Diana Johnson
This has been a really useful debate. It has highlighted the problems that society is facing with the epidemic levels of knife crime that we have seen in recent times. It was absolutely right for my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh to mention Liam Taylor and his grandmother, Julie. Liam is sadly no longer with us, but I pay tribute to Julie for her sterling work in trying to ensure that what happened to her grandson does not happen to anybody else. I also commend her work on the bleed control kits.
I have come across so many families who have lost a loved one through knife crime and want to ensure that it does not happen to anyone else. We need to pay tribute to those families, including those who have joined the coalition to tackle knife crime, which the Prime Minister set up soon after the election last July. They will hold this Government to account in doing what we have said we will, which is halve knife crime over the course of the next decade. I pay tribute to Julie and all the other families working in this space to protect young people and make sure that no other family has to suffer the loss of a young person.
Dr Sullivan
A recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs heard from young St John’s Ambulance volunteers. They told us that many of the young people they work with want first-aid training and help with the kits so that they know how to stop bleeding. Is that not an awful indictment of the society we are in, but also a positive thing, in that young people want to be part of the solution?
Dame Diana Johnson
I agree with both those points. It is appalling that we are in that situation, but I pay tribute to St John’s Ambulance for its amazing work, and appreciate that young people want to engage and help to protect life.
The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset asked about young people who feel they might keep themselves safe by carrying a knife. That is clearly not the case: if they carry a knife, they are more likely to be involved in a knife attack. We need to get the message out that it will not protect them.
The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan referred to early intervention. We want to get in early and do all the preventive work that has, sadly, not happened over the past 14 years. We want to invest in youth hubs, reach young people, give them meaningful activities and instil in them key messages about how to keep safe and what good relationships look like. As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley will know, there is more to do on tackling violence against women and girls, because we want to halve that in a decade as well. We have lots of messages and work that we need to do with young people.
On the issue of young people getting involved in knife crime, the prevention partnerships will identify young people who are at risk of getting involved in crime or carrying a knife and try to work intensively with them. Early intervention to divert them from carrying a knife is important. We also have a manifesto commitment to ensure that any young person caught with a knife will be referred to a youth offending team, and there will be a plan of action for how to support them. No more will a young person caught with a knife just get a slap on the wrist and be sent on their way. We will get alongside them and deal with it; otherwise, it could turn into something really dreadful.
I am happy to look at the issue of catapults, which a number of hon. Members raised. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean who, as usual, gave very wise counsel about his experience as a former police officer and how important preventive work is.
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting out clearly amendment 39 and new clause 44. As he said, they draw on a recommendation by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, following his review of the appalling attack in Southport. Like all Members, I express my condolences to the families who lost their beautiful little girls, and to all those who were injured and affected by those events.
Before I respond to the amendment and new clause, let me explain the rationale for clause 10, which introduces a new offence of being in possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon with the intention to use unlawful violence. As I said, the Government are determined to halve knife crime in the next decade. Legislation has to play a part in delivering for our safer streets mission, ensuring that the criminal law and police powers are fit for purpose. This work sits alongside what I just said about the coalition for tackling knife crime holding the Government to account, and the ban on zombie knives. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan was right that the previous Government brought in that provision, but we have actually made it happen. We will bring in a ban on ninja knives too, as part of Ronan’s law.
On the issue of kitchen knives, I take the hon. Lady’s point that in every house there is a drawer containing knives. There are now calls for us to consider whether in the domestic setting we should have knives that have a round rather than pointed tip. I have certainly been willing to consider that and look at the evidence. It is something we would have to do in consultation with the manufacturers of domestic knives. The Government are open to looking at anything that will start to tackle the problems with knife crime.
It may be helpful if I briefly outline the existing legislation in relation to the possession of offensive weapons. It is currently an offence to be in possession of a bladed article in public without good reason or lawful authority. It is also an offence to be in possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon and to threaten somebody, either in public or private. All those offences are serious. This new office will close a gap in legislation. The provision will equip the police with the power to address situations in which unlawful violence has not yet happened but where there is an intent to use unlawful violence, an intent to cause someone to believe unlawful violence would be used against them, or an intent to cause serious unlawful damage to property, as well as in situations in which a person enables someone else to do any of those things.
The offence may be committed in either a public place or a private place. There will be situations in which the police come across individuals with a knife or offensive weapon on the street and there is evidence that there is an intent to the weapon for unlawful violence. For instance, were an intelligence-led operation conducted on a motorbike ridden by two males in an urban area, who attempted to escape but were stopped, and both were detained, arrested and searched, and both were found to be in possession in public of a knife, the only offence available to the police would be possession in public of a knife or an offensive weapon. We do not believe that would reflect the seriousness of the offending behaviour and their intention.
The proposed new offence is necessary to bridge the gap between possession in public or private and the intention to threaten another person. We also believe that such serious offending behaviour needs to be reflected better in the offence that individuals are charged with, so that a successful prosecution attracts a sentence that more closely aligns with the violent intent and facts of the case. The offence will carry a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.
Joe Robertson
I thank the Minister for setting out her position. Does she not accept, however, that without amendment 39 the maximum sentence of four years for carrying a knife with intent is a serious mismatch with the sentence had the knife been used and somebody was severely injured? That mismatch means that the only way of getting someone sentenced appropriately is to have an injured person at the end. That cannot be right. If someone is carrying a knife, they intend to seriously injure someone. It should matter not whether they have actually done it. The court’s sentencing powers need to be greater than four years in some circumstances.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am going to come on to amendment 39 which, as the hon. Gentleman says, seeks to increase the maximum sentence for the offence to 14 years’ imprisonment. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West for his excellent contribution, which explained the background. The intention of the amendment is to implement the recommendations from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation following the horrific attack in Southport. I fear that, as my hon. Friend said so eloquently, amendment 39 takes aspects of Jonathan Hall’s report out of context.
Matt Vickers
We have heard from all parties and all corners of the country about the need to tackle the issue and about the horror that such weapons can cause. Clearly, we all wish the Government well in delivering on their knife crime ambition. We have mentioned knives more than corrosive substances, but they can have equally horrific results, so I am glad to see them included.
Solving the problem is not easy, of course, and it is not all about sanctions: there is a role for education, policing, social media, culture, stop and search, and even technology, which could revolutionise our ability to identify those carrying a knife. The horrific loss of young lives—of young people whose families would give the earth to see them again—continues. To many of the communities torn apart and forever scarred, increasing the maximum sentence available to a judge to 14 years makes nothing but sense. We will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 12 provides for a new power for the police to seize, retain and destroy any bladed article held in private, when they are on the private premises lawfully and have reasonable grounds to suspect the item is likely to be used for unlawful violence. Clause 13 provides the same power to the service police. Before I turn to the specifics, it may assist the Committee if I set out the context and rationale for the introduction of the measure.
Currently, the police may enter premises and seize items only in particular circumstances—for example, where they have obtained a warrant to search premises for specific items. They have no power to remove weapons from individuals unless they can be used as evidence in an investigation. Therefore, even if the police come across several machetes in a private property while they are there with a search warrant for an unrelated matter—for instance drugs—the only way they can legally remove those machetes is if they are to be used as evidence in the investigation. That is even the case if they suspect that the bladed articles in question will be used unlawfully.
I would like to share a case study to illustrate the need for this measure. Police officers investigating the supply of illegal drugs effected entry to the home address of a person linked to the supply of class A drugs, under the authority of a warrant under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He was on a suspended sentence for supplying drugs and had previous convictions for offences of violence, including grievous bodily harm and possession of a knife. Upon search of his bedroom, officers found a 44 cm machete. He was charged with drugs offences, but the police had no powers to seize the machete. For the weapon to be removed from the property under existing law, it would have to have already been used unlawfully, either to hurt somebody or to damage property.
That is why we are legislating to introduce a power for any police officer to seize, retain or destroy an article with a blade or point, when they are on the premises lawfully and have reasonable grounds to suspect the relevant article is likely to be used in connection with unlawful violence. It is important to note that the police cannot seize any bladed article they see in the property arbitrarily. They will need to justify any seizure they make, not on the basis of a mere suspicion, but because they have reasonable grounds to believe that the article is likely to be used in connection with unlawful violence. If a person believes that their property has been seized in error, they will be able to make a complaint to the police, as with any other police matter, if they so wish. If the owner of a seized article believes that it has been seized in error, they may apply to a magistrates court for an order that the article be returned.
To be clear, there is no power of entry associated with the new seizure power. The police will need to be in the property lawfully already—for instance, executing a search warrant as part of an investigation for an unrelated matter, or because they have been called and invited into the property. We will therefore amend PACE code B, which governs the exercise of powers of entry, search and seizure, to include this new power, which will ensure that the police use the powers fairly, responsibly and with respect for people who occupy the premises being searched. We believe that having that power will enable the police to remove dangerous knives if they believe they will be used in connection with unlawful violence. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
As mentioned earlier, we are united in the aim of rooting out knives and knife crime from our society. Ensuring that our streets and constituents are safe is of primary importance to us all. Clause 12 introduces a new police power to seize bladed or sharply pointed articles, referred to as “relevant articles”, under specific conditions. A police constable may exercise that power if they are lawfully on premises and find a relevant article, with reasonable grounds to suspect that it could be used in connection with unlawful violence, including damage to property or threats of violence, if not seized.
This provision gives police officers the authority to remove dangerous weapons from potential misuse, enhancing public safety and reducing the risk of harm in situations where there is a credible threat of violence. Clause 13 would create similar powers for armed forces service police. Unlike clause 12, the power for armed forces service police would apply across the UK.
We face a tragedy that continues to unfold in our streets, communities and homes: a tragedy that sees young lives cut short, families shattered and entire communities left in mourning. Knife crime has become a scourge on our society, robbing us of the future doctors, teachers, engineers and leaders who should have had the chance to fulfil their potential. Instead, too many parents now sit by empty chairs at the dinner table, their sons and daughters stolen from them by senseless violence. Every single child lost to knife crime is a story of devastation.
Broadly, clauses 12 and 13 offer great powers to our law enforcement, which of course should be welcome. We cannot ignore the role that stop and search plays in tackling this crisis. In London alone, that policing tool has taken 400 knives off the streets every month, preventing countless violent attacks. Over the past four years, 17,500 weapons have been seized as a result of stop and search, including at least 3,500 in 2024—weapons that would otherwise have remained in circulation, posing a deadly risk to communities. Nor is it is just a London issue: in 2023-24, stop and search led to more than 6,000 arrests in the west midlands and 5,620 arrests in Greater Manchester.
We must, of course, ensure that these powers are used fairly and proportionately, but we cannot afford to weaken a tool that has saved lives. Every knife seized is a potential tragedy prevented. We must stand firm in supporting our police, ensuring that they have the powers they need to keep our community safe. However, I urge caution with some of the provisions and ask the Government to look at some of them and some of the issues that they may lead to.
Clause 12 grants police officers the power to seize bladed articles found on private premises when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the item will be used in connection with unlawful violence. While the intention of this clause, to prevent violence by removing weapons before harm can be done, is clear, there are some concerns over the impact that the clauses could have. The provision in clause 12 allows for the seizure of bladed articles based on what the police deem to be reasonable grounds to suspect.
The phrase “reasonable grounds” is inherently subjective and open to interpretation, which could lead to inconsistent enforcement and, in some cases, potential abuse of power. Many individuals legally possess knives for legitimate purposes, such as work. Some might argue that this clause could inadvertently criminalise those who have no intention of using their blades for unlawful purposes. The law needs to ensure that the people who possess knives for legitimate reasons are not unjustly targeted or treated as criminals.
Clause 12 empowers the police to seize items from private premises. While there is a clear and overriding public safety rationale, the intrusion into individuals’ privacy could be seen by some as excessive. We must consider how this power might be exercised in a way that balances safety with respect for personal rights. While public safety is paramount, we must not lose sight of the importance of protecting individual freedoms. Some would argue that these clauses, although well intentioned, could pave the way for broader surveillance and unwarranted searches. It is essential that we have guidance within our police forces to create consistency of approach.
Finally, while the clauses provide the police and armed forces with significant powers, we must ask whether they address the root causes of knife crime. This is a reactive measure, seizing weapons after they have been identified as a threat. We need to ensure a comprehensive approach, including education and support, to reduce violence and prevent knife crime from occurring in the first place. I am sure I speak for all Members across the House in our desire to combat knife crime and violence on our streets.
Dame Diana Johnson
I gently point out to the shadow Minister that the clauses in the Bill before us today are exactly the same clauses that were in the Criminal Justice Bill, which obviously, as a Member of Parliament at that point, he would have supported.
Matt Vickers
I would not say I was not supportive of the clauses; I am saying that we need to continue to look at the guidance that we give police officers on the powers, particularly as we extend them.
Dame Diana Johnson
Of course we keep all such matters under review. I am just pointing out that these are exactly the same clauses that the shadow Minister voted for in the Criminal Justice Bill.
On the point that the shadow Minister made about the reasonable grounds for suspecting, which a police officer must have in order to seize the weapon, the knife or bladed item, there is not an unlimited power for the police to seize any article they may wish to take away from the property. They will have to provide reasons why they are seizing the article and, as I said in my remarks, they will have to return the item if a court determines that they have seized it in error.
On the shadow Minister’s final point, this of course is only one measure. There is a whole range of other things that we need to do, particularly in the preventive space, to deal with the issue of knives. However, this measure will give the police, as I am sure he would agree, one of the powers that will help in dealing with the problems we face with knife crime today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Before the Whip moves the Adjournment, I just want to say that I will not be chairing this Bill again until much later on and so I would like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their attendance and attention today and for putting up with the room’s chilly interior—though hopefully not with a chilly Chairman. I also thank the Clerks, our excellent Doorkeepers, Hansard, the broadcasting team and, of course, the Home Office officials. Thank you all and have a great evening.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)
Crime and Policing Bill (Fifth sitting)
Thursday 3rd April 2025
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 April 2025 - (3 Apr 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or pass them to the Hansard colleague in the room.
Clause 14
Assault of retail worker
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 29, in clause 15, page 25, line 11, at end insert—
“(4) If the offender has previous convictions for an offence under section 14 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (assault of a retail worker) or for shoplifting under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, the court must make a community order against the offender.”
This amendment clause would require the courts to make a community order against repeat offenders of retail crime in order to restrict the offender’s liberty.
Clause 15 stand part.
New clause 20—Assault of wholesale worker—
“(1) A person who assaults a wholesale worker at work commits an offence under this section.
(2) ‘Wholesale worker at work’ means a person who—
(a) is working on or about wholesaler premises, and
(b) is working there for or on behalf of the owner or occupier of those premises, or is the owner or occupier of those premises.
(3) In subsection (2), ‘wholesaler premises’ means—
(a) premises used in any way for the purposes of the sale of anything by wholesale, and here ‘working’ includes doing unpaid work.
(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or to a fine (or both).
(5) In subsection (4), ‘the maximum term for summary offences’ means—
(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for certain summary offences: England and Wales) comes into force, 6 months;
(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.
(6) In section 40(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (power to join in indictment count for common assault etc), after paragraph (ac) insert—
‘(ad) an offence under section 14 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (assault of wholesale worker);’.”
New clause 26—Requirements in certain sentences imposed for third assault of retail worker offence—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In section 208 (community order: exercise of power to impose particular requirements), in subsections (3) and (6) after ‘and sections 208B’ (inserted by section (Requirements in certain sentences imposed for third shoplifting offence) of this Act) insert ‘and 208B’.
(3) After sections 208B insert—
‘208B Community order: requirements for third or subsequent assault of retail worker offence
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person is convicted of an offence under section 14 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (assault of retail worker) (“the index offence”),
(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of an offence under section (Assault of retail worker) of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 committed when the offender was aged 18 or over, and
(c) the court makes a community order in respect of the index offence.
(2) The community order must, subject to subsection (3), include at least one of the following requirements—
(a) a curfew requirement;
(b) an exclusion requirement;
(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—
(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—
(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and
(ii) justify the court not including any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or
(b) neither of the following requirements could be included in the order—
(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;
(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.
(4) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be included in a community order if it could not otherwise be so included.’
(4) After section 292A (inserted by section (Requirements in certain sentences imposed for third shoplifting offence) of this Act) insert—
‘292B Suspended sentence order: community requirements for third or subsequent assault of retail worker offence
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person is convicted of an offence under section (Assault of retail worker) of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (assault of retail worker) (“the index offence”),
(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of an offence under section (Assault of retail worker) of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 committed when the offender was aged 18 or over, and
(c) the court makes a suspended sentence order in respect of the index offence.
(2) The suspended sentence order must, subject to subsection (3), impose at least one of the following requirements—
(a) a curfew requirement;
(b) an exclusion requirement;
(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—
(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—
(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and
(ii) justify the court not imposing on the offender any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or
(b) neither of the following requirements could be imposed on the offender—
(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;
(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.
(4) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be imposed by a suspended sentence order if it could not otherwise be so imposed.’”
This new clause imposes a duty (subject to certain exceptions) to impose a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement or an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement on certain persons convicted of an offence under section 15, where the offender is given a community sentence or suspended sentence order.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. Clause 14 provides for a new criminal offence of assaulting a retail worker. This will send a clear message to retailers and perpetrators alike that we take any form of violence in a retail setting extremely seriously, and it fulfils our manifesto commitment.
I know that all Members will have experiences and information from their constituencies on the unacceptable rise in assaults on retail workers. I visited a shopkeeper on Beverley Road in my constituency who had been assaulted by a customer who was buying some alcohol and disputed its price. The customer hit the shopkeeper around the head around 50 times in an unprovoked assault, which was recorded on CCTV, so I was able to see it. It was really shocking to see. Many shop workers go to work every day with the fear of that happening. I pay tribute to Navin Sharda, that shopkeeper who was so badly assaulted.
Police recorded crime figures show that shoplifting offences increased by 23% in the 12 months to September 2024, and the British Retail Consortium’s 2025 crime report showed that there were around 737,000 incidents of violence and abuse—about 2,000 a day—in 2023-24. Figures published by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers in March 2025 show that 77% of workers said that they had been verbally abused in the 12 months to December 2024, 53% had received threats of violence, and 10% were physically assaulted during the year. Those statistics demonstrate that there are unacceptably high levels of retail crime across the country, and more and more offenders are using violence and abuse against shop workers to commit those crimes.
As well as carrying out their role of selling goods, retail workers are in some cases asked by us to restrict the sale of dozens of age-restricted items. That is an act of public service. In carrying it out, they are putting themselves at risk, as a declined sale may, sadly, cause someone to become violent and abusive.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
It is obviously the case that retail workers have to stop the sale of certain products at times, whether it is because the customer is under age or for other reasons. Of course, delivery drivers have to do exactly the same thing if they get to a house and, for example, an under-18-year-old would be in receipt of alcohol or a knife, even if it is for legitimate purposes. Does the Minister therefore agree that delivery drivers face the same risks as retail workers?
Dame Diana Johnson
What we do know, from the statistics that I have just read out, is that there is a wide body of evidence to confirm what is happening to retail workers on retail premises. We know that, because that information and evidence has been collated for some time. I accept that there are questions and concerns about delivery drivers, but I do not think we are in the position to know the extent of assaults on delivery drivers. I am not disputing that they take place—they do—but we have been very clear, and it was our manifesto commitment, that we will deal with assaults on retail workers by legislating for that. The clause is about that.
Everyone has the right to feel safe at work. The new offence, which is for retail workers and premises, sends a strong message that violence and abuse towards retail workers will not be tolerated. In a later debate, perhaps, I will come on to some of the other protections that all workers have, and how they can be used. This new offence will carry a maximum prison sentence of six months and/or an unlimited fine.
Reflecting on the need to take a tough stance with meaningful criminal justice consequences, clause 15 provides that the new offence will come with a presumption for a court to make a criminal behaviour order. Such an order may prohibit the offender doing anything described in it, which might include a condition preventing specific acts that cause harassment, alarm or distress, or preventing an offender from visiting specific premises. Breach of a criminal behaviour order is in itself a criminal offence, attracting a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
Clauses 14 and 15, taken together, will significantly help better protect retail workers. On that basis, I am sure that they will be welcomed across the Committee. The hon. Member for Stockton West, who leads for the Opposition, has tabled amendment 29 and new clause 26 in this group. I plan to respond to those when winding up the debate.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan.
The Bill rightly seeks to improve protections for our amazing retail workers and looks to tackle retail crime. I pay tribute to the amazing retail workers across the country for their work, and to the many people who have been involved in the campaign to provide greater protections for them.
Retail is the biggest private sector employer in our economy. It directly employs nearly 3 million people and sits at the heart of all our communities. Clause 14 amends section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and creates a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker in their place of work. It defines “retail premises” as a place
“used wholly or mainly for the purposes of the sale of anything by retail,”
including not only buildings, but stalls and vehicles. It also defines what it is to be a “retail worker at work”, which is
“working on or about retail premises, and”
being there
“for or on behalf of the owner or occupier of those premises”.
It confirms that a person who commits the offence will be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences. I am glad that the offence also includes those doing unpaid work in a retail setting.
Clause 15 amends part 11 of the sentencing code to create a duty to make a criminal behaviour order for the offence of assaulting a retail worker. It confirms that that will apply where someone is convicted of the new offence under clause 14; where
“the prosecution makes an application to the court for a criminal behaviour order to be made against the offender”;
and where
“the offender is aged 18 or over at the time the prosecution makes the application”.
It also sets out that such an order will not apply where the court imposes a custodial sentence, or makes a youth rehabilitation order, a community order, or a suspended sentence for that specific offence or
“any other offence of which the offender is convicted by or before it”.
Until this point, police have had to rely on several criminal offences through which to prosecute violence and assault against retail workers, including assault, unlawful wounding or grievous bodily harm under the common law or the Offences against the Person Act 1861; harassment or putting people in fear of violence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; and affray, or threatening or abusive behaviour under the Public Order Act 1986. Things changed and progress was made by section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, as a result of debates on this important subject during the Act’s passage through Parliament. That added section 68A to the Sentencing Act 2020, requiring the courts to treat an offence as aggravated if the victim of the offence had been
“providing a public service, performing a public duty or providing services…goods or facilities”
to the public.
In recent years, a variety of businesses and organisations have called for a stand-alone offence. In July 2020, USDAW launched a petition calling for a specific offence of abusing, threatening or assaulting a retail worker. The petition received 104,354 signatures, which triggered a Westminster Hall debate. As a member of the Petitions Committee, I had the privilege of leading the debate and speaking on behalf of the petitioners. At that time, we were gripped by the pandemic, which helped to focus minds on the incredibly important role that our retail workers were performing as a result of it. The debate was well attended, with Members from all parties speaking passionately in support of our retail workers.
Several retailers were in support of a stand-alone offence, including Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and the Co-op. In May 2021, Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, called for a stand-alone offence to provide colleagues with the protections they needed. In June 2021, the Home Affairs Committee held its own inquiry on violence and abuse towards retail workers, concluding that the patchwork of existing offences did not provide adequate protection. The Committee said:
“The Government should consult urgently on the scope of a new standalone offence.”
As hon. Members may know, having served as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the future of retail and as a former Woollies worker, I have been very involved in the campaign to protect our retail workers. It was a privilege to join the likes of the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), Paul Gerrard from the Co-op, Helen Dickinson and the team at the British Retail Consortium, Edward Woodall of the Association of Convenience Stores, USDAW, numerous retailers and others who have campaigned over recent years to deliver more protection for our retail workers.
When I first arrived in the House, in my slightly rebellious phase, I tabled an amendment on this issue to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—now the 2022 Act—which was supported by Members from both sides of the House. As I have mentioned, that helped us to make assault on a person providing a service to the public a statutory aggravating offence. More recently, in April 2024, alongside a suite of measures designed to tackle retail crime, the last Government agreed to create a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker. The stand-alone offence aims to protect our retail workers by providing a deterrent to those who might commit retail crime, and it also has an important role to play in increasing transparency and accountability, which I will say more about later.
The changes to sanctions and recording are not the only answer to this problem; it is important that the police and retailers take action more broadly to tackle it. The last Government introduced a retail crime action plan in October 2023. My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who was then the Policing Minister and is now the shadow Home Secretary, launched it at a meeting of senior police leaders and 13 of the UK’s biggest retailers.
The plan included a police commitment to prioritise urgently attending the scene of a shoplifting incident where it involved violence against a shop worker, where security guards had detained an offender, or where attendance was needed to secure evidence. Attendance was to be assessed on risk, with prolific or juvenile offenders being treated with elevated priority. The police reaffirmed their pledge to follow up on any evidence that could reasonably lead to a perpetrator being caught, and forces stepped up targeted hotspot patrols in badly affected areas.
The plan set out advice for retailers on how to provide the best possible evidence for police to pursue any case. They are required to send CCTV footage of the whole incident and an image of the shoplifter from the digital evidence management system as quickly as possible after the offence has been committed. Where CCTV or other digital images are secured, police are required to run them through the police national database, using facial recognition technology to further aid efforts to identify and prosecute offenders, particularly prolific or potentially dangerous individuals.
The plan also created a specialist police team to build a comprehensive intelligence picture of the organised crime gangs that drive a huge number of shoplifting incidents across the country, in an effort to target and dismantle them. This initiative was branded Pegasus and is a business and policing partnership that has improved the way in which retailers are able to share intelligence, with the police gaining a greater understanding of the approach being taken by these organised crime gangs and identifying more offenders.
The initiative was spearheaded by Katy Bourne, the business crime lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. It is the first national partnership of its kind, and was backed financially by the Home Office, John Lewis, the Co-op, Marks & Spencer, Boots, Primark and several others, which pledged more than £840,000 to get it off the ground. Pegasus helped to identify high-harm offenders who were linked to organised crime groups, and has resulted in numerous arrests of individuals who are often responsible for tens of thousands of pounds in thefts.
Harriet Cross
Does my hon. Friend agree that that sort of approach is important in tackling repeat offenders with whom retail workers will be very familiar? They know who the offenders are in their area, because they see them every day. That sort of approach would help tackle those offenders and give reassurance to retail workers that they will not see these people back time and again.
Matt Vickers
The use of facial recognition in this setting is incredible. Anybody who has been out with the police force in their area and looked at it will know that the benefits are huge. It delivers great efficiency to the police, who can check thousands of people in minutes. The ability to take a face and work out who the person is and what they have done or have not done is game-changing in this and many other settings.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I have lots of sympathy with my hon. Friend on that point, but will he comment on the tension with civil liberties?
Matt Vickers
We have talked about the failure rate of modern facial recognition technology, and the number of instances in which it gets it wrong is minute. Every study we do on modern kit tells us that it results in very little error. It is virtually foolproof. There have been all sorts of noises about previous incarnations of the technology, but the most modern technology that we are using with our police forces now comes with very little fault and can be game-changing for the police.
The commitment to invest in facial recognition was a four-year investment. We have now seen a change of Government, but I know the Minister understands the huge value that facial recognition can have to the police, so I wondered whether the incumbent Government will continue with the specific funding commitment in full. Yes, lots of work has gone in and this offence will not solve all problems or necessarily have an immediate impact, but it represents a huge and important step forward. I am glad it has been taken forward by the incumbent Government and hope it will have a real impact to improve the lives of those important key workers in high streets and stores across the country.
Our retail workers define what it means to be a key worker: essential to the everyday lives of everyone. They often work the longest hours, not necessarily for the best pay, but are relied on by the public to keep their lives and the country going. For those living alone and isolated, they may be the only regular interaction they have. Our stores and town centres sit at the heart of our communities and give us a sense of place and identity. When they become dangerous and lawless, it is the saddest of signs and has real consequences for society.
According to the British Retail Consortium crime survey 2025, there are 2,000 incidents of assault on retail workers—not every month, not every week, but every single day. That figure has gone up by 50% in the last year, totalling 737,000 incidents in a year. More worryingly, 45,000 of those incidents were violent—equivalent to more than 124 incidents a day. There were over 25,000 incidents involving a weapon—that is 70 a day—and, devastatingly, that figure was up by 180% on the previous year. The survey went on to say,
“61% of retailers rate the police response to retail crime overall as poor or very poor, the same as last year, but over a third (39%) rated it as fair, good or excellent, including 3% as excellent for the first time in some years”.
In response to the report, British Retail Consortium chief exec, Helen Dickinson said,
“Behind these numbers lies a harsher truth for the people who work in our industry. Colleagues have been punched, stabbed, spat on, while having racist, misogynistic, and generally vile abuse hurled at them. These incidents can inflict serious mental and physical trauma that lasts a lifetime. The idea that any retail workers might be going to work fearing for their safety, never knowing the next time another incident may occur, should deeply concern all of us. Violence and abuse should never be part of the job.”
A colleague survey by the Association of Convenience Stores found that 87% of store colleagues had experienced verbal abuse, with over 1.2 million incidents, and 59% of retailers believe that antisocial behaviour, in or around their store, has increased over the past year. The association’s crime report also found that only 36% of crime is reported by retailers. Retailers said that they do not always report crime, and the top three reasons were, first,
“No confidence in a follow up investigation”,
secondly,
“The time it takes to file and process reports”
and thirdly,
“Perceived lack of interest from police”.
Retail workers are ordinary people going to work to earn a living, and they should be able to do so without fear of crime. Very often, they are students getting their first job stacking shelves or the semi-retired keeping themselves active, topping up their incomes to get something nice for their grandkids. To demonstrate the impact and consequences of retail crime and the value of the measures being debated, I want to share the views of some of those amazing frontline retail workers. Joshua James, an independent retailer, said:
“The high levels of verbal abuse and antisocial behaviour we are experiencing in store is both upsetting for our team members and negatively impacting their morale. Our main priority will always be their safety and that is why we have had to resort to tactics including implementing safety and preventative technologies and adjusting procedures to help the team feel safer at work. The sad truth behind this is it’s a selfish approach, as we know when these individuals stop targeting us, it’s only because they have moved onto another store.”
Amit Puntambekar from Nisa Local in Fenstanton described how he feels about the support he does not receive from the police:
“When your staff are threatened with a hammer, when someone threatens to kill you who lives near your shop and the police don’t take it seriously, what’s the point?”
In recent years during this campaign, I have had people ask me, “Why should things be different if you assault a retail worker as opposed to any other member of the public?” Retail workers are not assaulted because they wear a Tesco uniform or an Aldi shirt. They usually get assaulted for upholding the rules, which are often set by Parliament, but if they do not uphold those rules, they can face serious sanctions and consequences—for example, for failing to verify age for the purchase of knives or alcohol. Parliament and the Government impose statutory duties on our retail workers, and it is only right that we back them with statutory protections.
The Association of Convenience Stores 2025 crime survey found the top three triggers for assaults on retail workers were: encountering shop thieves; enforcing an age-restricted sales policy; and refusal to serve an intoxicated customer—which, of course, is another responsibility imposed on them by Parliament.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
My hon. Friend paints a disturbing picture of this significant problem, in many cases using the statistics. I worry that perhaps there is not the awareness within the general public—although there certainly will be among some people—of this crime compared with other crimes. Of course, this law will help to address that, but does he agree that we all share responsibility to ensure that there is better public awareness of this issue so that we can all play our small part in better supporting retail workers?
Matt Vickers
Hugely so. The likes of the BRC have run many campaigns to try to get people to shop in a more friendly and responsible way. The reality is that these places are at the heart of the community. If things are going to pot in the high street and the local shop, that undermines all the societal norms that young people might see when they go to the shop—and they then start to live in a different kind of world. There are obviously huge consequences. My hon. Friend is right; it is down to everybody to see this issue for the problem that it is.
Retailers and people who work in the sector say that it does not feel like the police see this problem as a priority. It always seems to be the last on the list. We understand that the police have a huge number of competing priorities on their time and energy, but when it comes down to it, this is a really big deal to the people who get assaulted in their workplace and have to go back there the next day, knowing that they might have to face that self-same crime.
Assaulting a retail worker, alongside assaulting the many other workers who provide a service to the public, is already a statutory offence. New clause 20 makes the case for wholesale workers to be added to the protections in the Bill. Many of us will have heard the case for similar protections for retail delivery drivers who face assault. The Federation of Wholesale Distributors is leading that campaign, stressing the urgent need for the inclusion of all wholesale workers in the stand-alone offence of assaulting or abusing a retail worker.
The Federation of Wholesale Distributors is the member organisation for UK food and drink wholesalers, operating in the grocery and food service markets, supplying retail and caterers via collect, delivery and online. Its members supply to up to 330,000 food service businesses and 72,000 retail grocery stores, supporting local high streets and businesses, large and small, across the UK.
The wholesale sector generates annual revenues of £36 billion, employs 60,000 people, and produces £3 billion of gross value added to the UK economy annually. Approximately £10 billion of that trade goes through cash and carry depots, where staff are increasingly vulnerable to criminal activities, particularly involving high-value goods, such as alcohol and tobacco. According to the FWD’s most recent crime survey, 100% of wholesalers surveyed identified crime as one of their foremost concerns, primarily attributed to what they perceive as “inadequate police responsiveness”. It argues:
“Despite substantial investments in crime prevention measures, wholesalers require stronger support from both the Government and law enforcement.”
Although it welcomes the Government’s commitment to tackling retail crime, it remains
“deeply concerned that the Bill does not extend protections to the majority of wholesale workers.”
The Bill’s current definition excludes 98% of wholesalers—those operating on a business-to-business basis—from the proposed protections. As a result, a significant number of wholesale workers remain unprotected.
Wholesale workers play a vital role in local economies and essential supply chains, ensuring the distribution of food and drink to businesses, hospitals, schools and care homes. It is argued that by leaving them out of the protections in the Bill, their safety, and the sector’s resilience, are compromised. They suggest a more inclusive definition under the stand-alone offence would better safeguard vulnerable workers and strengthen the wholesale sector. I am very keen to understand whether the Minister has considered the proposal on wholesale workers, what her perspective and thoughts on the matter are, and whether she will consider adding it during the passage of the Bill.
Joe Robertson
Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments about delivery drivers. I do not wish to criticise the Minister this early in the day, but it seems to me that the excuse for not extending the provisions is that this was not in the Labour manifesto. I am not sure she needs to worry about that; it is not something that the public worry about. If it is the right thing to do, she should include them. Does my hon. Friend have anything further to say on that?
Matt Vickers
I very much agree. Delivery drivers go out to alien environments—they could be delivering at the end of some lane in the middle of the countryside somewhere with no one in sight—so they are at substantial risk. I am sure the Minister will tell me that the proposal was not in the previous Criminal Justice Bill, but it has come forward and USDAW has made a good case. We should definitely listen and consider it, and I hope the Minister will give us her thoughts about where we should go with that.
As well as suggesting widening the scope of the provisions to include retail home delivery drivers, USDAW has submitted written evidence suggesting that the Bill could be improved in other ways by widening its scope to include incidents of abuse and threats, and an aggravating factor for incidents following retail workers enforcing statutory requirements, such as age-related restrictions. That would mirror what USDAW considers to be the successful Scottish provisions. Will the Minister comment on those ideas—in particular, an aggravating factor for incidents that come as a result of the enforcing of statutory requirements, and the inclusion of abuse and threats?
During evidence, we heard some queries about whether the inclusion of the assault clause in the Bill is necessary. The former Lord Chancellor highlighted that there has been a departure from what he described as a
“rather interesting amendment tabled in the previous Session to the 2023-24 Criminal Justice Bill by, I think, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris)”.
He said:
“It sought to amend the law to increase protections for shop workers, but with an important expansion: the offence would be not just an assault, but a threatening or abuse offence as well, which would encompass some of the public order concerns that many of us have about shop premises, corner shops and sole proprietor retail outlets. Yet, we have gone back here to a straight assault clause, which in my mind does not seem to add anything to the criminal code at all.” ––[Official Report, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2025; c. 18, Q28.]
That lack of a significant change is noted in the economic note, which states:
“The impact of this new offence is limited as assault on retail workers is already an offence covered under wider assault charges and these cases would have been prosecuted, processed, and determined in the same way without the new offence. Increased costs are only expected through the additional consequence of CBOs for offenders and their possible breaches…There is no definitive evidence that the creation of this new offence will lead to an increase or decrease in the number of assaults on retail workers. The timing of any possible effects is also uncertain”.
That is not to speak against the measure.
Joe Robertson
Does my hon. Friend agree that delivery drivers are particularly vulnerable, given that they often work on their own in an unfamiliar place, and go to addresses they have not been to before, so there are some very strong stand-alone arguments for including them within the protections of the Bill in a stronger, more effective way?
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. People often order stuff to be delivered to their house; an Uber Eats driver might turn up at whatever time of the night. The people who arrive tend to turn up when people are not at work, so they could be there of an evening, when it is dark or at inconvenient times, when the risk is probably higher. They could be in any setting, and it will be unfamiliar to them but familiar to whoever they happen to be visiting. We have to give some thought to this issue, and I am interested in what the Minister will have to say on it.
This is not to speak against the measure, but is the Minister confident that it is drafted in a manner that will reduce assaults against shop workers, as well as abuse and threats? Could it be broader, to encompass antisocial behaviours that have no place on our streets? I am delighted that the incumbent Government are continuing with the proposals of their predecessor in creating this stand-alone offence, but we wish to make some proposals for improving it.
First, amendment 29 would require the courts to make a community order against repeat offenders for retail crime in order to restrict the offenders’ liberty. A huge amount of such crime is committed by repeat offenders. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us her perspective on the proposal.
We are grateful that the proposals from the last Government’s Criminal Justice Bill are being brought forward in this Bill, but I was disappointed that the new legislation does not include the mandatory requirement for a ban, electronic tag or curfew to be imposed on those committing a third offence of either shoplifting or assaulting a retail worker. Many retailers believe that this would ensure that the response to third offences would be stepped up, and would provide retail workers with much-needed respite from repeat offenders. To this end, we tabled new clause 26. Again, I would be grateful for the Minister’s view on it, and for her rationale for what some might consider a watering-down of the sanctions.
I note that clause 15 sets out that those under the age of 18 will not be subject to a criminal behaviour order. Will the Minister comment on the frequency of involvement in retail crime by under-18s? Why are criminal behaviour orders not necessary to deter them?
One of the points made about the stand-alone offence, over and above the sanction and the consequence, is that it is about increasing police response time, as well as accountability and transparency. By having a stand-alone offence, we will have data on where and how often these things occur, and we can then measure where the police are and are not taking the required action. On that basis, has the Minister given any thought to how to manage that data, how we might hold to account police forces with the greatest volume of such offences and how we can look at ensuring that all police forces have a consistent response?
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I will make a slightly shorter speech. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear!”] I welcome the Government’s measures to protect retail workers against assault. I have seen the evidence of this challenge at first hand in my constituency. In Frome, we have an amazing small independent shop and art gallery that has been repeatedly targeted by groups of young people who are spray painting graffiti on the windows and shouting abuse at retail workers and shoppers. This is part of a wider picture of antisocial behaviour that is happening on our high streets, and that neighbourhood police are working so hard to tackle. As we said in previous discussions, we need to support neighbourhood police and resource them to do so.
Retail workers are on the frontline of the much wider antisocial behaviour we see in our towns and cities. As we know, high street businesses are critical not only to our economic success, but to the wellbeing of the places we live and work in. It is vital that they can recruit and retain staff who can come to work without fear of being threatened or assaulted. However, the Minister should consider that it is not only retail workers who are victims of assaults; bank branch workers in customer-facing roles should have the same level of protection.
At a recent constituency breakfast, I spoke with a representative from Barclays bank. He told me that there were more than 3,500 incidents of inappropriate customer behaviour against Barclays staff in 2024, with more than 90% involving verbal abuse, as well as many other incidents of smashed windows and graffiti. Bank branch staff across the UK would be grateful if the Minister could extend to them the protections being provided to retail workers.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I rise to speak briefly to clauses 14 and 15. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that I am a Co-operative member and a Labour and Co-operative MP who has long campaigned for stronger protection for retail workers.
Retail crime is not just a statistic; it has real and lasting consequences for workers, businesses and our communities. In Leigh and Atherton I have seen at first hand the toll that it takes. This month I visited one of our anchor stores in Leigh town centre and spoke to a security guard who had been threatened with assault while simply doing his job protecting staff, stock and the business. He told me it is not just about one incident, but the daily reality of intimidation, threats and the fear that one day those threats will turn into something worse. And he is not alone.
With my office based on the high street, I see the challenges up close. Local businesses have told me they face verbal abuse, harassment and physical threats daily. Many have even stopped reporting incidents because they feel they are not being heard.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
Building on what my hon. Friend was just saying about the town centre, I had an incident in a village convenience store in my area. The member of staff often works on their own and they were assaulted fairly recently when over £1,000 was taken. Those workers are cornerstones in our communities and drive people to hospital if necessary. Violence is seen too often in our communities, and we need to send a strong message to those who seek to cause harm and those who need protecting.
Jo Platt
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Threats, abuse and violence should never be accepted as part of the job. Nationally, the scale of the problem is alarming. USDAW’s latest survey found that 69% of retail workers had been verbally abused in the past year, 45% had been threatened and 17% had been assaulted. Some have been hit with trolleys and baskets, and female staff have reported appalling levels of harassment, which cannot go on. That is why clauses 14 and 15 are so important. They will provide retail workers with the legal protections they deserve and ensure that those who abuse, threaten or assault face real consequences.
Crucially, the Bill also extends the protections to volunteers, many of whom play a vital role in the Leigh and Atherton charity sector. No one who gives their time to help others should have to fear for their safety. The campaign started on the shop floor and now it has reached the Floor of Parliament. As a Co-operative member, I welcome the provisions as the result of years of determined campaigning. With this Bill we take an essential step towards making our town centres safer and showing shop workers that they are respected, protected and valued. Tackling retail crime is a vital step in rebuilding pride and belonging in all our communities.
Joe Robertson
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. There is agreement in this room about the problem that the Bill seeks to address. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West for his excellent but all too brief speech a few moments ago. If I may, I will start by citing Matthew Barber, the police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley police. Referring to the legislation that already exists, he rightly states:
“It is an offence to assault a retail worker. In the same way that it is an offence to assault any member of the public. Indeed current legislation already allows for someone’s role as a retail worker to be considered as an aggravating factor”.
There are four areas of law whereby a retail worker who has been assaulted might currently have protection. There is assault, unlawful wounding or grievous bodily harm under the common law or the Offences against the Person Act 1861—notice how old that law is; I do not think this room has changed much since then—harassment or putting people in fear of violence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; affray or threatening or abusive behaviour under the Public Order Act 1986; and robbery under the Theft Act 1968.
The point that retail workers are in a particularly vulnerable situation has been clearly articulated. That is why these laws, which are good at achieving the aims that they were originally passed for, can leave defects when it comes to ensuring the protection of retail workers.
Joe Robertson
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, from a sedentary position, has endorsed my constituency, which is not only a tourist destination but a place that has a much higher population in summer, and retail workers are at the frontline in towns such as Ryde, Sandown, Shanklin and Ventnor. Although we are a small coastal community—we do not have big towns or a big population centre—retail crime is still a problem. It is a crime that I imagine affects all constituencies in the UK to a greater or lesser extent, and we certainly should not think of it as a city or large town-only issue. In fact, I ponder whether it can be, in some cases, more impactful in smaller communities, where people might be more likely to know each other and there is a sense of intimidation from such behaviour.
Retail crime can also lead to a more destructive environment or a sense of lawlessness if it goes unchecked, as well as all sorts of knock-on effects with antisocial behaviour. We definitely see some of that in my constituency, where certain prolific individuals feel that if the police have not responded the first few times, they are likely not to respond again. Certainly in my anecdotal experience, it is actually a few prolific offenders who are particularly responsible for a large number of these incidents. I urge the Government to take all views of the Committee into account, as we all want to achieve the same objectives.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
As I am interested in moving on, because I was sent by my residents to get on with business, I will not be eking this out because we did not do our homework or table our amendments in time.
I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan about delivery workers and retail workers, in the broader sense of the word. There is an opportunity here to reflect the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021, which covers retail workers when they are in people’s homes. We heard evidence from Christopher Morris and Graham Wynn that there is a really good chance to do that here. I understand the Minister’s explanation that there is a lot in the Bill, and that we need to ensure that it is neat and firm and delivers what it is supposed to deliver, but I again urge us to take this opportunity if we can.
I will now mention something that is very important to my residents, and that we have been looking at—tool theft, and how we can stretch the definition of retail workers and place of work. Again, I understand the Minister’s reluctance. I am sure that it is not because she has any lack of desire to solve issues in that space; the question is just about the Bill’s ability to do so. I understand that, but given the campaigning that a number of her colleagues have done in that space, I think there is a real opportunity here to do what we can to include the protection of hard-working tradespeople, and not only when they are in people’s homes.
The example that I gave in the evidence session was of retail workers delivering a dishwasher and installing it in somebody’s home. The question was whether, in somebody’s home, they would be classed as a retail worker under the measures in the Bill. There is a real opportunity to include those people and, if possible, to extend the provision to tradespeople who are doing work in people’s homes and then have tools and equipment necessary for their jobs subject to theft. They are also, as we are hearing, quite often subject to assault while defending their tools, and there is a real risk that they are criminalised for acting to protect their livelihood, because obviously this is not just theft—I mean “just” in the broadest possible terms. It is not having one’s phone stolen or, as heartbreaking as it is—I have suffered it myself—having one’s bike stolen. This is someone’s livelihood—their ability to support their family; so whatever we can do to extend the scope of the measure to protect those incredibly hard-working tradespeople and workers, we should do.
Luke Taylor
Absolutely, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth North on that. I was at the reception that she held on the Terrace last week, and it was good to see the backing of industry for that campaign.
The Chair
Order. We need to stick within the scope of the Bill. If we could stay on topic, that would be brilliant.
Luke Taylor
I will finish my remarks by again encouraging the Minister to consider what we can do, and to take every opportunity available to include in the Bill the measures that I have mentioned.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I refer Members to my declaration of interests.
I will keep this brief. The abuse of shop workers is simply unacceptable. People who are at work and offering an essential service to the public, and who are normally at the lower end of the salary scale, should not be subjected to such violence and intimidation when simply doing their job. USDAW’s “Freedom From Fear” report shows that in the last 12 months 77% of shop workers were verbally abused, 53% were threatened and 10% were assaulted. I know about this issue from my early career, when I was a store manager for a food store. I was abused on a number of occasions and once had a blade pulled on me when I was attempting to stop a shoplifter. This has been going on for years and it needs to stop.
During the pandemic, as we all know, we started off clapping the doctors and nurses and we eventually spread that out to everybody who was keeping our essential services going, including our shop workers. It is shameful that despite the petition launched in July 2020 and signed by 104,354 people, which the hon. Member for Stockton West pointed to, and the Westminster Hall debate, the former Conservative Government refused to recognise abuse of a shop worker as a separate offence until they were dragged, kicking and screaming, by the industry and the Labour Opposition at the time. It is therefore interesting to hear the Conservatives waxing lyrical about this issue today, despite the fact that we had to pull them to this point. It is equally admirable to see the Government bringing this action forward.
Many shop workers are pleased that the Government’s respect orders will support this new legislation and give them more protection. As a package, this is a positive move forward that will support my former colleagues and all retail workers. I fully support clauses 14 and 15.
Jack Rankin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, but not quite as much of a pleasure as listening to something akin to the Gettysburg address from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
That was short.
Jack Rankin
That was the joke. I am sure that my wife, who will be listening in, will be delighted that I will not be home for dinner tonight.
I welcome this legislation and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. I understand that it is similar to the Bill brought forward by the previous Conservative Government, so I am glad that we can speak on a cross-party basis in support of making assaults on retail workers and shopkeepers a specific offence in the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East talked about the current legislation, but it is nevertheless an important signal to make it a specific offence.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council, supported by the previous Government, introduced a retail crime action plan, and a group of retailers made considerable resources available for Project Pegasus to address organised crime. Although I am hearing from my local retailers and local police that there are early signs that those initiatives are beginning to deliver results, it is clear that we need to go much further to achieve the objectives set out in the RCAP. Clauses 14 and 15 are an important step in that direction.
As the Minister said on Tuesday, it is important that we listen to experts in this area. Committee members have been inundated with written evidence, alongside the oral evidence we heard, from people directly affected. It is worth getting some of that on the record, because they are the experts and we should take a steer from them. Paul Gerrard, the campaigns and public affairs director of the Co-op Group, said:
“The Co-op sees every day the violence and threats our colleagues, like other retail workers, face as they serve the communities they live in.
We have long called for a standalone offence of attacking or abusing a shopworker and so we very much welcome the government’s announcement today.
The Co-op will redouble our work with police forces but these measures will undoubtedly, when implemented, keep our shopworkers safer, protect the shops they work in and help the communities both serve.”
That is a thumbs-up from the Co-op.
Simon Roberts, the chief executive of Sainsbury’s, said something similar:
“There is nothing more important to us than keeping our colleagues and customers safe.”
I am sure we all second that. He went on:
“Alongside our own security measures like colleague-worn cameras, in-store detectives and security barriers, today’s announcement is a vital next step in enabling our police forces to clamp down further.
We fully endorse and support this legislative focus and action on driving down retail crime.”
The Minister and the Government can be confident that these measures are hitting the spot and have the support of experts.
I want to draw out some statistics, particularly from the British Retail Consortium, for which I have a lot of respect. Helen Dickinson, the chief executive, said:
“After relentless campaigning for a specific offence for assaulting retail workers, the voices of the 3 million people working in retail are finally being heard.”
However, she went on to say:
“The impact of retail violence has steadily worsened, with people facing racial abuse, sexual harassment, threatening behaviour, physical assault and threats with weapons, often linked to organised crime.”
That is not something that any of us should tolerate. As well as giving police forces and the justice system more powers, it is important that we in this House speak with one voice to say that that is unacceptable.
The British Retail Consortium’s most recent annual crime survey covers the period from 1 September 2023 to 31 August 2024. The BRC represents over 1.1 million employees, and the businesses they work for have a total annual turnover of over £194 billion. Therefore, that survey really is, in a meaningful sense, one that covers the entire industry.
The statistics are awful, to be honest. Violence and abuse have clearly spiralled, rising by over 50% in that year, which was part of an overall rise of 340% since 2020. Indeed, there are now over 2,000 incidents every single day, which is the highest figure ever recorded in that crime survey. Of those 2,000 incidents daily, 124 are violent and 70 include the use of a weapon.
That means that 70 shop workers a day in this country are being threatened with a weapon. We should just think about that; I cannot imagine how I would feel if a member of my family was threatened in that way. It means that 70 people—each one a constituent of one of us—are threatened every single day. Only 10% of incidents of violence and abuse resulted in police attendance, and only 2% resulted in conviction. Only 32% of incidents of violence and abuse were reported to police by retailers, which I am afraid to say speaks to people’s lack of faith in the effectiveness of the current system.
I am sure it is true that Members on both sides of the House hear about these incidents happening on all our high streets through our surgeries, our other contact with constituents and our correspondence. My constituency is a cross-county constituency. Matt Barber, who we heard from last week and who has been quoted a couple of times in today’s debate, is the police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley, an area that includes about two thirds of my constituency. It covers Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, which obviously is a relatively prosperous area.
Nevertheless, Matt Barber published a retail crime strategy and one of his top priorities was acknowledging the importance of the issue. He set out a series of actions to tackle shoplifting, retail crime and violence towards shop workers, including bolstering the operational capacity of Thames Valley police through the creation of a business crime team within the force to identify prolific offenders and improve investigation. That action, combined with an increase in the visible presence of police officers and police community support officers in retail spaces through Operation Purchase, is paying some dividends. We have seen an increase of over 90% in charges for shoplifting in the Berkshire part of my constituency.
Acknowledging how difficult and time-consuming it can be for retailers to report retail and shoplifting offences, Mr Barber also rolled out Disc, which is an information-sharing and reporting platform that allows retailers to report and access information about crimes such as shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. The Disc app has been rolled out quite effectively, particularly in Windsor town centre. It is available free of charge for businesses across Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Milton Keynes, and I urge the businesses in the Berkshire part of my constituency to use it. Frankly, any local businesses in that geographical area should use it, because the more retailers that use it and feed in that vital intelligence, the better the policing response will be. That will be even more important once this critical legislation is passed, because it will give police the specific powers to deal with such offences.
The other third of my constituency is in Surrey, where there is a different police and crime commissioner; that is a bit of a ball-ache for a constituency MP, but we plough on. The police and crime commissioner for Surrey, Lisa Townsend, and the chief constable of Surrey police, Tim De Meyer, who we heard from at the evidence session last week, are currently asking members of the Surrey business community to have their say on the impact of retail crime. They have launched a retail crime survey, which is open for responses until 14 April. I urge businesses in Virginia Water and Englefield Green to contribute to that important initiative. I therefore welcome clauses 14 and 15.
I turn to the two amendments tabled by the Opposition. Amendment 29 requires courts to make a community order against repeat offenders of retail crime to restrict the offender’s liberty, and new clause 26 imposes a duty to impose a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement, or an electronic monitoring device on people convicted of assaulting retail workers where they have been given a community or suspended sentence. Given what we have heard Committee members, and in written and oral evidence, about the scale and impact of these crimes, ensuring that repeat offenders are given a real deterrent, as put forward in these provisions, seems like an infinitely logical improvement to the Bill. The provisions work hand in glove with the Government to give retail workers the real protections they need.
The BRC’s crime survey calls specifically for dissuasive sentences, as there is an intrinsic link between the police response and the response of the courts. Sentencing is an issue when, I am afraid to say, those involved are repeatedly given light sentences.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister to respond to when she touches on these provisions. We have heard about the cost of crime prevention measures that retailers are incurring, some of which includes hiring private security guards to protect stores. Can the Minister confirm that those workers will also be covered by the legislation, including when they do the very difficult job of trying to apprehend people who are committing offences?
I second what the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said; it is my understanding that the legislation excludes those who work in high street banks. Like other Committee members, I am frequently contacted by constituents who are worried about the loss of banks on the high street. I am concerned that excluding that group of people will result in the loss of yet more face-to-face banking services on our high streets. Presumably, that group has been affected by similar rises in violence and in the number of assaults on staff. For example, Barclays bank reports that in 2024 there were over 3,500 instances of inappropriate customer behaviour against its staff, with more than 90% involving verbal abuse.
I commend the Opposition’s amendments to the Committee, and encourage the Government to consider them so that we can tackle the important crime of assaulting shop workers.
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, for his extensive speech in this short debate, setting out in great detail the background and history of how we have reached the position that we are in today. I feel that with some of the contributions we visited every retail outlet in the country. As the shadow Minister asked me a number of questions, I will deal with those at the outset. It is a shame that, despite what he said, the fact is that in 14 years the previous Government did not deliver on introducing this provision.
On what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East said, the reason I pointed out that this was a manifesto commitment was to show that this Government, in our first Home Office Bill, are actually delivering on what we said we would do. I will go on to deal with some of the points that he and other hon. Members raised.
Joe Robertson
I wish to clarify for the Minister that I am criticising not the Government’s commitment to bring forward the Bill but the suggestion that something cannot go into the Bill because it was not in the Labour manifesto. I am sure that she is about to address that point.
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Member is right that I will address that point in due course.
The shadow Minister referred to live facial recognition, but there are some provisions on that—new clauses 19 and 29—which I think will provide the best opportunity to discuss those points. He will know of my commitment to using live facial recognition where appropriate, with the necessary policing safeguards.
In response to the remarks about the offence set out in Scottish legislation on abuse, threats and aggravating factors, it is fair to say that, as the Minister, I am looking carefully at what other countries have legislated for. I keep that under review and will continue to do so throughout the course of the Bill’s passage.
Matt Vickers
That point has been mentioned several times. We heard what Rob Buckland thinks about extending the offence beyond assault, because the Bill refers specifically to assault. The hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley had tabled an amendment to the previous Bill to provide a broader definition that would cover abuse as well as assault. Does the Minister feel that there is a question mark around that point, or does she feel that it has been misunderstood by the people commenting on it?
Dame Diana Johnson
I will come on to that point in more detail in a moment; I just want to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor about security staff. The offence will cover security staff who are employed directly by retailers and those employed by a third party on behalf of a retailer.
I want to move on to amendment 29 and new clause 26 tabled by the shadow Minister, which seek to make further provision on the sentencing of repeat offenders convicted of assaulting a retail worker. As I have tried to set out repeatedly, we take prolific offending extremely seriously, and it is helpful to have this opportunity to set out our approach.
As the Committee will be aware, sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary, which takes into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, and the statutory purposes of sentencing. The courts have a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders, including discharges, fines, community sentences, suspended sentences and custodial sentences where appropriate. Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with sentencing guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous conviction, when determining the sentence.
The Ministry of Justice continues to ensure that sentencers are provided with all tagging options, to enable courts to impose electronic monitoring on anyone who receives a community-based sentence, if the courts deem it suitable to do so. Additionally, although electronic monitoring is available to the courts, it may be not the most appropriate requirement to be added to an offender’s sentence. Many prolific offenders have no fixed abode and live complex, chaotic lifestyles. Imposing an electronic monitoring requirement would likely set up those individuals to fail, instead of helping to improve outcomes for perpetrators of crime and the public.
We cannot consider this issue in isolation. That is why the Government have delivered on a manifesto commitment—we are really quite keen on that—to bring sentencing up to date and ensure that the framework is consistent by launching an independent review of sentencing, chaired by the former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke. The review is tasked with a comprehensive re-evaluation of our sentencing framework, including considering how we can make greater use of punishments outside prison, and how sentences can encourage offenders to turn their back on a life of crime. The review has been specifically asked to consider sentencing for prolific offenders, to ensure that they commit fewer crimes. We look forward to considering the recommendations of the review, following which we will set out our plans for the future of sentencing. It is vital that we give the review time to finalise its recommendations, including on prolific offenders, and that we consider them.
We had quite a lot of discussion about wholesale workers, delivery drivers and bank workers. However, despite the Opposition raising those issues, they did not table any amendments on them. New clause 20, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), relates to wholesale workers, and I will discuss it in a moment, but first, a number of Members raised the issue of delivery drivers. We know the really important, dedicated work that delivery drivers do, particularly when we recall what happened during the pandemic. These drivers often deliver items to the most vulnerable in our society, including the elderly, frail and disabled. However, my approach in the Bill is that we must be sure that the new offence that we are creating is proportionate and can be used without creating legal ambiguity.
Any ambiguity in identifying whether an individual is a retail worker will lead the courts to take the case forward as a common assault, as happens at the moment, meaning that the specific recording that the shadow Minister is keen on would, importantly, not be attributed to a retail worker. Delivery drivers cover a wide range of sectors and roles, which is likely to cause issues with defining what a delivery driver is, and therefore with the courts’ ability to use the Bill as we want them to. However, we will use this parliamentary process to scrutinise the provisions in the Bill, as we are doing today, and will consider carefully any amendments that are tabled, as well as any evidence that is put forward in support of them.
On bank staff, it is worth the Committee knowing that officials in the Home Office are meeting with Barclays next week. I am happy to look into what comes out of that meeting. Again, I think we can all agree that bank staff do important work in our communities. As I have said, they are protected by other legislation and a statutory aggravating factor, as public workers. I will come on to discuss that in a moment.
New clause 20 would provide for an offence of assaulting a wholesale worker. Of course, violence and abuse towards any public-facing worker, including wholesale workers, is unacceptable. Everyone has a right to feel safe at work. I, like others present, know the dedicated work that many in the wholesale sector do to ensure that goods are in our supermarkets, so that we always have access to the things that we need in a timely way. However, I do not agree that the offence of assaulting a retail worker provided for by clause 14 should be extended to all wholesale workers.
As we heard in oral evidence—we also have clear evidence from the British Retail Consortium, USDAW and the Association of Convenience Stores’ report—there has been a very worrying increase in violence and abuse towards retail workers. The police have already taken action to assist in tackling retail crime, and I welcome the positive impact that has had on charge rates, with a 52% increase in charge volumes for shop theft in particular. In 2023, as has been referred to already, the National Police Chiefs’ Council published the retail crime action plan. Through that plan, all police forces in England and Wales have committed to prioritise police attendance at a scene where violence has been used towards shop staff, where an offender has been detained by store security, and where evidence needs to be secured and it can only be police personnel. Clearly, that commitment, and other work undertaken by retail, is not preventing this crime, so we want to go further. This new offence of assaulting a retail worker will send the very strong message that violence and abuse towards retail workers will not be tolerated,
On wholesale workers, bank staff and others, assault is already a crime. Everyone is protected from assault; it is criminalised under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in which common assault has a sentence of six months in prison. The Offences against the Person Act 1861 covers more serious violence, such as actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. However, this new offence will help to ensure that assaults on retail workers are separately recorded so that we know the true scale of the problem, enabling the police to respond accordingly.
Going back to why I am concerned about wholesale workers and others, any ambiguity in identifying whether an individual is a retail worker will likely lead the courts to take the case forward as common assault, meaning the specific recording attributed to a retail worker will not occur, which again goes back to the issue of data and recording. I stress that wholesale workers who are working in premises that provide retail sales to the public will be covered by the new offence in clause 14.
In order to help those in the wholesale sector, banking and other areas, including delivery drivers, there is the statutory aggravating factor for assaults against any public-facing worker in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. That aggravating factor ensures that the courts treat the public-facing nature of a victim’s role as an aggravating factor when considering the sentence for an offence, and it sends a very clear message that violence and abuse towards any worker will not be tolerated.
In order to have a proper picture of what is happening, it is critical that incidents of violence and abuse are always reported to the police, no matter in what sector. I encourage businesses to raise awareness of the legislative changes that have been introduced to their organisations to encourage that reporting. I think it is fair to say that the reason the retail sector has been so powerful in making the case to both the previous Government and this Government is because they have that information and data, as they are reporting it. That is why they have been able to get to the point where this clause is now in the Bill.
I think new clause 20 on wholesale workers is currently unnecessary, although I absolutely recognise the intent of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East in tabling it. Again, I echo how unacceptable violence and abuse is towards anybody. In the light of the explanation that I have given in response to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West, I hope that he will agree not to press them to a vote.
Matt Vickers
I welcome the Minister’s comments, which were thoughtful, considered and knowledgeable, as ever. I also welcome her commitment to further the use of facial recognition technology, as well as data, to maximise its benefits. I did not get a commitment on whether the funding would continue, as it was set aside in previous years.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am happy to confirm that the £3 million allocated for the financial year 2024-25 has been continued. We have used that to buy 10 vans to help us with the roll-out of live facial recognition, about which I understand the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South, is particularly concerned and anxious, so I can reassure him on that. We are now going through a spending review, and bids will be made for the technological tools that we want our police forces to have to catch criminals and keep us safe and secure.
Matt Vickers
I am confident that the Minister understands the huge value that this equipment can have, and I am sure that she will put up a good fight in any Treasury discussions.
Clearly, this is a huge issue to communities across the country. Some of the experiences faced by retail workers are horrific, and MPs are all too familiar with them. There are 2,000 incidents a day involving somebody’s mother, father, daughter, son or grandparent—ordinary people wanting to earn a living, and having to return to the scene of a crime day after day. It is easy to see the challenge the Minister faces in determining the breadth and limits of the Bill, with bids for the inclusion of high-street bank workers, delivery drivers and wholesale workers. I hope that, despite the competition, she will continue to look at how those workers can be better supported and protected.
Regarding tool theft, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North and the Gas Expert, Shoaib Awan, for leading a huge campaign. I do not quite understand how the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam was planning to slot the issue into the Bill, but he will be glad to know that some of us have done the homework, and there are some meaningful amendments to be considered later in the Committee’s scrutiny. In fact, I declare an interest: my dad is a builder.
Amendment 29 and new clause 26 seek to strengthen the Bill to deter those who would do harm to our retailers and retail workers, and we intend to divide the Committee on them—although I understand that the new clause will be decided on later.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Assault of retail worker: duty to make criminal behaviour order
Amendment proposed: 29, in clause 15, page 25, line 11, at end insert—
“(4) If the offender has previous convictions for an offence under section 14 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (assault of a retail worker) or for shoplifting under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, the court must make a community order against the offender.”—(Matt Vickers.)
This amendment clause would require the courts to make a community order against repeat offenders of retail crime in order to restrict the offender’s liberty.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 25—Requirements in certain sentences imposed for third or subsequent shoplifting offence—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In section 208 (community order: exercise of power to impose particular requirements), in subsections (3) and (6) after ‘subsection (10)’ insert ‘and sections 208A’.
(3) After that section insert—
‘208A Community order: requirements for third or subsequent shoplifting offence
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person is convicted of adult shoplifting (“the index offence”),
(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting or an equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence, and
(c) the court makes a community order in respect of the index offence.
(2) The community order must, subject to subsection (3), include at least one of the following requirements—
(a) a curfew requirement;
(b) an exclusion requirement;
(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—
(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—
(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and
(ii) justify the court not including any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or
(b) neither of the following requirements could be included in the order—
(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;
(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.
(4) In subsection (1)(b), the reference to an occasion on which an offender was sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting does not include an occasion if—
(a) each conviction for adult shoplifting for which the offender was dealt with on that occasion has been quashed, or
(b) the offender was re-sentenced for adult shoplifting (and was not otherwise dealt with for adult shoplifting) on that occasion.
(5) In this section—
“adult shoplifting” means an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 committed by a person aged 18 or over in circumstances where—
(a) the stolen goods were being offered for sale in a shop or any other premises, stall, vehicle or place from which a trade or business was carried on, and
(b) at the time of the offence, the offender was, or was purporting to be, a customer or potential customer of the person offering the goods for sale;
“equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence” means—
(a) in Scotland, theft committed by a person aged 18 or over in the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of “adult shoplifting”, or
(b) in Northern Ireland, an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 committed by a person aged 18 or over in those circumstances.
(6) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be included in a community order if it could not otherwise be so included.
(7) Where—
(a) in a case to which this section applies, a court makes a community order which includes a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2),
(b) a previous conviction of the offender is subsequently set aside on appeal, and
(c) without the previous conviction this section would not have applied,
notice of appeal against the sentence may be given at any time within 28 days from the day on which the previous conviction was set aside (despite anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).’
(4) After section 292 insert—
‘292A Suspended sentence order: community requirements for third or subsequent shoplifting offence
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person is convicted of adult shoplifting (“the index offence”),
(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting or an equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence, and
(c) the court makes a suspended sentence order in respect of the index offence.
(2) The suspended sentence order must, subject to subsection (3), impose at least one of the following requirements—
(a) a curfew requirement;
(b) an exclusion requirement;
(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—
(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—
(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and
(ii) justify the court not imposing on the offender any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or
(b) neither of the following requirements could be imposed on the offender—
(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;
(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.
(4) Section 208A(4) (occasions to be disregarded) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(b).
(5) In this section “adult shoplifting” and “equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence” have the meaning given by section 208A.
(6) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be imposed by a suspended sentence order if it could not otherwise be so imposed.
(7) Where—
(a) in a case to which this section applies, a court makes a suspended sentence order which imposes a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2),
(b) a previous conviction of the offender is subsequently set aside on appeal, and
(c) without the previous conviction this section would not have applied,
notice of appeal against the sentence may be given at any time within 28 days from the day on which the previous conviction was set aside (despite anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).’”
This new clause imposes a duty (subject to certain exceptions) to impose a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement or an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement on certain persons convicted of shoplifting, where the offender is given a community sentence or suspended sentence order.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling new clause 25. As he will be aware, under the previous Government shop theft was allowed to increase at an alarming rate—it was up 23% in the year to September 2024—and more and more offenders are using violence and abuse against shop workers, as we have just debated.
This Government have committed to taking back our streets and restoring confidence in the safety of retail spaces, which is why we have brought in measures to address what is essentially immunity for so-called low-value shop theft, which the previous Conservative Government introduced. Shop theft of any amount is illegal, and by repealing section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, we will help to ensure that everyone fully understands that.
Under section 22A, theft of goods worth £200 and under from shops is tried summarily in the magistrates court. The previous Government argued the legislation was introduced to increase efficiency, by enabling the police to prosecute instances of low-value theft. However, it has not worked. Both offenders and retailers perceive this effective downgrading of shop theft as a licence to steal and escape any punishment. Clause 16 therefore repeals section 22A.
Let me be unequivocal: shoplifting of any goods of any value is unacceptable, and it is crucial that the crime is understood to be serious. With this change, there will no longer be a threshold categorising shop theft of goods worth £200 and under as “low-value”. By removing the financial threshold, we are sending a clear message to perpetrators and would-be perpetrators that this crime will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate punishment. The change also makes it clear to retailers that we take this crime seriously and they should feel encouraged to report it.
I turn to the shadow Minister’s new clause 25. The Government take repeat and prolific offending extremely seriously. I remind the Committee that sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary, who take into account all of the circumstances of the offence, the offender and the statutory purposes of sentencing. The courts have a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders, including discharges, fines, community sentences, suspended sentences and custodial sentences where appropriate. In addition, as the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention has already said, previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor. Sentencing guidelines are clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous conviction, when determining the sentence.
The Ministry of Justice continues to ensure that sentencers are provided with all tagging options, to enable courts to impose electronic monitoring on anyone who receives a community-based sentence if they deem it suitable to do so. It is important to note that electronic monitoring is already available to the courts when passing a community or suspended sentence. However, it may not always be the most appropriate requirement for an offender’s sentence. We believe that the courts should retain a range of options at their disposal, to exercise their discretion to decide on the most appropriate sentence and requirements.
We cannot consider this issue in isolation. This is why we have launched an independent review of sentencing, chaired by former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, to ensure that we deliver on our manifesto commitment to bring sentencing up to date and ensure the framework is consistent. The review is tasked with a comprehensive re-evaluation of our sentencing framework, including considering how we can make greater use of punishment outside of prison and how sentences can encourage offenders to turn their backs on a life of crime. The review has been asked specifically to consider sentencing for prolific offenders, to ensure that we have fewer crimes committed by those offenders. It is vital that we give the review time to finalise its recommendations, including on prolific offenders, so that we are able to set out our plans for the future of sentencing in the round.
On this basis, I commend clause 16 to the Committee and ask the hon. Member for Stockton West not to move his new clause when it is reached later in our proceedings.
Matt Vickers
Shop thefts are on the increase, with recorded crime data showing 492,124 offences in the year—a 23% increase on the previous year. The British Retail Consortium 2025 retail crime report suggests that despite retailers spending a whopping £1.8 billion on prevention measures, such crime is at record levels, with losses from customer theft reaching £2.2 billion.
As things stand, shop theft is not a specific offence but constitutes theft under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. It is therefore triable either way—that is, either in a magistrates court or the Crown court. Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, inserted by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, provides that where the value of goods is £200 or less, it is a summary-only offence. Clause 16 amends the 1980 Act, the 2014 Act and others to make theft from a shop triable either way, irrespective of the value of the goods.
David Burton-Sampson
It was actually former Prime Minister Theresa May, when Home Secretary in 2013, who said that the new low-level threshold would “free up resources” and that
“Having to pass low-level offences to the Crown Prosecution Service wastes police time.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 75.]
I am not sure how shop workers and owners who have been subject to low-level crime over the last 10 years would feel about that. How does the hon. Gentleman feel about it?
Matt Vickers
I will probably come on to this later, but quick justice is effective justice. We do not want prolific offenders waiting for court dates in the Crown court, when we could be dealing with them more quickly.
There are two big debates about how this should play, and I am sure we will hear them at length in the Committee. There is a real issue with whether something that goes to the magistrates court is dealt with quickly or otherwise, but a lot of this is about perception and the £200. According to the impact assessment produced by the Government for the Bill, 90% of the offences of shop theft charged are for goods with a value under £200, so it is a myth that people are not being charged for offences under £200. Maybe we need to be telling retailers and police that, but people are still being charged for offences relating to goods of low value, and rightly so. If someone steals, there should be consequences, but it should be dealt with more quickly than waiting for a date in the Crown court.
We heard during the evidence sessions concerns about the impact that making theft from a shop triable either way will have. Giving offenders a choice between the Crown court and magistrates court will mean that they can opt for delays, and it will potentially result in a lower conviction rate. There are huge concerns that that could add to the backlog and further frustrate the system, and that the individuals concerned could continue to commit such crimes while awaiting justice. Oliver Sells KC said:
“Speedy justice is much more effective than slow justice.”––[Official Report, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2025; c. 20, Q29.]
A number of our witnesses seemed to share the perspective that delays to justice could come at a great cost. Does the Minister agree that, should the change lead to lengthy delays in justice, it could be counterproductive? Will she commit to reviewing the impact of the measure after a given time?
The change seems to be based entirely on a misperception that action is not taken on shoplifting of goods under £200 in value. The Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill confirms that the vast majority of shoplifting offences charged—in fact, 90%—are for goods under £200 in value. Matthew Barber, police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley, has submitted written evidence to the Committee on specifically this issue, in which he states:
“The current legislation means that in most circumstances theft below £200 will be dealt with at Magistrates Court. The idea that below £200 the police do not investigate or prosecute, let alone the courts convict, has been described as an urban myth. It is actually a clear message that has been promoted by the Home Secretary herself, despite evidence to the contrary. Many cases of shoplifting below £200 will be investigated by the police, arrests made and charges brought. Magistrates can convict and sentence for these offences and they do. Within current guidance there are also provisions that allow a case to be referred to the CPS for prosecution in the Crown Courts. This helps to deal with prolific offenders in particular.
So what is the problem that the Government is seeking to solve? If it is one of perception, then surely that is a perception in large part of their own making. At the time the changes were brought in it was estimated that it would remove approximately 50,000 cases from the CPS and Crown Courts. I do not know if the Home Office or the Ministry of Justice have made an assessment of the expected increase in cases going to the higher courts, but with the passage of time, increased reporting, and better policing of this crime it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that this proposed legislation could put 100,000 additional cases into an already overheated Crown Court system. In the majority of those cases I would hazard that offenders are likely to receive sentences that could have been delivered more swiftly and cost effectively by magistrates.
I am not suggesting that the proposed law will directly hinder the police in their work or directly lead to worse outcomes, however I can see no likely benefit to come from additional cost and delays being introduced to the system.”
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Keir Mather.)
Crime and Policing Bill (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 3rd April 2025
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 April 2025 - (3 Apr 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
New clause 25—Requirements in certain sentences imposed for third or subsequent shoplifting offence—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In section 208 (community order: exercise of power to impose particular requirements), in subsections (3) and (6) after ‘subsection (10)’ insert ‘and sections 208A’.
(3) After that section insert—
‘208A Community order: requirements for third or subsequent shoplifting offence
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person is convicted of adult shoplifting (“the index offence”),
(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting or an equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence, and
(c) the court makes a community order in respect of the index offence.
(2) The community order must, subject to subsection (3), include at least one of the following requirements—
(a) a curfew requirement;
(b) an exclusion requirement;
(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—
(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—
(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and
(ii) justify the court not including any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or
(b) neither of the following requirements could be included in the order—
(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;
(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.
(4) In subsection (1)(b), the reference to an occasion on which an offender was sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting does not include an occasion if—
(a) each conviction for adult shoplifting for which the offender was dealt with on that occasion has been quashed, or
(b) the offender was re-sentenced for adult shoplifting (and was not otherwise dealt with for adult shoplifting) on that occasion.
(5) In this section—
“adult shoplifting” means an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 committed by a person aged 18 or over in circumstances where—
(a) the stolen goods were being offered for sale in a shop or any other premises, stall, vehicle or place from which a trade or business was carried on, and
(b) at the time of the offence, the offender was, or was purporting to be, a customer or potential customer of the person offering the goods for sale;
“equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence” means—
(a) in Scotland, theft committed by a person aged 18 or over in the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of “adult shoplifting”, or
(b) in Northern Ireland, an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 committed by a person aged 18 or over in those circumstances.
(6) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be included in a community order if it could not otherwise be so included.
(7) Where—
(a) in a case to which this section applies, a court makes a community order which includes a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2),
(b) a previous conviction of the offender is subsequently set aside on appeal, and
(c) without the previous conviction this section would not have applied,
notice of appeal against the sentence may be given at any time within 28 days from the day on which the previous conviction was set aside (despite anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).’
(4) After section 292 insert—
‘292A Suspended sentence order: community requirements for third or subsequent shoplifting offence
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person is convicted of adult shoplifting (“the index offence”),
(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting or an equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence, and
(c) the court makes a suspended sentence order in respect of the index offence.
(2) The suspended sentence order must, subject to subsection (3), impose at least one of the following requirements—
(a) a curfew requirement;
(b) an exclusion requirement;
(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—
(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—
(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and
(ii) justify the court not imposing on the offender any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or
(b) neither of the following requirements could be imposed on the offender—
(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;
(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.
(4) Section 208A(4) (occasions to be disregarded) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(b).
(5) In this section “adult shoplifting” and “equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence” have the meaning given by section 208A.
(6) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be imposed by a suspended sentence order if it could not otherwise be so imposed.
(7) Where—
(a) in a case to which this section applies, a court makes a suspended sentence order which imposes a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2),
(b) a previous conviction of the offender is subsequently set aside on appeal, and
(c) without the previous conviction this section would not have applied,
notice of appeal against the sentence may be given at any time within 28 days from the day on which the previous conviction was set aside (despite anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).’”
This new clause imposes a duty (subject to certain exceptions) to impose a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement or an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement on certain persons convicted of shoplifting, where the offender is given a community sentence or suspended sentence order.
I remind hon. Members of the usual rules: no hot drinks in the Committee Room, please, and phones off. You may take your jackets off if you wish.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. In the majority of these cases, I would hazard a guess that offenders are likely to receive sentences that could have been delivered more swiftly and cost-effectively by magistrates. I am not suggesting that the proposed law will directly hinder the police in their work, or directly lead to worse outcomes; however, I can see no likely benefit to come from additional costs and additional delays being introduced to the system.
Shoplifting cases below £200 can be—and are—dealt with effectively by the police. If that is not case in some areas, it should be a matter for operational improvement, not new legislation. Does the Minister know a single police force in the country that has a policy of not pursuing shoplifters for products under £200 in value? Also, do the Government believe that trying crimes under £200 as summary offences, or in the magistrates court, meant that they were effectively decriminalised? If so, why is the offence of assaulting a retail worker a summary-only offence?
I am sure we can play the politics of the backlog in the Crown court and have a long discussion about the cause and effect. I know that Government Members appreciated my brevity this morning, so I am keen to focus on the important measures in the Bill. The backlogs are real, and making them worse will have real consequences. At the end of September 2024, the backlog stood at an unprecedented high of 73,105 open cases. The Public Accounts Committee report examined that issue, with the Ministry of Justice acknowledging that
“unless action is taken, the backlog will continue to increase for the foreseeable future, even with the courts system working at maximum capacity.”
During oral evidence, there were significant discussions about the impact of clause 16, particularly on the Crown court. Oliver Sells spoke about the clause during the evidence session and he stated:
“I recognise that there is a great public anxiety about this particular issue. Shoplifting has become endemic and almost non-criminal at the same time. It is a curious dichotomy, it seems to me, but I do not think for a moment—I am sorry to be critical—that making theft from a shop, irrespective of value, triable either way is the right answer. What that will do, inevitably, is push some of these cases up into the Crown court from the magistrates court.
I understand the reasons behind it and the concerns of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the like. However, I think it is the wrong way. One of the things we must do now in this country is reinforce the use and the range of magistrates courts, and bring them back to deal with serious low-level crimes that are very frequent in their areas. They know how to deal with them. They need the powers to deal with them. I still do not think their range of powers is strong enough. You need to take cases such as these out of the Crown court, in my judgment. I think it is a serious mistake. I can see why people want to do it”––[Official Report, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2025; c. 17, Q25.]
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
At the evidence session last Thursday, the witnesses that we spoke to about this issue said that the magistrates court was the most appropriate place for these cases to be heard. Given they are the people who know the system best, we should certainly take that evidence onboard.
Matt Vickers
I think the measure probably comes from a very good place, if the Government really believe that police forces are not taking the action that they should on the theft of goods whose value is under £200, which people have described as being decriminalised. I do not think there is any evidence for that actually being the case, because 90% of such charges relate to goods under the value of £200. All police forces in the country, as far as I understand, have a policy of still going after people, even if the value of the goods is under £200. I do not know that this clause will solve the problem, but it could well create a problem in pushing so much to the Crown court.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I understand the point that the shadow Minister is making, which is supported by the shadow Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan. However, is the point not that this perception does exist? Whether it is true in reality, the perception of this decriminalisation is powerful in and of itself. Is the Government’s move here not to remove that perception, and is that not desirable?
Matt Vickers
It is good to get rid of the perception, but it is all about the real-world consequences. As it stands, if there is such a perception, we need to smash it. People need to know that 90% of such charges relate to goods under the value of £200; it needs to be pushed out that this is a thing. When we look at retail crime overall, the biggest problem, which we tried to solve with our amendment to clause 15, is not only changing perceptions but ensuring that police forces realise that retail crime has huge consequences and needs to be prioritised. That is the fundamental problem, so it is about ensuring that the priorities are right. I do not think that changing the legislation in this space will solve that problem.
I want to go back to Oliver Sells, because I think he is a fascinating guy. He said:
“I think it is a serious mistake. I can see why people want to do it, because they want to signify that an offence is a very important in relation to shop workers. I recognise that; I have tried many cases of assaults on shop workers and the like, which come up to the Crown court on appeal, and we all know the difficulties they cause, but you will not solve the problem.”––[Official Report, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2025; c. 17, Q25.]
Sir Robert Buckland, the former Lord Chancellor, added:
“First of all, just to build on Mr Sells’s point on clause 16, I understand the huge concern about shoplifting and the perception among many shop proprietors in our towns and cities that, in some ways, it was almost becoming decriminalised and that action has to be taken. But the danger in changing primary legislation in this way is that we send mixed messages, and that the Government are sending mixed messages about what its policy intentions are.
Sir Brian Leveson is conducting an independent review into criminal procedure. We do not know yet what the first part of that review will produce, but I would be very surprised if there was not at least some nod to the need to keep cases out of the Crown court, bearing in mind the very dramatic and increasing backlog that we have. I think that anything that ran contrary to that view risks the Government looking as if it is really a house divided against itself.
It seems to me that there was a simpler way of doing this. When the law was changed back in 2014, there was an accompanying policy guideline document that allowed for the police to conduct their own prosecutions for shoplifting items with a value of under £200, if the offender had not done it before, if there were not other offences linked with it, if there was not a combined amount that took it over £200 and if there was a guilty plea.
What seems to have happened in the ensuing years is that that has built and developed, frankly, into a culture that has moved away from the use of prosecuting as a tool in its entirety. I think that that is wrong, but I do think that it is within the gift of Ministers in the Home Office and of officials in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to say, ‘That guidance is superseded. We hope, want and expect all offences to be prosecuted.’ That would then allow offences of under £200 to be prosecuted in the magistrates court. There is nothing in the current legislation that prevents any of that, by the way, and I think it would send a very clear message to the police that they are expected to do far more when it comes to the protection of retail premises.”––[Official Report, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2025; c. 18, Q26.]
The economic note for the legislation estimates that repealing the existing provision will result in approximately 2,100 additional Crown court cases in the first instance. It further states that, in the low scenario, cases entering the Crown court will not see an increase in average prison sentence length. In the high scenario, it assumes that these cases will now receive the average Crown court prison sentence, leading to an increase of 2.5 months per conviction. The central estimate falls between those extremes at 1.3 months, based on the assumption that cases involving theft under £200 are unlikely to receive the same sentences as those over £200.
That is reflected in a relatively wide range of possible prison sentences between the low and high estimates. What level of confidence can the Minister therefore provide on the number of people who will end up in prison, or end up in prison for longer, as a result of this move to the Crown court? Given that evidence, does this move, which appears to have a limited effect or outcome, outweigh the risk of prolonging the time it takes for victims to get justice, in the Minister’s view?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Let me address some of the points made by the shadow Minister, specifically on perception. There is a misconception that the threshold is used by police forces to determine whether to respond to reports of shoplifting, and that is simply not true. Police forces across England and Wales have committed to follow up on any evidence that could reasonably lead to catching a perpetrator, and that includes shoplifting; however, as we have heard, the measure has impacted the perception of shop theft among retailers, and would-be perpetrators who believe that low-value shoplifting will go unpunished and that the offence is not being taken seriously. The clause will send a clear message to those planning to commit shop theft of goods worth any amount that this crime will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate punishment.
Let me turn to the impact on our courts. It was quite heartening to finally hear the Opposition mention their concern about the impact on our Crown court backlogs, given how we got there in the first place. The Government recognise that the courts are under unprecedented pressure, and we have debated why that is on separate occasions; however, we do not anticipate that the measure will add to that impact. The vast majority of shop theft cases are currently dealt with swiftly in the magistrates court, and we do not expect that to change as a result of implementing the measure. Even with the current £200 threshold in place, defendants can elect for trial in the Crown court, but they do so infrequently. Removing the threshold and changing low-value shop theft to an either-way offence will not impact election rights, and is therefore unlikely to result in increased trials in the Crown court.
Separately, as the shadow Minister noted, in recognition of the courts being under unprecedented pressure due to the inheritance we received from the Tory Government, we have commissioned an independent review of the criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson. It will recommend options for ambitious reform to deliver a more efficient criminal court system and improved timeliness for victims, witnesses and defendants, without jeopardising the requirement for a fair trial for all involved.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I want to understand the logic of what the Minister is saying. She seems to be saying that the change to allow cases to be heard in the Crown court will be a deterrent, but she does not envisage an increase in cases being heard in the Crown court. Is she aware—I am sure she is—that it is up to the defendant to elect where their case is heard, and that the conviction rate is actually lower in the Crown court? I am concerned about the unintended consequences that more cases could be heard in the Crown court, which is more expensive, and involves a judge and a jury, for stealing perhaps a bottle of wine. It is quite extraordinary.
Alex Davies-Jones
I recognise the hon. Member’s concerns; he has pre-empted my next point. To confirm, it is already currently an electable either-way offence and the vast majority of cases are tried in the magistrates court, but I will come to the modelling and the percentages right now.
Based on current data from the magistrates courts, an average of 5% of individuals in the last three years charged with shop theft—of any value—proceed to trial or are committed for sentencing in the Crown court. Around 88% of shop theft cases involved goods valued at £200 or less. For cases of theft over £200, approximately 40% of cases went to the Crown court. We have modelled a low, central and high scenario within the published economic note on this measure. The low scenario assumes that 1% of charges for shop theft under £200 would proceed to the Crown court, with the central and high scenarios assuming 8% and 14% respectively. It is also important to note that we have expanded the sentencing powers of the magistrates court and extended sitting time in the Crown court to reduce the backlog. The increased sentencing powers in magistrates courts have freed up the extent of 2,000 further sitting days in Crown courts to enable them to be used for the most serious cases, which is what they are they for.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will not give way because I am conscious of time.
Let me turn to the final point on the impact on prison places, because the shadow Minister also raised concerns about that. Again, it is important to note that the Opposition are now raising concerns about the impact on our prisons after the inheritance we received from them. Prisons almost ran out of places last summer, which was a complete dereliction of duty and responsibility; they ran the prison system to the point of our entire criminal justice system collapsing. We, as a Government, have taken action to address that, and have carefully assessed how the change can be managed to ensure that we do not place further pressure on our prisons. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Just before we proceed, I am conscious that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East stood up, very late. I cannot make an exception, though he is pretty new here. When the Chair has called the Minister to wind up, there are then no further speeches. Prior to that, Members may intervene as often as they like. I am afraid we do have to stick by the rules.
Clause 17
Child criminal exploitation
Harriet Cross
Amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), seeks to increase the increase the penalty on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life. That would bring the punishment for child criminal exploitation in line with the maximum sentences for crimes such as murder, hostage taking, armed robbery, or possession of a class A drug with intent to supply. Life imprisonment is typically reserved for the most serious crimes, where society wishes to ensure public safety, deliver justice for victims and sufficiently punish perpetrators. Amendment 1 seems a reasonable amendment considering the devastating impact that CCE has on individual children, communities and crime levels across the UK.
Child criminal exploitation is a coward’s crime committed by those willing to engage in criminal activities such as drug and weapon dealing yet unprepared to get their own hands dirty. They instead prefer to put children, often very vulnerable and impressionable ones, in harm’s way, exposing them to crime and in many cases sentencing them to a life of crime. The impact on these children is multifaceted, up to and including their own death. Of course, consideration is needed of the impact of life imprisonment on prison places and resources, but it is vital where there is a need to, first, properly punish and, secondly, deter perpetrators of child criminal exploitation with a sentence commensurate to the scale of the crime.
Matt Vickers
This amendment would significantly increase the maximum penalty for offences outlined in clause 17 by removing the existing penalties in subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b) and replacing them with stricter sentencing provisions. The amendment would introduce life imprisonment as the maximum penalty for those convicted on indictment in the Crown court, while maintaining the ability of the magistrates court to impose a sentence up to the general limit, a fine, or both for summary convictions.
The effect of the amendment would be to significantly strengthen the legal consequences for those found guilty of child criminal exploitation, the worst of the worst offences. By allowing for life imprisonment, the amendment underscores the grave nature of these offences, bringing them in line with other serious criminal acts that warrant the highest level of sentencing. Punitive measures play a crucial role in both deterring criminal behaviour and ensuring the protection of society, particularly when dealing with serious offences, such as child criminal exploitation. Strong sentencing frameworks serve as a clear warning that such crimes will not be tolerated, dissuading potential offenders from engaging in illegal activities due to the fear of severe consequences. By imposing harsh penalties, including lengthy prison sentences, the justice system sends an unambiguous message: those who exploit, coerce or harm others, especially vulnerable individuals such as children, will face the full force of the law.
The amendment would act as a preventive mechanism, discouraging not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activity but those who may be considering engaging in similar offences. Punitive measures are essential for protecting victims and the wider public. By ensuring that offenders face substantial consequences, the justice system helps to incapacitate dangerous individuals, preventing them from reoffending and reducing the risk to others. That is particularly important in cases where offenders pose a long-term threat, such as organised criminal networks involved in child exploitation.
Furthermore, the retention of the magistrates court’s ability to impose a lesser penalty ensures there is proportionality in sentencing, allowing for differentiation between varying levels of criminal involvement. This approach ensures that although the most serious offenders may face life imprisonment, lesser offenders are still subject to significant penalties without overburdening the Crown court system. Ultimately, the amendment seeks to deliver a strong message of deterrence, making it clear that child criminal exploitation will not be tolerated and that those who commit such offences will face the harshest legal consequences available under UK law.
Joe Robertson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Speaking to the last clause we debated, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice talked about the deterrent value of making the offence triable either way. A significant part of the amendment is about the deterrent value of the length of prison sentence available for someone convicted of child criminal exploitation—a horrendous crime. The adult involved uses and exploits the child, and also exploits the way the police operate by putting the criminal activity in the child’s hands. Time and again, the criminals use this as a way to avoid arrests for moving drugs around the countryside or a town, because they believe the police will not arrest a child who is perpetrating the criminal activity because they are being instructed to do so. This activity has increased in recent years—so far it has not been a criminal offence—and helps the movement of drugs. Not only does it have an impact on the children involved, but it means that drug use and drug dealing proliferates in hotspots and more generally. It can also include the movement of offensive weapons, which is another area where activity in certain hotspots has got worse.
If the new provision, which I support, is to have the added desired weight and deterrent effect to stop people engaging in child criminal exploitation, it needs the amendment that the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East tabled to increase the length of sentencing. Only then will the police feel emboldened to go after those horrendous criminals who exploit children. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment, which would have the biggest possible deterrent effect, and use the arguments of her hon. Friend to ensure that the provisions are as strong as possible.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
Good afternoon, Sir Roger. Looking at amendment 1 before we go on to discuss clause stand part—
Dame Diana Johnson
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. 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. 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.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Chair
Order. Let me explain the situation. The amendment has been moved on behalf of a Member who is not present. Once it is moved, it becomes the property of the Committee. The mover of the amendment has indicated that she does not wish to press it. My Question to the Committee therefore has to be the following: is it your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
The Chair
Order. That Question was not divisible, so the moment anybody objects, I have to put the substantive Question to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
This is an unusual situation, but for future guidance, Ms Platt, you would be on safer ground if, under those rather bizarre circumstances, you abstained. It would not have affected the outcome of the Division—but we are where we are.
Dame Diana Johnson
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.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 8—Definition of Child Exploitation—
“(1) For the purposes of this Act, ‘child exploitation’ means any act, recruitment, or conduct by a person (A) aged over 18 involving a person (B) under the age of 18 that—
(a) takes advantage of the child (person (B)) for financial, sexual, labour, or other personal gain; and
(b) causes, or is likely to cause, physical, psychological, emotional, or economic harm to the child (person (B));
(2) Child exploitation includes, but is not limited to—
(a) Sexual Exploitation: The involvement of a child in sexual activities for gain;
(b) Labour Exploitation: The recruitment of a child into any form of work that is hazardous or interferes with their education and development;
(c) Criminal Exploitation: The use of a child to commit or facilitate criminal activities; and
(d) Economic Exploitation: The use of a child’s labour, image, or creative work for commercial gain without appropriate compensation or safeguards, including online influencer exploitation, or child performers being denied legal protections;
(3) A child (person (B)) is deemed unable to provide valid consent to any act constituting exploitation under this section.”
Dame Diana Johnson
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.
Harriet Cross
Clause 17 creates a new stand-alone offence to prosecute adults committing child criminal exploitation, to prevent exploitative conduct committed by adults against children from occurring or re-occurring. Child criminal exploitation is a heinous crime targeting young, vulnerable and impressionable children in a range of ways, which too often leads to the child being criminalised, endangered, injured or even killed.
The 2018 serious violence strategy defined child criminal exploitation as occurring where
“an individual or group takes advantage of an imbalance of power to coerce, control, manipulate or deceive a child or young person under the age of 18… The victim may have been criminally exploited even if the activity appears consensual. Child Criminal Exploitation does not always involve physical contact; it can also occur through the use of technology.”
As per that definition, the criminal exploitation of children often sees them coerced, compelled, groomed or forced to take part in the supply of drugs and transportation of the associated money and weapons for the perpetrator. In England, the latest children in need census data for assessments in the year ending 31 March 2024 recorded 15,750 episodes in which child criminal exploitation was identified as a concern. There were 10,180 episodes in which children being part of a street or organised crime gang was identified as being a concern.
Perhaps the example of child criminal exploitation that is referred to most frequently involves county line gangs. County lines is a risky, violent and exploitative form of contraband distribution, largely and mainly of drugs. County lines commonly uses children, young people or even vulnerable adults, who are perceived as being either indebted to or misled by those running the operation. They are instructed to deliver and/or store drugs, weapons, and money for dealers or users locally, across established county lines, or on to anywhere that can be considered as “not their turf”.
Police data published by the National County Lines Co-ordination Centre in its county lines strategic threat risk assessment showed that 22%—more than one in five—of individuals involved in county lines in 2023-24 were children, which is equivalent to 2,888 children. The risk assessment also found that most children involved in county lines are aged 15 to 17, and that they are mainly recorded as undertaking the most dangerous runner or workforce roles in the drugs supply chain and linked to exploitation. However, such exploitation can be difficult to identify, so we welcome any move to crack down on child criminal exploitation, shine a light on this crime, and better equip those working on the frontline to identify, tackle and prevent more children from being exploited for criminal intent.
Clause 17 makes it an offence for anyone over the age of 18 to engage
“in conduct towards or in respect of a child, with the intention of causing the child to engage in criminal conduct”,
or where the child is under 13 or where the perpetrator
“does not reasonably believe that the child is aged 18 or over.”
A person who commits an offence will be tried with child criminal exploitation being an either-way offence and will be liable for an imprisonment or a fine, or both.
I ask the Minister to reflect on the suitability of using the age of 13 and under. Why was that age chosen, rather than an older age—say, 15 or 16? What discussions has she had with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly in the light of the fact that CCE—especially county lines—does not recognise or care about internal land or maritime borders?
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. As we have heard from both sides of the Committee, child criminal exploitation is one of the most appalling forms of abuse, in which children are manipulated or coerced into engaging in criminal activity, often by criminal gangs. Victims are frequently subjected to violence, threats and intimidation, leaving them vulnerable to long-term harm. The impact is devastating, and indeed, robs them of their safety and reduces their life chances.
As has been said, clause 17 specifically targets adults who exploit children for criminal activities. It ensures that if a child is manipulated into criminal acts—or even consents to such acts—the responsible adult can still be held criminally accountable. I am pleased that the clause is included within the Bill. It is not just another provision but a decisive measure that will significantly strengthen the ability of our police forces to tackle the grave issue of adult exploitation of children in criminal contexts.
The clause aligns with the broader aims of the Bill, which focuses on addressing the intent behind criminal activity—an essential step in ensuring that those with malicious intent cannot evade justice. The Government’s commitment to closing loopholes that have, for far too long, allowed individuals to evade justice is commendable. We have witnessed far too many cases where the exploitation of children has gone unchallenged, simply because the law has not been robust enough to confront it directly. With this clause, we are making it clear that any adult seeking to exploit children for criminal purposes will face the full force of the law.
The provision represents a significant step forward, not only in terms of the legal framework, but in our ongoing efforts to protect young people from exploitation. It is a win for justice, a win for vulnerable children and a win for the nation, as we take a stronger stance against those who would harm our future generations. Furthermore, we are providing a path to redress for victims. I have said before in this place that prevention is always better than detection, but those children who have already been subjected to this horrific exploitation will now have the opportunity to see justice, too.
Clause 17 marks a crucial turning point in our fight to protect children from exploitation. It holds offenders accountable, provides a framework for justice, and sets the stage for a more comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to safeguarding young people. This is a significant step towards the protection of our children, and one that we should all support.
Matt Vickers
I join the Minister in thanking and congratulating those who have campaigned to deliver this important change. Clause 17 rightly introduces a new criminal offence targeting adults who exploit children by coercing or encouraging them to engage in criminal activities. It is designed to address the growing problem of gangs, drug networks and other criminal groups using children to carry out illegal acts such as drug trafficking, theft or violence.
Child criminal exploitation is a scourge on our society —one that ruins lives, fuels violence and allows dangerous criminals to operate in the shadows, free from consequence. For too long, gangs and organised crime groups have preyed on the most vulnerable in our communities, grooming children, exploiting them and coercing them into a life of crime. These criminals do not see children as young people with futures; they see them as disposable assets, easily manipulated, easily threatened, and, in their eyes, easily replaced.
This exploitation is frequently linked to county lines drug trafficking, where children are exploited and coerced into transporting drugs across different regions. According to the Home Office, a key characteristic of county lines operations is
“the exploitation of children, young people and vulnerable adults,”
who are directed to transport, store or safeguard drugs, money or weapons for dealers or users, both locally and across the country.
Child exploitation is linked to a broad range of criminal activities, from local street gangs operating on a postcode basis to highly sophisticated organised crime groups with cross-border operations. The UK Government’s serious and organised crime strategy estimates that organised crime, including county lines drug networks, costs the country £47 billion annually. A single county line can generate as much as £800,000 in revenue each year.
Under the previous Conservative Government, the Home Office launched the county lines programme in 2019 to tackle the harmful drug supply model, which devastates lives through exploitation, coercion and violence. County lines gangs often target the most vulnerable people, manipulating and coercing them into debt and forcing them to transport and sell drugs. A key part of the county lines programme lies in victim support, to ensure that young people and their families have the support they need as they escape the gangs. More than 2,000 county lines were dismantled between June 2022 and December 2023, as the Government hit their target of closing thousands of those criminal networks early.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
When thousands of county lines were being shut down, can the hon. Member tell me how many people in the same period were sentenced for the modern slavery crimes that they should have been in the closure of all those lines? In fact, was anybody?
Matt Vickers
The Minister would have a better chance of knowing that than even me. But I will tell her what: one case is one too many, and that is why I am glad to see the Bill, which will bring forward measures to tackle just that.
Between April 2022 and September 2023, more than 4,000 arrests were made, while 4,800 vulnerable people caught up in those vile operations were offered support to turn their lives around. Between April and September 2023, over 700 lines were dismantled, 1,300 arrests made and 1,600 victims were supported.
I would like to mention a story that was included in the Home Office’s press release on the work, which I found inspiring. Liam, not his real name, turned his back on county lines criminality due to Catch22’s work. Liam was referred to Catch22 by social services after a raid at his home found his mother and brother in possession of class A and class B drugs, alongside £3,000 in cash. A subsequent raid found 11 bags of cannabis and weapons. Care workers were concerned that Liam was going down the same path as his family, and referred him to Catch22 for support. Liam was resistant to support at first, but the people at Catch22 were able to build a relationship with him and help him to understand the dangers of getting involved in county lines and drug use, and how to recognise and avoid criminal exploitation.
Liam never missed a session with Catch22, and his attendance and performance at college subsequently improved. He has now moved on to a construction college, knowing that support is there if he is struggling. Liam is just one of hundreds of young people who, since 2022, have been supported by Home Office-funded victim support services, which ensure that vulnerable, hard-to-reach people can, with support, make different choices and turn their backs on a life of criminality.
Action for Children warns that the crisis of child exploitation is worsening, while the absence of a legal definition means that there is no unified data collection across the UK. The available evidence highlights the scale of the issue. In 2023, the national referral mechanism, which identifies potential victims of modern slavery and criminal exploitation, received 7,432 child-related referrals, an increase of 45% since 2021. Criminal exploitation was the most common reason for referral—there were 3,123 cases, with more than 40% linked to county lines activity.
Additionally, between April 2022 and March 2023, 14,420 child in need assessments in England identified criminal exploitation as a risk, up from 10,140 the previous year. Children as young as 11 or 12 years old are being recruited by gangs, forced to transport drugs across the country, and coerced into shoplifting, robbery and even serious violent offences. These children are often threatened, beaten and blackmailed into compliance. Once they are caught in the system, it is incredibly difficult for them to escape. The clause says it is child criminal exploitation if
“the person engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child, with the intention of causing the child to engage in criminal conduct (at any time), and
(b) either—
(i) the child is under the age of 13”.
Can the Minister explain why there is a cut-off at the age of 13?
Jess Phillips
I want to reassure the hon. Member on the delay, which has been halved since its peak in 2022, since this Government came to office.
Matt Vickers
I welcome any progress that the Minister might make in that space, and I look forward to her doing even more with the measures that we are putting through today.
Matt Vickers
Well, okay, we are not—I take your word for it.
The review also highlighted that, in Scotland, the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 requires the Lord Advocate to issue instructions that prosecutors should have a presumption against the prosecution of exploited children. However, that addresses only criminal offences linked to exploitation and does not offer protection at an earlier stage.
We welcome that the Bill makes it absolutely clear that adults who encourage or coerce a child into criminal activity will face serious consequences. They will no longer be able to hide behind children, using them as pawns while evading justice themselves.
The Jay review was also clear that the current approach is far too lenient on exploiters. The number of prosecutions in England and Wales under the Modern Slavery Act remain strikingly low. Only 47 prosecutions were brought under that Act between January and June 2023, resulting in just 24 convictions. That stands in stark contrast to the scale of enforcement activity under the county lines programme, which has led to the arrest of 15,623 adults and children in England and Wales since 2019.
A similar trend is evident in Scotland: between 2020-21 and 2022-23, 116 individuals reported to the Crown court for offences under the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act. Of those, 92 cases were escalated to petition or indictment, while only two were prosecuted on summary complaint. In the first half of 2023, 24 individuals were reported for offences under the Act, with 13 of those cases proceeding to petition or indictment.
Those figures highlight a significant gap between the scale of child exploitation-related crime and the relatively low number of prosecutions and convictions. While thousands of individuals have been arrested in connection with county lines activity, very few cases progress to successful prosecution under modern slavery legislation. That suggests a need for stronger enforcement mechanisms, improved evidence gathering and greater legal support to bring more offenders to justice.
The Minister will no doubt be aware that both Catch22 and Action for Children, two leading organisations in youth support and child protection, have welcomed the measures set out in this chapter. They recognise the importance of tackling child criminal exploitation and holding those responsible to account. However, both organisations have emphasised that legislative action alone is not enough and have called on the Government to go further by introducing a comprehensive national strategy to address child criminal exploitation.
Paul Carberry, the chief executive of Action for Children, said that Action for Children
“strongly welcome both the new offence of criminally exploiting children and the new prevention orders in today’s Crime and Policing Bill, which we called for in our Jay Review last year.
These measures will help to protect children across the country who are being preyed upon by criminals and put in danger. But we need to go further. The government’s proposals will only protect children who have already been exploited.
That’s why we need a comprehensive national strategy that ensures that children at risk of criminal exploitation are identified and safeguarded at the earliest opportunity.”
Members will have read the written evidence submitted by Every Child Protected Against Trafficking, a leading children’s rights organisation working to ensure that children can enjoy their rights to protection from trafficking and transnational child sexual exploitation. It campaigns for and supports children everywhere to uphold their rights to live free from abuse and exploitation through an integrated model involving research, policy, training and direct practice. Its vision is to ensure that:
“Children everywhere are free from exploitation, trafficking and modern slavery”.
In regard to clause 17, Every Child Protected Against Trafficking said:
“We welcome the introduction of a specific offence of Child Criminal Exploitation (CCE) and the Government’s commitment to tackling this serious child protection issue. Recognising CCE in law is a vital step towards improving protection for children and ensuring that those who exploit children for criminal gain are held to account. However, more remains to be done to ensure that this legislation is as effective as possible. To strengthen this legislation, we call for sentencing parity with the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the introduction of a clear statutory definition of child exploitation, ensuring a unified and robust approach to tackling this abuse.”
What are the Minister’s thoughts on whether the measures set out by Action for Children would be a good step to achieving that? What further steps might she consider? A national strategy could provide a cohesive, long-term framework for tackling the root causes of exploitation, ensuring that law enforcement, social services, education providers and community organisations work together to protect vulnerable children. It would focus on not just prosecution but prevention, early intervention and victim support, ensuring that children caught up in criminal exploitation receive the help they need to escape and rebuild their lives. Has the Minister given serious consideration to those proposals?
Turning to clause 17, any adult who deliberately causes, encourages or manipulates a child into committing a crime, whether through grooming, coercion, threats or exploitation, will face severe legal consequences, including a prison sentence of up to 10 years. This provision aims to crack down on those who prey on vulnerable children, by using them to carry out criminal activities, while evading direct involvement themselves.
Tougher sentences are essential to deterring crime, ensuring justice for victims and reinforcing public confidence in the legal system. When penalties are lenient, criminals may feel emboldened because they believe that the risk of punishment is minimal compared with the potential gains of their illicit activities. A strong sentencing framework sends a clear message that crime will not be tolerated and that those who break the law will face severe consequences.
This is particularly crucial in cases of serious offences, such as child exploitation, drug trafficking and violent crime, where the harm caused to victims and communities is profound and long lasting. Studies have shown that the certainty and severity of punishment play a significant role in influencing criminal behaviour: individuals are less likely to engage in unlawful acts if they know that they will face lengthy prison sentences or substantial financial penalties.
Additionally, tougher sentences serve as a crucial tool for incapacitation, by preventing repeat offenders from causing further harm. For example, in the context of organised crime, longer prison terms disrupt criminal networks and limit their ability to recruit new victims. Beyond deterrence and public safety, stricter sentencing also upholds the principles of justice by ensuring that punishment is proportionate to the severity of the offence. It provides closure to victims and reassures society that the law is being enforced effectively.
Although rehabilitation remains an important component of the criminal justice system, it must be balanced with punitive measures that deter crime and protect the most vulnerable, particularly children, who are often targeted for exploitation. Strengthening sentencing laws is not just about punishment; it is about preventing crime, protecting communities and ensuring that justice is delivered with the seriousness it demands.
But do not just take my word for it. The written evidence submitted by Every Child Protected Against Trafficking raises a key concern about
“the disparity in sentencing between offences prosecuted under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and those brought under the proposed CCE offence, which risks undermining the severity of this form of exploitation. The proposed sentencing for Child Criminal Exploitation is 10 years, shorter than the penalties under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 which are life imprisonment, creating a perverse incentive where those who exploit children for criminality may face a lesser sentence than those prosecuted under modern slavery legislation. This undermines the severity of the offence and risks weakening deterrence against those that systematically exploit children.”
What assessment has been made of the Bill’s potential deterrent effect? Does the Minister believe that the 10-year maximum sentence is sufficient to dissuade criminal networks from exploiting children?
Every Child Protected Against Trafficking also states:
“Enforcement of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, as noted by the Home Affairs Committee 2023 report on Human Trafficking, ‘remains woefully inadequate’, with worryingly low levels of law enforcement responses to them in comparison to the number of children who are exploited”.
It also highlights that, as we have already discussed, child trafficking
“remains a low-risk, high-profit crime, and the persistently low prosecution and conviction rates for child trafficking and exploitation offences do not converge with the high numbers of children being referred into the NRM. Data provided by some police forces to the Insight team of the Modern Slavery and Organised Immigration Crime Unit (MSOIC Unit) showed that in October 2024, police in England and Wales were dealing with at least 2,612 live modern slavery investigations with most of these (59%) primarily involved tackling criminal exploitation. In November, the CPS provided data to the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner on human trafficking flagged offences cross-referenced with child abuse-flagged offences for England and Wales which showed a decrease in prosecutions and convictions between 2021 and 2023. In 2021, there were 32 prosecutions and 23 convictions, this decreased to 19 prosecutions and 15 convictions in 2022. Prosecutions remained the same in 2023 with 13 convictions.”
I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on her confidence in the effectiveness of the measures in clause 17.
Jess Phillips
Does the hon. Member recognise that the reason why this Bill is going on to the statute book is because of the woeful record of criminalising those people? When exactly did his party change its mind on this? Every time I tabled such an amendment, as I did on a number of Bills when the Conservatives were in government, they said “No”.
Matt Vickers
I realise that, in some of these very sensitive areas, some people still want to play politics and talk about the history of one party or another. This is a really serious thing with really serious consequences, particularly in my part of the world, so I will leave the Minister to form her own opinions about the ups and downs of it. I support this, and I am keen to see it progress.
Every Child Protected Against Trafficking said:
“Data provided by some police forces to the Insight team of the Modern Slavery and Organised Immigration Crime Unit…showed that in October 2024, police in England and Wales were dealing with at least 2,612 live modern slavery investigations with most of these (59%) primarily involved tackling criminal exploitation. In November, the CPS provided data to the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner on human trafficking flagged offences cross-referenced with child abuse-flagged offences for England and Wales which showed a decrease in prosecutions and convictions between 2021 and 2023. In 2021, there were 32 prosecutions and 23 convictions, this decreased to 19 prosecutions and 15 convictions in 2022. Prosecutions remained the same in 2023 with 13 convictions.”
As such, I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on her confidence in the effectiveness of the measures set out in clause 17, particularly on the introduction of a distinct offence of child criminal exploitation.
Jess Phillips
On a point of order, Sir Roger. Is there something in Standing Orders about repetition and the length of speeches? I think the shadow Minister, perhaps unintentionally, has read out the same page twice. I am just trying to help him out.
The Chair
Order. I am quite sure the Minister was not suggesting that anybody was out of order, because if they had been out of order, I would have said so.
Matt Vickers
Given the historically low number of prosecutions in this area, does the Minister believe that the new offence will provide the necessary legal framework to improve enforcement, to increase accountability for perpetrators, and to ensure that more cases result in successful prosecutions? Furthermore, what additional steps, if any, does she perceive being necessary to support the implementation of the provision and enhance its impact?
Jack Rankin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise to support clause 17, which creates the new offence of child criminal exploitation. For too long, we have all heard about the scourge of county lines gangs and the harm being done to children. They are usually already the most vulnerable children in society, before being used by adults to undertake and engage in criminal activity. It is right and proper that we make this a separate criminal offence.
Specific guidance, “Criminal exploitation of children and vulnerable adults: county lines,” was published by the Government of the former right hon. Member for Maidenhead. It was primarily aimed at frontline staff in England and Wales who work with children, young people and vulnerable adults—including professionals working in education, health, adult and children’s social care, early help family support, housing, the benefits system, policing, prisons, probation, youth justice, multi-agency partnerships and related partner organisations in, for example, the voluntary sector. It is a long list, but it speaks to the level of complexity involved in crimes of this nature and the continued importance of agencies working together.
Organised crime groups are, by their very nature, well resourced—the clue is in the name. They are organised and often sophisticated in entrapment. While I welcome the new law in clause 17, it is not a fix-all solution. It remains the case that continuing effort is needed across the state and society to spot the signals, and we must work together to bring down the gangs targeting our children. That is just as important as ever.
Exploiting a child into committing crimes is abusive. Children who are targeted may also be groomed, physically abused, emotionally abused, sexually exploited or trafficked. As organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children point out, however, because children involved in gangs often commit crimes themselves, sometimes they are sadly not seen by adults and professionals as victims, despite the significant harm that they have experienced. We make progress on that here today. This legislation seeks to address that issue and recognise it in law, so I wholeheartedly welcome this clause, which will make it an offence for an adult to use a child in this way.
The national statistics are stark. Action for Children’s “Shattered Lives, Stolen Futures”, a review by Alexis Jay of criminally exploited children, highlights the extent of this issue. In 2023, 7,432 children were referred to the national referral mechanism, a framework for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery and criminal exploitation. That represents an increase of 45% since 2021. Over the same period, 14,420 child in need assessments in England recorded criminal exploitation as a risk of harm—an increase from 10,140 in 2022.
Over the five years between April 2018 and March 2023, 568 young people aged 16 to 24 were violently killed in England and Wales, the vast majority of them by being stabbed. Police data published by the national county lines coordination centre in its county lines strategic threat risk assessment showed that 22% of individuals involved in county lines are children, equivalent to 2,888 children in 2023-24. The 2023-24 risk assessment also states that most children involved in county lines are aged just 15 to 17, and they are mainly recorded as being in the most dangerous “runner” or “workforce” roles within the drugs supply chain and linked to exploitation.
Victims may be subject to threats, blackmail and violence. They may be arrested, including for crimes committed by others, under the law of joint enterprise. They often find it hard to leave or cut off ties with those who are exploiting them, and their safety, or that of their friends and family, may be threatened. They are at risk of physical harm, rape and sexual abuse, emotional abuse, severe injury or even being killed, and they are at risk of abusing drugs, alcohol and other substances. That all has a long-term impact on these children’s education and employment options. There is clearly a need to protect children from the imbalance of power exercised by these criminals.
I want to highlight some of the excellent work taking place in my own constituency to prevent children from becoming involved in county lines and criminal exploitation. In 2022, Trevelyan middle school in Windsor carried out some excellent pupil-led work to address the evils of county lines child exploitation. It produced its own hard-hitting film about one child’s journey into slavery and exploitation. The film, titled “Notice Me!”, was made available to schools across the local area as a learning tool to help pupils understand the process, the risks and the realities of county lines operations.
One scene showed how county lines gangs will promise children all kinds of luxuries, only to trap them into failing and place them forever in their debt. Another scene showed the grim reality that for children who find themselves in the world of county lines, it is the gangs themselves that they are most afraid of, not the prospect of arrest. However, the film also has a message of hope. It seeks to educate children and young adults alike about the warning signs that someone might be involved, such as disappearing for stretches of time or coming home with unexplained bruises or odd equipment.
Alongside the film, a scheme of lessons for pupils to study in school included video inputs from a range of partners, as well as both a pupil and a parent guide to county lines. The guides included inputs from many experts in the field, including those working on the frontline and tackling the issue every day. It is, of course, important and welcome that our schools are raising awareness of this important issue and working together to help to prevent children falling prey to criminal gangs, but where prevention fails, I welcome these specific measures. The addition of the child criminal exploitation offence to the list of criminal lifestyle offences in schedule 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is very welcome. The practical effect of the change is that a person found guilty of the new offence will automatically be considered to have a criminal lifestyle, and a confiscation order can be made accordingly under that Act. Ultimately, all their assets will potentially be seen as derived from crime and subject to confiscation, reflecting the serious nature of such offending.
I hope that that will be a significant deterrent to the masterminds of these gangs. In March this year, the British Transport police, working with Thames Valley police and Northamptonshire police, made multiple arrests in a two-day raid on a county lines operation. Three active deal lines were identified and £25,000 in cash was seized, alongside £9,000-worth of class A drugs and 14 kg of cannabis, with a street value of around £210,000. I thank all the officers involved in that successful operation. The values involved in this criminal activity are high, as we have heard throughout the Committee, and such operations are evidence that if resourced properly, police can break the back of the issue. Let deliver justice to victims by charging criminals for related offences, such as child exploitation, that are so common in the drug trade. In seats such as mine in the home counties, the county lines trade continues to pose risks, and I support measures that strengthen the hand of the police in tackling it.
Finally, given the vulnerabilities of who are children affected by child criminal exploitation, and because of the nature of abuse that children may suffer when they are involved in these gangs—I went through some of it earlier—I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill will ensure the victims are automatically eligible for special measures, such as giving pre-recorded evidence, or giving evidence in court from behind a screen, in proceedings relating to the offences. I hope such measures will result in more successful prosecutions of this crime.
Joe Robertson
I, too, support clause 17, which will create an offence of child criminal exploitation. Under this provision, any adult over the age of 18 would commit an offence should they do anything to a child with the intention to cause the child to engage in criminal activity. An offence will be committed where the adult reasonably believes that the child is under 18, but an offence is automatically committed where the child is under 13. An offence under this provision does not require the child to commit any offence; it only requires that the adult intended them to.
One strength of clause 17 is that it does not require the child to go on and commit the offence that the perpetrator intended them to. The criminal activity is the adult engaging with that child with the intention of causing the criminal offence. As the Minister set out clearly when she introduced the clause, it does not matter whether a child goes on to be convicted, because that is a separate offence relating to the adult’s activity.
The second strength in the provision is the explanation of what child criminal exploitation is, and I am not persuaded that new clause 8 improves that. The Bill makes it very clear that the offence is engaging the child
“with the intention of causing the child to engage in criminal conduct”.
Criminal conduct is clearly defined in clause 17(2) as
“conduct which constitutes an offence under the law of England and Wales”.
It is clear and in plain English. There is no ambiguity about the key words: “criminal conduct”, “intention of causing”, “child” and
“the person engages in conduct”.
Dame Diana Johnson
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 19 to 30 stand part.
Schedule 4.
Clause 31 stand part.
Dame Diana Johnson
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.
Harriet Cross
Clause 18 creates a new regime for child criminal exploitation prevention orders. A CCEPO is a new civil order that enables prohibitions or requirements to be imposed by courts on individuals involved in CCE to protect children from harm from criminal exploitation by preventing future offending.
A CCEPO will be obtained via a number of routes, including an order from a magistrates court following an application by a chief officer of the police—including the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police—or the director general of the NCA. An order may also be made by a court—for example, a magistrates court, the Crown court or, in limited cases, the Court of Appeal—on its own volition at the end of criminal proceedings in situations where the defendant has been acquitted of the offence, the court has made a finding that the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity, or the defendant is under a disability such that they are unfit to be tried but has done the act charged.
CCEPOs will be reserved for defendants aged 18 and over where the court is satisfied that they have engaged in CCE. According to subsection (5), for a court to hand down a CCEPO, it must also consider that there is a risk that the defendant will seek to cause children, or any particular children, to engage in criminal conduct. Will the Minister confirm whether a defendant can therefore be given a CCEPO only if it is considered that they will repeat offend—that is, re-engage in CCE—or can a CCEPO be handed down regardless of the potential for or expectation of future offending? Is having previously engaged in CCE enough of an indicator to suggest a risk of future offending?
Clause 19 details what a CCEPO is and what it does and does not do. The nature of any condition imposed is a matter for the court to determine. These conditions could include limiting a defendant’s ability to work with children, contact specific people online or in person, or go to a certain area, as well as requiring them to attend a drug awareness class. The conditions may also require the defendant to comply with a notification order, as detailed in clause 24, which I will address later.
We must be clear that no one can accidentally engage in child criminal exploitation. Those receiving a CCEPO will have knowingly endangered, threatened, misled and vilified children in pursuit of their own criminality, and there will be a risk to the public that they will do so again. These people are ruthless and the full force of the law is needed to prevent future offending.
Subsection (4) states:
“A prohibition or requirement applies throughout the United Kingdom”.
I welcome that, but can the Minister detail how this will be enforced across the devolved nations? If extra resource is required, will it be made available to the devolved nations? What conversations has she had with our devolved Parliaments, Assemblies and police forces about this?
Subsection (7) provides that where a person is made subject to a new CCEPO, any existing CCEPO will cease to exist. We strongly believe that anyone being handed multiple concurrent or successive CCEPOs must be subject to stronger conditions and punishments—otherwise, what is to deter them from reoffending? Will the severity of successive CCEPOs be at the discretion of the court? How does the initial CCEPO lapsing on receipt of the second deliver justice for victims of the initial offence for which a CCEPO was handed down? What is the punishment for breaking the terms of a CCEPO, and how will it be enforced? How long can CCEPOs be handed down for? The Bill prescribes a minimum of two years. What is the escalation should a single defendant receive repeated CCEPOs?
Clause 20 sets out the practical mechanisms for obtaining these new prevention orders. It sensibly restricts the power to apply for a CCEPO to our law enforcement bodies—chiefly, the police and the National Crime Agency. That is appropriate, because decisions to seek an order will rely on police intelligence about who is grooming children into crime, and we would not want just anyone to be able to drag individuals to court without solid evidence. Placing this responsibility with senior officers looks as though it will ensure that applications are vetted by those with the expertise to judge the risk someone poses.
I note that the clause specifically includes British Transport police and MOD police alongside regional forces. That is welcome; exploitation is not confined by geography—for example, gangs use railways to move children along county lines. The British Transport police must be empowered to act if it identifies a predator using the train network to recruit or deploy children. Likewise, the National Crime Agency might come across sophisticated networks exploiting children across multiple force areas. Clause 20 lets those forces and the NCA go to court directly. Crucially, if they do so, they must inform the local police force for the area where the suspect lives, so that there is no gap in knowledge. That co-ordination will be vital, as local officers will likely be the ones monitoring the order on a day-to-day basis.
Joe Robertson
I thank my hon. Friend for her quick canter through the clauses, particularly the provisions on interim orders and without-notice orders. I worry that once someone has an interim order, given some of the court backlogs, it may take some time for them to come back to the court for a full order. Does she share that concern?
Harriet Cross
Of course. In all cases, it is a balance between getting an interim order in place to protect children in the immediate term, and ensuring that we get true justice through the system. It is something that we need more information on, but we also need a balance, and, on balance, the interim orders seem reasonable.
Another point is the serving of the interim order. If the person was not in court when the order was made—for example, if it was made after a without-notice application—it will kick in only once it is served. That is understandable; we cannot expect someone to comply with an order that they do not know about. However, I wonder whether there are provisions to use all reasonable means to serve it quickly, potentially with police involvement to hand it to the person if needed, since a child’s safety could hinge on getting a bit of paper into the right hands.
Interim orders seem to be a sensible procedural tool. They align with how other orders, such as interim injunctions, work, and they will ensure continuity of protection. However, I reiterate that interim measures should not become semi-permanent due to procedural or court delays. The ultimate goal is to get to a full hearing and a long-term solution. Interim orders are the bridge to that, but they need to be a short, sturdy bridge, not a lingering limbo.
Can the Minister address what guidance or expectations will be set to ensure that, where an interim CCEPO is issued, the full hearing occurs as soon as possible? Is there an envisaged maximum duration for an interim order before it is reviewed? Clause 22(3) limits interim orders to prohibitions and the notification requirement. Can the Minister clarify why? Is it primarily because positive requirements, such as attending a course, might be burdensome to enforce in the short term? The explanatory notes mention that an interim order can be varied or discharged, just like a full order. Can the Minister confirm that if circumstances change—for example, if new evidence shows the risk is either higher or lower—the police or subject can apply to adjust the interim order even before the final hearing? Lastly, if an interim order is made in the absence of the defendant, what steps will be taken to ensure that it is served promptly?
Clause 23 empowers courts to consider making a CCEPO at the conclusion of certain criminal proceedings, even if the police have not applied for one. Effectively, it provides for judicial initiative, allowing courts to consider a CCEPO even without a formal application. This is quite a significant provision. It means that, if someone is prosecuted for drug trafficking involving children, for example, and they escape conviction—perhaps the jury was not 100% satisfied or there was a technicality—the court does not have to throw its hands up on the case. It can say that it has heard enough to worry that the person might exploit children, so it will consider a prevention order.
The Chair
Order. It is slightly earlier than I intended, but I am going to suspend the Committee until 5.10 pm, after which we shall suspend every two hours for 15 minutes.
Dame Diana Johnson
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.
Clauses 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.)
Crime and Policing Bill (Seventh sitting)
Tuesday 8th April 2025
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 April 2025 - (8 Apr 2025)
The Chair
We continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. Before we begin, I shall make a few preliminary announcements, which I am sure you are all familiar with by now. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings, other than the water provided. It would be helpful if colleagues could hand over their speaking notes for Hansard by email or by handing them to one of the Clerks in the room.
Clause 32
Controlling another’s home for criminal purposes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 5.
Amendment 5, in clause 33, page 36, line 29, after subsection (5) insert—
“(6) For the purposes of section 33(5)(b), B shall be presumed to lack capacity to give consent if they—
(a) would be deemed to lack capacity under the provisions of Section 2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005; or
(b) are otherwise in circumstances that significantly impair their ability to protect themselves from exploitation, unless the contrary is established.”
Clauses 33 and 34 stand part.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Ms Lewell. It might be helpful to the Committee to hear about amendment 5 before I respond.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Cuckooing is the offence of exercising control over the dwelling of another person to carry out illegal activities. As this legislation is drafted, the person whose dwelling it is has to not have given consent for it to be an offence of cuckooing. Amendment 5 would strengthen protections for vulnerable individuals by modifying clause 33 to clarify when a person is presumed unable to give valid consent in certain situations involving potential exploitation.
Cuckooing is pervasive in our society. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) was in the news discussing a young man with autism who was found dead in his flat after a criminal had moved into his flat and stabbed him. Despite attempting suicide, being a victim of theft, being rescued by the emergency services after accidentally causing a fire, and being assaulted and exploited on numerous occasions, mental capacity assessments were not carried out because the authorities assumed he had capacity. His mother visited him as often as she could, asked the police for welfare checks and urged the authorities to help. My hon. Friend is campaigning with cross-party MPs to amend the Mental Health Bill.
Given that the Crime and Policing Bill will provide a new offence for cuckooing, that case shows that we also need to strengthen the protections for vulnerable individuals who may be mentally incapacitated or in vulnerable situations, as amendment 5 would do. It would shift the burden of proof, so if someone were deemed to be in an impaired state, they would automatically be presumed unable to give informed consent unless proven otherwise. It would expand the definition of vulnerability to cover not only legal mental incapacity, but those in exploitative situations such as coercion, abuse or extreme distress.
The amendment would help to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable individuals, especially in criminal policing or safeguarding contexts. It also aligns with broader safeguarding laws and human rights protections, and would make it harder for perpetrators to claim that a victim gave valid consent when actually in a compromised state. I urge the Committee to support amendment 5.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. It is a privilege to support the Government’s action to tackle cuckooing through the Bill. As the Member of Parliament for Gravesham, this issue strikes close to home, because people in my constituency who are struggling with addiction, mental health issues or past trauma are being preyed on. Criminals take over their homes, exploit their vulnerabilities and use their properties to conduct criminal activities, in particular drug dealing. These are not abstract concerns. People living real lives in real streets in Gravesham are trapped by fear in what should be the safest place they know—their own homes.
The introduction of the new offence is not only welcome, but essential. For the first time, the Bill offers a clear and focused legal mechanism to tackle an abhorrent practice that existing legislation cannot fully capture. I place on record my strong support for the Government’s action. I will also highlight why the offence is necessary, the real-world impact of the practice on victims, and how the Government’s work helps to close a dangerous and damaging gap in the law that has persisted for far too long.
Why does this offence matter? Cuckooing is one of the most insidious and devastating forms of criminal exploitation in our communities today. It targets those who are already vulnerable, whether due to substance misuse, disability and mental health, poverty, homelessness or previous victimisation. The offender may initially appear as a friend or helper, and may offer company, drugs, money or protection. Very quickly, however, the true nature of that relationship emerges through control, coercion, fear and potentially violence.
Victims find themselves trapped, as they are often too frightened, ashamed or traumatised to seek help. We have heard from frontline services such as Kent police and Gravesham borough council’s community safety unit that victims do not even recognise that they are victims at all. They may blame themselves. They may have rationalised the situation and believe that they have no other choice.
At present, the law does not make it easy to intervene early or decisively. Police often find themselves attending reports of suspicious activity, but have no obvious offence to charge without the victim’s co-operation or an underlying crime, such as drug possession, being proven. The new offence addresses that critical gap. It criminalises the very act of exerting control over someone else’s home for the purpose of criminal activity, without them having to verbalise their non-consent and without demanding that underlying offences must first be proven. The offence acknowledges that controlling a person’s home is itself serious and harmful abuse. It also empowers police, local authorities and safeguarding teams to take earlier, firmer action to protect victims before exploitation escalates further. The Bill listens to communities and acts on their behalf.
The Bill defines such control clearly. Clauses 32 to 34 are framed to show real understanding of the complexities involved. The Bill clearly defines “control” to include subtle and partial takeovers, such as deciding who enters the property, what it is used for and whether the resident can use their own home. The Bill also covers a wide range of structures, including houses, flats, caravans, tents and vehicles, reflecting the reality of vulnerable people. It ensures that supposed consent must be freely given and informed by someone over the age of 18 with full capacity, protecting those most at risk of coercion. The Bill is future-proofed by clause 34, which allows the Home Secretary and the devolved Ministers to add new crimes to the relevant offence list as patterns of exploitation evolve over time—we know that they evolve over time.
To understand why the offence is so urgently is needed, we must listen to survivors. Take the story of James, which was shared by the Salvation Army. James was a young man struggling with addiction. He thought he had made friends, but soon those friends took over his flat. They brought drugs and violence into his home. Strangers came and went at all hours. James was trapped—afraid to leave, but no longer safe inside. When help finally reached him, James was a shell of himself. He had lost control of his life, his space and his dignity. He said later:
“It’s scary. Your house is taken over. You don’t know who’s knocking on your door. People coming to your door every two minutes. Threatening people in your home. Threatening me in my home. It totally takes over your life.”
James’s story is heartbreaking, but far from unique. Housing teams and police officers in Gravesham have listed multiple cases where individuals were forced into drug addiction by their own exploiters to increase their dependency. Homes have been used to store class A drugs without the tenant’s knowledge, which is a clear breach of tenancy guidelines and puts them at risk of eviction. Sheds and garages become secondary sites of exploitation.
That is the story of James and many others in Gravesham, but the national statistics show the sheer scale of the problem. One in eight people across the UK has seen signs of cuckooing in their community. During just two weeks of national police action, nearly 1,700 cuckooed addresses were visited and hundreds of victims exposed. In 2021 alone, 33% of all modern slavery referrals include criminal exploitation, much of it linked to cuckooing. County lines exploitation, where cuckooing is rampant, now accounts for a staggering 16% of national referral mechanism cases.
This change to the law is not only needed; it is desperately needed. I could go on, but I know other hon. Members wish to speak. I am proud to stand here to support the new measures on cuckooing. Hopefully, we may now put those criminals behind bars, where they belong.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I rise to speak to clauses 32 to 34 and amendment 5. Clause 32 in part 4 of the Bill seeks to address cuckooing by introducing a new criminal offence targeting those who exert control over another’s home for criminal purposes. Cuckooing is a deeply exploitative crime that targets some of the most vulnerable people in society, including the elderly, those with disabilities and individuals struggling with addiction or mental health issues. Criminals manipulate or threaten people to take over their home, or do it forcibly, using the home as a base for illegal activities such as drug dealing, human trafficking or weapons storage. Victims often live in fear and isolation, unable to escape due to coercion or physical violence.
In 2022, London saw a significant rise in the number of recorded cuckooing incidents, with 316 cases reported, marking a stark increase from just 79 in 2018. That alarming trend in the city underscores the increasingly widespread nature of criminal exploitation targeting vulnerable individuals. The impact extends beyond individuals, affecting communities by increasing crime rates, disrupting social housing and straining law enforcement resources. Cuckooing is not just a property crime; it is a form of exploitation that strips people of their safety, dignity and control over their lives, making it essential to impose strict penalties and provide robust support for victims.
Clause 32 is a welcome step forward in tackling the exploitative nature of cuckooing and the vulnerable individuals impacted by it. However, while the clause’s intentions are commendable, it is crucial that we examine the provisions thoroughly, not only to understand its strengths but to ensure that it does not inadvertently create unintended legal or practical challenges. The clause seeks to criminalise the act of exercising control over another person’s dwelling without their consent with the intent of using a dwelling to facilitate specific criminal activities. That is designed to target individuals who exploit vulnerable occupants by taking over their homes to conduct illegal operations.
Looking at the key provisions of clause 32, an individual commits an offence if they exercise control over another person’s dwelling without legitimate consent and intend to use it for criminality. The clause is accompanied by schedule 5, which lists the criminal activities associated with cuckooing, such as drug offences, sexual exploitation and the possession of offensive weapons. The Secretary of State holds the authority to amend this schedule as necessary. For consent to be considered valid, the occupant must be over the age of 18, possess the mental capacity to consent, be fully informed and provide consent freely without coercion or manipulation. Consent obtained through deception or intimidation is not deemed valid.
On conviction, the offence carries significant penalties. On summary conviction, an individual may face imprisonment of up to six months, a fine or both. On indictment, the penalty can extend to imprisonment of up to five years, a fine or both. The primary objective of clause 32 is to safeguard individuals from criminals who commandeer their houses for illegal purposes. By establishing a specific offence of cuckooing, the legislation aims to deter perpetrators and provide law enforcement with clear authority to intervene and prosecute these exploitative practices.
Although the intentions behind clause 32 are commendable, we must look at areas of possible contention. On determining genuine consent, assessing whether consent is freely given with full understanding can be complex. Vulnerable individuals may be subject to subtle forms of coercion or manipulation that are not immediately evident, making it challenging to establish the presence of genuine consent. Furthermore, effective enforcement of the clause requires adequate training and resources for law enforcement agencies to identify instances of cuckooing, to support victims and to gather sufficient evidence for prosecution. Without proper investment, the practical application of the law may be hindered.
There is a concern that victims of cuckooing might themselves be implicated in criminal activities conducted in their dwellings. It is crucial to ensure that the law distinguishes between perpetrators and victims, providing support and protection to the latter, rather than subjecting them to prosecution. Criminal networks may adapt their methods to circumvent the provisions of clause 32. Continuous monitoring and potential amendments to the legislation may be necessary to address emerging forms of exploitative activities efficiently.
Clause 32 represents a significant step forward in addressing the pernicious issue of cuckooing. By criminalising the exploitation of individuals through the unauthorised control of their homes for illicit purposes, the clause aims to detect vulnerable members of society and uphold the integrity of private dwellings. Careful attention must, however, be given to the implementation of the provision, ensuring that genuine consent is accurately assessed, enforcement agencies are adequately resourced, victims are protected from criminalisation, and the law remains responsive to the evolving tactics of criminal enterprises. Through vigilant application and ongoing evaluation, clause 32 can serve as a robust tool in the fight against the exploitation of vulnerable individuals and for the preservation of community safety.
Clause 33 is interpretative, as its primary objectives are to provide clear definitions for terms in the Bill. It ensures that all stakeholders have a consistent understanding of the terminology. Although the intention behind the clause is to provide clarity, certain challenges may arise. If a term is defined too broadly, it may encompass behaviours or actions beyond the intended scope, leading to potential overreach. Conversely, overly narrow definitions may exclude certain areas from being covered, creating loopholes. Differences in interpretation can arise between various stakeholders, especially if definitions are not comprehensive, which can lead to the inconsistent application of the law across different jurisdictions.
For example, a dwelling is defined as being any structure or part of a structure where a person lives, including yards, garages, gardens and outbuildings. The definition also extends to temporary or moveable structures such as tents, caravans, vehicles and boats. Through the wide definition of dwelling, including not just the traditional home but temporary and moveable structures, the clause ensures that cuckooing can be addressed in a wider range of living situations. That is particularly important, given that vulnerable people may live in non-traditional housing and still fall victim to such exploitation.
Clause 34 grants the Secretary of State the authority to amend the definition of “relevant offence” through a statutory instrument. This provision is designed to provide flexibility and responsiveness to the legal system, enabling it to evolve with the changing landscape of criminal activity and societal needs. The primary purpose of clause 34 is to offer the Government the flexibility to adapt the law where needed. As we know, crime is constantly evolving; new tactics, methods and forms of criminal activity emerge regularly. In recent years, we have seen a rise in cyber-crime, human trafficking, online fraud and terrorist activity. Those types of crime often involve technologies or methods that are not always immediately recognised or understood by the legislation at the point it is being made.
Laws must remain relevant and effective to protect the public. For example, if new criminal activities or trends emerge that were not originally accounted for in the Bill, clause 34 allows for a quick amendment to qualify what is a relevant offence. That flexibility means that rapid changes can be made without having to wait months for a new Act of Parliament to be passed. Over time, societal attitudes, technologies and criminal methods change, so what is considered a relevant offence now may not necessarily apply in future. Clause 34 allows the legal framework to be adjusted to ensure that the law can keep pace with such changes.
In addition to providing flexibility, clause 34 ensures that the law remains consistent in its approach to new forms of crime. Although the definition of “relevant offence” can change, the core intention is to maintain fairness, clarity and public safety. By allowing for a timely and consistent updating of legal definitions, clause 34 helps to ensure that criminal offences are properly recognised across the country. That is important because inconsistent definitions for offences can create legal confusion and undermine effective enforcement across jurisdictions. A standardised approach ensures that law enforcement agencies in different areas can uniformly apply the law, thereby strengthening the overall criminal justice system.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. As we have heard today, and for those who have encountered it in their constituencies, cuckooing is one of the most horrific crimes that can be inflicted upon victims. During my time as a police officer, I dealt with several cases of cuckooing, but I often found that those responsible were not held to account as effectively as they should have been. Not only did I deal with that in my time as an officer; since my election to this place, I have had reports to my office of such cases still ongoing.
A person’s home should be a place where they feel safe and secure. When that home is taken over and used for criminal activity, it causes significant harm not only to the resident but, in many cases, to their wider family. At its core, cuckooing is the sinister practice of criminals taking control of someone’s home to use it as a base for illicit activities, such as drug dealing, storing weapons or trafficking illegal goods. The victims of this crime are often left powerless in the face of ruthless exploitation. They are often vulnerable and too scared to speak out.
Perpetrators of cuckooing prey on vulnerable individuals through intimidation, coercion and, sometimes, outright violence to seize control of the victim’s home. They exploit personal struggles such as poverty, mental health issues, addiction and more, which make their victims particularly susceptible to manipulation. Once the criminals have taken control, the victim’s once-safe home is turned into a place of fear and abuse.
Before the Bill, cuckooing was not classified as a specific crime in England and Wales. That created a major gap in the law that I found extremely frustrating when serving as an officer. Perpetrators knew that they could, in effect, get away with this act, even if they were also committing other offences. Those responsible were typically prosecuted for offences such as drug trafficking or unlawful possession of firearms. However, the long-lasting harm and trauma that they inflicted on their victims often went unrecognised by the justice system.
Cuckooing is a distinct crime. I am pleased that it is finally receiving its own legal recognition and that victims are finally being given the justice that they deserve. I therefore welcome the inclusion of this offence in the Bill. The new legislation is a significant step forward, providing a clear legal framework that targets those who exploit vulnerable individuals by taking control of their homes. By making cuckooing a specific offence, the law will empower the police to take more decisive action against those who engage in this abhorrent practice. That shows that, once again, this Government are putting victims at the heart of all we are doing.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. In the previous sitting I touched on the scourge of county lines gangs and the wider pernicious rise of serious, organised criminal gangs in the context of exploiting children. This morning as we focus on clause 32 on cuckooing, it is clear that other vulnerable members of our communities require further protection from these criminals. I am pleased to support the clause, which makes controlling another person’s home for criminal purposes a specific offence.
We are seeing cases not only of children, but increasingly of those with mental health or addiction issues, being used by organised criminal groups, usually using high levels of violence and intimidation, to protect their county lines and to control them. One form of control exploits vulnerable people by using their home as a base for dealing drugs—the process known as cuckooing. Drug dealers can even sometimes entice a vulnerable person into allowing their home to be used for drug dealing by giving them free drugs or offering to pay for food or utilities.
As we have said, these criminals are organised and can therefore be very selective about who they target as cuckoo victims—often, those who are lonely, isolated or drug users. They might operate from a property only for a short amount of time, frequently moving addresses in order to reduce the chances of being caught. Regardless of how long they are there, measures that add a deterrent to this practice are to be welcomed as a further step towards smashing the county lines gangs. I question whether amendment 5 is necessary since the Bill refers to a person’s capacity to give consent as well as making informed decisions. I welcome the Minister’s comments on that amendment.
On clause 33, I question whether restricting the Bill as written to dwelling structures used by a person as their home or living accommodation may give rise to some future loopholes. A garage or outhouse arguably may be used by the person for their business or for storage. Can the Minister give assurances that the clause accounts for the sometimes fine line, especially in cases of garages and outbuildings that may be used for non-domestic purposes but are still used for cuckooing?
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, rise to speak on clauses 32 to 34. In Leigh and Atherton we have seen at first hand how cuckooing can tear apart the fabric of our community. Vulnerable residents, often facing significant personal challenges, find their homes taken over by criminals. That not only puts them in danger, but creates that ripple effect of fear and instability throughout our neighbourhoods. By making it an offence to exercise control over another person’s dwelling for criminal purposes, these clauses are a critical step towards tackling this heinous crime.
The broad definition of criminal activities linked to cuckooing, such as drug offences, sexual offences and the use of offensive weapons, is particularly important for our community. It means that no matter how these criminals try to exploit vulnerable people, the law will be able to address it. This adaptability is crucial as we work to stay one step ahead of those who seek to harm our residents. One of the most vital aspects of the Bill is the clear protections that it offers. We have seen in our community how criminals can manipulate and coerce individuals into giving up control of their homes. By ensuring that a person cannot consent to the control of their home if they are coerced, under age, or not fully informed, the Bill removes those legal loopholes that criminals could exploit.
The Bill’s provisions for future-proofing are essential. Criminals are always finding new ways to exploit vulnerable people, and it is crucial that our laws can adapt to these changes by allowing for the list of specified offences to be amended, so that the law remains effective in combating cuckooing, no matter how it evolves. More locally in Leigh and Atherton, we have seen the devastating effects of cuckooing on individuals and families. It is also important to acknowledge that the perpetrators of cuckooing are usually involved in other criminal activity as well—it is wide-reaching.
The community response to cuckooing has been strong, with our local organisations and local authorities working together to support victims and prevent further exploitation. The Bill will enhance those efforts by providing clear legal definitions and protections and making it easier to identify and prosecute those responsible for cuckooing. These clauses are about not just creating new offences, but protecting our communities and the most vulnerable among us. By addressing the specific ways that criminals exploit individuals, and providing clear protections and support for victims, we can make a real difference. I urge my fellow Committee members to support these clauses and help us to take a stand against cuckooing and the harm that it causes in our communities.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell, and I agree with many of the comments made so far this morning.
Cuckooing, as we have heard, is a practice typically linked to the grim reality of county lines drug supply, where illegal drugs are trafficked from one area to another, often by children or vulnerable individuals coerced into these activities by organised crime, but is by no means exclusively linked to that activity. In 2023-24, estimates showed that around 14,500 children were identified as at risk from or involved in child criminal exploitation, with cuckooing included as an activity within that—and that number is likely to be a significant underestimate, as many exploited children are not known to the authorities.
The Centre for Social Justice has rightly pointed out that the act of taking over someone’s home not only is a serious violation in itself, but brings with it a cascade of harmful consequences: escalating antisocial behaviour, increasing fear in communities and strain on already overburdened services and the ability of police forces to intervene and investigate. The practice disproportionately targets those who are already vulnerable—individuals who may be struggling with addiction, mental health issues or disabilities, who are often isolated and unaware of the full extent of the abuse that they are suffering, and who find it difficult to understand or even recognise what is happening to them in the place where they live.
I have two issues with the way that clause 32 is drafted, and I wonder whether the Minister can help. The offence is set out in clause 32(1), and states that
“person A commits an offence if—”
setting out three limbs to the test for this offence: that
“A exercises control over the dwelling of another person (B),”
and
“B does not consent to A exercising that control for that purpose”,
and that
“A does so for the purpose of enabling the dwelling to be used in connection”—
this is important—
“with the commission (by any person) of one or more relevant offences”.
Those offences are then set out in schedule 5, and they are a reasonably small list. For example, an offence
“under section 33 or 33A of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (keeping a brothel)”,
or offences relating to flick knives. I will not list them all.
My question to the Minister is this: why is cuckooing restricted to only a certain specified number of offences taking place in the home? Bearing in mind that A is exerting control over that home, which B does not consent to, I wonder why there is not scope here to say that all criminal offences carried out in that home where that coercive control relationship is taking place could amount to cuckooing.
My second question to the Minister is about the drafting in relation to exercising control. Since an offence only takes place if A is exercising control over the dwelling of person B, the Bill helps us with what exercising control means. Clause 33(4) states:
“The circumstances in which A exercises control over B’s dwelling include circumstances where A exercises control…over any of the following”,
and it then lists paragraphs (a) to (d). For example, paragraph (a) states:
“who is able to enter, leave, occupy or otherwise use the dwelling or part of the dwelling”,
while paragraph (b) covers:
“the delivery of things to, or the collection of things from, the dwelling”.
I will not go through all the paragraphs (a) to (d), but it is not clear from the drafting of clause 33(4) whether they provide an exhaustive list of things that amount to control over a dwelling, or whether they are merely an indicative list.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. This Government are taking strong new action to make cuckooing a specific offence, protecting the most vulnerable people whose homes are used by others to commit criminal activity. After the last Tory Government’s dereliction of law and order, a Labour Government will finally deliver and get the job done. We have already discussed in depth the plans to toughen up on child criminal exploitation, and that certainly extends into the world of cuckooing. The exploitation of children and vulnerable people for criminal gain is sickening, and it is vital that we do everything in our power to eradicate it.
Cuckooing is a particularly insidious and damaging form of victimisation, causing untold harm. One Essex mother has recounted how a gang from outside the county occupied her flat and used it as base from which to deal drugs. The gang took her car and she became a prisoner in her own home, scared for her own safety and too frightened to call the police. She said that they took the whole property over and were running a drug house, with people coming all hours of the day and at weekends, so they would be up all night. When she left her bedroom, she was threatened and felt that there was nothing she could do. It has destroyed her confidence. That is the reality of cuckooing.
There can be no doubt that this is a serious and hugely damaging crime. Charities have welcomed the introduction of this new stand-alone law focused on exploitative adults. It will shift the focus on to the perpetrator, not victims, and will help protect thousands of vulnerable people—young people and adults—identified as being at risk of criminal exploitation. We need to break the cycles of harm, punish the exploiters, prioritise the victims and put safety first. Simply charging people with drug possession ignores the core truth that these abusers are exploiting at-risk people.
The former Conservative Government did not take cuckooing seriously. Although they explored making cuckooing an offence under the antisocial behaviour action plan in March 2023, they determined that existing offenses were sufficient to respond to people engaged in cuckooing. It was only after Labour tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill in 2023-24 that the Conservatives agreed to work with the Opposition to introduce a new amendment. This Government are funding 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers, with a named officer in every community. Having more officers on the ground will also go a long way to help deal with this appalling exploitation of vulnerable people.
Cuckooing is a growing concern in many areas, including in Southend-on-Sea. Essex police has highlighted cuckooing as a key issue relating to county lines drugs operation. These people exploit the vulnerable, as we have said, including children and those with mental health issues or addictions. The safeguarding efforts of the Essex constabulary, who police my constituency, include highlighting initiatives, training, audits and vital partnership collaboration to ensure the protection of vulnerable individuals.
The hard work of Essex police has made Southend and the surrounding areas safer to live. The force takes a robust approach to criminals who are intent on supplying drugs to vulnerable people and causing harm to our communities, and has trained more than 450 police and partner agency staff to recognise the signs of cuckooing. Leaflets and posters describing the signs of cuckooing and how to get help have been sent to victims, their neighbours, community partners and police stations. Huge efforts have been made to deal with the increase in cuckooing.
A key objective for the force is to ensure that children and vulnerable individuals receive proper support and safe-guarding. Triage teams have been created and information sharing with social services and other agencies has improved, but it is a huge challenge for our police forces, taking up significant amounts of manpower.
Southend-on-Sea city council has been working to raise awareness of county lines activity too—in particular, how criminal gangs exploit young people to transport drugs and the dangers of cuckooing. The council’s #SeeTheSigns campaign aims to raise awareness and prevent recruitment into these terrible networks and to avoid people’s homes being taken over.
Neighbourhood policing has always been the cornerstone of our proud British tradition of policing by consent, yet the previous Government let the number of officers in local roles collapse, with dire consequences. We even heard from the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan that it is difficult with current resources, so thank goodness this Government are increasing the resource. We are delivering the police and the police community support officers in local communities equipped with tougher powers to crack down on the exploitation of vulnerable people.
My local force is appealing for anyone who feels that cuckooing is happening to them, or to someone they know, to please tell them, so that the police can make sure they are safe and deal with those who are exploiting them. This is often a hidden crime, harmful and dangerous. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home, not held hostage and deprived of their basic freedoms. Cuckooing is an appalling crime; it victimises people and it must stop. I am incredibly grateful for the work of the police and other agencies in ensuring swift interventions, ensuring a positive outcome for residents, and I thank them for all they do.
Community vigilance and support is vital in tackling such issues. If residents see frequent visitors at unsociable hours, changes in a neighbour’s daily routine, unusual smells coming from a property, suspicious or unfamiliar vehicles often outside an address, they should report it to the police. We need this stand-alone law. Cuckooing is an absolutely horrendous business, so I welcome clauses 32 to 34, and I commend the Government for the actions being taken.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell; after some excellent contributions on this set of clauses, I hope not to disappoint you. It will not surprise you to hear that I support clauses 32 to 34 and schedule 5.
As we have heard from Members on both sides of the Committee, cuckooing destroys lives, destroys homes and serves as one of the most egregious examples of exploitation, especially of children, in society currently. It is a despicable and offensive practice, wherein criminals exploit the most vulnerable in our communities by taking over their homes for illegal activities, so I commend the Government for creating a new bespoke criminal offence to tackle the practice of home takeover.
For too long, as my hon. Friends have said, cuckooing has been a subversive injustice in our towns. As the Government state in the papers supporting the Bill, unfortunately there is no centrally held data; I hope that, after the implementation of the criminal offence of cuckooing, we will begin to see such data for all the home nations.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh said, many people may not even notice it is happening, at least to begin with. There are several signs to look out for that may indicate someone is a victim of cuckooing: frequent visitors at unsociable hours, changes in a neighbour’s daily routine, unusual smells coming from the property, and suspicious or unfamiliar vehicles outside an address—individually they seem innocuous, but in reality they are insidious and malign.
Drug dealers, human traffickers and violent gangs all can prey on children, the elderly, the disabled and the most vulnerable in our society. They force their way into their victims’ homes, using manipulation, threats, coercion and violence to turn their homes into drug dens, bases for exploitation and centres of criminality. As both the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh said, that is typically across county lines.
The victims are left terrified in their own homes, their mental and physical wellbeing deteriorating in the very place that they are meant to feel most safe. Neighbours suffer as their streets are blighted by crime and antisocial behaviour, and are unable to feel safe in their own community. As was eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, despite their tireless efforts, our law enforcement officers have lacked the legislative tools to tackle cuckooing effectively.
Clauses 32 to 34 and schedule 5 will change that. Those vital clauses will introduce the specific criminal offence of cuckooing, ensuring that those who invade and exploit vulnerable people’s homes can face the severest of consequences. By making cuckooing a distinct offence, we send a clear message that we will not stand idly by while criminals hijack the homes of the weak and defenceless. I pay tribute to all the campaigners and organisations who have researched and campaigned for the creation of this specific offence over many years.
The clauses will give police officers greater powers to intervene early, ensuring that victims are safeguarded and perpetrators are brought to justice; they will enable faster action by enabling authorities to have the necessary powers to arrest criminals, and they will allow homes to be returned to their rightful residents without the current muddy legal waters that are delaying and frustrating justice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean said.
The clauses should be seen not in isolation, but as part of a package of measures to protect children and vulnerable people. Last week, we discussed child criminal exploitation and the offence that the Bill will create in that regard. These are all essential legislative components of the Government’s safer streets mission, which should be supported across the House. I think we have seen a demonstration of that with the comments from both sides of the House in respect of these clauses. I reiterate my support for the clauses and welcome that cross-party support. Making cuckooing a stand-alone criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison, sends the clearest signal that we are on the side of victims in furtherance of our safer streets mission.
Dame Diana Johnson
This has been an excellent short debate on this group of clauses on cuckooing. I note the cross-party support for introducing this new law. We have had some really good contributions. I noted particularly the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham, who talked about James’s story, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh, who spoke very personally about the effects on individuals who find themselves victims of cuckooing. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton talked about the effect it has on communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean talked about his experience as a police officer, recognising the gap in the law and how justice could not be delivered for victims of cuckooing, while my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West talked about the subversive injustice of cuckooing in our communities.
Many contributions covered what cuckooing means for local communities and what they should be looking out for. I noticed my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham’s comments about one in eight people saying that they have seen signs of cuckooing in their areas; it is a problem in many communities.
Joe Robertson
I thank the Minister for that clear explanation in response to both my queries. I say again that it would be usual in drafting to say, “include, but are not limited to”, just to make it absolutely clear to legal practitioners that it is not an exhaustive list, so I put that on the record again. I am sure the Minister’s officials are listening, and I would be pleased if she could perhaps go away and think about a small amendment there.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to help the Government to ensure that this legislation is as good as it can be, so we will reflect on what he says.
I want to make some general observations and comments on this grouping. Clauses 32 to 34 and schedule 5 provide for the new offence of controlling another’s home for criminal purposes, commonly known as cuckooing. As I am sure we all agree, cuckooing is a truly abhorrent practice whereby criminals target and take over the homes of vulnerable people for the purposes of illegal activity. It is often associated with antisocial behaviour and the exploitation of children and vulnerable people used by criminal gangs inside properties.
Currently, a range of offences can be used to prosecute criminal activity commonly associated with cuckooing. For example, the inchoate offences under sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 may apply where cuckooing amounts to an act of
“encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence”.
Any criminal activity carried out from the cuckooed property would also already be an offence. For example, where a cuckooed property is used to supply illegal drugs, offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 may apply.
It is the Government’s view, however, that the existing legal framework does not reflect the harm caused to victims when their home—a place where they should feel safe—is taken over by criminals. I know that this view is shared by many parliamentarians from across the House. I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has championed the issue of cuckooing for some years. I also pay tribute to the organisation Justice and Care for all the work that it has done to highlight this particular issue, and recognise our former colleague Holly Lynch, who campaigned on this issue when she was a Member of the House.
Children in particular are often exploited by criminals. By introducing the offence of cuckooing, alongside the new offence of child criminal exploitation, our aim is to improve identification of such children and to strengthen the response for both adult and child victims of exploitation. I want to make clear that we expect the cuckooing offence to be used to pursue the criminals orchestrating the cuckooing, and that the victims of exploitation, including children and vulnerable people, found in properties should be safeguarded—I will say a little more about the role of children in a moment.
Clause 32 outlines that it will be an offence to control a person’s dwelling in connection with specified criminal activity without that person’s consent. The specified criminal activity is set out in schedule 5 to the Bill, reflecting the types of criminal activity that cuckooing is typically used to facilitate, as we were just discussing—for example, drugs offences, sexual offences and offensive weapons offences, among others. The offence will carry a maximum penalty on conviction on indictment of five years’ imprisonment, a fine or both.
Clause 33 provides interpretation of the terms used in clause 32 to clarify what is meant by “dwelling”, “control” and “consent”. Clause 33 also provides examples of how an individual may exercise control over another’s dwelling, including controlling who is able to enter, leave or occupy the dwelling, the delivery of things to the dwelling and the purposes for which the dwelling is used. It should be noted that the person exercising the control does not need to be present in the dwelling, thereby enabling prosecution of gang leaders who are directing the cuckooing from afar.
Clause 33 also sets out that a person cannot consent to control of their dwelling if they are under 18 years old, they do not have the capacity to give consent, they have not been given sufficient information to enable them to make an informed decision, they have not given consent freely or they have withdrawn their consent. The consent of an occupant may not freely be given where it is obtained by coercion, manipulation, deception or other forms of abusive behaviour, taking into account the vulnerability of an individual.
We recognise that criminal gangs may adapt cuckooing to other crime types. Therefore, as I said, clause 34 provides that power for the Home Secretary and for the relevant Ministers in Scotland and Northern Ireland to amend the list of specified offences in schedule 5 to future-proof the offence. Such regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which may help with scrutiny, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan.
I will say a few words about the issue of children and cuckooing. Police and stakeholders tell us that children, in particular those exploited by county lines gangs, are used as runners, to deliver drugs to cuckooed properties, and sometimes as sitters, to sell drugs from the properties. It is absolutely right that children who have been exploited and groomed into criminality should be treated first and foremost as victims, as I said a few moments ago. That does not in itself override the age of criminal responsibility, where the law holds children over a certain age to be responsible for their actions. I believe that allowing those two principles to exist alongside each other will provide the best protection and outcomes for vulnerable victims of this terrible crime.
The non-consensual control of someone’s home, the place in which they deserve to feel completely safe and secure, is a cruel and harmful violation. Therefore, where there is evidence that a child has been involved in an offence against, for example, a vulnerable or elderly person, and it is evident that they have chosen to do so and have not been manipulated or coerced, it is right that the police should be able to take action. That does not mean, however, that the police will seek charges against under-18s irrespective of any history of exploitation. I am clear that decisions as to whether to charge someone should be taken on a case-by-case basis. As with all offences, the police have operational discretion, and the Crown Prosecution Service’s public interest test will apply.
We will also issue guidance to support implementation of the cuckooing offence, including on how police should respond and identify exploitation when children are found in connection with cuckooing. As we have previously debated, the Bill provides for the new offence of child criminal exploitation to strengthen the response to perpetrators who groom children into criminality. It is intended to improve identification of, and access to support for, victims.
Amendment 5, which the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset spoke to, seeks to further define “capacity to consent” as set out in clause 33(5)(b). The amendment would set out that a person lacks capacity to consent to the control of their dwelling for a criminal purpose if they either lack capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 or are in circumstances that
“significantly impair their ability to protect themselves from exploitation.”
I agree it is important that the offence can be used to prosecute perpetrators who have preyed on those who, due to a health condition or wider vulnerabilities, do not have the capacity to provide valid consent. However, I want to clarify that we have intentionally avoided using references to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We believe that may cause confusion in this context, as that Act is designed to apply in a civil law context and has a central purpose of empowering people whose capacity is called into question, rather than identifying those who lack capacity.
Furthermore, the formulation of the amendment starts from the presumption that a person lacks capacity to consent if they are in circumstances that significantly impair their ability to protect themselves. That may imply that vulnerable people inherently lack capacity, which we think would set an unhelpful precedent. I reassure the Committee that the clause as drafted already allows for a broad interpretation of capacity. Our intention is to provide flexibility for the court to interpret capacity as relating to any impairment that may impact the person’s ability to consent. That could include circumstances where a person is unable to consent to the control of their dwelling for a criminal purpose due to disability, illness and/or the effects of substance misuse. That applies to both permanent and short-term lack of capacity.
Where a person has been subjected to coercion, deception or manipulation and is as a result less able to protect themselves against cuckooing, that is already covered by the definition of consent under clause 33(5), which provides that consent is valid only if freely given and sufficiently informed. As I have already stated, we intend to issue guidance to support the implementation of the offence and will ensure that it covers the issue of consent to assist police in identifying victims and the type of evidence that points towards ability to consent. I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset will be content not to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Protections for witnesses, and lifestyle offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
The clause provides for the offences of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing to be designated “lifestyle offences” under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and for victims and witnesses of both offences to be automatically eligible for special measures when giving evidence in court. Child criminal exploitation and cuckooing are abhorrent practices whereby perpetrators exploit vulnerable victims to further their own criminal lifestyle. As such, we want to ensure that special measures are in place to make it easier for victims of these new offences, who are likely to be vulnerable, to give evidence during court proceedings.
Clause 35 therefore amends the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to provide for victims of these crimes to be automatically eligible for provisions such as the screening of the witnesses from the accused or giving evidence by video link or in private. Similarly, we want to ensure that perpetrators of child criminal exploitation or cuckooing are not able to profit from the harm that they have caused. Clause 35 therefore amends schedule 2 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to add both offences to the list of lifestyle offences. This means that when a person is convicted of these offences, their assets will be considered to have potentially derived from crime and may be subject to confiscation.
Harriet Cross
The clause introduces provisions relating to protections for witnesses and the concept of lifestyle offences. The provisions seek to enhance both the effectiveness of our justice system and the protection of vulnerable individuals, but there are also some important concerns that must be carefully considered.
The core purpose of the clause lies in two key areas: providing stronger protections for witnesses involved in criminal investigations and prosecutions; and addressing lifestyle offences, which are crimes that become part of an individual’s habitual way of life, often tied to organised criminality or repeat offenders. One of the main aims of the clause is to offer greater safety and security for witnesses. We all know that witnesses are an essential part of our criminal justice process. Without them, many crimes would go unpunished and justice could not be served. However, witnesses, especially those in cases involving organised crime or serious offences, often face significant risks, including intimidation, threats of violence and retaliation.
The clause seeks to address those dangers by providing stronger legal protections for witnesses, ensuring that they feel safe enough to come forward and testify. This provision is particularly crucial in cases involving organised crime, gang violence or terrorism, where a witness might be particularly vulnerable. The protections include mechanisms to ensure that witnesses’ identities are kept confidential, and in extreme cases, provisions for relocation or even new identities. By making it safer for witnesses to testify, we ensure that those who know the truth can stand up for justice without fear for their life.
Furthermore, the clause allows for alternative means of giving evidence, such as by video link or in written statements, in cases where giving testimony in person would put the witness at risk. The protections are a vital step towards maintaining the integrity of the legal system, particularly when individuals are reluctant to engage due to fears of reprisals. It is the Government’s intention that by ensuring witness safety, the overall effectiveness of criminal investigations and prosecutions will be enhanced.
The second intention behind the clause is to address lifestyle offences—a term that refers to crimes associated with the habitual behaviour of certain offenders. These offences often form part of a broader pattern of criminal activity and are typically linked to individuals involved in organised crime, or those who consistently engage in criminal behaviour as a way of life. The inclusion of lifestyle offences in the Bill aims to target those who commit repeated or ongoing crimes, to disrupt their criminal activities.
The idea behind lifestyle offences is to shift the focus from seeing crime as an isolated act, to understanding that certain individuals or groups are involved in criminal activity as part of their everyday life. Many offenders are involved in organised crime networks, such as drug trafficking, money laundering or human trafficking, and their activities extend far beyond a one-time offence. The intention is to create legal measures that are specifically tailored to address the ongoing nature of their offending. This is not just about punishing individuals for one-off crimes, but intervening in the criminal lifestyles that perpetuate organised crime, breaking the cycle of repeat offending and reducing long-term harm.
By addressing those crimes within the framework of lifestyle offences, the Bill seeks to prevent future crimes and provide opportunities for rehabilitation. It aims to provide intervention strategies for offenders whose lifestyle choices revolve around illegal activity, encouraging them to turn away from crime. This approach seeks to address not just the symptoms of criminal behaviour, but the root causes, whether related to socioeconomic factors, addiction or mental health.
Although the protections for witnesses and the focus on lifestyle offences are both positive steps, several issues must be considered carefully to ensure that the clause is applied fairly and effectively. One significant concern is the potential for overreliance on witness protection schemes. Although it is essential that we offer the best protection possible for vulnerable witnesses, there is a danger that we could rely too heavily on these measures, which may not always be the most appropriate solution.
Witness protection, particularly when it involves relocation or changes of a person’s identity, can be extremely resource-intensive. It is also crucial that the system is not misused. Witnesses should not be encouraged to give evidence under duress or false pretences simply because they are promised protection. The integrity of the justice system must remain intact, and there is a risk that overusing or misusing witness protection could undermine its integrity. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Could the hon. Lady give us an example of the sort of case she is concerned about?
Harriet Cross
It is not beyond belief that, for example, a witness involved in a rival gangs situation could be coerced or forced to give evidence for a gang-related offence, whether or not it is necessarily true. Witnesses can be vulnerable in many different many ways. Witnesses can be completely innocent, but they can also be part of the crime. We need to ensure that the witness protection system is protected, because that is the best way to ensure that our criminal justice system is protected.
Jess Phillips
I understand the premise of witness protection and the clause that is in the Government Bill. The hon. Lady has raised a concern about witness protection being used to affect the independence of the judiciary. I wondered whether she had an example of that.
Harriet Cross
I do not have a specific example, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility. None of what we are dealing with is necessarily a reaction to individual cases. We create law in order to pre-empt things that may happen. It is reasonable for the Opposition to pre-empt something that may happen to ensure that it is considered when drafting a Bill. It is a completely reasonable concern for the Opposition to raise.
Finally, there are concerns about potential for witness protection schemes to undermine the right to a fair trial. If a witness is protected to such an extent that their testimony cannot be scrutinised or cross-examined fully, it could raise issues about the fairness of the trial. Clause 35 does aim, however, to offer much-needed protections for witnesses, particularly those involved in cases of organised crime or serious criminal activity. The inclusion of lifestyle offences recognises the ongoing nature of certain types of criminality, targeting habitual offences and providing opportunities for intervention.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful for the very thorough speech that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan just made. I am a little concerned that she may have misunderstood what the clause attempts to do, which is to support victims and those who are vulnerable in their ability to give evidence in court, such as by enabling them to give it by video link or behind a screen, because we know that it can be quite intimidating to be in court. As the hon. Lady said, if there are people who victims are concerned or frightened about, and they worry there will be repercussions, then putting in those measures seems to be a sensible way forward.
I have not come across the specific issue with witness protection that the hon. Lady mentioned. She referred to people being relocated and moved away. The provisions within this part of the Bill are reasonable measures to address the vulnerabilities of people who may find themselves subject to child criminal exploitation or cuckooing. We are not doing anything in this clause that goes beyond what is already in place for other vulnerable witnesses in court. It is not doing anything in addition to what is already accepted as good practice for those with vulnerabilities.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Child sexual abuse image-generators
Jess Phillips
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 36, page 40, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) In Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply), in paragraph 33 (offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003), after the entry for section 41 insert—
‘section 46A (child sexual abuse image-generators)’.”
This amendment excepts the offence about child sexual abuse image-generators from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Jess Phillips
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
Clause 36 criminalises artificial intelligence image generators used by offenders to create the most severe child abuse imagery. Child sexual abuse offenders use fine-tuned AI models to generate photorealistic child sexual abuse material. These images often depict the most severe and graphic forms of abuse, and can feature real children. Child sexual abuse offenders also sell those models to other offenders, making significant profits.
Our law is clear that AI-generated child sexual abuse material is illegal, but the fine-tuned models that facilitate the creation of child sexual abuse material are not currently. The Government are therefore making it illegal to possess, make, adapt, supply or offer to supply a child sexual abuse image generator, and that offence will be punishable by up to five years in prison.
Government amendment 11 is a consequential amendment that adds the new image generator offence to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015—I feel like this will get said a lot over the next few weeks—thereby removing the offence from the ambit of the statutory criminal defence in section 45 of the 2015 Act. We believe that introducing this new offence will give law enforcement the powers it needs to combat the use of AI to create the most severe forms of child sexual abuse material.
Harriet Cross
Clause 36 introduces a new criminal offence targeting what are termed child sexual abuse image generators. Simply put, it will make it illegal to make, possess or distribute any tool—an AI model, computer program or digital file—designed to create indecent images of children. It addresses what has been up to now a concerning gap in the legislation. We know that technology is advancing to the point at which artificial intelligence can produce realistic child abuse images without any child being photographed.
If someone deliberately develops or shares software to generate child sexual abuse material, they are enabling heinous crimes, so it is right that clause 36 makes that explicitly illegal and punishable. The clause introduces new sections to the Sexual Offences Act 2023. It defines a CSA image generator in deliberately broad terms, covering any program or data created for producing child sexual abuse images. That breadth is essential to prevent offenders from evading liability through technical arguments about, for example, what constitutes a photograph in the digital age. Whether it is an AI model trained on abusive images, a computer-generated image rendering program or any digital template for indecent images of children, it will fall within this ban.
Government amendment 11 ensures that the offence is added to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act. That is an important safeguard to prevent offenders from claiming that they were victims of trafficking to escape liability for creating these abhorrent tools. It is entirely appropriate that this offence, like other serious sexual offences against children, should be exempt from the slavery defence. Although we must of course protect genuine victims of trafficking, that exemption is necessary to prevent abuse by removing the defence in cases involving the deliberate facilitating of child sexual abuse.
Clause 36 is a proactive step taken against emerging threats. The previous Conservative Government started focusing on the dangers of AI-generated child abuse images, and I am pleased that the current Government are continuing with that.
David Burton-Sampson
The former Conservative Member for Chelmsford tabled an amendment on this matter to the Criminal Justice Bill, which Labour supported in opposition, but unfortunately it was not added. Is the hon. Lady now happy that this measure is being added to the Crime and Policing Bill?
Harriet Cross
Yes, I think I just said that. I am pleased that the Government are continuing with this measure.
The clause aligns with the Conservative approach to zero tolerance for child exploitation technology. We built the foundations of that in 2015 through the paedophile manuals offence, and the law is now being updated for the digital age.
I have two quick questions for the Minister. What plans are in place to identify and intercept CSA image generators online once this offence is enacted? Will there be proactive efforts, working with internet companies, for example, and internationally, to root out these tools before they are spread? How do the Government plan to ensure that legitimate AI research and development is not inadvertently captured by this offence, while ensuring that all genuinely harmful tools are prohibited?
Jess Phillips
I am pleased that the hon. Lady supports the measure, and that there has been a change of heart, as has been pointed out, on the Opposition Front Bench. Although they are not in this group, if she looks at the series of clauses that relate to AI child sexual abuse material, she will see that there is quite a lot in them specifically on the Home Secretary having the power to allow certain AI companies to use such technology to discover child abuse. We do not want to inhibit GCHQ or—I wish I knew the name of some big, lovely, benevolent AI company; I am sure one exists. They might develop materials that would help us, because so much of how we find child sexual abuse material online is through things like the caching of images. An image database that the Government fund is used to identify known child sexual abuse material that can then be searched for online.
I have no technical knowledge of AI; as I stray into this area, I can picture my husband’s eyes rolling firmly into the back of his head, as a man who works in tech. However, I know that on CSAM we always look proactively for—I am already going to say something that might be totally stupid—a certain kind of code and a certain kind of people, based on intelligence, and we have intelligence officers who work undercover in this space to go out and look for them. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s questions.
I give credit to the Internet Watch Foundation and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which have campaigned fiercely over the years for these measures to become law. They have been trying to sound the alarm on AI imagery, which uses real children and has real-world consequences. It is very easy for people to think that because an image is not of a real child, it does not cause real problems. Those organisations have been sounding the alarm, so I give credit to them.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Possession of advice or guidance about creating etc CSA images
Jess Phillips
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 37, page 42, line 11, at end insert—
“(6) In Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply), for paragraph 35A (offences under the Serious Crime Act 2015) substitute—
‘35A An offence under any of the following provisions of the Serious Crime Act 2015—
section 69 (possession of paedophile manual)
section 75A (strangulation or suffocation).’.”
This amendment excepts the offence of possession a paedophile manual from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 20 to 22.
Jess Phillips
Clause 37 amends section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 to criminalise the possession of advice or guidance on using artificial intelligence to create child abuse imagery. So-called paedophile manuals that contain guidance for offenders about how to abuse children sexually or create indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs are illegal under the existing offence in the 2015 Act. However, the Act does not cover guidance for offenders about how to use AI to create illegal images of children, because back in 2015 we did not know what “AI” meant.
Our law is clear that AI-generated child sexual abuse material is illegal. Clause 37 strengthens that law to include guidance on using AI to create child sexual abuse images. As now, the maximum penalty for the expanded offence is three years’ imprisonment and a fine. Government amendment 12 adds the paedophile manual offence to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act, thereby removing the offence from the ambit of the statutory criminal defence in section 45 of that Act. Amendments 20 to 22 are consequential on amendment 12. We believe that this extension of the paedophile manuals offence will close a legislative gap and give law enforcement the powers that it needs to combat the use of AI to create the most severe forms of child sexual abuse material.
Harriet Cross
Clause 37 strengthens the existing law to address evolving predator behaviours. It extends section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, the offence commonly known as possessing a paedophile manual, to explicitly include any advice or guidance about creating child sexual abuse material. The current law, which was pioneered by the Conservative Government in 2015, rightly criminalises possession of written materials that facilitate child abuse. As depraved individuals find new ways to offend—perhaps sharing online how-to guides on generating child abuse images—we must ensure that the law clearly encompasses those too, and that is what clause 37 does.
From the Opposition’s perspective, closing this loophole is entirely sensible. It would be inconsistent for our legal system to prosecute someone for possessing instructions on how to groom a child, and yet provide no recourse against someone with detailed guidance on creating computer-generated child abuse images. The two things are equally repugnant and dangerous.
Government amendment 12 will ensure that the offence is added to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act, which will mean that the defence for slavery and trafficking victims does not apply. It is completely right that someone who possessed a guide to creating child abuse images should not be able to claim that they had it because they were being coerced. That complements the approach taken in amendment 11 to clause 36.
In 2015 the Conservative Government set the maximum sentence for the paedophile manual offence at three years. Given that we are expanding the offence, and given public abhorrence of the facilitation of child abuse, did the Government consider increasing the maximum penalty? If not, does the Minister still feel that three years remains sufficient deterrent and punishment?
Clause 37 is a targeted tightening of the law. It aligns with the previous Conservative Government-led efforts to eliminate materials to facilitate abuse. I expect that all Committee members will agree that those who seek out and hoard advice on creating indecent images of children are among the lowest of the low, and we must remove any ambiguity that they could hide behind in the face of prosecution.
Jess Phillips
The shadow Minister posed a question about sentencing. Clause 37 amends section 69 of the Serious Crime Act, in which, as she pointed out, the previous Government set the maximum sentence at three years and an unlimited fine. I do not want to cut across the sentencing review—the Ministry of Justice would not thank me for that—but it is really important that, as part of that review, consideration is given to how sentencing in cases of sexual violence, abuse and other areas of interest to me and everyone else in the House came about. At the moment, we are simply amending the existing law to include AI manuals in the previous Government’s measure on hard-copy manuals.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Online facilitation of child sexual exploitation and abuse
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 6.
Clauses 39 and 40 stand part.
Government amendment 13.
Clause 41 stand part.
Government amendment 18.
Jess Phillips
Online child sexual abuse offending is often underpinned by networking between offenders. Offenders create groups on both the clear and the dark web to facilitate their crimes against children. These groups can legitimise or escalate the abuse of children and allow offenders to commercialise child sexual abuse. Offenders within the groups assist each other in evading detection by law enforcement.
Clause 38 creates a new offence of carrying out relevant internet activity with the intention of facilitating child sexual exploitation and abuse, punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment. Schedule 6 specifies the offences that constitute child sexual exploitation and abuse. Under clause 39, this offence will apply to activities carried out outside the UK. Under clause 40, it will also extend to corporate bodies, including the relevant persons who control them, which will ensure that offenders who commercialise child sexual abuse cannot evade liability by conducting their crimes through a company. Clause 41 ensures that any individual convicted of the offence will be subject to requirements to notify certain information to the police, to enable them to manage the risk of the sex offender reoffending.
As with earlier Government amendments, amendment 13 will add the clause 38 offence to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act—I often used to think that I could replace myself as a parent with a tape recording of me saying a wide variety of things about shoes, like, “Tidy your shoes” or “Clean them up”; maybe I could be replaced as a Minister with a tape recording of me saying, “This will amend schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act”—thereby removing the offence from the ambit of the statutory criminal defence at section 45 of that Act. Amendment 18 is consequential on amendment 13.
This new offence will give law enforcement agencies the power they need to prosecute some of the most prolific and powerful offenders who facilitate child sexual abuse, with a maximum penalty that fits the severity of the crime.
Harriet Cross
Clause 38 establishes a new offence addressing those who intentionally facilitate child sexual exploitation and abuse online. It marks an important development in the approach to child protection, targeting individuals who, while perhaps not directly abusing children themselves, none the less provide the digital infrastructure that enables others to commit such abuse. In essence, if someone runs or substantially assists an internet service with the intention of facilitating child sexual abuse, they will commit a serious crime under the clause. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the conduct.
The clause defines the offence as engaging in “a relevant internet activity” such as providing an online service, administrating or moderating a website or chat group, controlling who can access certain content, or helping users share material, with the intention of facilitating child sexual abuse or exploitation. For example, someone who runs a hidden online forum specifically for paedophiles to exchange images or grooming tips, or a web administrator who knowingly allows child abuse live streams on their platform, will be committing a distinct criminal offence.
The clause plugs a gap. While existing laws might catch some of those behaviours, a clear, dedicated offence of online facilitation will send a strong signal and make prosecution more straightforward. Regrettably, it is evident that online platforms have become primary channels through which predators identify vulnerable children and distribute unlawful material. Law enforcement often finds that behind instances of abuse there are online platforms—sometimes private networks—that give offenders the means to commit or plan their crimes. Frankly, it is not enough to punish the individual abuser; we have to go after the enablers—the people who provide the online meeting places or technical help for abusers— too. Clause 38 will drag them into the light of criminal liability. Ten years in prison and a heavy fine should make any would-be facilitator think twice about operating an abuse forum or an encrypted sharing site for paedophiles.
Jack Rankin
When it comes to child sexual abuse, I can only wholeheartedly support measures that bring legislation up to date and reflect the increasingly digital world in which we live, so that those individuals who commit the most despicable crimes have nowhere to hide from the law. I rise to support the Government in all the offences included in chapter 1 of part 5.
It is horrifying to read about the increasing proliferation of this most heinous crime. The Internet Watch Foundation, to which the Minister has already paid tribute, conducted a study between March and April last year, which identified nine deepfake videos on just one dark web forum of dedicated child sexual abuse material. None had been found when the analysts investigated the forum in October the year before. IWF analysts say that the deepfakes are especially and increasingly convincing, and that free, open-source AI software appears to be behind many of the deepfake videos.
The methods shared by offenders on the dark web are similar to those used to generate deepfake adult pornography. Even more horrifying is that, as the same analyst said, what they found was the worst quality that fully synthetic video will ever be: advances in AI will soon render videos more life-like, in the same way that still images have become more photorealistic. There is no time to waste.
The new offence in clause 36, which the Committee unanimously agreed should stand part of the Bill, will make it illegal to adapt, possess, supply or offer to supply a CSA image generator. It is clearly necessary. I also welcome clause 39, which applies the law to British nationals who are not in the country, especially given the digital nature of this specific type of crime and the fact that criminals are working internationally.
In February, at least 25 arrests were made during a worldwide operation led by Europol against child abuse images generated by artificial intelligence. The suspects were part of a criminal group whose members engage in distributing fully AI-generated images of minors. The operation was one of the first involving such child sexual abuse material. The lack of national legislation against these crimes made it “exceptionally challenging for investigators”, according to Europol. These measures change that, and I welcome our law enforcement agencies being able to work more closely together on this most despicable crime.
Joe Robertson
I also rise to support the clauses. As we have heard, artificial intelligence poses one of the biggest threats to online child safety in a generation. It is too easy for criminals to use AI to generate and distribute sexually explicit content of children.
As the UK’s frontline against child sexual abuse imagery, the IWF was among the first to sound the alarm about AI being used in this way. In October 2023, the IWF revealed the presence of more than 20,000 AI-generated images, 3,000 of which depicted criminal child sexual abuse activities. The creation and distribution of AI-generated child sexual abuse is already an offence under UK law, but AI’s capabilities have far outpaced our laws. My concern is that they will continue to do so. We must continue to keep the law in this area under review.
Offenders can now legally download the tools that they need to generate these images and produce as many as they want offline, with the high level of anonymity that can be achieved through open-source technology. Herein lies a problem: software created for innocent purposes can be appropriated and used for the most grim and hideous purposes. It is all very well making the activity illegal—I support the Government in tackling it—but the Government must also take steps, as indeed they are, to limit, curtail and disrupt criminals’ access to the tools used to carry out their crimes. The Government would do so with regard to any other crime, and it so happens that this is a particularly evil crime that uses cutting-edge and developing technology.
I am concerned about detection in this area. The Minister has been asked to confirm—I am sure she will—that social media companies carrying out lawful activity will not be captured by this law. I do not think it is controversial to say that, in other areas, social media companies have not lived up to their responsibilities to detect crime, support law enforcement agencies in detecting crime and detect criminals who are using their platforms to enhance and enable their own criminal activities.
I hope and am sure that the Government are bringing pressure to bear on social media companies to help with detection of these crimes. It is all very well for social media companies, which are probably exclusively very large, international or multinational companies, to say that they are not the perpetrators of crime, but they do provide platforms and they have huge capabilities to enable detection. I would expect them to step up and put all the resources that they have into detecting or helping law enforcement to detect these vile and horrible crimes.
Jess Phillips
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East that there is a real responsibility on our tech giants. The hon. Member for Windsor talked about the Internet Watch Foundation; the basis of its model is a partnership with social media firms whereby they provide it with huge amounts of the data, so they are not without efforts in the space of child abuse detection—they have been partners in it for many years. However, I think that it is uncontroversial to say that more needs to be done. We as policymakers and lawmakers have to keep a constant eye on how things change.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, asked a series of questions. She asked, “What if someone uses electronic services without the knowledge of the service provider?” An individual must have the intention of facilitating child sexual exploitation and abuse to be convicted under this offence. Where an internet service is used without the knowledge or intention of a service provider to carry out child sexual exploitation and abuse, the service provider will not be criminally responsible.
The shadow Minister also asked about the interplay with the Online Safety Act. These criminal offences are designed to ensure that we can better counter the threat of AI-generated CSAM offences. Offences that criminalise the individual user are not in scope of the Online Safety Act. However, the interplay would be in relation to the content created where these measures are in scope. Companies and platforms would then fall under the OSA. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady’s questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 39 and 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41
Notification requirements for offence under section 38
Amendment made: 13, in clause 41, page 46, line 7, at end insert—
“(6) In Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply), in paragraph 36D (inserted by section 17), after the entry for section 17 insert—
“section 38 (online facilitation of child sexual exploitation and abuse)”.”—(Jess Phillips.)
This amendment excepts the offence of online facilitation of child sexual exploitation and abuse from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Clause 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)
Crime and Policing Bill (Eighth sitting)
Tuesday 8th April 2025
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 April 2025 - (8 Apr 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 42, page 46, line 31, at end insert—
“(7) In Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply), in paragraph 33 (offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003), after the entry for section 10 insert—
‘section 11 (engaging in sexual activity in presence of child)’.”
This amendment excepts the offence of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
The clause makes a series of important changes to the existing criminal law by amending a number of serious sexual offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Consequently, I am delighted to talk about the clause, to explain what it does and its importance, and to give a little of the interesting history behind the law in the area, which I hope will inform the Committee.
The key legislation, which we will debate throughout the passage of the Bill, is the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which followed a full and extensive consultation entitled, “Setting the Boundaries”, and significantly modernised and strengthened the laws on sexual offences in England and Wales, mainly to provide extra protection for children from sexual abuse and sexual exploitation. The 2003 Act amalgamated and replaced elements of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, the Indecency with Children Act 1960 and the Sex Offenders Act 1997.
The 2003 Act was the first major overhaul of sexual offences legislation for more than a century, and it set out a strong, clear and modern approach to this sensitive area of the law. The Act set clear limits and boundaries about behaviour with children, and reflects what we know today about the patterns and impact of sexual abuse in childhood. It was designed to meet the 21st-century challenges of protecting children, and applies to issues such as internet pornography and grooming children for sexual abuse. The Act also contained measures against abuse by people who work with children, and updated the laws on sexual abuse within families, acknowledging that children can be at risk from within families.
All those measures were designed to provide a clear and effective set of laws to deter and punish abusers, giving the police and the courts the up-to-date offences that they needed to do their job, while ensuring that children have the strongest possible protection under the law. The Act widened the definition of some offences —for example, bringing the non-consensual penile penetration of the mouth within the definition of rape under section 1 of the Act. It created new offences for behaviour that was not previously covered specifically by an offence—for example, the paying for the sexual service of a child and voyeurism. It also extended the age covered by certain offences against children from 16 to 18 and, importantly, gave additional protection to vulnerable adults. The Act provides rightly robust sentences that reflect the seriousness of the offending.
“Setting the Boundaries” was a groundbreaking review, covering some of the most heinous and disturbing areas of offending. The then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, who commissioned the review, stressed that point when he wrote in the review’s foreword:
“Rape and other sexual offences of all kinds are dreadful crimes which deeply affect the lives of victims and their families, and whole communities. Modernising and strengthening the law can make a direct contribution to our aim of creating a safe, just and tolerant society. We give particular priority to the protection of children, and welcome the emphasis the review has given to increasing this protection and also that of vulnerable people.”
He went on to say that he
“set up the review to consider the existing law on sex offences, and to make recommendations for clear and coherent offences that protect individuals, especially children and the more vulnerable, from abuse and exploitation, and enable abusers to be appropriately punished.”
The review’s
“recommendations also had to be fair and non-discriminatory in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.”
Today, the Government remain of the view that our priority is to ensure that the public, including society’s most vulnerable, are given the full protection that the law is capable of offering. It is vital that society is protected from the scourge of sexual abuse, manipulation and exploitation in all of its forms. Children, of course, require additional protection from that awful offending. It is vital that we ensure that the criminal law is kept fully up to date in this area to ensure the safety of vulnerable young people.
With regards to children, the review itself acknowledged:
“The criminal law performs a vital role in society by setting standards of acceptable and unacceptable conduct. In making certain types of sexual behaviour criminal, the law provides protection, and supports and maintains the boundaries of acceptable behaviour in the family and community. Children need particular protection in the field of sexual relations because they are physically and emotionally dependent and not yet fully physically or psychologically mature. The law has long held that children are not, and should not, be able to consent to any form of sexual activity in the same way as adults.”
Indeed, the response to the review’s initial invitation to contribute ideas as of January 1999 overwhelmingly supported increasing the level of protection from sexual abuse available to children.
In addition, the review found that:
“The victims of sexual violence and coercion are mainly women. They must be offered protection and redress, and the law must ensure that male victims/survivors are protected too…The law must make special provision for those who are too young or otherwise not able to look after themselves and offer greater protection to children and vulnerable people within the looser structures of modern families.”
That still remains the case. We must continue to ensure that the criminal law keeps up to date with developments, and ensure that police, prosecutors and the courts are fully equipped to deal with this grave offending. We need to offer full protection to victims of such appalling abuse and exploitation.
The review recommended that as a matter of public policy the age of legal consent should remain at 16. However, to provide further protection for younger children, the review recommended that the law:
“setting out specific offences against children should state that below the age of 13 a child cannot effectively consent to sexual activity”.
As a result, the 2003 Act contains a range of offences that target specifically those who sexually abuse children under the age of 13 years. For example, sections 5 to 8 of the 2003 Act provide a range of offences capturing sexual activity with a child under 13, and it is very clear that consent in these offences is irrelevant. A child under 13 does not, under any circumstances, have the legal capacity to consent to any form of sexual activity.
Those under-13 offences overlap to a very significant extent with the child sex offences at sections 9 to 15 of the 2003 Act, which are designed to protect children under 16. This is to ensure that the criminal law provides the youngest and most vulnerable in society with protection from sexual abuse, and in doing so provides higher maximum sentences for these very serious offences. Under-13 offences are offences of strict liability as to age. The prosecution must prove only two facts: first, that there was intentional sexual activity, and secondly, the age of the complainant at the date of the sexual activity—for example, by a certified copy of a birth certificate, together with evidence of identity.
The principle of strict liability as to age for victims under 13 years old is reflected in the terms of other sexual offences in the 2003 Act. That includes section 11 of the Act, the offence of engaging in sexual activity with a child. That particular offence is one that will be directly amended and affected by provisions proposed in clause 42. While the 2003 Act—and the many amendments and additions to that legislation over the years, rightly championed by Members across this House—provided robust offences to deal with sexual abuse, we are introducing provisions to tighten up the law further to ensure additional protection for those who need it.
Broadly, we are amending and thereby strengthening the current suite of offences that apply where a person engages in sexual activity in the presence of a specified individual, for example child or, in certain circumstances, a person with a mental disorder. Our provisions will amend and toughen up the following offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003: section 11, “Engaging in sexual activity in presence of child”; section 18, “Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity in presence of child”; section 32, “Engaging in sexual activity in presence of person with mental disorder impeding choice”; section 36, “Engaging in sexual activity in presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of person with mental disorder”; and section 40, “Care workers: sexual activity in presence of person with mental disorder”.
For example, it is currently a criminal offence under section 11 of the 2003 Act for a person, “A”, to intentionally engage in sexual activity to gain sexual gratification when a child under the age of 16, “B”, is present or is in a place from which A can be observed, but currently only when A knows or believes that B is aware—or intends that they be aware—that A is engaging in the sexual activity. This offence carries a maximum 10 years’ imprisonment and sexual offender management requirements. Significantly, this offence does not allow a defence of reasonable belief in age if the child is under 13.
The issue of concern here, and with the range of similar offences that I have listed, is the requirement that the defendant should know or believe that the victim is aware of his behaviour, or intend that the victim should be aware of the relevant activity. These requirements may initially appear reasonable. However, they mean this offence would not, for example, capture those who commit sexual activity in the presence of a child for sexual gratification, and who obtain such gratification from the presence of the child—even if the child is apparently unaware of the activity happening in their presence. If the defendant is performing a sexual act in the presence of a child who is asleep and gains sexual gratification from that mere presence, he cannot be charged under the existing section 11 offence; nor, for example, could he be charged for his behaviour if the child was pretending to be asleep—even pretending out of sheer terror—while aware of the appalling behaviour being carried out, if the defendant believed the child to be asleep and therefore unaware of what was going on.
I am sure hon. Members will agree that the criminal law being unable to prosecute such behaviour in this example scenario is unacceptable. The Government strongly believe this flaw must be rectified as a matter of urgency, to ensure that children and other specific groups of the most vulnerable in our society are protected by the criminal law and not denied justice should they become victims of such behaviour.
These amendments are not mere technicalities, nor are they addressing pseudo-philosophical “What if?” scenarios. They are a direct and swift response to concerns expressed by those on the frontline: the police, who have to come face-to-face with the consequences of this disturbing and damaging offending.
We have listened carefully to those on the frontline who are dealing with this awful behaviour. They have provided us with evidence of the difficulties in prosecuting a small number of nevertheless worrying cases, in which it was clear that the perpetrator engaged in the sexual activity because they obtained sexual gratification from a child’s mere presence, but where there was insufficient evidence that the perpetrator knew, believed, or intended that the child was aware of the sexual activity.
These things are happening now. Such offenders are slipping through the net. It may only be in small numbers, but that is irrelevant when dealing with this level of offending and exploitation. This disturbing, unpleasant and damaging behaviour must not go unchecked by the justice system or by the law. It must not go unpunished. Our provisions will ensure that the law is able to make sure that it does not.
We believe it is entirely wrong that, for example, a defendant masturbating while standing next to a child’s bed—to obtain sexual gratification from the child’s presence—cannot be convicted if they successfully argue they did not believe the child was aware of the sexual activity. In such a case we think it is entirely right that the person should be guilty of a criminal offence. We also want to ensure that these behaviours are capable of being prosecuted in future. This is not just to bring offenders to justice but, importantly, to be able to manage these sexual offenders when they are eventually released into the community, and to prevent further offending, where there is specifically potential for further sexual offences against children or vulnerable adults.
It is clear that some people may legitimately engage in sexual activity in the presence of a child—say a couple who live in a one-bedroom flat and by necessity have to sleep with a baby or very young child in the room. Others may have to have a young child in the room for the monitoring of health problems and so forth. We can all think of legitimate examples. I must make it clear that we do not want to criminalise those people who engage in sexual activity in the presence of a child but not for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification from the child’s presence. In those circumstances, the presence of the child is purely incidental. We have deliberately drafted our provisions to ensure that those people will not be criminalised.
To exclude such behaviour from being captured within the relevant range of offences, we have retained the requirement for a direct link between the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and the activity occurring in the child’s presence. I hope that that assures hon. Members that our provisions have been carefully crafted to rightly exclude those who may legitimately engage in sexual activity when a child is merely present. The Government’s intention with this clause is to capture the criminally culpable, not the innocent.
Government amendment 12 seems a relatively modest amendment but, again, it is an important one. It adds the offence of sexual activity in the presence of a child at section 11 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to schedule 4 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The effect of this amendment is to thereby remove the section 11 offence from the ambit of the statutory criminal defence available at section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. I hope that I have convinced hon. Members of the importance of these provisions and of the necessity for swift action on our part.
Sexual offending, particularly against children and the most vulnerable, is a deeply distressing area of the law, and one that I know affects even legislators when considering reform, as we are today in this Committee. Over the years, the nature of sexual abuse, offending, manipulation and exploitation has changed, and it continues to change. Alongside the changing nature of offending, with which the law must keep up, gaps in the existing law are coming to light, highlighting those cases where serious offenders may be able to slip through the net of even the most well-intentioned and crafted drafting.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
As we have heard, clause 42 effectively incorporates provisions that had been included in the Criminal Justice Bill and is a key provision concerning sexual offences, specifically focusing on the offence of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child.
The clause makes an important amendment to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which forms a core legislative framework addressing sexual offences in the UK. In particular, clause 42 expands on the existing provisions to enhance the protection of children from sexual exploitation and harm.
Under the Sexual Offences Act, certain sexual offences are committed when a child is involved, such as sexual activity involving children, or causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. However, one area that has been highlighted for reform involves situations where a child might be exposed to sexual activity in a way that, while not directly involving them in the act, still results in harm.
Prior to the introduction of clause 42, the law did not adequately address situations where a child was the passive observer of a sexual activity. For instance, in scenarios where an adult or adults engage in sexual activity with each other in the presence of a child, the law might not have captured this activity as an offence, despite the potential psychological harm to the child. Clause 42 seeks to close this gap by making it an offence for an adult to engage in sexual activity in the presence of a child. This means that any sexual activity taking place in the physical presence of a child, even if the child is not directly involved in the sexual conduct, could now result in criminal liability.
The clause expands the scope of existing sexual offence laws to include situations that may not necessarily involve the direct participation of the child, but still expose the child to inappropriate activity or material that could be damaging to their wellbeing.
Clause 42 also sees parallel offences involving sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder, impeding their choice, and similar provisions in the Sexual Offences Act. Those individuals, too, might not fully understand the sexual nature of what the offender is doing. Previously, there might have been the same issue with the law of requiring awareness. Clause 42 offers a broad safeguard for those who cannot consent or comprehend.
The clause seeks to offer further protection for children by recognising the potential harm caused by exposure to sexual activity, even if it is not directed at them. The law would now acknowledge that witnessing such an act could have a detrimental impact on the child’s emotional, physiological, psychological or developmental health.
Although we support the clause, I seek clarity from the Minister on a couple of points. In situations where sexual activity takes place in private or behind closed doors, it might be difficult to establish whether a child was present or the extent of their exposure to the activity. Proving the impact on the child could also be challenging, particularly where psychological harm or emotional distress is not immediately apparent. What discussions has the Minister had on that matter? I note that, as we have discussed a number of times today, Government amendment 14 carves out an important exception of the offence from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Clause 42 represents an important development in child protection law. At present, as the Minister has said, an offence is committed only where a person knows or believes that the child or person with a mental disorder is aware of the activity, or where a person intends that the child or person with a mental disorder be aware of the activity.
The provisions will amend these offences to capture situations where, for the purpose of sexual gratification, a person intentionally engages in sexual activity in the presence of a child, even if they do not intend for the child to be aware of the activity. The examples covered by this amendment are clearly heinous, and we welcome the clause.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments and the fact that the Opposition welcome the clause to close this loophole to protect children and the most vulnerable.
Hopefully I have outlined how we carefully crafted the clause to ensure that we do not capture those who innocently engage in sexual activity in the presence of a child, and not for the purposes of sexual gratification. We do not want to criminalise those who have to share a bedroom with a baby, a young child or somebody with a health condition, and are not seeking sexual gratification from engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child. We have worked very closely with partners and stakeholders to ensure the law is crafted carefully so that we do not criminalise those people. The clause seeks to criminalise only those perpetrators who seek to gain sexual gratification from the presence of a child, whether the child knows or not.
I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Child sex offences: grooming aggravating factor
Harriet Cross
I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 43, page 48, line 23, at end insert—
“70B Group-based sexual grooming of a child
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a court is considering the seriousness of a specified child sex offences,
(b) the offence is aggravated by group-based grooming, and
(c) the offender was aged 18 or over when the offence was committed.
(2) The court—
(a) must treat the fact that the offence is aggravated by group-based grooming as an aggravated factor, and
(b) must state in court that the offence is so aggravated.
(3) An offence is ‘aggravated by group-based grooming’ if—
(a) the offence was facilitated by, or involved, the offender, who was involved in group-based grooming, or
(b) the offence was facilitated by, or involved, a person other than the offender grooming a person under the age of 18 and the offender knew, or could have reasonably been expected to know that said person was participating, or facilitating group-based grooming, or
(c) the offender intentionally arranges or facilitates something that the offender intends to do, intends another person to do, or believes that another person will do, in order to participate in group-based grooming.
(4) In this section ‘specified child sex offence’ means—
(a) an offence within any of subsections (5) to (7), or
(b) an inchoate offence in relation to any such offence.
(5) An offence is within this subsection if it is—
(a) an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (taking etc indecent photograph of child),
(b) an offence under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent photograph of child),
(c) an offence under any of sections 5 to 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape and other offences against children under 13),
(d) an offence under any sections 9 to 12 of that Act (other child sex offences),
(e) an offence under section 14 of that Act (arranging or facilitating commission of child sex offence),
(f) an offence under any of sections 16 to 19 of that Act (abuse of position of trust),
(g) an offence under section 25 or 26 of that Act (familial child sex offences), or
(h) an offence under any of sections 47 to 50 of that Act (sexual exploitation of children).
(6) An offence is within this subsection if it is—
(a) an offence under any of sections 1 to 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape, assault and causing sexual activity without consent),
(b) an offence under any of sections 30 to 41 of that Act (sexual offences relating to persons with mental disorder),
(c) an offence under any of sections 61 to 63 of that Act (preparatory offences), or
(d) an offence under any of sections 66 to 67A of that Act (exposure and voyeurism),
and the victim or intended victim was under the age of 18.
(7) An offence is within this subsection if it is an offence under section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual activity in a public lavatory) and a person involved in the activity in question was under the age of 18.
(8) For the purposes of this section—
(a) ‘group-based grooming’ is defined as a group of at least three adults whose purpose or intention is to commit a sexual offence against the same victim or group of victims who are under 18, or could reasonably be expected to be under 18.”.
This amendment would introduce a specific aggravating factor in sentencing for those who participate in, or facilitate, group-based sexual offending.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 47—National statutory inquiry into grooming gangs—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, set up a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.
(2) An inquiry established under subsection (1) must seek to—
(a) identify common patterns of behaviour and offending between grooming gangs;
(b) identify the type, extent and volume of crimes committed by grooming gangs;
(c) identify the number of victims of crimes committed by grooming gangs;
(d) identify the ethnicity of members of grooming gangs;
(e) identify any failings, by action, omission or deliberate suppression, by—
(i) police,
(ii) local authorities,
(iii) prosecutors,
(iv) charities,
(v) political parties,
(vi) local and national government,
(vii) healthcare providers and health services, or
(viii) other agencies or bodies, in the committal of crimes by grooming
(f) identify such national safeguarding actions as may be required to minimise the risk of further such offending occurring in future;
(g) identify good practice in protecting children.
(3) The inquiry may do anything it considers is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of its functions and the achievement of the requirements of subsection (2).
(4) An inquiry established under this section must publish a report within two years of the launch of the inquiry.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
‘gang’ means a group of at least three adults whose purpose or intention is to commit a sexual offence against the same victim or group of victims;
‘grooming’ means—
(a) activity carried out with the primary intention of committing sexual offences against the victim;
(b) activity that is carried out, or predominantly carried out, in person;
(c) activity that includes the provision of illicit substances and/or alcohol either as part of the grooming or concurrent with the commission of the sexual offence.”
This new clause would set up a national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.
New clause 48—Annual statement on ethnicity of members of grooming gangs—
“The Secretary of State must make an annual statement to the House of Commons on the ethnicity of convicted members of grooming gangs.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make an annual statement to the House on ethnicity data of convicted members of grooming gangs.
New clause 49—Publication of sex offender’s ethnicity data—
(1) The Secretary of State for the Home Office must publish—
(a) quarterly; and
(b) yearly;
datasets containing all national data pertaining to the ethnicity of sex offenders.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a ‘sex offender’ is anyone convicted of—
(a) an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (taking etc indecent photograph of child),
(b) an offence under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent photograph of child),
(c) an offence under any of sections 5 to 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape and other offences against children under 13),
(d) an offence under any sections 9 to 12 of that Act (other child sex offences),
(e) an offence under section 14 of that Act (arranging or facilitating commission of child sex offence),
(f) an offence under any of sections 16 to 19 of that Act (abuse of position of trust),
(g) an offence under section 25 or 26 of that Act (familial child sex offences), or
(h) an offence under any of sections 47 to 50 of that Act (sexual exploitation of children),
(i) an offence under any of sections 1 to 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape, assault and causing sexual activity without consent),
(j) an offence under any of sections 30 to 41 of that Act (sexual offences relating to persons with mental disorder),
(k) an offence under any of sections 61 to 63 of that Act (preparatory offences), or
(l) an offence under any of sections 66 to 67A of that Act (exposure and voyeurism),
(m) an offence under section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual activity in a public lavatory) and a person involved in the activity in question was under the age of 18.”
This new clause would introduce a requirement that ethnicity data of sex offenders be published on a quarterly and a yearly basis.
Harriet Cross
Clause 43 establishes a new statutory aggravating factor in sentencing. Where an adult offender commits a specified child sexual offence and that offence involves or was facilitated by the grooming of a child, courts will be required to treat that as an aggravating factor. This provision is a powerful statement that grooming, the insidious process in which predators prepare and manipulate children for abuse, makes a crime even more heinous, and the Opposition support it. In fact, the clause is substantially the same as a provision in the Criminal Justice Bill and aligns with key recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. Courts already often consider grooming as an aggravating factor, but putting it on a statutory footing ensures consistency and emphasis.
The clause sets out a list of specified child sexual offences, including the crimes of sexual assault of a child, rape and causing a child to engage in sexual activity, among others. If an offender being sentenced for one of these offences is 18 or over and the evidence shows that they groomed the child—for example, by establishing an emotional connection, buying gifts, building dependencies or systematically desensitising the child—the judge must regard that as making the crime more serious. It does not dictate the extent of the sentence, but it mandates that sentencing guidelines account for the aggravating factor.
Child grooming offenders may pose as friends, mentors or even pseudo-parental figures to their victims. By the time they commit the sexual abuse, they have already isolated the child from help and normalised horrendous behaviour. It is calculated evil on every level and deserves a heavy hammer of justice, so clause 43 ensures that judges explicitly account for that aspect when allowing justice to be served.
Clause 43 is one of several measures implementing the IICSA recommendations. Mandatory reporting, which we will come to when we debate clause 45 onwards, is another. It is heartening to see progress on these fronts. The Conservative party has remained committed to enacting all reasonable recommendations from the child abuse inquiry. We want to live up to the promise to survivors that their testimonies will spur real change. This aggravating factor is one such change, so I commend the Government for including it. We will do everything we can to support its swift passage.
Amendment 42 would create a specific aggravating factor for group-based sexual grooming. It addresses a particularly abhorrent phenomenon, which we have seen in places such as Rotherham, Rochdale and Telford, where groups of at least three adults work together to systematically groom and abuse children. Such group-based offences show a truly chilling level of organisation and premeditation.
The amendment would ensure that courts treat group-based grooming as an aggravating factor when sentencing offenders who have participated in or facilitated that type of group-based sexual offending. This would send a clear message that gangs who collaborate to abuse children will face enhanced punishments, reflecting the organised nature of their crimes.
Amendment 42 defines group-based grooming as involving at least three adults whose purpose is to commit sexual offences against the same victim or group of victims under the age of 18. It would apply in three scenarios: where the offender participated in group-based grooming; where an offence was facilitated by another person’s grooming that the offender knew about; or where the offender arranged or facilitated another person’s participation in group-based grooming.
The Opposition support clause 43, as I said. We will watch to ensure that it is implemented efficiently—for instance, we will check whether sentences for grooming-related offences increase as expected. The feedback loop is crucial, because it should not be just words on paper; it must translate to tangible justice.
New clause 47 states that, within three months of the Bill’s passage, the Secretary of State must set up a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs to seek to identify: common patterns of behaviour between grooming gangs; the type, extent and volume of crimes committed by grooming gangs; the number of victims of crimes committed by grooming gangs; the ethnicity of members of grooming gangs; and any failings, by action, omission or deliberate suppression, by a range of bodies or organisations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I just wonder what exactly the hon. Lady is outlining. I forgot to bring the report with me—I left it on my desk downstairs. What is she seeking to add with new clause 47 that was not in Alexis Jay’s two-year report into grooming gangs? It sounds exactly the same to me, so I wonder what was missing from the report that she thinks the new clause would achieve.
Harriet Cross
As the Minister will realise, there is a lot in that report. The reason for putting something in a Bill is to enshrine it in law. It makes it an absolute duty on us, as elected representatives, and the Government to ensure that these things happen. It is an important provision, and I fully support the idea of making sure it is in the Bill.
New clauses 48 and 49 look at the ethnicity of grooming gang members. We cannot be squeamish or sensitive when it comes to protecting our children. Without adequate data, we cannot act with full understanding of what is happening across the country and where resources would be most effectively targeted.
Jess Phillips
I just want the hon. Lady to know that she is stepping on the toes of the statutory inquiry, which has already asked for better data collection on exactly these things. I am not sure why she seeks a provision that will say the same thing as the report in February 2022. Nothing was done about it then, so why does she want something else to say it again?
Harriet Cross
The Minister seems to be on the same ground as us. She has said many times that she agrees with the implementation of what Alexis Jay suggested, and there should therefore be no issue with it being included in the Bill—she should be welcoming this at every step. As I said, grooming is one of the most insidious and harmful forms of child exploitation. We welcome clause 43, and we hope that our amendments will be supported to ensure that this type of crime is tackled as strictly as possible.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I rise to express my strong support for clause 43, which is an essential provision that strengthens our ability to combat the abhorrent crimes of child sexual exploitation, particularly by making grooming an aggravating factor. For too long, this country has witnessed devastating failures in the protection of our most vulnerable. Clause 43 represents not just a legal tool but a moral commitment to never again allow these failures to go unanswered.
Let us remember the victims in Rotherham, where at least 1,400 children were sexually exploited over a 16-year period. Vulnerable girls were raped, trafficked, threatened and dismissed, and perhaps most disturbing was the silence of those in authority who feared speaking out. Clause 43 confronts that silence.
Jess Phillips
I do not ask this to catch out the hon. Gentleman, but has he read either of the two independent inquiries specifically into Rotherham? One was written by Alexis Jay and the other by Dame Louise Casey for the previous Government. What does the hon. Gentleman think will be found for the Rotherham victims that was not found in either of the two independent inquiries or in the statutory grooming gang inquiry undertaken by Alexis Jay? We say, “Never again,” but we still have not implemented the recommendations of those inquiries.
Jack Rankin
I have read the Jay report but not the other report. I am speaking to clause 43, not the amendments, so I am supporting the Government in my remarks—the Minister can get me later.
Clause 43 is intended to compel transparency. It holds those in positions of power accountable when they turn away, and it provides law enforcement with the tools it needs to intervene earlier, investigate more thoroughly and prosecute more decisively.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
My hon. Friend has articulated this well. Is it not the point that people in positions of power and authority are doing nothing? That is one of the huge controversies around this that needs to be tackled, and I welcome the Bill’s attempt to do so.
Jack Rankin
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In Rochdale, we saw young girls dismissed as making “lifestyle choices”. These were children, some as young as 12, and they were failed not just by their abusers but by institutions that were supposed to protect them.
The grooming gangs in Telford, Oxford and Huddersfield were not isolated incidents. They were systematic failures enabled by cultural sensitivities being prioritised over child safety. They were worsened by fragmented communication between agencies, and clause 43 addresses those issues head on. We owe it to the survivors—those who were silenced, ignored and blamed—to send a message: you were failed, but future children will not be. We will stand up, we will speak out and we will legislate.
That is also the intent of Opposition amendment 42, which aims to help this legislation to have the most meaning. Each of the cases I have described involved group-based grooming. This is not about politicising tragedy; it is about preventing future tragedy with legislation that matches the problems we know exist. It is a constructive amendment that helps to avoid our repeating the mistakes of the past. I urge my colleagues on the Committee to support that amendment and help deliver the justice that these victims have waited too long to see.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
As has been said by Members on both sides of the Committee, and as was mentioned in the IICSA statement that my hon. Friend the Safeguarding Minister made on the Floor of the House an hour or so ago, clause 43 will introduce a new aggravating factor to be applied when the courts consider the seriousness of a specified child sexual offence and where the offence being considered was facilitated by, or involved the grooming of, a person under 18. The clause is to be welcomed, and I note what the Opposition have said about it. However, new clauses 47 and 48 are not to be welcomed, and I will go into my reasons for that.
First, though, I want to put it on the record that, prior to my election, I worked with core participants in the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, in the first module, which involved the heinous part of child migration in the whole sorry saga of this scandal. The Child Migrants Trust did fantastic work to expose that scandal. I just wanted to put on the record my involvement in helping the trust with some of its work at that time, and to commend it—particularly Margaret Humphreys, its founder—for the fantastic work it does; and to commend every former child migrant, and the families of former child migrants, for their bravery in speaking out about the experience they went through.
I admit that I thought new clauses 47 and 48 were missing a name—that of the acting lead of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), because we know that they reflect his driving ambition. I feel a sense of déjà vu because I am almost certain that the Opposition tabled identical new clauses in Committee on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I am therefore somewhat surprised that they failed to copy and paste the amendments to table them on time last week. Fortunately, we are able to talk about them today.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for the forensic way she went through, line by line, the equivalents to new clauses 47 and 48 in that Bill Committee, and for exposing the politics behind them—how this was not about getting a new national statutory inquiry, as was claimed. She exposed how, line by line, the Opposition are repeating and duplicating the work already done by IICSA and previous inquiries, including Rotherham, and the newly announced local-led investigations, on which my hon. Friend the Safeguarding Minister gave an update just an hour ago on the Floor of the House. She outlined how the Opposition are undermining the work that the Conservative party sat on for 20 months. When the Conservative Government got the IICSA final report in October 2022, with 20 concluding recommendations—107 in total—they did nothing with them.
The faux outrage, the politicking and the weaponisation of the new clauses is infuriating. I should not be infuriated, because it is for the victims to be infuriated; they are being used for politics so that the populist Opposition can squeeze out votes. The Opposition are haemorrhaging votes, and they are trying to court and carry votes.
We had the sorry sight of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. In the eight or nine short months that I have had in this place, I have never been as angry as I was on Second Reading when, through a wrecking amendment—which is now being replicated with new clauses 47 and 48—the Conservatives had the audacity to claim that we, the Labour party, which had been in power for just a couple of months, were doing nothing to protect our children, when for 20 months they had sat on their hands with the 20 concluding recommendations from IICSA and did nothing. Not only that, they go out and curry favour with the populist right. They go out placing Facebook ads and Twitter posts calling us defenders of paedophiles, and we are meant to believe that they genuinely believe this—new clauses 47 and 48 are about politics.
I give credit to the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, who has received this hospital pass, for saying that it is heartening to see progress being made on this issue. I only wish that she had been in the Chamber an hour ago, when she could have heard the sorry contributions from nearly all Opposition Members in response to the Safeguarding Minister’s update on the action plan. They focused on one specific element, no doubt for their clickbait Facebook and Twitter posts, and everything else that the right hon. Member for Newark will end up doing later. I look forward to being ridiculed and criticised for defending paedophiles because I am standing here criticising the Opposition’s politicisation of new clauses 47 and 48, but we do what is right for the victims, not what is right for the Tories.
Joe Robertson
Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that the inquiries and reports on this issue to date have gone far enough into looking at the allegations of walls of silence within the authorities—councils, the police and so on? Is there not a role for a further inquiry that deals particularly, but not only, with that issue?
Mr Barros-Curtis
When work has not been done to implement any of the recommendations of all the preceding investigations, and when the Government have announced locally led work on grooming gangs, on which the Safeguarding Minister gave an update in the House but an hour ago, it is imperative that we get on with implementing the Bill, as well as the other legislation and work to which the Government have committed. We must get laws on the statute book and get policies, training and funding in place. We must do the things that we have committed to, which the Tories should have done when in government.
As I said, my hon. Friend the Safeguarding Minister, in her update just a moment ago, announced £5 million of national funding to support locally led work on grooming gangs. We should not duplicate work that is already done; we should get on with the recommendations that we have before us already. I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan said, but I just wish that had been reflected in the House but an hour ago.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I have dealt with many victims in these cases and heard what they want. Does my hon. Friend agree that what they really want is action, rather than just more inquiries with no action taken on their recommendations?
Mr Barros-Curtis
I completely agree, and I will take that as my cue to stop talking. My hon. Friend is right that we need action, so I will step down from my soapbox and move to conclude my remarks.
I do not doubt that Opposition Members are committed to doing what is right by victims. However, what is not right by victims is the politicisation and weaponisation of such a heinous issue, as has been done by some Opposition Front Benchers—not those here in the Committee, but some in the shadow Cabinet.
As the Ministers have said today, we should be working together, listening to victims, learning from their experiences, bringing about a culture change so that this can never happen again, and putting in place frameworks, rules, laws and policies to ensure that, if it does, the perpetrators are prosecuted to the fullest extent. I submit that new clauses 47 and 48 should not be moved, so that we can move forward with practical measures that do not duplicate work and get on with the important work of safeguarding and protecting our children.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I will be brief. I very much welcome clause 43.
On new clause 47, the Liberal Democrats welcome anything that will deliver justice to the victims of these horrific crimes and help take meaningful action to stop the crimes from occurring again. The Government should waste no time in launching inquires, where required, and clearly set out when areas beyond those included in the pilots that ask for a local inquiry can get one. However, we must focus on implementing the conclusions of the Jay report. That has to be our priority. The conclusions and recommendations are there, but they were not taken forward under the previous Government. We just need to get those in place. We also need a timetable for when they will be taken forward, so that there is no delay to justice for victims.
I join the hon. Member for Cardiff West in his dismissive and quite angry analysis of new clauses 48 and 49, which are clearly merely race-baiting measures to chase headlines, and encourage Conservative Members not to move them.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the Opposition Front Benchers for tabling amendment 42 and new clauses 47 to 49. I also thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate—in particular, the hon. Member for Windsor, who gave a thoughtful contribution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, a good friend who has worked his entire career to ensure that victims get the justice they deserve. His passionate contribution to the debate reminds us all exactly why we are here in this place: to deliver for victims of these heinous crimes, to make sure that the perpetrators receive the full force of the law, and to ensure that any gaps in legislation and recommendations of inquiries are followed through with. That is exactly what we are doing today.
Before I respond to the amendments, I will explain the rationale for clause 43. I am pleased to speak to it, and I know that its provisions have been welcomed by hon. Members across the House. In recent years, there have been a number of high-profile cases involving so-called grooming gangs—groups of offenders involved in heinous child sexual exploitation—including those in Rotherham, Telford, Newcastle, Rochdale and Oxford. In February 2022, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse recommended
“the strengthening of the response of the criminal justice system by…amending the Sentencing Act 2020 to provide a mandatory aggravating factor in sentencing those convicted of offences relating to the sexual exploitation of children.”
The Government want to ensure that the sentencing framework reflects the seriousness of child sexual abuse and exploitation. In January, the Home Secretary committed to
“legislate to make grooming an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offences, because the punishment must fit the terrible crime”.—[Official Report, 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 632.]
Clause 43 will require courts to consider grooming an aggravating factor when sentencing for specified child sex offences, including rape and sexual assault. It will capture offenders whose offending is facilitated by, or involves, the grooming of a person under 18. The grooming itself need not be sexual.
The measure will capture models of exploitation not currently directly addressed by existing culpability factors. It will create an obligation on courts to aggravate sentences where the offence has been facilitated by grooming undertaken by either the offender or a third party, for example where an offender assaults a victim who has been groomed by another member of a grooming gang. It will also capture instances where grooming is undertaken against a third party, for example where a victim has been groomed to recruit others.
The measure requires the courts to consider grooming an aggravating factor when sentencing in relation to any of the listed child sex offences. However, I must be clear that it will be in the court’s discretion to consider grooming an aggravating factor when sentencing for any offence, where it is relevant to the offending, regardless of the age of the victim.
I understand that the Opposition’s intention with their amendment 42 is to require courts to consider group-based grooming as a specific aggravating factor when sentencing sexual offences committed against children. Clause 43 already requires courts to consider grooming an aggravating factor when sentencing for specified child sex offences. This includes, but is not limited to, offences facilitated by or involving the group-based grooming of a child. An aggravating factor makes an offence more serious and must be considered by the court when deciding the length of the sentence.
The Sentencing Council’s overarching guidelines make
“offence committed as part of a group”
an aggravating factor. That means that, when sentencing for grooming gang offences, a court will be able to aggravate the offence to take into account the grooming behaviour, and then additionally aggravate the offence to take into account the fact that the offending was committed as part of a group. An aggravating factor for group-based grooming, as proposed in amendment 42, would be likely to have a more limited application, as the court could not apply the factor unless it was satisfied that the offender was a member of a group, which may be difficult to prove.
Clause 43 will go further than existing sentencing guidelines, by capturing models of group-based exploitation that are not currently directly addressed by grooming high-culpability factors. It will create an obligation on courts to aggravate sentences in instances where the offence has been facilitated by grooming undertaken by either the offender or a third party, for example where an offender assaults a victim who has been groomed by another member of a grooming gang or group. It will also capture instances where grooming is undertaken against a third party, for example where a victim has been groomed to recruit others. For that reason, I urge Opposition Members not to press amendment 42.
New clause 47 seeks to establish a statutory national inquiry into grooming gangs. It therefore seeks to revisit the questions considered by the seven-year-long independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. During the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Opposition tabled similar amendments—maybe even identical ones—on the basis that the independent inquiry “barely touches on” grooming gangs.
IICSA, as is common practice for a public inquiry, involved a series of smaller inquiries and investigations of different strands. One of those inquiries was on child sexual exploitation by organised networks—the entire focus of that inquiry was grooming gangs. It took two years and reported three years ago, in February 2022. It is clear from cross-refencing new clause 47 with the scope of the previous investigations into grooming gangs that it seeks to revisit questions already examined by the inquiry. For example, subsection (2)(a) of the new clause seeks an inquiry into grooming gangs to
“identify common patterns of behaviour and offending”.
However, the scope of the previous grooming gangs inquiry states that it will investigate “the nature” of sexual exploitation by grooming gangs. I could go on and on.
If we continue to call for inquiry after inquiry along the same lines, we will undermine the whole system of public inquiries, including public trust in them and public tolerance for the resources of the state that they demand. Therefore, rather than engage in gesture politics by re-running inquiries without the evidence and data that we need, it makes sense to take the Government’s approach, with Baroness Louise Casey’s audit there to fill in the gaps that have already been identified by the previous inquiry. That audit is well under way, as we heard today in the Chamber from my hon. Friend the Safeguarding Minister, and it will report in due course.
The Government are also setting up a new victims and survivors panel, not just to guide Ministers on the design, delivery and implementation of the plans of IICSA, but to produce wider work on child sexual exploitation and abuse. Elsewhere in the Bill, we are making it mandatory to report child sexual abuse, and we will be making it an offence to prevent such reports from being made, as well as introducing further measures to tackle those organising online child sex abuse. As I have set out, we are legislating to make grooming an aggravating factor in sentencing for child sexual offences.
New clause 48 seeks to identify the ethnicity of members of grooming gangs and require regular reporting on the same. The 2022 inquiry into grooming gangs identified widespread failure to record the ethnicity of perpetrators and victims, and inconsistency of definitions in the data, which has meant that the limited research available relies on poor-quality data. The child sexual exploitation police taskforce already collects and publishes ethnicity data on group-based child sexual exploitation. However, we are committed to improving that data, and we have asked the taskforce to expand the ethnicity data that it collects and publishes. Baroness Casey’s audit will also look to uncover the gaps in current knowledge and understanding of grooming gang crimes, including ethnicity, which will inform our future work.
Finally, new clause 49 would require ethnicity data on sex offenders to be published on a quarterly and yearly basis. The ethnicity of those convicted of sex offences is already available in the “outcomes by offence” data tool. The data is published by the Ministry of Justice quarterly, and it is available in the public domain. The new clause would, in effect, require the duplication of data that is already available pertaining to the ethnicity of convicted sex offenders.
In conclusion, not only are new clauses 47 to 49 unnecessary, but they detract from the Government’s vital work to tackle the crimes of grooming gangs and other sex offenders. On that basis, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan not to move them when they are reached later in our proceedings.
Harriet Cross
I will keep my comments brief. I thank everyone who has contributed; I appreciate that this issue raises tensions. I know that no matter what side of the House we are on and no matter what angle we come at this from, everyone wants what is best for children and to prevent any sort of gang-based grooming or sexual violence against them. Any approach we can take to prevent that is one that we should consider. I listened to every word that the hon. Member for Cardiff West said and I understand it, but anything we are able to do to make a difference, I want done. I do not care which side of the House does it—I really do not.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I reiterate that I am grateful for the tone that the hon. Lady adopted when she congratulated Ministers on the progress that has been made. It is just a shame that other members of her team, so to speak, did not do the same in the Chamber earlier. The Government are committed to this cause, as I would expect every Member of the House to be. Perhaps she will reflect, in discussion with her team, on what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice said about redundancies in the new clauses, and their duplicating work that has already been done or detracting from work that is under way, but I just put it on the record that I think we are all singing from the same hymn sheet on this point.
Harriet Cross
I thank the hon. Member for that.
We will press amendment 42 to a vote. Although I heard what the Minister said on the matter, we feel that the wording of the clause is not conclusive. It refers to “offender” in the singular, not to “offenders” in the plural, and we want to make sure that anything involving a gang or group is reflected in the law.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 28—Power to deport foreign nationals for possession of child sexual abuse images—
“(1) The Protection of Children Act 1978 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1 (Indecent photographs of children) after subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) Where a person is a foreign national and is charged with—
(a) an offence under subsection (1), or
(b) is found to be carrying an electronic device storing child sexual abuse images under section 164B of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979,
the Secretary of State must make a deportation order in accordance with section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007.”
This new clause would make foreign nationals found in possession of child sexual abuse images subject to automatic deportation.
Jess Phillips
Many individuals who pose a direct risk to children travel frequently across the UK border to commit child sex abuse offences abroad. Before the development of digital media, child sexual abuse material would typically be present in physical form, such as printed photographs or DVDs. Border Force officers did and do have the power to search for that material under existing legislation, namely the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Child sexual abuse material is now usually held digitally on devices such as phones, tablets and laptops, which are almost always password-protected. Currently, Border Force officers can compel individuals to present these devices but cannot compel them to unlock the devices so that the contents can be inspected. As I am sure everybody would agree, that is nonsense. Clause 44 will give Border Force officers the power to require an individual who is reasonably suspected of child abuse offences to unlock their devices in furtherance of a search. If they refuse, they can now be arrested for the existing offence of wilful obstruction.
The Home Office maintains a database of all known CSAM, known as the child abuse image database. Clause 44 allows officers to scan the contents of an unlocked device to detect the presence of the hashes, or digital fingerprints, of these images. The scan will be limited to this. Therefore, there is no risk of collateral intrusion. When they unlock phones, it will be to look for child abuse material; it will not be to look at anything else they might have been buying off Amazon. That is the purpose of the clause. It was very strongly requested by law enforcement and Border Force. Their hands have been tied for a while on this.
Harriet Cross
Clause 44 provides Border Force officers with a new power to scan electronic devices for child sexual abuse images at UK borders under specific conditions. The measure addresses the documented issue of certain offenders transporting indecent images of children on various devices when entering or leaving the country. Currently, detecting the contraband at the border is challenging without seizing devices and performing time-consuming forensic examinations. Clause 44 streamlines the process by allowing officers to act when they have reasonable grounds to suspect someone has child abuse imagery. I note that clause 45(1) references reasonable grounds. Can the Minister expound further on which instances will be classed as reasonable grounds?
I draw attention to new clause 28, which seeks to strengthen the UK’s response to foreign nationals found in possession of child sexual abuse images by mandating their deportation. Any foreign national charged with an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, which criminalises the possession, making or distribution of indecent images of children, or found carrying an electronic device containing such images would automatically be subject to deportation.
Possession of child sexual abuse images is a serious, awful and heinous crime.
Joe Robertson
Does my hon. Friend agree that the mandatory requirement to deport foreign nationals would need to be implemented in a proper and sensitive way? Criminals leaving the country should be handed over to law enforcement in the country they go to, if appropriate, rather than just released into the world.
Harriet Cross
Yes, absolutely. I do not think any Member present wants to act unlawfully or be seen to do so in any way. We want to ensure that if someone is deported, it is done properly and efficiently so that the deportation works as planned.
Every image represents a real child who has been subject to abuse, and the act of possessing, viewing or sharing such material fuels a cycle of harm and victimization. This crime is not victimless. Children depicted in these images are subject to unimaginable trauma, and the continued circulation of such material prolongs their suffering and prevents them from fully recovering from their abuse, if that is at all possible.
The psychological and emotional harm caused by these crimes extends far beyond the individual victims. Families and communities are devastated when offenders are discovered, and public trust is severely damaged when such crimes occur. Law enforcement agencies worldwide are engaged in an ongoing battle against child exploitation, investing significant resources into identifying offenders, rescuing victims and preventing further harm.
Given the severity of the crime, strong legal measures are necessary to deter offenders and hold them accountable. Those found in possession of child sexual abuse images must face strict penalties. Given the severity of the crime and its devastating impact on victims, I hope the Government will support new clause 28 and share in our strong belief that foreign nationals convicted of possessing child sexual abuse images should never be allowed to remain in the UK.
Jess Phillips
I will first answer the hon. Lady’s question about how Border Force officers will decide what reasonable grounds of suspicion are. Officers will rely on various indicators of reasonable suspicion. Those could include whether the individual is a registered sex offender—which is quite clear—frequent travel to destinations included on the list of countries under section 172 of the Police, Crime and Sentencing Act 2022, or the presence of child abuse paraphernalia in their luggage. Unfortunately, I have seen some of the seizures in such cases, and some really horrendous stuff gets found in people’s luggage, so if someone had some of those terrible things—child-like dolls, for example—that would be reasonable suspicion.
For the purposes of this clause specifically, I give particular thanks. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention thanked Holly Lynch earlier, and I thank a former Conservative Member of Parliament. Pauline Latham was a brilliant campaigner, a brilliant woman, who I worked alongside many times on issues such as this. She tried to get this clause into a number of different private Members’ Bills and so on. She was definitely trying to help, but the previous Government, I am afraid to say, were resisting this clause, perhaps because of time—we have already had this Bill once, and I am not sure why the clause was being resisted, but that is what I found when I entered the Home Office. I am therefore proud to commend the clause to the Committee, and I thank Pauline Latham for always speaking up frankly—regardless of who she was speaking up to—about what was right.
New clause 28 seeks to extend the automatic deportation provision in section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 to foreign nationals charged with an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, or found in possession of sexual abuse images. Where foreign nationals abuse this country’s hospitality by committing crimes, it is right that we consider taking deportation action against them. I could not disagree with the sentiment of the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, although I would not put it down to just those who use child abuse imagery, rather than those who might have had contact offences with children or those who commit domestic abuse, for example. To see that in such small isolation is fairly problematic for a system that needs some serious attention.
The UK has existing powers to deport foreign nationals who commit sexual offences. Under the UK Borders Act, a foreign national must be deported if they are convicted of any offence in the UK and sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment, unless an exception applies. As someone who has worked in the field for many years, however, I recognise that some of the most heinous crimes—the ones that worry us the most and those that the Government are really keen to tackle—are those that frequently get a sentence of less than 12 months. My hon. Friends at the Ministry of Justice are looking, in the sentencing review, at how and why we have a situation where some of the worst crimes against the vulnerable end up with such small sentences.
I therefore recognise the point that the hon. Lady is making. However, I would say that that is automatically the case with more than 12 months; where that threshold is not met, a foreign national can already be deported on the grounds that their deportation is conducive to the public good, under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. The power to deport under the 1971 Act can also be used to deport a foreign national even where they have not been convicted of an offence.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East—is that like “Wicked”, with a Wicked Witch of the West and of the East? [Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Gentleman is the Good Witch. He certainly made an important point about child abuse, especially online, which new clause 28—this comes from a very good place—seeks to determine: it is not that child abuse knows any border, but child abuse imagery especially knows no border. The idea that British children would be made safer by deporting somebody to another country is not something I would recognise. The system of then handing people over, so that actually people serve their sentences here, is probably something that we would be keen to see.
The power to deport can be used when somebody has not been convicted of an offence, so actually the powers in the new clause already exist. The Government take the matter of foreign nationals committing criminal offences in the UK extremely seriously. We deport foreign national offenders in appropriate cases, including all offenders sentenced to more than 12 months. New clause 28 is therefore unlikely to result in any more deportations, given these existing powers.
The Government do, however, recognise that the automatic deportation regime does not capture some offenders, who get shorter sentences. I recognise that and it bothers me. We intend to bring forward proposals later this year to simplify the deportation regime and address lower-level offending. I am not calling child sex abuse lower-level offending, but if we think of the most famous case of child sex abuse offending that we have had in recent years, I believe it resulted in a suspended sentence of eight weeks. While I certainly do not think it is lower-level offending, that is often is how it is treated.
At this time, we do not advocate taking a piecemeal approach to making changes in the Bill that would mandate the deportation of every foreign national charged with an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. However, this is absolutely something that we are keenly looking at, and I imagine that when there is future legislation, largely on immigration, we will have these debates again.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Duty to report suspected child sex offences
Harriet Cross
I beg to move amendment 43, clause 45, page 50, line 8, leave out subsection (7).
This amendment would keep an individual under the duty to report child abuse despite the belief that someone else may have reported the abuse to the relevant authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 46, clause 45, page 50, line 20, at end insert—
“(10) A person who fails to fulfil the duty under subsection (1) commits an offence.
(11) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse that a failure to report a suspected child sex offence should be a criminal offence.
Amendment 47, clause 45, page 51, line 5, at end insert “or
(c) an activity involving a ‘position of trust’ as defined in sections 21, 22 and 22A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that any person working in a position of trust as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, should be designated a mandatory reporter.
Clause stand part.
Schedule 7.
Clause 46 stand part.
Amendment 48, clause 47, page 52, line 11, at end insert—
“(7) The sixth case is where P witnesses a child displaying sexualised, sexually harmful or other behaviour, physical signs of abuse or consequences of sexual abuse, such as pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease, to an extent that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed.
(8) The seventh case is where P witnesses a person (A) behaving in the presence of a child in a way that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that A may have committed a child sex offence.
(9) A failure to comply with the duty under subsection (1) is not an offence where the reason to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed arises from subsection (7) or subsection (8).”
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that there should be a duty to report where a person recognises the indicators of child sexual abuse. Failure to report in these instances would not attract a criminal sanction.
Clause 47 stand part.
Harriet Cross
Clause 45, alongside clauses 46 and 47 and schedule 7, introduces a duty to report suspected child sex offences, and in doing so fulfils a major recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. In essence, clause 45 will require professionals and volunteers working in roles closely connected to children to notify the authorities if, in the course of their work or duties, they have reason to suspect that a child has been sexually abused.
Time and again, inquiries into abuse scandals—whether involving institutions, schools, churches, sports clubs or grooming gangs—have found that people around the victim knew or suspected something was going wrong but did not report it, perhaps out of fear, confusion, misplaced loyalty or uncertainty. Clause 45 sends an unequivocal message: if you know or suspect a child is being sexually abused, you must tell the police or a local authority.
Opposition amendment 43 would remove subsection (7) of clause 45, which currently exempts someone from reporting if they believe that another person has already made the notification. Our amendment would maintain every individual’s duty to report suspected abuse, regardless of whether they think someone else has already done so. This is a sensible amendment and seeks to avoid incidences or suspected incidences of child sexual abuse slipping through the net on account of someone assuming, even in all good conscience, that someone else has already reported the matter. We cannot be careful enough, and repeated notifications of the same offence can only add to the evidence base for such a crime. Too much information is always better than no information. We cannot stand back and leave a child’s safety to chance or hope that someone else has taken the appropriate action.
The notification may be made to a relevant police force, local authority or both, as soon as is practicable. It is detailed in clause 46 that
“‘Relevant local authority’ means—
(a) if a relevant child resides in England or Wales, the local authority in whose area the child is believed to reside, or
(b) if the person making the notification does not know the local authority area in which any relevant child resides, such local authority as the person making the notification considers appropriate.”
That is a sensible approach. The first port of call is to report to the local authority that will be reasonably responsible for the vulnerable child; that is the obvious and correct place to start. However, where the notifying adult is unsure or unaware of the vulnerable child’s living arrangements, it is still vital that notification is made to a local authority, no matter where in the country the child lives, as local authorities are better placed than the notifying person to direct the report to the appropriate channels. A similar provision is outlined in clause 46 relating to the definition of a “relevant police force.” Again, we consider that to be a sensible approach.
Matt Bishop
Clause 45 demonstrates, once again, that this Government are serious about protecting children from what I think we would all agree is one of the most hideous of crimes—child sexual abuse. The impact of such abuse can last a lifetime, but far too often the voices of victims remain unheard.
Having worked closely with vulnerable children and witnessed the devastating consequences of abuse, I am extremely supportive of the inclusion in the Bill of the duty to report child sexual abuse. The clause places a clear legal responsibility on professionals such as teachers, healthcare workers, social workers and others to report any suspicion or knowledge of child sexual abuse. It ensures that when these individuals encounter children at risk, they cannot remain silent. They must act, safeguarding the child and ensuring that the abuse is reported to the relevant authorities as soon as possible.
For too long, we have seen cases where abuse has gone unnoticed or unaddressed because there was no legal duty to act. That gap in the law has allowed perpetrators to evade detection and left children vulnerable to further harm. By making it clear that silence is no longer an option, this provision empowers professionals to intervene early and prevent further abuse.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that although it is crazy that this was not a mandatory requirement in the first place, it is great to see a further recommendation from the IICSA report now being acted on and hopefully becoming law?
Matt Bishop
I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. It is crazy that it was not mandatory in the beginning but, as he says, we have all taken steps to make sure that it is now.
On a few occasions in my past career, I would speak to professionals after an abuse case had been alleged, and found out that they had no idea what had been happening. On other occasions, professionals had been suspicious for a long time but did not think that they had the evidence to act. Often, the abuse would then go unreported for many months—in some cases years. Some professionals—not all, but some—chose not to report through naivety or because of concern about the repercussions for themselves, and some just chose not to report at all. So, it is important to note that this clause does not criminalise those who are unaware of abuse, but rather holds accountable those who fail to report when they have a reasonable suspicion. This legal clarity will encourage professionals to act decisively and without fear, knowing that they have a duty to protect children. The provision will strengthen our child protection system and ensure that those in positions of trust cannot ignore their responsibility to act when they suspect abuse. This is a vital step in ensuring that no child falls through the cracks, and that those who seek to harm them are held accountable.
In conclusion, the duty to report child sexual abuse is a necessary and positive change. It will protect children, support professionals in their efforts to safeguard the vulnerable, and help bring perpetrators to justice. I fully support the clause and believe that it represents a significant step forward in safeguarding our future generations.
Jack Rankin
I rise to speak to clause 45 and the principle running through the clauses that follow it. Clause 45 introduces a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse by establishing a legal obligation for individuals engaged in regulated activities with children, such as teachers and healthcare professionals, to report known instances of child sexual abuse to the police or local authorities.
Will the Minister consider the British Medical Association’s written evidence, which raised concerns about the scope of this duty? I disagree with the BMA, having read its evidence, but I want to explore it a little, so I hope the Minister might comment on it.
The BMA is worried that the Bill might compel healthcare professionals to disclose patient information to the police, potentially undermining the trust inherent in the doctor-patient relationship. In my view, that perspective seems to neglect the existing legal frameworks that already permit such disclosures in specific circumstances, particularly when public safety is at risk. In fact, the General Medical Council’s guidance allows for breaching confidentiality to prevent serious harm or crime, indicating that the Bill’s provisions are not as unprecedented as the BMA might suggest.
Furthermore, the BMA’s apprehensions do not sufficiently consider the potential benefits of the Bill in facilitating a more integrated approach to preventing serious violence. By enabling appropriate information-sharing between healthcare providers and law enforcement, we can create a more robust system for identifying and mitigating threats to public safety. The BMA’s focus on confidentiality, in my view, should be weighed against the imperatives of protecting individuals and communities from harm.
Most importantly—I was concerned to read this, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments—the BMA says it is concerned that 15-year-olds who are engaged in what it terms “consensual sexual activity” with someone over the age of 18 will be “flooding the system”. My understanding of the law is that 15-year-olds cannot consent to sexual activity with 18-year-olds, and I find it concerning that a professional body is choosing to interpret this country’s laws on sexual consent in this way. Perhaps the Minister might comment on that in her closing remarks. The age at which I understand people can legally consent to sexual activity is 16 in this country. The BMA should know that, understand the law and have a duty to uphold it.
The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse was clear on this recommendation, and the Crime and Policing Bill seeks to enhance public safety through judicious information-sharing. The existing ethical and legal safeguards governing medical confidentiality remain intact, and it is crucial that GPs and medical professionals take seriously their duty towards children, as that is what 15-year-olds are.
The international experience of mandatory reporting laws has already demonstrated the effectiveness of including reasonable suspicion as a trigger for reporting. For instance, the introduction of such laws in Australia led to increased reporting, without a corresponding rise in malicious reports. This suggests that professionals can responsibly handle the duty to report suspicions, contributing to more robust child protection systems.
Amendment 43 could address the under-reporting of child sexual abuse. Research has indicated that child sexual abuse is significantly under-reported, with many victims not disclosing their experience at the time of abuse. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse highlighted that a cultural shift is needed to make discussions about child sexual abuse less taboo. By tabling amendment 43, our intention is to signal our commitment to fostering an environment in which suspicions are taken seriously and professionals are encouraged to report concerns without fear of reprisal.
I commend amendment 43 to the Committee.
Luke Taylor
We welcome the clauses in this group, but I have a simple question about clauses 45 and 47. Why does the Bill not go further than the Conservative Government’s Criminal Justice Bill did in 2024? It could include the IICSA recommendation that observing recognised indicators of child sexual abuse be a reason to suspect. Can the Minister give an explanation of why that key finding of the Jay report is not included in the Bill and whether opportunities are being missed to go that little bit further?
I also agree with amendment 43. Obviously, in some recent high-profile cases, the belief that something had been reported by another person was notoriously used to explain why there had not been further reporting. This would provide a backstop to prevent that explanation from being used to absolve an individual of their responsibilities.
Jess Phillips
I feel quite proud to commend this clause about mandatory reporting. For much of my professional life and a huge amount of our political lives, we have been trying to get mandatory reporting across the line, so it is a proud moment. Clauses 45 and 47 and schedule 7 introduce the new mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse, building on the recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and I will come on to answer the questions that have been asked of me.
The inquiry gathered evidence from many victims and survivors who made disclosures or presented information to a responsible adult with no action being subsequently taken to inform the relevant authorities. A common reason for those failures was the prioritisation of protecting an individual or institution from reputational damage over the safety and wellbeing of children. Many victims who spoke to the inquiry set out the inadequate and negative responses to their disclosures, which meant that they never wanted to talk about their experiences again. The inquiry’s final report recommended that certain individuals in England should be subject to a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse when they become aware of it. Clauses 45 to 47 give effect to such a duty.
When adults undertaking relevant activity with children have reason to believe that child sexual abuse has occurred, either by being told about it by a child or perpetrator or by witnessing the abuse themselves, the new duty requires that they report it promptly to the police or local authority. Clause 45 applies to the new duty, while clauses 46 and 47 define key practical considerations to whom reports should be made and incidents that qualify as giving a reporter sufficient reason to suspect that abuse has occurred.
I will now turn to the amendments in this group, although I do not think some of them will be pressed. Amendment 43 proposes to remove the qualification that, once relevant information has been passed on to the authorities, further duplicate reports are not required. We do not believe that this amendment is necessary. In designing the duty, we have sought to minimise any disruption to well-established reporting processes. Clause 45(7), which this amendment seeks to remove, ensures that a reporter will not have to make a notification under the duty if they are aware that a report has already been made.
Subsection (7) means that, for example, an inexperienced volunteer or newly qualified professional can refer an incident to their organisation’s designated safeguarding lead for an onward notification to be made to the local authority or the police. The duty will be satisfied when a mandated reporter receives confirmation that the report has been made on their behalf, and it remains on them until that point.
I will answer some of the questions that have been asked, specifically those on guidance for the duty and the people within local authorities whom we are talking about. The Government will set out clear guidance on the operation of the duty, but we will also work with regulators and professional standard-setting bodies to ensure that the new duty is clearly communicated ahead of implementation.
Harriet Cross
I do not have much to say, other than to welcome the clause. It was part of the Criminal Justice Bill, so we are very happy to see it replicated here. I appreciate what the Minister said, but we will be pressing our amendment to a vote, because no matter how many people think that an offence has or has not been reported, we can never be too careful. Over-reporting is so much better than under-reporting, so anything that ensures it gets reported at any time is vital. Otherwise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor for his contribution.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jess Phillips
Clauses 48 to 51 establish a limited number of situations in which the mandatory duty to report can be disapplied to avoid unintentional consequences for child safeguarding.
Clauses 48 and 49 set out that consensual relationships between young people should not be considered child sexual abuse in the absence of coercion or significant differences in age or maturity, and that an exception can therefore be made to the duty in such circumstances. This avoids situations such as two kissing teenagers having to be reported to the authorities by a teacher who knows them both well. That is not something I want to have to deal with—teenagers kissing in halls. I suppose it is better working here. Well done to the teachers of the world. For the record, I do not want to see anyone kissing in the corridors—teenagers or otherwise.
Nor do we want to discourage young people from accessing services that are designed to offer support in addressing their own harmful sexual behaviour. Clause 50 gives reporters some discretion in this area, by making it clear that a disclosure by a child can be dealt with outside of the mandatory duty to report.
We know that, notwithstanding the introduction of this duty, young people may need some safe spaces to explore disclosures at their own pace or with a trusted adult. Clause 51 therefore confers a regulation-making power on the Home Secretary to exempt specific services from the duty on the exceptional basis where their function relates to the safety or protection of children, and where confidentiality is considered absolutely essential. This may be required to prevent services that provide confidential support and advice to children from closing ahead of the duties’ commencement, leaving significant gaps in safeguarding provision.
Harriet Cross
As we have heard, clause 48 introduces a carve-out to the reporting duty. It recognises that not all sexual activity involving under-18s is a cause for alarm or state intervention. Specifically, it lets professionals refrain from reporting consensual sexual activity between older teenagers when they believe there is no abuse or exploitation at play. It is basically a Romeo and Juliet exemption.
Sexual activity for under-16s is, as we know, illegal in law but without this clause, a teacher who learns of two 15-year-olds in a consensual relationship would legally be bound to report that as a child sexual offence. The clause empowers the teacher to use their professional judgment, but the exemption applies only where the reporter is satisfied that the relationship really is consensual and not appropriate to report given the circumstances.
The bar for not reporting should be high. As a safeguard, the clause explicitly says to consider the risk of harm. If there is any indication of harm or imbalance, the duty to report remains. For example, if a 14-year-old girl is sexually involved with a 17-year-old boy, even if she says she has consented, a teacher or adult might rightly feel uneasy about the power dynamic and the possible impact of grooming. The adult might decide that it is appropriate to report in that case. On the other hand, two 14-year-olds would likely fall under the exemption.
The exemption is not about condoning under-age sex; it is about proportionality. We know that in reality about one third of teens have some form of sexual contact before the age of 16. We do not want to criminalise young people unnecessarily or deter them from seeking healthcare or advice. For example, if a 15-year-old girl is pregnant by her 16-year-old boyfriend, without this exemption a doctor might feel compelled to report the boyfriend to the police. Clause 48 means that the doctor can exercise their judgment and focus on providing healthcare instead of a police report, as long as the relationship seems consensual and caring.
That approach aligns with what many safeguarding experts recommend: to include a competent, consensual peer exemption so that mandatory reporting does not overreach. It mirrors, for instance, the approach in some Australian states where similar laws exist. Those states carve out consensual peer activity from mandatory reporting to avoid inundating child protection with consensual cases.
Clause 49 is a twin provision to clause 48, addressing the fact that young people sometimes arrange sexual encounters with each other or share things such as intimate images. By the letter of the law, those actions can be offences, but it is not the intention of the mandatory reporting regime to treat those young people as perpetrators or victims of sexual abuse if it was consensual or equal. Clause 48 says that if a child is essentially facilitating a consensual act with another child of a similar age and there is no sign of harm or coercion, a professional is not obliged to report it.
Clause 50 acknowledges that children are sometimes the ones committing sexual harm and that in certain cases, the best way to protect everyone is to allow those children to seek help rather than immediately branding them as criminals. In short, if a teenager confides that they have done something sexually wrong with another teen, a teacher or counsellor can handle that sensitively without jumping straight to calling the police—as long as everyone involved is over the age of 13 and there is no acute risk requiring immediate intervention.
The guardrails are important. The exemption kicks in only if the other child involved in the incident is 13 years old or over. If a teenager admits harming a younger child who is 12 years old or under, that is considered so serious and a younger child so vulnerable that it must be reported.
The exemption is not a green flag to do nothing, but it gives an option to not report to the police. The expectation is that professional judgment will take precedent. How does the Minister envisage that professionals will handle such disclosures in practice? Obviously, if a child confesses to something such as date rape, even if that is not reported to the police, the school or agency must ensure that the victim is safe and supported. How will those situations be monitored?
Jess Phillips
The term “guardrails” is a really good one; we are trying to put those guardrails in. What I find alarming, not just in the IICSA report but in many serious case reviews—for example, about the murder of Sara Sharif—is that there is sometimes a lack of professional curiosity and/or that some of these things are repeatedly not in place. As somebody who has had teenagers come forward and tell me that they have been gang raped or raped by their boyfriend, or tell me about a date rape situation, I am a bit flabbergasted that professionals do not already know to report that. If that person was a child, I would always have reported it. For me, it is not difficult to manage from a professional perspective, and the reality is that the child knows that the professional is likely to have to report it. In most professional practice, that would still be the case today.
When the hon. Lady asks how professionals will manage the example that she gave, I very much hope that mandatory reporting—I cannot stress enough that I do not want loads of people to go to prison because of mandatory reporting—is used to make a system in children’s safeguarding and working with children that is open and transparent, rather than one where people worry about getting in trouble for the thing that they have done. The training and the guidance that will accompany mandatory reporting will be that guide for professionals, and we will take the time to make sure that the Bill commences only once that guidance is absolutely right.
I find it shocking that people who work with children might need to be told that they have a safeguarding duty if a child reports something such as a date rape to them—it is not the same for adults. I have never worked anywhere where that would not have resulted in a safeguarding referral. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 49 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Preventing or deterring a person from complying with duty to report suspected child sex offence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jess Phillips
Clause 52 introduces a separate criminal offence reserved for anyone who deliberately prevents or deters an individual from carrying out the duty through, for example, destroying or concealing evidence or applying pressure on an individual to prevent them reporting. The offence is punishable by up to seven years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. That will ensure that those with the greatest responsibility for organisational failures or cover-ups face the appropriate penalty for their action.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised concerns about the lack of a criminal offence for people who fail to report. We do not think it appropriate or proportionate to create such a sanction, which may create a chilling effect where people are reluctant to volunteer with children or to enter certain professions because they fear being criminalised for making a mistake in an area that many people find very difficult to understand.
The purpose of mandatory reporting is to improve the protection of children while helping to create a culture of knowledge, confidence and openness among those most likely to be alerted to child sexual abuse. Its introduction is not intended to criminalise those working and volunteering with children, often in challenging circumstances, but we are determined for it to set high, consistent standards in identifying and responding to such abuse wherever it is found. That is why we consider it more appropriate for those who fail to discharge their duty to face referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service and the professional regulators where applicable. Those bodies can prevent individuals from working with children, so they potentially lose their livelihood, which is still a very serious consequence. That approach will reserve the greatest impact for the right cohorts of people.
Harriet Cross
Clause 52 makes it a serious criminal offence to cover up child sexual abuse by blocking a report. If any person—be it a headteacher, coach, priest or director of a care home—tries to stop someone else reporting suspected abuse, that person can be prosecuted and potentially imprisoned for up to seven years. We know from countless inquiries in the past that often the issue was not that frontline staff did not suspect; it was that they were silenced or ignored by those higher up.
Clause 52 squarely targets that kind of misconduct. Instead of being able to threaten or cajole an employee into staying silent, now the one doing the threatening will face severe consequences. The clause is not aimed at someone who, for example, in good faith decides to wait until tomorrow, when the child is in a safer place, to file a report. There is a defence precisely for making suggestions about timing when motivated by the child’s best interests. That covers a situation where, for example, immediate reporting might tip off an abuser and endanger a child. A supervisor might decide to first secure the child before reporting. That is okay—they can argue that that is in the child’s best interests, not an attempt at covering up. But anything beyond those well-intentioned timing considerations—any attempt to outright stop a report or permanently delay it—has no defence.
Clause 52 will apply not just within organisations but potentially to abusers themselves. If an abuser tries to threaten a mandated reporter into silence, that is also preventing a report. The clause should create a cultural backstop: everyone in an organisation will know that ordering a cover-up could land them in prison. It should therefore act as a strong deterrent.
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Lady for her support.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Modification of Chapter for constables
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 15.
Clause 54 stand part.
Jess Phillips
The duty to report will apply to the police in a slightly different way, as they are both a category of reporter and a potential recipient of reports under the duty. There are also scenarios in which a police officer may encounter child sexual abuse in the course of a covert investigation, or be required to review a large volume of child sexual abuse material. Clause 53 therefore provides for some modifications to the new duty to ensure operational flexibility for police officers.
Clause 54 provides the ability to future-proof the mandatory reporting duty against the emergence of new functions or settings that it may be appropriate for the Government to consider. That is essential in recognition of the unique nature of child sexual abuse as a constantly evolving threat, including through the utilisation of technology and the internet.
Finally, Government amendment 15 adds the offence of preventing a report to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, removing the offence from the ambit of the statutory criminal defence in section 45 of that Act.
Harriet Cross
Clause 53 acknowledges that police officers operate under a different framework when it comes to responding to crimes. Quite sensibly, it modifies the mandatory reporting duty to fit their role. After all, we would not expect a police officer to file a report with themselves. If an officer learns of abuse, they are already empowered, and indeed obliged by their oath, to take investigative action directly.
The Bill here is technical, but the result is likely that a constable who has reason to suspect child abuse is considered to have complied with the duty so long as they handle it through the proper police channels, for example by recording it on their system, notifying their child protection unit or initiating an investigation. They would not have to make a separate notification to, for example, the local authority, as a teacher or doctor would. The police already have established protocols for involving social services in joint investigations.
Clause 54 is essentially a future-proofing and housekeeping part of the chapter. It gives the Secretary of State the ability, with Parliament’s approval, to amend the reporting regime as necessary. It also ties up loose ends by integrating new offences into related legislation. The regulation-making power means that if a list of relevant activities needs to be expanded, that can be done relatively easily. Of course, it is important that any changes undergo parliamentary scrutiny. Although we want flexibility, we must also ensure democratic oversight, given the sensitivity of the obligations. I note amendment 15, as I have the other Government amendments.
Jess Phillips
I am going to miss making amendments to put things in the schedule to the Modern Slavery Act when this is all done. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to
Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Powers to amend this Chapter, and consequential amendment
Amendment made: 15, in clause 54, page 55, line 31, at end insert—
“(3) In Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply), in paragraph 36D (offences under the Crime and Policing Act 2025) (inserted by section 17), after the entry for section 38 (inserted by section 38), insert—
‘section 52 (preventing or deterring a person from complying with duty to report suspected child sex offence)’.”—(Jess Phillips.)
This amendment excepts the offence of preventing or deterring a person from complying with the duty to report a suspected child sex offence from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Guidance about disclosure of information by police for purpose of preventing sex offending
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jess Phillips
Clause 55 creates a power for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance to the police regarding their disclosure of information to prevent sexual offending.
Currently, the child sex offender disclosure scheme, also known as Sarah’s law, is the only guidance for the disclosure of information to prevent sexual harm. The clause will place the scheme on a statutory footing, bringing it in line with the domestic violence disclosure scheme. In so doing, it will help ensure greater consistency in the operation of the scheme across police forces. The Secretary of State will be able to use the power in clause 55 to issue further statutory guidance regarding the police’s disclosure of information to prevent sexual harm to other kinds of victim or in other circumstances.
Harriet Cross
Clause 55 includes guidance for disclosure of information to the police for the purpose of preventing sexual offending. It is vital that the police are able to obtain all information as quickly as possible to ensure that offences are prevented. Prevention is always better than cure, and that goes as much for sexual offences as it does for any other offence. We welcome this provision, in order to ensure that sexual offences can be prevented and to give police the necessary powers.
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)