Commons Chamber

Tuesday 14th April 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:54
Stephen Kinnock Portrait Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)
-
-
Well, I thank him for that >> Well, I thank him for that question, and I'm equally pleased about what's happening with the University of East Anglia. When we University of East Anglia. When we came into office in July 2024, I was shocked to discover that there had been no sustained increase in had been no sustained increase in the number of dental places in our country since 2007, and I'm very proud of the fact that this government has turned that around with regard to the.

I had the General Dentistry Council in my office shortly after the general election to ask why the contract has been failing, mainly due to the neglect and incompetence of the party opposite. We've sorted that out. They've got a new contractor in place, and we're going to be delivering thousands more out of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the backlog of international dentists starting from the 1st of April this year. Peter Swallow. Question seven please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

please. Mr Speaker Minister coming.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Speaker Minister coming. Can we? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We promise to improve GP access and we are delivering. There access and we are delivering. There are 2000 more GPS than in July 2024, double our manifesto commitment of double our manifesto commitment of 1000. The previous government plan to increase GP numbers between 2019 and 2024. The number of fully qualified FTE GPS actually fell by 900. We have delivered 8 million more appointments and we are seeing satisfaction going up from 61% where it was languishing in July 20th 24 to 70.4% today.
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
None Portrait
-

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Keras was just 22 when she took her life while an inpatient at Park House in Greater Manchester. The coroner described the unit as a shambles. Keras was just one of a number of deaths at the unit, and there is a national pattern of mental health trusts failing to learn and act when tragedy occurs. learn and act when tragedy occurs. Although reports to prevent future deaths are issued, there is no mechanism to ensure their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recommendations are acted upon. How can accountability be strengthened? Hey Mr. Speaker, anyone receiving mental health treatment, particularly acute mental health treatment, deserves dignity and high quality care. We are careful short. This government's approach is that sunlight is the best disinfectant. That is why it is absolutely committed to learning and taking action to protect patients and improve inpatient mental health care up and down the country. I am deeply distressed to hear about this case and other cases, including Saint Andrew's and NHS England, and our CQC are acting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to keep patients safe, and I am happy to take forward any further discussions with her as necessary. Mr Speaker patients in. Chicago

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Speaker patients in. Chicago often struggle to access GP services in their area, and instead they must travel long distances. they must travel long distances. Some years ago, it was confirmed that a new surgery should be built in April. However, significant delays means that we are still waiting for that surgery. So will the Minister work with the NHS

**** Possible New Speaker ****

locally and myself to finally deliver a new GP surgery based in Chickerell? I thank my hon. Friend, I know that the local, town and county council have been working in partnership with Dorset ICB over many years to support GP many years to support GP partnerships within the area to develop a business case for NHS capital or revenue funding. I'd be capital or revenue funding. I'd be delighted to meet with him and to continue to make plans for how we can put pressure on to ensure that this is delivered.
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
12:45
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Update on the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
-

Mr. speaker.
12:45
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
the House on the government's response to the recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry. Additional report. I want to just Additional report. I want to just start by updating the House on the delivery of compensation by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, or Ibca, as we refer to Authority, or Ibca, as we refer to it, as of the 7th of April, 3273 people have received an offer and over £2 billion has now been paid over £2 billion has now been paid out, and that includes the first payments to all eligible groups.

And I'm sure members across the whole House will welcome that progress. In July last year, the Infected Blood Inquiry published its additional report that made recommendations both for the government and indeed for Ibca. And part of our response to that report was a public consultation on changes to the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme. I'm here to update the House today on the outcome of that consultation. I should say, firstly, I'm deeply grateful to everyone who responded and provided deeply personal stories.

These must be at the heart of decisions the government makes, just as they were throughout the work of the inquiry. That consultation was vital for engaging the community on our proposals. The government has also sought advice from the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Technical Expert Group, alongside the consultation response. Today I am publishing the group's final report, which sets out their advice to the government and amendments to the compensation scheme to inform that advice. The Technical Expert Group conducted roundtable discussions with community representatives on specific aspects of the scheme, and that was separate to the consultation.

For transparency, I am also publishing the minutes of the round table discussions, the group's own meetings and a summary of written responses to the round tables. Let me now turn Mr Speaker to the changes to the scheme. Today we have published as a government our full response to the consultation, and that sets out how the scheme will now change. I would say before I turn to each change in detail, let me just explain the overall package. The community were clear that the scheme must do more to recognise people's individual experiences and compensate them fairly in a way that minimises the administrative burden placed upon those who have been harmed, minimises the demand for evidence and maintains the delivery of tariff based compensation, and those requirements underpin the changes.

For infected people, the changes will increase the amount of co compensation available and increase the options available for supplementary compensation awards for affected people. Additional compensation will be available to those eligible. We consulted on seven specific areas and we are making substantive changes in all seven and in four areas. We are actually going further than our original proposal. Let me now turn to those. Firstly, the special category mechanism. We will introduce a new supplementary award to give additional compensation to people who have been assessed as eligible for the SCM, or who can now demonstrate to Ibca they meet the criteria.

After considering the community's views, we will ensure that every eligible person has this award backdated to 2017. And that is because that is when the special category mechanism was first introduced. Many of those infected suffered from terrible mental health issues as a result of their infection, as we heard in their testimonies. So we will amend the scheme. So the new SCM Supplementary Award gives people additional compensation, where the psychological harm that they experienced means that the core route compensation simply doesn't go far enough.

We believe this will result in more comprehensive recognition of the mental health issues caused by infected blood and the resulting years of harm. The inquiry recommended we change the core route severity bandings to recognise the harms caused to infected people by interferon treatment and propose a new level two B severity banding for those who receive this treatment. We accept change is necessary and we will introduce this new severity band to increase people's injury, financial loss and indeed care awards.

In addition, if someone has had multiple rounds of interferon treatment, they will be compensated for each round. The inquiry recommended changes to the calculation of past financial loss and past care awards for those who choose to continue receiving support scheme payments, and we will remove the 25% deduction applied to Pasc compensation, as was recommended by the inquiry. The consultation also set out two options for how financial loss could be calculated for those who continue to receive support scheme payments.

The way the scheme currently does it, and an alternative because of the range of views on which was best. We will ensure that people receive past financial loss compensation based on whichever of the two calculations presented is most financially beneficial for them. The inquiry asked the government to look at the evidence requirements for the Exceptional Loss award. We were keen to hear the community's views on this, to develop a way forward that avoided lengthy, individualised assessments of people's circumstances. We will make sure that all forms of evidence of actual earnings can be considered by ibca.

We will also make additional compensation available to infected people who lack evidence of earnings, but who had clear potential to earn more than average. We will offer a £60,000 lump sum on top of people's core awards to those who can show they either had a job offer or recently started a job where the salary was higher than the median salary, but had their progress impeded by their infection. Through the consultation, we also heard Mr Speaker about the experiences of affected people and particular harms they suffered.

We will increase the Core Injury award for several groups of affected people, including bereaved parents whose child sadly died before they turned 18. Bereaved partners and children and siblings affected under the age of 18. These changes will give more compensation to affected people, whose particular experience of the scandal was undoubtedly profound and deeply harmful. These awards will form part of the core award, and they will not require additional evidence from applicants. I know the matter of unethical research is of particular concern to members across the House, and is one of the most shocking aspects of this scandal.

We heard that the existing approach may not have compensated everyone who suffered this wrongdoing. So first, we have changed the scope of this award so that anyone treated in the UK for a bleeding disorder in 1985 or earlier will receive further compensation. It was also clear from the consultation responses that the amount offered does not reflect the harm done. I say today to the House we will increase the unethical research awards. This includes increasing £25,000 for those who attended law school to 60,000, as well as introducing a new unethical research award for those treated elsewhere for a bleeding disorder during childhood at a rate of £45,000.

We also tripling the award for those treated for a bleeding disorder in adulthood to £30,000. Mr. speaker, I have touched on all seven of the areas we directly addressed in the consultation. Of course, I encourage members across the House to realise to read the full response that is being published. The consultation also invited respondents to raise any other concerns they had with the design of the scheme. One of the most compelling things we heard was that the scheme does not sufficiently recognise the profound impact of infection during childhood.

We have heard the community clearly on this, so we will make a further change to the compensation scheme to address this. We will introduce a 50% increase to the Core Autonomy Award for people who are infected at age 18 or under now. I hope these changes go some way to showing our commitment to listening to the community and making decisions with those impacted at the forefront of our minds, in order to make these substantial changes to the scheme, we will bring forward further legislation in due course.

Now, whilst the consultation provided one way for the community to offer feedback, the inquiry recommended there be an identified way for concerns to be considered. So today I am pleased to launch a new mechanism which builds on existing engagement and feedback channels through which people can raise concerns about the function of the infected blood compensation scheme. With the Cabinet Office and with ICA. Both organisations will then publish quarterly summaries of feedback received on the scheme's design and delivery, and any action being taken as a result.

And I tell the House I would expect the first of these summaries to be published in early July. Mr Speaker. The findings of the inquiry must be met with tangible, systemic change. I hope what I have set out today goes some way towards showing our commitment to enacting this change. I'd also like to pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff, to his team and everyone who gave testimony to the inquiry for ensuring that that human element of this tragedy remains at the focal point of the inquiry's work.

The compensation schemes most basic purpose is to provide financial recognition of the losses and harms faced by victims, both infected and affected. Beyond this, it must reflect and embody their stories if it is to truly deliver justice, not just for those we tragically lost, but also for those who continue to fight. I commend this statement to the House.
12:55
Mike Wood Portrait Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Minister Mike Wood. advanced copy. We naturally welcome the progress reported today. The fact that 3273 people have received offers totalling more than £2 billion is a significant milestone in a decades long struggle for justice, and I thank the Infected Blood Compensation Authority for their work to speed up these payments. As Baroness Finn said, in the other place, what we call the scandal was, in truth the infliction of grievous harm upon thousands of people by the state.

And nowhere was this more egregious or more shocking than in the case. Those cases where victims were infected as a result of deliberate experimentation in the name of science. And we therefore commend the Minister for the specific increases to the unethical research awards, and particularly that uplift to £60,000 for the survivors of Treloar's school and the expansion of the scheme to include those treated as adults. These are necessary recognitions of a truly outrageous chapter of this scandal. However, while the Minister speaks of tangible systemic change, many victims and their families will be looking at the fine print with a degree of trepidation.

So I have a number of questions regarding the delivery and scope of these announcements. The Minister noted that further legislation will be required later this year to enact these substantial changes, and given that the Infected blood inquiry is additional report was published back in July of last year. Can the Minister reassure this House that this legislative timetable will not lead to further delays for those in declining health? Will the first quarterly feedback summaries that is promised for July provide a hard deadline for when those new level two B severity awards and backdated Aysha.m payments will actually reach bank accounts and if not, does the Minister have an expectation for when those payments will be made? I think that the Minister mentioned increased core injury awards for bereaved parents where children died before the age of 18.

So can he provide greater clarity on the justification for excluding parents whose children are infected when they were young children, but who may have turned 18 before the time of their death? And regarding the 50% increase to the Core Autonomy Award for those infected at age 18 or under, can he confirm that this will also apply to those who are infected through their mothers in utero? The government rightly aims to minimise the administrative burden and the demand for evidence, and we welcome the £60,000 lump sum for those with clear potential to earn, but who lack evidence of earnings.

So how will the Infected Blood Compensation Authority define clear potential without falling back into the very lengthy, individualised assessments that the Minister says that he wants to avoid? And finally, on the compensation scheme, the Minister announced that for past financial loss, the government will use whichever calculation is most financially beneficial for the recipient. This is a pragmatic, pragmatic step that we welcome. However, can he clarify if the removal of the 25% deduction for past care will be applied automatically to all existing offers? Or will those people who have already received offers need to re-apply to have their awards adjusted? The compensation scheme must, as the Minister says, embody their stories.

Justice delayed is justice denied, and we must ensure that these new supplementary awards do not become a secondary bureaucratic hurdle for a community that has already given so much testimony and waited for so long. But before I close, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I turn to a matter that seems to be missing from the minister's statement, and that's that of the inquiry. When the Minister last updated the House before Christmas, I raised the need to move from a period of review to one of rectification and delivery, and asked him how and when the inquiry might be drawn to a close so that there could be a degree of policy certainty.

I didn't hear him refer to it in his statement. So can the Minister confirm that with the implementation of the key recommendations from the additional report and Sir Graham's letters, the public inquiry has now drawn to a close. So once again, I would like to thank Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their diligent and comprehensive work over the past eight years to help deliver some justice. After decades of scandal and suffering. But most of all, I would like to again pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of the many victims and their families who are infected or affected by the infected blood scandal.

They have suffered for far too long in ways that we can barely begin to imagine, and no compensation scheme can ever reverse the horrific harms needlessly done to them. But I hope that the universal acceptance of the conclusion of these reports, and the determination of all of us to do what we can to make changes to stop others from suffering in the future, will bring them some comfort.
13:01
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the shadow Minister for the tone that he took in that response and the tone, indeed, and supportive tone that he has taken throughout. And could I just pick up on some of his earlier points? I agree with him entirely when he talks of the heinous nature of medical experimentation on children that happened in this scandal. And whilst, of course I have increased the specific amounts, it should be pointed out that those specific amounts do not stand in isolation.

They are obviously specific amounts for that particularly egregious nature of what happened that are within much higher settlements, which is exactly as it should be. On the point about the inquiry. Yes, there has now been the formal exchange of letters between myself as the responsible Minister and Sir Brian Langstaff, and I entirely agree with him as well about the need now for policy certainty going forward. I will come back to him because he has some very reasonable, detailed questions. I will come back to him properly in writing upon, but let me just deal with a few of those, because firstly, on the further legislation, I want to bring it forward as soon as possible.

And I say parties across the House when I've brought forward legislation on this in the past, have always worked in a collaborative way throughout to get it through as quickly as possible. And obviously positions are a matter for the parties opposite, but I think continuing that constructive spirit is obviously helpful in terms of getting these things through as quickly as possible. Can I also say as well on the issue of exceptional loss, because that £60,000, again, it is not designed and the hon.

Gentleman referred to this to be this very detailed, individualised assessment, because that's not what a tariff based scheme is meant to do, but it is meant to look at that situation of loss, of a chance, that situation where somebody but for the infection, but for how they refer to both the Scott Arthur infected by the infection, would have had the opportunity to have gone on and perhaps been higher than average earner, but were denied that. And it's designed specifically to look at it on the other very reasonable and detailed matters the hon.

Gentleman raises. response.
13:03
13:03
13:04
Lisa Smart Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson >> Liberal Democrat spokesperson Lisa Smart. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I especially welcome his statement. I especially welcome within his remarks the recognition of people's individual experiences and the commitment to compensate them fairly in a way which minimises the administrative burden placed upon those who have been harmed. The infected blood scandal is one of the greatest failures within our National Health Service that was unacknowledged for far too long.

Over 30,000 people were infected across the country and face the devastating consequences of this systematic failure. Yet there are people who continue to feel that the scheme has not gone far enough, including one of my own constituents from Marple, who feels the scheme should investigate more potential conditions. Thousands of victims and their families have waited decades for the justice they deserve. Sir Brian Langstaff was straightforward within his findings. Victims have been ignored and frozen out of the process. They fought decades to secure, whilst payments proceeded at an infuriatingly glacial pace.

The Liberal Democrats have long stood with the victims, and the government is right to seek to answer their needs. Both of those infected and affected, setting out a clear timeline for how they can be delivered. Compensation alongside my colleagues. We'll continue to hold this government accountable until every eligible person receives the justice they are owed. Sir Brian Langstaff rightly highlighted how victims have not been listened to by successive Ministers, and we welcome the new feedback mechanism that the Minister set out today.

But I wonder if he could expand a little on his remarks. Could he confirm that this will be a formal advisory body of victims to the IBC, as recommended by the Langstaff inquiry? Madam Deputy Speaker, After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delay, the government should ensure full transparency over the progress of the scheme and open ongoing communication with all those affected. Enshrining a statutory duty of candour is a long overdue reform, one championed by those infected and affected by this scandal and the continued delays to passing the Hillsborough law are shameful.

Victims and campaigners should not be made to wait any longer. Can the Minister say when the government will get this vital piece of legislation moving again, and finally get the Hillsborough law on the statute book? Mr.
13:06
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:13
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:19
13:19
13:20
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:24
13:24
13:25
13:26
13:26
13:27
13:28
13:28
13:29
13:29
13:30
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
you for the reference. Which brings us to a statement on tackling knife crime. Minister. Sarah Jones. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I come to the statement, I want to echo the words of the Home Secretary yesterday following the publication of the inquiry report on the Southport attack. This was a truly sickening crime and my thoughts and those of everyone in this place I know are with the families, the victims and everyone affected. But with the permission. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to make a statement on this government's plan to halve knife crime in a decade.

That commitment made in our manifesto, is rooted in recognition of a tragic truth. In too many places, a deadly cycle has taken hold as fear and violence feed off each other, leaving people and especially young people, feeling that they have no choice but to carry a weapon, to stay safe. but to carry a weapon, to stay safe. And in the most devastating cases, resulting in the loss of lives which have beer to this house. It is wretchedly familiar to me.

We know it from the long list of tragedies we have. We have talked of in this place where we have spoken with families across the country. We hear it in the anguished words of bereaved parents with whom many of us have met after fatal stabbings in our own constituencies. And we see it when we look at our children, whose safety is too often the cause of worry and sleepless nights in these and in so many other ways, knife crime is destructive and devastating, and it has for too long been plaguing communities and destroying lives.

The task of putting that right falls to this government. And since the general election, we have acted decisively to deliver a response that matches up to the scale of the threat. Implementing bans on zombie-style knives, zombie-style, machetes and ninja swords, restoring neighbourhood policing to the heart of our communities, getting more than 63,000 knives and dangerous weapons off our streets, ramping up action against county lines gangs to record to record levels with over 2700 lines shut down last year, setting up the Coalition to Tackle Knife Crime and legislating to deliver the toughest crackdown yet on online knife sales.

The concerted effort we have mounted alongside our partners in the coalition and across the country, law enforcement and communities is having an impact since the start of this parliament. Knife crime is down by 8% and knife homicides are down by 27% to the lowest level in a decade. Together, we are making progress, but it is not enough. Knives are still being carried, stabbings are still occurring and lives are still being lost. Indeed, there have been several fatal cases in recent days, and I take this opportunity to express my deepest sympathies to the victim's loved ones, for them and for all the families out there whose world has been forever changed by knife crime, and for a country as a whole.

We must do more. And we are. With the publication of Protecting Lives, Building Hope, which details the action this government is taking and will take to further reduce knife crime and ultimately achieve our goal of halving it in a decade. The plan outlines activity and investment designed to drive progress against across four key outcomes. These are supporting young people, stopping those at risk from turning to knife crime, policing our streets and ending the cycle of knife crime. And I will take each of those in turn.

First. We will do much more to give every boy and girl the best possible start in life by addressing the root causes of knife crime, increasing investment in youth services, launching 50 young futures hubs to bring together wellbeing support, careers guidance and positive activities in areas badly affected by knife crime and also by stepping up support for children who are persistently absent from school and investing in mental health support teams in our schools. We do all of this and more, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we recognise that to deliver the change that is needed, we must act early and prevent harm before it escalates into violence later in life.

Second, we are ramping up efforts to stop young people being drawn into knife crime, whether they are at risk of being an offender, a victim or both. A new safety in and around schools partnership backed by government funding, will see around 250 schools given targeted support to boost their capacity to tackle knife crime and reduce the risk of harm. We are also investing in the County Lines programme and the highly effective network of violence reduction units, and strengthening crime prevention in the communities that need it most.

Third, we will ensure victims of crime get the justice they deserve and dangerous criminals face the full force of the law through a robust and effective police response. Visible local policing is central to our approach, not just on knife crime, but across the full breadth of this government's agenda on law and order. The severity of the situation we inherited has been well documented, so I will not retrace that ground, except to say that we have made it a first order priority to rebuild neighbourhood policing by putting an additional 13,000 police personnel into neighbourhood roles in England and Wales by the end of this Parliament, with over 3000 in place two months ahead of schedule, and by implementing the Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee, under which every community has named contactable offices devoted to tackling local issues, police boots on the ground are essential, but we must also ensure forces are equipped and empowered to make interventions that are precise, timely and effective.

We will therefore support the development of tools and approaches that have the potential to enhance prevention and detection with substantial funding to enhance crime mapping. Invest in research and development aimed at improving our capability to detect high risk knife carriers and enable targeted action in the police force areas that see the most knife crime through a new Knife Crime Concentrations fund. We will also support forces in maximising the use of intelligence led stop and search and where the law needs strengthening, we will not hesitate, as shown by our commitment to introducing much tougher rules around the online sale of knives through measures we know as Ronan's Law.

After Ronan Kanda, who was fatally stabbed aged 16 and whose mother and sister have campaigned heroically for change since his death. This will all be underpinned by the most radical programme of police reform in 200 years. Madam Deputy Speaker. Fourth, we will seek to end the cycle of repeat harm by strengthening the youth justice system, improving the rehabilitation of adult offenders to reduce the risk of re-offending, and developing a new national approach to identify, prioritise and manage habitual knife offenders who pose the greatest, greatest risk to public safety.

Each of these four strands is important on its own, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the steps we are taking within them have been chosen because the evidence supports it equally. I am clear that this work transcends individual policies or initiatives. Ours is a whole of government, whole of society mission aimed at building a safer, more hopeful future. For all. The publication of this plan marks a significant moment in that mission, not because of what it says, but because of the action it will drive.

But above all, we think today of the victims and of the families that are smaller than they should be. While we can never undo the pain inflicted on them, we can prevent others suffering as they have. It will not be easy, but in the vital effort to protect lives and build hope, this government will be unrelenting because, as Pooja Kanda so aptly put it, every child deserves to grow up safely. She is right. Of course we must, and we will do everything in our power to make those words a reality in every part of our country.

And with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.
13:39
Matt Vickers Portrait Matt Vickers MP (Stockton West, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Minister Matt Vickers. >> Shadow Minister Matt Vickers. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Can I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement? Halving knife crime is a measure Halving knife crime is a measure that every member of this House would subscribe to. It is a devastating crime with devastating consequences. Only yesterday this House discussed the tragic events in Southport and the impact that this can have on a community. This event is unfortunately representative of a much broader problem, whereby too many people view it as appropriate to carry and use a knife criminally.

This is horrific and must be stopped. Therefore, we owe it to the country, and particularly those in communities affected by knife crime, to take knives off our streets and prosecute those who believe using weapons is acceptable. Unfortunately, since the election, we've seen that knife crime enable knife enabled crime recorded by the police has increased. In addition, we must acknowledge that based on the data up to September 25th, 30% of all knife offences took place despite London making up only 15% of the population.

Therefore, we need proposals that recognise the geographical nature of this crime, with so much of it occurring in particular areas. As such, it's welcome to see the government's plan includes the Knife Crime Concentrations Fund to support surges in policing where knife crime is most prevalent. However, I'm afraid that the proposals put forward by the Labour government will not be sufficient without two critical foundations powers for officers to stop and search individuals, and sufficient officer numbers to put this strategy into effect.

The hotspot policing outlined by the government must be used in conjunction with effective stop and search, which the government's strategy acknowledges is broadly supported by the public. It's why we have set out plans to triple the use of stop and search, and to use section 60 suspicion Suspicionless stop and search in high crime areas. This should be supported by changes so that a single suspicion indicator is enough to merit a stop and search. This would be supported by 10,000 new officers.

In contrast, the government has presided over a decrease in officer numbers, with 1300 fewer officers during its time in power, with particularly steep falls in the Metropolitan Police, where this crime is most prevalent in the government's plan. They talk about the need for officers, but this is not reflected in the overall figures as police forces across the country highlighted during discussions on police funding. If we want to see the police help achieve these reductions and for the government to meet its targets, there cannot be fewer of them.

In addition, under proposals introduced in the Sentencing Act 2026, many of those convicted for knife crime will be eligible for an earlier release than under previous rules. There are many important areas covered by the strategy, but there are fewer references to sentencing perpetrators of knife crime for longer. It's pitiful that those convicted of knife crime offences who would previously have gone to prison could now avoid it. This is unsurprising, as it took extensive effort from members on this side of the House and those in the other place to increase knife crime sentences in the Crime and Policing Bill.

The Labour Party repeatedly speaks strongly, but it fails to back this up with the necessary custodial sentences. The government statement today and its strategy set out a number of important proposals and rightly recognise the importance of education and culture, building on work conducted by the previous government on violence reduction units and the County Lines programme. However, this must be supported by stronger enforcement, ensuring that those who commit these crimes are imprisoned with appropriate custodial sentences. Knife crime is truly horrific and we owe it to everyone to give the police every power necessary to investigate and seize these weapons.

I worry that without stronger enforcement, this plan will not be the significant moment the government believes it will be.
13:43
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
Minister. >> Minister. >> And can I thank the spokesman from the Conservative Party for for welcoming this target that we have in terms of halving knife crime and for welcoming its content and the Knife Crime concentration fund in particular. I do appreciate that. And I think where we can we should try and work cross-party on tackling such heinous crimes. I would just say a couple of points to to some of his concerns. He raises the question of sentencing.

It will always Madam Deputy Speaker be the case that people found guilty of serious knife crime offences will go to prison. That that is that that is not changing. We are making a couple of changes which hopefully will be in the direction that he would support. Just to give one example, currently around 1000 children a year are found in possession of a knife and there is no action taken whatsoever in terms of trying to get them away from that activity. None whatsoever.

We have changed the law on that, the rules on that, so that every single child who is found in possession of a knife will have a program which will ensure that they are given the support, given the interventions that they need to move them away from crime. And if they if they don't adhere to those conditions, then they they will become it will become a criminal matter if necessary. So there is a big gap that we are filling there. We are also introducing in the bill that is currently going through Parliament that we're debating this afternoon a new offence of knife possession with intent, which doesn't exist at the moment.

You have possession of a knife possession involving a threat to life, but there is no offence of possession with intent which we are introducing, and there will be a seven year maximum sentence for that crime. So I hope that will reassure the hon. Gentleman. We could get into a debate about numbers. I don't want to do that today because we have done it many times before, and I'm sure we will do it many times coming. But just to reiterate the point that there are at the moment, 12,000 officers in our country who are sitting behind desks, we don't think that's right.

We want to get them out into our communities. There has been an 18% increase in the police that we have in our neighbourhoods in the last year, and we want those officers to also be doing the job that we want them to be doing, not wasting time on bureaucracy. And so we are investing hugely in AI and new technology, which is going to free up the equivalent of 3000 full time officers just from the tech that we can give them that they should have had previously.

That will help them do their job. So we are pushing as hard as we can, not on exact numbers of officers, but on overcomes. And I will end with a statistic which I'm very pleased about, which shows that we are moving in the right direction, which I said in my statement, which is that knife crime is down 8% overall, and that knife murders are down 27%. We are focusing on outcomes, not police numbers. Thank you.
13:47
13:47
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank my hon. Friend for his question? And of course all our question? And of course all our thoughts are with the family of of thoughts are with the family of of his constituent who has lost his life. These things are always tragic, and I know that he will be involved in trying to help the community heal from such a community heal from such a difficult, a difficult situation. I know that arrests have been made both in terms of suspicion of murder and others.

I think four people have been arrested. So that is that is good. But of course, nothing will bring back that young lad. What I would say is we have to understand where knife crime is happening and why it's happening, and we are investing a huge amount of funding in understanding exactly that. Through our work, we are able to identify exactly where the knife crime hotspots are across the country, and we are working with local partners and the police to make sure we understand exactly why they're happening in some parts of the country.

They happen just after the school's end, because sadly, it's something that involves young people. Sometimes it's the night time economy that is driving knife crime. Sometimes it will be other things. So we are getting absolutely focussed both on what the causes are behind knife crime and a lot of support for young people to try and bring them out of a life of crime, but also understanding exactly what is going on in some areas. And as he says, there will be some areas that are going up, some areas that are coming down.

We need to understand coming down. We need to understand that and address it.
13:49
Luke Taylor Portrait Luke Taylor MP (Sutton and Cheam, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Democrats welcome the publication of this strategy, and I'm particularly glad to note the involvement of the Ben Kinsella Trust in formulating it. The Banking Sector Trust has remarkable work with young students and with teachers to help make sure we take a holistic approach to knife crime that is so badly needed, particularly their CEO, Patrick Green, who I had the pleasure of meeting at Finsbury Library last year. We Liberal Democrats have said time and time again that we need a smarter approach to knife crime, not just to save lives, but to improve them.

So can the Minister commit to securing the funding for the measures outlined in this strategy over the long term? Because without that guarantee, the strategy will be little more than warm words? Secondly, can the Minister also confirm whether or not the 13,000 new police in the neighbourhood teams that they claim are deploying is actually new resource, or is it an accounting trick where existing officers have been redeployed? Now, the Minister might not want to talk about numbers, but particularly important in London, where sir Mark Rowley, the Met Police Commissioner, has said it is increasingly difficult to keep Londoners safe with a shrinking force.

And where estimates suggest there are 2503 fewer police officers in London today than there were in May 2024, and I'm happy to be corrected on that number. Finally, can the Minister explain why the government continues to skirt around the edges of a meaningful public health approach without outright adopting one? Because we know that knife crime is not just a policing issue, it is a public health crisis. And if we're serious about tackling it as the epidemic it is, we must treat it as one.

One that brings together every person who sees the warning signs teachers, GPS, youth workers, social workers, sports coaches, trusted adults who know when something is going wrong. And tragically, as we've read in the conclusions of the Southport inquiry report, parents two right now, all these groups are isolated and do not talk. We need to break down the silo walls and build real partnerships across civil society. And until the government recognises invest in a public health approach, our progress will be blunted.
13:51
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. And can I welcome the Liberal Democrats welcoming of the plan that is appreciated. And of course, I join with him in in praising the Ben Kinsella Trust and Patrick Green. Patrick's been brilliant through the development of this strategy, as have the whole coalition, which has brought together a group of people, many of whom have lost loved ones in very difficult circumstances but are pushing for action to to stop other people losing their loved ones. And I pay tribute to to all of them.

The funding for this plan goes across the whole of government, not just the Home Office, our sort of home office bit of it is about £130 million. It is very substantial. But if you look at the young futures hubs that DCMS are leading in, leading on, if you look at the interventions in schools that education are leading on, if you look at the Ministry of Justice, with their work, with the youth justice system, huge investment there. This is a this is a big cross-government approach, and I have done a lot of work over the years.

On the public health approach. It's quite simple. It basically says that violence is is catching. If you have violence in your life, you are more likely to be violent in your, in your, in your life. So if you're in a domestic abuse situation in as a child, you're more likely to be violent if you see, if you join a gang, you're more likely to become violent. It's relatively straightforward. And the interventions that we are putting in place are designed to prevent those crimes from taking place, and for that violence to spread.

And that is why this violence is coming down. And we are seeing the first shoots of success. I would say to him on the numbers, there has been a 0.6% drop overall in the number of police officers from March to September 2025. It's a very small drop. The key is what are these people doing? What are our police officers doing? 12,000 officers behind desks is not right. They should be out in our community. Some of them need to be doing jobs, obviously, that don't involve them being out on our streets, but we want our officers out on our streets.

We have always said that 13,000 will be a mix. We said it in the manifesto, a mix of new officers, PCSOs and redeployed officers. We're introducing new technology so that we can free up the equivalent of 3000 officers time. And it is much better to have a mix of officers, because it means that we were able to deliver 3000 already, some of which are already sort of trained officers, so they know what they're doing. When you're just recruiting new, you have the you have the challenges of new officers who haven't got the experience that others have.

So we've always said this is a mixed approach. The point is we're putting 13,000 into our communities, into our neighbourhoods, which is what the public want. They will help tackle the epidemic of everyday crime and knife crime, too.
13:54
13:54
13:55
13:56
13:58
13:59
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
Minister. course, all our condolences go to Jamie's family at this incredibly difficult time. And I know the community in Fulton will be reeling and that she will play her role to try and bring people together and tackle what has happened such a young age. For someone to lose their life is is, of course, catastrophic. We through the action plan, which I can commend. I'm not supposed to hold up things. I'm not supposed to hold up things.

There is a. The action plan is what. My point was to try and show that it is a substantial plan and has a lot. Both to try and ensure young people don't get involved in crime in the first place, and then to tackle the challenge. If they do, one of the one of the roles that DCMS are playing is leading our young Futures hub. So that's 50 youth centres across areas that are impacted, particularly by knife crime, which will bring together lots of different services for young people in one place so that they can be supported.

We're also doing more for in terms of interventions for young people. If they are found in possession of a knife. We are backing with £66 million, the violence reduction units, which are doing a range of evidenced interventions to try and make sure young people step away from crime. There is a whole remit, a whole plan of activities, both to get them out of crime, but also to prevent it from happening in the first place. And I hope that her community will see the effects of it.
14:00
14:01
14:02
14:03
14:04
14:05
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
Minister can I thank the hon. Gentleman for for welcoming the strategy and for the for the work that he's done as well? He's absolutely right. People commit knife crime offences with all different kinds of knives. There are particularly pernicious impacts of some of the knives that have been banned in terms of the damage that they do to people's bodies, and we are doing a whole raft of interventions to try and have more control over the sale of all types of knives.

So the age verification checks that are in the bill going forward. At the moment, the sale of knives, generally, making sure young people aren't doing this, having a duty of companies to report if people buy in bulk, the work that you've got, my hon. Friend mentioned that campaigners are doing around the design of knives to actually stop them being so impactful. So there is a raft of interventions that we are taking social media. He's absolutely right. We are putting more in the bill onus on social media companies to have a duty to report the sale of knives that are illegal and to do more.

I think there is a lot more to be done in this space, both in terms of very serious, violent content online. I know this government, and my friend next to me has done a lot of work on this, is doing a huge amount when it comes to porn, child sexual exploitation and violence against women and girls. I think there's a there's a, there's another piece of work to be done that we need to do with the companies to make sure all violent content is, is removed.
14:06
14:07
14:08
14:09
14:10
14:11
14:12
14:12
14:13
14:14
14:15
14:15
14:16
14:17
14:18
14:19
14:20
14:21
14:21
14:22
14:23
14:23
14:24
14:25
14:25
14:26
14:27
14:28
14:29
14:30
14:30
14:31
14:32
14:32
14:33
14:33
14:34
14:34
14:35
14:35
14:36
14:37
14:38
Sarah Bool Portrait Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, yeah yeah yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a bill to make provision for a national program for screening of type one diabetes in children and for connected purposes. Madam Deputy Speaker. We've all just returned from Easter recess, and I'm sure with a number of chocolate eggs that have been of chocolate eggs that have been consumed, many may have said, not too much chocolate. You'll get diabetes. Now, whilst this is said diabetes.

Now, whilst this is said in jest, this type of comment reinforces the problem we have around the misunderstanding of diabetes. Around 350,000 people in the UK, including myself, currently live with type one diabetes and like me, 85% of type one diagnoses occur in people with no known family connection with it. But let's take a step back. What is type one diabetes? It is an auto immune condition whereby one's body, mainly one's pancreas, no longer makes insulin. Without insulin, the body cannot use glucose for food, for energy.

So for a type one, when they eat, the glucose from their food stays in their bloodstream, but then their body looks to burn energy and finds an alternative source. So actually burns muscle or fat. However, the by-product of that is ketones, which are acidic and poison the body. Left untreated, one can enter a state of diabetic ketoacidosis, which I'll call DKA going forward, which can and sadly in some cases has proven fatal. Just as a patient has done nothing to cause type one.

Likewise, there is no cure, just management and treatment of the condition. It is absolutely essential that we all recognise the signs of type one. And whilst the 40s thirst, toilet, tiredness and thinning are a crucial tool, ultimately these are signs when the condition has progressed and is underway because Madam Deputy Speaker. There are three distinct stages to the development of type one. But before I run through those, I will just pivot to explain about antibodies and auto antibodies, because they are essential in understanding the development of type one.

Antibodies are a protein that a person's immune system produces when it detects a threat. The problem here is that with type one, an individual's immune system makes these antibodies in response not to a threat, but to their own insulin producing beta cells. These are called islet autoantibodies, and scientists can actually test for these to see if a person has early stage type one. Therefore, let's go back to the three stages. Stage one is where there are two or more auto antibodies present, but with normal blood glucose levels.

Stage two multiple auto antibodies are present. Blood glucose levels are abnormal, but there are no symptoms. And finally, stage three known as persistent islet autoimmunity. Blood glucose is elevated and the person is typically now symptomatic. So that's high blood sugars thirsty urinating more frequently, unexplained weight loss tiredness and blurred vision. And this is the stage where most people are diagnosed as having type one. Now, whilst it is difficult to give a precise number a 2015 to 2020 data found about 38% of those newly diagnosed were in a state of diabetic ketoacidosis, and it was actually 44% of those were under five.

No one should underestimate how traumatic it is being diagnosed, let alone when in the state of DKA, which requires hospitalisation and emergency treatment. A US study found that being diagnosed whilst presenting with DKA was associated with significantly greater use of health services and potentially greater healthcare costs in the long term. So armed with this knowledge, it should be clear that we should aim to identify the condition before becoming symptomatic. In stage three, it would mean that individuals are given an opportunity to get onto a trial to delay the disease, which I'll come back to.

Furthermore, early identification gives families the time to prepare emotionally and learn how to manage the condition. Hence the call today for a national screening programme for children. Now, currently, there is no comprehensive NHS screening for identifying individuals in the early stages of type one. Despite compelling evidence to the contrary. International programmes such as those in Germany, Italy, Australia and the US demonstrate that comprehensive screening, paired with public awareness campaigns and psychological support, can successfully reduce DKA rates and improve long term health outcomes.

There is also, as I mentioned before, a pipeline of disease modifying drugs now emerging, which means future generations identified as having markers for type one diabetes will be able to delay its development. So please, my tricky name to say is one of these such drugs, and it can. And at least half of people delay its onset by about 2 to 3 years. Designed for individuals eight years and older with stage two type one. It works by disabling the immune cells that attack the pancreas and destroy the insulin producing beta cells, allowing the body to maintain its own insulin production for longer.

So early identification is really important in this, too. So what next? Well, adoption of any screening program requires the Wilson and Younger criteria, set in 1968 to be met, and these. Look at the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of any screening program. Type one meets some of these because it is an important public health problem. It does have a recognised latent or early symptomatic stage, and the development of the condition is adequately understood, but further work is required to meet them all.

For example, the target population for screening is not yet clearly defined, but I hope it will be soon. Now, currently, because we are looking at the appropriate ages to carrying out the testing and whilst there are numerous opportunities for screening throughout a person's lifetime, the early years are critical given the possibility of becoming symptomatic in childhood. Now, if one was just to screen once at the age of 3 to 4, one might catch 40% of cases. However, three periods of testing between ages 2 to 4, 6 to 8 and 10 to 15 would increase those to around 80% of childhood type one cases, which ultimately would improve the efficacy of screening and help meet the criteria.

So whilst that final determination is also being made on those correct ages, other questions we're working on include how can we embed this into the clinical care and ensure that the follow up programme is successful, as this may go on for years. Once we're aware of a child presenting, maybe in stage one or stage two. How do we keep in contact? How do we make sure if they test, for example, age three, that they then come back for the repeat tests? How do we make it clear that one negative test does not mean that you may be free of type one, and for those for whom it is coming, how do we make sure that they have the support and training to be ready? We also have to firmly establish a clear balance between the benefits and the harms.

Now, I've rehearsed some of the harms earlier and benefits earlier, even reducing DKA diagnosis with long term benefits that follow. But in terms of harm, we do have to think about the behavioural and the anxiety changes because we need to ensure that psychological support is available for a patient who knows a condition is coming. Sometimes ignorance is bliss, and living with a knowledge of an impending condition could be overwhelming. But actually knowing the signs and preparing is vital, and we need to make sure we can then offer treatments that work for all, and particularly for younger ages.

Now, there is clearly some interest in a screening programme already in the UK, because the LCA studies are studies funded by diabetes UK and breakthrough t 1D that offer children aged 2 to 17, a simple finger prick blood test to determine their risk of developing type one. And this study, and I emphasise it's a study, is currently open to families in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with over 20,000 children having been screened so far. But it's really important that we move from studies to an actual national screening programme at the moment.

Elsa is only available for the early adopters, i.e. those who come forward to seek screening, which explains why the make up of participants is nearly 40% of family members. Of those with someone with type one, we make. We need to make sure that any screening system is universal, so we have a fair application that does not discriminate based on background, wealth, or ethnicity. Now, for all the reasons before, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude my call for a national screening programme.

Whilst type one is an unpredictable and relentless condition to live with, I hope within the next few years that we can make the diagnosis of this condition far less traumatic and give families and patients the skills and tools to live with type one. One day I hope that we can cure this condition, but until then, diagnosing earlier and delaying that onset to allow a more carefree childhood years, we might just make people's journey with type one that little bit better.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the Member have leave to bring in the bill. As many as are of that bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Who will prepare and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bring in the bill? Tom Gordon Josh Newbury. Charlie Dewhirst. Andrew Snowden. Rebecca

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dewhirst. Andrew Snowden. Rebecca Smith. Jim Shannon and myself? Madam Deputy. Speaker Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. children.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill Second Reading. What day? Friday the. 8th of May. Friday the 8th of May.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May. There we go.
14:49
14:49
14:50
Andy McDonald Portrait Points of Order Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)
-
-
watching our proceedings, represent a dangerous erosion of civil liberties, including articles nine freedom of thought and religion, ten of freedom of expression, and 1011 freedom of assembly and the right to protest that this Parliament has long since immortalised in our celebrations of the cumulative and persistent protests of the suffragettes and of the anti-apartheid movement marked by the plaque in honour of Nelson Mandela in Westminster Hall. If the government was confident of its amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, it would put it to a vote.

But in a move that is, in my view, disrespectful of this House, they have decided to wrap up such a hugely significant constitutional matter in amongst their other excellent amendments with which this House will doubtless wish to see prevail. So I seek your advice as to how I might secure a binding, singular vote on Lords Amendment 312, as this key constitutional measure that will, if not challenged, inevitably erode and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

restrict the right to peaceful protest. Hon. Member for his point of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hon. Member for his point of order and indeed for having given notice of it, the government's programme order that the House is programme order that the House is about to consider establishes the time available for today's debate and the order in which the Lords and the order in which the Lords amendments are to be considered. If members are not content with the way the Bill has been programmed, way the Bill has been programmed, it would be for them to express that, for example, by disagreeing to the programme order.

If the programme order is agreed to by this House, then as chair, all I can advise him is that under the terms of standing Order number 83, F, a vote on his motion seeking to disagree with Lords Amendment 312 would only be possible if reached before 7 p.m. Programme motion to be moved formally. Normally the question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. consideration.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of Lords amendments. I'd like. To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. Make just now I must draw the House's attention to the fact that House's attention to the fact that Lords amendments 12 256, 260 264, Lords amendments 12 256, 260 264, Lords amendments 12 256, 260 264, 335, 361, 366, 367 and 369. Engage the Commons financial privilege. If any of these laws amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons financial privilege to be entered into the Journal. We will begin with the Government Amendment A to Lords Amendment 263, with which we will consider all the other amendments and motions as listed on the selection paper.

I call the Minister to move amendment A to Minister to move amendment A to Lords amendment 263 Sarah Jones.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to see the return of this Bill. The largest criminal this Bill. The largest criminal justice bill in a generation to this House. This bill will support the government's mission to halve the government's mission to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls in a decade, and women and girls in a decade, and give our police and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to tackle anti-social behaviour, sexual violence, terrorism and online harms.

The amendments made in the House of Lords support these aims. Given the number of Lords amendments, I will focus my remarks on the government amendments made in response to commitments at Commons report last July by my predecessor, who was sitting here earlier as Policing Minister before outlining the government's response to the 19 non-government amendments added. In the other place. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft rightly raised concerns about the depiction of strangulation and suffocation in pornography, an issue also highlighted by Baroness Burton's
14:54
14:54
14:55
Sarah Jones Portrait Consideration of Lords amendments: Crime and Policing Bill Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
for North Warwickshire and Bedworth rightly pressed the government on when we would deliver our manifesto commitment to make all existing commitment to make all existing strands of hate crime and aggravated effect offence. I am pleased to commend Lords Amendment 301 to the House, which extends the existing racially and religiously aggravated offences to cover hostility based on sex, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. Third, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower pointed to the long term impact, including on employment opportunities of those convicted of the offences of loitering and soliciting, while under 18 Lords amendment 270 and 271.

Therefore, introduced a new disregard and pardon scheme for anyone convicted or cautioned as a child for those offences. I turn now to the 19 non-government amendments added in the other place, First Lords Amendment two seeks to bar the issuing of fixed penalty notices by enforcement companies and contractors for profit. The government does understand the concern about enforcement agencies potentially issuing fixed penalty notices, where there may be a financial incentive to do so. To be clear, local agencies are expected to issue fixed penalty notices only when appropriate and proportionate to do so.

But Lords Amendment two risks weakening crucial enforcement action to tackle anti-social behaviour. Our amendments in lieu, instead provide that statutory guidance addresses the need to ensure that the issuing of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons is proportionate. Turning to Lords amendments six and 10 to 12, I fully appreciate and understand the damage that Fly-tipping can do to our communities. The Government's Waste Action Plan, which was published on the 20th of March, sets out proposals to radically improve enforcement in this area, including by granting courts the power to impose between 3 to 9 penalty points on a driving licence.

Of those persons convicted of fly-tipping, where driving a vehicle was used in, or for the purposes of the offence. Our amendment in lieu implements this commitment. With regards to Lords Amendment 15. The Bill on introduction provided for a maximum four year prison term for those convicted of a new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to cause unlawful violence. Whilst this was drafted in line with other possession offences, the government accepts that the intent element of this new offence justifies a higher maximum penalty.

Our amendment in lieu, therefore provides for a seven year maximum, rather than the ten years provided for in the Lords Amendment, which we believe is disproportionate given that this remains a possession offence. Coming to Lords amendments 25525625825926 and 505. Introduced by the government by Baroness Owen and by Baroness Bertin, these all seek to further tackle the proliferation of demeaning and degrading intimate images online. The government shares these aims and we are clear that intimate image abuse is completely unacceptable.

Lords amendment two, five five, brought forward by the government, will criminalise the making, adapting and supplying of new Defaecation tools. These tools use AI to create deepfake, non-consensual, intimate images. Many of women, while creating, sharing and threatening to share non-consensual, intimate images is already illegal. This amendment goes further and criminalises the developers making and supplying these tools, as well as the criminal duties. Once this new offence is in force, the requirements of the Online Safety Act will kick in.

This means that social media services will be required to take down content that supplies new tools, and search engines will have to reduce the visibility of search results linked

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to these tools. I will give way. Thank you. Very grateful. To the Minister for giving way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the Minister for giving way on this. And I I'm not sure whether she's going to be coming to this, but I know that the government has tabled some amendments on online tabled some amendments on online safety and identified that the next front line in this war is AI. We've front line in this war is AI. We've already seen children taking their own lives after interactions with AI chatbots, as she knows, and we AI chatbots, as she knows, and we know that tech companies will always prioritise profits over user safety.

So there must be more focus on safety by design approach, which prevents AI products coming to market that could be harmful for users. So I wondered, this is an approach that's been suggested by the noble, my noble friend Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kidron. In the other place, why isn't the government supporting that amendment. And can I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And can I thank. Her for her intervention? She's of course, right about the growing concern around chatbots and the need to have safety by design. I will come to Baroness Kidron's amendment and the government's amendment and the government's response to it further on in my in my speech. Furthermore, the my speech. Furthermore, the government has also brought forward Lords Amendment 367 to take a power to extend the scope of the Online Safety Act to cover unregulated AI chatbots, which we were talking about.

This would mean that general purpose AI chatbots such as grok, which allow the creation and sharing of non-consensual, intimate images, would have to proactively remove this illegal content from their services or face enforcement from Ofcom. Taken together, these measures will deliver an effective ban on new tools. Given this, we do not believe that a separate possession offence as provided for in Lords Amendment 505, would make a meaningful difference, not least as many such tools are accessed online rather than possessed.

Where a person is convicted of an intimate image offence, we agree it is vital that these images are deleted from the perpetrator's devices. Amendment 258 A enables the courts to make an image deletion order following a conviction for an intimate image abuse related offence, breach of which will be a criminal offence. The amendment also enables the courts to require deletion of other intimate images of the same victim. This approach gives courts the required flexibility to consider the details of each case when applying their powers, whilst ensuring the offenders are held accountable for compliance with the order I will give me.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for giving way and I really welcome the government's amendment on these image deletion orders, which make sure that upon conviction, courts will actually conviction, courts will actually now be properly mandated to destroy and get rid of those intimate images and film, and that they will images and film, and that they will be able to give prison sentences to. It's incredibly important. So does she agree with me that, coupled with the government's new with the government's new requirements for tech firms to delete this horrifying content when it's found, this is a crucial step forward in ensuring that NCA victims can finally move forward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with their lives. And for her question, and I agree with her, this is the culmination of, I would say, a lot of good work in the Lords and in the Commons, from both Lords, from the Commons, from both Lords, from all sides of the House and MPs who really have pushed as hard as we really have pushed as hard as we can on this new emerging technology, which is so dangerous and so high risk. And we have a government risk.

And we have a government committed to act and to do the right thing. And I think everybody's worked together really hard to make sure we are getting to a much stronger place. And of course, the power that I was talking about in terms of the courts requiring deletion of intimate images, also is available for the offences. Now we are ensuring of breastfeeding, voyeurism, recording and the new offence of sharing semen. Defaced images. Online platforms also need to do more to ensure non-consensual, intimate images are removed quickly.

As my hon. Friend said, and no later than the 24 hour time frame envisioned by Lords Amendment two, five six. To that end, amendment 256, a strengthened platform and senior executive accountability by making it a criminal offence for a service which breaches and enforcement decision by Ofcom on duties to deal with and remove reported non-consensual, intimate images. This means that senior executives of the service could be criminally liable for the breach. Alongside this enforcement approach, the government is also strengthening safeguards against malicious reporting.

We will also bring forward regulations under existing powers in the Online Safety Act to amend section eight so that Ofcom can require providers to be fully transparent about both the speed of intimate image removals and how clearly and effectively platforms enable users

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to report such content. My hon. Friend, give way. I will give way. I thank my hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend. For giving way and these provisions are so important. The provisions are so important. The witnesses that we saw on the Women and Equalities Select Committee who and Equalities Select Committee who spoke to us about the impact of non-consensual, intimate image abuse. The main thing that they abuse. The main thing that they talked about was how the harm was just growing and growing the longer that those images stayed online. So this provision is so vitally important, and I would like to thank the government for listening

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the important work that that committee did. Thank you. Can I thank my hon. Friend and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank my hon. Friend and also pay tribute to the committee and the work that it's done. As I've said, this has been a journey I've said, this has been a journey with lots of different members of both houses playing a really important role. And the Ministers I know both in the Ministry of Justice, DSIT and the Home Office, listening very carefully to what MPs have been advising, and I'm very pleased that we were able to respond. In addition to the takedown duty, we will also give statutory backing to a register of non-consensual intimate images or Nsii amendments two, 59A and 259D will enable the government to designate a trusted flagger, most likely the revenge porn helpline, giving government backing to a trusted source of non-consensual, intimate images content that can be used by platforms and internet service providers to identify those images.

The amendments will also enable government to make further provisions by regulations about the operation of the register, following a scoping exercise. This includes provisions for the Secretary of State to impose requirements on providers to share hashes and other information deemed necessary with the register. Hashes for the benefit of the house are unique codes that are used to mark non-consensual, intimate images. The scoping exercise will allow us to evaluate the technical requirements to ensure the register can be used by victims, platforms and internet service providers to remove or block non-consensual, intimate image content.

As Lords Amendment 260 recognised proceeding by regulations will enable us to properly evaluate the requirements necessary to ensure a register operates as effectively as possible. Turning to two more amendments from Baroness Bertin. Lords amendments two, six three and 265. I think we all share the determination of Baroness Bertin and others in this place to stop the spread of dangerous, demeaning and illegal pornographic content online in relation to laws. Amendment 263. I completely agree with the need to curtail curtail the depiction of step incest pornography in cases where it portrays content that is illegal.

To that extent, the government's amendment in lieu will extend the new offence of possession and publication of incest porn to include depictions of step incest, where one of the persons is portrayed to be under 18. Additionally, amendment 265A also addresses the concerns raised by Lords Amendment 265 by criminalising the possession or publication of pornography that depicts an adult credibly role playing as a child. This makes it clear that content that mimics and risks normalising child sexual abuse will not be tolerated.

But we will not stop there. As well as these offences, this government has committed to producing a delivery plan for how we can close the gap between the regulation of online and offline pornographic content. What is illegal offline should be illegal online. Lords amendment 264 rightly raises concerns about how we best strengthen safeguards against the sexual exploitation of persons appearing on pornographic websites, an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft at Report stage. Whilst we agree with the principle and the need to address this issue, further work we think is required across government to consider what the most effective approach would be to strengthen arrangements to ensure persons appearing in pornographic material are aged 18 and over, and consent to this online sharing.

To that end, the government's Amendments in Lieu Amendments two, 64A and 264F place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent on the outcome of this work, alongside powers to make regulations to give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

effect to its outcome. Tracy Gilbert thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank my hon. Friend for reassuring us that this amendment has a timescale of 12 months? Can my hon. Friend commit what government, what the government is doing behind the scenes to progress these amendments scenes to progress these amendments as quickly as possible, and outline the work that she has undertaken to make sure that they are passed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

within that 12 month period. Can I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I think there is a powerful group of Ministers who are working very hard on that, not least my own colleague in the Home Office, the Minister for safeguarding, who's leading the wider work on violence against women and girls. But whether it's Ministers or officials, there is a whole programme of activity happening across DSIT and the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to make sure we get these things right.

They are complex. They do involve government departments having to work together and step up and take responsibility for this work. And that work very much is is ongoing. We want to get it right, which is why we've given the 12 months of time to do it. But what's important won't just be the outcome of that work, but the actual powers to, to, to make the regulations to give effect to the outcome of that work, which we will, which we will do.

Moving on to Lords Amendment 311. This was introduced by Lord Walney and this seeks to grant a power to the Secretary of State to proscribe organisations deemed to be extreme criminal protest groups. The government understands the concerns expressed in both houses about the sustained impact of criminal activity by certain protest groups, and where such conduct meets the existing threshold for a prescription order. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the government will and already has acted. But where this threshold is not met, we are not persuaded that the introduction of a prescription light regime is necessary or proportionate.

Now this is a view Madam Deputy Speaker shared by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. He recently expressed concerns about the adverse consequences of this amendment for the established prescription regime in the Terrorism Act, 2000, and I would urge hon. Members to read the full page note that he has published

**** Possible New Speaker ****

online last week. I will. Give way. Mine will. are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are. Many of us concerned about. The importance. Of the. Integrity of the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Concept of terrorism and terrorist organisations, and the importance of the ability of people importance of the ability of people to be able to protest the concept of prescription, and that those are two very different things. Will she two very different things. Will she recognise that concern and agree to go and look at how we can better delineate that so that people can express their concerns about the concept of prescription and how it is evolving under this government, whilst not facing being arrested for wanting to have that conversation.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And my hon. Friend will have debated these issues in the past in this place. And I think there will this place. And I think there will always be a debate between the between the rights to protest and between the rights to protest and how we draw a line in this country. And I am very happy to have further And I am very happy to have further conversations with her on that wider issue. Jonathan Hall set out in his letter, and I can pass it to in his letter, and I can pass it to her if she hasn't seen it.

Why she doesn't think this particular amendment will will work. And so that's why we are not persuaded on on this occasion, but happy to have further conversations. Of course, turning to Lords Amendment 333, I fully agree that the government. This is from Baroness Buscombe in the Lords. I agree that the government, local authorities and law enforcement agencies need to do all they can to tackle money laundering and associated criminality on our streets, the High Streets Illegality Task Force was announced by my right hon.

Friend of the Exchequer in her last Budget, will be examining the use of enforcement powers in this light, including the closure power. It also has a £10 million Budget to support the work. So while we support the principle of extending the duration of closure orders, we should first consult to avoid any unintended consequences on legitimate businesses or residential premises. Accordingly, amendment 333 will enable us, following targeted consultation, to extend the maximum duration of closure orders and, if necessary, make different provision for commercial and residential properties.

I know that my friends, the members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes and Leigh and Atherton have been particularly campaigning on high street illegality and will no doubt be speaking later on in this debate. And I want to assure them and others in this place that we know that we need to go further, not just on this particular measure, but on a wider challenge of high street illegality. And we will be doing that. And I'm very keen to work with members in this place on that work.

Lords amendment 334 seeks to abolish non-crime hate incidents. This amendment is unnecessary. The government has been clear that the current arrangements for the recording of Non-crime hate incidents are not fit for purpose and brought forward Lords amendment 332 to abolish the code of practice introduced by the previous government. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has also accepted the findings and recommendations of the College of Policing's review into Non-crime hate incidents published at the end of March. A key recommendation is the introduction of a new national standard, which sets a higher threshold for recording incidents, which is closely tied to core police work.

The government will now work closely with the college and the MPC to implement the review's recommendations. Moving on to Lords Amendment 339, the government is already commissioning an end to end independent review into the police misconduct process and the issue of misconduct proceedings following the acquittal of a police officer at a criminal trial. A to be examined as part of that review. However, creating a blanket presumption that in all such cases, officers should not face further disciplinary action is wrong.

In principle, the police misconduct process operates at a different evidential threshold and considers different issues to a criminal trial, including whether an officer has breached standards of professional behaviour. Turning to Lords Amendment 342, the government fully agrees with the principle that a court should only impose a youth diversion order where it is necessary and proportionate. The Bill already ensures that an order can only be imposed where it is necessary to protect the public from a risk of terrorism or serious harm.

However, enshrining in the statute the evidence that must be presented to a court to support an application for an order risks building inflexibility into the process. Our amendment in lieu instead makes clear that the statutory guidance to be issued under clause one 80th May, among other things, provide guidance to Chief Officers on consideration of alternative interventions and how they should engage multi-agency youth offending teams before applying for an order. Moving on to Lords Amendment 357, the government is clear that glorifying acts of terrorism can cause serious harm, which is why the offence of encouraging terrorism was introduced 20 years ago.

This offence criminalises statements which may encourage another person to commit an act of terrorism. It sits alongside broader terrorism legislation which includes other offences such as inviting support for a proscribed organisation. Critical to the encouragement offence is the historical safeguard which ensures that the right balance is struck between criminalising statements which could generate terrorist risk and not inadvertently criminalising discussion of historical events which carry no similar risk. Today, Lords amendment 357. Yes, Sammy Wilson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We Minister accept that despite the legislation which is currently in place almost on a monthly basis in place almost on a monthly basis in Northern Ireland, not only individuals but government individuals but government Ministers, Sinn Féin, government Ministers engage in acts and making Ministers engage in acts and making speeches which not only glorify terrorism but encourages terrorism, terrorism but encourages terrorism, praises those who took place in bomb attacks on police stations, attacks on individuals and indeed named play parks after those individuals.

And so they should not accept that the legislation currently does not rule out the possibility of people engaging in acts of glorifying terrorism, which not only impacts on the people of the past, but poisons the minds of young people in the present.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister can I thank him for his intervention? And I appreciate the challenge that he's raising, and I challenge that he's raising, and I know that. DUP members of Parliament in particular, have Parliament in particular, have raised these concerns before, and the challenge here is that Lords the challenge here is that Lords Amendment 357 would remove the historical safeguard for statements which glorify acts of terrorism committed by proscribed organisations. And and our view is that these statements may not necessarily create terrorist risk and may result in the offence capturing legitimate political and social discourse and debate.

I'd say two two other things to the hon. Gentleman. Firstly, that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, has strongly advised against the removal of the historical safeguard in his review of terrorism legislation following the 7th of October attacks in 2023. But I would also say that in light of the concerns that have been raised in the Lords and by members in this place, the government will ask the independent reviewer to conduct a more detailed review of the encouragement offence within six months of royal Assent.

Turning to Lords Amendment 359, it is a long standing principle that has been adopted by successive administrations that the government does not comment on what organisations are being considered for prescription, mandating that the government review whether to prescribe Iranian government related organisations would violate this principle and tie the government's hands unnecessarily, the government is already taking decisive action to deter threats from Iran, and has committed to introducing a new state threats based prescription tool. Coming to Baroness Kidron's amendments in the Lords around chatbots 360 and three six 8 to 3 seven two.

In relation to these amendments, the government is clear that we need to act quickly to bring all unregulated AI chatbots within the scope of the Online Safety Act's requirements on illegal activity. As I mentioned earlier, the government is seeking to take a regulation making power to do this under Lords Amendment three, six seven. By taking this power, the government will be able to remove any ambiguity over whether services like grok are subject to the Online Safety Act's provision to tackle illegal content.

This approach also allows us to design regulations that are effective, targeted and informed by necessary consultation with subject matter experts. So amendment 372A commits the government to reporting to Parliament by the end of the year on its progress to develop

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regulations. I will give way. I'm very grateful to the Minister for giving way on this point, and I don't mean to bang on, point, and I don't mean to bang on, but the fact is here the government approaches to narrow. It's focussed on taking down illegal content, on taking down illegal content, when it should be the responsibility of the company to prevent harms in the first place, prevent harms in the first place, rather than deal with them after the event. We don't design any other sectors regulation in this other sectors regulation in this way.

You don't. You don't design an aircraft where you don't worry about any of the safety features until after it's crashed, and this should be the same. During the Report stage peers voted overwhelmingly in support of this safety by design approach, and they also understood that harm, when it comes to the design of something, includes building in aspects which are addictive and aspects which are manipulative, which have been the key to some of these very tragic suicides of children who've interacted with AI chatbots.

What does the government got against building safety by design into the very purpose of these AI chatbots?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister I think the, you know, hon. Lady is, is, is very clear, hon. Lady is, is, is very clear, and we can agree that we need to design out these kind of issues. Absolutely. The challenges, what we Absolutely. The challenges, what we do and how we do it and the challenges that we have with these particular amendments that we are debating today. Obviously, the wider work on violence against women and girls, the wider work on women and girls, the wider work on on the Online Safety Act and how that ends up rolling forward is really important.

But we are talking here about those particular amendments and the challenges that we have with them, and that is why our amendment has committed to reporting by the end of the year on its on our progress to develop regulations. And we are clear that regulation is a more effective and proportionate tool than the criminal law for addressing risks, risks from AI, chatbots and setting industry best practice incorporating currently unregulated chatbots into the scope of the Online Safety Act will ensure such regulation applies.

Extraterritorially, which is crucial when dealing with international companies. The government's approach is also broader in scope than amendments 360 and 368 to 372. These amendments would not capture image generators, creating non-consensual graphic images of women or online AI chat bots such as Gabo. The government's amendment does capture these services and allows them to be clearly brought under online safety regulations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend. Yes. Thank you. And Mora, I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. My committee has the science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee has heard extensive and Committee has heard extensive and at times horrific evidence of the harms AI chatbots can do, such as harms AI chatbots can do, such as the encouragement to suicide. I welcome amendment 367, which gives welcome amendment 367, which gives the government the powers to amend the Online Safety Act, and I accept that the government is seeking to redress, to reject three six, eight by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Baroness Kidron to ban chatbots based on their content. But does the Minister accept that But does the Minister accept that the harms of AI chatbots are evident? They are significant and evident? They are significant and they are hugely concerning and that their regulation is unclear and and where they are covered by the Online Safety Act chat box Online Safety Act chat box incorporating search functionality, for example. Enforcement is slow and ponderous or non-existent. So will she commit to working with DSIT to take action on AI chatbots

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before the end of the year? Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Can I welcome the work that her committee has done and will continue to do in this space? It's very important that we have a good analysis of what the problems are analysis of what the problems are and what we need to solve, and I think she's absolutely right that the problems with AI chatbots are evident, significant and concerning, evident, significant and concerning, and that more work needs to be done in this space. And of course, if there is work that we can do sooner rather than later, we will.

We will. I'm sure my colleagues in DSIT will do that, and I absolutely commit to working with my colleagues in DSIT to to, to do what we can as quickly as we can. Finally, on the amendments that have come back from the Other place and hon. Members will recall that at Report stage, the House decided to disapply the criminal law relating to abortion in respect of women acting in relation to their own pregnancy. Their lordships agreed amendment 361, which would provide for automatic pardons for women previously convicted or cautioned for an abortion offence in relation to their own pregnancies, and for the deletion of certain details from court and police records.

I should stress that the government remains neutral on the subject and the substance of clause 191 and Lords Amendment 361, but we have a duty to ensure that the law is operationally and legally workable and accordingly, we have brought forward amendments three, 61A and 361E to ensure that the deletion of details from relevant official records can operate as intended.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable. Yes. Thank you. I thank the hon. Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and I support this provision. Amendment 361 because provision. Amendment 361 because even after being found not guilty, some women have investigations that show up on their DBS check and that impacts their life and future careers. And this is the reality for a young woman named Becca, who for a young woman named Becca, who I raised in this house a year ago, who was investigated age 19 after giving birth to her son at 28 weeks.

And, she says removing the investigation from her records would help her be able to move on and live a proper family life. So does the Minister agree with me that this change will help bring justice for women like Becca Minister?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank my hon. Friend for raising the challenge that Becca raising the challenge that Becca has had in the work, and congratulate her on the work she's done since in bringing that to the done since in bringing that to the House? This amendment is the government is neutral on this part government is neutral on this part of the bill as is right and proper. What we have sought to do in our amendment is to make sure it is legally workable.

That's our role in this space. But I thank her for bringing bringing that to this place. Madam Deputy Speaker, In conclusion, I hope I have demonstrated that we have sought to engage constructively with the non-government amendments carried

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the Lords. I will give way. I just want to raise the systemic issue of honour based systemic issue of honour based abuse and that the perpetrators never, usually just one person's family, a group, a network of people that believe that individual people that believe that individual has or may bring dishonour or shame to family or community. My hon. Friend from Lowestoft is making a simple amendment to Lords Minister to insert persons which addresses this issue. South Antrim Bath.

My constituent Fauzia Javid is an incredible woman and member of our community, but also a victim of domestic homicide and honour based abuse. This. This amendment working with my constituency, brings out the issue of honour based abuse which runs deep within communities. Does the Minister agree that honour based isn't just an issue for one person, but for many people, and that should be acknowledged?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And can I thank my hon. Friend and my friend, the Member for Lowestoft, who I suspect will speak Lowestoft, who I suspect will speak to this potentially later for raising this? Of course, I completely agree that honour based completely agree that honour based abuse is perpetrated in many cases not by a single individual, but by an extended family or other group of persons. The challenge we have with this amendment is the definition in the bill adopts the usual legislative conventions, where references to the singular include the plural, unless otherwise intended, indicated.

So the statutory definition already applies where abuse is perpetrated by more than one person. However, we. We do want to undertake work to develop the statutory guidance so that. That is completely clear for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course. Bear with me. Should remember

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bear with me. Should remember that our discussion and I wish you can help me because Lord MacDonald can help me because Lord MacDonald of River Glavin KC was appointed to lead an independent review of laws lead an independent review of laws on public order and hate crime, and on public order and hate crime, and it will also consider. The law. The laws around protest. We. We were hopeful that we'd have that. I'm not aware that that review is being concluded, but I wonder if my hon.

Friend can tell us. And then if we haven't got it, how is it that we're legislating before the review is concluded?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Jones, can I thank my hon. Friend? And I know that he feels very strongly about this issue, as very strongly about this issue, as do many others, and I respect that do many others, and I respect that position very much. I met with him a few months ago now, when I think a few months ago now, when I think the review had just started. The review is yet to conclude. It will review is yet to conclude. It will conclude in the coming months, and the work that the work that is being undertaken is, is quite substantial in terms of Lord MacDonald's work and what his having had updates on sort of what he's doing and who he's talking to, it's wider than and taking a bit longer, but that's in order to get it right.

My hon. Friend will know that this cumulative disruption amendment was introduced and announced by the Home Secretary after the Heaton Park attack. I think there is, and we will come to this more, perhaps in closing, but there is some lack of understanding in some quarters, not my friends, about about the nature of this amendment. Just to be very clear, section 12 and section 14 of the Public Order Act empower senior police officers to impose conditions on public processions.

That's section 12 and on public assemblies that. Section 14, they can only impose conditions under certain criteria to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property, serious disruption. We are not changing those. Section 12. Section 14. What happens at the moment is that the police are able to consider cumulative disruption when they are looking at whether or not a protest should have conditions imposed on it at that point, please. Yes. Thank you. I thank my hon.

And I also thank her for her response to my letter on cumulative, cumulative disruption signed by 50 MPs, which would give the police powers to limit strikes and industrial action. Your letter

**** Possible New Speaker ****

states I have no desire to infringe on law. Just for a moment. I'm on my feet. Please be seated. Your letter feet. Please be seated. Your letter states. I don't think I've corresponded with the hon. Member. Continue. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Continue. Sorry. Apologies. So, does the Minister accept there's a danger that a accept there's a danger that a future government might be less benevolent towards workers struggles and could exploit these powers? And could you please explain to this House why we have not been given the right to debate and discuss and vote on amendment 312?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank my friend for her intervention? Let me just finish explaining the what we're doing and explaining the what we're doing and then I'll come on to picketing. So serious public disorder. If if there is a risk of that, senior there is a risk of that, senior police officers can impose conditions at the moment, they can conditions at the moment, they can consider cumulative disruption as one of the aspects they are taking into account when they are making a into account when they are making a decision as to whether to impose conditions.

And to be clear, imposing conditions means things like moving where a march is going, limiting the hours that it can be working under or limiting the number of people so they can already take into account cumulative disruption. What we are doing is changing that so that they must take that into account. They must think about it. It doesn't change the guardrails of section 12 and section 14 of the Public Order Act. It just says that at the moment, they can consider cumulative disruption.

In the future, they will consider cumulative disruption. And that is that is the amendment in terms of our government's belief in the right to strike and protest. Of course, that is sacrosanct and nothing is changed in terms of the government's view on that. And we do not believe that this legislation will stop the right to picket. I know that lots of members will have views on that and will not be satisfied with I. Let me just finish my sentence.

But we will always defend the right to strike, and we have absolutely no desire to infringe lawful picketing at all.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I thank the I thank the Minister for giving for giving way. Is the Minister aware of the deep Is the Minister aware of the deep alarm both on the back benches and outside Parliament, and what does outside Parliament, and what does amount today to a further draconian attack from the government on the attack from the government on the civil liberty of the right to peaceful protest, and the fact that the government is seeking to push this through in a way which tries this through in a way which tries to avoid a proper vote for MPs in the same way that they did when making the huge error of prescribing Palestine action.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't agree with my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't agree with my hon. Friend. This was introduced and announced by the Home Secretary after the Heaton Park attack, where after the Heaton Park attack, where lots of protests took place immediately after that attack and the cumulative disruption and the the cumulative disruption and the impact that that had was was there for all to see. We have no desire, for all to see. We have no desire, nor would we ever reduce people's rights to protest. There is a lot of misinformation about this piece of law change, which implies that we are in some way increasing the bans on protests.

Just to be clear, the rules on banning protests are very, very, very strong and it can only be done under very significant under very significant circumstances. And indeed, we have no rules to ban assemblies. So the idea that we are banning protests is just wrong. We are responding to communities who are feeling the pain of repeated protests, sometimes outside faith. Faith organisations, synagogues in particular. In recent times where we do believe that the police should look at the impact of cumulative disruption when they are deciding, not the government, when they are deciding whether or not to impose conditions on on those marches.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving way. And I think many of us do recognise the the picture she paints of pain, especially following the terrorist attack. But good legislation does require good legislation does require debate. It does require scrutiny, and it does require specification. and it does require specification. And one of the concerns many of us have is the lack of definition of cumulative. Could she set out now cumulative. Could she set out now on the record what this government intends by the concept of cumulative.

So people understand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how and if this test was going to be proposed, how it would be met. OK. Well, I'm pleased that we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm pleased that we are debating this issue in this place today, which is what we should be today, which is what we should be doing, and I'm sure hon. Members will be talking about it more in the several hours that we have to debate these issues. Cumulative debate these issues. Cumulative already exists that this already exists in law, that the police are exists in law, that the police are able to look at cumulative disruption when they are considering whether to impose conditions.

We are not redefining cumulative. We are not changing that at all. We are not changing the parameters of of article 12 and 14. We are simply saying that when police are looking at whether they impose conditions, they must look, rather than they can look at cumulative disruption. That is a small change that will actually make a big difference to people who are currently scared and intimidated by persistent protests outside, in particular mosques and Jewish places of worship. And I, Madam Deputy Speaker, should conclude, and I hope I've demonstrated that we have sought to engage constructively.

As I said earlier, I would urge the House to support all the changes that we are suggesting together today with the government amendments brought from the Lords. I beg to move.
15:41
Matt Vickers Portrait Matt Vickers MP (Stockton West, Conservative)
-
-
Government amendment A proposed amendment 263, as on the notice paper. The question is that the amendment A be made and I call the shadow Minister. Matt Vickers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank colleagues in the other players for the work they have done in strengthening this bill. The in strengthening this bill. The changes made there go some way towards what we should all be aiming for safer communities, stronger laws and real protections for the public. During the Committee stage, we saw the government repeatedly reject important amendments from members on this side of the House on fly-tipping pornography and increasing sentences for knife crime. Indeed, this bill could also have provided a real opportunity to tackle the scourge of off road bikes to support this country's tradesmen with real action on tool theft, and to remove yet more knives from our streets by increasing stop and search.

Whilst the government has failed to take up some of these opportunities, I am delighted to see the view turned on some of the measures Labour MPs previously voted against. While that may be a familiar pattern, it's still right to welcome the fact that they have recognised the value of some of those proposals. Take Fly-tipping giving courts the power to issue penalty points to offenders is a straightforward common sense step. If someone uses a vehicle to dump waste and blight our communities, it's entirely right that their ability to drive should be affected.

Likewise, even though I would have liked the government to accept a more significant penalty proposed, an amendment 15 is a welcome step that the government has recognised the serious of the seriousness of the crime. When there is an additional element of intent to use unlawful violence, which rightly should have a greater penalty when compared to possession only offences, it is right that these measures have progressed, even though a great deal of unfortunate wrangling and rejection occurred before they were incorporated into the bill.

On that note, I'd like to turn to the proposals the government has chosen not to accept from colleagues across the way. I'd ask that members of this House give serious consideration to measures which enhance the powers of the police forces and improve their ability to keep our communities safe. Fly-tipping for instance, as I've mentioned, members of this House do not need to be reminded of the scourge of Fly-tipping. We all recognise how adverse its impact can be on our neighbourhoods. On Sunday, I saw an appalling incident in my constituency with a huge volume of waste dumped near Sadberge, with appalling consequences for our environment, for wildlife and for anybody who wants to enjoy the countryside.

Amendment six would ensure the guidance issued about the enforcement of offences under section 33 makes clear that where a person is convicted of a relevant offence, they are liable for the costs incurred through loss or damage resulting from that offence. As the government is already setting out guidance in the legislation, why would it not make sure that this guidance is unequivocal that where a person is convicted of fly-tipping, they're not. The victims are responsible for the costs incurred as a result of their offence.

Furthermore, amendment 11 will further enable the police to seize vehicles on an issue where there is universal acceptance of the need to do more,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we should ensure. I will. Convey an important point,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Convey an important point, especially since, given the role of criminal organisations in Fly-tipping. Now the cost can be hundreds of thousands of pounds to hundreds of thousands of pounds to landowners who are innocent victims of this crime. And really, if the government is serious about dealing government is serious about dealing with fly-tipping, then it's got to ensure that the sanctions are such that there's a deterrent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I couldn't agree more. I think we see a selfish, mindless minority, we see a selfish, mindless minority, small minority people who incur huge costs on taxpayers across the country who do huge damage to our communities. It is right that the sanctions should match that on an sanctions should match that on an issue where there is universal acceptance of the need to do more. We should ensure that there are no unnecessary restrictions on our authorities in cracking down on these offences.

Removing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

instrument I will fly-tipping. Is very important, but can I refer them to a matter of life and refer them to a matter of life and death and it relates directly to amendment 361. And this, as a amendment 361. And this, as a result of these amendments. Somebody who procures a very late Somebody who procures a very late term abortion illegally will receive a free pardon. And can I receive a free pardon. And can I refer my hon. Friend to Mr.

Justice Cooke, who said in the Sarah Court case that Kate had robbed the baby of the life it was about to have, and said the seriousness of the crime lay between manslaughter and murder. Sentencing, the judge told Kate she clearly thought the man with whom she was having an affair was a father and she had shown no remorse. Is it? It's not a terrible indictment of our society that human life can be taken about to be born at 39 weeks, and there should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

case. But because. I share his concerns, I think many people across the country many people across the country share his concerns not only about the issue, however strongly people might feel about it, but also about the way that it was added into this bill after the Committee stage, meaning that some of the scrutiny that might otherwise have happened, that might otherwise have happened, no evidence given at the evidence sessions in relation to it. It was slipped in here. And I don't think I don't think that there was adequate scrutiny of it.

And I think lots of people across the country agree with that concern. Something so seismic in changing the relationship between the state and individuals should have had more scrutiny in this place. With regards to Fly-tipping, I believe that removing the instrument of this crime is an effective tool, and it could extend beyond the legislative framework set out by the government in the Waste Crime Action Plan. However, the measures brought forward are not merely limited to the issues of Fly-tipping. There are important proposals relating to matters such as non-crime hate incidents with other colleagues in the Other place wisely taking the step in amendment 334 to end the investigation and recording of Non-crime hate crime incidents and ensure that any future incident recording guidance has due regard to the right of freedom of expression.

This is a sensible, necessary measure as the government's current proposal appears to be a rebranding of the existing scheme with a more restrictive triage system, reports would still be logged, personal data still recorded, and disclosure rules unchanged. Officers and staff will still be tied up, monitoring incidents that do not meet the criminal threshold at a cost in time and resources. As Lord Hogan-howe told the Lords, we need to move on from the recording of Non-crime hate incidents by removing them altogether from police systems.

I'm afraid that unless we pass this amendment, we will risk returning to this issue in the future. It's estimated that 660 hours of police time has been spent on non-crime hate incidents. We can change that and see that time invested back into policing our communities on antisocial behaviour and illicit retailers. We hear repeatedly from businesses and local communities about raw premises causing persistent problems on our high streets. If we're serious about supporting the police to do their jobs, we must ensure they have the power they need to tackle not just crime but the wider public nuisance and disorder that too often accompanies it.

A range of organisations, including the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, have been clear that stronger powers are needed to deal with rogue retailers. While the current legal framework does provide tools in practice, they are too often insufficient. The time limits attached to closure notices and orders simply do not go far enough. What we see instead is a revolving door. Offenders wait out short closure periods, reopen under a different name and continue their activities, sometimes shifting location before enforcement agencies have the chance to complete proper investigations.

That is the crux of the problem. The system does not enable action that sticks, and in the meantime, the impact is clear. Our high streets suffer as legitimate businesses need trade and confidence declines. Responsible retailers who follow the rules and invest in their communities are left competing against those who operate with impunity. There is also wider impact on our communities, particularly on young people. Premises linked to this kind of activity can become focal points for antisocial behaviour, drawing in vulnerable individuals and exposing them to harm.

If we want safer streets, stronger communities, we cannot allow that cycle to continue. Amendment 333 offers a practical solution. It would extend the time frame for enforcement, giving agencies the ability to take action that is thorough, proportionate and crucially effective. This is about ensuring that when action is taken, it delivers real results, not just temporary disruption. In upholding public safety, we must update the law to reflect the current nature of the crimes that our society faces. Amendment 311 reflects the worrying growth we've seen in the number of protest groups who engage in serious criminal activity to further their aims.

However, as organisations, they're often shielded from the full force of the law, as was set out in the other House. This designation is not terrorist prescription. It would aim to restrict membership, promotion, fundraising, organising and material support with proportionate penalties less than those that are prescribed. Terrorist group would attack tracked. While I understand the government believes it to be premature because of its ongoing review, it's acted for understandable reasons regarding cumulative disruption. Therefore, why should that not be extended to this provision to ensure there are restrictions on organisations whose purpose is to break the law? When we consider extreme ideologies, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary have been clear that the Conservative Party would work with the government to proscribe the IRGC, it is apparent to many members across the House and our counterparts in the EU that the threat posed by the GC is real.

However, despite comments made while in opposition, measures from the government have not been forthcoming. Lords amendment 359.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's talking about the prescription, the IGC. Can you just explain to the House why in 14

**** Possible New Speaker ****

explain to the House why in 14 years the Tory party didn't do that. Well much? Well, as the opposition at the time was telling opposition at the time was telling us, they had really strong views about it. They're now in government and they're not doing anything about it. But do you know what he about it. But do you know what he need not worry about another day or another week. He has the opportunity today to vote for Lords opportunity today to vote for Lords Amendment 359, an opportunity to set this process in motion.

It's not enough that Iran is covered by the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration scheme. We must go further. The IRGC is not a theoretical concern, but as my colleagues have repeatedly stressed to the government, it has threatened those in our country and supported armed armed groups that have killed British and allied troops. We welcome the government adopting the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Gosport and Rutland and Stamford to address the depiction of strangulation in pornography.

I understand that through discussions with Baroness Burton on the related subjects, the government has undertaken to separately progress further specific measures to tackle 18 plus step incest, where family of one party knew one party as a child, the mimicking of children 16 plus and the age verification in pornography, and would be grateful if the Minister might offer further clarity in her comments on those specifics. And I'd like to put on the record my party's opposition to Lords Amendment 301, which unnecessarily expands the definition of aggravated offences to include certain characteristics.

Despite existing law already covering most of these factors at sentencing and providing extensive hate crime protections. The change has been introduced late in the legislative process with minimal scrutiny, raising concerns about transparency. Expert advice from the Law Commission has warned that including sex as a protected characteristic in this setting could be ineffective and even counterproductive, potentially complicating prosecutions and creating hierarchies of victims. Overall, the amendment appears more symbolic than practical, adding complexity without clear benefit to crime reduction.

The government has before it, amendments that would strengthen our legal system and better protect the public and the police. But we cannot ignore the reality on the ground. Officer numbers have fallen while demand continues to rise, and this bill will add to that pressure. That's why it matters that when the police act, they can use the full weight of the law. Without the right powers, higher expectations mean little. Where disorder takes hold, it damages communities and undermines confidence, as we've seen in places like Clapham Common.

While parts of the bill are welcome, there are still gaps. These amendments would strengthen enforcement and support officers. If we're serious about safer streets, removing the them risks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

falling short of what the public expects. Thank you. Tonia Antoniazzi.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tonia Antoniazzi. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak before clause 361 I rise to speak before clause 361 and government amendments to it. I was horrified to learn of the increasing number of cases in recent years of women facing recent years of women facing criminal investigations and prosecutions on suspicion of illegal abortion offences, the illegal abortion offences, the abject cruelty that more than 100 desperate women have been forced to endure under 165 year old law is barbaric and completely unnecessary.

That is why I tabled an amendment to this bill last year to stop this, which was emphatically supported in this chamber in June. The House of Lords recently supported this change as well as a parliament. We took that decision because we listened to the advice of professionals and the evidence gathered, gathered over a long time
15:55
Tonia Antoniazzi Portrait Tonia Antoniazzi MP (Gower, Labour)
-
-
from a number of places and chose to stand up for women alongside to stand up for women alongside women affected. I am very pleased that once this bill becomes law, no more women in England and Wales will be subject to the threat of criminal prosecution on suspicion of ending their own pregnancy. But of ending their own pregnancy. But I would welcome clarification from the Minister regarding current investigations in this regard. investigations in this regard. Parliament has been resoundingly clear in its support for removing women from the criminal law related to abortion.

Can the Minister confirm that once this bill becomes law, the expectation is that all current investigations and prosecutions under these offences should be dropped. I would welcome a commitment from her to write to police forces in England and Wales as well, because they clearly haven't been listening to the will of Parliament. We are aware of at least three further women having been investigated for ending their own pregnancies since the Commons vote in June, as well as firmly supporting the decriminalisation of women for abortion, the House of Lords passed an amendment to protect the women already harmed by these outdated laws.

I pay tribute to Baroness Thornton, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Baroness Watkins of Tavistock and Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for laying this amendment across party clause 361 and government amendment to it would pardon women found guilty of ending their own pregnancy and expunge the records of investigations, arrests and charges of women under abortion law, whether or not they were found guilty. This is important. Current law means that abortion offences are classed as serious and violent crimes. So even without a conviction, the fact that a woman has been arrested and interviewed under these offences remains on her DBS check for life.

This actively harms her job prospects, ability to travel to certain jurisdictions, and leaves her with a permanent record on police computer systems or, in the case of conviction, a permanent criminal record that she ends her home pregnancy. Outside the law, colleagues will remember that the women forced to endure criminal investigations under these offences are overwhelmingly already vulnerable, often victims of acute abuse and exploitation. Retention of these convictions and records caused them ongoing harm. Under a law, which, Parliament has been clear, has no place in modern society.

This includes women whose experiences I spoke of in my speech in this place last year. Women like Nicola Paca, who, after experiencing complications in her abortion treatment, was arrested, held for 36 hours in custody and endured nearly five years of investigation and prosecution. She was found not guilty at trial, but the investigation, arrest and charge remain on her record and women like Laura, a young mother and a university student who was criminalised for an abortion using illicit medication forced on her by an abusive partner.

She was in a physically, sexually and emotionally abusive relationship, and her partner told her not to go to a doctor. When she was arrested, he threatened to kill her if she told anyone he was involved. She was jailed for two years and this conviction remains on her criminal record. Women who have faced investigation or conviction should not have to continue living with the consequences of this outdated legislation, the very laws that Parliament has rightly and finally decided should not, should no longer apply to women.

That is why clause 361 is so very needed. While remaining neutral on the issue, the government have made changes to clause 361 to ensure workability, and I emphatically support them. It takes a similar approach to that being introduced in this very same bill for pardons, for convictions and cautions, for loitering or soliciting when under 18 for every single woman. Madam Deputy Speaker who has been subjected to a criminal investigation for a suspected illegal abortion, the trauma they endured will never fully leave them.

These are women who sought medical care in moments of crisis after after traumatic abortion complications, miscarriage, stillbirth or premature labour, only to be met with suspicion and punishment. Women have been targeted, imprisoned, dragged from hospital beds to police cells, publicly shamed and separated from their existing children. Those experiences have altered their lives forever. As much as I wish it were possible, erasing those experiences is far beyond the power of any of us, but we can make it easier for them.

We, as legislators have taken the decision to ensure that no more women endure such barbaric treatment for ending their own pregnancy. The women already harmed by this should not be left behind. Automatic pardons for convictions or cautions, and expunging the records of arrests and investigations will make things a whole lot better for these women in letting them get on with their lives and participate fully in society again, seeking the jobs and careers they've always wanted without having to repeatedly disclose or rehash their ordeal, travelling to places they wish to.

Parliament has been clear, Madam Deputy Speaker. No woman should be criminalised for abortion. That matter has been settled, and it is now imperative that the women already affected are protected from the enduring, cruel legacy of this law. Once it has been disapplied from women. I implore colleagues to support clause 361 and the government amendments to it.
16:01
Max Wilkinson Portrait Max Wilkinson MP (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Max Wilkinson. spokesperson, Max Wilkinson. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the Liberal Democrats made clear at earlier stages, there are parts of this bill that we can support and parts that we strongly oppose. We welcome a number of the new measures brought forward today. Nonetheless, we feel it is a pity that the government has overlooked opportunities to take action in some crucial areas, from cracking down on rural crime to supporting a real return to proper neighbourhood policing.

And, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are deeply disturbed by the use of this Bill to further erode the protest rights of British people. These are hard won freedoms that were won by the suffragettes and others, trade unionists and more over many, many years and the past. Government and this one are recklessly taking them away for short term political expedience. And we strongly oppose those measures. They're not just happening in this bill today. They're happening regularly under this government, and it is something that we must all consider at some length in this House.

However, I am pleased that today this House will consider two amendments tabled by Liberal Democrats in the Other place. Amendment two will ensure that private companies are not incentivised to issue as many fixed penalty notices as possible, so more serious anti-social behaviour is prioritised. Instead, the government's amendment in lieu does not go far enough. It substitutes the clear ban on finding for profit with non-statutory guidance. We must remove this perverse incentive with a ban, not guidance that will inevitably be open to challenge.

Amendment 342 another Liberal Democrat amendment from the other place will change how youth diversion orders are issued, ensuring courts are given a full account of any alternative interventions that have been tried or considered, why those interventions failed and what consultation took place with the child, as well agencies. Multi-Agency input will help courts better understand other interventions have failed, leading to higher success rates and time efficiency. Crucially, this amendment will mean better outcomes for young people who would otherwise become embroiled in terrorist activity.

We call on members from across the House to put their support behind these measures. Liberal Democrats are also supporting several other amendments. Today. We support government amendments one and four regarding respect orders, which were concessions secured by our Liberal Democrat colleague Lord Clement-jones. Respect orders will grant police extended powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, with police chiefs given the power to issue orders without oversight. Amendments one and four will require the Secretary of State to make appropriate consultations before issuing or revising these orders.

We are backing several further measures which take action on violence against women and girls too. We support amendment 294, a concession thanks to the work of our Liberal Democrat colleague Baroness Brinton, which replaces the power to issue stalking guidance by the Secretary of State with a duty to do so. This follows similar provisions within the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance. The hon. Member give way. Of course, I'm grateful to him, and there was a discussion earlier on about the register of about the register of non-consensual, intimate images set out in Lords Amendment 259 A, and I out in Lords Amendment 259 A, and I wanted to share with the House the experience of my constituent who was subject to the creation of a non-consensual image abuse by her husband while unconscious, having been the victim of spiking.

Zoe Watts has chosen very bravely to speak with the media to help secure legal change and public education. And she points out that there is a disturbing rise in pornography that depicts sex with somebody who is sleeping. Does the hon. Member share my view that the depiction of non-consensual intimacy and sleep

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can encourage spiking and sexual abuse and should be banned? Well, I thank the hon. Member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton for his intervention. I think the case of Zoe does go to show that we do need Zoe does go to show that we do need to go so much further here to protect women and the depiction of this kind of activity clearly is something that might provoke unintended consequences and consequences that none of us in consequences that none of us in this House would want to see. And speaking, of course, is something that remains a big problem on high streets and in pubs and bars up and down this country.

Now, with a view to strengthening online protections, we will support amendments two, five, eight and 259 relating to non-consensual generation and sharing of intimate images. It is crucial that the law catches up to the reality of abuse being faced by women every day, and women like Zoe. We will support amendment 301 to extend the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to include protections against hostility motivated by a range of characteristics, including sex and disability. Liberal Democrats will be supporting Conservative Amendment 15, which will increase the maximum penalty for possession of a weapon with intent to use unlawful violence against another person to ten years, in line with the recommendations from Jonathan Hall KC to effectively tackle criminal gangs, we must ensure the legal system can effectively cut off their revenue sources.

The current closure notice periods for shops selling counterfeit goods are too short, and criminal gangs are too often able to survive the economic hit, impacting the prosperity of our high streets. That is why we support amendment 333 to extend the period in which the police and the magistrates courts may make closure notices to seven days and closure orders to 12 months on amendment 311 proposed by crossbench peers. We are supportive of the suggestion that alternative is needed to prescription, particularly, I think, made clear by what has happened with Palestine Action.

However, we are cautious about voting for such a change. While the outcomes of the independent review of public order and hate crime legislation are not yet known. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, Liberal Democrats are vehemently opposed to the government's amendment to give the police unprecedented powers to further restrict the right to protest. This follows a pattern started by the previous conservative government, which hacked away again and again at the historic rights to protest enjoyed by British people. It is an absolute travesty that this has carried on under Labour.

The right to protest is a vital component of our democracy and Liberal Democrats will fight to defend it. I would urge all members on all sides of this House to put aside their personal feelings about certain ongoing protests, and seriously consider what the consequences of this change would mean for our right to challenge those of us, those who exercise power over us. The government benches might be content with this approach while they are in charge, but Labour MPs must ask what might happen under a future government which might not adhere to liberal democratic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

principles. Apsana Begum thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. The right to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. The right to protest is a basic democratic freedom that was won over centuries of British history. It was not. It of British history. It was not. It was not a right that was granted, but one that was hard worn by suffragettes, by trade unionists, suffragettes, by trade unionists, by anti-fascists and many others. Today we are focusing on the Lords amendments only, but I want to
16:09
Apsana Begum Portrait Apsana Begum MP (Poplar and Limehouse, Labour)
-
-
amendments only, but I want to place on record that this bill itself is a serious and substantial assault on our democratic freedoms. Indeed, before this bill was even introduced to this House, the Policing and Crime Act and the Public Order Act and many other anti-protest bills passed under the last government had already expanded police powers and were widely criticised by legal experts and civil society organisations, and faced widespread opposition from across these benches. This makes the shambolic process through which these proposals have been brought to the House even more disturbing, and I'll touch upon ones in particular, because this bill proposes even more powers to the police, including to decide where, when and even whether a protest even takes place at this very late stage.

The other place has now proposed amendment 312, which could result and could even lead to not just the restricting of protests, but the banning of protests at right. This should alarm anyone who cares about democracy because it should not need pointing out, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the whole point of a protest is that they are supposed to have a cumulative impact. Should the suffragettes or the Chartists have given up after just one attempt? Indeed, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association recently outlined how far out of step this extraordinary expansion of state power is against international norms.

This bill and amendment 312 is set in the context of one of the largest and most sustained protest movements in modern British political history. The Home Secretary has not obscured the fact that these proposals are a direct response to the demonstrations for Palestine. Indeed, I've been proud to protest, alongside hundreds and thousands of constituents in over 30 major national demonstrations demanding an end to the genocide in Gaza. Collective actions, collective actions to stand up for humanity in the face of the gravest acts of inhumanity.

In this context, it's absurd that under these proposals, holding repeated protests could justify far reaching restrictions and even outright bans. And where does this lead? Trade unions are asking if picketing during an industrial dispute would make them vulnerable to heavy handed interventions. I understand that the government are supporting the amendment 312, and I oppose it entirely. I will instead be supporting a motion in the name of my hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby to disagree with the Lords Amendment 312, because the assault on the right to protest could lead us down an extremely worrying path where governments can become totalitarian and are able to silence whomever they choose.

Madam Deputy Speaker, British democracy has been defined by dissent, and social progression has been achieved by diverse group, diverse groups mobilising for women's rights, LGBTQ plus equality, workers rights and for solidarity across these causes. I want to reiterate my opposition to plans under clauses one, five, six and 158 on wearing or using items to conceal identity at protests because there has not been a fundamental assessment of full clarity on what, as the bill states, wearing or otherwise using an item that conceals their or another person's identity will work in practice.

For example, for Muslim women who observe hijab or niqab, I understand that there's been a defence worked in for this in terms of concealing identity at protests for religious purposes, but this is a defence in law to be proven only after an arrest and during onerous court proceedings. This will only extend Madam Deputy Speaker the ways in which black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals are overrepresented in every stage of the criminal justice system. Madam Deputy Speaker, If we believe in democratic values, we must defend the space for protest loudly and with determination against attempts to shrink it further.

We are at a time when public trust in political institutions are already incredibly fragile, and so the government's decision to weaken one of the few tools that people have to hold power to account is just irresponsible. In my view. This bill is drawing another line in the sand between those who benefit from the political establishment and those who wish to challenge it. I am with the protesters, Madam Deputy Speaker, who have my solidarity, because I know on which side of history that I want to be on.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wendy Morton thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise today to speak in the. This. The Crime and Policing Bill to the Lords amendments, a piece of legislation that I have spoken previously on. that I have spoken previously on. But today I want to specifically focus on Lords Amendment six, ten focus on Lords Amendment six, ten and 11 and to urge Ministers to accept these amendments. These are
16:14
Wendy Morton Portrait Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)
-
-
accept these amendments. These are topics that we on this side of the House have been pushing for, and the amendments that we are looking at and considering today stem from the other place, specifically around fly-tipping and littering. Both of these, I know, are issues that are not just in my inbox, but in the inboxes on members on both sides of this House. They are issues that that affect our residents day in, day out. Of course, for those of us in the West Midlands, on the edge of Birmingham, where there are the bin strikes thanks to the Labour run council, Fly-tipping is an even greater scourge these days than before.

As I said, Madam Deputy, this is not the first time I've spoken on these topics. I spoke at Second Reading on this legislation too, but I want to take the opportunity today to just briefly set out why I speak on these topics, and why I urge the Minister to support what I consider to be very pragmatic, practical but much needed measures as set out in these amendments. We know that Fly-tipping blights our streets, our countryside and our green spaces.

It's something this House knows that I'm incredibly passionate about. It hurts the wildlife, it undermines pride in our communities, and it leaves

**** Possible New Speaker ****

residents feeling helpless. My little friend. Of course. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Thank you very much for giving way. Does she also agree that particularly in rural areas where particularly in rural areas where farmers are often blighted and ended up landed with the costs of significant, often industrial and criminal fly-tipping that is deeply unfair and that the government should listen to the amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should listen to the amendments that help take that burden away from those who are the victims in these crimes. Wendy Morton. My hon. Friend is absolutely right because so often travelling around the constituency, I see gateways where people have fly-tipped. I've seen piles of fridges, I've seen piles of mattresses. It is industrial, fly-tip, fly-tipping and it's absolutely disgraceful and it is disgusting. Now we know that Fly-tipping alone costs around £1 billion to deal with each year. That's £1 billion that could be going into other things, rather than it being money that's wasted or wasted on clearing up other people's mess.

So I see it in my constituency, I have to say. I also see, and I want to acknowledge the brilliant work done by so many locally, locally based volunteer groups to tackle the blight on our doorsteps. I also want to acknowledge the work of conservative run Walsall Council, who have taken very much a zero tolerance approach investing in enforcement, expanding CCTV, issuing fines, working with the police to seize vehicles linked to Fly-tipping. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would you accept that many instances action is not taken because of the fear of violence? because of the fear of violence? Because much of this tipping now is done by criminal gangs who will stop at nothing because it's a very stop at nothing because it's a very profitable industry so that people like the Environment Agency and even sometimes local councils and even sometimes local councils and police do not take the action which is required, leading to the huge accumulations of waste.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accumulations of waste. The hon. Gentleman is so right. I mean, people might think, here I am as a member of Parliament, standing talking about something as simple as litter or fly-tipping. But it is. It is criminal. It's criminal activity. It's costing the taxpayer, it's costing wildlife, and it's costing our communities. And it does need some some really strong action enforcement and deterrence to stop this scourge. Because in Walsall, as I've explained, Madam Deputy, they are treating Fly-tipping tipping as the crime that it is gathering evidence, prosecuting offenders, and then the fines can be reinvested back into enforcement.

And all of this together sends a clear message. If we if you treat our streets as a litter bin, there will be consequences. And that's why I recommend or push, promote and welcome the amendments today that introduce penalty points for those convicted of fly tipping offences. Because we must be clear, if you use a vehicle to commit this crime, there will be real consequences. Amendments that allow vehicles to be seized are a welcome further measure. If we remove the means by which this crime is committed, we strike at the heart of the problem.

It's no longer enough to tinker around the edges. We need to see strong action. Enforcement is key, but so too is deterrence. That's why I've long argued for stronger action on littering from vehicles, including penalty points on people's driving licences. If people know there are real consequences, behaviour will change because ultimately this is about respect, respect for our communities, for our environment and for the people who take pride in the place where they live. These are the people that make this country a great place to live in.

So for their sakes, Madam Deputy, I urge the Minister to listen, to engage, to take action, to take the opportunity to strengthen this bill so that actions do once again have real consequences. I just want to end with a slogan from Keep Britain Tidy. Some people here might remember it. It was called Don't Be a Tosser. So I urge the government, don't toss this matter to one side.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Take some firm action, please. Let's make sure language is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

always parliamentary. Andy McDonald. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. Follow
16:20
16:20
16:20
Andy McDonald Portrait Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)
-
-
much welcome this bill, and I welcome the great many measures the government has brought forward. There's much here that will strengthen policing, protect communities and respond to genuine public concern about crime and safety. But I rise to address Lords Amendment 312, and I do so with real concern, because protest is not some peripheral irritation in our democracy. It is not an inconvenience to be managed. It is, in truth, part of the lifeblood of the labour movement and of every movement that has ever expanded rights, protections or dignity in this country.

From the earliest trade unionists to the Chartists to those who organised in the streets when they had no voice in this chamber. Progress in this country has never been handed down. It has been demanded, organised and often disrupted into being a yes, disrupted because protest exists precisely because governments of the day of all political colours have too often sought to restrict the expression of public opinion. When it becomes uncomfortable, and we should be honest about that.

Public organising protest is how people express their voice. But expressing a voice is not the same as being heard, and it is certainly not the same as achieving change. Change comes when that expression is repeated, sustained and cumulative. When it builds pressure over time until it cannot be ignored. That is as true for the suffragettes as it was for the anti-apartheid movement. Neither succeeded because they protested once politely and went home. They succeeded because disruption accumulated, because pressure mounted, because their cause could not be quietly set aside.

That is the democratic tradition we inherit, and it is one we should be extremely cautious about constraining. Which brings me to Lords Amendment 312, because whatever its intentions, it represents a continuation, not a departure from a trajectory set by the previous government. We have in recent years seen a steady expansion of public order powers through the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of 2022 and the Public Order Act of 2023. At each stage, concerns were raised by members across this House, by the Other place and by civil liberties organisations that the balance between public order and the right to protest was being tilted too far.

We are now asked to accept yet a further step in that same direction. Madam Deputy Speaker, it wasn't that many weeks ago that Gina Romero, the new UN Special rapporteur on the freedom of peaceful assembly and association, was in this Parliament, expressing her horror that it was United Kingdom government that were at the leading edge of these provisions, because the rest of the world is looking. They're waiting to see how this plays out in this country, because they intend to do and copy and paste and do the self-same thing in their own jurisdictions.

It's perhaps just fortunate that Viktor Orban has gone, because I'm pretty convinced that he'd be looking to these measures, amongst others. Indeed. Lords amendment 312 does something very specific. It revives in substance provisions that were previously rejected. Hon. Members will recall that during the passage of the Public Order Act 2023, the government sought through Lords amendments 48 and 49 to require police to take account of cumulative disruption when imposing conditions on protests under sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Those provisions were defeated in the House of Lords with opposition from Labour, Liberal Democrat and crossbench peers. Yet before the ink was even dry on those proceedings, before the act had even received royal assent, the then government sought to achieve the same outcome through secondary legislation, the Public Order Act 1986. Serious disruption to the life of the Community Regulations 2023. Those regulations did three things of note they lowered the threshold of disruption to more than minor.

They introduced the concept of cumulative disruption and the expanded police discretion to consider multiple events collectively. And what happened? Those regulations were quashed in the courts in the National Council for Civil Liberties against the Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2023, quashed because the process by which they were brought forward was found to be unlawful. Now, to be fair, the government has learned from that episode. Lords amendment 312 is more cautious. It embeds the concept of cumulative disruption in primary legislation.

It avoids reopening the broader and highly contentious definition of serious disruption. It reflects an incremental approach shaped by judicial intervention and parliamentary resistance. I recognise that, but recognising that the drafting is more careful does not answer the central question should we be doing this at all? Because what we are being asked to do is take a concept that was rejected in this House and the other place, unsuccessfully imposed through regulations struck down by the courts, and now introduce it, reintroduce it more carefully packaged but substantively similar.

And there's a second concern, Madam Deputy Speaker, which goes to the process because this measure has not come to us in the ordinary way. It has not been introduced as a government clause in this House, subject to full debate and amendment and division. Indeed, it has been inserted at the Lords stage that I say gently but firmly, mirrors precisely the approach that many of us criticise when it was adopted by the previous government. If we believe something is important enough to legislate on, particularly something that touches upon fundamental rights, it's important enough to be properly scrutinised in this chamber.

In considering these proposals, we should also reflect on very recent events in the case involving Ben Jamal and Chris Nina, which I understand is now subject to appeal. It has been reported that the defence argued that at the protest in question, police relied on powers relating to cumulative disruption that were in fact derived from the 2023 regulations, later quashed by the Court of Appeal in the National Council for Civil Liberties against the Secretary of State.

If that account is borne out, it raises a serious question that even without clear statutory footing, such expansive interpretations are already influencing operational decisions. And it underlines the risk that legislating for cumulative disruption now may not clarify the law, but instead entrench uncertainty and overreach at the expense of the right to protest. So I say this to Ministers. There is much in this bill that commands support. There is no need to jeopardise that support by attaching to it a measure that raises serious civil liberties concerns and has not been properly tested in this House.

The government should withdraw Lords Amendment 312 and if it does not, then members should be clear that this is not a minor or technical issue that can be nodded through. It may require the House to divide, if necessary, on a roll up motion at the end of proceedings to ensure that our view is properly recorded, and we defend the civil liberties that generations of so proudly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fought for. Here. Gideon Amos. Madam Deputy Speaker and I rise mainly to speak Speaker and I rise mainly to speak about amendment 333, but I on the legal trading. But I share the legal trading. But I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham and the hon. Gentleman just made about the Gentleman just made about the liberal nature of the crackdown on protests, and I. I reflect that I never thought I'd be entering a
16:30
Gideon Amos Portrait Gideon Amos MP (Taunton and Wellington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
never thought I'd be entering a world where old ladies sitting down in protest would be effectively proscribed as terrorists, some kind of Kafkaesque world that we're moving into. And the provisions of this bill worry me in the same way. But as I wish to focus on illegal trading, that's what I'll do. Madam Deputy Speaker and our Liberal Democrats support amendment 333, which would extend the length of closure notices. And we're supportive of that amendment. We campaigned in the general election for a return to proper community policing and safer high streets and town centres, and ending the scourge of illegal trading must be part of that.

So extending the period over which closure notices may be served by police inspectors or local authority chief executives under section 77 for the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 are set out. Amendment 333 before us today, Deputy Speaker to seven days would be a move in the right direction, and therefore I oppose the government's motion to strike out that amendment. Thanks to local Republicans in my Taunton constituency who came forward with vital information, I raised the legal trading in Taunton with Somerset Council and the police over around a year ago locally, and so I would just like to pay tribute to the police officers like Andy and others.

Trading standards officers. I lived in Somerset Council colleagues like Mike Rigby, overseeing the work that's led to a number of really high profile closures. Taunton Market, Mr. Thornton and Top Market have rightly been closed down following just the kind of crackdown that was needed, and I have a message for anyone else considering that kind of activity in Taunton and Wellington illegal trading isn't welcome and you will be closed down and you will be prosecuted. But we do need to go further.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute have pointed out we need properly resourced trading standards services and that means tackling the local government funding crisis, in particular the social care funding crisis, the main burden under which councils are struggling. But Somerset Council's I've spoken to about this also want to see civil penalties against the landlords who knowingly let their premises be used for illegal trading, something also raised by the Chartered Institute as well. Those fines should be given to the council, both to support trading standards work and to clean up the town centre environment, and I believe that repeat offenders amongst landlords, landlords should forfeit their retail property to the council to allow its re-use or regeneration behind.

Too many illegal shops are complicit landlords cashing in on the rent from illegal activity, and right now they face no consequences at all. However, the main change I'll be pressing for following, as well as supporting amendment three, three, three and related to that, following my visit with police officers around Taunton would be to address their frustration with the reality of tapping illegal sales at one end of the counter while trading continues. At the other end of the counter in the shops which they're tackling.

I understand why the law requires that any closure notice has to be followed up under section 80 of the act I mentioned, with an application to the courts for a closure order. But that requirement is, frankly, hugely onerous. Demand on hard pressed officer time, and it too often discourages closure notices being served at all when they need it. So I've therefore been pressing for section 80 to be amended so that closure notice could be served to be effective for up to 14 days on the authority of a superintendent or local authority chief executive, especially, crucially, without the requirement to apply to the courts to ensure a just approach to retailers exercising such power would have to be dependent on evidence of unlawful, unlawful, illegal trade or illegal trading being found, such as sale of stolen goods.

And the Association of Convenience Stores have just found that 25% of retailers identified stolen goods being sold locally in their areas. It might also be illegal sale of underage sales of alcohol, tobacco or vapes, or counterfeit goods like cigarettes. Enabling a rapid response of this kind would also help tackle Phoenixing, where new ventures open a new company just a few doors down from the closed premises. I'm delighted the action that has been taken locally in Taunton. I support amendment 333. I don't really understand why the government is opposing it.

There is action that could be taken and they should take it. Councils and police, though, are to offer up an operating with one hand behind their back tied behind their backs. There should be immediate closure where that's needed and town centre businesses in Taunton and Wellington should not be forced to compete with criminal activity, and I'll continue to push the case for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stronger powers to stamp that out. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I start, I would like to recognise some of the work that has already been undertaken by this government when undertaken by this government when it comes to improving our high streets, including measures announced in the Budget last year, the OCG led task force, additional funding made available for trading
16:36
Melanie Onn Portrait Melanie Onn MP (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, Labour)
-
-
funding made available for trading standards, Customs and Excise HMRC support for community policing, ensuring a community police officer in every neighbourhood across the country. Those are all really welcome and important, and I think that it is right that we acknowledge that context that this debate sits within. I'd also like to congratulate my hon. Friend. She does work incredibly hard, and today she is working a double shift, and we appreciate that. But I do rise to speak in relation to Government amendment A to the Lords Amendment 333, which sought to extend closure orders to 12 months, which has been the subject of some discussion today.

And I appreciate the government's understanding and recognition of the importance and the necessity of closure orders, to the point that it has put this amendment in lieu in. I don't see this. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman from Taunton and Wellington, I don't see this as the government opposing. I do see this as the government nudging gently towards the right direction when it comes to acknowledging the need for the closure orders. However, also recognising the sensitivity that comes with closure orders, the impact that it can have in residential areas because it's not just about commercial premises but also on our high streets as well.

Particularly, it makes me think about the addition potentially of boarded up empty homes for 12 month periods and the same when it comes to commercial properties on our high streets, which I think will be of concern. And I recognise, therefore, the need for the government to go and consult. But the Minister will know that it does draw some concern from me and from other colleagues who are keen to tackle the scourge of dodgy shops in their communities and do so quickly.

And that concern arises.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. I'll give way. I'm grateful for. She has been.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A doughty champion on the point of dodgy shops. Go as far as to call her a guru on dodgy shops if call her a guru on dodgy shops if she will accept that accolade. Carlisle like my hon. Friend's constituency, is blighted by these constituency, is blighted by these mini marts and vape shops and what have you, and I am attracted to Lords Amendment three, three, three, but superficially so. I think it's right that we get this correct. And. And does she agree with me that this would mark to pass amendment three? If you would mark a significant shift in the law.

And it's important that we get this right and that we consult on it. But actually, what the government is doing is extending the power. But for the guarantee to consult.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, thank you for our intervention. She's absolutely right. I think that this is an acknowledgement that there needs to acknowledgement that there needs to be action. I think that that is reflected in other areas of action that one the government has already committed to. But two, we are likely to see further down the track that I will come to in my track that I will come to in my comments as well. The the length of the consultation, I think, is we're the consultation, I think, is we're right to raise this and we're right to say that while we may appreciate the necessity of the government to undertake a consultation when the shift is so significant up to 12 months that the period of consultation should not be unduly lengthy or unnecessarily so.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agree with you that. Any sort of consultation of this sort should include closure notices,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as well as closure orders. Well, the extension to closure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the extension to closure notices is much less in terms of timing and the the period of timing and the the period of notices that therefore are provided, I don't think necessarily need to fall into the scope of having a fall into the scope of having a consultation. In fact, I'd rather avoid having things in consultation unnecessarily than including things in consultation. But I do think that if we want to drive the changes that communities expect to see, because some of the activities that are taking place do undermine this consultation, sorry, it does have the potential to really undermine the seriousness with which I think the government does take this issue and wonder whether, therefore, there is an opportunity for the government to say that it's aiming for the consultation and the response to to try and coincide with the high street strategy that we are expecting later this year, hopefully in the summer, whenever summer in a parliamentary term actually comes to fruition.

The The Dodgy Shops campaign is not just about not liking the appearance or the proliferation of some of these businesses. It has much wider consequences from money laundering, sales of illegal illegal goods and even suggestions. In a BBC investigation recently of harbouring CSA activities. Indeed, in my own constituency, a gentleman called Sean Tynemouth, he was sold an illegal vape in our area. It exploded in his home and brought thousands of pounds worth of damage to his property, not least putting his life and his family's life in significant peril.

And just last month, we saw national rail infrastructure damaged as a result of a vape shop fire in Glasgow. Beautiful grade two building seriously damage. These businesses do endanger lives, bring criminal activity to our the heart of our towns and our fracturing community cohesion. This is happening now. Damage, threats to life, cost to the public purse because what exists now is too slow to intervene, perhaps don't have the right resources, or it's not considered to be priority for some local authorities or police authorities.

So ensuring that police and local authorities do have sufficient responses within their arsenal available to them to be able to act as a sufficient deterrent in the very strongest terms to these fake businesses, and making absolutely clear to any OCG that's behind the commercial outfit. I mean, no doubt that they're that they are then in no doubt that their model will not be tolerated, that they're not wanted, and that the strongest action that is available will be used in such cases as are necessary.

And that is why the government should not use the consultation as an opportunity not to continue to press ahead. I know that powers are being made available for the Secretary of State to easily implement this. Should the consultation outcome take us in that direction. I really don't want to see the government miss the opportunity to make sure that there is serious weight behind the consequences. Of this. I want to ensure that there is a success in terms of the high street strategy in the summer.

I really don't think that there is any point, to be honest, in investing in our town centres. If legitimate businesses are undercut by those that are operating outside the law, or if residents feel unsafe in the spaces that we're trying to regenerate. So I urge the government to publish a consultation as soon as possible, aim to conclude it in support and around the timeframe of the High Street strategy to publish the Terms of reference and membership of the OCG led High Streets Cross departmental group as well.

For the purposes of transparency and contribution, to make sure that every intervention, whether on policing, regeneration or business support, is all aligned with the goal of allowing our high streets to breathe again.
16:44
Zarah Sultana Portrait Zarah Sultana MP (Coventry South, Your Party)
-
-
EA Zarah Sultana. >> Deputy Speaker I rise in support of the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East to disagree with and Thornaby East to disagree with Lords Amendment 312 today, we are being asked to waive through one of the most draconian assaults on the most draconian assaults on democratic freedoms in modern times. And let's be clear who is doing it. It's not the Tories. They're not even here. It's the Labour Party, a Labour government attacking the right to protest, attacking trial by jury, prescribing a non-violent direct action group handling NHS patient data to Palantir, a company that has helped ice tear migrant families apart and generates kill lists for the Israeli military.

And now this this is a government that is increasingly authoritarian day by day. And when people take to the streets to fight back and expose this government's complicity in genocide, its answer is to ban them. Madam Deputy Speaker, the most draconian proposal being debated today, Lords amendment 312, would require police to consider the cumulative disruption of repeated protests when deciding whether to impose restrictions. The area is undefined. It could mean a single street or the whole of central London.

The cause is irrelevant. Different groups, different issues can all be treated as one and there is no time limit. What happened months ago could be used to shut down protests today. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Assembly warned MPs that she has never encountered legislation like this anywhere in the world, and that it could serve as a blueprint for authoritarian governments globally. Let that sink in. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is clear that the Palestine solidarity movement that has mobilised hundreds of thousands of people across this country is the government's principal target.

But these far reaching powers are an attack on trade unions, too. Sustained picketing could be characterised as cumulative disruption, and the TUC has warned that these measures seriously endanger democracy. In Coventry, GMB Amazon workers staged over 30 days of industrial action, the first Amazon strike in British history fighting for a living wage in Birmingham United. Mine workers have been on strike since January 2025 against a Labour council trying to cut their pay by £8,000. Under this amendment, that kind of sustained repeated industrial action, the only leverage workers actually have becomes grounds for restriction to every Labour member who has taken trade union money and trade union votes.

Do your job and defend them. The Labour Party is supposedly the party of workers. The truth is it's reform with a red rosette. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me describe the pattern of repression. This amendment joins Palestine Action, a non-violent direct action group, was unlawfully prescribed by this Labour government using counter-terrorism legislation. The High Court threw that out. What did this Labour government do? It lodged an appeal and sent the police back onto the streets. Last week, over 500 people were arrested in London holding placards reading I oppose genocide, I support Palestine action.

The met have still not explained why they reversed their own policy after that ruling. Since last year, Madam Deputy Speaker, more than 3000 people have been arrested for holding a placard. Not a knife, not a weapon, a placard. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm going to exercise privilege of this House to play something on public record that the mainstream press have chosen to ignore. Six Palestine action activists face retrial after being acquitted in February following a year in prison. If convicted, they and 18 others will be sentenced as terrorists.

But the jury will not be told that they could convict them on criminal damage charges, with no idea that terrorism sentences will follow. Madam Deputy Speaker. Not a single terrorism charge has been brought forward. The prescription has been ruled unlawful, and the defendants themselves have been banned from telling the jury that they acted to stop genocide under threat of contempt charges. This is what a stitch up looks like, and it's part of the same pattern. A Labour government that will do whatever it takes to silence dissent, protect Israeli death factories and escape accountability.

To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker every advance in our history, whether it's votes for women, workers rights, LGBT rights, racial justice, they were won through sustained, repeated, disruptive protest. The logic of cumulative disruption would have crushed every one of those movements. So to the members opposite, I remind you that your constituents sent you to defend and strengthen their democratic right, not to erode them. So vote to disagree with Lord Lords amendment 312 and vote against the roll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion. Jo Platt. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So when people. Talk about feeling safe where they live, they're not talking about spreadsheets or crime stats. about spreadsheets or crime stats. They're talking about whether they feel OK walking home at night, whether their local shops can open whether their local shops can open their doors without worrying about theft or abuse, and whether when something does go wrong, the law something does go wrong, the law actually backs them up. So that's why the government's Crime and Policing bill really does matter.

So I'm pleased to welcome this bill because it tackles the issues people raise in Leigh and Atherton time again, anti-social behaviour, abusive retail workers, the need for visible neighbourhood policing and stronger action on serious harm, including violence against women and girls. They make up one of the most significant packages on crime
16:49
Jo Platt Portrait Jo Platt MP (Leigh and Atherton, Labour )
-
-
and policing in decades. So this bill is about restoring public confidence and making our streets confidence and making our streets safer. But Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm speaking today on Government Amendment A in lieu of Lords Amendment A in lieu of Lords Amendment 333 relating to closure and anti-social behaviour and and anti-social behaviour and closure powers. So in the Leigh and Atherton constituency, as in many towns, so-called dodgy shops have towns, so-called dodgy shops have become an all too familiar feature of struggling high streets.

Illicit premises selling illegal goods, undercutting lawful businesses and operating in plain sight, undermine confidence and damage communities, as we've already heard in this chamber today. But what is striking is of effort from enforcement bodies. Far from it of the current system. So again and again, action is taken, evidence is gathered, and closure orders are secured only for the same premises to reappear shortly afterwards under a new name. That revolving door problem makes lasting change incredibly difficult. So, as we've heard, local authorities trading standards and police forces often spend months building cases and navigating court processes.

Yet the maximum closure period remains just three months. For those determined to break the law, that is simply not a sufficient deterrent. So meanwhile, legitimate businesses are left trying to compete fairly whilst criminals carry on. Communities see it happening and are rightly frustrated. Confidence in enforcement and in the fairness of the system starts to slip. So this issue cannot be solved in isolation. If we are serious about restoring our high streets, we need a joined up approach that stops illicit operators from taking root in the first place.

And this government is moving in the right direction. So pride in place funding strengthened trading standards. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill and the forthcoming high street strategy, all from form important pieces of the puzzle. So government amended amendment A is another. It gives the Secretary of State the power, through regulations, to amend the maximum duration of closure orders, with the flexibility to treat different types of premises differently. So this is a pragmatic step. It allows consultation and evidence led change.

But I urge the Minister that that flexibility must not become hesitation. I'd welcome clarity from the government on the timeline for consultation, because enforcement that does not stick is not enforcement at all. High streets. Our high streets cannot afford that delay. So can the Minister also confirm that this amendment sits within a wider ongoing programme of work, bringing together enforcement, regulation and stronger powers where needed, so that this is not the end of the conversation, but the start of a robust approach.

So our high streets deserve nothing less. And with that reassurance, this amendment is a necessary step in restoring credibility to enforcement and signalling that the government is serious about bringing confidence, fairness and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pride back to our high streets. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Five Jones if it's Wrexham.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Five Jones if it's Wrexham. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will speak to amendment 312 on I will speak to amendment 312 on cumulative disruption. I'm deeply alarmed by this amendment, which would require senior officers, would require senior officers, senior police officers to take into account any so-called cumulative account any so-called cumulative impacts of frequent protests on local areas when considering whether to impose conditions on public processions and assemblies. In short, the government is giving the police unprecedented powers to restrict or prohibit protests that they think are expected to be too disruptive.

It is an unacceptable
16:53
16:54
Kim Johnson Portrait Kim Johnson MP (Liverpool Riverside, Labour)
-
-
Kim Johnson thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. While I support many elements of this bill, I many elements of this bill, I cannot support Lords Amendment 312. It has come back to the Commons without the proper scrutiny it requires and despite repeated requests, Ministers have failed to provide it. The Bill now returns to this House without troubling number of late changes made in the Lords that severely limits our ability to examine major amendments, especially those that impact the fundamental right to protest a right that has already been significantly eroded in recent years due to a number of draconian legislation.

But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of my good friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornby East in his motion to reject amendment 312 today, supported by 30 MPs, and we have pushed hard for a vote today on these proposals, which will have far reaching draconian impact on our civil liberties, and I am disappointed that this has not been granted, and it demonstrates a fundamental failure of a democratic process. Lords amendment 312 would give police new powers to restrict protests on the basis of so-called cumulative disruption.

But what does that actually mean? Given them the discretion to limit or fully ban a demonstration based on the combined impact of multiple protests over time? The move is the latest in a series of anti-protest measures introduced by successive governments in recent years, and I have to say that as a Labour MP, I am very disappointed with the draconian proposals being pushed by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this. What does she say to those people who become the targets of these continual protests, where protesters recognise here is a protesters recognise here is a vulnerable area, or here's a vulnerable community, or here is a vulnerable community, or here is a part of a city or the infrastructure of the country, which, when we protest at it and which, when we protest at it and when we protest on a regular basis, we cause maximum disruption to the lives of the people who live there.

What do you say to those people? Should they not have protection?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would have to say I disagree with the member, but I have to say that as a Labour MP, I'm very that as a Labour MP, I'm very disappointed with the draconian Anti-protest proposals being pushed by the government. While today's by the government. While today's proposals have not come under the radar through secondary legislation, radar through secondary legislation, as the Tory government tried when in power before they were ultimately defeated in court, ultimately defeated in court, today's amendment 312 has sneakily come through the back door from the Lords, leaving MPs with no opportunity for scrutiny, debate or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vote. I give way. For giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the hon. Member agree with me that the vague wording could me that the vague wording could lead a police force to ban, for example, a pride protest three months after a farmer's protest? months after a farmer's protest? And there's no there's no clarity on whether this is a damaging

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protest, just a cumulative protest. Hon. Friend makes a very valid point. And some of the issues that have been raised by civil liberty organisations that have been disputed by the Minister in this House this afternoon. This means that many colleagues here today will be relying on the government's reassurances that these proposals strike a fair balance between permitting protests and preventing disruption, without being given the time to consider what this really means. I ask them to heed my words closely.

The suffragettes protested for decades for women to win the right to vote. It took years of disruption and fighting a patriarchal system for them to win the historic gains we all benefit from. And who would condemn their action or argue their process should have been made less impactful. They struggle for women's liberation harder and longer. Looking back on their fight, it is inconceivable that we would support a restriction on their struggle on the basis of cumulative disruption. It was exactly this process of sustained pressure that won women the vote.

The same applies to the fight to bring down the evil anti apartheid regime, where I was proud to cut my political teeth as a young activist in Liverpool. There we occupied council buildings and universities. We raised money, organised boycotts of goods, sport and culture. We marched hell street stores and mass demonstrations until that evil regime fell. Another victory of the powerless over the powerful, made possible by sustained action and protest. And without sustained protest, we would not have the hard won employment rights.

Though many of us many benefit from today. If this amendment goes unopposed, it will have an impact on many protests, including picket lines for workers striking to bend their pay, terms and conditions, and the hugely popular peaceful Anti-genocide marches for Palestine. The police have already had significant powers to restrict these, and we have seen in recent months the legal uncertainty and overreach of the state. Today's amendment risks risks. Entrenching that even further protest is not a privilege that police can limit at their whim.

It is a right. Expanding Anti-protest powers will not stop people from protesting against injustice. It will just lead to more of the scenes that we saw this weekend, where over 500 people were arrested for peacefully holding cardboard placards. And as we've heard, the High Court has has identified the action taken by this government as illegal and not just an assault on our civil liberties, but a massive waste of overstretched police resources. Protest is part of the lifeblood of the labour movement, and of every movement that has expanded rights, protections and dignity.

And I implore colleagues across the House today to reject the vast expansion of Anti-protest powers and reject Lords Amendment 312. And I would ask the Minister, in his summing up to explain why this House has not been afforded the parliamentary right to scrutinise this draconian piece of legislation, and what consideration has been given to a future government that might be less benevolent of our fundamental rights? And if the government is confident about this amendment, then please put it to the vote.
17:02
John Milne Portrait John Milne MP (Horsham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Mill. and I'm speaking to amendment six and 333 regarding fly-tipping and vape shop closures, respectively. On the face of it, they're very On the face of it, they're very different issues, but they do share a common thread, which is that communities are being undermined by communities are being undermined by people who think that rules don't apply to them, and victims are being left to shoulder the burden. As chair of the APPG for Rural Business and MP for Horsham, which is a largely rural area, I hear constantly about rural crime, theft, livestock, worrying, machinery, break ins.

But one topic comes up, keeps coming up, coming up, and that is Fly-tipping. The Country Land and Business Association reports that a single incident can routinely cost a farmer over £10,000 to clear. How bizarre is that? Imagine ourselves in the position of the farmer. A criminal dumps a lorry load of waste on your field. You call the authorities and you have to foot the bill. This is offensive to anyone's sense of natural justice. In my own area. I give credit to Horsham District Council for working constructively with farmers to deal with dumping incidents, but even the best councils have to operate within a law which is highly dysfunctional.

As it stands, the NFU, the Countryside Alliance, the ESA, Suez Recycling and Recovery all of them are saying the same thing that waste crime is spiralling. An astonishing one fifth of England's waste that's 38 million tonnes is thought to be being disposed of illegally. This is a big issue and successive governments have failed to rise to the challenge. The cost to the economy is estimated to be between 1 and 2 billion a year. The cost to individual landowners is even higher from their point of view.

The amendment before us will go US will go some way to mitigate this situation. It makes clearing fly-tip waste a duty of the local authority, not the landowner. It ensures the criminal and therefore the tipper pays and not the victim. It strengthens collaboration between police councils and the Environment Agency so offenders cannot slip between jurisdictions. In turn, councils need to be funded by government for their increased role in enforcement and to protect them against unrecoverable costs. Clearly this is an extra spending pressure on government, but perhaps that will serve to focus the government's mind on a problem which has, I would say, been overloo years.

I would also like to put on rural crime more broadly, needs more focus in my farmer surveys and surgeries, farmers are struggling with crimes such as sheep, sheep worrying with dead lambs, injured ewes, even the loss of an alpaca. Too often, operators on the 101 line simply don't understand why this matters. We need better training, better data collection and a better grasp of rural realities. Turning now to the amendment regarding vape shops and closure notices. And here the same logic applies.

Enforcement must be effective and it must be swift. Under current rules, a closure notice can only shut up and shut up an illegal shot shop for 48 hours. Many police and crime commissioners have said this is simply not long enough to prepare their case. Some shops open up again almost immediately, continuing to sell illegal vapes or trading as fronts for criminal gangs. As it stands, illegal traders are undermining the health of the entire high street. An amendment 333 offers a practical fix.

It increases closure notice from 48 hours to seven days, giving police and councils the crucial time to build a proper case. It allows courts to impose closure orders for up to 12 months, renewable instead of the current three, and it gives local authorities more realistic powers to act against shops they already know are selling illicit vapes or targeting children. Public faith in the justice system is being undermined because people feel justice is either too slow or the authorities lack sufficient powers to deal with modern crime.

The criminals, sadly, are innovating much more swiftly than the justice system. So these two amendments have a common principle at at heart, victims should not pay for crimes committed against them, and authorities must be equipped to act decisively when they know that wrongdoing is taking place. These amendments go some way to help, so I really urge the government to support them. Thank you.
17:06
Rachel Taylor Portrait Rachel Taylor MP (North Warwickshire and Bedworth, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that feeling safe is so important for my constituents in important for my constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, and that's why this bill is so important for so many people today. I'm immensely proud to welcome the government's amendment to equalise hate crime law. Lords amendment 301. I propose this amendment in the House of Commons, and I'd like to thank my hon. Friend for Penistone and Stocksbridge and my hon. Friend for Burton and Uttoxeter for their support, along with the support of over 100 colleagues from across the House, I also welcome the government's introduction of a new offence of misogynistic hate.

I got into politics to fight section 28 and the hate it created. Section 28 attacked the right of people like me to live openly. It stigmatised lesbian, gay and bisexual people. It pushed us out of public life. It made us fair game for attack. I got into politics to fight that cruel law and everything it represented. Today, I'm proud to continue that fight for all LGBT people, for disabled people and for victims of misogyny. Our politics is becoming increasingly hateful and divisive and the impacts are heartbreaking.

Less than half of LGBT people feel safe holding their partner's hand in public. As many as 70% of disability hate crimes go unreported. Girlguiding UK revealed that 1 in 10 girls have missed school to avoid sexual harassment. Hatred towards women and girls, disabled and LGBT people threatens our entire society. It creates fear, fear to go outside, fear to speak up, fear to be seen. It silences people. It makes all of us afraid. Lords amendment 301 now shows that whether it's your race or religion, your sexual orientation or your gender identity, or indeed your sex or disability, that Britain is a country that will not tolerate hate, that all hatred is equal, that all those who commit vile acts of hatred will face the same grave consequences.

Because of this amendment, victims of hate will have more time to report crimes for victims who may not feel safe reporting hate crime instantly. This is a lifeline and perpetrators will get tougher sentences, higher maximum penalties aggravated offences are often pursued in the Crown Court, with better victim support available, including the ability to keep victims apart from defendants. I know that there are some who thrive on the politics of hate today. I'm proud the Labour government has stood firmly against hate in all its forms.

We will halve violence against women and girls in a decade. We will fight homophobia and transphobia, and we will confront ableism and hate against disabled people. In addition to tougher action on hate crime, I welcome the measures on anti-social behaviour, fly tipping, knife crime, illegal trading, intimate image abuse, violent pornography and those exploiting children. This is a government clearly standing with victims, creating safer communities and safer streets. I recommend this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill to the House Sammy Wilson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I first of all say that I do support the amendments on Fly-tipping? I think that some of Fly-tipping? I think that some of them don't go far enough. And when we look at the extent of this crime, we look at the extent of this crime, whether it's on small scale, where individual throw waste onto other individual throw waste onto other people's land or on the scale that we have seen given evidence that
17:10
Sammy Wilson Portrait Rt Hon Sammy Wilson MP (East Antrim, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
the APPG on woods and trees have holds wood, where the fly-tipping holds wood, where the fly-tipping was so extensive, parts of the wood were actually cut down. Then dumping was undertaken over a six month period, and the clear up bill is estimated at around £15 million. is estimated at around £15 million. I mean this this extends fly-tipping extends to such an extent and of course, has been pointed out. It's the victims who are forced to pay for it. And I think that the amendments which the Lord House of Lords have put forward at least help to impose some penalties on those who engage in this activity, also support amendment 35, which relates to the sale of knives in Northern Ireland.

And given the discussion we had yesterday in this House about the the Southport inquiry, I think that we know that there needs to be greater control of the sale of knives to people who would use them for evil purposes, but I want to particularly deal with amendment three, five seven, which was moved in the other place by the former leader of my party, Baroness Foster, who of course has from the Northern Ireland context has a great deal of experience and we, all of us who live in Northern Ireland on a monthly basis, see how terrorism is glorified, glorified not by some dark individuals who lurk in the background, but glorified even by government Ministers and indeed by the First Minister in Northern Ireland.

And the whole point of it, of course, in glorifying terrorism, is to ensure that even when terrorists are under pressure militarily, their evil message can still be perpetrated, can still be spread. And the poison which they wish to inject into society, whether it's through physical violence or through using people and getting people to support them, that glorification of terrorism is important. But I want to say to the House, this is not just an issue for Northern Ireland, which experienced years of terrorism and which still has the legacy of that terrorism.

This is an issue which increasingly is affecting GB. We see it on the streets almost on a monthly basis as well, where we have marches glorifying terrorism, intimidating certain sections of the population and where many people in the in GB, especially from the Jewish community, now feel it can't even walk the streets. Indeed, surveys have shown, and this should be a worrying thing for everyone in this House. Surveys have shown that now 1 in 5 people in GB believe that in certain circumstances political violence is justified.

How is that situation arisen? It has arisen because we allow the glorification of terrorism. The cause is just the people who do it are heroes. They make great sacrifices. They have had no alternative. Those are the kind of arguments I hear in Northern Ireland all the time, but they also hear them now. And for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some of those who promote terrorism in GB. The member give. Way, I will certainly. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The member makes a very valid point. Does he agree with me that defeating terrorism is not just about the physical defeat of terrorism, it's about ensuring that terrorism, it's about ensuring that through the glorification of terrorism, the narrative of terrorism is not in the future terrorism is not in the future allowed to radicalise other people. And isn't that point up the inadequacy of the current Terrorism Act we've had in section one for 20 years, a provision against the glorification of terrorism? We haven't had one prosecution under it in Northern Ireland yet.

We've had endless glorification of terrorism. Isn't that put the focus on the other House's amendment as to why that amendment is necessary to make it easier to secure prosecution when we are flying in the face of self-evident glorification of terrorism.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And my hon. Friend is absolutely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And my hon. Friend is absolutely right. And the whole point of the amendment is to ensure that there amendment is to ensure that there is not this ability to keep on perpetrating the terrorist message, perpetrating the terrorist message, because it's not just a physical defeat of terrorism. We need, but defeat of terrorism. We need, but the ideological and the the the arguments which they make to ensure that if they have had to pause their campaign now, or if they haven't achieved all their objectives, now, they can ensure that the poison is injected into the next generation, who will have justification for carrying on what they they want to them to do and to achieve their goal at the end of the day.

And I've got to say, when I look at the sectarianism of politics here in GB and the way in which we we are finding increasingly the. The narrative of politics in GB is being infiltrated by the kind of sectarian arguments and and sectarian division. All of us should be worried that the law is inadequate to deal with those who have evil intent. And I know that people argue, oh, but people have to be allowed to say what they want.

And we live in a democracy, and we've got to have freedom of speech and everything else. That's fine. But when that freedom of speech is abused and the law prevents us from stopping it being abused, then we should be concerned and we should be concerned that I mean, for example, I met with Jewish students recently, 49% of Jewish students have heard within either directly spoken to them or in their presence, have heard the glorification of Hamas terrorism and what was done on October the 11th.

Now, we've we've got to we've got to bear in mind, therefore, that this is something which is prevalent in our society. It's prevalent in Northern Ireland. And it's not just a case of perpetrating the terrorist message, it's the impact it has on those who are the victims of terrorism as well. And the the the anger which that causes and the impact that has on their lives, that people in public positions can be allowed to stand up, praise the actions which were taken by those who killed their loved ones and maimed members of their family, and be told and be able to argue, oh, I'm proud of the people who did it.

I honour the people who did it. The people who did it had no alternative. So apart from the impact on the the victims, it also sends a message to those who are listening to that, that maybe this is something which was not a bad thing anyway. And if the security situation arises in the future, will those people, young people, be easily recruited into doing the same acts? Now, the Minister has made an argument that this this amendment would prevent, and I think in her response to me, I scribbled it down, and I hope we've got it right, that this would prevent legitimate debate on historical events.

Now, reading the amendment, nothing can be further from the truth, because here's what the amendment says that the the offence would relate would be would occur if it related to one or the comments related to one or more organisations which are, at the time of the statement prescribed. So it is. It does not prevent people from saying this happened in the past. This was an event which is a historical. And we have debate around it.

This offence would only occur where the statement was made in respect of organisations which are currently deemed to be dangerous organisations and are prescribed. And the second thing is, and it glorifies the commission or preparation. Well, in the past, the future or generally of such acts or offences. So the Minister's argument against this amendment is not correct. It does not open the floodgates for preventing discussion on, on, on issues which may be controversial, but and which people may take objection to.

It's very, very specific, and I would urge the House to support this amendment, not just because of the continual hurt which is experienced by people in Northern Ireland on almost a monthly basis, where commemorations of murderers are held and public figures go and give support to them, but also in the interests of society right across the United Kingdom, where we can see that terrorists and terrorist supporting organisations are using public platforms to glorify terrorism, and that has an impact on the victims.

But it also has an impact on young people who are vulnerable, who are easily manipulated, and who can be persuaded that somehow or other terrorism is is something which is normal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Asato thank you, Madam Speaker. I welcome the bill for us today. It contains a multitude.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contains a multitude. Of crucial measures. To. Tackle issues, from. Non-consensual, intimate images

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Non-consensual, intimate images to retail. Worker assault, child criminal exploitation to knife crime. And so I thank the Minister and the Ministers for violence against women and girls and victims, their team and the whole government for their work on this bill. I would in particular, like to express my gratitude to the government for accepting the principle of amendments. I first laid to this bill last year, and which have been ably taken up more recently by Baroness Burton. In the other place, government amendments today to Lords amendments two six, three, 264 and 265 rightly accept that online pornography is a key driver of violence against women and girls, child sexual abuse and commercial sexual exploitation.

We know that online pornography is driven by a profit maximising algorithm that encourages addiction.
17:22
Jess Asato Portrait Jess Asato MP (Lowestoft, Labour)
-
-
Like with any other addiction, it can spiral addicts find themselves can spiral addicts find themselves having to move towards increasingly extreme content, including illegal extreme content, including illegal content, to get the same fix, or they find it offline in real world actions. And we know the impact actions. And we know the impact that has. Because pornography is not just entertainment, it has not just entertainment, it has become a form of education. It trains brains to link endorphin and dopamine production to violent, degrading, and in some cases, paedophilic adjacent content.

It promotes the idea that pain for women is pleasure. For men, it instils the notion that to be close to a woman is to dominate or degrade her. And from Wayne Cousins to Dominique Pellico, we know how the consumption of online sexualised violence can turn into offline violence. I therefore welcome clauses 105 and 106 that build upon my proposed amendment NC 102 from Report stage that will criminalise the possession or publication of strangulation or suffocation in pornography. This is vital given 36% of women under the age of 34 have been strangled during sex and strangulation is now the second most common cause of stroke in young women.

I also welcome government amendments before us today that build upon mine and Baroness Burton's amendments to ban pornographic content that features step incest or performers role playing as children. Content like this that sexualises children with very young looking performers dressed in school uniforms, holding lollipops and stuffed toys, very clearly promotes a sexual interest in children. Two pieces of research from 2024 found that between 43 and 63% of those who have committed offences relating to child sexual abuse material began by habitually watching so-called barely legal content.

It is right through the government's amendment to Lords Amendment 265 that this gateway to paedophilia is swung firmly shut. We know that CSAM consumption and the further child sexual abuse it can so often encourage largely originates from exposure to online content that is happened across, incidentally, rather than with purpose offences for online child sexual abuse increased by 26% in 2024. Content that depicts step incest, for example, with a step father and stepdaughter. Likewise eroticizes and encourages the sexual abuse of children and those for whom we have or should have a caring responsibility.

Sadly, half of all sexual abuse cases against children are perpetrated by a stepparent or family member. And given we are increasingly living in an age of blended families, permitting the depiction of this abuse is particularly pernicious. Pornography, of course, also has an impact on those who appear in it, and we know that women are all too often coerced or trafficked into the industry. I therefore welcome the government's amendment in lieu of Lords Amendment 264, which builds on my amendment and that of Baroness Gary Burton, to grant the government the power to require pornography sites to proactively verify the age and consent of those featured on it, rather than just waiting for content to be reported.

This amendment will also, crucially, grant powers to allow performers to withdraw their consent retroactively so that they are not forever trapped into a life in the pornography industry. By pictures and videos from perhaps even decades prior, it is now of the utmost importance that the government sticks to its timetable to deliver this, and works at pace across departments and with experts from the sector to deliver on it. I'm incredibly grateful to the tireless work of UK Feminista, Barnardo's CSAS and the APPG for commercial sexual exploitation on these particular issues and of course, to Ministers who have worked constructively with me and many members across this House to ensure that we get these vital changes within this bill.

I am also grateful to the government for engaging similarly constructively with me on my amendment today to the Lords Amendment 300, which relates to the proposed statutory definition of so-called honour based abuse. Along with the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, I was honoured last year to host a screening of the powerful channel four documentary The Push, alongside the mother of Fauzia Javed, who was failed through a series of missed opportunities by statutory bodies to identify her as a victim of honour based abuse.

And she was pushed off Arthur's Seat by her husband, killing her and her unborn child. That is why it is very welcome that this bill introduces a definition of honour based abuse. It represents an important step forward and a great win for all the victims, and organisations have been campaigning for this for many years. Nevertheless, ion organisations that work in this space, like karma Nirvana are concerned that the definition as it stands falls short of fully capturing honour based abuse. This amendment only references a person, whereas we know that honour based abuse is often perpetrated by multiple people as part of a family or community, a feature which distinguishes it from other forms of domestic abuse.

I have therefore proposed the addition of person or persons to amendment 300 in order to reflect this, a tiny change and an amendment also sought by Baroness Sugg. In the other place, I recognise that some may argue that this is already covered by the Interpretation Act, but having spent many years in the domestic abuse sector, I know that overstretched and under-resourced multi-agency professionals, particularly the police, may interpret legislation literally and act only within the explicit wording to be set out in amendment 300.

Some have also argued the use of persons would be contrary to the usage and interpretations within other criminal law contexts, and yet there are many examples of offences that relate to things like organised crime, gangs and riot, which reference persons including in the Serious Crime Act and indeed in this legislation before us today, a definition for honour based abuse is the culmination of years of campaigning, and I remember working with many people still in this House to get it included within the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which sadly, it was not.

I would invite the Minister, in her remarks to clarify that it is the government's intent that this amendment should cover multiple perpetrators as well as a sole perpetrator, and I would appreciate her and her colleague's continued commitment to work with organisations like Karma Nirvana to ensure that the statutory guidance accurately reflects the true nature of honour based abuse. Alongside funding for the training of multi-agency professionals, which will undoubtedly be required if this definition stays as it is. Thank you.

John McDonnell.
17:30
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. Can I wholeheartedly support the hon. Member for support the hon. Member for Lowestoft amendment on those of us who have dealt with honour cases who have dealt with honour cases recognise the family involvement. th recognition that it is persons, not recognition that it is persons, not person. A large number of speeches now, which I think have been tremendous in setting up the principles with regard to amendment 312 and I support my hon. Friend from Middlesbrough amendment. I don't want to talk about the principles.

I want to talk about the practicalities, really, because I'm worried that when the government rushes to legislate around a particular incident and doesn't provide adequate time for debate and individual votes as well, I think that's when Parliament makes some significant mistakes, as demonstrated in the past. With regard to the Minister reference, the Manchester events that were absolutely tragic and therefore the the demonstrations that took place then, but also the Minister mentioned actually, the powers already exist to deal with those those events, the powers already exist to prevent and restrict demonstrations that are causing such distress.

She also mentioned that actually the cumulative issue is also the cumulative impact is also a factor that police officers need to take into account. So the change here is to simply say that you're required to take cumulative impact. Interesting. And it seems like a simple small step forward. But actually I think it will cause immense problems. I just I think it will place a burden on the police in particular, but also will introduce an element of subjective judgement by a number of senior police officers.

And I just give some examples of that from our own history. In the 1980s, I was involved in the anti-apartheid movement, the City of London branch, and we held for two years a permanent demonstration outside South Africa House. I can remember being there singing Christmas carols, and on Christmas Day itself, and it was disruptive. People were arrested for individual offences, but that was the whole point. And the reason we were there is because we were there because we said we would not leave until Nelson Mandela was released.

And at that point in time in this House, we were condemned for supporting a terrorist and supporting a terrorist organisation called ANC. These days, it would have held up the banners that we held up. Then we probably would be arrested as well. The other example I give is in, I think it was 1985. I was involved in the organisation of the People's March for jobs and the group of workers, unemployed workers marched from the north all the way to London, and my job was to prepare for their arrival in London.

But in every town and city they were met with a demonstration and it was disruptive at many on many occasions. Is that cumulative? Yes it is. The other issue for me as well is I think this is largely targeted, unfortunately, at the Palestine Solidarity Committee demonstrations in London, I've been involved in some of the processes of negotiations with the police around each of those demonstrations. I've been on virtually every one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

over two years now. I've been Advising those who are going into negotiations and also during the negotiations as well, the the negotiations as well, the organisations, so that members understand the what happens is that understand the what happens is that the date is identified months in advance and then as the date gets nearer, discussions take place with nearer, discussions take place with the police and there are severe placed upon where the route of the placed upon where the route of the march.

The timing of the march. This issue of synagogues has come up. And what's happened is, is that I don't think there's ever been a synagogue within half a mile of the march. But the demonstrators themselves have said will adjust the times. So it doesn't in any way interfere with any service. Then the negotiations that that go on, and it's a thorough process. But I have to say, my experience of that whole process now, and I don't say this lightly, I've lost confidence in the judgement of the senior Metropolitan Police officers, and I say that because I was involved in the some of the discussions around the demonstrations in which Ben Jamal and Chris Neiman were were arrested.

And I found then that the use of the restrictions then were deliberately provocative. And what's been said in court since then has been disingenuous, because I was there on the spot. I saw what happened. In fact, the next day I was pulled into the police station the next day and interviewed as a as a as a result of the events that day. And can I also say I, I do lose, I have lost confidence because we were assured that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and his senior team would consult with the wider communities in advance of the planning of these demonstrations so that views could be taken on board and with the Jewish community in particular.

But I have to say, the consultation with the Jewish community has largely been interpreted as the consultation with the Board of Deputies, the Board of Deputies represent a certain section of the Jewish community. In fact, they've split 37 members of the board last year with. Expressed their concern about the behaviour of the Board of Deputies in the way that they were expressing their position with regard to Gaza. But I on the demonstrations, I start the march on the with the Jewish bloc I have marching beside me, Stephen Kappos, the Holocaust survivor who became quite a famous architect.

They've never been consulted. The organisations in the Jewish bloc have never been consulted about the march themselves, the haredi community, the Jewish community, the largest Jewish community, particularly in London. The Orthodox Jewish community never been consulted in this. So I, I sorry, I've lost confidence in the assurances that we've been given that their their wider consultations with the community overall. And I have to say, in this last few weeks. I've lost so much confidence in the judgement of the Metropolitan Police senior officers because every year, for decades, every year, for decades, we've had the march in London for the Palestinians with regard to Nakba, Nakba.

This is the commemoration of when the Palestinians were forcibly removed from their own land. And that means catastrophe. And there's a march in London every year around about the date of March the 16th. And this year it was going ahead as normal with the planning. The discussions were taking place, and then the police said, no, you can't go on your normal route. Why? Because they've allocated that to Tommy Robinson. Now, we saw what happened last year in London with regard to Tommy Robinson's march.

There was violence, there was attacks on police and individuals. And yet the Palestinian demonstration has been displaced for this group of far right, in many instances, thugs. I think that demonstrated to me the the bias that there was within the Metropolitan Police, senior officers. And I actually believe in many ways it demonstrates how they could start interpreting the legislation that goes through today in how they approach this concept of cumulative impact. I just want to say this every move towards in any way restricting peaceful protest, there's always a risk if you deny the people the right to peaceful protest.

What we've seen in the past is that people will write, and we've seen that on a number of occasions. So there's a risk in this legislation. There's a risk in this legislation that not only do we undermine that historic, real commitment that we've given to democratic, peaceful protest in the past, that's achieved so much in our country as a result of the reforms that they've demanded. We've put in peril that those rights. But in addition to that, we could be acting with this legislation in a provocative way that undermines the peaceful protest that we want to see and could result in, as I say, the potential of riots.

And I think that's why we needed more time to debate. I think that's why we needed more time to discuss the issue and a specific right to vote on this amendment. That's not going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to happen tonight, and I think we'll regret it in the long term. I'll give way. I'm grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. To my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he share my giving way. Does he share my concern that whilst Lord MacDonald River has been commissioned to River has been commissioned to carry out a review into what is carry out a review into what is quite a complex public order architecture, that we are taking a measure in this arena without the benefit of that review. And surely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

isn't that putting the cart before the horse? I think I fully agree, and he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I fully agree, and he made the point earlier, and I think that's a completely rational, that's a completely rational, understandable point. What adds to my anxiety is that in the normal run of things, on a serious matter run of things, on a serious matter like this, you would introduce the matter within the Commons. There'd be a Commons proper debate. It would then go off to the Lords. It will come back to us. I feel we're just being bounced today, and I didn't expect that of my government on this sort of issue because it's so important and it has consequences for so much for us in the future, particularly our movement, which was based upon protests from the very beginning.

And we seem to be undermining our historic tradition and commitment to the role that we've played historically, and one that will almost inevitably will need to play

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the future. Mary Kelly Foy thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. This bill that is serious and worthy of support, measures to worthy of support, measures to tackle shop thefts and protect retail workers, strengthen the retail workers, strengthen the response to exploitation and abuse, and deal with knife crime. They're
17:41
Mary Kelly Foy Portrait Mary Kelly Foy MP (City of Durham, Labour)
-
-
and deal with knife crime. They're all important. But amendment 312 raises a very different prospect. It's not really about violent disorder or intimidation. It's about making it easier to restrict repeat the protest. Amendment 312 would require the police, when deciding whether to impose conditions on a protest, to take into account what is called cumulative disruption. In practice, that means not just the disruption caused by the protests in front of them, but disruption said to arise from other protests in the same area that were held or being held or intended to be held.

It doesn't have to be the same organiser. It doesn't even have to be the same cause. And that should concern every member of this House, because effective protest is very often cumulative. Democratic campaigning is nearly always repetitive. They come back again and again. That's true of the trade union movement. It's true of the suffragettes. It's true of the civil rights tradition more broadly. The cumulative nature of protest is not a flaw in our democracy. It's often the means by which democracy speaks.

And that's why amendment 312 is so dangerous. In principle. It takes something that's always been central to democratic struggle, persistence, and starts to treat it as a problem to be managed down. It turns the repeated exercise of democratic freedom into a reason for state restriction. And once this House accepts that logic, we move into very difficult ground indeed, because laws like this are never drafted only for the government of the day. They remain on the statute book.

They pass into other hands, and we would be naive not to ask how a future hard right government might use a power like this. As the TUC have warned, road cumulative disruption tests could also too easily be used against trade union demonstrations against long running industrial disputes, against repeated pickets, rallies and marches, and against the kind of organised working class protest that has been central to the labour movement and to winning rights in this country. And that's not alarmism.

It's exactly why Parliament should be careful about creating broad powers that can later be wielded by Ministers and authorities, with far less respect for civil liberties. Peaceful protest is not an inconvenience to be tolerated only once. It's a democratic right and one of the clearest tests of whether we truly believe in that right is whether we still defend it when it is persistent, visible and effective. And that was true of the Chartists demanding political reform, or the matchgirls and dockers fighting for dignity at work.

The anti-apartheid movement that refused to give up, and the suffragettes who were crucial in securing the vote for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

women. As well. I'm grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and she's making an for giving way, and she's making an important speech on the right to protest. But does she accept that many members of the Jewish community feel intimidated by regular marches, by the pro-Palestinian brigade, who demonstrate loudly and not always demonstrate loudly and not always peacefully, in the same area week after week? How does she believe that that community can be protected from that intimidation?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I agree that some protests could feel intimidating to protests could feel intimidating to towards people in terms of the Palestine protests, they have never, Palestine protests, they have never, ever protested outside of a synagogue. They don't protest outside mosques either. So there's outside mosques either. So there's no reason with proper police protections that are already there, that the Jewish community should that the Jewish community should feel intimidation. But in fact, the fact is that this goes far beyond the Jewish community.

For all of the reasons that I've outlined there. Would we agree that and it's been said here before that we shouldn't protest again and again for women's. The women's right to vote for trade unions to to to win their rights against unscrupulous employers. Of course not. So I think in their name and in the name of the whole Labour movement, amendment three 112 ought to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rejected. Chris Hinchliff thank. You, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are many important proposals before are many important proposals before us today, and I congratulate the Minister for bringing them forward. Minister for bringing them forward. I wholeheartedly support the government's efforts to tackle anti-social behaviour, offensive anti-social behaviour, offensive weapons, fly-tipping, exploitation of children and appalling sexual of children and appalling sexual offences. However, amendment 312, which was introduced in the Other
17:46
Chris Hinchliff Portrait Chris Hinchliff MP (North East Hertfordshire, Labour)
-
-
place, dangerously infringes on civil liberties in this country. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is incumbent on all of us here to jealously guard the rights of our constituents, and any restriction of their civil liberties should only be accepted by this House on the basis of overwhelming evidence the basis of overwhelming evidence that such proposals would strengthen, rather than undermine the health of our democracy. Yet on the health of our democracy. Yet on this occasion we have had next to no evidence whatsoever since these significant changes were only introduced after the original passage of this bill through this House, which is ultimately a pretty sorry way to treat representative parliamentary democracy.

Madam Deputy Speaker, Amendment 312 is out of step with the best traditions of this country and of the Labour Party, which has always existed to redress the balance of power in favour of ordinary people. The Chartists, suffragettes, the organisers of the Kinder Scout trespass, those who stood against fascism at Cable Street, the campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Jarrow Crusade. These were protest movements and campaigns of direct action, supported and led by giants of our party that we should celebrate, not disown.

They were advancing Labour's historic mission to wrest power from the established status quo so that ordinary people have a real say over their lives. This amendment stands in contradiction of that impulse, and risks shifting the balance of power in our society towards the very vested interests we ought to be taking on the corrosive influence of the rich and powerful runs through every corner of our politics. It muddies policy making and leaves our constituents asking whether decisions are made in their interests or in those of the last donor who paid £2,000 a head at a lobbyist curry night.

It. If tweaks are to be made to defend our democracy and prevent disruption to the life of our communities, this would be a far more apt target than the civil liberties of our constituents today. Amendment 312 is opposed across the labour movement and civil society by many organisations which shared the progressive instincts that should be guiding this Labour government, which is hardly surprising given the way this legislation is drafted. It is vague, with no definition of what is meant by serious disruption to the life of the community.

It is widely drawn with no necessary link between the events considered to be cumulatively disruptive. It doesn't define the area in question or the time frame, and has blindingly obvious potential to be abused. These proposals could easily be used to restrict protests, simply because they are considered inconvenient because of their persistence, and not because of their content or messages. And as my right hon. Friend for Hayes and Harlington pointed out, this will potentially place substantial political pressure on the decision making of senior police officers.

And I just want to address a point made by several hon. Members in the debate today about the concerns around intimidation of specific minority groups, and I do understand those concerns, and they are legitimate, but the legislation is not drafted tightly to address that problem. It is far too vague, far too broad to coherently address that point. That is not what we will achieve by passing this. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, since we are discussing notions of cumulative impact, whatever the stated intentions today, when these plans are considered alongside recent restrictions on the right to protest against animal testing, a legally contested prescription and other legislation that I assume would mean any of my constituents disobeying these plans would not have the right to a trial by their peers, assertions by the government that they hold the right to protest, sacrosanct are wearing so thin as to be clearly transparent.

The case for amendment 312 has not been made. We should not be asked to vote for it. En bloc alongside other important but entirely separate changes, and I urge Ministers to drop these plans for good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Members who have participated in the debate should be making their way back to the chamber, because the Minister will be on her feet the Minister will be on her feet shortly. I expect the front benches will be communicating that message Witherden.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Witherden. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall keep my remarks brief now. I welcome the vast majority of this I welcome the vast majority of this bill, but given the serious implications for our fundamental implications for our fundamental rights. Amendment 312 on cumulative disruption should be given adequate time to be properly scrutinised and debated. This amendment 312 could be used by future far right governments to effectively stamp out protests and even trade union pickets altogether.

And we know, we all know, that reform UK would repeal the Employment Rights Act, but I doubt they would repeal what amendment 312 would allow. I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East in his motion to disagree with the Lords in their disagree with the Lords in their amendment. Sustained peaceful protest is central to the protest is central to the achievement of democratic change.
17:52
17:52
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I welcome the broad agreement across the House with, I think the across the House with, I think the great majority of the Lords amendments, particularly those brought forward by the government. They further strengthened the powers of the police, prosecutors and partner agencies to tackle violence against women and girls, online harms and hate crimes. As regards the government's non. As regards the non-government amendments carried in the Lords, we have sought to engage with these constructively.

As I set out in my opening remarks. In many instances, we support the intent behind these amendments and the concerns we have raised are about their workability, not about the underlying objectives. In that spirit, let me turn directly to some of the points raised in the debate today. Turning to the opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West seeks to disagree with a Lords amendment 301. Let me be clear. This is not a move by the government to police lawful speech, and these provisions do not criminalise the expression of lawful opinions.

Extending the aggravated offences does not create any new offence. What this amendment does is extend an existing aggravated offences framework, which already operates in relation to race and religion, to cover additional characteristics, namely sexual orientation, transgender identity, disability and sex. This framework applies only where specific criminal offences, offences of violence, public order, criminal damage, harassment or stalking have already been committed and where hostility is proven to the criminal standard. This is not about creating new speech crimes.

It is about ensuring that where criminal conduct has taken place, then that conduct is driven by hostility towards a protected characteristic. The law can properly recognise the additional harm caused. That is a really important distinction freedom of expression, legitimate debate and strongly held views remain protected. But where someone commits an existing criminal offence and does so because of hostility towards the person's identity, it is right that the criminal law should be able to reflect that seriousness through higher maximum penalties.

The hon. Member opposite is simply wrong. If he thinks that the same end can be achieved through sentencing guidelines. That is about equality of protection, not about policing of lawful speech. And I want to come now to a some of the measures that were debated around the epidemic of everyday crime. I want to come first to amendment 333 around closure powers, because this was raised by a number of members in this place. I want to pay tribute in particular to the dodgy shops campaign that is being run by my hon.

Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes and Leigh and Atherton, and I agree wholeheartedly with the aims of their campaign and agree wholeheartedly that we, if we don't tackle dodgy shops, it's very hard to do the wider, wider work of bringing back our high streets. So I completely share the concerns that were raised about the rise of illegality affecting so many of our high streets. And it is exactly for that reason that the Home Office has established the cross-Government High Streets Illegality Taskforce, which will be backed by £10 million a year for the next three years.

So that's £30 million in total. The taskforce is already working at pace to develop a strategic long term policy response to money laundering and associated illegality on our high streets, including other forms of economic crime, tax evasion, illegal working and tackling the systemic vulnerabilities that criminals exploit. The initiative was announced in the 2025 Budget and supported, as I said, by significant funding, strengthening the closure powers available to local partners in tackling criminal behaviour on the high street is part of that mix, and our amendment in lieu accepts that and will enable us to go ahead and do it.

Obviously, the push from my hon. Friends is to do it at pace and in terms of the consultation that we've agreed to do on closure notices, we sorry, closure orders, we will, of course, work as fast as we can. And I hear the message loud and clear that we need to go fast on this, but it is for the purposes of making sure we get this right, making sure we make the distinction between private and public property and and the complications that might come from that that we I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. Yes. So the chart, the chart Trading Standards Institute, many of the Standards Institute, many of the agencies responsible for dealing with talk about the need not only to extend our potential, extend depending on how tonight goes notices, but sorry orders, but also notices, but sorry orders, but also notices I that 48 hour window to give seven days if we went with this amendment so that those papers can be put in place. So these shops can be put in place.

So these shops don't have the ability to dodgy shops, as she puts it, have the ability to reopen before the order can be put in place. It doesn't seem to appear in the amendment. Will she be looking at notices as well as orders?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And can I thank him for his intervention? So we have already, on the face of this bill, we are already extending the time from up to 72 hours, so there is already an to 72 hours, so there is already an extension. The point of the notice is so that you can get to court and apply for a closure. So we are giving that extra time to do just that. We are also extending the that. We are also extending the powers of to rsls registered social landlords so that they can also be part of that.

So we are already taking action on that. Of course, we will always keep these things under review, and we will always consider what is said to us, even from the opposition front benches. But I think the amendment today is dealing just with closure orders, and that is what we are dealing with today, and we have committed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. We will consult on this, but I will. So the the alternate amendment,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the the alternate amendment, the argument, the pushback from the Lords is actually around notices and orders 72 hours. The reason and orders 72 hours. The reason there's a problem with notices is actually that the sitting of courts and how all that falls, that we end and how all that falls, that we end up not getting the order in place. These shops who are agencies have gone through the hoops to close gone through the hoops to close down, then get to reopen.

So 72 hours. I don't think the Chartered Trading Standards Institute would agree with that. I don't think many of the agencies dealing with it would agree with that. I would like to I would like to ask her to go further still than that, and perhaps look at the seven days being put forward by the Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And we will, through our task force that is funded with £30 million, look at a whole range of opportunities. We can do. What I would gently say to the hon. Gentleman is the reason we have Gentleman is the reason we have this situation where people are money laundering and using illegal shops in many different ways on our shops in many different ways on our high streets, is because the previous government failed to do anything about this growing problem. anything about this growing problem.

We have. We have introduced money and action to tackle this problem, and we will also be tackling the huge challenge we have with our high streets more widely. That was left to us by the previous government by introducing a high street strategy that we will bring out in the summer. We are also, of course, dealing with the fact that neighbourhood policing collapsed under the previous government, which has meant that the epidemic of everyday crime is not being tackled as it should be.

I won't give way again on this point and we have already we have already allowed. We have already delivered 3000 additional officers onto our and police PCSOs onto our streets, 3000 into our neighbourhood, and 18% increase in neighbourhood

**** Possible New Speaker ****

policing since we came to power. Yes I will. Thank you very much. Does she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. Does she not accept, though, that when we left government we had. We left 3000 more police officers in post 3000 more police officers in post than when we came into government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than when we came into government. I don't know how many times we have to rehearse this. The previous have to rehearse this. The previous government cut the police by 20,000 and decimated neighbourhood policing. They then had a sudden change of heart and said, we will replace 20,000 police officers, which they recruited with such haste that several forces have have already, including the met. Sadly, I'm just in the middle of a sentence, have sadly recruited people without the proper vetting processes that should have happened.

So by the time the last government left office, they had recruited the 20,000. And how many of them are sitting behind desks? 12,000, 12,000 officers sitting behind desks? And if the right hon. Lady thinks that is where they should be sitting, then that is fine. But we do not believe that. We believe that our officers should be in our neighbourhoods, which is what we are doing. We are also, before I give way again, we are also ensuring that we are getting rid of the burden of bureaucracy that wastes so much police time that built up under her government, and we are freeing up in the next couple of years the equivalent of 3000 full time police officers just by new technology, AI and new processes that will bring this very ancient system that lots of police officers are still working under into the modern age.

But I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way again. The hon. Lady seems to have missed my point completely, which was quite a simple one, really, was quite a simple one, really, which did she not accept that when we left office there were 3000 more police, and when we went in and to police, and when we went in and to the point of policing, does she not accept that under her government and her police and crime and her police and crime commissioner such as Simon Foster, they're actually cutting police stations as well as bobbies.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

stations as well as bobbies. So I. Accept that the there were not by population, but in terms of actual numbers, there were more when they left them, when they came in. But I'll tell you something else that happened. I'll tell you something else that happened in the last two years of the conservative government. How much did shoplifting rise? By 60%. The police. The police are not doing anything. The rise is much slower and the charge rate has gone up 21%, 21%.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is clearly the case that action is more important than the numbers, and under this government we are taking action, which is why, for example, the charge rate on shoplifting has increased by 21%. I shoplifting has increased by 21%. I will make some progress. Fly-tipping was debated by several members. And look, I want to absolutely accept the strength of feeling around Fly-tipping. I think it is repulsive and most of our communities are affected by it.

Whether it's the large fly-tipping in our rural communities that is driven by serious organised crime, whether it's the everyday fly-tipping we see in our cities, we need to do more to tackle it. And this government has published the Waste Act Crime Action Plan, which will make a very substantial difference to how we are approaching waste crime, including actually the government paying for the most egregious sites, removal in parts of the country where we have seen in reports in the press of huge waste sites, we are also committed to forcing fly-tipping and vandals fly-tippers to clean up their mess.

And we are introducing in this bill, if you use your vehicle to fly-tip, you will get nine points potentially on your license, which goes further than I think the opposition had previously suggested. So we are acting as we should. We didn't agree with the Lords amendment that local authorities should have to clear all sites, including private sites. We didn't think that that was something we could put onto local authorities just like that, because of the very significant costs undertaken for that.

But we can assure hon. Members across the House that we are taking significant action on Fly-tipping,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and we will continue to do. I'll give way. Did she tell me why the government is opposed to allowing police officers to seize the vehicles of those vile criminals who fly-tip in communities across the country? Why are they opposed to this amendment that's before them tonight?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them tonight? They're already powers for the seizure of vehicles. That's why it's happened in real life. In my it's happened in real life. In my area, you can seize vehicles and you can crush them. And I think we should be doing more of that when it comes to anti-social behaviour, not less. Moving on, just two other comments that were made by other members. I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gower, who talked about laws amendment 361 and our amendment in lieu to make it legally, make it legally sound.

Obviously, as I said, the government doesn't have a view on this because it's it's an issue around abortion, and that wouldn't be correct. She did ask about when it would come into effect, and I can just tell her that as soon as the bill is commenced upon royal assent, then it will apply from that point going forward. Obviously, decisions in particular cases up till that point are for local police. But I heard what she said. But it will come into effect on royal assent.

I wanted to touch on the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth and her comments about aggravated offences. Just building on what I said to the opposition spokesperson, we are a country that a Shadow Minister. I'm very happy to call him a shadow Minister. Yes, the hon. Lady is Chuntering from the front and I'm very happy to give him his correct, his correct title. Britain is a country that will not tolerate hate and as I said, aggravated offences and as she said, aggravated offences of disability, trans and sex brings those into line with the existing aggravated offences and it will support victims not just in terms of potential sentencing and potential justice.

But it will mean that those victims will get more access to victim support, which I very much welcome. And I'm glad that she does too. Turning to the Member for East Antrim and the glorification of terrorism issue, he's not in his place. I'll come he's not in his place. I'll come back to him. Turning to my friend the Member for Lowestoft, who has been doing so much work on a number of different areas, not least all of the amendments that we see in this bill coming to four from the Lords around porn.

She gave a really powerful speech, I think, about how pain for women is increasingly perceived as equalling pleasure for men, and the need for us to tackle that in so many different ways, because sexualised violence online can become violence in real life. I'm glad that she welcomes the the amendments in terms of step incest. I think that's absolutely right. Also, the amendments in terms of people who are trying to look like children, barely legal content, as she calls it.

And I heard her message in terms of proactively verifying age and consent and making sure the timetable to deliver that comes in as soon as we can. She also talked about honour based abuse, and we understand and agree with her, and of course, with other members who who raised this on the importance of realising that this is often not a single crime, but can be a whole group of people. And we need to make sure that this is absolutely clear in all the training that is done in identifying and responding to this form of abuse.

So alongside the statutory guidance, we are developing additional free learning modules for professionals who work with victims and perpetrators of honour based abuse. This includes a general model module as well as dedicated modules on multi-agency responses. Together, these will strengthen statutory professionals ability to recognise the signs and to manage cases appropriately and safely in practice, and I hope that is reassuring for my hon. Friend. Coming now to the amendment 312, which many members spoke to today. There are a number of things to say on our cumulative Disruption amendment.

First thing to say is to thank the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornley East, who talked, I think, very powerfully about his position, which I respect. I, of course, agree that protest and the right to protest is part of the lifeblood of the labour movement, and that progress is very rarely handed down, if ever, without being campaigned for first. And I understand his concern and the concern of everyone in this House, that we balance the right to protest with the impact that it has.

And we have had many debates in this place on that over the last few years. And the Home Secretary has asked Lord McDonald to review public order legislation and hate crime legislation, because we have had a lot of different pieces of legislation and there is a need, I think, to take a holistic look at that at that legislation and see whether it is right or not. He has not reported yet. He will do within a few months, and we are very much looking forward to what he has to say.

I hope that when he does report, we can consider his recommendations in this place and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that we will, and that we can discuss all of his findings together, and I will. I'm very grateful to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the Minister for giving way, given what she's just said, would it not have she's just said, would it not have been wiser to await the outcome of that review so we could see what that review so we could see what Lord MacDonald's view was of the entire scene opposite this area? Before we go into yet further legislative measures that take move the dial even further. Wouldn't that have been the right course of action?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely understand the point that he is making, and we've point that he is making, and we've discussed it before. As he knows, this announcement that this would this announcement that this would be done was made by the Home Secretary after the Heaton Park attack and the protests that followed that it hasn't come from nowhere. It has been something that nowhere. It has been something that has been debated and talked about and suggested by police and colleagues for some time.

The view of this government was that this was a vehicle that we could put this piece of legislation into, and that we should take the opportunity to do so. And of course, I know that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that decision, but that was the decision that we made because we felt that this was a necessary step, given the situation that we were finding ourselves in. I want to be really clear again about what this does and what it doesn't do.

Marches can only be banned in very, very, very specific circumstances, as happened with the Al-Quds march recently, which was the first time in March had been banned in since 2012. This this amendment will make no difference to that whatsoever. It will make no difference to what can be banned and what cannot be banned in terms of a march and assembly can't be banned at all. There is no legislative basis for banning an assembly. So again, this amendment will make no difference to that at all.

It already is the case that the police, and it has been since 1986, when the Public Order Act was introduced, that the police can consider cumulative disruption when they look at imposing conditions on a protest. A condition could be the time that the protest is allowed to take place. It could be the route that the protest can go down. It could be the number of people allowed in that protest the police have had since 1986. The the ability to consider cumulative disruption when they are looking at whether they should impose conditions.

This amendment means that they have to look at and have to consider the impact of cumulative disruption when they are looking at imposing conditions, I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way, and I note what she just said, and she said the same to our hon. Friend, the Member for Walthamstow Walthamstow Central, that she derives the assessment of that she derives the assessment of cumulative cumulative disruption from the Public Order Act, 1986, and so that the police must consider cumulative disruption, rather than that they can consider cumulative disruption. But the definition of cumulative does not exist in the law. As it stands, the bulk of the text of amendment 312 is indeed creating a definition of cumulative disruptions.

I'd be grateful if she'd clarify where else in the law that definition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

already exists, because it is not in the Public Order Act. And can I thank her for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And can I thank her for the intervention? My point was that the basis of cumulative disruption has been in the in the law from the been in the in the law from the Public Order Act in 1986, in terms of the definition, the police used their discretion and the definition. That is absolutely the case. And That is absolutely the case. And they always have done since 1986, when they have been able to consider this. Now, I will say a couple of things.

On that basis, the police have to balance the rights of freedom of assembly and speech that are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. They have to do that when they are considering what they do with protests. They have to balance those rights and they have to consider those. And if they are going to impose conditions, they have to be done under very specific. Specific areas which might be serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community.

When if this bill is passed and we move forward, I will commit to work with the College of Policing and the MPC to make sure the guidance is as clear as we can be. But the definition of cumulative disruption is just its natural meaning, and the police have had that since, and that power

**** Possible New Speaker ****

since 1986. Sorry, could I just do one. More time? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just on on that. If she's going to consult with the College of Policing and others, where is the Policing and others, where is the role for this House to to have its voice in that discussion? Because there are many people here who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there are many people here who would like to positively input into that discussion. You can do it. Well, the role of this House is,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the role of this House is, is to debate, which is what we are doing exactly now. And I listened, for example, to the member right hon. Member from Hayes and Harlington, who talked about his experience in terms of the Metropolitan Police in recent times and his sense that he didn't he lost confidence with the way that they were making decisions on protests. I will hear all of these things. Happy to have more conversations, and I'm sure the police would be happy to as well.

I just say, and this, this doesn't impact on anything that I think about what the law should be on protests. But but there has been a 600% increase in the number of protests that we have over the last couple of years. There has been a huge increase in the number of people protesting and the physical ability of the police to just deal with that in terms of resources is not insubstantial. They spend a huge amount of time. As we all know, our neighbourhood officers are often obstructed, and that's right and proper, and I'm not suggesting otherwise, but it is a challenge for the police, particularly in the big urban parts of our country, that they have to manage the impact of these protests.

So just to repeat, the cumulative disruption amendment does not change the guardrails of the powers to impose conditions. It doesn't change anything about the need to balance the right to protest with the European Convention on Human Rights with with the Public Order Act. None of those things change. What is changing is that we are saying the police will consider cumulative disruption rather than they can consider cumulative disruption.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for giving way. What would be really helpful, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What would be really helpful, I think, is if she brought the guidance before the House at some stage, once that's completed, so that we can have some clarity about that guidance is because there will that guidance is because there will be processed in the future. The third runway has been threatened on my constituency again, and there my constituency again, and there will be cumulative impact of processing my constituency. And I want to know if I've got to hand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

myself in at some point in time as a result of that. I mean, I can't tell whether the hon. Gentleman is going to have to hon. Gentleman is going to have to hand himself in at some point in time. I think probably not, but. I time. I think probably not, but. I can remember debating that particular issue because of the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, obviously saying he was Johnson, obviously saying he was going to lie in front of bulldozers. And we've debated these issues on the matter of protest many, many the matter of protest many, many times.

Look, guidance doesn't normally come to this House for approval. That wouldn't be appropriate. And I and I need to stress that the police do take the definition. Just, you know, as it as it is in in terms of its natural meaning. But I do take the point. And the point is that we need to make sure we get these things right. And I will work with the College of Policing in the MPC on getting this right. And I also would ask the House that when we consider what Lord McDonald comes forward, where he has looked at this plethora of sort of emerging legislation to see what he recommends, that we also consider that.

And of course, if there are changes to the law that he recommends that we accept, of course, we will debate those things in the proper way in this House if we if we introduce that legislation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just seek clarity from the Minister then if if, Lord, if the Lord McDonald comes forward with Lord McDonald comes forward with recommendations to go back in the opposite direction with the government, then consider those and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remove the restrictions they're currently proposing. Minister well, we don't know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister well, we don't know what what he is going to recommend. We have asked him. He has terms of reference that we've agreed, which reference that we've agreed, which are to look at public order legislation and hate crime legislation, and to consider whether it is fit for purpose or whether it needs amending. Of course, whatever he comes forward, we will consider very carefully and we will act according to what we think is right. He is a man of great note, has done a lot of things in his past.

Former head of the deep, Director of Public Prosecutions. And we will, of course, listen to whatever he says. So I hope I can reassure members.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Minister, for giving way. She seems to be sort of arguing. There's not very much to see here. There's not very much to see here. And the difference is between can and must. Is there evidence that at the moment where police are having the moment where police are having problems policing protests, that they are not assessing the cumulative impact and the problems

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cumulative impact and the problems that that causes? Yes, and that's why we're introducing this amendment, because introducing this amendment, because we want to provide clarity that it should be considered. We have a community, in particular the Jewish community, who are suffering and afraid and have spoken to us, to many people many times about the impact of cumulative protests outside places of worship and other places. And we are responding to that. And of course, whilst it is in the grand scheme of public order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation, one change, it is a very important one for that community. Thank you, Minister, for being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Minister, for being generous with her time. Earlier on, she said that the right to protest was sacrosanct in this country. My was sacrosanct in this country. My understanding of the definition of sacrosanct is that it's too important to be trifled with. So important to be trifled with. So the government is making in making this argument, the government is suggesting that actually the right to protest should be trifled with, to protest should be trifled with, and it is suggesting that police must do more to restrict the right to protest, isn't it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. And this government believes in the fundamental right to protest. We will never change our view on that. It does have to be balanced with the responsibility to look after our communities. This government is seeking to get that balance right. We are making a change to the cumulative disruption legislation in this bill, which we did bring forward in the Lords, and several members asked about that. Of course, that is not normally legislation is introduced here, but amendments are introduced into the Lords by government and have been by this government.

It is not uncommon, and I do think that we have had an opportunity to debate it today, and I have listened very carefully to all of the speeches that hon. Members have made. I will conclude at this point. One more time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the Minister for giving way. Once again, I just wanted because it's Lords amendments. I just really wanted to get that full clarity on the definition of cumulative. She mentioned the natural definition of cumulative. natural definition of cumulative. And just to borrow, if I may, the example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, who actually was interviewed under caution for laying flowers for their children laying flowers for their children just over a year ago.

You know, if if it was seen to be unnatural or natural, if it was to lay down in front of a Heathrow runway, what would happen? And is it the expectation that the police would just determine what is cumulative, as you said, in what is considered natural? You said the natural

**** Possible New Speaker ****

definition. So as I said, the police have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So as I said, the police have had the power to consider cumulative disruptions since 1986. If you had a right wing protesters protesting every day outside a mosque, that would be my definition mosque, that would be my definition of cumulative disruption. The police balance, the powers that they are given, the laws that we they are given, the laws that we pass every day, we are increasing the training that our public order police officers are having. We are making sure they have access to the right training and resources, because that was a problem that was identified under the previous government, and we are trying to clarify through this piece of legislation that actually cumulative disruption is an important factor and should be considered when the government when the police are considering whether to impose restrictions on protests and to repeat, we are not banning protests.

It is about the imposition of restrictions, and that is all. Madam Deputy Speaker. The Other place has properly asked this the elected House to think again about a number of issues. Let us send a clear message back to their Lordships. We have listened and agreed a number of further changes to the bill, but after some 14 months of debate, it is now time for this bill to complete its passage so that we can get on with the task of implementing the bill and make all our communities safer.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Government amendment A proposed to Lords Amendment 263. proposed to Lords Amendment 263. The question is that amendment A be made as many as are of that opinion made as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to government amendments, B to G to Lords amendments, B to G to Lords amendment 263 with leave. I will put a single question on these amendments.

Minister Tamworth. Formally, the question is that government amendments B to G to Lords Amendment 263B made as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I call the Minister to move that this House agrees with the Lords and their amendment 263 as amended. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 263, as amended. As many as are of that opinion say aye.

of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to government amendments A to E to Lords amendment 361 with leave. I shall put a single question on these amendments. Minister to move formally, the question is that government. Government amendments A government. Government amendments A to E to Lords amendment 361 be made as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

I call the Minister to move that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 361, as amended. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords and their agrees with the Lords and their amendment 361, as amended, as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment two. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment two.

As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no.
18:29
None Portrait Division
-

Know Division. The The question The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say, I of the contrary, no. know. Tell us, for the. I Mark Ferguson Imogen Walker Tellers for the noes David Simmonds

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 307 the noes to the left. 176.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 176. The ayes to the right with. 307 the nurse to the left were 176. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. We now come to government amendments A, B, and C in lieu of Lords Amendment two. With leave. I will put a single question on these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. Minister to move formally. Formally. The question is that government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that government amendment A, B and C in lieu of amendment A, B and C in lieu of Lords amendment two B made as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment six. I call the the Lords amendment six. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment six as many as are of that opinion say aye.

Of the contrary, no. know Division. Clear Order. Order. The Order. The question Order. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. know. Tell us for the I's Mark Ferguson Imogen Walker Tellers for the noes David Simmonds

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The eyes. To the right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

299 the noes to the left. 169.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were. 299 the nurse to the left were 169. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now come to Government amendments A and B in lieu of Lords amendments ten with leave. I will put a single question on these amendments. Minister to move formally. Minister. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tamworth 19. To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tamworth 19. To. Order. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment ten. I call the Minister to move ten. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment ten as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to government amendments A and B in lieu of Lords Amendment ten with leave.

I will put a single question on these amendments. Minister to move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Formally. The question is that government amendments A and B in lieu of Lords amendments A and B in lieu of Lords amendment ten B made as many as are of that opinion. Say I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 11. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 11.

As many as are of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. Know. The The question The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are that say I. I the country. No, no. Tell us for the I's Mark Ferguson Imogen Walker Tellers for the noes. David Simmonds Andrew Order, Order, order! Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ayes to the right 291. The noes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the left 174. The ayes to the right are 291

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right are 291 the noes to the left were at 174. So the ayes have it. The ayes have So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. Before we continue, I advise the House that there is a technical fault with the pass reader system. It is still working, but it is slow to start. In the beginning of each division. The clerks are looking now and I would ask members to wait for the readers to activate before trying to vote.

Order, order. I must now put the questions necessary to bring proceedings on the Lords amendments to a conclusion. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords Amendment 12. I call the Minister to move the motion formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 12. As many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment 15.

I call the Minister to move the motion formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment. 15 as many as our opinion say I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to a government amendment A in lieu of Lords amendment 15. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that amendment A in lieu of Lords amendment 15 be made as many as are of that opinion say aye.

of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 256. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment two, five six as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 257. I call the Minister to move the motion.

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 257 as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to government amendments A and B in lieu of Lords amendments two, five, six and 257 Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment A and B in lieu of Lords amendments two, five six and 257B made as many as are of that opinion say aye.

of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 258. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 258 as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to Government Amendment A in lieu of Lords amendment 258. I call the Minister to move the motion.

The question is that government amendment A in lieu of Lords amendment 258B made as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 259. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment. 259 as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 260. I call the Minister to move the motion formally. The question is that the House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment to 68. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to a government amendment A to D in lieu of Lords amendment two, five, nine and 260 Minister to move formally, the question is that government amendment A to D in lieu of Lords amendment two, five nine and 260 B made as many as are of that opinion say aye.

the contrary. No. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 264. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 264 as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to Government amendment A to F in lieu of Lords amendment two six for Minister to move formally.

The question is that government amendment A to F in lieu of Lords amendment 264B made as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 265. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 265. As many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary, no.

I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to government amendments A, B and C in lieu of Lords amendment 265 Minister to move formally, the question is that government amendment A, B and C in lieu of Lords Amendment 265B made as many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 311.

I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 311. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the The The question The question is The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary, no. no tellers for the ayes Mark Ferguson Imogen Walker. Tellers for Order.

Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 300. The noes to the left, 101.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noes to the left, 101. The ayes to the right were 300. The nerve. To the left were 101. So The nerve. To the left were 101. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now come to the motion unlocked. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 333. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and their amendment 333. As many as are of that opinion say I. I on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contrary, no. No. Ready. Are we ready? The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I the contrary. No, no. Tellers for the ayes, Gregor. Point and tell us for the Gregor. Point and tell us for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. The Order. The lobbies Order. The lobbies are Order. The lobbies are not working. Clerks will shortly take working. Clerks will shortly take their place at the division desks in the lobby to record members names on paper. Members who have names on paper. Members who have already voted. Their names will be recorded. Which means.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recorded. Which means. We're now ready to resume the division. We are now ready to resume. The division members who have not yet voted should pass through the lobbies to give their names to the clerks. If a member has already been through the lobby in this division, their vote has been counted and they should not pass through the lobby again. If members are in any doubt that their name has been recorded, they should email the public bill office at the Order.

Order. Order. Order. Order. The ayes to the right 301. The Nos to the left 157. The ayes to the right were 301. The nos to the left were 157. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now come to Government Amendment A in lieu of Lords Amendment 333. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that the government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 333 be made.

As many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 334. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 334 as many as are of that opinion say aye. the contrary no, no. Division. Clear the lobby.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is, The question is, as The question is, as on The question is, as on the The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No, no. Tell us to the eyes. Correct a no. Tell us to the eyes. Correct a point. And, Taiwo, our team Tellers for the noes Lincoln. John David Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 356. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 356. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nos to the left 90. The ayes to the right with 356.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right with 356. The nurse to the left were 90. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 339. I call the Minister to move the motion formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment three, three, nine. As many as are of that opinion say I. I country. No. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 342. I call the Minister to move the motion formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment three, four, two. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of the opinion, say I the contrary. No, no. Tell us for the I's, Gregor, point and tell us for the nurse Charlotte Kane

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! Ayes to the right. 281. The note

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ayes to the right. 281. The note

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the left 70. The ayes to the right with 281.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right with 281. The nurse to the left were 70. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. And can I thank members for their patience this evening? Their continued patience. We now come to Government Amendment A in lieu of Lords Amendment 342. I call the Minister to move the motion formally. The question is that Government amendment A in lieu of Lords amendment 342 be made as many as are of that opinion say aye.

of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 357. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the laws in their amendment three, five seven. As many as are of that opinion say I. I the country. No, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think I. The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I, I. No, no. Tellers for the ayes, Gregor point. And what summit. Tell us for the nurse, Robin Swann. Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The eyes. The right 278. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 73. The ayes to the right with 278.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right with 278. The nurse to the left was 73. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 359. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 359. As many as are of that opinion, say I, the country. The The question The question is, The question is, as The question is, as on The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I the contrary.

No, no. Tellers for the ayes, Gregor. Point and I were. What, Sammy tell us for the nurse, Andrew Snowden. David Order, Order, order. Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The eyes have arrived. 277. The noes to the left. 158.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 158. The ayes to the right were 277. The nurse to the left were 158. So The nurse to the left were 158. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 360. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 360, as many as are of that opinion, say.

I of the country. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 368. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 368 as many as are of that opinion say aye. for the contrary, no, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 369. I call the Minister to move the motion.

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 369. As many as are of that opinion say I. I contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 370. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords amendment 370. As many as are of that opinion say I. I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 371. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the laws and their amendment 371 as many as are of that opinion say I. I no, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 372. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 372 as many as are of that opinion say I.

I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the Government amendment A in lieu of Lords amendment 360 and 368 to 372. I call the Minister to move the motion formally. The question is that amendment A in lieu of Lords amendment 360 and 368 to 372 be made. As many as are of that opinion say aye. the contrary. No. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 439.

I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 439 as many as are of that opinion say I. I contrary no, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 505. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 505. As many as are of that opinion say aye.

of the country. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I must now put a single question to agree all remaining Lords amendments. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment one 3 to 5, 7 to 9, 13, 14, 16 to one 3 to 5, 7 to 9, 13, 14, 16 to 255, 261, 262, 266 to 310, 312 to 332, 335 to 338, 340, 341, 343 to 332, 335 to 338, 340, 341, 343 to 356, 358, 362 to 367, 373 to 438, 356, 358, 362 to 367, 373 to 438, 440 to 504, and 506 to 532.

As many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is, The question is, as The question is, as on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the The question is, as on the Order contrary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, no. Tell us for the i's, Gregor.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tell us for the i's, Gregor. Point and tell us for the nurse and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here Here we Here we go.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The eyes! The right 247. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left, 21. The ayes to the right with 247.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right with 247. The nurse to the left were 21. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. Minister, to move that a committee be appointed to draw it. Reasons I beg to move that the committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments that Sarah Jones, Stephen Morgan, Matt Bishop, Alex McIntyre, Adam Thompson, Matt Vickers and Clive Jones be members of the committee.

That Sarah Jones be the chair of the committee, that three be the quorum of the committee. That the committee do withdraw immediately.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Yes. The question. Is that the Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to to their amendments. disagreeing to to their amendments. Amendment six 1112, 311 334 339, Amendment six 1112, 311 334 339, 357, 359, 339 and 505. That Sarah Jones, Stephen Morgan, Adam Thompson, Matt Bishop, Alex McIntyre, Matt Vickers and Clive Jones be members of the committee. That Sarah Jones be the chair of the committee.

That three be the quorum of the committee. That the committee do withdraw immediately, as many as are of that opinion say I. I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. That concludes consideration of Lords amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. We now come to the
21:13
21:15
21:15
Kieran Mullan Portrait Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-
this opportunity, because the condition of the A21, the key strategic route serving the constituency of Bexhill and Battle constituency of Bexhill and Battle is incredibly important. The A21 is not just a local road, it's the principal strategic road network principal strategic road network connection between East Sussex coastal communities and London, the M25, international airports and the M25, international airports and the wider national economy. It's the backbone of access to employment, freight, tourism and business freight, tourism and business investment across the Bexhill Hastings corridor.

Yet today the A21 is failing to perform that strategic role. Its lack of capacity, safety and resilience, particularly south of Pembury, has become a structural barrier to growth, opportunity and reliable access to work for the communities along the route and for the towns of Bexhill and Hastings, which lie at the southern end south of Pembury. The A21 is still predominantly single carriageway, yet it carries long distance traffic volumes entirely unsuited to the road's original design. Large sections are characterised by tight bends, multiple junctions and direct access for homes and farms.

The contrast between the Dualled and Unjudged sections creates an inconsistent row standard route standard rather that undermines reliability, increases risk and erodes confidence in the network for both residents and businesses. Several villages in my constituency, including Flimwell, Hurst Green and Watlington, sit directly on the A21. Around 1500 residents live with the Strategic Trunk road carrying around 20,000 vehicles a day, including a high proportion of HGVs, exposing them to constant noise pollution and risk. Their communities are effectively divided by busy trunk road.

This has profound consequences for daily life. It affects whether children can walk safely to school, whether older residents feel confident crossing the road, and whether communities function as places to live rather than corridors to pass through. Her screen is particularly acute. Example at the moment, the village primary school is located directly on the A21. Getting children to and from school presents a daily safety challenge that no community should have to accept. Parents and carers have no safe drop off or pick up areas, and are forced to stop on a national trunk road.

Pavements are narrow, often obstructed and completely unprotected from fast moving traffic, walking or cycling. Activities we rightly want to encourage are simply not viable options for many families. I've walked this route myself at peak times, standing inches from a continuous stream of HGVs, mans and cars makes the risks immediately obvious and is immediately intimidating. This is not an abstract policy issue. It's the lived experience for families every single day. As the roads Minister will be aware, no doubt. Rural single carriageway A roads carry a disproportionately high share of fatal and serious collisions.

More than half of all deaths on our roads occur on single carriageways, despite them carrying significantly less traffic overall. Last weekend, a serious incident on the A21 at Robertsbridge, which is single carriageway, resulted in the tragic loss of life and serious injuries. While investigations are ongoing, my thoughts are, of course, with those affected and heartfelt sympathies for the families and loved ones at this incredibly difficult time. The road remained closed for over 24 hours to allow emergency services to carry out necessary investigations and repairs.

It's true, since 2020, National Highways has been delivering a £20 million safety package on the A21, reflecting persistent structural risks on this stretch of road. Those measures are welcome and necessary, but they also demonstrate that we are repeatedly treating symptoms rather than addressing the underlying cause. Recent interventions, including the ongoing installation of traffic lights at the A21, A265 junction in her screen, have highlighted the daily impact of this route on local communities. They brought into sharp focus not only the sheer volume of traffic on the A21, but the severe consequences when that traffic is brought to a standstill.

And residents were deeply concerned that the manner in which they were consulted on the installation of that change was not sufficient, in my view, where it's a major change to residents who are going to experience that on a on a on a daily basis. And some of them weren't even written to until the week before, and there wasn't really a serious attempt to engage with them on the final plans. There had been earlier efforts to engage more broadly and what they might end up doing.

But to my mind, we know that constituents of ours are busy. They have other things going on in their lives. They tend to engage most profoundly when presented with those final plans. This is what we're going to do. We're minded to do. And actually, the contractors were already in place. The plans were already due and paid for. And that, of course, raises a lot of skepticism about the ability of national highways to have responded to that. The A21 is also acutely vulnerable to disruption, as we're seeing in her screen during the construction period.

Collisions, flooding and landslip events regularly lead to full or partial closures. When that happens, there are no suitable alternative routes. Traffic diverts onto narrow country lanes, damaging rural roads, delaying emergency services, emergency services and cutting off villages for hours at a time. And I've got a direct experience of that, of driving down the A21 to my constituency, that some sort of incident ahead and me naively listening to Google Maps as advice to divert off the A21, along with any many number of other people that are encouraged to do the same thing, and being stuck for 30 minutes because that had happened on both ends of the road, and it took the good graces of residents living on that road to come out and manage the traffic and block that block that stoppage.

As climate event related climate related events become more frequent, this lack of resilience represents a growing risk not just to road users but to the wider local economy. Businesses cannot plan around a route that fails unpredictably, and workers cannot rely on it for consistent access to employment. Nowhere are the consequences of poor connectivity more evident than in Bexhill and Hastings. Bexhill contains significant pockets of deprivation, with lower than average wages and productivity, and I know the member from Hastings will raise similar issues in her constituency across the Bexhill Hastings corridor.

Productivity levels remain around 20% below the average. Importantly, deprivation in this area is not due to a lack of ambition or potential best. Bexhill and Hastings have benefited from regeneration initiatives and local growth programmes, but without a reliable strategic road connection, their impact is fundamentally constrained. Piecemeal local schemes cannot overcome a broken strategic link. Unreliable journey times limit labour market catchments, reduce business productivity and deter inward investment. Employers struggle to recruit and commute times. Unpredictable investors hesitate when access to the wider south east corridor is uncertain.

The A22 the A21 sits at the centre of that challenge. This is ultimately an issue about opportunity for many residents in Bexhill, the ability to access work, training or better paid employment depends on the A21. When that route is unreliable, opportunities narrow and inequalities deepen. There is clear evidence that strategic upgrades deliver lasting benefits. The dualling of the A21 between Tunbridge and Pembury resulted in major reductions in serious collisions, improved journey reliability and a strong economic return. That outcome is consistent with national evidence on the benefits of dualling high volume.

Single carriageway. A rose further dualling south of Pembury will deliver sustained safety improvements, improved reliability for commuters, commuters and businesses, reduced vulnerability to incidents and climate related disruption, and improve the health and wellbeing of all those living on those villages directly placed on the A21. If we're serious about tackling deprivation, expanding opportunity and restoring confidence in coastal communities, we must address the structural barriers that hold them back. We've already seen locally how strategic road investment can transform opportunity. The Queensway Gateway Road transformed access to the A21 from Bexhill and Hastings, reducing severances and improving reliability.

Crucially, it made regeneration and employment sites viable by replacing an unreliable approach route with a modern strategic corridor. Investor confidence increased because access was no longer at risk. The Bexhill Hastings Link Road provides even clearer evidence by delivering a second strategic connection between the two towns and a stronger link to the A21. It removed long standing capacity constraints. That intervention directly unlocked over 1000 homes, a significant employment land in north east Bexhill that could otherwise not have been released. In both cases, public investment in strategic connectivity unlocked substantial private investment and long term economic gains.

The lesson is clear strategic roads unlock growth and marginal fixes simply ration constraint for communities along the M1. This is not simply a transport issue. It's about productivity, opportunity and fair access to work and services. I urged the Minister to recognise the A-20s role as the principal gateway to some of the most economically disadvantaged communities in the southeast, and to move beyond short term mitigation. Specifically, will the Minister commit to advancing the strategic case for during the A21 south of Pembury, including village bypasses? Support further design and development work, so the scheme is genuinely ready for delivery and set out how this corridor can be considered within the next road investment strategy.

My residents are clear they live with the A21, they bear with the A21. It isn't the version of the road network that is delivering for them. I've explained all the reasons why it will make a profound difference to the opportunities for so many people in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies, and anyone that's lived alongside that road in the way they have to at the moment, will know very clearly that it isn't sustainable and cannot be the long term fix or the solution that makes a real difference.

So I'd ask the Minister to think carefully, consider my questions, and give hope to all of those in my constituency that don't want this to be off the agenda or off the radar, even if we recognise it isn't going to be something that happens overnight.
21:24
Helena Dollimore Portrait Helena Dollimore MP (Hastings and Rye, Labour )
-
-
Helena. >> Helena. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker And can I start by thanking my hon. Friend, the Member for Bexhill and Battle for securing this important Battle for securing this important debate about improving the A21. It's an issue that we work together on and together with colleagues who are representing constituencies along the road. That, of course, runs from London down to Hastings and through his constituency as well. We all want to see improvements to this road like him. I support the dualling of the A21 and further improvements to the road and like him, we've both spent so many hours stuck on the A21 commuting between Westminster and our constituency.

And of course, as the Minister will be aware, because there is that single lane system after Pembury, when an accident happens on the A21, you can be stuck for an extremely long time and everything comes to a standstill. So it's a really serious issue for our constituents. He also talked about how improving our transport links will improve opportunities, and Hastings and Rye ranks in the bottom ten constituencies in the whole country for social mobility and our poor transport connections is cited by the Sutton Trust as one of the reasons for that.

So it's really key. There's also been a lot of work happening in recent years to make the A21 safer, and I want to pay tribute to the former member for Bexhill and battle for his time in the transport department, securing some of that funding. And it's been continued under this government because the A21 has definitely got safer in recent years. I know I've seen a marked improvement driving, particularly at night down the A21. Many constituents have said the same. It used to be one of the most dangerous roads in the country.

I think it still holds a very serious record in terms of the number of fatal road accidents, but it is getting better. It's clearly getting safer, particularly at night. But what I do want to raise is something that's been raised repeatedly by constituents with me, and despite raising it with national highways, it's not getting any better. And not only have my constituents experienced it, but also I've experienced it many times, which is the unacceptable way that national highways handle overnight road closures on the A21.

They don't give any warning. They don't put signs up in advance to warn people that the road is closed. And what you are confronted with at 10 p.m. at night in the pitch black is a road closure and then one side sending you down a series of dark country lanes and no further signs after that, which puts you in an extremely difficult position in the dark. It's not safe, and it's actually going to make our road safety record go the opposite way to the way we want it to.

With all of these improvements that we're closing the road overnight for, so we need to see national highways get much better at the overnight road closures. And the notice that they give. It's not good enough. And I'd be really grateful if the Minister could raise that with them. The other thing I wanted to raise is, of course, the Queensway Gateway Road, which has now finally been finished and opened, but we have had much pain in Hastings during the works that have been run by East Sussex County Council.

It was a shambles from start to finish, meant to take a month. It lasted over a year and it's. We've just found out that they overspent by £5 million on those roadworks run by East Sussex County Council, costing local businesses millions and leaving residents stuck in gridlock for hours trying to get to work or school. So I I'm calling for an independent investigation into this, I think conservative running Sussex County Council and the contractors that they use, like Balfour Beatty, have serious questions to answer about how they could mis plan a project so badly that it ran on for a year and overspent by £5 million of our taxpayers money.

So I'd be grateful if the Minister could look into that as well. Thank you.
21:28
Simon Lightwood Portrait Simon Lightwood MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wakefield and Rothwell, Labour )
-
-
Minister. >> I'm grateful to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for securing this important debate and for his continued advocacy, alongside the work of the A21 reference Group on what I know is an important issue for the communities that they represent, I welcome the opportunity this evening to set out the government's position on the A21, its strategic importance and how it has been considered within our longer term approach to investment on the strategic road network.

The A21 is a key route within the strategic road network, performing a vital role in connecting coastal communities in East Sussex and larger towns in Kent to the M25 and the wider national network. The road supports a wide range of journeys, commuters travelling to work, businesses moving goods and services, tourists visiting the coastal towns of Bexhill and Hastings, and people making everyday local trips when the road falls short in terms of capacity and reliability, particularly on the single carriageway sections, this can have a real impact on the economic opportunities, journey times and quality of life.

Turning specifically to the southern section of the A21, National Highways recognises performance concerns, particularly around safety. National highways has invested over £20 million since 2021 to improve the route safety between Sevenoaks and Hastings. I recognise, however, that the. The hon. Member will want investment to go further as the House will be aware. On the 26th of March, the government published the Third Road Investment Strategy, committing a total of £27 billion to operate, maintain and improve England's strategic road network over the next five years.

This investment will ensure that the network remains safe and reliable, while supporting economic growth and improving journeys for users across the country. Risk three places a greater focus than ever before on the maintenance and renewal of our existing network, with a smaller number of enhancement schemes. Improvements to routes like the A21 need to be considered within that wider context. Risk three will deliver tangible improvements through a safer and smoother journeys for road users and through targeted programmes tackling key pinch points on the network for the A21.

As the hon. Member will be aware, one of the main pinch points can be found at the Kipping's Cross

**** Possible New Speaker ****

roundabout, where the dual carriageway section meets the single Carriageway section. This junction has been considered for junction has been considered for improvement as part of one of the new national programmes in Risk3, and I encourage hon. Members to engage with national highways over the months ahead. As this work progresses and the schemes within the programme are prioritised for delivery. As for dualling, the delivery. As for dualling, the remaining single carriageway stretches of the A21, there are no plans to do this at the present time.

It does not form part of the plan set out in rows three, and it is not one of the schemes included in the pipeline of schemes for construction in the early 2030s. Now dualling it would carry a significant cost, and the delivery of such a scheme would be really challenging given the. Given the local topography and a number of settlements that the route passes through. It would also have significant environmental impacts. I know there's sites of significant. Environmental interest there, ancient woodland, and would require, I think, at least 3 or 4 bypasses around villages.

I will, of course,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. With the Minister. Firstly, advise me what do you do if something isn't even in the something isn't even in the pipeline? What does an MP have to do to get it put into the pipeline? And if the Minister isn't And if the Minister isn't considering dualling, perhaps the next best thing in some of those villages that are particularly hard villages that are particularly hard hit are bypasses. So is there any plan separate to dualling? Just some some bypassing even of the some some bypassing even of the single lane? I know that's land's been bought to do that in the past and it gets sold back and it isn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

delivered. Is there a is there a perhaps a more light at the end of bypassing? Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. This is not to say that this will never happen, and it's entirely right for the hon. Member and hon. Members to continue to advocate for and build the case for such major improvements with a strong cross-party support. I think from across the region, I think that sends a really clear signal that sends a really clear signal for potential future investment, and I would encourage the hon. Members to continue to engage with national highways and other regional partners on what more can be done to improve the performance of the route for the communities that it serves.

Look, just to touch on some other points. I know that the Member for Hastings and Rye talked about other forms of transport connecting those communities, and I know that the member, my hon. Friend, has made representations on the case for improving the speed and frequency of trains between Hastings and London, and whilst that sits outside my remit as the Minister for Roads and Buses, I encourage her to continue pushing for those upgrades. But as I said, in terms of dualling, I, I can't I can't commit to dualling the A21 at this stage, but I can make the commitment that National Highways will continue working with the hon.

Member and the A21 reference group to ensure safety is prioritised on this route. Just picking up on the other comment made by my hon. Friend about overnight closures, I can commit to raising that personally with National Highways

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to see what we can do to improve those circumstances. Even if the government can't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Even if the government can't commit the funding in terms of developing a business case and options in an updated form that obviously doesn't commit anybody to obviously doesn't commit anybody to doing it or said that there'd be the funding. But it's a starting point on that point, because the point on that point, because the Minister has to be a bit more helpful in saying that. You think it would be helpful for National Highways to at least have an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Highways to at least have an updated plan for delivering this, if and when the funding appears? Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So, as I said, there's no current plans to be considered for the dualling. But National Highways the dualling. But National Highways does routinely consider the performance of the strategic road network as part of its strategies network as part of its strategies process. I think the current performance and and potential future investment needs of the A21 future investment needs of the A21 will continue. You have my assurance, will continue to be assessed in that context to inform future road investment strategies. I have no doubt that you will continue to lobby and to engage with national highways along with the A21 reference group.

As I said, I will I will take away the issue about overnight closures. But in closing, I just want to reiterate that the government recognises both the strategic importance of the A21 and the strength of feeling of members and the communities affected by its current performance. While difficult decisions must be taken about investment priorities. We remain committed to working constructively with national highways to deliver benefits for road users, and I welcome the continued engagement of hon. Members in building that case. The concerns raised in this debate will be carefully considered as we look ahead to future investment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunities on the strategic road network. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn as many as are of that opinion say aye. the ayes have
11:00
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page