Crime and Policing Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Diana Johnson and Matt Vickers

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Diana Johnson]

What we do know, from the statistics that I have just read out, is that there is a wide body of evidence to confirm what is happening to retail workers on retail premises. We know that, because that information and evidence has been collated for some time. I accept that there are questions and concerns about delivery drivers, but I do not think we are in the position to know the extent of assaults on delivery drivers. I am not disputing that they take place—they do—but we have been very clear, and it was our manifesto commitment, that we will deal with assaults on retail workers by legislating for that. The clause is about that.

Everyone has the right to feel safe at work. The new offence, which is for retail workers and premises, sends a strong message that violence and abuse towards retail workers will not be tolerated. In a later debate, perhaps, I will come on to some of the other protections that all workers have, and how they can be used. This new offence will carry a maximum prison sentence of six months and/or an unlimited fine.

Reflecting on the need to take a tough stance with meaningful criminal justice consequences, clause 15 provides that the new offence will come with a presumption for a court to make a criminal behaviour order. Such an order may prohibit the offender doing anything described in it, which might include a condition preventing specific acts that cause harassment, alarm or distress, or preventing an offender from visiting specific premises. Breach of a criminal behaviour order is in itself a criminal offence, attracting a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

Clauses 14 and 15, taken together, will significantly help better protect retail workers. On that basis, I am sure that they will be welcomed across the Committee. The hon. Member for Stockton West, who leads for the Opposition, has tabled amendment 29 and new clause 26 in this group. I plan to respond to those when winding up the debate.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan.

The Bill rightly seeks to improve protections for our amazing retail workers and looks to tackle retail crime. I pay tribute to the amazing retail workers across the country for their work, and to the many people who have been involved in the campaign to provide greater protections for them.

Retail is the biggest private sector employer in our economy. It directly employs nearly 3 million people and sits at the heart of all our communities. Clause 14 amends section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and creates a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker in their place of work. It defines “retail premises” as a place

“used wholly or mainly for the purposes of the sale of anything by retail,”

including not only buildings, but stalls and vehicles. It also defines what it is to be a “retail worker at work”, which is

“working on or about retail premises, and”

being there

“for or on behalf of the owner or occupier of those premises”.

It confirms that a person who commits the offence will be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences. I am glad that the offence also includes those doing unpaid work in a retail setting.

Clause 15 amends part 11 of the sentencing code to create a duty to make a criminal behaviour order for the offence of assaulting a retail worker. It confirms that that will apply where someone is convicted of the new offence under clause 14; where

“the prosecution makes an application to the court for a criminal behaviour order to be made against the offender”;

and where

“the offender is aged 18 or over at the time the prosecution makes the application”.

It also sets out that such an order will not apply where the court imposes a custodial sentence, or makes a youth rehabilitation order, a community order, or a suspended sentence for that specific offence or

“any other offence of which the offender is convicted by or before it”.

Until this point, police have had to rely on several criminal offences through which to prosecute violence and assault against retail workers, including assault, unlawful wounding or grievous bodily harm under the common law or the Offences against the Person Act 1861; harassment or putting people in fear of violence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; and affray, or threatening or abusive behaviour under the Public Order Act 1986. Things changed and progress was made by section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, as a result of debates on this important subject during the Act’s passage through Parliament. That added section 68A to the Sentencing Act 2020, requiring the courts to treat an offence as aggravated if the victim of the offence had been

“providing a public service, performing a public duty or providing services…goods or facilities”

to the public.

In recent years, a variety of businesses and organisations have called for a stand-alone offence. In July 2020, USDAW launched a petition calling for a specific offence of abusing, threatening or assaulting a retail worker. The petition received 104,354 signatures, which triggered a Westminster Hall debate. As a member of the Petitions Committee, I had the privilege of leading the debate and speaking on behalf of the petitioners. At that time, we were gripped by the pandemic, which helped to focus minds on the incredibly important role that our retail workers were performing as a result of it. The debate was well attended, with Members from all parties speaking passionately in support of our retail workers.

Several retailers were in support of a stand-alone offence, including Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and the Co-op. In May 2021, Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, called for a stand-alone offence to provide colleagues with the protections they needed. In June 2021, the Home Affairs Committee held its own inquiry on violence and abuse towards retail workers, concluding that the patchwork of existing offences did not provide adequate protection. The Committee said:

“The Government should consult urgently on the scope of a new standalone offence.”

As hon. Members may know, having served as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the future of retail and as a former Woollies worker, I have been very involved in the campaign to protect our retail workers. It was a privilege to join the likes of the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), Paul Gerrard from the Co-op, Helen Dickinson and the team at the British Retail Consortium, Edward Woodall of the Association of Convenience Stores, USDAW, numerous retailers and others who have campaigned over recent years to deliver more protection for our retail workers.

When I first arrived in the House, in my slightly rebellious phase, I tabled an amendment on this issue to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—now the 2022 Act—which was supported by Members from both sides of the House. As I have mentioned, that helped us to make assault on a person providing a service to the public a statutory aggravating offence. More recently, in April 2024, alongside a suite of measures designed to tackle retail crime, the last Government agreed to create a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker. The stand-alone offence aims to protect our retail workers by providing a deterrent to those who might commit retail crime, and it also has an important role to play in increasing transparency and accountability, which I will say more about later.

The changes to sanctions and recording are not the only answer to this problem; it is important that the police and retailers take action more broadly to tackle it. The last Government introduced a retail crime action plan in October 2023. My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who was then the Policing Minister and is now the shadow Home Secretary, launched it at a meeting of senior police leaders and 13 of the UK’s biggest retailers.

The plan included a police commitment to prioritise urgently attending the scene of a shoplifting incident where it involved violence against a shop worker, where security guards had detained an offender, or where attendance was needed to secure evidence. Attendance was to be assessed on risk, with prolific or juvenile offenders being treated with elevated priority. The police reaffirmed their pledge to follow up on any evidence that could reasonably lead to a perpetrator being caught, and forces stepped up targeted hotspot patrols in badly affected areas.

The plan set out advice for retailers on how to provide the best possible evidence for police to pursue any case. They are required to send CCTV footage of the whole incident and an image of the shoplifter from the digital evidence management system as quickly as possible after the offence has been committed. Where CCTV or other digital images are secured, police are required to run them through the police national database, using facial recognition technology to further aid efforts to identify and prosecute offenders, particularly prolific or potentially dangerous individuals.

The plan also created a specialist police team to build a comprehensive intelligence picture of the organised crime gangs that drive a huge number of shoplifting incidents across the country, in an effort to target and dismantle them. This initiative was branded Pegasus and is a business and policing partnership that has improved the way in which retailers are able to share intelligence, with the police gaining a greater understanding of the approach being taken by these organised crime gangs and identifying more offenders.

The initiative was spearheaded by Katy Bourne, the business crime lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. It is the first national partnership of its kind, and was backed financially by the Home Office, John Lewis, the Co-op, Marks & Spencer, Boots, Primark and several others, which pledged more than £840,000 to get it off the ground. Pegasus helped to identify high-harm offenders who were linked to organised crime groups, and has resulted in numerous arrests of individuals who are often responsible for tens of thousands of pounds in thefts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

That point has been mentioned several times. We heard what Rob Buckland thinks about extending the offence beyond assault, because the Bill refers specifically to assault. The hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley had tabled an amendment to the previous Bill to provide a broader definition that would cover abuse as well as assault. Does the Minister feel that there is a question mark around that point, or does she feel that it has been misunderstood by the people commenting on it?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I will come on to that point in more detail in a moment; I just want to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor about security staff. The offence will cover security staff who are employed directly by retailers and those employed by a third party on behalf of a retailer.

I want to move on to amendment 29 and new clause 26 tabled by the shadow Minister, which seek to make further provision on the sentencing of repeat offenders convicted of assaulting a retail worker. As I have tried to set out repeatedly, we take prolific offending extremely seriously, and it is helpful to have this opportunity to set out our approach.

As the Committee will be aware, sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary, which takes into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, and the statutory purposes of sentencing. The courts have a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders, including discharges, fines, community sentences, suspended sentences and custodial sentences where appropriate. Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with sentencing guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous conviction, when determining the sentence.

The Ministry of Justice continues to ensure that sentencers are provided with all tagging options, to enable courts to impose electronic monitoring on anyone who receives a community-based sentence, if the courts deem it suitable to do so. Additionally, although electronic monitoring is available to the courts, it may be not the most appropriate requirement to be added to an offender’s sentence. Many prolific offenders have no fixed abode and live complex, chaotic lifestyles. Imposing an electronic monitoring requirement would likely set up those individuals to fail, instead of helping to improve outcomes for perpetrators of crime and the public.

We cannot consider this issue in isolation. That is why the Government have delivered on a manifesto commitment—we are really quite keen on that—to bring sentencing up to date and ensure that the framework is consistent by launching an independent review of sentencing, chaired by the former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke. The review is tasked with a comprehensive re-evaluation of our sentencing framework, including considering how we can make greater use of punishments outside prison, and how sentences can encourage offenders to turn their back on a life of crime. The review has been specifically asked to consider sentencing for prolific offenders, to ensure that they commit fewer crimes. We look forward to considering the recommendations of the review, following which we will set out our plans for the future of sentencing. It is vital that we give the review time to finalise its recommendations, including on prolific offenders, and that we consider them.

We had quite a lot of discussion about wholesale workers, delivery drivers and bank workers. However, despite the Opposition raising those issues, they did not table any amendments on them. New clause 20, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), relates to wholesale workers, and I will discuss it in a moment, but first, a number of Members raised the issue of delivery drivers. We know the really important, dedicated work that delivery drivers do, particularly when we recall what happened during the pandemic. These drivers often deliver items to the most vulnerable in our society, including the elderly, frail and disabled. However, my approach in the Bill is that we must be sure that the new offence that we are creating is proportionate and can be used without creating legal ambiguity.

Any ambiguity in identifying whether an individual is a retail worker will lead the courts to take the case forward as a common assault, as happens at the moment, meaning that the specific recording that the shadow Minister is keen on would, importantly, not be attributed to a retail worker. Delivery drivers cover a wide range of sectors and roles, which is likely to cause issues with defining what a delivery driver is, and therefore with the courts’ ability to use the Bill as we want them to. However, we will use this parliamentary process to scrutinise the provisions in the Bill, as we are doing today, and will consider carefully any amendments that are tabled, as well as any evidence that is put forward in support of them.

On bank staff, it is worth the Committee knowing that officials in the Home Office are meeting with Barclays next week. I am happy to look into what comes out of that meeting. Again, I think we can all agree that bank staff do important work in our communities. As I have said, they are protected by other legislation and a statutory aggravating factor, as public workers. I will come on to discuss that in a moment.

New clause 20 would provide for an offence of assaulting a wholesale worker. Of course, violence and abuse towards any public-facing worker, including wholesale workers, is unacceptable. Everyone has a right to feel safe at work. I, like others present, know the dedicated work that many in the wholesale sector do to ensure that goods are in our supermarkets, so that we always have access to the things that we need in a timely way. However, I do not agree that the offence of assaulting a retail worker provided for by clause 14 should be extended to all wholesale workers.

As we heard in oral evidence—we also have clear evidence from the British Retail Consortium, USDAW and the Association of Convenience Stores’ report—there has been a very worrying increase in violence and abuse towards retail workers. The police have already taken action to assist in tackling retail crime, and I welcome the positive impact that has had on charge rates, with a 52% increase in charge volumes for shop theft in particular. In 2023, as has been referred to already, the National Police Chiefs’ Council published the retail crime action plan. Through that plan, all police forces in England and Wales have committed to prioritise police attendance at a scene where violence has been used towards shop staff, where an offender has been detained by store security, and where evidence needs to be secured and it can only be police personnel. Clearly, that commitment, and other work undertaken by retail, is not preventing this crime, so we want to go further. This new offence of assaulting a retail worker will send the very strong message that violence and abuse towards retail workers will not be tolerated,

On wholesale workers, bank staff and others, assault is already a crime. Everyone is protected from assault; it is criminalised under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in which common assault has a sentence of six months in prison. The Offences against the Person Act 1861 covers more serious violence, such as actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. However, this new offence will help to ensure that assaults on retail workers are separately recorded so that we know the true scale of the problem, enabling the police to respond accordingly.

Going back to why I am concerned about wholesale workers and others, any ambiguity in identifying whether an individual is a retail worker will likely lead the courts to take the case forward as common assault, meaning the specific recording attributed to a retail worker will not occur, which again goes back to the issue of data and recording. I stress that wholesale workers who are working in premises that provide retail sales to the public will be covered by the new offence in clause 14.

In order to help those in the wholesale sector, banking and other areas, including delivery drivers, there is the statutory aggravating factor for assaults against any public-facing worker in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. That aggravating factor ensures that the courts treat the public-facing nature of a victim’s role as an aggravating factor when considering the sentence for an offence, and it sends a very clear message that violence and abuse towards any worker will not be tolerated.

In order to have a proper picture of what is happening, it is critical that incidents of violence and abuse are always reported to the police, no matter in what sector. I encourage businesses to raise awareness of the legislative changes that have been introduced to their organisations to encourage that reporting. I think it is fair to say that the reason the retail sector has been so powerful in making the case to both the previous Government and this Government is because they have that information and data, as they are reporting it. That is why they have been able to get to the point where this clause is now in the Bill.

I think new clause 20 on wholesale workers is currently unnecessary, although I absolutely recognise the intent of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East in tabling it. Again, I echo how unacceptable violence and abuse is towards anybody. In the light of the explanation that I have given in response to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West, I hope that he will agree not to press them to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I welcome the Minister’s comments, which were thoughtful, considered and knowledgeable, as ever. I also welcome her commitment to further the use of facial recognition technology, as well as data, to maximise its benefits. I did not get a commitment on whether the funding would continue, as it was set aside in previous years.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am happy to confirm that the £3 million allocated for the financial year 2024-25 has been continued. We have used that to buy 10 vans to help us with the roll-out of live facial recognition, about which I understand the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South, is particularly concerned and anxious, so I can reassure him on that. We are now going through a spending review, and bids will be made for the technological tools that we want our police forces to have to catch criminals and keep us safe and secure.

Crime and Policing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Diana Johnson and Matt Vickers

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 4 serves two purposes. First, it extends the remit of the community safety accreditation scheme, to enable accredited officers to issue fixed penalty notices to tackle antisocial behaviour. Secondly, it increases the upper limit for fixed penalty notices from £100 to £500 for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices. Under the community safety accreditation scheme, a chief constable may delegate a range of powers usually reserved for the police to accredited officers involved in a community safety or traffic management role. That includes issuing fixed penalty notices for specific offences. This clause expands the list of offences to allow officers to issue fines for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices as well.

I can assure hon. Members that appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that these powers are used appropriately. To be awarded accredited status an organisation must satisfy strict criteria, and the scheme itself is accredited only through approval from a chief constable. Also, accredited officers must, rightly, undergo strict vetting and be appropriately trained in use of their powers. By expanding the range of agencies that can tackle antisocial behaviour, we will free up valuable police resources to tackle other antisocial issues and other types of crime.

The second element of the clause increases the upper limit for fines issued for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices from £100 to £500. Public spaces protection orders and community protection notices are issued where antisocial behaviour has a detrimental effect on the community’s quality of life. It is right that anyone breaching the orders is met with a proportionate punishment. The current £100 upper limit does not always carry enough weight to stop people committing further antisocial behaviour. We expect that the threat of an increased fine will act as a stronger deterrent, and in many cases will be enough to prevent reoffending.

We are clear that, although we are increasing the upper limit, the police, local authorities and CSAS officers must ensure that fines are reasonable and proportionate to the severity of the behaviour. The statutory guidance will, of course, be updated to reflect that.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Clause 4 increases the maximum fixed penalty notice that can be issued for a breach of a community protection notice or public spaces protection order from £100 to £500. In 2023 the previous Conservative Government ran a consultation on proposals to strengthen the powers available to address antisocial behaviour. That included a proposal to increase the upper limit of fixed penalty notices to £500. Following the consultation, the Government included a proposal in their 2023-24 Criminal Justice Bill to increase the value of fixed penalty notices to £500.

How will the Government ensure that public spaces protection orders and community protection notices are not used disproportionately to penalise minor or everyday behaviours? Can the Minister speak further on what oversight mechanisms and approved standards will be in place to regulate the activities of private enforcement officers issuing fines under those orders? How will the Government respond to concerns that private enforcement officers have financial incentives to issue excessive fines, and what action can be taken if that occurs? How will the Government balance the need for public order with concerns that PSPOs and CPNs might unfairly target individuals for minor infractions? What mechanisms are in place to review or challenge PSPOs and CPNs if they are deemed unfair or excessive, and how will the Government ensure that the measures are not used as revenue-generating tools, rather than as genuine deterrents against antisocial behaviour?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As I set out in my opening remarks, there will be statutory guidance on the use of the powers. I hope that provides some reassurance about how they will be used. I also set out the role of the chief constable in authorising officers and extending the powers to them.

The hon. Gentleman asked about local authorities perhaps using pay-by-commission contractors to issue fixed penalty notices and how there will not be abuse of that. To make it clear, it is for local authorities to determine how to operate the powers granted to them in legislation. Only the upper limit is being increased. Local agencies that issue fixed penalty notices can of course issue fines of less than £500 if appropriate, and it is expected that the fines issued will be based on the individual circumstances and severity of the case. Contracting enforcement to third parties is now a common arrangement and it is for the local authority to ensure that the use of powers remains just and proportionate. As I said at the outset, there will also be statutory guidance.

On the other safeguards and preventing the misuse of PSPOs, it is clear from the legislation that the local authority must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to consider a PSPO appropriate and that the legal test is met. Before making a PSPO, the council must consult the police and any community representatives they think appropriate. Before making, varying, extending or discharging a PSPO, the council must carry out the necessary publicity and notification in accordance with section 72(3) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. That includes publishing the text of a proposed order or variation and publishing the proposal for an extension or variation. Anyone who lives in, regularly works in or visits the area may apply to the High Court to question the validity of a PSPO.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Closure of premises by registered social housing provider

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 5 and schedule 2 provide registered social housing providers with the power to issue closure notices and closure orders, to enable them to quickly close premises that they own or manage that are being used, or are likely to be used, to commit nuisance or disorder. Despite registered social housing providers often being the initial point of contact for tenants suffering from antisocial behaviour, the current legislation does not allow them to use closure powers. Rather, they must contact the police or local authority to issue a closure notice and subsequently apply to the courts for a closure order on their behalf. This clause changes that.

Registered social housing providers will now be able to issue a closure notice and apply for a closure order themselves, meaning that the power can be used more quickly to disrupt antisocial behaviour, in turn freeing up police and local authority time. We of course understand that closing a premises is a serious action, so it is important to note that registered social housing providers are regulated bodies, subject to criteria set out in statute before they can become registered, and that they must meet the regulatory standards set by the Regulator of Social Housing. Having those safeguards is necessary to ensure that these powers are used responsibly by providers.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 5 amends the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to enable registered social housing providers to close premises that they own or manage that are associated with nuisance and disorder. We very much welcome this measure—it is right that we empower social housing providers to deal with disorder in order to support and protect tenants.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am very pleased that the shadow Minister agrees.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 6

Reviews of responses to complaints about anti-social behaviour

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 6 and schedule 3 enable local policing bodies—police and crime commissioners and their equivalents—to conduct reviews into how authorities in their area have handled reports of antisocial behaviour. Someone could request a local policing body case review if they were dissatisfied with the outcome of an antisocial behaviour case review conducted by another agency, such as the local police force.

Proposed new section 104A of the 2014 Act requires local policing bodies to publish data on LPB case reviews, including the number of applications, the number of reviews conducted and their outcomes. As the Minister knows, it does not specify how that data should be published, which raises questions about delivering an inconsistent approach to publishing data on ASB case reviews. Without a clear specification on publication methods, does the Minister believe there is a risk that data could be inaccessible or difficult to compare across different areas? Will there be any independent oversight or monitoring to ensure that local policing bodies comply with the new transparency requirements?

Clause 6 also modifies schedule 4 of the 2014 Act to mandate that local policing bodies actively raise awareness of antisocial behaviour case reviews within their respective police areas. How does the Minister foresee each force undertaking that work, and will she work with forces to ensure that good and accessible awareness is not a postcode lottery?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

We have obviously been working closely with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners on how these provisions will work, to ensure that PCCs feel comfortable about what is expected of them and that there is clear guidance in place on what the provisions will actually mean. The legislation clearly sets out minimum requirements that PCCs must comply with when they are setting up and carrying out the PCC case review, including, as I have said, publicising the complaints procedure, consulting with key agencies and setting up the process. We will continue to work with the APCC to develop guidance and best practice to support PCCs in making effective use of the PCC case review.

I fully understand that the data issue is a challenge. It is clear that most partners are collecting data on antisocial behaviour. There are sometimes issues with being able to share that data effectively, and information on how data can be used by all the partners who need to see it will certainly be part of the guidance.

On the whole, however, I think this provision, which supports victims by giving them the right to a further review through the PCC, is the correct approach. I know that the Victims’ Commissioner is keen to see more use of the review procedure. One of her big complaints in the document she produced last year was that the procedure is not well known. We certainly want PCCs to ensure that information about the further right of appeal is given out as clearly as possible to the victims of antisocial behaviour.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 7

Provision of information about anti-social behaviour to Secretary of State

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The clause introduces a power for the Home Secretary to make regulations requiring key local agencies to report information about antisocial behaviour to the Government. Regulations will be laid at a later date to specify the information that agencies must provide.

Information held by central Government on antisocial behaviour is, in some areas, limited. Despite non-police agencies, such as local authorities and housing providers, playing a crucial role in the response to antisocial behaviour, there are currently no requirements for those agencies to share information about ASB with the Government. That has resulted in a significant evidence gap in the national picture of antisocial behaviour, particularly around how many reports of antisocial behaviour are made to non-police agencies, how they are responded to, and how many antisocial behaviour case reviews they conduct.

Clause 7 takes steps to address the gap by requiring agencies to report that information to the Government. As it is a new duty, I reassure the Committee that we have considered possible new burdens on local agencies, and we have been engaging with local authorities and social housing providers to understand what information they already hold, and the impact that the requirement may have on them. We will ensure that any new requirements will be reasonable and proportionate. By collecting the information, we will be in a much better place: able to get a more accurate and granular picture of antisocial behaviour incidents across England and Wales, as well as the interventions used to tackle it. That, in turn, will help to inform future local and national activity so that we can better tackle antisocial behaviour.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 7 grants the Secretary of State the authority to determine through secondary legislation the specific data on antisocial behaviour that local agencies are required to provide to the Government. At its core, the provision is about understanding the problem better. It allows the Government to demand reports on antisocial behaviour incidents, details of how authorities respond, and records of case reviews where communities hold those responses to account.

The idea is simple: if we know more about graffiti spoiling our streets, noise disrupting people’s sleep or disorder plaguing our neighbourhoods, we can do more. The Secretary of State could use that data to spot trends, allocate resources or craft policies that hit the mark. But let us not view the clause through rose-tinted glasses; it raises serious questions we cannot ignore. How much information will be demanded and how often? Will small councils, already stretched thin, buckle under the weight of collecting, creating and analysing data? How much detail will they be asked to provide? Will it be every caller, incident log, or every follow-up? How often will it be—daily updates, weekly summaries or monthly deep-dives?

Police forces, especially in rural and underfunded areas, are already juggling tight budgets and rising demands. Could the burden of gathering, generating and sifting through antisocial behaviour data pull officers away from the streets where they are needed most? A Government armed with better information could target support where it is needed most—perhaps more officers in high-crime areas or funding for youth programmes to prevent trouble before it starts. I am interested in the Minister’s view on how this will be balanced.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I listened carefully to what the shadow Minister said, and in my remarks I also indicated that we wanted to be proportionate in the information we will request. It is clear that tackling antisocial behaviour is a top priority for this Government, and many of our partners, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the ASB sector, have called for better data on antisocial behaviour. Our engagement indicates that the majority of relevant agencies already have access to this data, but are not sharing it. That is the key point.

Requiring agencies to share that information with Government will enable the significant benefit of a national dataset on non-police ASB incidents and interventions, which will mean that we are then in a much better position to produce policy that fits with the issues that communities are facing up and down the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Seizure of motor vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

We all accept that antisocial behaviour is unacceptable, which is why the Government are undertaking this ambitious programme of work to tackle it, including the proposals that we have discussed in Committee today. The antisocial use of vehicles, such as e-scooters and off-road bikes, causes havoc in local communities. It is not, as it has perhaps been described in the past, low-level behaviour. It leaves law-abiding citizens feeling intimidated and unsafe in their town centres, local parks and neighbourhoods, and it happens across the country.

I fully understand the strength of feeling among the public and Members, and their desire for the Government to take swift action. We will treat antisocial driving as the blight on society that it is. That is why we are making it easier for the police to seize offenders’ vehicles and dispose of them. Clearly, the Bill will strengthen the law so that vehicles being used antisocially can be seized by police immediately without the need to first provide a warning.

[Matt Vickers]

I rise to speak to clause 8 as well as new clauses 30 and 36, 37, 39 and 40, which were tabled by the Opposition. Clause 8 relates to the seizure of motor vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance. It will omit section 59(4) and (5) of the Police Reform Act 2002, removing the requirement to first issue a warning prior to seizing a vehicle being used in an antisocial manner.

This issue is of particular concern to me, and many hon. Members across the House. The Opposition welcome this measure to enable police to remove bikes without warning when using this power. Off-road bikes, e-bikes and other non-road-legal bikes are a huge concern to local communities across the country. The issue has been raised time and again in this place, with increasing regularity, in Westminster Hall debates, parliamentary questions, and private Member’s Bills, which have shown the huge and increasing impact it has on communities in different parts of the country, represented by MPs of different political parties.

The antisocial use of motor vehicles is a growing concern across the UK. When vehicles are driven recklessly, dangerously or in a disruptive manner, they can cause significant harm—both physical and psychological—to individuals and the wider community. The consequences of such behaviour range from increased public fear and distress to serious injury, and even loss of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

An additional £1.2 billion is going into policing—from today, actually—for this financial year. So there is a clear commitment from the Government to fund police forces. I understand that the police face many challenges, but financial support is certainly going in. The work of the College of Policing in setting out best practice—that authorised professional practice—is really important in giving police officers confidence to take the steps they need to in order to deal with antisocial behaviour.

The other point I wanted to make is that work is being undertaken by the Home Office and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory to progress research and development on a novel technology solution to safely stop e-bikes and enhance the ability of the police to prevent them from being used to commit criminal acts.

[Matt Vickers]

Of course we want more resources—we will not play politics and debate that—but using direct contact to get someone off one of these bikes comes with huge consequences for the police officers who take that risk. There are parts of the country where young people have lost their lives—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam talked about “wrong ‘uns” riding these bikes, but they are often somebody’s son—so this comes with a huge risk and a huge life cost. Of course police officers want to bring that to an end, but the solution is usually an intelligence-led response that means that bikes are picked up when they are parked in a garage or—well, not parked in somebody’s house.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The shadow Minister makes an important point. This must be about intelligence-led policing, but there will be circumstances in which police officers find themselves having to pursue an individual. There is clear guidance from the College of Policing on how police officers should do that. It should be necessary, proportionate and balanced. Of course, we want to keep police officers safe and make sure that the person being pursued is not at risk of being injured or losing their life, as in the very sad cases the shadow Minister mentioned.

It is worth pointing out the powers available to the police to tackle the misuse of off-road bikes and other vehicles. The Police Reform Act 2002 provides the police with the power to seize vehicles that are driven carelessly or inconsiderately on-road or without authorisation off-road, and in a manner causing, or likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance. Section 59 of the Act enables the police to put a stop to this dangerous and antisocial behaviour. The seizure depends not on prosecution for, or proof of, these offences, but only on reasonable belief as to their commission.

Under section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the police are also empowered to seize vehicles driven without insurance or a driving licence. Under section 165B, they have the power to make regulations regarding the disposal of seized vehicles. The police can also deal with antisocial behaviour involving vehicles, such as off-road bikes racing around estates or illegally driving across public open spaces, in the same way as they deal with any other antisocial behaviour.

A number of questions were asked, but I want to deal first with the issue of when a vehicle is seized and what happens to the owner. When the police seize a vehicle, they will not immediately crush it. They need to spend time finding the registered owner in case the vehicle was stolen. Before reclaiming a vehicle, the individual must prove that they are the legal owner of the vehicle. They may be asked to prove that they have valid insurance and a driving licence. We will be consulting in the spring on proposals to allow the police to dispose of seized vehicles more quickly.

I will now turn to the constructive suggestions in the shadow Minister’s new clauses. New clause 30 would render antisocial drivers who fail to stop liable to penalty points on their licence for repeat offending. It is an offence under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 for a driver using a vehicle carelessly or antisocially to fail to stop when instructed to do so by a police officer. Offenders are liable for fines of up to £1,000, which we believe is a more effective deterrent. The police may also, where appropriate, issue penalty points for careless or inconsiderate driving or speeding, so antisocial drivers may already be liable for points. I entirely agree with the shadow Minister that the behaviour of antisocial drivers should not be tolerated. That is why we are making it easier for the police to seize their vehicles, and we will consider how to make it easier for seized vehicles to be disposed of, which we believe will be even more of a deterrent.

New clause 36 would permit the police to enter private dwellings to seize an off-road bike where it has been used antisocially or without licence. As I have already set out, the Government are keen to make it as easy as possible for the police to take these bikes off our streets. We do not, however, believe that giving the police powers to enter a private dwelling for the purpose of seizing an off-road bike is necessary or proportionate. The bar for entry to private dwellings is, rightly, extremely high. Police currently have a range of specific powers to seize vehicles being used antisocially or without a licence or insurance, and can already enter property, including gardens, garages and sheds, which is where they are most likely to be store, to seize them.

The police also have a general power of entry, search and seizure under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That means that when police are lawfully on the premises, they may seize any item reasonably believed to be evidence of any offence, where it is necessary to do so. That would include, for example, off-road bikes believed to have been used in crimes such as robbery. Magistrates may grant warrants to search for evidence in relation to indictable offences, and police may in some circumstances enter properties without a warrant being required—for example, to arrest someone for an indictable offence.

Later on in our deliberations, we will come to clause 93, which sets out the right of the police to enter a premises containing electronically tagged stolen goods when the GPS shows that that equipment—or whatever it is, and that includes a bike—with that electronic tag on it is in there. Police officers will be able to search without a warrant, on the basis that that is a stolen item. That is something to think about when we debate clause 93.

Having said all that, we believe that the measures we have brought forward to make it easier for the police to seize off-road bikes at the point of offending, as a number of my hon. Friends have discussed, are a better deterrent. That is intended to suppress the offending immediately, before it escalates, and to deliver swift justice.

New clause 37 would remove the 24-hour limit within which the police may seize an unlicensed or uninsured vehicle. Currently, the police may seize a vehicle that is being driven without a licence or insurance, either at the roadside or within 24 hours of being satisfied that the vehicle is unlicensed or uninsured. The point of that seizure power for uninsured vehicles is to instantly prevent the uninsured driver from driving. There is a separate penalty for the offence: if the vehicle is still uninsured after 24 hours, the police can seize the vehicle and give the driver a second uninsured driving penalty.

New clause 39 would expressly permit the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to ensure that the police destroy any off-road bikes they have seized. Currently, the police may dispose of seized vehicles after holding them for a certain period, but they are not required to destroy any off-road bikes. We are considering how we can make changes to the secondary legislation to allow the police to dispose of seized vehicles more quickly—to reduce reoffending and prevent those vehicles from ending up back in the hands of those who should not have them. However, we do not believe that we should restrict the ability of the police to dispose of off-road bikes as they see fit. They may, for example, auction them off to recover costs, which would not be possible under the terms of new clause 39.

Finally, new clause 40 would require the Government to consult on a registration scheme for the sale of off-road bikes, requiring sellers to record the details of buyers and to verify that they hold valid insurance. Of course, antisocial behaviour associated with off-road bikes is completely unacceptable and, as I have set out, we are taking strong measures to deal with this menace. The police already have a suite of powers to deal with those who do not use their off-road bikes responsibly. It is an offence to use an unlicensed vehicle on a public road, or off-road without the permission of the landowner, and the police can immediately seize vehicles being used in that way.

As the Committee will know, the police are operationally independent, and the Government cannot instruct them to take action in particular cases of antisocial vehicle use, but I hope I have been able to set out, and to reassure the shadow Minister, how seriously we take this unacceptable behaviour and how much we value the role the police have in tackling it.

I would also like to recognise the strength of feeling in the Committee and outside about this behaviour and the disruptive effect it has on communities. I recently met the Roads Minister and we agreed our commitment to a cross-Government approach to tackling this unacceptable antisocial use of vehicles and of course to improving road safety. I am really keen to take forward considerations about how we can go further, outside of the scope of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

This has been an interesting debate. We have been up mountain passes, we have been on the Isle of Wight and we have had the shadow Minister out with the Thornaby litter pickers. This debate has been very visual. Fly-tipping is a really serious crime that is blighting communities. It is placing a huge burden on taxpayers and businesses, and it harms the environment. Unfortunately, it is all too common, with local councils reporting 1.15 million incidents in 2023-24.

I want to address the issue of what we are doing in rural areas and on private land. Through the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Countryside Alliance and local authorities to share good practice on tackling fly-tipping on private land. Where there is sufficient evidence, councils can prosecute fly-tippers.

In relation to the issue of serious and organised waste crime, the Environment Agency hosts the joint unit for waste crime, which is a multi-agency taskforce that brings together His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency, the police, waste regulators from across the UK and other operational partners to share intelligence and disrupt and prevent serious organised waste crime. Since 2020, the joint unit for waste crime has worked with over 130 partner organisations, and led or attended 324 multi-agency days of action resulting in 177 associated arrests.

On the issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, we have engaged closely with the devolved Government across the Bill. As she will know, fly-tipping is a devolved matter in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so accordingly this provision applies only in England.

We want to see consistent and effective enforcement action at the centre of local efforts to combat the issue of fly-tipping. That will ensure not only that those who dump rubbish in our communities face the consequences, but that would-be perpetrators are deterred. Councils currently have a range of enforcement powers. Those include prosecution, which can lead to a significant fine, community sentences, or even imprisonment. They can also issue fixed penalty notices of up to £1,000 and seize the vehicles suspected of being used for fly-tipping.

The use of those powers, however, varies significantly across the country, with some councils taking little or no enforcement action at all. Indeed, just two councils—West Northamptonshire and Kingston upon Thames —accounted for the majority of vehicles seized in 2023-24. DEFRA also regularly receives reports of local authorities exercising their enforcement powers inappropriately, for example against householders who leave reusable items at the edge of their property for others to take for free. Through the Bill we intend to enable the Secretary of State to issue fly-tipping enforcement guidance that councils must have regard to.

I want to be clear that the guidance is not about setting top-down targets. We want to empower councils to respond to fly-tipping in ways that work for their communities, while making Government expectations crystal clear. The guidance, which must be subject to consultation, will likely cover areas such as policy and financial objectives of enforcement, how to operate a professional service, the use of private enforcement firms, and advice on how to respond in certain circumstances. Local authorities will, of course, be key stakeholders in the development of the guidance; after all, they are on the frontline in the fight against fly-tipping, and we want to ensure that the guidance provides them with the advice that they will find most helpful.

Amendment 35 aims to ensure that the person responsible for fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, is liable for the costs of cleaning up. I recognise the significant burden that clearing fly-tipped waste places on landowners. It is already the case that, where a local authority prosecutes a fly-tipper and secures a conviction, the court can make a cost order so that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. That is made clear in section 33B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, although sentencing is of course a matter for the courts. Guidance on presenting court cases produced by the national fly-tipping prevention group, which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chairs, explains that prosecutors should consider applying for compensation for the removal of waste. We will consider building on that advice in the statutory guidance issued under clause 9. We also committed, in our manifesto, to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess that they create. DEFRA will provide further details on that commitment in due course.

Amendment 4 would introduce a requirement for any fly-tipping guidance issued under clause 9 to be subject to parliamentary approval. I do not believe that there is any need for such guidance to be subject to any parliamentary procedure beyond a requirement to lay the guidance before Parliament. That is because the guidance will provide technical and practical advice to local authorities on how to conduct enforcement against fly-tipping and breaches of the household waste duty of care. The guidance will not conflict with, or alter the scope of, the enforcement powers, so I do not believe that it requires parliamentary oversight.

The requirement to lay the guidance before Parliament, without any further parliamentary procedure, is consistent with the position taken with the analogous power in section 88B of the 1990 Act and the recommendation of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the then Environment Bill in the 2021-22 Session. We will, of course, consider carefully any recommendations by that Committee in relation to this clause.

New clause 24 seeks to add three penalty points to the driving licence of a person convicted of a fly-tipping offence. As I have said, fly-tipping is a disgraceful act and those who dump rubbish in our communities should face the full force of the law, which could include spot fines of up to £1,000, prosecution or vehicle seizure. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, will appreciate that sentencing is a matter for the courts and that to direct them to place penalty points on the driving licence of a convicted fly-tipper would undermine their ability to hand down a sentence proportionate to the offence, but I will ask my DEFRA counterpart who is responsible for policy on fly-tipping to consider the benefits of enabling endorsement with penalty points for fly-tippers.

I also stress that there is an existing power for local councils to seize a vehicle suspected of being used for fly-tipping. If a council prosecutes, the court can order the transferral to the council of the ownership rights to the vehicle, under which the council can keep, sell or dispose of it.

I hope that, in the light of my explanations, the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Sutton and Cheam will be content to withdraw their amendments and to support clause 9.

[Matt Vickers]

It would be remiss of us to have this debate today and not mention that the Great British spring clean is happening at the moment, thanks to Keep Britain Tidy. I thought I would just put that out there; the Minister need not respond.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The Committee benefits from that information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

As mentioned earlier, we are united in the aim of rooting out knives and knife crime from our society. Ensuring that our streets and constituents are safe is of primary importance to us all. Clause 12 introduces a new police power to seize bladed or sharply pointed articles, referred to as “relevant articles”, under specific conditions. A police constable may exercise that power if they are lawfully on premises and find a relevant article, with reasonable grounds to suspect that it could be used in connection with unlawful violence, including damage to property or threats of violence, if not seized.

This provision gives police officers the authority to remove dangerous weapons from potential misuse, enhancing public safety and reducing the risk of harm in situations where there is a credible threat of violence. Clause 13 would create similar powers for armed forces service police. Unlike clause 12, the power for armed forces service police would apply across the UK.

We face a tragedy that continues to unfold in our streets, communities and homes: a tragedy that sees young lives cut short, families shattered and entire communities left in mourning. Knife crime has become a scourge on our society, robbing us of the future doctors, teachers, engineers and leaders who should have had the chance to fulfil their potential. Instead, too many parents now sit by empty chairs at the dinner table, their sons and daughters stolen from them by senseless violence. Every single child lost to knife crime is a story of devastation.

Broadly, clauses 12 and 13 offer great powers to our law enforcement, which of course should be welcome. We cannot ignore the role that stop and search plays in tackling this crisis. In London alone, that policing tool has taken 400 knives off the streets every month, preventing countless violent attacks. Over the past four years, 17,500 weapons have been seized as a result of stop and search, including at least 3,500 in 2024—weapons that would otherwise have remained in circulation, posing a deadly risk to communities. Nor is it is just a London issue: in 2023-24, stop and search led to more than 6,000 arrests in the west midlands and 5,620 arrests in Greater Manchester.

We must, of course, ensure that these powers are used fairly and proportionately, but we cannot afford to weaken a tool that has saved lives. Every knife seized is a potential tragedy prevented. We must stand firm in supporting our police, ensuring that they have the powers they need to keep our community safe. However, I urge caution with some of the provisions and ask the Government to look at some of them and some of the issues that they may lead to.

Clause 12 grants police officers the power to seize bladed articles found on private premises when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the item will be used in connection with unlawful violence. While the intention of this clause, to prevent violence by removing weapons before harm can be done, is clear, there are some concerns over the impact that the clauses could have. The provision in clause 12 allows for the seizure of bladed articles based on what the police deem to be reasonable grounds to suspect.

The phrase “reasonable grounds” is inherently subjective and open to interpretation, which could lead to inconsistent enforcement and, in some cases, potential abuse of power. Many individuals legally possess knives for legitimate purposes, such as work. Some might argue that this clause could inadvertently criminalise those who have no intention of using their blades for unlawful purposes. The law needs to ensure that the people who possess knives for legitimate reasons are not unjustly targeted or treated as criminals.

Clause 12 empowers the police to seize items from private premises. While there is a clear and overriding public safety rationale, the intrusion into individuals’ privacy could be seen by some as excessive. We must consider how this power might be exercised in a way that balances safety with respect for personal rights. While public safety is paramount, we must not lose sight of the importance of protecting individual freedoms. Some would argue that these clauses, although well intentioned, could pave the way for broader surveillance and unwarranted searches. It is essential that we have guidance within our police forces to create consistency of approach.

Finally, while the clauses provide the police and armed forces with significant powers, we must ask whether they address the root causes of knife crime. This is a reactive measure, seizing weapons after they have been identified as a threat. We need to ensure a comprehensive approach, including education and support, to reduce violence and prevent knife crime from occurring in the first place. I am sure I speak for all Members across the House in our desire to combat knife crime and violence on our streets.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I gently point out to the shadow Minister that the clauses in the Bill before us today are exactly the same clauses that were in the Criminal Justice Bill, which obviously, as a Member of Parliament at that point, he would have supported.

[Matt Vickers]

I would not say I was not supportive of the clauses; I am saying that we need to continue to look at the guidance that we give police officers on the powers, particularly as we extend them.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Of course we keep all such matters under review. I am just pointing out that these are exactly the same clauses that the shadow Minister voted for in the Criminal Justice Bill.

On the point that the shadow Minister made about the reasonable grounds for suspecting, which a police officer must have in order to seize the weapon, the knife or bladed item, there is not an unlimited power for the police to seize any article they may wish to take away from the property. They will have to provide reasons why they are seizing the article and, as I said in my remarks, they will have to return the item if a court determines that they have seized it in error.

On the shadow Minister’s final point, this of course is only one measure. There is a whole range of other things that we need to do, particularly in the preventive space, to deal with the issue of knives. However, this measure will give the police, as I am sure he would agree, one of the powers that will help in dealing with the problems we face with knife crime today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Crime and Policing Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Diana Johnson and Matt Vickers

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

I am on a mission: there will not be another infringement, Mr Pritchard.

Antisocial behaviour can devastate communities, causing distress and insecurity for residents. We cannot stand by and allow that to continue unchecked. Lowering the age to 16 would mean that we can address these issues sooner and ensure that young people receive the support and guidance—and, potentially, sanctions and deterrents—they need to change course.

Respect orders are not simply punitive measures. They come with conditions that promote rehabilitation, and provide access to education, counselling and the opportunity to turn things around. As the Minister will know, this is as much about deterrence as it is about enforcement. When young people know that there are consequences for their actions, they are less likely to engage in behaviour that harms others. By making the amendment, we would strengthen our communities, support young people and ensure that respect for others remains at the heart of society. During the evidence sessions, we heard the views of witnesses about the 16 to 18 age bracket, and I would welcome further explanation from Ministers on why 18 has been chosen as the minimum age.

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

Good morning, Mr Pritchard; it is a pleasure to serve under you today.

The Bill will start to implement our safer streets mission alongside our commitment to the 13,000 additional police officers and police community support officers in our communities. Before I respond to amendment 31, it may assist the Committee if I say a little about why we are introducing respect orders. My doing so now may obviate the need for a separate debate on clause stand part.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting out the history of successive Governments’ attempts to deal with antisocial behaviour. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a top priority for this Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. Last year, over a third of people experienced or witnessed some form of ASB, and there were 1 million police-recorded incidents. Existing powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 do not always go far enough to tackle antisocial behaviour. That is why we committed in our manifesto to introduce the respect order to crack down on those making our neighbourhoods, town centres and communities feel unsafe and unwelcoming.

The respect order partially replaces the existing civil injunctions power for persons aged 18 or over. It enables civil courts to make respect orders on application from a relevant authority in respect of individuals who have engaged in ASB. Authorities that can apply include the police, local authorities and registered housing providers, among others. Respect orders will contain prohibitive conditions set by the court to stop offenders engaging in a particular behaviour. They can also include rehabilitative positive requirements, such as attending an anger management course, to help to tackle the root cause of offending.

I mentioned that the existing ASB powers do not always go far enough. Breach of a respect order, in contrast to the power it replaces, will be a criminal offence and therefore arrestable. That is not the case for the current civil injunction, which may include a power of arrest only in certain circumstances, where it is specified by the court or where there has been the use or threat of violence or significant risk of harm. I have heard from one local authority of a civil injunction that was breached over 100 times, with the police unable to take quick action to stop breaches because they had to reapply to the courts to arrest the offender. That is not acceptable and the respect order will fix it.

As a criminal offence, breach of a respect order will be heard in the criminal courts. This will allow judges to issue a wider range of sentences—including community orders, fines and up to two years’ imprisonment—than they can currently for civil injunctions. This is an important change. Community sentences enable judges to make ASB offenders repay, often visibly, their debt to their community.

I assure the Committee that there are safeguards in place to ensure that the orders are used appropriately. These are not unilateral powers for the police and local authorities; the terms of an order must be agreed by the courts. For a respect order to be issued, two tests must be met. First, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has engaged in or threatened to engage in ASB. ASB is defined as

“conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress”.

That is a well-established definition. Secondly, the court must be satisfied that issuing a respect order is just and convenient—again, an established test for the courts.

As a further safeguard, we are introducing a new requirement for relevant authorities to carry out a risk assessment checklist prior to applying for a respect order. This will help to ensure proportionate use. We will pilot respect orders to ensure that they are as effective as possible before rolling them out across England and Wales. More details on the pilots and their location will be provided in due course. New part A1 of the 2014 Act, inserted by clause 1, also makes provision for interim respect orders, for the variation and discharge of orders, and for special measures for witnesses in proceedings—for example, to enable them to give evidence from behind a screen.

Amendment 31 would reduce the age at which an offender can receive a respect order from 18 to 16, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, outlined. As I have indicated, the respect order is intended as a powerful deterrent for addressing the most harmful adult perpetrators of ASB. Unlike the equivalent current power—the civil injunction—breach of a respect order is a criminal offence with criminal sanctions, and the Government do not believe that it is right to criminalise children unnecessarily, which is why we committed in our manifesto to introduce respect orders for adults only. However, we know that in some cases tough measures, including behavioural orders, can be useful for dealing with younger offenders.

I absolutely agree with the shadow Minister that there should be consequences for the actions that cause distress and harm to local communities if they are committed by, for example, a 16-year-old. Stakeholders have told us that the current civil injunction can be a very useful tool for this cohort. It enables youth courts to impose behavioural requirements on younger offenders, but without resulting in criminalisation. That is why we have retained that element of the existing civil injunction and renamed it the youth injunction. This will enable youth courts to continue to make orders against younger offenders—aged 10, when criminal responsibility kicks in, to 18—where the court deems it necessary. I am content that this provision covers the need for powers to deal with youth ASB. On that basis, I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

We need to give the justice system and agencies all the powers that they can have, because at the end of the day, it is their discretion that will determine which of these things are applied. If someone breaches an order more than once, and they are subject to several respect orders, which is what the amendment relates to, there should be a stepladder of consequences. We should give the agencies and the Ministry of Justice all the tools and powers that they can use to deter people from committing another offence or indeed being subject to yet another respect order.

This is a common-sense amendment. It gives our justice system the tools that it needs to enforce respect orders properly, protects communities from persistent offenders and upholds the principle that the law must be respected.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Amendment 33 would make a person who has been given more than one respect order liable for a fine of up to £1,000. It is unlikely that a person would be given more than one respect order. An order may be given for a specified period of time or may state that it has effect until further notice. In practice, if changes are needed to a respect order after it has been approved, the applicant would return to court for the order to be varied if, for example, it was considered necessary to include additional requirements or prohibitions, or to extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect. However, a person may be given a separate order where they have engaged in antisocial behaviour that meets the legal test for use of another ASB power—for example, a housing injunction or a criminal behaviour order. Respect orders are preventive orders. They seek to prevent further antisocial behaviour by helping to address the root causes of the person’s behaviour.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh pointed out, respect orders deter people from carrying on with their behaviour because a breach can lead to arrest, being brought before a criminal court and, potentially, imprisonment. My expectation is that, if there is a need to make changes to a respect order, the requirements will be changed and the prohibitions will be extended on the respect order that has already been issued, so I am not sure that I take the point about multiple respect orders. What we all want is that, when a respect order is issued, the individual will comply with it and no further steps are necessary by anybody because they will have stopped the antisocial behaviour and dealt with their underlying problems. Simply fining someone for receiving further orders would be a punitive measure and unlikely to help that individual change their behaviour.

Amendment 32 would increase the maximum prison term available for repeated breaches of respect orders to five years. Currently, the maximum sentence for breaching a respect order is up to two years’ imprisonment upon conviction in the Crown court. We believe that is the appropriate level of sanction, and it is in line with the current civil injunction that it replaces.

As I said, respect orders take a fundamentally preventive approach, and it is appropriate that the sentence reflects that. If the offender abides by the terms of the order, there will be no further sanctions. However, it is right that custodial sentences are still available for those who continue to cause havoc to our communities. Other powers, such as criminal behaviour orders, are available on conviction for any criminal offence in any criminal court, and they carry a longer sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment. In the light of that, I hope that the shadow Minister will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Matt Vickers]

I thank the Minister for her response. As we know, a small number of people are responsible for the vast majority of crimes. It is right that we put these ladders in place for the communities out there who are frustrated because they do not think the system has consequences for the same young people who are offending again and again, and creating lots of havoc on our streets. We would like to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Amendment 30 would expand the legal definition of antisocial behaviour for respect orders, which is currently drafted as behaviour

“that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.”

The amendment seeks to include housing-related definitions of antisocial behaviour, including causing “nuisance or annoyance”, as in section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The test for nuisance and annoyance is a lower level of behaviour than that causing harassment, alarm or distress. That is appropriate in a housing context where a victim cannot easily escape from ASB that is occurring in the area where they live. We know that ASB can have devastating consequences in such situations, undermining the victim’s safety and security in their home. That is why we have retained the test for the new housing injunction in clause 2.

The respect order goes further than the civil injunction, as I have set out, in making a breach a criminal offence and enabling a wider range of sentencing options. It is appropriate that the legal test should be behaviour that is causing, or likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress. It is also important to be mindful that the respect order sits alongside a suite of powers available to the police and local authorities to tackle ASB, which are designed to apply to the different scenarios and harm types that the amendment aims to capture. I hope I have assured the shadow Minister of our reasoning in setting the bar for a respect order at the level of harassment, alarm or distress, and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Matt Vickers]

I thank the Minister for her response, but I would like to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I thank the hon. Member for his evidence.

The amendment is a crucial measure that could play an essential role in ensuring that the allocation of social housing is fair, responsible, and aligned with the values of respect and community responsibility. The key benefit is that it provides an additional incentive for individuals to behave in a way that upholds community standards. When someone is found to have caused disruption or engaged in antisocial behaviour that harms others, placing them at the bottom of the waiting list for social housing serves as a tangible consequence of their actions. It encourages personal responsibility and reinforces the idea that those who choose to respect the rules and the people around them should be rewarded, while those who engage in disruptive behaviour should face appropriate consequences.

Moreover, this approach supports the integrity of the social housing system. Social housing is in high demand, and it is vital that we prioritise those who are not only in need, but demonstrate a commitment to being good tenants and positive members of the community. By introducing this measure, we would ensure that social housing was allocated in a manner that rewards responsible behaviour, thus safeguarding the quality of life for everyone in the community. Importantly, it would allow local authorities to manage the housing waiting list in a way that aligns with the broader objectives of social housing policy, promoting both fairness and the values that underpin our society. It is a sensible, measured approach that encourages respect for others and the community as a whole.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Well, Mr Pritchard, that was a lively exchange. Clearly the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley, has had her three Weetabix this morning.

We all recognise how devastating antisocial behaviour where you live can be, and I fully understand and appreciate the passion the debate on amendment 34 has prompted this morning. As the shadow Minister pointed out, amendment 34 would enable local authorities or housing providers to move a person who receives a respect order to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing. It is for local authorities to decide who should qualify for social housing. It might be helpful for hon. Members to know that many councils already consider antisocial behaviour or other criminal behaviour before allocating a social home. They may either decide that a person with a history of antisocial behaviour does not qualify to go on the housing register, or accept the person on to the register but award them lower priority.

I note what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, said about the effect that this amendment could have on other family members not associated with the antisocial behaviour. We need to consider the potential consequences of removing access to social housing. The respect order is intended to tackle the most harmful adult perpetrators of ASB, but also aims to prevent further ASB from occurring and help people to address the root causes of their behaviour. That is why respect orders may contain positive as well as prohibitive requirements.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point; I am not sure that I will respond to it. However, the point he made earlier about the need to ensure that innocent people are not caught up in this is one that I am willing to accept.

We do not want to create further issues for individuals who have respect orders by removing access to social housing entirely, which may increase the risk of reoffending and reduce the likelihood of rehabilitation. I hope that, as I have explained that there is already the power for local authorities to choose to take into account the antisocial behaviour or criminal records of potential tenants, the shadow Minister will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

[Matt Vickers]

I thank the Minister for her response. I am glad that we provoked a bit of passion and got people engaged in the debate. I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As we have talked at length about the respect orders, I will not say anything further at this stage.

[Matt Vickers]

It is encouraging to see housing providers recognised as registered authorities in proposed new section B1 of the 2014 Act, particularly when it comes to addressing antisocial behaviour, which continues to plague many residents in housing communities. Registered housing providers, including housing associations and local authority landlords, serve as the backbone of the social housing sector, ensuring that tenants have access to safe, stable and well-managed homes. Their role extends beyond simply providing houses; they are legally and morally responsible for fostering strong, liveable communities where residents feel secure and supported. As designated authorities with specific legal powers, these providers are uniquely positioned to tackle antisocial behaviour head-on. This responsibility is crucial in preventing communities from becoming blighted by persistent nuisance and intimidation or criminal activity.

Rather than leaving tenants to endure these issues alone, or to rely solely on already overstretched police and council services, housing providers have the tools to intervene directly, whether through tenancy enforcement, mediation or legal action. By taking a proactive stance against antisocial behaviour, registered housing providers help maintain the quality of life for all residents, ensuring that social housing remains a place not just to live, but to thrive. Their ability to act swiftly and decisively is vital in upholding community standards and reinforcing the fundamental principle that everyone deserves to live in a safe and respectful environment.

Response times can still lag, and not all providers have the resources or the will to tackle complex cases effectively. Victims of persistent antisocial behaviour often face a daunting process: logging multiple complaints, gathering evidence and navigating bureaucracy. How will the Government ensure that all housing providers have the capacity to utilise these powers effectively?

The Environment Agency is listed as a relevant authority with the power to issue a respect order. Could the Minister clarify the specific role that the agency will play in enforcing these orders? Under what circumstances would the Environment Agency be expected to exercise this power, and what specific outcomes do the Government seek to achieve by including it? Could the Minister provide a concrete example of how the Environment Agency might use a respect order in practice? Proposed new section C1 of the 2014 Act sets out that the respect order

“may have the effect of excluding the respondent from the place where the respondent normally lives”

and that a condition the court considers is that

“the anti-social behaviour in which the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage consists of or includes the use or threatened use of violence against other persons, or…there is a significant risk of harm to other persons from the respondent.”

What implications could that have for respondents who have been issued with an order? Where will they live? What role will their local authority have in supporting them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Recruiting 13,000 police officers sounds really good, but about a third of them will be special constables and about a third redeployed from other parts of the police force. When someone rings 999, because they want that emergency response service, they may wait even longer, because the response police officers will have been moved into neighbourhoods.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Rubbish!

[Matt Vickers]

The Government are redeploying them, so they are taking them from somewhere. We would welcome any information about where the Government will or will not redeploy them from, but this is important. The Government cannot say 13,000 more are arriving, when it is about 3,000 more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

We are retaining the existing provisions for civil injunctions. As I set out previously, the balance of probabilities, the test and the categorisation of the antisocial behaviour will all remain the same. We are just renaming it a “youth injunction” because we are focusing the respect order on the persistent antisocial behaviour of adults over 18. The youth injunction remains exactly as it is in law now.

I am conscious of the profound problems that housing-related nuisance ASB can cause, as we have heard again in this debate. The housing injunction therefore retains the lower legal threshold of

“conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”

in a housing context—as previously discussed. Again, we heard from practitioners that the existing power is effective and proportionate for housing-related ASB, and the housing injunction therefore retains the effect of the current power in that context.

Government amendments 6 to 8 and 24 to 28 make further technical and consequential amendments to existing antisocial behaviour legislation as a result of the introduction of respect orders. In relation to the 2014 Act, that means ensuring that definitions of antisocial behaviour are captured accurately elsewhere, under the existing powers, to account for the new respect orders and injunctions in part 1 of the Act. Consequential amendments are also needed to the Housing Acts 1985 and 1988 so that the breach of a respect order, a youth injunction or a housing injunction continues to be a ground for possession under those Housing Acts, as is the case with the current civil injunction.

We know that taking possession of a property is an important tool for landlords to use to provide swift relief to victims when antisocial behaviour or criminality has already been proven by another court. It is therefore right to retain that tool with the new respect order. In addition, amendment 28 amends the Localism Act 2011 to ensure that landlords can refuse to surrender and grant tenancies on the basis that a tenant, or a person residing with the tenant, has been issued with a respect order.

Finally, amendment 28 also amends the Police Reform Act 2002 to ensure that constables in uniform can continue to require a person engaging in antisocial behaviour to give their name and address. I commend the provisions to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 2 amends the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to provide for the granting of youth and housing injunctions; I thank the Minister for outlining that. Clause 2 will limit powers under section 1 of the 2014 Act so that injunctions can be granted only to individuals aged 10 to 17. Will the Minister confirm the rationale behind that age restriction?

The clause also introduces a new type of injunction for adults aged 18 and over, specifically aimed at preventing behaviour that causes nuisance or annoyance related to housing. It shifts the approach to tackling community-specific antisocial conduct, rather than broader public disorder. How do the Government justify treating adult antisocial behaviour differently depending on whether it is housing-related or not? Is the Minister concerned that limiting injunctions for housing-related issues to adults might create enforcement gaps? What mechanisms are in place to ensure that local authorities and housing providers have the necessary resources to enforce housing-related injunctions effectively? Realising that Ministers are keen to hear exactly who wants what measures in the Bill, can she name any housing associations who specifically asked for this measure?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

A number of the points that the shadow Minister has raised were discussed earlier. We have set out very clearly why we believe that the respect orders should only apply to adults, because we are talking about the most serious antisocial behaviour. We believe that children and young people up to the age of 18 should not be caught by a respect order because of the criminalisation attached—if it is breached, they can be immediately arrested and brought before the criminal courts. That is why we have retained what is working well with the civil injunctions and renamed them the youth injunction and the housing injunction. On the latter, again, we heard very passionate contributions about how antisocial behaviour where people live, next to their home, and caused by neighbours, can absolutely destroy people’s lives, causing stress, distress and mental health issues, as well as sometimes breaking up families. That is why the threshold for the housing injunction is lower than that for the respect order, but for the threshold we are using what is already on the statute books and I think it is right that it is at that lower level.

On the question about whether any social housing authority has supported the plans for housing injunctions, there is a genuine view in the sector that this is a positive step to enable them to deal with the antisocial behaviour that housing authorities often have to deal with. I am very conscious that the antisocial behaviour charity Resolve has much welcomed the work that has gone into the Bill on both the respect orders and the civil injunctions. Resolve would say that there is a general view that this is a positive way forward. The approach that seems sensible is using what works well now, and keeping that—as I have said, that is why the housing and youth injunctions are doing that and are adapting it—while bringing in this tougher response through the respect order, and getting that on the statute books to deal with people who persistently engage in antisocial behaviour, to try to get to the root cause of what they are doing. I hope that deals with the questions posed by the shadow Minister.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendments made: 7, in clause 2, page 10, line 37, leave out “(injunctions)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.

Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 11, line 2, at end insert—

“(1A) Part 2 of Schedule 1 contains consequential amendments of other Acts.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 28.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Amendments of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

Amendments made: 24, in schedule 1, page 148, line 4, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—

“Part 1

Amendments of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

1 The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is amended as set out in this Part.”

This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 28, makes the existing text of Schedule 1 become Part 1 of that Schedule.

Amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 150, line 4, leave out from “for” to end of line 5 and insert

“‘section 1’ substitute ‘this Part’.”

This amendment ensures that the definition in section 2(1)(b) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as amended by the Bill, applies to applications for youth injunctions as well as applications for housing injunctions.

Amendment 26, in schedule 1, page 152, line 37, at end insert—

“(za) in the words before paragraph (a), for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘this Part’;”.

This amendment ensures that the consultation requirement under section 14(3) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as amended by the Bill, applies to applications to vary or discharge housing injunctions as well as youth injunctions.

Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 153, line 33, at end insert—

“19A In section 101 (the community remedy document), in subsection (9), for the definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ substitute—

‘“anti-social behaviour” means—

(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or

(b) housing-related anti-social conduct as defined by section 2 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section);’.

19B (1) Section 102 (anti-social behaviour etc: out-of-court disposals) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), in paragraph (c), for ‘an injunction under section 1’ substitute ‘a respect order under section A1 or an injunction under Part 1’.

(3) In subsection (6), for the definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ substitute—

‘“anti-social behaviour” means—

(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or

(b) housing-related anti-social conduct, as defined by section 2 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section);’.”

This amendment inserts into Schedule 1 provision making amendments to the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 that are consequential on the amendments made to that Act by clause 1 and by the other provisions of Schedule 1.

Amendment 28, in schedule 1, page 153, line 38, at end insert—

“Part 2

Consequential amendments of other Acts

Housing Act 1985

21 (1) Section 84A of the Housing Act 1985 (absolute ground for possession for anti-social behaviour) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (4)—

(a) for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘Part 1’;

(b) after ‘2014’ insert ‘or a respect order’.

(3) In subsection (9), for the definition of ‘relevant proceedings’, substitute—

‘“relevant proceedings” means—

(a) proceedings for an offence under section I1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,

(b) proceedings under Schedule 2 to that Act, or

(c) proceedings for contempt of court;

“respect order” means an order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;’.

22 In Schedule 3 to that Act (grounds for withholding consent to assignment by way of exchange), in Ground 2A, in the definition of ‘relevant order’, for ‘an injunction under section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014’ substitute—

‘a respect order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;

an injunction under Part 1 of that Act;’

Housing Act 1988

23 (1) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 (grounds on which court must order possession of dwelling-houses let on assured tenancies), Ground 7A is amended as follows.

(2) In condition 2, in the words before paragraph (a)—

(a) for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘Part 1’;

(b) after ‘2014’ insert ‘or a respect order’.

(3) In the list of definitions for the purposes of Ground 7A, for the definition of ‘relevant proceedings’ substitute—

‘“relevant proceedings” means—

(a) proceedings for an offence under section I1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,

(b) proceedings under Schedule 2 to that Act, or

(c) proceedings for contempt of court;

“respect order” means an order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;’.

Police Reform Act 2002

24 In section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (persons engaging in anti-social behaviour), for subsection (1A) substitute—

‘(1A) In subsection (1) “anti-social behaviour” means—

(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or

(b) housing-related anti-social conduct, as defined by section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section).’

Localism Act 2011

25 In Schedule 14 to the Localism Act 2011 (grounds on which landlord may refuse to surrender and grant tenancies under section 158), in paragraph 6(4), in the definition of ‘relevant order’—

(a) after paragraph (e) insert—

‘(ea) a respect order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,’;

(b) in paragraph (f), for ‘section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014’ substitute ‘Part 1 of that Act’.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This amendment inserts into Schedule 1 a new Part 2 containing amendments of Acts other than the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in consequence of the amendments made to that Act by clause 1 and by the other provisions of Schedule 1 (which would by virtue of Amendment 24 become Part 1 of that Schedule).

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3

Maximum period for certain directions, notices and orders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am very pleased to hear that the shadow Minister supports the 72-hour limit, because it was in the Criminal Justice Bill that her Government brought forward and that, because of the general election, never got on to the statute books. Work was done with stakeholders on what would be required. Clearly we do not want to extend it too far, but 72 hours seemed to be the best period of time to take into account what I was just saying about weekends and bank holidays in particular.

Let me move on to closure orders. The clause extends the timeframe that the relevant agencies, after issuing a closure notice, can apply to a magistrates court for a closure order from 48 hours to 72 hours. Again, that is based on feedback from practitioners who have noted operational challenges in applying for a closure order. The 48-hour window is not always enough time to prepare evidence and serve it to the courts, particularly on weekends or bank holidays. The closure order is an important power that agencies can use to provide immediate respite to the local community, so we must ensure that it is practicable and viable for practitioners to use.

Extending the timeframe to 72 hours will allow practitioners adequate time to gather evidence and inform interested parties. It also allows respondents more time to seek legal advice, in turn reducing the number of cases adjourned by the courts. In short, the provisions will help to address operational challenges, allowing local agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour more efficiently and effectively.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 3 sets out the maximum period for certain directions, notices and orders. On exclusion directions, the Bill amends section 35 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 whereby a police officer could direct a person to leave a specified area for up to 48 hours. The Bill extends this to 72 hours. If an exclusion period exceeds 48 hours, a police inspector must review the direction as soon as possible after the 48-hour mark to ensure its necessity.

Closure notices allow the police to shut down premises that cause nuisance or disorder, and could previously last 24 hours before requiring further action. The Bill extends that to 48 hours. The maximum period for an initial closure notice before a magistrates court order will be required has been extended from 48 to 72 hours. Those efforts will give greater flexibility for police and officers will have more time to manage antisocial behaviour without requiring immediate escalation to the courts. That will allow for a stronger deterrent, meaning that longer exclusion periods and closure notices could have a greater impact in preventing repeated antisocial behaviour.

In 2023, the previous Government ran a consultation on proposals to strengthen powers available to address antisocial behaviour under the 2014 Act. It is true that the Government have opted to reintroduce some of these provisions into the Crime and Policing Bill. However, I would be grateful for an understanding of why certain measures have not been taken forward. For example, provisions to remove the need for authorisation by a senior police officer for a dispersal order have not been reintroduced. Although a Member could argue that a mandatory review by an inspector for exclusion periods of over 48 hours ensures accountability, why was the decision made to require an inspector’s review for exclusion directions only after 48 hours, rather than immediately on extending them?

The Bill also removes provisions to grant senior police officers the power to make public space protection orders, meaning that it arguably becomes harder in certain instances to control disorder. In November 2024, an extraordinary and unprecedented legal order was enacted, imposing a complete closure on an entire housing estate of 376 properties. That sweeping measure was introduced as a direct response to escalating concerns over severe and persistent antisocial behaviour and rampant drug dealing that had reached intolerable levels. The closure order strictly prohibited non-residents from gathering or loitering in key communal areas, including stairwells, landings, bridges and spaces near bin chutes, as well as within open areas adjacent to residential properties. The decision was driven by an urgent need to restore safety and security for the law-abiding residents, whose daily lives had been severely disrupted by the ongoing disturbances. Authorities deemed that intervention necessary to curb the relentless activities of those engaged in criminal behaviour and to ensure that the estate could once again become a liveable and peaceful environment for its rightful occupants.

The Bill has notably failed to carry forward provisions to lower the minimum age for issuing a community protection notice to 10 years old. Why has that decision been made? As the Minister will be well aware, antisocial behaviour is frequently perpetrated by individuals under the age of 18, often causing significant disruption and distress within communities. Local residents, businesses and authorities alike have long struggled with the challenges posed by persistent youth-related disorder. Given that reality, is the Minister fully confident that the removal of this provision will not inadvertently weaken the ability of law enforcement and local councils to tackle antisocial behaviour committed by teenagers? Without appropriate measures in place, there is a real risk that communities will continue to bear the brunt of unchecked disorder and that would undermine efforts to create safer and more harmonious neighbourhoods. What safeguards are in place to prevent these extended powers from being misused or disproportionately applied to certain groups or businesses? What role will local authorities and community organisations play in reviewing the effectiveness of these measures?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The shadow Minister asked a number of questions about measures that were in the Criminal Justice Bill and are not in the Crime and Policing Bill. Clearly, what we are referring to was, and it is the same, as I understand it. We carefully considered the merits of all the measures that were in the Criminal Justice Bill on a case-by-case basis, and we reintroduced the ones that we thought had clear operational benefits, would help to cut crime and antisocial behaviour and would rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system.

The shadow Minister asked about the requirement for dispersal orders to be authorised by an inspector. The Criminal Justice Bill included a measure to remove the current requirement for an inspector to authorise a dispersal order. When considering that measure and what it would deliver, we were concerned that restricting people’s freedom of movement is a serious matter and that it is important that the dispersal order is used proportionately and reasonably. Ensuring that that power is authorised by an officer of at least the rank of inspector provides an additional safeguard and ensures that the power is used only to stop activities that are causing antisocial behaviour.

The Criminal Justice Bill sought to reduce the age that someone can receive a community protection notice from 16 to 10. We take the view that the breach of a CPN is a criminal offence and this Government, as I have said a number of times, do not wish to risk funnelling children into the criminal justice system unnecessarily by lowering the age at which someone can receive a CPN to 10 years of age. As we have discussed, the civil injunction will remain in place to be used against those under the age of 16—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and Matt Vickers

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) has outlined, this weekend we heard the shocking reports that the parents of a nine-year-old girl were arrested by six Hertfordshire police officers and placed in a cell for 11 hours because they complained about their daughter’s primary school on WhatsApp. At the same time, 270,000 shoplifting cases have been closed without a suspect being identified. Does the Minister agree that the police should be able to get on with the job of tackling crime on our streets? Can she comment on whether they were getting their priorities right in that case?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As the shadow Minister will know, this is an operational matter for policing, and it is quite clear that the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner have set out that there will be a review of what happened in that particular case.

Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Diana Johnson and Matt Vickers

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

Q Do you have any other comments on entry without a warrant being narrower in this Bill?

Dan Murphy: I think there is a role for the Government and Parliament to communicate that it is a power that has been given to policing. It is not something that policing is searching for and trying to use. The public need to understand that it has been given to us for a reason, and we are using it.

Tiff Lynch: I would go one step further in relation to the public having knowledge of the powers. That also gives our police officers confidence that the Government are behind them when they are enforcing these laws, and the knowledge that they are supported in what they are doing.

Chief Constable De Meyer: We know that the ability to track mobile devices is not sufficiently accurate at the moment for it to be relied upon without some form of corroboration. Therefore, one understands why things are more tightly framed. Where there is good intelligence for its use, this ability to enter swiftly to search for stolen goods without the need to get a warrant will mean that we are able to recover stolen property more swiftly, and that investigations are less likely to be frustrated. To ensure legitimacy in the eyes of the public, that obviously needs to be carried out carefully, but overall it will make it less likely that property, whether electronic property or property linked to rural crime, can be swiftly disposed of. Our current inability to deal expeditiously with those sorts of crimes can adversely impact public confidence. Overall, it is a very positive operational thing.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Thank you very much for giving evidence today. I want to follow up on the questions about allowing police to go in without a warrant to recover digital devices with tracking devices. The Bill refers to “reasonable grounds to believe”, which is the test that would have to be applied, and requires authorisation by an inspector. Does each of you believe that that is the appropriate test and authorisation level?

Chief Constable De Meyer: The requirement of belief is obviously a relatively high bar; for example, it is above suspicion. I think that that reflects the need to ensure that a new power such as this is applied carefully and with appropriate corroboration. Crucially, an inspector is going to be readily operationally available for an officer in this sort of dynamic circumstance, so the officer will be able to make contact with and get the authorisation from them. It seems to me that the thrust of the power is very much towards enabling the police to recover property quickly, so belief is a good safeguard and the inspector is appropriately senior and accessible. I would agree on those two points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Thank you. You have given us lots of food for thought.

[Matt Vickers]

Q Is there anything in the Bill that gives you cause for concern? We would obviously be interested in Robert’s views on that £200 threshold as well. Are there any measures that you would like to have seen in the Bill that you have not seen in it?

Sir Robert Buckland: There are a couple of things, Mr Vickers. First of all, just to build on Mr Sells’s point on clause 16, I understand the huge concern about shoplifting and the perception among many shop proprietors in our towns and cities that, in some ways, it was almost becoming decriminalised and that action has to be taken. But the danger in changing primary legislation in this way is that we send mixed messages, and that the Government are sending mixed messages about what its policy intentions are.

Sir Brian Leveson is conducting an independent review into criminal procedure. We do not know yet what the first part of that review will produce, but I would be very surprised if there was not at least some nod to the need to keep cases out of the Crown court, bearing in mind the very dramatic and increasing backlog that we have. I think that anything that ran contrary to that view risks the Government looking as if it is really a house divided against itself.

It seems to me that there was a simpler way of doing this. When the law was changed back in 2014, there was an accompanying policy guideline document that allowed for the police to conduct their own prosecutions for shoplifting items with a value of under £200, if the offender had not done it before, if there were not other offences linked with it, if there was not a combined amount that took it over £200 and if there was a guilty plea.

What seems to have happened in the ensuing years is that that has built and developed, frankly, into a culture that has moved away from the use of prosecuting as a tool in its entirety. I think that that is wrong, but I do think that it is within the gift of Ministers in the Home Office and of officials in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to say, “That guidance is superseded. We hope, want and expect all offences to be prosecuted.” That would then allow offences of under £200 to be prosecuted in the magistrates court. There is nothing in the current legislation that prevents any of that, by the way, and I think it would send a very clear message to the police that they are expected to do far more when it comes to the protection of retail premises.

On clause 14, which covers assault on retail workers, I was a little surprised to see that there had been a departure from what was a rather interesting amendment tabled in the previous Session to the 2023-24 Criminal Justice Bill by, I think, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris); in fact, I think it was supported by you and others. It sought to amend the law to increase protections for shop workers, but with an important expansion: the offence would be not just an assault, but a threatening or abuse offence as well, which would encompass some of the public order concerns that many of us have about shop premises, corner shops and sole proprietor retail outlets. Yet, we have gone back here to a straight assault clause, which in my mind does not seem to add anything to the criminal code at all.

We have existing laws of assault, which was often the argument of Ministers, including me, when we debated these issues in the past. Again, it seems to me that the opportunity to widen the offence to cover different types of abuse against important retail workers is being missed at the moment. If I was advising the Government, which of course I am not, I would ask them to look again at the clause and to consider expanding it to make it much more meaningful for the people I think all of us want to protect.

Use of Stop and Search

Debate between Diana Johnson and Matt Vickers

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers]

In terms of the big concerns around redeployment in that space, does the Minister think there is any risk that the redeployment of police officers from response policing could affect the response times when people dial 999?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Of course we want to see all parts of policing properly staffed and funded. That is why there is more than £1 billion going into the policing settlement for the coming year, over and above what was in the 2024-25 Budget. This Government are committed to making sure we have officers in our neighbourhoods and communities. Equally, response is something that PCCs and chief constables will be very mindful of, but it is clear that policing can walk and talk at the same time. We are saying that neighbourhood policing needs to be built up again after the decimation that we have seen, but that does not mean that other parts of policing will not be business as usual. Policing will be able to deal with that.

There was mention of the Metropolitan police and their stop-and-search charter; I think that was raised by the shadow Minister. I welcome that charter, with its emphasis on respect, training, supervision and oversight. I look forward to seeing how its delivery plan progresses, and what impact it has on the work of building public trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill referred to.

On violence reduction, we recognise the valuable work and significant progress made by violence reduction units, which were set up under the previous Government to understand what is going on with serious violence. The police funding settlement for next year includes £49.7 million for the continuation of their work to prevent serious violence, delivered through their VRU programmes. The VRUs bring together local partners to understand and tackle the drivers of serious violence in their area and facilitate the sharing of data across organisational boundaries to build a shared understanding of the root causes of violence locally. In response to those programmes, VRUs are delivering a range of early interventions, doing preventive work to divert young people in particular away from a life of crime. That work includes mentoring, trusted adult programmes, intensive behavioural therapies and sports-based diversionary activities, which are all really positive.

We want the Young Futures programme to build on the work of the VRUs to improve how we identify, reach and support young people at risk of being drawn into violence. That is why we will be asking them to play a leading role in the establishment of the Young Futures prevention partnerships programme, which builds on the existing partnership networks and their considerable experience and expertise to test and develop a model before moving to national roll-out.

It is also worth mentioning the coalition to tackle knife crime. We have an ambitious target of halving knife crime over the next 10 years, but we will not be able to achieve that in isolation; we need to work together with those who share our vision for safer communities. That is why the Prime Minister launched the coalition to tackle knife crime in September, bringing together campaign groups, community leaders, the families of those who have tragically lost their lives to knife crime—James Brindley’s family are involved with the coalition—and young people who have been impacted, united in their mission to save lives. From the west midlands, we have Pooja Kanda, Lynne Baird and, as I said, Mark Brindley as members of the coalition. Having the lived experience of young people is critical to the coalition, and we are keen to ensure that they have a platform to share their views, ideas and solutions to make Britain a safer place for the next generation.

I also want to mention serious violence reduction orders, because they are pertinent to the west midlands. Four police forces, including West Midlands police, are currently piloting serious violence reduction orders, as part of a two-year pilot that began in April 2023 and is due to finish in April this year. These are court orders that can be placed on adults upon conviction of a knife or offensive weapons offence, and they provide police with the power to automatically stop and search individuals convicted of knife offences, with the aim of deterring habitual knife-carrying behaviour. The pilot is being robustly and independently evaluated in terms of its effectiveness in tackling knife crime, as well as any disproportionality in its use, and I look forward to seeing the results.

Finally, I want to talk about gangs, which a number of Members referred to. It is crucial that we tackle the gang culture that lures children and young people into crime and runs county lines through violence and exploitation. As we committed to do in our manifesto, we are introducing a new offence of criminal exploitation of children in the Crime and Policing Bill. That new criminal offence is necessary to increase convictions of exploiters, deter gangs from enlisting children and improve identification of victims.

Alongside the new offence, we are creating a new regime for child criminal exploitation prevention orders, to prevent exploitative conduct committed by adults against children from occurring or reoccurring. We all know that county lines are the most violent model of drug supply and the most harmful form of child criminal exploitation. Through the county lines programme, we will continue to target exploitative drug-dealing gangs and break the model of organised crime groups behind the trade.

We know that through stop and search, police may come into contact with children who they suspect are victims of criminal exploitation, and it is vital that police take an appropriate safeguarding approach to potential victims and ensure they receive appropriate support. We are providing specialist support for children and young people to escape county lines and child criminal exploitation, and we will be delivering on our manifesto commitment to roll out further support through the Young Futures programme.

I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East for securing the debate, and to all Members who have participated. This is a sensitive issue, and I am grateful for the constructive and insightful nature of the discussion today. The Government’s position is clear: stop and search is an important tool, but it must be used fairly and effectively. Getting that balance right is key, and I am keen to carry on working with the police to achieve the best outcomes we can.

Police Grant Report

Debate between Diana Johnson and Matt Vickers

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunities to contribute.

I know that Labour Members do not like this fact, but the Conservatives left office with record numbers of police and thousands more officers on our streets than ever before. All we are doing is calling on the Government to try at the very least to maintain that number, not reduce it. In reality, the Government are placing police forces in an impossible position. How do they expect forces to meet their financial obligations without cutting officer numbers?

The Government will point to their intention to recruit new neighbourhood officers, but we all know that includes only a relatively small number of new officers—just 3,000. Most of the claimed 13,000 officers are either being reassigned, are part time, are volunteers or are PCSOs with no power of arrest. Given the existing budget shortfalls, I am concerned that that level of recruitment will not be enough. The £200 million allocated in that inadequate settlement appears insufficient to meet the Government’s stated objectives.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

rose—

[Matt Vickers]

Will the Minister be honest and acknowledge that in order to achieve what has been outlined, officers will need to be reassigned? If so, will she assure us that those officers will be assigned appropriately? Can she assure MPs—

[Matt Vickers]

I am sure that the Minister will have opportunities to come back to me. Can she assure MPs that when their constituents ring 999, they will not have to wait long for an emergency response, because response officers have been redeployed to neighbourhoods?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

rose—

[Matt Vickers]

Go on—you are welcome.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I just thought it might be helpful if I gave the shadow Minister a reminder. He is right that there were 149,769 police officers in March 2024, but in June—when the Conservative Government were still in power—that figure had been reduced by 1,232 to 148,536 officers. The numbers went down on the previous Government’s watch.

[Matt Vickers]

By the measurements in September, that is not the case. By the time September came—[Interruption.] Is the Minister going to give us the guarantee that the numbers will not go down any further as a result of the funding?

The Government have undeniably set well-intentioned goals. Halving knife crime and tackling violence against women and girls are ambitions that will be celebrated across Parliament and across the country, but what are the actual measures for halving violence against women and girls? Without enough police officers available to prioritise those issues, progress will be far more difficult.

Moving forward, will the Government commit to fully funding pay increases and ensuring that additional tax burdens are not placed on police forces in the years ahead? What has been put forward today does not do enough to provide the resources that the police need to tackle criminals in our society, meaning that the only winners will be those who thrive on criminality.

Respect Orders and Antisocial Behaviour

Debate between Diana Johnson and Matt Vickers

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for advance sight of it. It is not right that anyone should live in fear of intimidation in the place that they call home. Antisocial behaviour has real consequences—it can ruin communities and prevent people from making the most of their local area. Antisocial behaviour can make women and girls feel unsafe walking home at night, and it can have a huge impact on shops and businesses if customers are left feeling unsafe visiting their high streets and town centres.

We welcome any focus on antisocial behaviour and efforts to tackle it, but tackling it requires more than a press release or a rebrand. Those in the sector have described the proposed respect orders as wholly unnecessary and near-identical to existing powers already held by the police. We will engage with the Government as proposals are brought forward, but we are keen to see meaningful action rather than just the renaming of public space protection orders and criminal behaviour orders. Changing names will not change outcomes.

The last Government launched the antisocial behaviour action plan, backed by £160 million worth of funding and over 100,000 hours of police and other uniformed patrols, undertaken to target antisocial behaviour hotspots. As of February 2024, our plan led to nearly 600 additional arrests, close to 1,500 stop and searches and around 700 uses of antisocial behaviour powers such as community protection orders and public protection orders.

My own Labour police and crime commissioner in Cleveland has commended the huge contribution made by the last Government’s hotspot policing initiative. Uniform patrols delivered by local authority wardens in Cleveland clocked up a total of 7,685 hours on the streets of Stockton, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough and Redcar. As a result, between 23 September and 24 August, the police reported that incidents of antisocial behaviour were down by 21% in hotspot areas. We also banned nitrous oxide and increased fines for fly-tipping, littering and graffiti, all of which are a blight on our communities. The Conservative Government made sure that the police had the tools to discourage antisocial behaviour, and dedicated funding to support police and crime commissioners to target enforcement in the areas where antisocial behaviour is most prevalent.

The police play a vital role in tackling antisocial behaviour and keeping our communities safe. The Conservative Government invested over £3 billion, including additional funding each year. That rolled into Government grants to enable the recruitment of 20,000 additional police officers—a Government priority and a manifesto commitment. By March this year, the police headcount hit 149,769—a record number of police, and 3,000 higher than previous records. Last year, the Conservative Government arranged a £922 million increase in funding for frontline policing for this financial year—something I hope will be matched next year. Does the Minister agree that in order to tackle antisocial behaviour, we must ensure that police have the necessary resources and support?

The right hon. Lady spoke about Labour’s manifesto commitment to provide 13,000 additional police officers, police community support officers and specials, but has failed to set out any of the detail of when those officers will be recruited and which forces will receive those additional officers. Can she explain how these respect orders are different from the failed antisocial behaviour orders, or the existing public space protection orders or criminal behaviour orders? Our action plan puts safety, security and a basic respect for others at its heart. Will she commit to continuing the hotspot policing initiative, especially as we can already see the results across the country? I know I have asked before, but I never quite managed to get an answer: the last Government increased funding for frontline policing by £922 million for this year—will the Government match that increase next year?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for acknowledging in his opening comments the effect that antisocial behaviour can have on communities and on individuals. But during the rest of his response, he seemed to have lapsed back into that condition that affects a number of right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches: amnesia about what happened over the course of their 14 years in power, including the vicious cuts to policing, with over 20,000 police officers and thousands of police staff cut. Trying to ignore the legacy that we have inherited and are having to deal with today is not satisfactory from the Dispatch Box.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and Matt Vickers

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

One of the best ways to help tackle retail crime is to put more police on the streets. The last Conservative Government did just that—[Interruption.] The last Conservative Government did just that, delivering record numbers of police, with more funding than ever before, but we were not stopping there. This year, the Conservative Government increased frontline police funding by £922 million. Will the Minister commit to matching or even improving that figure next year?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I do not know if it is just amnesia on that side of the House, but I think the Shadow Minister needs to reflect on what we actually inherited: PCSOs cut by 50%, specials down by two thirds and over 20,000 police officers cut under the Conservative Administration. So a little bit of humility about what they have left us with would go down very well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and Matt Vickers

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

At Manchester airport this past week we have seen how antisocial behaviour can quickly spiral into serious violence. We have also seen how police officers can become subject to trial by social media with only partial information. The previous Government brought forward the use of force review to give police the clarity and confidence to act in the most challenging of circumstances. Will the right hon. Lady assure the House that she will continue this important work and stand on the side of our brave officers?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I would just say to the shadow Policing Minister that one of the incidents he is referring to is clearly still under consideration by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and it would be wrong for me to make any further comment on that at this time. Of course the police have our backing in the difficult job that they have to do, particularly around antisocial behaviour, and we will of course do what we can to support the police when they need that support.