Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting)

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

Q Earlier we heard legal opinions about the fact that moving offences under £200 into triable either way could lead to significant delays. On prolific offenders coming time and again, it was suggested earlier that speedy justice is effective justice. Do you think it is important that justice is dealt out speedily in these cases, and should that play a part in our decision making?

Graham Wynn: Yes, it is important. If not dealt with speedily, the people who could give evidence in the trial or to the court might well have moved on, or they might no longer recall the offence or work for the same retailer, especially when there is a violence issue, so speedy and swift justice is worth while and makes the point. In terms of the types of sentences, when we were in the EU the Commission always used to say in its directives that the sentence must be “dissuasive”. I think that is a good term: the penalties must be dissuasive. On exactly what the range should be, it is for the Government and people to place it in the context of other offences and evidence of what works best.

[The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

Q Thank you very much for giving evidence today. How do you think shop workers will feel about the new provision on assaulting a retail worker? Will they feel reassured that there will be action if they are assaulted in the workplace?

Christopher Morris: From the evidence that we have in Scotland of some of the provisions and the feedback that we have received from members, they do feel more reassured, on the basis that they know there is a specific offence there to protect them. As was mentioned before, they are quite often involved in law enforcement, and they feel that they should have the right of law enforcement there.

Such a provision also sends a slightly broader message: it sends a message to perpetrators. We were pleased that Police Scotland did a significant amount of work before the Scottish provisions came into force to educate the police force on the use of the provisions and where they could be used. As Paul was saying, we have seen a drop in violence, and it is the police using those provisions that has helped to lower violence among perpetrators. When cases reach the courts and judiciary, the provision also sends a clear message that this is a significant issue for them to deal with. So I think it helps retail workers, but it helps right along the chain of making sure that the issues are tackled and dealt with.

Paul Gerrard: I say with the greatest respect to this place: do not underestimate how, over the last 10 or 12 years, retail workers have felt completely abandoned by law enforcement. This account is a couple of years old—I think the police have made great strides in the last 15 months—but when you ring to report an armed robbery with three masked men with machetes, and you are told to ring the non-emergency line, that tells you as a shop worker how to feel.

I was with a colleague this morning, one of our Nisa partners. Ben, from Freshfields in Croydon, is the owner of three small shops. He told me that he and his staff know about this provision and are genuinely pleased that someone is looking out for them. Do not underestimate the impact it will have. We have 55,000 colleagues in the Co-op. My colleagues absolutely know about this and welcome it, because they feel, alongside the improved police response that they are beginning to see, that someone other than the Co-op and their families care about what happens to them at work.

Graham Wynn: It sends a message to potential offenders and, indeed, to retail workers. They can see it as part of a package that includes these proposals, the Government’s action on neighbourhood policing, with specific mention of taking action on retail crime; and the retail crime action plan from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, with its desire to have better police attendance for violent crimes or where the person is detained and there is clear evidence. Last, it is part of a package leading to better and improved statistics, so that everyone can feel more confident that the police will attend and that something will happen to those who commit these offences.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q What about the presumption that in cases of assault on a retail worker, a criminal behaviour order will be attached? We have been talking about some of the measures that we think are important to put alongside a conviction. Do you support a criminal behaviour order that could, in effect, ban the individual from attending a particular area or a particular shop? Would that also help to reassure shop workers in particular?

Graham Wynn: Retailers in our latest survey, which went up to August or September last year, said they had issued 400,000 banning orders themselves, in a civil sense. I know that they are not wholly a CBO, but people do think that banning orders for a first offence are better than doing nothing or telling them to go and do community service, or discharge or whatever it may be. It is something specific, and if they breach that, more serious things can follow. A proportionate approach is probably quite sensible—that is the first option, and then unlimited fines and six-month prison sentences can follow. Yes, I think they are useful.

Paul Gerrard: The Co-op is a community-based retailer. We are in every postcode in the country. Many of my colleagues who are attacked or abused or threatened know the people who did it, because they are from the same communities. A CBO is a really powerful way not only to protect them but to be seen to protect them. It stops those people coming in. Over the last eight or nine years that we have campaigned on this issue, that colleagues have said to me many times, “Even when the police come”—as I said, that has changed significantly over the last 15 months—“they will be back the next day.” The CBO gives my colleagues that legal protection to keep them away from us. It is a very powerful signal as well as practically keeping colleagues safe in the shops.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q The majority of shop theft cases are heard in the magistrates court. Is it your understanding that they will continue to be heard in the magistrates court?

Graham Wynn: I believe so, yes. I would expect them to continue to be heard there because that is where people can get the swiftest justice. We know the other courts are very full up with cases and there are delays, so that is my understanding.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Q Thank you very much for coming along. You will have to forgive me as I kind of wiggle around here a little bit. Clause 14 is on assault of a retail worker, and goes on to define the place of work of a retail worker. Something that you mentioned, Mr Wynn, got me quite interested in talking about delivery drivers, and the clause does say that “‘premises’ include a…vehicle”, such as a food truck. To take, for example, a washing machine installation engineer working for a Currys, do you think that the Bill protects somebody like that, who is working for a retail firm but is actually in somebody’s home? Is that something that could be covered by the Bill, or that you would look to have covered by a Bill such as this?

Christopher Morris: I would link that question back to the CBOs from a couple of questions ago. I think that there is a clear issue there. Various parts of the home delivery sector require the worker to go into people’s homes. With Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Ocado home delivery, there is an offer to almost put it in the fridge for people, and then you have those typical two-man delivery operations for washing machines or beds.

There is certainly a significant issue on the grocery side, where those delivery drivers are also having to make age verification checks when alcohol or other age-restricted products are being delivered, and are having to say that someone cannot have those. You are almost in the door with those products, and you have to say, “Sorry, if the ID isn’t here, I’ve got to take them away,” which can cause issues with violence, threats and abuse. Then, with the way that the systems operate, there are substitutions as well, and having conversations about those can raise the frustration levels of customers. We would therefore want to see those aspects, where people are going into people’s homes or delivering to people’s homes. It is not necessarily a question of the threshold being covered as well.

Part of the reason to link back to CBOs, and why we would want these things covered here, is that the link to CBOs is really good and can help. As a random example, if a Sainsbury’s delivery driver goes into someone’s home and receives a significant threat, then Sainsbury’s can take the decision to take that address off the customer list, but the other companies would not know. If a CBO is in place, a ban could be put on that address because that threat or instance of violence is so great, and those delivery drivers—who we see as retail workers—would not be required to go to it.

Those are the areas that we are keen to continue to engage with Government on, to make sure that the Bill is as effective as we believe it can be.

Graham Wynn: My understanding—I am happy to be corrected—is that the Bill does not cover delivery drivers or anyone other than people working, basically, in a retail store, and that the reference to a vehicle is not meant to be a delivery driver, a delivery van or anything like that.

We do note that the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021, although it is different, does explicitly extend to delivery drivers. We do think that that would be sensible and useful, and there are concerns about delivery drivers. We understand the difficulty of saying, “Well, where do you draw the line?” You mention people going into people’s homes; well, plumbers do, and other people go into people’s homes, so just where do you draw that line? If you dissipate it too much, it undermines the value of the whole thing. We don’t not support others being protected, but we certainly support the classic delivery driver for home produce from supermarkets being included. That is included in the Scottish Act, so perhaps it can also be included in the Bill—unless the Scottish draftsmen have got it wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

That is fine. I just want to make sure that there is nothing you want to add.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Baroness Newlove, thank you for your report, issued at the end of last year, “Still living a nightmare”. In it, you particularly talked about people who were suffering from ASB, the support they needed and the review process. You have touched on this a little, but I would welcome your views on the role that the police and crime commissioner will play. What do you think about that? Do you think that that is the right thing to do? Do you welcome it?

Baroness Newlove: Yes, I welcome the PCC being involved. I welcome what has gone on, because that statutory duty is important. There is also a duty to consult the Victims’ Commissioner, which is important as well. In all of those stages, though, instead of adding another layer, I want to make sure that the communication is right, that people are informed about this process. I tried to put in the Victims and Prisoners Act that we would have an independent chair—somebody who is accredited, somebody who knows. It can still feel very much like they are marking their own homework, because you have the local police review and the PCC. It very much feels as though the victim has to wait for them to make the decisions. We have a review process—an appeal process—but it is about how the communication feels to them.

I worry about how long this will take for the victims. That is why I keep asking for support, as I did in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The mental and physical health of victims of antisocial behaviour will really be in a bad way if we do not give them the support they need. That brings me on to having them in the victims’ code. Even if this comes under the criminal threshold—that is the bit that we used to argue about when we were debating the Victims and Prisoners Act—they should get support and not have to wait. I would imagine that they would be able to see what is happening and the decline of it.

As I said previously, we are not learning from Fiona Pilkington, David Askew and my husband’s case. What people go through on a daily basis should not be acceptable. To set a threshold, we should use our common sense.

[Luke Taylor]

Q We have done a lot of work in my constituency on stalking legislation, due to some casework that we received. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust previously identified

“systemic issues with the police response to stalking”,

and I very much agree with that statement. To what extent do you think the measures in this Bill will address that? This is a bit open-ended, so I apologise, but do you think the Bill could go further in that respect, to improve the response of police around the country—my experience is in London—to prevent these hideous crimes from occurring in the first place?

Suky Bhaker: You may be aware that, on behalf of the National Stalking Consortium, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust issued a super-complaint, from which the recommendations came out late last year. The super-complaint committee found significant evidence of police failings in identifying and evidencing stalking. In fact, fewer than 2% of reported cases result in any level of conviction. We also find significant difficulties when it comes to the judiciary and magistrates, and with prosecutors’ understanding of what constitutes stalking, which leads to missed charges and the dismissal of stalking cases.

Clause 71 and the provision of statutory guidance would go some way to providing a single authority on the law and encouraging consistent understanding of stalking across the criminal justice system. At the moment, the guidance is inconsistent—in fact, parts are conflicting. We have guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour with a different emphasis from the guidance on stalking that the Crown Prosecution Service has produced. It is really important that multi-agency statutory guidance is produced. The super-complaint made reference to magistrates and judges not understanding the presentation of the psychological harm that victims experience. Again, we hope the statutory guidance might go some way in addressing that.

There has been significant evidence about the lack of use of stalking protection orders. We hope that the guidance will bring together the Stalking Protection Act 2019 and the guidance issued under it. It is important that any statutory guidance is drawn up in consultation with specialists across the sector. Obviously, training is pivotal to underpin that.

Risk management is central to addressing some of the systemic issues. We know from the victims we support that clause 72 would go some way toward managing risk, and that is critical. At the moment, victims do not have the right to know, particularly if the stalker is a stranger. That information is sometimes possessed by the police or other agencies, and the victims are not able to obtain it. You might be familiar with the case of Nicola Thorp, the broadcaster and actor, who campaigned quite heavily on this issue. Her stalker was a stranger stalker. He made comments such as that he was sitting so close to her on the tube that he could touch her. She did not know who her stalker was, so everybody became her stalker.

Protective orders are not used enough, so it is often left to the victim to protect themselves, and without the identity of the perpetrator, that becomes really difficult. We know that stalkers often contact multiple people around the victim—on average, 21 family members, friends or colleagues. Again, if we do not know who the perpetrator is, how can protections be put in place? Recent research also shows that 90% of all femicides had stalking in their antecedent history. When we are looking at the prevalence in terms of risk, there is really no question but that those safety mechanisms need to be put in place.

In terms of where you could go further, we would certainly support changes to the stalking protection orders enabling the court to issue those on acquittal and conviction, because we see significant challenges to obtaining those orders, as I said. In the year ending March 2023, 531 applications were made for stalking protection orders, against more than 116,000 stalking offences being recorded, so we are seeing less than 1% of all stalking offences attracting stalking protection orders.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am afraid that I am going to have to ask for concise answers. It is important that we get the evidence on the record, so at the expense of some brevity, perhaps, if there are matters that in hindsight you wish to put on the record, feel free to write to us. I hope that, in that way, we may be able to have our cake and eat it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

Q Suky, why do you feel that stalking protection orders would be more beneficial and effective and provide better protection to victims than restraining orders, which are currently given in these circumstances?

Suky Bhaker: Restraining orders are often given at the end of a criminal case, so again you do not get protection through the whole journey, and we know how long the backlogs are in getting cases to court. Stalking protection orders can also apply positive obligations, which you cannot have in a restraining order.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q I have a quick question for you, Baroness Newlove, on the measures in the Bill around the offence of taking intimate images. Do you agree that the base offence, which has no requirement to prove intent, will allow better protection of victims who have intimate images taken of them without their consent?

Baroness Newlove: Yes, I do. I think it is a really big issue. I was working on the Online Safety Act 2023 and heard about other social media problems. I agree on intent; that is important, because it means people cannot then just skew-whiff it the other way. I welcome what is in the Bill for this. We could do more, but at least it is a start. I agree.

[Harriet Cross]

Q This question is probably best for Suky to answer. Do you consider that the provisions in the Bill and the Acts to which it relates, such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, are sufficient to cover all forms of stalking? For example, are they sufficient to cover online stalking, which is obviously becoming more prevalent? In 1997, the internet was a very different beast from what it is now.

Suky Bhaker: There are certainly elements within the current legislation that do not draw enough attention to the impact, the alarm and distress that victims experience. There are challenges when victims themselves do not know that they are being stalked and might not see the extent of what is online; that is not captured to its full extent in the legislation. There is certainly room for development, but I think it is important that we are not too prescriptive with the behaviours, because we do not want to allow perpetrators to work outside that. By allowing it to be vague to some extent, we future-proof the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Q Are there any gaps that you can see in the legislation, or anything that needs tightening up to hit that need and that objective?

Dan Sexton: There are many, many things that we could do to improve online safety, and many things that could be done to improve the safer use of AI tools. However, in the context of this Bill and the criminalisation of things, we think that it has done a good job of blocking these particular loopholes. I think the other stuff is better suited to things like a future iteration of the Online Safety Act and AI safety Bills. So we are very much content with these clauses.

Sharon Maciver: In terms of inclusion and what we would want to see in the Bill, we would like to see greater protections for children. We feel that in order to have an end-to-end response to tackling the criminal exploitation, we need to have not only measures that sanction exploiters, but measures that protect children, recognising that children who are criminally exploited will be victims of abuse while also being in conflict with the law. In terms of building trust in the system, as I reference in terms of children’s trust, there is also a requirement for agencies working in this space to feel confident that the system can respond to the issue. Often we see children, as I have described, being significantly harmed. Also as a result of exploitation they cause significant harm to others, and that is a really complex dilemma for agencies to try to manage. So we feel that having increased protection orders that specifically address the duality of a child being a victim as well as in conflict with the law would be helpful, as well as ensuring that children have access to a statutory defence.

We also believe that a definition of criminal exploitation would be helpful in understanding the scale and extent of the problem and how many victims there are across the UK. Of course, the new offence will ensure that data is captured on the number of perpetrators. Equally, we would want to make sure that we understand how many victims there are, and ensure that the response we have is that agencies feel confident in what that system does for children.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Mr Sexton, the Bill introduces a number of new offences banning child sexual abuse imagery. One of the new offences is a specific offence targeting the administrators and moderators of CSA sites and groups. How prevalent are those groups,? Will the new criminal offence actually deter offenders from even establishing those sites?

Dan Sexton: We see sites coming up frequently. At any given time, we have around 200 websites dedicated to sharing and hosting child sexual abuse material on our list, and that rotates. We often see those sites moving. It is the same administrators and the same site, and every time they get taken down in one place, they move to another, which suggests that the administrators and the people behind them are not getting caught or being prosecuted. I am unsure of the effect the Bill will have, considering that those administrators are already clearly committing crimes based in this country, and in many countries, and are not getting caught.

I would like to see whether the new clauses extend beyond just the site administrator to everyone else in the chain. A website does not just appear out of nowhere. It is not just the administrator; a lot of parts are required for a site to appear. If there are greater obligations on everyone else in that chain, those administrators may find it much harder to create and run their sites in the first place. A lot of our work is about introducing friction and making it harder to create and share child sexual abuse material. One part of that is arresting people, but there is a lot of other stuff that could be done to make it harder for the crime to happen.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q One issue that has been raised with us is the idea that AI imagery of child sexual abuse does not impact real-world victims. Could you speak to that point? I think it is an important one to make and get on the record.

Dan Sexton: Yes—that is something that comes up frequently. There are a couple of bits of evidence that I can offer to show where that is untrue. For instance —I think clause 36, which is on AI models, is tailored towards this—we see models that have been trained specifically on child sexual abuse, often on particular victims. Offenders collect images of a particular victim, and these tools have given them the ability to not just complete their collections, but create more content of children who have already been abused, sometimes many years ago. They are victims, or survivors now, and not only is their abuse not finished, but more content of them is being created. In one instance, we found 128 individual models, each trained on a specific victim with the intention of creating more imagery of those victims. It is not a victimless crime. That is 128 victims just there.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

Q This question is probably best aimed at Action for Children. It is on a point that was raised in some of our written evidence about the proposed sentencing under the proposed child criminal exploitation offence compared with the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The proposed sentencing for child criminal exploitation is 10 years, which is much shorter than the penalty of up to life imprisonment under the Modern Slavery Act. That might create a perverse situation where you can be sentenced for child criminal exploitation and get much less than you would under the Modern Slavery Act. Do you have any views on that?

Sharon Maciver: As I mentioned in my introduction, the harms caused to children are lifelong and traumatic and devastate children, young people and their communities. On the length of the sentence, I do not suppose there is any length of sentence that would be justifiable in terms of the harms that are caused by exploitation. I share the concerns on what you described—the length of time in the Modern Slavery Act versus what is described in the Bill. We would want to see that increased.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q I want to ask about criminal exploitation prevention orders. I noted what you said about the need to sanction the exploiters, but also to protect children. Can you say more about the protection that you want to see offered to children?

Sharon Maciver: At the moment, we have a system whereby exploited children will be in conflict with the law at the same time as we seek to protect them by recognising them as victims of abuse. That means children have to go through two opposing systems; one that seeks to protect them and one that seeks to find justice. We know that children cannot consent to their own exploitation, nor should we be criminalising children who are abused in this way.

However, we know that the behaviours that children are exploited into are particularly concerning. They cause significant harm to others and there will be victims within that. We feel that having a dedicated child exploitation order that addresses their behaviours proportionately and appropriately, without a criminal label attached to it, is a real way to manage the risks that these children could potentially pose to others while ensuring the correct protections for them.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q So if a criminal offence was taken through the courts, you could make a criminal exploitation prevention order, and you are saying that there could also be a child exploitation order alongside that. That would all fit together.

Sharon Maciver: Yes.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Okay, that is interesting. In the past, the Modern Slavery Act has often been relied on to deal with these issues of exploitation of children. Do you think that having this stand-alone offence will deal with the problem that we have identified, which the Modern Slavery Act cannot tackle, with the exploitation of children and young people?

Sharon Maciver: I certainly think that the offence is part of the solution, while also ensuring that we protect children. I think the Modern Slavery Act has fallen short in not talking specifically about criminal exploitation and assuming exploitation in other forms. That has been a limiting factor in gathering the suitable evidence to prosecute.

We have obviously suggested that there needs to be a clear definition of a “criminally exploited child”. Within the Modern Slavery Act, there is the assumption that children are victims of trafficking, so we need to prove that there have been issues of modern slavery specifically. A new offence will talk about the behaviours and the concerns that we have for criminal exploitation in its own right.

[Matt Bishop]

Q I have a question for Ms Maciver. How will the measures on child criminal exploitation help to ensure that there is a more effective and consistent response to it?

Sharon Maciver: Having a clearly defined offence will offer the police increased powers to disrupt and sanction these individuals, and will shift the focus on to what these individuals are doing. We know from our work that children often idolise these people who are exploiters; they do not see them as exploiters but as people with status and reputation. These people certainly do not see themselves as child abusers, and would not want to go to prison for abusing children. We hope that in itself will be a suitable deterrent for them to avoid the use of children in their activity.

Just yesterday, one of the members of staff contacted us to say that he had received a text message from a child who was missing, and had been for three days. The child felt that he could not go home because his house would be targeted. His house had previously had the windows smashed in on two occasions, and he had been stabbed several times on the street a few months ago by a gang. The text message said, “I will be murdered if I’m seen on the street. It’s me against a hundred people.” I feel that we do not have the option not to do something about this, given these harms are being caused to children every single day. That child did not feel that he could trust the system enough to support him, so he was trying to manage his own exploitation in that situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Q There are limitations on the ability of the police to seize them from places including private dwellings. Do you have a view on that?

Councillor Garratt: In terms of vehicles, I think that is positive. Another thing about private dwellings or properties, which is not related to vehicles, is the provisions on GPS-tracked devices. You can stick a GPS tag on all kinds of things, including mobile phones and bicycles. That is an extremely useful power that we would welcome, but it also requires the police to decide that it is a priority to track those things. Dr Newport, who I believe is coming later, chained his bike outside Scotland Yard, which definitely has the power to look at its own CCTV and chose not to. That challenge will remain.

I produced a report a couple of months ago showing that every six minutes a mobile phone is stolen in London. That is increasing year on year. We did some polling and the majority of Londoners are now wary in the way they use their phone. You see people turning away or going into doorways, essentially because the criminals who are stealing these phones are operating in a fairly risk-free environment. Anything that introduces some countermeasures to that is very welcome, and making it easier for the police to track and apprehend those people is also very welcome.

Councillor Conway: We welcome the provision on cars to help to create a peaceful and respectful environment. I am very aware of the issues that can happen locally with that. Obviously, increased collaboration between councils and police may require further resourcing, but I note, again, that we are already delivering that collaboration on the ground. We do that quite a lot, but it would be very welcome to have an increased focus and more resourcing.

I wanted to pick up on phones. I was fortunate to represent the LGA at the mobile phone summit that the Home Secretary organised—the Minister was there—and that summit was very welcome. I note, again, that through a proactive relationship with our local police force, really effective action is happening. Local councils have a real role to play in how we work as leaders of place, and how we tackle the crimes that affect people’s everyday lives.

As a Barnet councillor I should add that we are fortunate in Barnet to have funding from the Mayor for London for a specific violence-reduction-unit project over the next two years. That is designed exactly to tackle the mobile phone issues, with a whole range of after-school activities, and we enable people to mark their property and so on. There are solutions to things, and we really welcome the framework that the Bill will provide, but local government needs resourcing to deliver effectively on some of the obligations that are coming in.

Councillor Garratt: Can I make an additional point closely connected to that? New powers are proposed in clauses 78, 80 and 81 on SIM farms and electronic devices used for vehicle offences. They are good measures and we welcome them. I have a useful suggestion. In 2023, an additional power relating to lock-on-type offences was added to stop and search, to allow police to stop and search someone on the basis that they were looking for equipment that would be used for a lock-on-type protest. With the new offences relating to SIM farms and electronic USB devices that plug into a car and allow people to steal it, it would potentially be useful to add an additional stop-and-search power so that the police would be able to stop and search people they believe are equipped for those crimes. Otherwise, there is potentially a gap, whereby a new crime has been created but it is difficult for the police to enforce it.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q It is worth reflecting on the fact that there has been a lot of public order and protest legislation in the last few years. The previous Government agreed that they were going to have post-legislative scrutiny of the 2023 Act, which will happen from this year, as well as of some of the other public order legislation.

I want to ask the Local Government Association specifically about antisocial behaviour, the respect orders in the Bill, and the strengthening of some of the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. What are your reflections on how increasing the respect orders and those other powers will help local authorities to deal with antisocial behaviour?

Councillor Conway: Anything that can help local authorities to deal with antisocial behaviour is very welcome. It is welcome that breaching a respect order will become a criminal offence. It is important that that will set off a different process. Again, though, there are pressures on local authorities.

I note two caveats. One is the new ASB data reporting requirements, which may cause pressures in certain areas. There needs to be dialogue with Government about how to do that really effectively. Also, on the new duty for police and crime commissioners, which will bolster the role of the Victims’ Commissioner in ASB case reviews, we want to caution that that should work okay with the Victims and Prisoners Act. It should not set up two different systems and there should be consistency on the ground.

On ASB itself, I will again speak from a local perspective for a minute or two. We have been fortunate to be London’s first pilot of the Clear, Hold, Build strategy. We are nearly two years into that, and overall crime is down 20%, year on year, across the board. It has also taken a collaborative approach into our policing and partnership. In my particular ward, which had a lot of issues, ASB is down by 65%, which is extraordinary. Burglary is down by 67% and violence against the person is down by 59%. Those results do not just happen. With all this, an effective and proactive local government, partnership with the police, and everyone working together are really vital.

We really welcome the proposals, but it is about how we implement them in practice on the ground. Local government obviously has a very strong story to tell, and dialogue through the Bill, and once it is introduced, will be really important to demonstrate how it is working on the ground. Thank you for the powers to, hopefully, be able to do more.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Thank you for that. You gave some interesting statistics there, so you are obviously already collating data in your local authority area. I assume that most local authority areas are collating data on ASB. I want to be clear: the intention is not to put further burdens on local government; it is to allow that data to be put together so that there is a clear picture of what is happening with ASB around the country. I assume that will not be too much of a burden.

Councillor Conway: I have the data here. I think there is a variety across local authorities. I am also aware that —without stuff that I perhaps cannot say publicly—sometimes you have to draw on other funding to enable systems to happen and to work effectively. We would say that it needs looking at carefully so that we have something that works everywhere, not just in specific areas. The dialogue with local government is essential in that.

[Luke Taylor]

Q It is good to see Neil, my ward councillor and council colleague in Sutton. I want to focus on the seizure of motor vehicles, which relates to an issue we have on our high street in Sutton, but I want to take a slightly different angle and ask whether Neil and Sara think the powers might go too far. Would the ability to seize vehicles without warning, and without an initial pushback on the behaviour, potentially give too much power to the police? Is there a risk of—I will not say “misuse”—over-policing? Do you have thoughts on that? Sutton is a good example but, Neil, your London Assembly seat also covers Croydon, where there might be slightly more rural issues. Sara, do you have any examples from the LGA area that you represent?

Councillor Garratt: You are right to flag that. I spoke earlier about why I think it is potentially of benefit that the police would not have to catch the same person twice. I spoke to a police officer about this, and that is essentially how he described it to me: the way the law stands, you have to catch the same person twice. He gave the example of the Ace Cafe in London, where there is an issue with motorbikes, rather than cars. It is tricky to keep track of precisely who you have recently given a warning. Sometimes the behaviour is so egregious, and well beyond what would require a mere warning, but it does require a warning, and then they ride off and are gone.

You are right to flag up the possibility that the threshold moves such that what might have been a warning turns into a seizure. That is absolutely a concern. In a way, that relates to my point earlier about levels of disruption from protest. Parliament sends words into the world and they take on a life of their own when interpreted by the police or the courts. I would want to see provisions in the Bill to make sure that the power could not be abused. But, fundamentally, as a matter of practical policing, not having to catch the same person, in the same vehicle, in the same kind of act twice would be a benefit of the Bill.

Councillor Conway: We can certainly send in more information to give a range of experience from across the country. Speaking specifically about what I have observed locally, those powers would be very welcome. Often, cars are used for all sorts of things, and completely blight a local street, area, park or whatever. It is important really to have those powers and see how it goes. We are happy to follow up with some more detail.

Councillor Garratt: Councillor Conway’s point about persistence in the same place is very important. Some people do not see this problem from one year to the next; other people see it almost every week.

[Keir Mather (Selby) (Lab)]

Q Thank you both for your evidence. Councillor Garratt, you remarked earlier about public order measures, protests and the concerns you have, quite rightly, about some of the protests we have seen in London. Can you speak to some of the specific provisions in the Bill, particularly those that create new criminal offences of concealing your identity at a protest, of climbing on specified war memorials, and of wearing or displaying articles in support of prescribed organisations? How do you think the practical application of some of these measures in London will help to deal with the public order concerns you mentioned?

Councillor Garratt: I welcome all the provisions you just listed, which are all positive. I think I might have seen them somewhere before, in fact.

When we at the Assembly press the police on how they police protests, there are two sets of problems: one is the issue around powers—what they can or cannot do—which I spoke about earlier. The courts have decided that they cannot remove somebody for simply sitting in a road if it is a protest.

On the other hand, there is a practical problem in the sense that if you have a very large protest—for example, the ones we have seen on Saturday mornings—with a very large group of people and a limited number of police officers, the practical ability to carry out what you might think of as a snatch operation comes down to a risk-based decision that the senior officer on the site has to make. One of the ways in which the new provisions may not necessarily make much difference is if the police judge that it is difficult for them in practice. For example, if you have a crowd of a thousand people all wearing face masks, what exactly is the practical step that the police would be able to take?

I welcome the provisions. It is a good idea to have them for people who climb on wall memorials and wear face masks. In particular, although being unpleasant is not against the law, I am very on board with the provisions for those who appear to be supporting terrorist organisations, or inciting violence against groups of people. The question mark I have in my mind is whether the police have either the resources or, on balance, the willingness to go into a large crowd of people, who probably will not welcome their arrival, to actually enforce those provisions.

Councillor Conway: We think the measures are broadly welcome. We will obviously have to see how they go in practice, but something fundamental is needed, as has been shown over the past year or so, in respect of the way you balance the very legitimate right to protest, which we have to enshrine, and people feeling intimated. There is a wider discussion than just this Bill in terms of how it is possible to disagree agreeably—we had this conversation last week. Some of this, in respect of the face masks and so on, sets a basic code for how you engage in public life and public space.

[Harriet Cross]

Q I would like to look at the requirement to report where there is reasonable suspicion of child sexual abuse to, among others, local authorities. From your point of view, how do you think local authorities are set up to receive such reports? Do you think local authorities should get involved in that?

Councillor Conway: I will read this is out, if that is okay, because—not that this is not all important—this really is an important issue. Child sexual abuse is obviously a horrific crime, and the LGA supports the mandatory reporting duty. We do, however, have several things to say that would make it more effective.

We believe there should be training and support for those who work with children. Multiple reports, including by Ofsted and the Home Office, have identified a lack of skills and confidence among professionals in responding to child sexual abuse. A duty must not be placed on professionals without the accompanying training that will enable them to identify and respond to child sexual abuse effectively.

We also believe that there needs to be support for victims, and that there can be a shortfall in dedicated support for boys, children from ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled children. If this duty identified more victims of sexual abuse, obviously it would also be imperative that services are in place to provide appropriate support.

On that, I would also highlight the pressure on children’s social care. The duty may result in an increase in referrals to children’s social care, as has occurred in other areas where mandatory reporting has been introduced, such as parts of Australia and America. Obviously this is in a context where spending on children’s social care has already increased by 11% in the last financial year to £14.2 billion. We believe it is absolutely vital that children’s social care is adequately resourced, to ensure that all referrals can be fully investigated, with the best possible support provided, including where children obviously need to be brought into care for their own protection.

On safe spaces, we would add that there is a very fine line between creating a space of trust and then a space of reporting. Obviously local government sits at the heart of that.

Councillor Garratt: I broadly welcome the duty to report. There are two concerns that I will raise. First, there does not seem to be—apologies if I have missed it—any sanction on anyone who does not carry out that duty. I question what kind of a duty it is if you can simply choose not to do it, with no ramification. Connected to that, if you think about the way this might happen in an organisation, the person who is making the report might in effect be in a whistleblower position, so what thought is given to any duty on the employer not to treat that employee adversely as a result of in effect blowing the whistle against things that the employer may wish not to have come to light?

My third thing perhaps is a question. To what extent would this duty apply to voluntary or religious organisations? We have seen, unfortunately, more than one example of child abuse occurring in religious settings, where often there is trust and there is sometimes difficulty with anybody coming forward because of a sense of mutual solidarity that makes it difficult for people to want to step away and blow the whistle.

Those are my three areas of concern. Is there a sanction for not carrying out this duty? Is there an obligation on employers to do something to protect the person? And would the duty apply to religious settings?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

This will be the final answer on this subject.

Roger Hirst: We use both. We use what we can. We have crushed hundreds of e-scooters so far.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q I want to ask about antisocial behaviour, and particularly about the role that PCCs will take up under the Bill in the reviews that victims of antisocial behaviour can seek. As PCCs, what is your perspective on that? How might it assist with your work on supporting victims?

Emily Spurrell: I think all PCCs really welcome the additional powers in relation to the ASB case review. Lots of us already promote the fact that there is an appeal process—that, if people are unhappy with how their case has been reviewed, they can come to our office and we will review that. The numbers are very low for that. There is a real challenge in making sure that the public and victims are aware that the option is available to them.

One of the other challenges that many of us face is the engagement we get with local authorities, the police and other partners who are doing the initial case review. The Bill gives us an opportunity to have a clearer and stronger role from the beginning, so that we can have real oversight of how well those reviews are being conducted and how seriously the voices of victims are being heard. We can also then create consistency across our region, and hopefully across the country, so that victims do not end up in a two-tier system in which some local authorities say, “Yes, we’re going to take it and review it, because it meets the threshold,” and other areas do not. Hopefully, our having a greater steer and role in this will bring lots of benefits for victims.

Matthew Barber: I would certainly welcome more involvement in this. It is something that I tried to push with my local authorities a few years ago. I got a bit of pushback because I have no statutory powers in this area. I have 14 local authorities across Thames Valley, so it is a very confused landscape for the public. Local authorities can apply additional thresholds beyond the statutory one, simply to get into the case review system, and they vary across the area. Normally, the complaint I get is about consistency across the whole policing area by the police. The problem I have here is consistency across local authorities. Being able to intervene in the reviews will be helpful, because the public often see it as local authorities or the police effectively marking their own homework.

The most important thing we can do on antisocial behaviour is look at the front door into it. There are provisions in the Bill for the Secretary of State to require data to be shared with the Home Office. However, I think the biggest issue is data sharing between local authorities and the police. In my view, there ought to be a single front door for reporting antisocial behaviour. The public often do not know whether something should be reported to the police or the local authority. Sometimes it may well be both, depending on the nature of what is going on.

In reality, our constituents ought to feel that they can just report something, and the public bodies, behind the scenes, can sort out who will deal with the issue. It should not be for the public to have to navigate the different bits of legislation. Certainly, I would like to see better front-end reporting. Perhaps the provisions on data could ensure that data is better shared between police and local authorities.

Roger Hirst: I agree with my colleagues, but I would ask for the provisions to go that little bit further. It would be really helpful if we as PCCs had the opportunity to require local authorities to act in these cases. To be honest, the case reviews just have not taken off in Essex. The powers are there now, but you can be as loud as you like in telling the public about something that they do not want to use. Thankfully, the number of cases where they might want to use it is relatively few. Local authorities do not promote it, so we have vanishingly few of these case reviews in Essex at the moment. I would like to have some ability to hold people to account for that.

Emily Spurrell: May I make one quick additional comment? It is on behalf of colleagues as well. Although this is all very welcome, I think that if we are to see an increase in the number of reviews, there is a real concern to be addressed about the additional burden and, again, the capacity of the OPCCs—offices of the police and crime commissioners—to deliver on some of it. For example, in London, there are 34 local authority areas. That is a lot of case reviews that the Met would potentially have to deal with. There is a real nervousness in lots of areas that people are suddenly going to see a big uptick in demand. I think we would probably ask for additional support in making sure this works with the resource.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q May I ask about police accountability? The Bill also proposes changes to the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s referral threshold, and that may well result in fewer cases going to the CPS. As you are PCCs, what is your view of that and do you think that it will actually be beneficial?

Matthew Barber: In the light of some of the cases that have prompted the proposed changes, I certainly support them. I think it is right that that threshold is adjusted; that fits with what is right operationally. I think there are still adequate safeguards in place, and it is where the public and, hopefully, Parliament will expect the threshold to be, so I support the changes.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q The Bill also provides that the IOPC can send cases to the CPS before the IOPC has concluded all its work. Do you have any views about that?

Emily Spurrell: I personally welcome that. We get a lot of feedback about the timeliness of reviews and how long the IOPC takes to investigate. There is the impact that that has on, obviously, the officers, but also the victims and other people involved, so I think anything that can speed up that process—in particular, early conversations with the CPS would speed up the process—is very welcome.

[Anna Sabine]

Q Ms Spurrell, you wondered whether we had talked about resources a lot, and it will not surprise you to learn that we have. I want to talk specifically about neighbourhood policing resources. In my local police force, we have seen a 20% drop in the number of police community support officers since 2023, and I know that my principal town of Frome currently has vacancies for PCSOs. Do you have a view on whether the Bill’s provisions, including well-intentioned measures such as the retail crime provisions, can be delivered with the neighbourhood policing that we currently have in place?

Emily Spurrell: We are very honest about the fact that there are severe challenges in policing. It varies across different police forces, but we know that some forces are facing significant financial deficits. The recent announcement on neighbourhood policing has absolutely helped with that. We very much welcome the additional £200 million announced by the Government a few weeks —or months—ago, and lots of that is being used to invest in areas such as PCSOs and putting that visible presence into areas, which I think will help with some of this.

There has also been some flexibility around that funding. Because of the way the previous uplift programme was run, it was very much ringfencing police officers. We absolutely value that, and we know the public value that, but you end up in a very difficult position where forces are having to look at PCSOs and staff jobs to be able to balance the budget. Any flexibility that we can get around how the funding is given to police forces, through us, would be very welcome, because that will means you can start to see PCSOs, for example, playing a more visible role. Certainly the recent neighbourhood policing guarantee has helped with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Q Do you have any views on the approach to hyper-prolific offenders and how to ensure they are properly sanctioned?

Dr Newport: I think there should be provision in the Bill to ensure that, particularly for career criminals—people with 15 previous offences to their name—the more offences they commit, the longer they spend in prison for their current offence. That is technically in the current guidelines, but there are a lot of exemptions in the way they are drafted by the Sentencing Council. It should be put into statute that that is a direct, clear statement that the Sentencing Council should follow, and we should make sure it is super clear to judges.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q More generally on antisocial behaviour and some of the provisions in the Bill, do you support what respect orders could help to deliver in tackling antisocial behaviour in our communities?

Dr Newport: I support a ream of measures before people get to 15 or more offences—before they get to the point where they are career criminals or hyper-prolific offenders. Early intervention is of course the absolute key, if you can get people before they enter that point. I support all measures to try to do this as fast as possible. That means tagging, and other such measures—[Interruption.] I support them, but the building does not.

We have very good evidence that the earlier we intervene—it is not just early intervention, but the speed of that intervention. We have to make sure in statute that people are seen in a courtroom very soon after their first, second or third offence. That would mean that we see meaningful change and people not entering the career criminal pathway. Once they have done, we of course need to imprison them for longer periods.

[The Chair]

Dr Newport, I do apologise for the lighting effects.

Dr Newport: It is okay. It is like stadium lighting— I like it.

[Harriet Cross]

Q I want to ask about respect orders and the fact that they are pitched to come in at age 18 and over. Given how much antisocial behaviour is by juveniles, what would your view be on reducing that age to 16, or whatever level you might think? Or do you think 18 is pitched about right?

Dr Newport: There is good reason to consider it for 16 and above. That is because, exactly as you said, a lot of antisocial behaviour does happen at 16 or 17, and actually so does quite a bit of crime. There is good reason at least to look at the impact of doing that, and at whether it would help prevent people from going down the pathway to becoming career criminals.

[Keir Mather]

Q Thank you very much for your evidence, Dr Newport. I want to look back to something that you said at the beginning of your remarks about encouraging citizens to use CCTV in their homes to better allow the police to prosecute crimes. One issue that does recur, even when CCTV is available in people’s homes and they can say to the police, “Look, I’ve got this here for you to be able to use to catch who perpetrated this burglary”, or whatever else, is that the CCTV is not always used in the way people would like. I wonder if you could speak to that.

I think there is also a bit of a regional inequality point. In my part of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, there is live access to CCTV in York. That can be important in allowing people to deal with crimes in the moment, as they find them, and to direct police forces to the right spot. In Selby, however, our CCTV looks like it comes out of the 1970s; it is too blurry and grainy to use half the time, and it poses major challenges for the police. Can you point to how those practical realities affect your earlier remarks?

Dr Newport: That is why home CCTV is so useful. Cameras now are vastly cheaper than they were even 20 years ago when a lot of this infrastructure was put in place. You can get high definition cameras now on your doorbell in a way that 20 years ago would have been obscenely expensive. For the price of £30, homeowners with one of those cameras can probably outcompete, in a lot of ways, the national infrastructure or otherwise that was put in a long time ago.

I completely agree that it is extremely frustrating that a lot of the time, even when there is CCTV, it is not being looked at or used. There are several ways of encouraging that and making it easier. One is that there should be clauses on the procurement of artificial intelligence systems that could scan that footage. It is extremely likely that current systems can do that, and future systems will certainly be able to do it. Give a system indications of what to look for, and it can highlight that to officers within seconds. We should have that, and the fact that it is not used at all is astounding.

It should also be the case that officers have training so that they look at footage in the most time-efficient way. For example, with binary searches, rather than viewing the whole footage on fast forward to see an incident, if you are looking for a bike missing, for instance, you watch the bike. You check in halfway through the footage—is it there or not? If it is, you check at 75%—is it there or not? You keep doing that in halves, and you can do an extremely fast search. It might take you minutes, when otherwise it would take you hours to go through footage. Some officers are still going through hours and hours of footage rather than simply using methods that we know work extremely well.

[Joe Robertson]

Q Solving a set of issues in a given day depends on well-worded law that is targeted at the problem it is trying to solve. Can you share your views on backing that up with the appropriate resources, be it money or technology, for the police to be able to deliver on the law? Over the last decades, we have seen more and more criminal law come into being without necessarily the resource to back it up. Can you comment on the interplay between well-worded law and the resources for police to be able to act on it?

Dr Newport: On the resources point, some of my ideas here have been around CCTV procurement and AI. I think those things would help to reduce police time and costs. It should also be ensured that the public can see the effects of these things—that they are transparent and we are able to check on them, which at the moment we do not seem to be able to do. The fact that I have to try to ask an MP to ask a question in Parliament about the Connect system and still cannot get a response—there is still no way of checking—is completely and utterly unacceptable.

It is also the case that the British public, in survey after survey, put healthcare as the thing that they want to see the most funding to. Education and criminal justice are joint second and third. Government funding is nowhere near the public’s priorities on this. That is what I would point to on the funding question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Q There are measures in the Bill around the seizure of vehicles that are used antisocially. Do you have any views on that, or is there anything else you think should be done in that space?

Sam Durham: Again, that works as a good deterrent in some rural criminality, so we would support those kinds of issues. We do look at food security issues as well, including the illegal import of meat. I know our president is keen to investigate whether there is the potential to seize and crush those vehicles as a deterrent measure.

[Keir Mather]

Q Thank you for coming to give evidence today, Mr Durham. Rural crime absolutely blights communities across my rural North Yorkshire constituency, and a lot of the measures in the Bill will make a difference, whether they are to deal with off-road bikes, the theft of equipment from farm vehicles or fly-tipping. However, the substance of the law matters in its application, and a big challenge that we have in the Selby district is cross-border crime: criminals will perpetrate some of these acts on one side of a border and slip across to South Yorkshire or West Yorkshire and evade detection by the police. Does the NFU have a view on how we can take some of these provisions but operationalise them in a cross-border way to make sure that these criminals are brought to justice?

Sam Durham: Certainly. For a long time, while we have been working on crime, we have always pushed for co-ordination and consistency as the key. My members on any county or police force boundary will certainly say that they have the issues you mentioned. A criminal will know that they will get treated differently in one force area compared with the other, and stolen equipment can be taken across borders where there is less chance of investigation and action. We welcome some of the work the National Police Chiefs’ Council is doing now, including bringing together the national rural crime unit. The Home Office has funded that unit for the next three years, and that is positive news. Information sharing, the sharing of best practice and linking forces together is key.

We see that there is also a challenge for the Government to work across Departments. I was at the National Rural Crime Network conference on Tuesday, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office were there. There are instances, such as with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and fly-tipping, in which other Government Departments can work together more at a national level and filter that down to working together on a local level.

[Anna Sabine]

Q I represent Frome and East Somerset, which has a large number of NFU members and farmers, who I meet a lot. They tell me frequently that they do not bother reporting rural crime, because they just do not think there is any value in doing so or that it will ever be resolved, which massively frustrates the local rural crime PCSO, because she never gets the intelligence she needs about what is happening. From an NFU point of view, do you feel there is enough in the Bill on rural crime to reassure farmers that the Government are taking their concerns seriously, and that, if they report rural crime, something will be done about it?

Sam Durham: Not necessarily in the Bill; it is all linked to funding, and the fair allocation of police funding as well. A lot of rural forces that I speak to, including Avon and Somerset and Lincolnshire, will say that the funding they receive from central Government does not necessarily reflect the operational issues they have in remote rural areas with tourists and vulnerable communities that take a long time to get to.

We challenge our membership to report crime. There is a culture in farming to just get on with it—if your fence is damaged, you repair it yourself, and it is not worth reporting—but we have sent that message out, and we are working with the police to say, “You do need to report it, because there’s no way you can increase police support or funding without that understanding of how much crime is occurring in rural areas.” We work with other agencies, which say that a lot of that crime is potentially linked to organised criminal networks. The reporting aspect is an important part of building that picture.

[Harriet Cross]

Q Missing from the Bill is anything to do with livestock theft or worrying. Do you consider those to be covered sufficiently in other legislation, or would you like to see something included in the Bill to recognise that that is a huge issue for farmers and rural landowners? I do not want to diminish theft from a shop in any way, but the value of a cow or sheep is significant. Should that be better represented in the Bill?

Sam Durham: On the livestock worrying issue, there is a private Member’s Bill progressing at the moment—the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill—that I believe the Government have said they will support. A lot of the measures in it have appeared at other times in legislation but then been dropped. We have worked quite closely with National Police Chiefs’ Council and others, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Kennel Club, and we would support a lot of those measures to give the police more powers to investigate, seize dogs and take samples to link dogs to attacked animals. I think that that Bill, if it progresses, will cover that issue.

Livestock theft is a complicated issue, because you need the skills to handle livestock in order to steal livestock, but it is a concern, because there are routes for livestock to enter the food chain, and if animals are being stolen and processed in a different way, there are potential food hygiene issues. The picture on livestock theft is not clear at the moment. The National Rural Crime Unit now has a livestock theft co-ordinator, who is doing a lot of research into how livestock theft is recorded by the police. At the moment, there is not a clear picture of how it is recorded by each force, so there is not a national picture on livestock theft. Again, we have the issue of how it is reported by our farming members. There are not measures in the Bill on livestock theft, but, potentially as a result of the research that the National Rural Crime Unit is doing, there could be scope for future legislation on it.

[Keir Mather]

Q I want to ask about the confidence that individual farmers will have in these measures. We are in an unenviable situation at the moment. Farmers in my constituency deal with criminality frequently, and they have to step up themselves and put themselves in danger. I was speaking to a farmer in Brotherton the other month who had chased a gang of people on off-road bikes across his farm, putting himself at personal risk and danger. Do you think that, if implemented correctly, these measures will provide individual farmers with reassurance that they will not have to put themselves in similar danger in the future?

Sam Durham: I hope so. In general, the rural community and farmers have a good relationship with the police. They recognise the challenges the police have with low numbers, but where forces have a rural crime team, they build a link with the local community and the farming community. When I go to meetings around the country, I hear that rural crime is a big issue, but they support the police; they just want to give the police the tools to deal with the criminality they are having to deal with themselves.

Certainly, the link to organised criminality is worth investigating as well. The theft of a quad bike from a farm may seem a low-level crime, but it is potentially funding bigger networks. On the fly-tipping side, there is evidence that waste crime is linked to organised criminal activity as well.

Putting the picture together—I have given you a long answer—I think farmers will be reassured that the Government are taking this issue seriously. Alongside some of the other legislation, on equipment theft and livestock worrying, the Bill shows that rural crime is being taken seriously.

[Joe Robertson]

Q May I take you back to fly-tipping? We heard earlier how it is a problem for local authorities, but they are clearly more resourced than private landowners, who often own the sites where rubbish is dumped. Is there any opportunity missed in the Bill to try to tackle fly-tipping, particularly for people who, through no fault of their own, have waste dumped on their private property?

Sam Durham: The guidance to local authorities is key, and there are some really good examples of local authorities that are bringing all the agencies—the Environment Agency, the police and so on—together and having a co-ordinated approach to tipping. That means that members of the public know who to go to when they see an incident. There is not a general approach to that across the country, so if there is any way of legislating for that approach, or putting it in the local authority guidance, to make that happen, that would be key.

For the victim—the landowner—it is about knowing where to report, so having a single reporting mechanism that gets to the right people. They cannot view a tip and say, “That’s hazardous waste; that’s the Environment Agency’s responsibility”, “That’s the local authority’s responsibility” or, “That’s just rubbish thrown out of the back of a car.” They cannot judge that. A single reporting system that allowed them to log it and then found the right person to deal with it is something we would be campaigning for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Q The challenge for the Government is that a huge amount of money is spent managing protests in this country. In London, we spent around £53 million managing pro-Palestinian protests. Some of the measures are designed to aid the police in managing protests and protecting the public from people who would do them harm. How do you think we can best balance the need to allow peaceful protest with the need to prevent disruption and prevent people from using face coverings to avoid being detained by the police?

Venita Yeung: That is an interesting question. I can only speak from the experience of anti-CCP protests, most of which are very peaceful and do not result in any kind of arrests. To balance the needs of public order, the police could always communicate with protest organisers ahead of the protest, and improve their relationships with community leaders to see how they can facilitate a peaceful protest, instead of deploying measures that inadvertently assist authoritarian repression.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q I listened very carefully and am very concerned by what you have said, but I want to highlight that the provisions in the Bill, specifically clauses 86 to 88, do not apply to all protests. It is not a blanket provision that says, “You can’t hide your face at a protest.” Clause 87 is designed only for those purposes where a senior police officer reasonably believes that a protest is

“likely to involve or has involved”

the commission of criminal offences. Having set that out, do you have a different view on that clause?

Venita Yeung: This is a complex issue, but I will try to summarise my view. The power is devolved into police hands to decide whether criminal offences will take place in a protest. At the recent Chinese embassy protests, where there were over 20 police cars and over 6,000 protesters, there were clashes between organisers and police where a disproportionate amount of police power was designated at those protests. For context, lots of Hongkongers who have recently settled here might not understand English perfectly, which could lead to them misunderstanding police instructions.

If more police powers are given, in that case, it could easily have led to an abuse of power, especially when the police do not understand the nuances. I believe there is a letter addressed to the Met police about disproportionate measures being applied to the Hong Kong and repressed Chinese community protests, drafted by Tom Tugendhat MP and Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q But do you accept that we are a rules-based country with the rule of law and that there are checks and balances on the police?

Venita Yeung: Yes.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

That is why we are very specific in what the clause says. It is not a blanket ban on hiding your face if you feel that you have to; it applies only if a senior police officer believes there is going to be the commission of offences.

Venita Yeung: That is a very good question. The Government can try to clarify the provisions around the suspicion of crime to clarify what the suspicion of crime here is. I understand the proportionate need to lay out clear rules, but sometimes most of those criminal offences are quite broadly defined.

For example, last time when the protest was organised, the police ordered the protesters to stay only within a very small area. If you stood outside of the area you could get arrested, and that was linked to another offence—the blockade of the highway. I urge the Committee to understand that it is a very easily reached threshold for the criminal offence of suspicion. There is a need for the Government to balance that, especially when it comes to protest-related laws.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Just to be clear, are you saying that you should not be able to stop someone from covering their face at any protest? Is that your position?

Venita Yeung: My position is that if it is about very obvious criminal intent, the Government need to clarify this very broadly defined offence. I think the Government should clarify it so that we can balance the power of police and organising a democratic protest.

[Anna Sabine]

Q I think you are doing really well, Ms Yeung; thank you for coming in. Just a quick question, although I probably know the answer: can I assume that your concerns about face coverings would also apply to the use of live facial recognition technology for protests?

Venita Yeung: Yes.