Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting)

Anna Sabine Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Davies-Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

Q I declare an interest: I am still a Kent county councillor, although I have resigned from Gravesham borough council.

With a council hat on, I want to look at fly-tipping. Gravesham borough council has issued 386 community protection warnings and about 50 fly-tipping fines, so there is definitely a growing issue with fly-tipping. Could I ask your advice? What do you think about some guidance, perhaps to courts, about recovery costs? We know that fly-tipping largely is organised crime, and there are costs in collecting the rubbish, often for private landowners; they are left to bear the brunt of the burden. Would guidance for courts—magistrates courts in particular—on recovering the costs of the crime be welcome?

Councillor Garratt: Possibly. I would not add much to what I said before about the fly-tipping provisions in the Bill, which seem to boil down to reminding local authorities of what their responsibilities are. I do think that they already know what they are. To echo Councillor Conway, I think they probably would just say the word “resources” again and again.

Councillor Conway: That is always a welcome echo. I will just add that the LGA wants to work with the Government and the Sentencing Council to review court guidance—so, yes, what you are talking about—to ensure stringent fines for the worst offenders and provide adequate funding for councils to investigate and prosecute fly-tippers. As I am sure you will be aware locally, councils face financial challenges in prosecuting fly-tippers, with the fines issued by the courts often lower than civil penalties. It is essential for courts to properly prosecute to deter repeat offences as well. There is a financial bit and then the deterrent effect.

[Anna Sabine]

Q In the light of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam describing Croydon as rural, I point out that I am from a properly rural seat in Somerset. Fly-tipping gets mentioned to me a lot by farmers, partly because they often deal with it on their land and partly because they consider that many of the perpetrators are the kind of people who are committing wider rural crime. Sara, from the point of view of the LGA, which represents lots of more rural councils, do you feel that there is more the Bill could do to support councils in dealing with rural crime?

Councillor Conway: I think we will need to write with more detail about that, if it is okay. The board I sit on definitely has people who I think would have a lot to say about that but, for specific information, I think we should write to you.

[Anna Sabine]

Thank you.

[Louise Jones]

Q The Bill introduces a new offence of cuckooing, and I am particularly interested in your opinion because, unfortunately, a lot of cuckooing takes place in council properties. Having lived on a street where cuckooing was going on, I have seen at first hand the impact on the wider neighbourhood as well. I am interested to get your views on how welcome the provision is and how effective it will be.

Councillor Garratt: I welcome the provision. Again, there is a hint of déjà vu about it. This is serious. We talk about county lines-type crime. Often London is the originator of that, and therefore we are dealing with the holders of those lines. This type of crime, where people take over a vulnerable individual’s property, often in quite unpleasant ways, is currently quite difficult. There are a number of provisions that connect to it, including some of the modern slavery provisions, but I welcome wholeheartedly a specific offence for that type of crime, which is definitely prevalent and definitely needs tackling.

Councillor Conway: We are echoing each other a bit here, which is good. To echo that, we very much welcome the provision. I note that case studies from councils were actually used to argue for the provisions in the Bill. The LGA’s modern slavery network will be publishing further case studies. Obviously there has to be a link between the strategies for modern slavery and for violence against women and girls; it all has to talk to each other.

I have signed closure orders on behalf of residents to stop issues—everything that comes with this, not just in the property itself, but for a local authority or the residents in the area. I cannot help but reference Clear, Hold, Build, because it has fundamentally changed the way things are happening locally, together with a proactive approach by our local police. It has fostered that more collaborative approach, and the more residents are able to speak up and feel that they are heard and that authorities will listen and recognise the problem on the ground, the more effective we can all be. This one has been a long time coming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

[Anna Sabine]

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

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

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

[Louise Jones]

Q In my constituency of North East Derbyshire, we have real issues with car theft, and in this Bill we have a couple of clauses affecting signal jammers. I am interested to hear your thoughts on how that will have a practical impact on preventing car theft.

Roger Hirst: Car theft has been growing across the country, but it has been particularly spectacular in Essex. Last year, in one area of our county, it rose by 80%, which is dreadful. Jammers are undoubtedly a help. The technology is available to stop the passive entry system, but the criminals are very inventive, and are currently buying in quite expensive bits of kit from Poland, which they can bring in legally. As Mr Barber said earlier, we really need to have the legislation to mean that owning those things is a crime. They are good only for one purpose, but at the moment buying them is perfectly legal. Using them is a crime; having them should be illegal as well.

I have been to see and talk to Jaguar Land Rover, because it was one of the companies particularly hard hit by theft in our area—I think Essex has a good reputation for being good buyers of Range Rovers. It responded very well, and committed to retrofitting security to its vehicles to change the risks of passive vehicle entry, which is basically where you have a key that you do not have to press a button on, and there is a dialogue and signal between your vehicle and your key. That is possible for a criminal to read very easily, because there is no single instance where you are pressing the button. Jaguar Land Rover has made that much more difficult to intercept.

To ban the equipment that could do that would be really helpful. At the moment you have to pay for it, but it is readily available over the internet. It is possible for the car manufacturers to make that more difficult—I think they are always working on it, but they will, however, always have to run ahead of the inventiveness of the criminal. Whatever can be done about the ownership of the bits of equipment that criminals need to be able to break into vehicles that easily would be extremely helpful.

Matthew Barber: What will be key here is the secondary legislation—from memory, I think it is clause 78 or 79 that allows the Secretary of State to make additional secondary legislation. That will be critical in years to come. As Mr Hirst said, that technology is constantly changing. A definition in legislation now around signal jammers will no doubt be out of date—possibly even before the Bill gets Royal Assent. It will be critical for the Home Office to keep that list of prohibited equipment under review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

[Anna Sabine]

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

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

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

[Louise Jones]

Q Farmers in my constituency of North East Derbyshire tell me that they have a frustrating issue with off-road bikes often being used across their land. Do you think the Bill goes far enough with the new powers to seize those vehicles?

Sam Durham: I think it does. That power to seize vehicles that are being used in an antisocial manner is key. We think of farming in rural areas, but the urban fringe area is key to where vehicles—bikes, quad bikes or even off-road vehicles—are used in an antisocial manner. Many farmers flag it to me that those people are out there, and the measures in the Bill look positive on that side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

[Anna Sabine]

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

Venita Yeung: Yes.

[Joe Robertson]

Q I appreciate that this is not a debate between elected Members, but I am not entirely sure from that exchange with the Minister whether the witness got the idea that face coverings would be banned only if there was a suspicion of a crime. There is a defence here for using face coverings to protect someone’s health or for “religious observance”. Perhaps Ms Yeung is looking for another type of defence whereby if someone believes they are under political threat—perhaps from a Government or organisation abroad—that would be a fair defence for wanting to protect their identity. I wonder whether she might comment on that possibility.

Venita Yeung: Um. Yes, I think—

--- Later in debate ---

[David Burton-Sampson]

Q My question is for Minister Davies-Jones. I declare my interest as a member of the Women and Equalities Committee, as this relates to our work on that. I have a big interest in the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls. Can you outline to us what measures in the Bill will help to meet that goal?

Alex Davies-Jones: We see the Bill as a key tool in our arsenal for achieving our ambition of halving violence against women and girls over a decade. The Bill has a number of measures and new offences that we think will go some way towards achieving that mission, be it strengthening stalking protection orders, clarifying the law around spiking, tackling the taking of intimate images without consent, or the new laws on child sexual abuse material, which we have heard about. There are a number of new offences in the Bill that will go towards achieving our mission. It will sit nicely alongside the tackling violence against women and girls strategy, which the Government will publish later this year.

[Anna Sabine]

Q This question flows on nicely, because the Bill creates a lot of new offences and orders, but one of the themes of today has been resourcing. I wonder to what extent the Government have considered the impact that the Bill will have on the police, the courts and local authorities.

Alex Davies-Jones: All of the impact assessments have been published on gov.uk outlining this; that has been done. Members will be well aware of the crisis that we have inherited in the criminal justice system, be that within the court system or the prison system. However, we feel it necessary to make sure that there is always a prison place available for those who require a prison place, for public protection and for punishment. That is why we have introduced the Bill, while recognising that within the criminal justice system we also have a number of reviews that are taking place independently, be it the sentencing review or the review of our courts.

Dame Diana Johnson: I will just add that we had the police settlement at the end of January. We listened to what the police were saying, particularly about our commitment on around neighbourhood policing and the 13,000 additional police officers and PCSOs during the course of this Parliament. We doubled the amount of money going in to kickstart that from April, from £100 million to £200 million. Overall, the police settlement has gone up by, I think, £1.2 billion. Additional money is going in, but I agree with what the PCCs said about the challenging circumstances that some forces are in. We recognise that, and there is a proposal—a White Paper—coming forward on police reform, because we think we can do things more efficiently and effectively as we go forward.

There is certainly work now around the efficiencies that we can get out of the policing budget, in terms of things such as buying fleet, if we do it together rather than individual police forces doing it individually. IT can also be done together, rather than being done individually by 43 police forces. There are savings to be made there, which we want to plough back into police funding.

[Anna Sabine]

Can I ask a quick follow-up question?

[The Chair]

Not at the moment.