Crime and Policing Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Sadly, that is not the first time I have heard about such appalling behaviour of attacking and injuring animals using catapults. I will certainly be raising that with my counterparts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to see what more we can do. I am aware that this issue needs to be looked at, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it.

Amendments 24 to 33 will require operators of collection points for items such as knives and crossbows to carry out the same enhanced age verification checks before handing over knives to the buyer, or in the case of crossbows and crossbow parts, to the buyer or even the hirer of the item. Clause 30 imposes similar requirements on couriers.

Clause 128 introduces costs and expenses protections for law enforcement agencies in civil recovery proceedings, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, in the High Court or the Court of Session in Scotland. As currently drafted, it is not clear how the cost protection measure applies to pre-existing cases, particularly where cases have started before the provision comes into force but costs are incurred after the provision comes into force. As a result, it may be difficult and costly to determine which costs are covered. Amendment 89 provides that cost protections apply to any case where proceedings start after the measure comes into force.

Schedule 15 to the Bill introduces reforms to the confiscation regime in England and Wales in respect of the proceeds of crime. Among other things, the reforms make provision for the provisional discharge of confiscation orders made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, allowing outstanding confiscation orders to be placed in abeyance when there is no realistic prospect of recovery in the immediate term and all enforcement steps have been exhausted. Amendments to schedule 15 extend the provisional discharge measures to confiscation orders made under legislation predating the 2002 Act.

Chapter 1 of part 14 provides for youth diversion orders, which are a new counter-terrorism risk management tool for young people who, on the balance of probabilities, the court assesses to have committed a terrorism offence or an offence with a terrorism connection, or to have engaged in conduct likely to facilitate a terrorism offence, and where the court considers it necessary to make the order for the purposes of protecting the public from terrorism or serious harm.

The amendments to clause 139 make a change to the scope of YDOs to ensure that applications can be made for individuals up to and including 21-year-olds. Currently, a court may make a YDO in respect of a person aged 10 to 21, but exclusive of 21-year-olds. Following further engagement with operational partners on the types of cases that could benefit from a YDO, we have concluded that this change would increase the operational utility of the YDO and ensure that it can be considered as an intervention in a wider variety of cases involving young people.

Clause 141(2) enables a YDO to include prohibitions or requirements relating to the respondent’s possession or use of electronic devices. The amendments to this clause set out a non-exhaustive list of some of the most common or intrusive requirements that may be imposed to support the police’s ability to monitor compliance with restrictions on electronic devices, providing a clearer statutory footing for imposing such requirements. For example, it would allow the court to impose a requirement on someone subject to a YDO to enable the police to access their device for the purposes of checking compliance with restrictions such as accessing specific websites or applications. It would allow the police to identify harmful online activity at an earlier stage and intervene before it escalates. As with other YDO measures, the court would need to assess that any monitoring requirements are necessary and proportionate for the purposes of protecting the public from a risk of terrorism or serious harm.

Technical amendments are also required to clauses 142 and 150 relating respectively to the definition of “police detention” for Scotland and Northern Ireland and to the appeals process in Northern Ireland. The amendments will adapt the relevant provisions for the purposes of the law in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The amendments to clause 151 provide that, where a person ceases to have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with notification requirements but continues to fail to comply, they commit an offence.

The other Government amendments in this group, which make necessary refinements to existing provisions in the Bill, were detailed in the letter that I sent last week to the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), a copy of which has been placed in the Library. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will therefore seek to respond to the non-Government amendments in this group when winding up. For now, I commend the Government amendments to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I would like to express my appreciation to all those who have worked on the legislation to develop and shape the policies, whether they be the majority developed under the previous Conservative Government or members of the Bill team, who I am sure have provided helpful assistance to Ministers. As I am sure we will hear today, some of the measures in the Bill are the result of amazing people who have suffered the worst experiences, but who have worked to ensure that others do not have to suffer them in future.

In addition, considering the context of the legislation, it is right to pay tribute to the excellent work of police officers across the country. Week in, week out, those serving in our police forces put themselves in harm’s way to keep our streets safe. Those who serve and place themselves in danger cannot be thanked enough. Many people ask themselves whether they would have the bravery to stand up and intervene. Officers across the country do so on a daily basis. Thanks to the efforts of the previous Conservative Government, the police force numbered over 149,000 officers in 2024, with 149,769 recorded in March 2024. This was the highest number of officers, on both full-time equivalent and headcount basis, since comparable records began in March 2003.

--- Later in debate ---

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak, and I thank the House for listening to my contribution. I very much hope that the Government will continue to look at these issues in more detail so that we can find an acceptable solution.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I rise to speak to amendment 160, which stands in my name, and briefly in favour of amendments 157 and 158, also in my name.

I wish to start by thanking all those who have campaigned over many years for some of the sensible changes to the Bill that we are discussing today. I also want to put on record my thanks to our fantastic police forces, including Greater Manchester Police, and also to my hon. Friends the Members for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for their assiduous work on the Bill Committee.

Liberal Democrat amendment 160 would ensure that the police cannot use live facial recognition technology when imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions under sections 12 or 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, unless a new and specific code of practice governing its use in public spaces has first been approved by both Houses.

Regulations around the use of live facial recognition have been discussed many times in this House, and support for strengthening the current situation, bringing clarity and certainty to police forces, has gained support from all parts of the House, both in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall. I hope this amendment does the same today.

The Liberal Democrats oppose the police’s use of facial recognition surveillance. It breaches the right to privacy and is far too often biased, particularly given its propensity to wrongly identify people of colour and women. In our manifesto last year, we committed immediately to halting the use of live facial recognition surveillance by the police and private companies.

When data or technology, such as artificial intelligence, are used by the police, they must be regulated to ensure that they are unbiased. They must be used in a way that is transparent and accurate and that respects the privacy of innocent people. Policing should not intrude on this right for people who are not suspected of any crime.

On the question of bias, much of the recent debate has centred around the National Physical Laboratory’s 2023 study into the equitability of facial recognition technology in law enforcement. This report is frequently cited by proponents of facial recognition, including the shadow Home Secretary, both at the Dispatch Box, when the Bill came before the House on Second Reading, and during a well-attended Westminster Hall debate last November as evidence that bias in the technology is on the decline.

However, we should not overlook one of that study’s most critical findings. In live facial recognition—where a real-time camera feed is compared against a predetermined watchlist—the likelihood of false positives is not fixed. Instead, it depends heavily on the specific parameters of how that technology is deployed, particularly on the face-match threshold. That threshold, in turn, is influenced by both the size and composition of the watchlist, as well as the volume and nature of the people moving through the surveillance zone.

The study recommends that, where operationally feasible, the police use a face-match threshold of 0.6 in order to reduce the risk of bias. However—and this is crucial—without clear regulation, police forces are under no obligation to adopt this or any specific standard. In other words, the presence of the technology alone does not ensure fairness. Without oversight, significant room remains for bias to persist in how facial recognition is applied. This leads to increased instances of the wrong people being stopped and searched—an area of policing that already disproportionately impacts black communities.

New technologies in policing may well present good opportunities to improve public safety, and police should take advantage of them to prevent and solve crime. However, given that new technologies can raise significant concerns related to civil liberties and discrimination, we must ensure that any new powers involving them are scrutinised by both Houses.

Liberal Democrat amendment 160 would ensure that the police cannot use live facial recognition technology when imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions under sections 12 or 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, unless a new and specific code of practice governing its use in public spaces has first been approved by both Houses. This will ensure democratic oversight of any changes to further legislation that may impact public privacy and civil liberties. I hope that the amendment will have support from across the House.

I have just a few words to say on amendments 157 and 158, which would enable a review of antisocial behaviour powers. Antisocial behaviour, as Members have already mentioned this afternoon, blights communities, erodes trust, frays the social fabric and disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. Many colleagues have raised issues within their own communities, some of which I see in my constituency. We have off-road bikes in Heaviley, Marple, Offerton and High Lane. They are a persistent blight on my community. They intimidate people, endanger public safety and are just really annoying. But we must respond with laws that are not just tough, but fair and proportionate. That is why I urge all colleagues to support amendments 157 and 158, which would ensure that antisocial behaviour laws are reviewed before being changed, and that any new guidance is created with public input.

I also welcome amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), which aims to ensure that the duty to report suspected child abuse covers faith groups. I encourage the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) to seek her out as he will find a doughty ally in his attempts to improve the Bill as it impacts on faith groups.

As I said on Second Reading, there are measures in the Bill that the Liberal Democrats support. Were our amendments to be accepted, the Bill would go even further towards keeping our communities safe in a way that is proportionate and that balances the civil liberties implications of giving the police more powers. I hope that the House will support our amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that I plan to call the Minister at 3.50 pm, which would give the remaining Members bobbing about five minutes each.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I rise to support amendment 19, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). I hope that the Minister listened to the compelling case that my hon. Friend made, and to the compelling case made by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) on the issue of spiking more generally.

I want to put on record my support for my constituents, Colin and Mandy Mackie, and their organisation, Spike Aware UK. I do not think any of us can fully comprehend their experience: the police knocked on their door to tell them that their 18-year-old son had died at college from a drug overdose, but they subsequently found out that his non-alcoholic drink had been spiked by five ecstasy tablets. As other Members have said, there was no support or help for the family in that situation. The police assumed that he had died of a drug overdose although they did not know that, and they subsequently apologised to the Mackies for their treatment of them.

What I particularly admire about Colin and Mandy is how they have focused their efforts on ensuring that their experience is not shared by anyone else. That is why I very much welcome the inclusion of spiking in the Bill, which is a continuation from the Criminal Justice Bill introduced in the previous Parliament. The point to be made is about certainty, and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East brings certainty to the situation. I have been in this House with previous Ministers who have been told by officials that spiking was already covered by legislation, and therefore there was no need for specific mention of spiking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

The hon. and learned Member will know that the Abortion Act is not going to be amended. New clause 1 will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help. I have said it before, and I will say it again: just what public interest is being served in the cases I have described? This is not justice; it is cruelty, and it has to end. Backed by 180 cross-party MPs and 50 organisations, and building on years of work by Dame Diana Johnson, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind the hon. Member that she should not have referred to the Minister by name.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Every day is a school day.

My amendment, new clause 1, would disapply the criminal law related to abortion for women acting in relation to their own pregnancies. NC1 is a narrow, targeted measure that does not change how abortion services are provided, nor the rules set by the 1967 Abortion Act. The 24-week limit remains; abortions will still require the approval and signatures of two doctors; and women will still have to meet the grounds laid out in the Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am imposing an immediate four-minute time limit. Members will see that many colleagues wish to get in this evening.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I rise to speak for new clause 106 and against new clauses 1 and 20.

I am grateful for this opportunity to place on the record my grave concerns about this hurried attempt to significantly alter our nation’s abortion laws. It is my view that by doing so we risk creating a series of unintended consequences that could endanger women, rather than protect and empower them. We need more time.

This is not a pro-choice versus pro-life debate. We already have the most inclusive abortion laws in Europe: medical abortion is available up to 24 weeks, which is double the European average, and we have the option of full-term abortion on medical grounds. Instead, today’s debate is about ensuring that legislation as significant as this—seeking to introduce a wholesale change to abortion laws affecting England, Scotland and Wales—is not rushed through without the chance for significant scrutiny. Indeed, 90 minutes of Back-Bench debate does not cut it, in my opinion.

We should, of course, treat women seeking an abortion with compassion and dignity—that goes without saying. As a councillor on Plymouth city council, I chaired the commission on violence against women and girls. Defending the voiceless is my guiding principle in politics, and it is with those women and unborn babies in mind that I make this speech.

As over 1000 medical professionals said in an open letter cited in The Telegraph today,

“If offences that make it illegal for a woman to administer her own abortion at any gestation were repealed, such abortions would, de facto, become possible up to birth for any reason including abortions for sex-selective purposes, as women could, mistakenly, knowingly or under coercion, mislead abortion providers about their gestational age. If either of these amendments were to become law, it would also likely lead to serious risks to women’s health because of the dangers involved with self-administered late abortions.”

They continue,

“Quite aside from the increased number of viable babies’ lives being ended beyond the 24-week time limit, there would likely be a significant increase in such complications if”

new clause 1 or 20

“were to pass, as they would remove any legal deterrent against women administering their own abortions late in pregnancy. The current law permits flexibility and compassion where necessary but, for these reasons, we believe a legal deterrent remains important.”

Many supporters of new clauses 1 and 20 claim that the 24-week time limit for abortions would not change, but that is misleading. Any time limit is meaningless if abortions are legalised all the way up to birth, for any reason, without a legal deterrent. My concern is that, once decriminalisation has taken place, further steps will be taken to expand abortion time limits. Indeed, many of the campaigners mentioned this afternoon are on record saying as much. It is important that we are realistic about that.