Criminal Justice Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Chris Philp Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

Question again proposed.

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Graham, at the start of what is the final session of the 16, including the evidence sessions, that we have had on this Bill. I am sure that if there is popular demand, we can agree to have some more—[Laughter.] No, I did not think that that would be terribly popular.

We were in the middle of discussing new clause 19, moved by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), on a new criminal offence of cuckooing. As we ran out of time, I was saying that the way in which the new clause is drafted does not require there to have been duress, coercion or consent. The shadow Minister intervened to draw attention to subsection (1)(b)(iii), which requires duress or coercion, but the other limbs of the test do not require duress or coercion and the clause is worded as an “or”. That is to say, if any one of limbs one to four are engaged, the offence is made out. For example, if limb one alone is engaged—if there is drug dealing at the premises—the offence is made out even if there is no coercion, because the test is structured as an “or” rather than an “and”, and any one of the four limbs may apply.

The way the new clause has been drafted means that, even where there is no coercion or duress and even where consent has been freely given by the person living in the residential building, the offence would none the less have been committed. That is not exactly the definition of cuckooing that we would ordinarily recognise, which would involve duress and/or coercion of a typically vulnerable person. For that drafting reason, we could not support the new clause.

There are a number of elements of existing criminal law that provide protection here or that are relevant. For example, sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 create various so-called inchoate offences, such as encouraging or assisting the commission of offences, which would likely be engaged here and the maximum penalty for which is the same as the primary offence. Even if the person doing the cuckooing is not committing the offence but is organising or encouraging others, including the vulnerable person, to do so, an offence is committed.

If a criminal offence such as drug dealing is being committed, that is illegal. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the production or supply of controlled drugs is an offence, so if somebody were occupying another person’s flat or house for the purpose of drug dealing, they would be committing an offence under that Act. Similarly, if they were trying to compel the victim—that is, the vulnerable person—to do something they did not want to do, it is quite likely that sections 1 or 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 would be engaged as well.

Another offence that would likely or could be engaged is that of aggravated trespass, under section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That section rather confusingly refers to “land”, but the definition of land in that context includes buildings. The offence there is where the person trespassing on land, which definitionally includes buildings, has the intention of “intimidating”, “obstructing” or “disrupting” the lawful activity of others, which will include the right to quiet enjoyment of their premises. Critically, the word “intimidating” is included in that aggravated trespass offence. Clearly, if somebody were coercively cuckooing a vulnerable person, it would be very likely—indeed, near certain—that they would be intimidating them. Not only would we be able to prosecute them for the primary offence, such as drug dealing, but possibly for aggravated trespass under section 68.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The Minister has used three expressions in the last few minutes: “quite likely”, referring to the Modern Slavery Act, “likely”, and then—sorry, I have lost the third one. My apologies, Sir Graham. I trained as a journalist, but sometimes I cannot read my shorthand. The Minister has three times used the word “likely”, but “likely” is not good enough. Possibly, maybe, perhaps—all these words mean the same thing. They do not mean certainty, and I hope that he will recognise that what we are trying to do is to get a specific clause to deal with cuckooing. I will speak further on that when I respond to the Minister’s speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

What is certain is that under the new clause, as drafted, a criminal offence of cuckooing could be committed even where there is no coercion and consent is freely given. I will be interested to hear the hon. Member’s response to that, if he plans to speak. On my other points, if a criminal offence occurs at a premises because they are being used as a base for criminal activities, it is not likely but certain that that criminal offence will be prosecuted. That is a certainty. If a criminal offence has been committed, that can obviously be prosecuted as a matter of certainty.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

On the Minister’s point about the trespass offence, does he think that in such circumstances a person would get anywhere near the sentence that they would for taking over a vulnerable person’s home and coercing them? Is that an appropriate response? Secondly, what has made the Government change their mind after they committed to making cuckooing an offence, which Conservative Members and I have pushed for for some time? Now the Government are saying, “Don’t worry. It’s absolutely fine.”

[Chris Philp]

The antisocial behaviour plan, published in the spring of last year, committed to engaging with stakeholders on that question. That engagement has happened and continues to happen. On the point about penalties, if someone is occupying someone else’s house and is dealing, for example, class A drugs, the maximum penalty, wherever that happens, is life. Under the Modern Slavery Act, the maximum sentence under sections 1 and 2 for making another person a victim of modern slavery is life imprisonment. The penalties available are severe. In the two examples that I just gave, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

The maximum penalty for participating in the activities of an organised crime group under section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 is five years. On the inchoate offences under sections 45 or 46—that is, where someone is incited or encouraged to commit an offence—the maximum penalty is the same as that for the primary offence. So, it is not true that the maximum sentences available in this sphere are in any way light or incon-sequential.

This matter obviously concerns everybody. It is as much a matter of enforcement as anything else because, as I have explained, we have a number of different laws on the statute books that cover such behaviour with significant penalties attached. The question is how we make sure that they are properly enforced. As drafted, the new clause probably does not have quite the intended effect, because it is widely drafted. Even if it were drafted to include a requirement for duress or coercion or that consent had been withheld, we could legitimately debate whether it does or does not fill a lacuna.

In addition to the criminal sanctions that I have just enumerated, there are a very large number of civil orders available to try to prevent a property being misused. I will not go through the detail of them all because that will take too long, but I will list what they are. They include closure notices, community protection notices, public space protection orders, civil injunctions under part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, criminal behaviour orders, gang injunctions, a section 8 notice under the Housing Act, and slavery and trafficking risk orders. Those are civil measures, but they are in addition to the various criminal measures that I enumerated.

In conclusion, the Government accept the spirit of the concern that has been raised. Cuckooing is a concern; it happens, and it needs to be stopped. It is worth saying that we have closed down a very large number of county lines over the last four years—I think about 3,000. Enforcement action is happening. There is scope to go further, but numerous existing criminal offences give the police the powers they need. We need, collectively, to make sure that the police always exercise those powers where cuckooing occurs.

[Alex Cunningham]

I have listened to the Minister in some detail. Nobody will ever accuse him of not being prepared with stats and with the information at his fingertips.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley said, for a vulnerable person who is a victim of this sort of offence, civil orders occupy a no-go place. That person would not have the understanding or the wherewithal to pursue such an order and, if the authorities cannot intervene because the law is not sufficient, they cannot do so on that person’s behalf either. I do not accept that civil orders in any shape or form help to address this particular problem.

[Chris Philp]

I would point primarily to the criminal offences I enumerated, but, on the question of civil orders, other agencies such as local authorities, or in some cases the police, could of course apply for the civil order. Obviously, we would not expect the vulnerable person to apply for the civil order themselves, but there are agencies, which include local authorities, that could certainly do so on their behalf.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful to the Minister for providing clarification on that. As he heard me say earlier, we are looking at the new clause very much as creating a specific offence of cuckooing. I recognise the lesson in drafting that he has given me this afternoon.

It had been my intention to push the new clause to a vote but, after the lesson in drafting from the Minister, I no longer intend to do so. The Minister is aware, however, that there is considerable cross-party support for this aim. The Minister says that he has a problem with the drafting of the clause, but he does not appear to have a problem with its purpose, so on that basis I ask that he work with others—some from his own side, although we are happy to pitch in as well—to bring forward what we believe is needed: a specific clause on cuckooing that will once and for all protect the victims, rather than giving free rein to those who choose to exploit them. On that basis, in the hope that we will see something come back later, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 23

Sexual exploitation of an adult

“(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) Section 52 is amended as follows—

(a) in the title for ‘Causing or inciting prostitution’ substitute ‘Sexual exploitation’, and

(b) in paragraph (1)(a) for ‘causes or incites another person to become a prostitute’ substitute ‘sexually exploits another person’.

(3) Section 53 is amended as follows—

(a) in the title for ‘prostitution’ substitute ‘sexual exploitation’, and

(b) in paragraph (1)(a) for ‘prostitution’ substitute ‘sexual exploitation’.

(4) Section 54 is amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (2) for ‘sections 51A, 52, 53 and 53A’ substitute ‘section 53A’, and

(b) at end insert—

‘(4) In sections 52 and 53 “sexual exploitation” means conduct by which a person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls another person to undertake sexual activity.’.” —(Jess Phillips.)

This new clause is an amendment to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, specifically in Sections 52 and 53, “replacing prostitution for gain” with “sexual exploitation of an adult”.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

I strongly believe that this is a “when” not an “if” moment. This legislation is here, and we should take this opportunity. We will continue to push this at every stage. If the Government will not do this, we will fight tooth and nail to get the opportunity to do so ourselves.

[Chris Philp]

I thank the shadow Minister for tabling the new clause and for his introduction. The Government certainly share the Opposition’s concern. Whereas crime as a whole has been declining over the last 13 years, the last four years and the last year, the past year or two have seen an increase in both shoplifting and assaults on retail workers. That has been seen not only in the UK, but around the world, including in Europe, Australia and the United States of America, and that is of deep concern to us all. I have repeatedly met retailers, including the Co-op, and I met Paddy Lillis, the USDAW general secretary, and some of his members who work in shops, including Tesco and Sainsbury’s stores in various parts of London, at the Home Office just a week or two ago, so we are engaging on this matter.

I will say a word or two about the action the Government are taking and then talk about the specifics of the new clause. Last autumn, working together with policing, we published the retail crime action plan. That contained several important commitments from the police, including a reaffirmation of their commitment always to investigate retail crime, in common with other crime, where there are reasonable lines of inquiry to pursue—not sometimes, not maybe, but always. That includes always retrieving CCTV footage and running it through the facial recognition database we discussed a few weeks ago. Most stores have CCTV and where there is even a partial image of an offender—perhaps it is fuzzy, or there is shade, or they are wearing a hat—it should always be run through the various databases. The algorithm is now very good, and matches can often be obtained even when a visual inspection would suggest that would be difficult. I have seen some extraordinary examples.

We expect police always to do that facial recognition matching. We also expect them always to physically attend a scene where there has been an assault on a retail worker, if attendance is necessary to secure evidence. If it is just CCTV evidence, it can be emailed, but they should attend to secure evidence if they need to. Where store staff, including security staff, have detained an offender, we expect the police to attend as a matter of urgency to pick up that offender.

[Carolyn Harris]

When the Minister has deliberations with retailers, would he include the charity shop sector and the wholesale industry? They too are experiencing high numbers of thefts.

[Chris Philp]

Yes, I would. In fact, I think both those sectors have been invited to the larger six-monthly meetings of the retail crime steering group. I should have added that my first job in south London was in a Sainsbury’s very close to what is now my constituency —I must have been about 16 or 17—and the first business I ran was a wholesale distribution business whose main warehouse was on the Lichfield Road industrial estate in Tamworth. I recall on one occasion someone trying to drive a JCB through the wall to steal cigarettes and alcohol. That was 20-odd years ago, so I am very apprised of the dangers posed to the wholesale sector as well as the retail sector.

As I was saying, more police attendance is the second element of the retail crime action plan. The third element is targeting prolific and repeat offenders using facial recognition and analysis of data so that we can go after organised criminal gangs. The fourth element is Operation Pegasus, a nationwide project funded partly by about 16 retailers and run by police and crime commissioner Katy Bourne from Sussex. Again, its aim is to identify criminal gangs and go after them specifically.

The police made a lot of commitments in the retail crime action plan, published two or three months ago, and we will have meetings every three months of the retail crime steering group, which consists of leading retailers, the British Retail Consortium and many others, to hold the police to account for delivering the action plan that they have signed up to. I think the next meeting is in a week or two—it is relatively soon. Those are the operational steps being taken. We are working very closely with unions, retailers and representative groups, as I said.

Turning to new clause 41, I have a lot of sympathy for where the shadow Minister is coming from. I understand the desire to strengthen the law in this area, but I will make one or two observations. First, passing laws is the easy bit. The hard bit is creating change on the ground. That applies to a lot of the things we have talked about today, including this issue.

Of course, it is already a criminal offence to assault a retail worker, just as it is an offence to assault anybody. The proposed new offence would replace only common assault—all assault is serious, but that is the lowest level of assault—where the victim is a retail worker. It would not make any difference to or replace other, more serious forms of assault. Those include assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which causes a temporary injury such as a bruise; assault occasioning grievous bodily harm, which causes a lasting injury such as a broken bone; and grievous bodily harm with intent to cause serious injury. The maximum sentences for those other forms of assault are five years for ABH and GBH, and life for GBH with intent. The new clause would not affect those maximum sentences, which are much higher than its proposed maximum.

[Alex Norris]

Is the Minister saying that if a broader new clause covering all those types of assault were brought back on Report, it would be acceptable to the Government?

[Chris Philp]

That is not quite what I was saying. I am going to point out a number of potential weaknesses in the new clause. That is one of them, but it is not the only one. I am just saying that it does not address any of the more serious assaults from ABH upwards. It would not affect probably 100% of the assaults of most concern, and probably 90% of all assaults.

The second issue is equity between retail workers and other public-facing workers. Retailers do very important work. As the shadow Minister rightly said, they do things such as age verification, which we in Parliament asked them to do. They put themselves in harm’s way, and they have been suffering from appalling abuse, which we all want to stop. All of those things are absolutely true.

This new clause, however, targets only retail workers. There are quite a few other workers with an equally strong claim. When it came to the statutory aggravating factor, which I will talk about in a moment, we orientated it towards all public-facing workers—not just retail workers. If we accept new clause 41 as drafted, reasonable questions might arise about teachers, who sometimes suffer assault at school, or bus, tram or tube drivers. What about refuse collectors, local councillors, social workers, and all these other workers who do an important job on behalf of the public, who sadly are often assaulted? They might say, “What about us?” In the previous bit of legislation, which I will refer to in a moment, we directed it towards the inclusion of all public-facing workers, not just retail workers, important though they are of course.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am sorry for trespassing on the territory of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. When we changed the law in relation to health workers, it was because there was a recognised high incidence of assaults on them. We have the same situation now with shopworkers. We do not have the same situation with teachers, refuse collectors or other public servants.

[Chris Philp]

Other public-facing workers sadly suffer from assault—bus drivers being an obvious example. I will come on to the legislation we introduced. The hon. Member for Stockton North and I were both on the Bill Committee for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. He will recall that, recognising this concern about retail workers and others, we passed a measure that made it a statutory aggravating factor where the victim of any assault—not just common assault—was a public-facing worker. When judges pass sentence and the victim is a public-facing worker—that includes retail workers—they are obliged by primary legislation to consider a longer sentence than they otherwise would. Reflecting the seriousness of this issue that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, so eloquently talked about, this ensures that there is a longer sentence—the person concerned will go to prison for a longer period of time. That came into force less than two years ago, so we have taken action. It would be reasonable to consider just how that is bedding in before going further, much as I sympathise with the intent behind this new clause.

Mention has been made of the offence in Scotland on which the new clause has been modelled, which I think came into force in 2021. The shadow Minister referenced the fact that there has apparently been some uplift in charges in Scotland as a result. I would be interested to find out—maybe outside of this Committee—how that has been established. Prior to this offence going on to the statute book in Scotland, offences where a retail worker was the victim would have been recorded just as assaults, in common with all other assaults. I do not know how it is possible to strip out the baseline to understand how many retail worker assaults were being prosecuted before the new law compared with afterwards. Before the new law in Scotland, they would all just have been counted as regular assaults. I do not know how those that had a retail worker as a victim could be isolated. Maybe the shadow Minister could write to me or we can discuss it later, because I would be interested to hear how that data is derived.

I know I am not supposed to show props or exhibits, so I will not do so, but I have some data on shoplifting prosecutions in Scotland and England over the last seven or eight years that has been indexed. The Committee may want to know that the graph in Scotland and England basically tracks one for one, including the two years after 2021. Certainly, the prosecution of shoplifting offences, which is different from assaults but gives a sense of police action, does not seem to be any different in Scotland and England over the period concerned. If there is evidence, from USDAW or otherwise, on the effect of that Scottish law change, I would be very interested to see and consider it further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

First, I put on the record my thanks to Chief Constable Amanda Blakeman of North Wales police, who leads for the NPCC in this area and was instrumental in publishing the retail crime action plan. On the hon. Gentleman’s question about the deliverability of all reasonable lines of inquiry, the approach was based on that taken by Chief Constable Stephen Watson in Greater Manchester, starting about a year and a half ago—perhaps two years now. You might be familiar with this, Sir Graham, but it worked successfully in Greater Manchester, to the point that arrests went up 44% year on year, and I think two magistrates courts had to be reopened, because of the volume of arrests. We saw that working under Chief Constable Watson’s leadership, and we want to replicate the success across England and Wales.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for that, and we want to see that success. I add my congratulations to Chief Constable Watson, as well as to—for a little balance—the Mayor of Greater Manchester and to the Deputy Mayor, our former colleague Kate Green. However, we will see, because a lot of the action plan and the Government’s other plans are predicated on that work, but the results remain to be seen.

Facial recognition is a good tool in the toolkit. We certainly want detection and to break up organised elements, but again that is a retrospective tool, and it is only part of the armoury. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East made an important point that I should have made about the wholesale sector. This is about retail workers in the retail setting, but there is a wider picture, as the Minister said, citing the shocking example in his own experience. This is something that is happening in the supply chain, too: highly organised criminals are taking their in-store experience to go further up the supply chain. That behoves us to take action.

On the specific concerns about the new clause, if the Minister feels that it does not go far enough on assault or cover enough assaults, we are happy to shake hands now on an expanded definition. We would have no problem with that at all. On equity with other industries, we all say that no one should go to work in fear, or in actual fact, of being subject to violence or abuse. The reason why this case is different is that we have put extra obligations on individuals—an obligation with severe consequences: “If not followed, you will lose your job”—so there is some extra responsibility on us.

[Chris Philp]

Do we not put obligations on, for example, bus drivers to collect fares? That is just one example.

[Alex Norris]

That does not seem to be the same. Universally, passengers go on to a bus and expect to pay a fare; there is no sense of a growing picture of violence related to bus drivers asking for money from their customers. To be honest, going beyond that case, the point about our special responsibility in this place is that the volume alone behoves us to act. If I am wrong, I will take a different slant, but I do not believe that bus drivers or any of the other industries mentioned—teachers, refuse collectors, local authority councillors—face violence to this degree, with 1,000 incidents a day; if that starts to become the picture in those industries, I will be at the front of the queue to talk about the protections such workers might need. At the moment, however, a fire is burning in this sector, and it is having dreadful consequences for individuals and for the collective, which is why I believe that the change I have suggested is necessary.

On Scotland and the evidence, I was quoting what we had heard in the evidence sessions from Paddy and Paul. The Minister made a good point about the ability to separate assault, but Paul was talking in-store, so assaults that happened in stores would, by definition, be against retail workers. Again, that was all there in their evidence.

I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. This is a point of difference between us and the Government. The Minister made a cogent case, as always. It sounded a lot like the arguments that we had before we got the aggravated offence—the Government always say no until they say yes, in my experience—so I will give them a chance to say yes today, because I will press the new clause to a Division; then we will keep doing that until eventually—I have no doubt whatever we will—we form one mind on this issue.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

The new clauses would introduce a statutory defence into the Computer Misuse Act 1990 for cyber-security professionals who are acting in the public interest to better protect the UK from cyber-criminals.

I want to say very clearly that cyber-criminals are more of a threat than ever, and we need arrangements that are fit for the present day to take them on. In the UK alone, there was a 77% increase in cyber-threats last year. We know that their impact on individuals’ lives can be hugely consequential, but the legislation that provides the foundation to take on that sort of cyber-threat is more than 33 years old. It was written to protect telephone exchanges before the widespread use of the internet and digital technologies. Legislation has not kept pace with modern cyber-security defence techniques.

Consumer organisations such as Which?, trade bodies and UK cyber-security companies have long campaigned for reform of the 1990 Act. The CyberUp campaign, from which we received written evidence and which is backed by a number of cyber businesses and trade associations such as techUK, believes that reform of the Act would future-proof our response to cyber-crime and could deliver benefits for the UK’s economic prosperity and criminal justice system and defend our democracy and national security.

Together, the new clauses would update section 1 of the 1990 Act, which prohibits unauthorised access to computers. Simply put, the legislation inadvertently criminalises a large portion of legitimate vulnerability, security and threat intelligence research by UK cyber-security professionals, who are committing a crime if they use legitimate techniques to check for vulnerabilities, to carry out research or to build defences. We are asking them to put themselves at risk in order to do something that is clearly a social good, so the new clauses seek to update the Act.

The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), announced a review of the Act in May 2021, nearly three years ago, and Sir Patrick Vallance, who was the Government’s chief scientific adviser, gave his backing, saying:

“We recommend amending the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to include a statutory public interest defence that would provide stronger legal protections for cyber security researchers and professionals.”

In March, the Chancellor committed to implementing Sir Patrick’s review on the pro-innovation regulation of technologies. Hopefully, therefore, we are pushing at an open door. In its report on ransomware, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy stated that there has not been enough progress and that the Bill is deficient in this area, so there is a strong argument for this reform.

New clause 52 would tighten up the definition of an offence, and new clause 53 would tighten up possible defences that could be used by individuals legitimately either researching or protecting in the cyber-security space.

[Chris Philp]

The Government broadly support the sentiment behind the new clause—we want to enable people undertaking legitimate cyber-security work to do so without fear of criminalisation—but this is a very complicated area. The Government published their response to the review of the Computer Misuse Act last November, and we are actively considering options to strengthen the legislative framework. However, we need to make sure we do that in a way that does not inadvertently create a loophole or a defence that cyber-criminals or hostile state actors could exploit to defend themselves against prosecution. It is complicated and needs quite a lot of thought, and further work is required to make sure we get this absolutely right. We are therefore not ready to accept legislation, but we are committed to giving it further, very careful consideration, so that if changes are needed, we can make them in a way that does not inadvertently create loopholes.

On protections for people engaged in legitimate activity, I remind the Committee that prior to bringing a prosecution, the Crown Prosecution Service applies the public interest test. If somebody were engaging in legitimate cyber-security activity and inadvertently fell foul of the Act, it may well be that the CPS applied that public interest test and therefore did not proceed with the prosecution. However, this does need some more thought, and I do not think we are ready to legislate yet.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for the Minister’s assurances on the Government’s intent, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 1

Notification orders

“1 The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 is amended as follows.

2 (1) Section 40 (overview) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) after paragraph (a) insert—

“(aa) orders applying the notification requirements to persons dealt with in the United Kingdom for certain offences to which this Part does not apply (see section 57A and Schedule 4A),”

(3) After subsection (3) insert—

“(4) Schedule 6A provides for orders applying the notification requirements to persons dealt with for certain service offences to which this Part does not apply.”

3 In section 57, in the heading for “Notification” substitute “Foreign offence notification”.

4 After that section insert—

“57A Domestic offence notification orders

Schedule 4A makes provision for notification orders applying the notification requirements of this Part to persons who have been dealt with for certain offences that are not offences to which this Part applies.”

5 (1) Section 59 (application to service offences) is amended as follows.

(2) The existing provision becomes subsection (1) of that section.

(3) After that subsection insert—

“(2) Schedule 6A makes provision for notification orders applying the notification requirements of this Part to persons who have been dealt with for certain service offences that are not offences to which this Part applies.”

6 (1) Section 61 (meaning of “dealt with” for an offence) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (4)(b)—

(a) for “or” substitute “, paragraph 2(6)(b) of Schedule 4A”;

(b) after “Schedule 6” insert “or paragraph 2(6)(b) of Schedule 6A”.

(3) In subsection (5), at the end of paragraph (a) (before the “and”) insert—

“(aa) paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 4A or paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 6A (conditions for making domestic or service offence notification order where offence dealt with before commencement),”

7 (1) Schedule 4 is amended as follows.

(2) In the Schedule heading for “Notification” substitute “Foreign offence notification”.

(3) For “notification order”, in each place it appears (including in any heading except the Schedule heading), substitute “foreign offence notification order”.

8 After Schedule 4 insert—

“Schedule 4A

Domestic offence notification orders

Introductory

1 In this Schedule—

“the appropriate court” means—

(a) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the High Court;

(b) in Scotland, the Court of Session;

“authorised person” means the Secretary of State or—

(a) in England and Wales, a chief officer of police;

(b) in Scotland, the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland;

(c) in Northern Ireland, the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;

“offence”: any reference to an offence is to an offence under the law of England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland (and does not include a service offence).

Domestic offence notification orders

2 (1) This paragraph applies where an authorised person makes an application to the appropriate court for an order under this paragraph (a “domestic offence notification order”) in respect of a person (“the offender”).

(2) The court must make a domestic offence notification order in respect of the offender if it is satisfied that the following 4 conditions are met (and must otherwise refuse the application).

(3) The first condition is that the offender has been dealt with for an offence (“the relevant offence”) that—

(a) was committed before 29 June 2021,

(b) is punishable with imprisonment for more than 2 years, and

(c) is not an excluded offence.

(4) “Excluded offence” means—

(a) an offence to which this Part applied when the offender was dealt with (see sections 41 and 42),

(b) an offence in relation to which section 30 or 31 of this Act or section 69 of the Sentencing Code applied,

(c) an offence in relation to which section 31 of this Act would have applied if paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of that section were omitted, or

(d) an offence under section 19, 21A or 39 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

(5) If the offender was dealt with for the relevant offence before the commencement of this Part, sub-paragraph (4) applies as if for paragraph (a) there were substituted—(a)an offence which, on the commencement of this Part, was within section 41(1) or (2),.

(6) The second condition is that—

(a) the offender has been dealt with for the relevant offence in a way mentioned in section 45 (reading any reference to an offence to which this Part applies as a reference to the relevant offence),

(b) the offender was aged 16 or over at the time of being dealt with for the relevant offence, and

(c) the offender—

(i) is imprisoned or detained in pursuance of the sentence passed or order made in respect of the offence,

(ii) would be so imprisoned or detained but for being unlawfully at large, absent without leave, on temporary leave or leave of absence, or on bail pending an appeal, or

(iii) is on licence, having served the custodial part of a sentence of imprisonment in respect of the offence.

(7) The third condition is that the relevant offence has a terrorist connection (see section 93).

(8) The fourth condition is that the period in respect of which the notification requirements would apply in respect of the relevant offence (see section 53) has not expired.

Restrictions on applications for domestic offence notification orders

3 (1) A chief officer of police may make an application for a domestic offence notification order in respect of a person only if—

(a) the person resides in the chief officer’s police area, or

(b) the chief officer believes that the person is in, or is intending to come to, that area.

(2) The chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland may make an application for a domestic offence notification order in respect of a person only if—

(a) the person resides in Scotland, or

(b) the chief constable believes that the person is in, or is intending to come to, Scotland.

(3) The chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland may make an application for a domestic offence notification order in respect of a person only if—

(a) the person resides in Northern Ireland, or

(b) the chief constable believes that the person is in, or is intending to come to, Northern Ireland.

Effect of domestic offence notification order

4 The effect of a domestic offence notification order is that the notification requirements of this Part apply to the offender.

Modifications of this Part

5 (1) The following modifications apply where a domestic offence notification order is made.

(2) Section 43(1) does not apply to the offender, as regards the relevant offence.

(3) Section 47(1) (initial notification) applies as if the reference to the day on which the person is dealt with were a reference to the date of service of the domestic offence notification order.

(4) For the purposes of section 53 (period for which notification requirements apply), references there to “the offence” are to the relevant offence.

(5) For the meaning of “the relevant offence”, see paragraph 2(3).”

9 After Schedule 6 insert—

“Schedule 6A

Service offence notification orders

Introductory

1 In this Schedule—

“the appropriate court” means—

(a) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the High Court;

(b) in Scotland, the Court of Session;

“authorised person” means the Secretary of State or—

(a) in England and Wales, a chief officer of police;

(b) in Scotland, the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland;

(c) in Northern Ireland, the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Service offence notification orders

2 (1) This paragraph applies where an authorised person makes an application to the appropriate court for an order under this paragraph (a “service offence notification order”) in respect of a person (“the offender”).

(2) The court must make a service offence notification order in respect of the offender if it is satisfied that the following 4 conditions are met (and must otherwise refuse the application).

(3) The first condition is that the offender has been dealt with for a service offence (“the relevant offence”) that—

(a) is punishable with imprisonment for more than 2 years,

(b) is not an excluded offence, and

(c) if a day has been appointed for the commencement of section 1 of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 as that section has effect for the purposes of section 69 of the Sentencing Code as applied by section 238 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, is committed before that day.

(4) In sub-paragraph (3)(b) “excluded offence” means—

(a) a service offence to which this Part applied when the offender was dealt with (see paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 6),

(b) a service offence in relation to which section 32 of this Act or section 69 of the Sentencing Code applied, or

(c) a service offence as respects which the corresponding civil offence is an offence under section 19, 21A or 39 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

(5) If the offender was dealt with for the relevant offence before the commencement of this Part, sub-paragraph (4) applies as if for paragraph (a) there were substituted—

“(a) a service offence as respects which the corresponding civil offence was on the commencement of this Part within section 41(1) or (2),”.

(6) The second condition is that—

(a) the offender has been dealt with for the relevant offence in a way mentioned in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 (reading any reference to a service offence to which this Part applies as a reference to the relevant offence),

(b) the offender was aged 16 or over at the time of being dealt with for the relevant offence, and

(c) the offender—

(i) is imprisoned or detained in pursuance of the sentence passed or order made in respect of the offence,

(ii) would be so imprisoned or detained but for being unlawfully at large, absent without leave, on temporary leave or leave of absence, or on bail pending an appeal, or

(iii) is on licence, having served the custodial part of a sentence of imprisonment in respect of the offence.

(7) The third condition is that the relevant offence has a terrorist connection (see section 93).

(8) The fourth condition is that the period in respect of which the notification requirements would apply in respect of the relevant offence (see paragraph 7 of Schedule 6) has not expired.

Restrictions on applications for service offence notification orders

3 (1) A chief officer of police may make an application for a service offence notification order in respect of a person only if—

(a) the person resides in the chief officer’s police area, or

(b) the chief officer believes that the person is in, or is intending to come to, that area.

(2) The chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland may make an application for a service offence notification order in respect of a person only if—

(a) the person resides in Scotland, or

(b) the chief constable believes that the person is in, or is intending to come to, Scotland.

(3) The chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland may make an application for a service offence notification order in respect of a person only if—

(a) the person resides in Northern Ireland, or

(b) the chief constable believes that the person is in, or is intending to come to, Northern Ireland.

Effect of service offence notification order

4 The effect of a service offence notification order is that the notification requirements of this Part apply to the offender.

Modifications of this Part

5 (1) The following modifications apply where a service offence notification order is made.

(2) Section 47(1) (initial notification) applies as if the reference to the day on which the person is dealt with were a reference to the date of service of the service offence notification order.

(3) Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 6 does not apply to the offender, as regards the relevant offence.

(4) For the purposes of paragraph 7 of that Schedule (period for which notification requirements apply), references there to “the service offence” or “the offence” are to the relevant offence.

(5) For the meaning of “the relevant offence”, see paragraph 2(3).””—(Chris Philp.)

The new schedule provides for orders applying the notification requirements in Part 4 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to persons who have committed certain domestic offences or service offences.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

[Alex Cunningham]

On a point of order, Sir Graham. Is it in order for me to thank you and your fellow Chairs for keeping us in order while still allowing us free-flowing discussions; the Hansard staff and other House staff; our Public Bill Office staff, who always manage to keep me in order; the Ministers for listening and recognising that the Bill has some way to go to satisfy those of us in opposition; and my colleagues and Government Members for their contributions?

I have saved my last comments for the right hon. Member for Croydon South. During our deliberations, he confessed to having some affection for me—I much appreciated that. I had developed an affection for his beard. I had thought that he was trying to rebuild the reputation of the beard within the Home Office after the Home Secretary, having insulting my constituency, was disqualified from the parliamentary beard of the year competition—a competition that I assure the Committee I went on to win. I hope that I can encourage the right hon. Member for Croydon South to reconsider and grow the beard again. He could succeed me next time around!

[Chris Philp]

Further to that point of order, Sir Graham. I appreciate the shadow Minister’s advice on the beard. Contrary to speculation in the Daily Mail a day or two ago that it was removed for electoral reasons, it was in fact removed following intense lobbying by my daughter, who did not like it very much. Perhaps in the future I can aspire to follow in the shadow Minister’s footsteps as parliamentary beard wearer of the year.

Let me say a huge thank you to everyone involved in this process. We have sat for 16 sessions, including the evidence sessions and our line-by-line consideration—and haven’t they flown by? We have considered 53 new clauses and debated 80-odd clauses in total. May I thank you, Sir Graham, for your benign and benevolent chairmanship, as well as Sir Robert Syms, Ms Bardell, Dame Angela Eagle and Mrs Latham, who have also been in the Chair?

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, who made what I think was her ministerial debut on a Bill Committee with great aplomb and attention to detail. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, who has been silent but omnipresent—although he almost broke his silence when I was very nearly late the other day.

I thank both shadow Ministers for their very thoughtful and reasonable points. We have had a constructive debate and there are many areas of common ground where we can work together. I am very grateful to them for that. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Stockton North; I think this is probably the third or fourth Bill Committee we have worked on together, and my affection for him remains undimmed.

I thank the other Members of the Committee—those who have spoken, and perhaps even more so those who have not. Their contributions have all been very interesting and valued, and on some of the clauses we have had a very well-informed and informative debate. I thank the Committee Clerks; Hansard, who may at times have struggled to keep up with what we were saying; and the Doorkeepers who have superintended proceedings.

I thank the officials in the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, as well as those in the Department for Transport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who have worked for a very long time on this Bill, along with our private offices. As hon. Members can imagine, a huge amount of work goes into preparing a Bill like this one. Teams of dozens of people—perhaps even more than dozens—work over many months, and sometimes even years on some clauses. On behalf of hon. Members and the public, I put on the record our thanks to the officials in those Departments for the work they have done. Without their work, legislation like this would not be brought forward.

It remains only for me to say how much I look forward to discussing the Bill further when it returns to the Floor of the House on Report.

Criminal Justice Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Chris Philp Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Latham, as we commence our final day of line-by-line consideration of the Bill. [Interruption.] I see that colleagues are very enthusiastic about undertaking the last lap.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, who would ordinarily have moved this Government new clause, has just arrived. With your permission, Ms Latham, might I hand over to her so that she can speak to it?

[The Chair]

Yes, but let me correct the Minister: it is Mrs Latham, not Ms Latham. Having been married nearly 56 years, I do not think “Ms” is right.

[Chris Philp]

I do apologise.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)]

I apologise to the Committee for being late—I had left something behind.

The new clause amends a number of existing criminal offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Currently, it is an offence for a person intentionally to engage in sexual activity where, for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification, they do so when a child is present and they know or believe that the child is aware that they are engaging in the sexual activity. There are similar offences that target such behaviour where the victim is an adult with a mental disorder.

We have listened carefully to those on the frontline, who have identified a small category of cases involving this type of behaviour where there was insufficient evidence that the perpetrator knew, believed or intended that the child, or the person with a mental disorder, was aware of the sexual activity, most typically because the child was asleep. The new clause will expand the criminal law so that successful prosecution does not depend on the alleged victim’s awareness of the sexual act or the defendant’s intent. It will capture cases where, for example, a defendant masturbates over a sleeping child for the purpose of sexual gratification and subsequently seeks to argue that they did not believe the child was aware of the activity and did not even intend that the child should be aware of the activity. The new clause therefore alters the mental elements of the offences.

I thank the National Police Chiefs’ Council, a number of individual police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service for bringing to the Government’s attention these troubling cases, which have informed our response and led us to conclude that we should amend the existing offences to protect vulnerable adults and children. The amended offences will retain the need for a link between the child’s presence or observation and the perpetrator’s sexual gratification. That requirement is critical because of the risk of over-criminalising those who engage in sexual activity with no malicious intent where a child may be present, such as parents sharing a bedroom.

We want to ensure that these behaviours are prosecuted, not just to bring offenders to justice but, importantly, to enable the management of offenders and to prevent further escalation where there is the potential for a more serious sexual offence against children or vulnerable adults.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I support the shadow Minister’s every word and point out, as he has done, the level of cross-party support for a change to this particular piece of law. In some way, I hope to outline some of the reasons why not many cases of cuckooing have been brought forward. I saw a case of a young woman, who was exploited from childhood into adulthood through the care system—and then in her own private property; men would come around to rape, sexually assault and sell her in her own property. People might, perfectly reasonably, say, “Why wouldn’t you call the police?” Well, there were kilos of cocaine and heroin left in her property, and she was absolutely convinced—nothing that I could convince her otherwise—that she would be criminalised if she called the police to her home. In other cases, there might be a cannabis farm in the ceiling, for example, and people are convinced that they will be criminalised.

Without doubt, there are more people in our prisons who have been victims of human trafficking than there are human traffickers. Certainly, for those charged under any of the crimes in the Modern Slavery Act, there will be many more people in our prisons who should actually have been saved by the provisions in that Act that say that criminalisation should not occur—yet it does, every single day; we continue to criminalise people in that manner, even when they are the victim of the crime. The vulnerable people in these cases know that, so they do not report the crimes.

We have had lots of discussions about finding weapons that are not just a kitchen knife in people’s houses. If authorities were to go into the home of a young woman who had been in the care system and had been difficult at times, and they found lots of drugs and weapons, do we honestly think that she would not be convicted of that crime? If we do, we are not living in reality at all. It is vital to have an understanding of what happens in these cuckooing cases. We need to recognise it to try to overcome some of the criminalisation, and the threat of criminalisation, that already exists.

I have met girls who have had photographs taken of them holding guns that have been used in fatal injuries, as a threat to them that they will be put up for that crime. When somebody has been groomed that well, they will believe it, no matter what I say—even if I say, “I will stand next to you in the courtroom and I will make sure this doesn’t happen.” It does happen. Recognising in law that this crime is specifically about taking over a home, and leaving incriminating evidence around the place, is really important in changing that.

[Chris Philp]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton North for the thoughtful and considered way in which he moved the new clause. He and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley both expressed sentiments about protecting vulnerable individuals from the practice known as cuckooing, and I will start by saying that the Government are just as concerned as they are. We are united in our shared desire to protect vulnerable people from the exploitation that they both described, so we are unanimous in our objectives in this area.

As the hon. Member for Stockton North said, most commonly the practice of cuckooing is associated with drug dealing, but it can be associated with other forms of criminality. I will raise a couple of points about his new clause. First, as it is currently drafted, there would be no requirement for there to be any coercion. For the proposed new offence to be made out, it would simply be sufficient for somebody—the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator—to occupy a residential building lawfully occupied by another, and then to commit a criminal offence.

The new offence of cuckooing would be made out even if there was no coercion and, in fact, even if it was done consensually. If the person who owned the house gave their free consent, without coercion, to the alleged perpetrator, the new offence proposed by the new clause would be committed. As I say, there is no requirement in the drafting for any form of coercion or even non-consent, whether or not there was coercion or exploitation. The way it is drafted goes beyond what I would expect in a cuckooing offence, where I imagine there would be some form of coercion, and non-consent by the person who owns the property.

[Alex Cunningham]

Subsection (1)(b)(iii) includes

“taking up residence without a lawful agreement with R in circumstances where R is under duress or otherwise being coerced or controlled”.

It does address coercion.

[Chris Philp]

With respect, those sub-limbs of paragraph (b) say “or”. It is only one of those requirements that needs to be met, not all of them. Although it is true that in the hon. Member’s drafting, subsection (1)(b)(iii) does require coercion or duress, the other sub-limbs—(i) and (ii) in particular—do not require duress. If that had been an “and”, it would be different. That would require all the conditions to be met, including criminality and duress. However, because the end of the line in sub-paragraph (iii) says “or”, that is only one possible sub-limb that can be met. The other sub-limbs, which the criminal offence includes but is not limited to, could be engaged as well. For example, if somebody was dealing drugs, that would engage paragraph (b)(i) even if there was no control or coercion. I think the Committee can see that because of that word “or”—

[The Chair]

Order.

Road Traffic Deaths: Police Investigations

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on securing this Adjournment debate. Every road traffic death is a tragedy, and I strongly echo what he said about the impact on those affected. I join him in thanking the police for the excellent work they do up and down the country every day to keep our roads safe, and to respond to fatal and serious road traffic incidents. These are often extraordinarily distressing incidents, but it is the role of the police to investigate them in a clear-minded and thorough way. The investigations can often be complex and technical, but the public rightly expect the police to undertake them.

I would like to convey my deepest sympathy to my hon. Friend’s constituents, George and Giulietta Galli-Atkinson, for the tragic loss of their daughter Livia. I have been very moved, as I am sure we all have, by his description of the family’s work since the tragic death of their daughter to try to bring some good out of an awful personal tragedy.

I wish to put on record my sincere thanks to George and Giulietta for the work they have done these past 25 years to promote and campaign for road traffic safety, including in establishing and perpetuating the Livia award for professionalism and service to justice. As my hon. Friend has said, it has played such an important role in highlighting the work that collision investigators and family liaison officers do—in trying to bring some answers following tragedy and in looking after the families in their hour of darkness as best they can.

Police officers up and down the country show, on a daily basis, enormous commitment and dedication in responding to fatal road traffic incidents, and it is right that their efforts are recognised. Again, I thank the Galli-Atkinsons for what they have done to support and promote this work, and to campaign for road safety. What they have done has truly made a difference over the past 25 years, as my hon. Friend set out. They should be incredibly proud that they have shown such courage, fortitude and determination to bring such good out of a terrible tragedy.

Of course, many families respond in that way. As a constituency Member of Parliament, and in my role as the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, I, like other Members, often meet families whose lives have been touched by tragedy; and we find that often they do respond as the Galli-Atkinson family have, by trying to bring some good out of their tragedy in order to help other people who find themselves in the same situation. It is important that we, as Members of Parliament and Ministers, listen carefully to what families who have had such terrible experiences have to say, to make sure that we in Parliament and in Government can learn from them. I therefore repeat my thanks to the Galli-Atkinson family for their campaigning, which does make, and has made, a difference; their voice has absolutely been heard.

Let me make one or two more general remarks about road safety, which is, of course, a priority for the Government. We continue to work to make our roads safer. Britain’s roads are among the safest in the world, but we are not complacent. In 2022, there were, sadly, 1,711 fatal road collisions—each one a life cut short. We need to make sure we do everything we can to make our roads safer and to tighten the law where it needs to be tighter. We need to do that to make sure, first, that accidents are avoided and, secondly, that where a driver has been careless, dangerous or reckless, or has driven under the influence of drugs or drink, they are brought to justice, that families can see justice being done, that there is a deterrent effect and that those sentences can be felt across society.

Although we have safe roads compared with many other countries, the work is certainly not done—there is more to do. By working with Members from both sides of the House—especially those whose constituents, like those of my hon. Friend, have experienced tragedy—and listening to them and to their experiences, I know that we can do even more. All of us will work together to make sure that that happens.

Question put and agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Chris Philp Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 25th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

New clause 6—Automatic dismissal on conviction for a serious criminal offence—

“(1) Section 50 of the Police Act 1996 (Regulations for police forces) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).

(2) After subsection (3) insert “and subject to any regulations made under subsection (3ZA)”.

(3) After subsection (3G) insert—

“(3ZA) Regulations made under this section may provide that upon the conviction of a member of a police force for a certain type of criminal offence, that person shall be dealt with by way of automatic dismissal without the taking of any disciplinary proceedings against that person.”.”

New clause 7—Automatic suspension of officers charged with specified allegations—

“(1) Regulations made by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 50 of the Police Act 1996 may make further provision as set out in this section.

(2) Where an officer is charged with an indictable-only or an either-way offence, the Regulation 11 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 and any other relevant legislation shall not initially apply.

(3) In a case falling within subsection (2), regulations may provide that the appropriate authority must automatically suspend the officer from the office of constable for an initial period of 30 days.

(4) Where an officer is suspended in circumstances falling under subsection (3), regulations may provide that—

(a) the officer remains a police officer for the purpose of the Police (Conduct) Regulations,

(b) the suspension must be with pay,

(c) at or prior to the expiry of the initial period of suspension, the appropriate authority must make a determination as to whether the suspension conditions in Regulation 11 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 are satisfied, and

(d) upon the making of a determination referred to in paragraph (c) that an officer should remain suspended, Regulation 11 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations shall apply thereafter to that officer.”

New clause 8—Automatic dismissal of officers who fail vetting—

“(1) The Police Act 1996 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) In section 39A (Codes of practice for chief officers), after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1) and subject to subsection (1B), a code of practice may provide for an officer to be dismissed without notice where—

(a) the officer fails vetting, and

(b) it is not reasonable to expect that the officer will be capable of being deployed to full duties within a reasonable timeframe.

(1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply where a chief officer concludes that—

(a) the officer, notwithstanding his vetting failure, is capable of being deployed to a substantial majority of duties appropriate for an officer of his rank; and

(b) it would be disproportionate to the operational effectiveness of the force for the officer to be dismissed without notice.””

New clause 9—Duty of officer to hand over personal mobile phone—

“(1) Section 50 of the Police Act 1996 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) After subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) Regulations under this section may, in connection with the procedures that are established by or under regulations made by virtue of subsection (3), provide that an officer has a duty to hand over to the appropriate authority a personal telecommunications device capable of storing information in any electronic format which can readily be produced in a visible and legible form, belonging to that police officer where there is a request by the appropriate authority in circumstances where the appropriate authority has reasonable grounds to suspect the police officer of behaving in a way that could amount to gross misconduct and in respect of which information stored on the device may be relevant to the suspected misconduct.

(4B) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4A), regulations may provide for—

(a) the form of the request to be made to the police officer concerned and any related information that must be provided by the police officer in releasing the device including, but not limited to, any passcode required to access infor-mation stored on the device;

(b) the time period within which the device must be provided to the appropriate authority and any sanction which may be imposed on the police officer for failing to do so;

(c) the provision to the police officer concerned of reasons for the requested possession of a device;

(d) the arrangements to be put in place for the protection of confidential, privileged or sensitive information stored on the device which is not relevant to the matter under investigation;

(e) the period of time that the device may be retained by the appropriate authority and arrangements for the return of the device when it is no longer required for the purposes of the investigation;

(f) the deletion of information obtained from the device and retained by the appropriate authority other than information which is reasonably required to be retained in connection with the matter under investigation; and

(g) the making of ancillary and consequential amendments to other regulations as may be considered necessary.

(4C) In subsections (4A) and (4B) “appropriate authority” has the meaning given in article 2 (interpretation) of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020.””

New clause 33—Police perpetrated domestic abuse as a recordable complaint—

“(1) Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph 1(2)(b) insert—

“(c) it is alleged by any person, including any person serving with the police, that a person under his direction and control, whether in the course of their duties or otherwise, has engaged in domestic abuse within the meaning of section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 or abuse of position for a sexual purpose,”

(3) After paragraph 2(6B)(c) insert—

“(ca) the complaint is one which alleges that a person serving with the police, whether in the course of their duties or otherwise, has engaged in domestic abuse or abuse of position for a sexual purpose; and “domestic abuse” has the meaning set out in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021,”.”

This new clause would ensure all allegations of Police Perpetrated Domestic abuse are treated either as a recordable police complaint or as a recordable conduct matter.

New clause 34—Domestic abuse complainants: police officers and police staff—

“(1) Section 29(4)(a) of the Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.

(2) After “person whose conduct it was” insert “, save that this paragraph does not apply where the conduct alleged (assuming it to have occurred) falls within the definition of domestic abuse in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 or constitutes abuse of position for a sexual purpose,”.”

This new clause would ensure that police officers and members of police staff have the same right to make a complaint of domestic abuse against a member of their force as do members of the public.

New clause 35—Vetting: duty of chief officers—

“(1) Chief officers must ensure that all persons under their direction and control have valid and current vetting clearance appropriate to their role.

(2) All persons under the direction and control of a chief officer must be re-vetted—

(a) within a period of five years from an individual coming under the direction and control of a chief officer; and

(b) within a period no longer than every five years thereafter.

(3) Vetting clearance must not be granted to persons who have received a caution or conviction for serious violent or sexual offences including, but not limited to offences involving—

(a) domestic abuse,

(b) coercive and controlling behaviour,

(c) stalking,

(d) harassment,

(e) sexual assault or abuse,

(f) rape, or

(g) female genital mutilation.

(4) A person who does not have valid and current vetting clearance appropriate to their role will be dismissed.”

New clause 36—Allegation of violence against women and girls: withdrawal of warrant card—

Where a police officer is the subject of an allegation that the officer has perpetrated violence against a woman or a girl, the officer’s warrant card must be withdrawn pending investigation.”

This new clause creates a provision requiring the removal of warrant cards from police officers who are under investigation for crimes relating to violence against women and girls.

New clause 43—Domestic abuse: automatic referral to Independent Office for Police Conduct—

“(1) A chief officer of police must ensure that any allegation of domestic abuse made against a person under the chief officer’s direction and control must be referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct for determination of the mode of investigation.

(2) If the Independent Office for Police Conduct determines that the investigation must be referred back to the chief officer’s force, then such an investigation must be conducted and concluded.

(3) The Independent Office for Police Conduct may also refer the complaint to the chief officer of police for a different police force and direct that the complaint be investigated independently by that force.”

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I rise to reply to the thoughtful speeches given before lunch by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, on various amendments and new clauses related to clause 73.

The Government are extremely clear on the need for substantial improvements to police standards, which is why last August they announced in principle a series of significant reforms to strengthen the disciplinary, vetting and performance systems in policing. Those changes, on which we have had detailed engagement with stakeholders, are being progressed at pace, and the work already under way relates to many of the amendments.

With the exception of the amendment made by clause 74, the reforms that we propose to introduce can be delivered by secondary legislation using existing regulation-making powers. I will go through the detail of some of that in a moment. The work on that is under way as we speak, and we expect to lay the relevant regulations before Parliament this side of the summer recess. We anticipate that part of those changes can be brought into force as soon as the spring, with the rest of the measures being introduced a little later, but in any event before summer recess. The announcements made in August are being implemented; work is happening on that as we speak, and will be delivered fairly imminently.

To replicate or cut across that work by legislating here would in fact delay the implementation, because we would have to wait for the Bill to pass and then for any subsequent regulations to be made. The Government agree with the substance of a lot of what the amendments and new clauses do. We have already committed to that in our August response, and the regulations to implement that legally are being worked on at the moment. That is an overarching point that applies to almost all the work in this area.

There is one item that can be done only by primary legislation, which relates to the right of a chief constable to appeal. If a chief constable is in a two-to-one minority when a misconduct panel chooses not to dismiss an officer, but the chief constable thinks they should be dismissed, at the moment the only remedy is a judicial review, so we will create a right of appeal for the chief constable to the police appeals tribunal. That is in clause 74. Everything else that we want to do, the Opposition would probably broadly agree with.

The changes that will be set out in regulations include but are not limited to: introducing a presumption that an officer will be dismissed where there is proven gross misconduct; and providing that conviction for certain offences will automatically be considered to amount to gross misconduct, meaning that dismissal will follow.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Should I expect that the offences in my amendment are likely to form part of those offences?

[Chris Philp]

Broadly speaking, yes. That will be set out in regulations, but the principles that we are debating are broadly speaking matters of consensus, as he will have seen from the statement that we made in August.

I have listed two of the changes that will be set out in regulations. Another thing, which I have mentioned before, is introducing a statutory requirement to have and maintain vetting, which I think is in the College of Policing’s code of practice, published in July, and has been implemented, but we intend to put it on a statutory footing by changing the regulations in the spring; it needs to be on a statutory footing as well. That is one of the changes we will make.

There will be a clarified and expedited route for removing officers who fail to maintain vetting, and there will also be measures to streamline and speed up disciplinary proceedings. One of the complaints we have heard from chief constables who are trying to clean up their forces quickly, including Sir Mark Rowley, the Met commissioner, as well as from campaigning groups, is that these proceedings take a very long time, which is unfair on victims and undermines public confidence; it is also unfair on officers to have proceedings hanging over them for a long time, and quite a lot of money is wasted, because often officers are suspended on full pay while investigations take place.

The very long, legalistic and convoluted process is not good for anybody—not for the taxpayer, the victims, public confidence, or the officer who stands accused—so we are making changes to speed the process up. Those changes include the presumption that there will be fast-track hearings, in which the chief constable makes a unilateral decision without a panel or a tribunal, for officers or special constables who have resigned or retired. We intend to make the chief constable chair the panel, rather than the legally qualified chair.

There were good intentions behind the introduction of a legally qualified chair; it aimed to make the process better, but it has turned the process into a legalistic one, almost like a Crown court trial with disclosure hearings, and the hearings take a week or two. Very often they do not dismiss the officer when the chief constable wants to dismiss them. The only remedy at the moment is to judicially review that decision. The chief constable ends up having to JR a decision of a panel on which he or she was a minority but was overruled by the legally qualified chair.

We think that whole thing has become too legalistic and too convoluted. Chief constables who want to clean up their force have not been able to. Making the chief constable chair will de-legalise the process quite a lot. There will still be two independent members of the panel, so there is an independent element. There will be a legally qualified adviser to make sure that the process is fair, but the chief constable will chair it.

There is then, of course, a right of appeal. If a police officer thinks that they have been unfairly dismissed, they can, as now, appeal to the police appeals tribunal. If the chief constable ends up in a minority, with the other two independent members voting to keep an officer and the chief constable wanting to dismiss them, and the chief is not very happy about that, they can then appeal to the PAT, rather than having to judicially review. That is in clause 74.

For completeness—this is not a misconduct issue but is worth mentioning—we will also streamline the performance process. This is not about misconduct; it is about where an officer is just not performing—they are not showing up for work, not doing the job properly, or whatever. At the moment, the process to remove someone on performance grounds is very convoluted. It has three stages, each of which has an appeal, so it is effectively a six-stage process. Sometimes it can take years. I do not think it serves the public interest for an officer who is not performing to be on the payroll for years and years. We will significantly streamline that process. Obviously, there will be some safeguards, so that chief constables cannot arbitrarily fire police officers unfairly, but it needs to be streamlined. Police leaders have asked for that. If we are asking someone to lead a police force, or any organisation, they need to have more control of who serves in uniform.

Those are some of the broad principles of the changes being made. I will move on to talk in a little more detail about some of the new clauses and amendments. I have set out what we will do through regulations—things that I think the Opposition will agree with us on. We all have the same objectives; I do not think these issues are contentious, politically.

New clause 6, tabled by the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and spoken to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, would create a power to create regulations that “may provide”—not must—for automatic dismissal for certain criminal offences. As I said, we will provide for that in regulations this spring; conviction of certain offences will automatically constitute gross misconduct, and there is a presumption that when gross misconduct occurs, dismissal follows. That will be taken forward in regulations, as I set out.

New clause 7 would introduce automatic suspension for officers in certain circumstances, which is covered by regulation 11 in the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. I will undertake to come back to colleagues on or before Report with confirmation of whether there should be—I mention this for illustrative purposes—automatic suspension when an officer is charged with an indictable offence, or a presumption of suspension if an officer is charged with an either-way offence. Those measures would be implemented via an amendment to regulation 11 in the 2020 regulations, but members of the Committee will discern the likely direction of travel from my comments.

I spoke to new clause 8, on the requirement to vet, in my introductory remarks. The College of Policing’s code of practice was issued in July under section 39A of the Police Act 1996, which already sets out this requirement, and we will nail it home with a cast-iron hammer—I am struggling to find the right metaphor here.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Would the Minister know which way to use the hammer?

[Chris Philp]

I can confirm to the hon. Member that I will definitely use the hammer in the right way. In the Prime Minister’s defence, it was suggested that he had been told to use the hammer in that way, but I do not know. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest has confirmed that the Prime Minister was told to use the hammer in that way. With a cast-iron hammer, we will make sure that the requirement sticks, by enshrining the change through the regulation changes we make in the spring.

New clause 9 would introduce a requirement on police officers to hand over their personal mobile phones where there is suspicion that they have behaved in a way that could amount to gross misconduct. This is a little more problematic, because it says that someone who is not accused of a criminal offence, but is simply suspected of having committed misconduct, has to hand over their personal phone. That is quite intrusive, and there are possible issues with regard to article 8 of the European convention on human rights. I noticed that the shadow Minister moved and voted for an amendment earlier despite my saying that it would infringe the ECHR. Some of my colleagues would no doubt find common cause with him on that.

[Alex Norris]

It is slightly challenging for the Minister to impugn my commitment to the ECHR based on legal advice that he has seen, but which he has never proffered to me.

[Chris Philp]

I did make that point in our exchange, and the hon. Gentleman did not press me on it. He did not contradict my legal analysis.

There are some ECHR article 8 concerns about compelling somebody to hand over their personal mobile phone simply on suspicion of a workplace issue. I think we would be a bit concerned if a constituent’s employer could make them hand over their mobile phone because of an employment-related issue.

Some of the most worrying conduct that we have encountered among the police involves inappropriate messages on WhatsApp groups at Charing Cross police station and elsewhere. In some cases, such behaviour might amount to a criminal offence. I should make it clear that I am not making any allegation about that incident, but in general terms, sharing inappropriate content could amount to an offence—for example, under the Malicious Communications Act 1998 or, indeed, to the common-law offence of misconduct in public office. Where there is criminality, the usual Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1994 power to seize mobile phones would apply.

It is also worth saying that if the Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating for misconduct, is lawfully on premises and has reasonable grounds for believing that misconduct has occurred, it has some powers to seize mobile phones in those circumstances. It is a good question to ask, but creating a general power to seize an officer’s personal mobile phone strays a little too far into the rights enshrined in article 8 of the ECHR, which I know is very close to the shadow Minister’s heart—or so he tells us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

“Likely” is not good enough for me, I am afraid, as I said in my speech. I just do not see why we would not add domestic abuse to the list, given that the Government have themselves made domestic abuse a serious crime. The list might capture it, but in lots of cases does not.

[Chris Philp]

I think that the 2020 regulations refer to this, so if the change were to be made, it could and probably should be made via the regulations, rather than the Bill, so that it was treated the same way as the other items.

While I am not ready to accept the amendment today, I will take away the question of whether there is a case for amending the regulations to include domestic abuse on the list. There will be arguments on both sides, because there is a necessarily high threshold. I do not disagree with the hon. Lady, but just to give the other side of the argument, the IOPC has quite a heavy workload, there are quite long delays, and we need to make sure that we direct the IOPC’s finite resources towards the most serious matters. I know domestic abuse is serious; I am not disputing that. However, we have to make sure that we calibrate that the right way. I will take the matter away and come back to the Committee once I have received further advice. That is a slightly softer commitment than on the other two measures, but it is an undertaking to look at the suggestion seriously in the context of the regulations.

On vetting clearance, I have already made the point that the College of Policing code of practice was updated in July to set out that there should be continuous vetting, and we will put that in regulations, as I said. I also spoke in debate on the last group of measures about the funded policing plan to carry out continuous integrity monitoring, which is basically the data wash I mentioned earlier done on a continuous basis.

It is the case that the full re-vetting is done every number of years. However, the proposed, revised authorised professional practice on vetting, which was published on 10 January—quite recently; it is out for consultation—suggests there should be an annual change-of-circumstance and integrity check, to check in on individuals without having to do the full re-vetting, in addition to the continuous integrity work I mentioned. The APP is out for consultation; it closes in a couple of months’ time. The annual check-up is in the APP. I looked at it earlier, and I warn colleagues that it is about 400 pages long. It is quite a heavy read. I hope that the proposal in the APP and the continuous integrity screening, which I mentioned in the previous debate and which we funded, combined with the code of practice released last July and the regulations that we will lay before Parliament this spring and early summer, will ensure that the required standards are met not just as a one-off today, but on an ongoing basis.

[Jess Phillips]

Will the Minister comment specifically on the amendment on evidence that is gathered in the family court?

[Chris Philp]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing my attention to amendment 134, which I had momentarily overlooked. It is a fair point to raise.

For the Committee’s benefit, evidence placed before the family court is currently not considered when vetting decisions are taken. The family court will consider things such as child custody cases, for example, and it may be that allegations are made in the family court of domestic abuse or even more serious matters such as rape. The family court may, on occasion, make a finding of fact, where it finds on the civil standard of the balance of probability—not the criminal standard, which is beyond reasonable doubt—that a particular thing has happened, which could be a criminal offence. It is not a criminal conviction. It is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probability.

Family court proceedings are closed, and they are not, generally speaking, published, so that information is not available to take into account during vetting. Of course, police doing vetting do not know which officer may or may not have been involved in child custody proceedings. The vast majority will not, of course, but a small number will. Because that information is generally not published, in order to get hold of the information, the police would have to either ask for their officers to self-disclose that they had been subject to proceedings—there is obviously the possibility that the officer would lie, particularly if there was an adverse fact—or make individual applications for each case to the family court to disclose first whether there had been proceedings and secondly, if there had been proceedings, whether the findings of fact could be disclosed. It may be that the family court would not disclose that information, because that is a decision for the family court judge.

[Alex Norris]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Chris Philp]

I will in just a moment.

There are considerable practical obstacles to getting hold of that information. Of course, if the matter that is put before the family court in the process of child custody proceedings is criminal in nature and it is then reported to the police, even if there was no conviction, for whatever reason, that would then be on the police national database. The gap would arise if a party to family court proceedings made an allegation to the family court, the family court upheld it on the balance of probability and then the victim did not even allege to the police—let alone get a conviction—that this criminal conduct had occurred. Then the police would not know about it. That is the sort of intersection of the Venn diagram we are talking about.

The main point is that there are some significant practical obstacles, and I cannot immediately think how to overcome them. If there are ideas, I would be happy to hear them.

[Alex Norris]

rose—

[Jess Phillips]

rose—

[Chris Philp]

I think the shadow Minister was up first, and then I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Alex Norris]

The Minister might have gone past this point now, but I merely wanted to see whether he accepts that one way to manage practical hurdles is through primary legislation, so that later on he can consider options that in principle might help to overcome some of those hurdles—or is this, in substance, a bridge too far for him?

[Chris Philp]

I would be interested to hear, including via an intervention in response to this, how we would craft that—what legislative measure we could pass that would essentially open up what are currently closed proceedings within the ambit of the family courts to the police vetting process. I will happily give way if the hon. Gentleman can suggest that or come back to me later on.

[Jess Phillips]

Really, it is unfair on the Minister for me to ask him to do this, because he is absolutely right: it is practically impossible for him to agree to it today, because our family courts system—and, in fact, we do not have a Justice Minister in front of us—[Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Member for Newbury is a Justice Minister; I apologise. Okay then, I am happy to take interventions when I wind up.

We do not record anything that happens in our family courts. Now, we do not need Fujitsu; I could knock up an Excel spreadsheet that a clerk could put the findings in the case into at the end of every day and that was searchable by safeguarding agencies. It is not beyond the wit of man, but it is absolutely beyond the wit of the policing Minister—not because of a lack of skill, but because he literally cannot commit to doing something that the Ministry of Justice should have done a long time ago and that should already exist. The failing, actually, is not on the right hon. Gentleman’s part in not being able to accept it; it is due to the fact that we have allowed a wild west to occur in our family courts. So it is not his fault.

[Chris Philp]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her personal exoneration on this occasion; I will take that while I can. However, it may be that an MOJ colleague will respond. Obviously, the hon. Lady is able to question MOJ Ministers in parliamentary questions, and it may be that it is possible to have a discussion here; I do not know. However, that is obviously, as the hon. Lady said, something that the justice system has to consider. As a Home Office policing and crime Minister, that is not in my ambit. Therefore, as far as I am concerned—as the hon. Lady has acknowledged—it is difficult to say anything further.

However, I will just repeat the point that it is obviously open to a party to family court proceedings—if they are making an allegation of criminality to the family court, I am sure we would all strongly encourage them to also report it to the police, because it should be—[Interruption.] I know that there may in some cases be reasons not to, but they should also report that to the police so that it can be criminally investigated. Were they to do so, that would then appear on the police national database, although I do understand that there are some individual circumstances in which a victim may not want to do that.

There are a lot of new clauses and amendments in this group. I apologise for speaking to them at such length, Sir Robert, but I hope that I have set out that the majority of these things are already being done via regulations. There are two or three areas—new clauses 34 and 43 particularly—where I have undertaken to come back with further thinking, but I hope that that gives the Committee sufficient assurance that the Government are taking this important area very seriously—and, more than just taking it seriously, taking action.

[Jess Phillips]

I really appreciate the approach that the Minister has taken on all of the areas. I do not doubt that we are cross-cutting on certain things that have been going on, which many of us in this House have been working on for at least the past two years, since this became such a public issue. I also appreciate the Minister saying that he will come back on various different things.

Some of the amendments that I have tabled are just minor and technical amendments to other bits of—[Interruption.] Yes, apologies; I do not mean to wade into the argument about, “What is a technical amendment?”, because I do not know—or care, to be perfectly honest. That is the truth. I really appreciate those opportunities to discuss this with the Minister.

On the issue of the family courts, I will speak to another amendment on that shortly, later on in this debate. The reason I feel compelled to do that—even though I have admitted that in this instance the Minister’s hands are tied—is that we are three years on since the Ministry of Justice’s harms review. If the Justice Minister here today would like to tell me that I am wrong, she can, but we are three years on from the Ministry of Justice identifying the harms in the family courts—serious harms of child abuse and serious cases of rape—and nothing has changed.

We are no further in using the perfectly good piece of work that was started by myself and the now Justice Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who was not in that role at the time. Actually, it is really woeful, and so I find myself only able to tag this on to Bills where it is wholly inappropriate to ask the Minister concerned to include it, even though I absolutely want to see this very substantive thing done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I explained in the last debate the rationale for clause 74, which, as the shadow Minister said, is to allow the chief constable to initiate an appeal where he or she disagrees with the finding of the misconduct panel on which the chief constable is in a minority—there are two independent members. To the point about independence, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley raised, given that there are still two independent members, and the chief chairs it but is in the minority, that gives quite a good assurance. Of course, the individual police officer has a right of appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal, which is an essentially digital function, and in this clause we are also giving the chief constable a right to appeal if they do not like the decision.

Turning to the amendment and who should initiate the appeal where it is the chief constable themselves who is the subject of the misconduct proceedings, let me make a couple of points. First, the police and crime commissioner, or the deputy mayor where there is a mayoral model, ultimately exercises oversight of the chief constable. They can fire them for poor performance, for example, and they are responsible for hiring them as well, so it is consistent with that hiring and firing power that they make the decision on whether to appeal where a finding misconduct is made against the chief constable themselves.

It is worth repeating the point I made just now that the panel that makes a finding has two independent members, so that is pretty independent. We are not giving the police and crime commissioner the right to, as it were, ratify or reject the finding of the panel; we are merely giving a power to refer it to the Police Appeals Tribunal, an essentially judicial body that will then hear the appeal. It is simply a right of referral to the Police Appeals Tribunal, not a right to make a decision. For that reason, I think it is the right way to approach things. On that basis, I urge the Committee to not adopt amendment 137, but to incorporate clause 74 as part of the Bill.

[Jess Phillips]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76

Regulations

Amendment made: 146, in clause 76, page 68, line 15, after “purposes” insert “or areas”.—(Chris Philp.)

This amendment provides that regulations under the Bill (other than regulations under clause 78) may make different provision for different areas.

Clause 76, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77

Extent

Amendments made: 41, in clause 77, page 68, line 36, leave out “5” and insert “1”.

This amendment provides that clauses 1 to 4 extend to (ie form part of the law of) Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as England and Wales.

Amendment 42, in clause 77, page 69, line 2, at end insert—

“(ea) section (Terrorist offenders) (and Schedule (Notification orders));”.

This amendment provides that the new clause and Schedule moved by NC14 and NS1 extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 43, in clause 77, page 69, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) Sections 11 and 12 extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.”.

See the statement to amendment 23.

Amendment 44, in clause 77, page 69, line 11, after “by” insert “section 32(2) or”.—(Chris Philp.)

This amendment to the extent provision is consequential on Amendment 40.

Improving Police Standards and Culture

Chris Philp Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

Last year, on 1 March, I issued a written ministerial statement (HCWS590) setting out actions being undertaken by the Home Office and partners to improve police standards and culture. This statement provides an update on that work.

The vast majority of police officers and staff perform their vital duties with professionalism, skill and courage. We are fortunate to have so many brave people dedicated to protecting us. However, we must not be complacent, we know that confidence and trust in the police must never be taken for granted.

That is why the Government asked the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) to undertake a “datawashing” exercise to ensure that all officers and staff employed within policing across the country were checked against the police national database (PND) for any new intelligence which forces were previously unaware of.

This week—22 January—the NPCC published the outcomes of this work, which represented the largest single integrity screening project undertaken in any national workforce. It is a key step to identify information and intelligence around our workforce and take appropriate action to remove those not fit to work in policing.

Checks were made against 307,452 officers and staff in total. In well over 99% of cases, no new adverse information was identified. Of the 461 cases that were referred to a decision-making process, 97 required no further action. Criminal investigations were triggered in nine cases, 88 cases led to disciplinary investigations, 139 others led to a vetting review while 128 cases led to management advice.

The Government have committed to provide further funding to the NPCC to develop an automated and continuous vetting system, enabling the identification of new information on officers and staff to be sent directly, at pace, to the force concerned. The NPCC will continue to work closely with the Home Office to achieve this.

This month will also see the closure of the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s programme to co-ordinate and monitor the police service’s progress against recommendations made by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) in their November 2022 report into vetting, misconduct and misogyny. This follows evidence being submitted to HMICFRS on successful delivery of almost all of the 28 recommendations and five areas for improvement.

This work has driven significant improvements in force vetting processes and is underpinned by the new statutory code of practice for vetting, strengthened by the College of Policing at the Home Office’s request and published in July last year. The revised code makes clear the expectation on chief officers to ensure vetting standards are maintained within their force.

The vetting code of practice is supported by the college’s authorised professional practice guidance, or APP. The APP is regularly updated, and the college has now published a revised vetting APP, currently out for consultation, which will further promote national consistency and the highest standards in police vetting.

To further support the vetting code of practice, the Government are legislating to introduce a statutory requirement for officers to hold and maintain vetting clearance. Individuals who are unable to hold vetting clearance should face dismissal proceedings. Our new regulations will provide a stronger, clearer and more defined process to assist forces.

This is included, and will be delivered, as part of a wider package of reforms, announced as part of the Government’s review of the police dismissals process, to strengthen the systems that deal with police misconduct and performance. These include:

Enabling senior officers to chair misconduct hearings, giving them a greater role in decisions relating to the integrity of their workforce

Creating a presumption of dismissal where gross misconduct is proven; and

Prescribing that conviction of certain criminal offences automatically amounting to gross misconduct.

This package of measures is designed to improve not only standards, but efficiency and timeliness as well. The first tranche of these reforms is to be in place this spring.

It is imperative for public confidence in the police that we have assurance that professional standards departments are tackling misconduct and implementing these reforms. To ensure more rigorous scrutiny, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services has been developing a new inspection methodology looking at force professional standards departments. This will join the existing vetting and counter-corruption inspection arrangements to form a new integrity programme, which is due to commence in the new financial year.

Adhering to professional standards is just part of ensuring that those who work in policing deliver a service that is fair, ethical and can be trusted to make decisions in the interest of keeping people safe. Yesterday, the College of Policing launched the new code of ethics. This provides everyone in policing with clear principles and practical guidance for officers on making ethical decisions as they undertake their daily duties. This will complement provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill that require the college to set out a duty of candour in statutory guidance for chief constables, ensuring a culture of transparency and accountability.

The Government and our policing partners have made significant progress in delivering on our commitments to help rebuild confidence and trust in policing, and will continue to drive this work forward. This is what the public expect and the decent, hardworking majority of officers deserve. I will provide the House with further updates in due course.

[HCWS212]

Criminal Justice Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Chris Philp Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 25th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I have a couple of preliminary announcements. Members should send their speaking notes, if they have any, by email to [email protected]. That helps to get the transcription done and made available to you as quickly as possible. Please switch electronic devices to silent; I have just checked mine, so hopefully it is okay. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings; that is just one of those things.

Clause 72

Crime and disorder strategies

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

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your benevolent and wise chairmanship, Dame Angela.

The clause confers a new power on police and crime commissioners and other local policing bodies to make recommendations on the activity of community safety partnerships and, in turn, places a duty on community safety partnerships to consider those recommendations. Community safety partnerships will be duty-bound to consider recommendations, but they are not under a duty to implement them. However, if a partnership does not implement the recommendations, it must share its reasons for not doing so with the relevant local policing body, most likely the PCC.

The feedback from part 2 of the police and crime commissioner review, conducted by the Home Office in 2021, was that while the importance of local partnerships such as CSPs was widely acknowledged, they were not being used as effectively as they could be. Every public service should be accountable to the public, and to the local communities they serve. This provision will strengthen the accountability and visibility of CSPs and improve how they work with the relevant policing body to tackle crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour.

No one single agency can address all drivers of crime and antisocial behaviour, so partnership working between policing, local authorities, local education providers, the prisons, probation service, mental health trusts and so on are all very important. This measure will take a step towards formalising more that kind of collaboration.

I take the view, as I am sure other Members here do, that police and crime commissioners as directly elected representatives of the local people are particularly well placed to convene groups. More often than not, they chair the local criminal justice board. They have a lot of public visibility, convening power and influence, and provide visible public local leadership. The provision helps build on and strengthen the work that PCCs up and down the country are doing together. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela.

I am a community safety partnership enthusiast. The partnerships, which were established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, are a crucial forum for leadership, partnership working around crime prevention and reduction, and problem solving. I chaired my partnership in Nottingham a decade or so ago, and saw at first hand the impact of all those partners coming together, with shared priorities and mutual accountability, in a partnership built on trusted, close relationships and focused on solving problems.

It is with a degree of sadness that I say that partnerships have fallen in prominence and impact in recent years. One of the major challenges these bodies have found, and one of the limiting factors to the proposals in the Bill, is that austerity has bitten the partners that formed CSPs, certainly as regards funding, and partners have pulled away. In many cases, we have lost the shared data and insight function, and some of the things that brought partners to the table. Some of the extras done by CSPs are seen as nice-to-haves, rather than crucial functions.

As a result, there is a danger, certainly in some parts of the country, of the partnerships becoming meetings, rather than problem-solving bodies. Of course, whatever saving is made is lost later, through the impact on the criminal justice process. Certainly, if I ever get the chance to sit where the Minister sits, I will seek to reallocate those bodies and use them to their fullest extent, because we know the impact they can have.

In the meantime, we have what the Government have offered us. I probed the issue a little in our evidence session with the police and crime commissioners, and the real impact of this measure is that we are setting the police and crime commissioner or the relevant deputy Mayor as first among equals, and giving them higher status in CSPs. They are clearly to be given primacy. I thought about voting against this clause, but I talked to PCCs and local authorities, and they have fewer concerns than I do. The requirement is relatively light, in the sense that the power is to make recommendations, rather than to direct. That is probably right, so I have not chosen to vote against.

I have some degree of enthusiasm for what the Minister said about public transparency on decisions and recommendations. If recommendations are rejected, at least there will be an explanation why; that is probably enough. We should make it clear—I hope that the Minister will—that circumstances in which this power was necessary would generally reflect a failure. If a PCC needs to direct their CSP, there is no doubt a bigger problem in play.

What we want—I am sure that the Minister does as well—is a family of organisations across sectors in a community. We are talking about principally public sector organisations, but also bodies in the community and voluntary sector and, to some degree, the private sector, coming together on a basis of mutual trust to identify the common challenges for crime prevention and community safety in an area. They should have agreed priorities and plans based on good-quality data, insight and understanding of what each organisation is doing. Those are all parts of the puzzle. They should work to common goals in the interests of their community. That is easy to say, but it can be a difficult alchemy to achieve sometimes. However, that is what makes change, and that is what we need to see from CSPs. It will drive us away from what we have sadly seen in recent years.

There has been a move to counting crimes, and a move away from problem solving and problem-oriented policing. I have to say, there is minimal value to having one partner able to trump the rest. However, in cases of dysfunction, it will be a valuable asset for a police and crime commissioner or a deputy Mayor for policing to be able to say, “Hang on a minute. We have the ultimate mandate in this area. We don’t think things are working. This is how they ought to work.” Every time this provision is used, it will be a sign of failure, rather than success, but nevertheless it probably does add some value, so we will not oppose it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 72 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73

Ethical policing (including duty of candour)

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

The enormous list of amendments in my name—it is time for everybody to strap in—is not necessarily a criticism of police forces, but is real recognition that women in our country do not trust the police. That is dangerous, because the women I work with have no choice but to trust the police. It is not a privileged position that they can take; they have to trust them, but they do not.

Clause 73 relates to the College of Policing’s code of ethics, but there is nothing at all about police-perpetrated abuse in it. Neither the code of ethics nor the standards of professional behaviour makes clear that police-perpetrated domestic abuse is contrary to the standards required by a police officer. Clause 73 should be amended to make it explicit that ethical policing also entails zero tolerance for violence and other forms of abuse against women and girls by police officers and staff. Amendment 135 does just that.

Why that is important should be pretty obvious. Conduct that constitutes domestic abuse or sexual violence should be clearly specified as being a breach of the code of ethics and of standards of professional behaviour, whether committed on or off duty. It is necessary to spell that out in legislation, because police forces still frequently take the approach that domestic abuse committed while an officer is off duty discredits the officer personally, but does not constitute a breach of the code of ethics or the standards of professional behaviour, as it occurred in the officer’s private life.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct’s guidance says:

“The Standards of Professional Behaviour and the obligations that they impose will be assessed in context, which includes whether they are on or off-duty at the material time. Police officers have a right to a private life”—

they do not have the right to be a domestic abuser, though—

“which must be factored into any assessment. Assessments of seriousness and public interest should include consideration of whether an off-duty behaviour discredits the police service.”

David Carrick was off duty when he raped all those women.

Forces are seizing on this in some cases to say that domestic abuse is personally discrediting for the officer, but not the police service. Jackie, an experienced police officer, was the victim of domestic abuse by her police officer husband. She reported the abuse to her force, but no criminal charges were brought, on the basis that there was not a realistic prospect of conviction because it was her word against her ex-partner’s. Misconduct proceedings were not pursued on that basis; the conduct alleged by Jackie had taken place while both she and her ex-partner had been off duty. It was therefore deemed to be part of their private lives. As a result, Jackie felt unable to continue working for the force. Meanwhile, her ex-partner had been promoted, and holds a leadership role in the force’s violence against women and girls strategic command.

Jackie’s case and others like it send a clear message about the force’s true attitude towards domestic abuse. Other officers have said that seeing how officers such as Jackie have been treated when they have tried to report domestic abuse speaks volumes, and that they would not report domestic abuse themselves, having seen how Jackie and others were treated by the force. Regardless of what the force says about operational pledges or other initiatives, the way it responds to allegations of police-perpetrated domestic abuse has a much greater impact on the willingness of other victims to come forward.

The relevance of abusive behaviour towards women to an officer’s suitability to hold the office of police constable and the impact on public confidence when perpetrators of domestic abuse hold positions in the police are being overlooked. Therefore, there needs to be a clear and unequivocal statement that domestic abuse committed by a police officer, whether on-duty or off-duty, will always discredit the police service if that officer is permitted to continue serving on that force.

Furthermore, subsection 2A(a) in amendment 135 refers to,

“sexual relationships with members of the public whilst acting in their capacity as a police officer”.

Section 1 of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021—some of us were on that Bill Committee as well—amended part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 so as to enable the authorisation of CHIS. That includes enabling under- cover police officers to participate in conduct that would otherwise be criminal.

A number of groups, including the Centre for Women’s Justice, the End Violence Against Women coalition, Justice, Women’s Aid and Police Spies Out of Lives, are very concerned about that in light of the significant history of undercover officers engaging in deceitful sexual relationships during the course of their under- cover deployment. A specific prohibition against such relationships should be included in the police code of ethics, making it clear that any such relationship is a breach of the code of ethics and of the duty under the standards of professional behaviour in schedule 2 to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020—to

“behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.”

Amendment 136 aims to ensure that there is independent external oversight to the code of practice from bodies that represent the interests of the victims and survivors whom this code seeks to protect. The Bill currently sets out a range of organisations that need to be consulted regarding the code of practice relating to ethical policing. However, while this code is being implemented following serious failings by policing to adequately protect victims, there is no requirement to consult organisations that protect the rights of victims to ensure that the standards set out in the code are sufficiently robust.

In the previous debate, the Minister said how important partners were in ensuring that things worked well. Amendment 136 would ensure that the interests of victims were entrenched in the code of practice and the duty of candour. We have heard concerns about police marking their own homework, yet the current state of the Bill is like allowing them to set their own questions in the exam. The current provision requires police to act

“in an open and transparent way”.

That should start with openness to external scrutiny by individuals whose role it is to uphold and promote the rights of victims. By including named commissioners as statutory consultees, we can ensure that the standards set out in the code are fit for purpose.

I move on to new clause 48. Gaia Pope-Sutherland was 19 when she died. She was one of a significant number of young women and girls with cases against a man who had served time for child sex offences. Gaia had reported that she had been raped by him, but her case was dropped by the police and dismissed by the Crown Prosecution Service. Her family believed that that was because her case was presented in isolation from all the other independent allegations of violence and abuse. Detectives were said to have been aware of allegations made against this man, who was accused of grooming her as far back as 2014.

Gaia was already suffering from severe post-traumatic stress and living in fear of retaliation from the perpetrator, so the collapse of the case had a devastating impact on her mental health. That contributed to her disappearance and death from hypothermia shortly before the suspect was due to be released from a prison sentence for other child sex offences.

What happened to Gaia is heartbreaking. I have met many victims of sexual violence, and many of them have spoken about how it is not the violence that broke them but the failed state response—that when they turned to the institutions that were supposed to be able to protect them and deliver justice, they were met with incompetence or discrimination and a system that was uncaring and silencing.

Gaia’s heartbroken family have courageously taken up the campaign to change this. They have been pushing for the “Gaia principle”, which stipulates that any failure by a police officer to comply with existing policies and guidance will be considered a professional standards issue and escalated to misconduct in the event that the pattern persists. It is basically trying to make the police do their job. It urges that all police forces investigate sexual violence crimes in line with the national operating model developed from Operation Superior, and that officers be held accountable if they fail to do so.

New clause 48 is a step towards delivering that principle. It makes diligent consideration of all intelligence on a subject—previous convictions, reports or accusations—an unquestionable or overt part of what we expect of our police officers in their service. Repeat offending is a critical issue in the investigation of VAWG. The VAWG national strategic threat risk assessment notes:

“A relatively small number of highly prolific offenders are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.”

The Femicide Census tells us that in 59% of intimate partner or relative homicide cases, a history of abuse towards the victim is evident. Research from Respect shows that a quarter of high-harm domestic abuse perpetrators are serial offenders, some having as many as six victims. Between 41% and 59% of Operation Soteria offenders were linked to more than one offence, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. One study sample revealed that 120 undetected rapists, defined as those whose offences met the legal definition of rape or attempted rape but who had never been prosecuted, were responsible for 1,225 interpersonal violence offences, including rape and child sexual and physical abuse.

The picture is clear: we know who these men are and what they are doing, but because of endemic police failure to investigate properly and a lack of co-ordinated professional curiosity, those known perpetrators are acting with impunity. New clause 48 makes the investigation of potential perpetrators a central part of policing. It is unbelievable that I have to say this—the country would think that this is happening—but that must be a part of the standards of their professional behaviour.

The police must live up to that and be held accountable for it. If a serving officer fails to do his or her job properly, they must face consequences and disciplinary processes, and if necessary they must no longer hold that role. That seems obvious, and it is extraordinary that we are debating it, but rape has an appallingly low conviction rate: a perpetrator is held to account in just 1.5% of rape cases. The devastating lived experience of families such as Gaia’s makes it clear that we cannot continue.

The new clause, based on the “Gaia principle”, will ensure that survivors of VAWG are no longer denied justice and left in danger because police investigators fail to investigate a suspect properly. As I said, it is named in memory of 19-year-old Gaia Pope-Sutherland from Dorset, who lost her life following these failures.

[Chris Philp]

I thank the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley for explaining their very thoughtful amendments. We will obviously have a stand part debate a bit later, but in short, and for context, clause 73 places a duty on the College of Policing to issue a code of practice relating to ethical policing, which must include a duty of candour, delivering one of the points of learning set out by Bishop James Jones in response to the Hillsborough disaster, which Members of this House and this Committee—including you, of course, Dame Angela—have discussed extensively.

The Government and the House obviously take police integrity and accountability very seriously indeed, which is why the code of ethics and the duty of candour are so important. Amendment 63, in the name of the shadow Minister, asks for information to be set out that specifies what actions are to be considered ethical. Although the Bill is not yet in force, the College of Policing has acted pre-emptively—that is helpful for this Committee, as we have something to look at—and has already published and set out a statutory code of practice for ethical policing under section 39A of the Police Act 1996. It has met the statutory requirement that we are looking to legislate for in this clause already, even though the Bill is not yet in force. Once the Bill is in force, it will have to maintain that code and review it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

It would not pick up employment issues raised by one police officer about their police officer husband. The police currently operate on a criminal threshold in an employment environment, which is a dangerous precedent. We would not allow that anywhere else. We do not allow it in here. It would not have helped Jackie in her case. On looking at criminal records or other intelligence—we will come to the intelligence that they are not looking at in a moment—it needs to be explicitly stated that we do not want domestic abusers in our police force.

[Chris Philp]

We certainly do not want domestic abusers in our police force. To be clear, domestic abuse is rightly a criminal offence. If someone gets convicted of that, it will be on the police national computer. Even if there is not a conviction, because the victim does not want to proceed with a prosecution, the evidential threshold is not met or there is an acquittal or whatever, the police national database, as distinct from the police national computer, records intelligence and information more generally.

Even if there is no conviction, for whatever reason, information that is received gets recorded on the police national database. If there has been an allegation that has not been prosecuted and there is no conviction, that will still show up on the police national database and therefore be considered in the data washing exercise, even if there has not been a criminal conviction.

[Jess Phillips]

To what end? They will find that somebody made an allegation, but how many result in “no further action”? If they found that there were three allegations against a police officer by three different women, they went, “No further action.” To what end? We are washing it, but I want to put it on after it has been washed.

[Chris Philp]

It is in order to make decisions about whether the officer concerned meets the standards required for vetting. The hon. Lady made this point a second ago. The standard for employment should be much lower than the standard for criminal conviction. Obviously if there is a criminal conviction, the expectation is that the person will be dismissed. Where there are allegations that are concerning but have not been proved, we would expect that to adversely affect the officer’s vetting status.

We made a change last summer, I think, to say that an officer has to clear vetting not just once when they are first hired—this was a problem in the Carrick and Couzens cases—but throughout their career. If the data washing exercise brings out information that is not necessarily criminal but means that the officer does not meet the vetting standards, we expect action to be taken. I am speaking from memory here, but in something like 150 of those 461 cases, there is now a misconduct investigation, so not criminal. Nine of them are being investigated criminally. About 150 misconduct investigations have been triggered, which will pick up examples such as the one the hon. Lady just mentioned although they do not meet the criminal threshold.

To elaborate on that, the paragraph about discreditable conduct includes the requirement that police officers behave in a manner that

“does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence”—

“undermine public confidence” is an important phrase—and that is

“whether on or off duty.”

Each case is assessed on its own facts, but I expect— I am sure the hon. Lady would expect this, too—credible allegations, in particular credible repeated allegations, of domestic abuse, even if not prosecuted or convicted, to undermine public confidence in the officer concerned. The hon. Lady would definitely take that view and I would as well. I have not looked at all 150 cases individually, but I expect that a number of those recently uncovered cases include examples such as the one I have set out.

Critically, the data-washing exercise, that check, will now happen on an ongoing and repeated basis, and it will give a lot of assurance. [Interruption.] I apologise— I said 150, but actually 88 cases have been triaged for disciplinary investigation. It was not 150; I was mis-recollecting. It is 88 of the 461. But I hope that gives more confidence to the public, including women, particularly as the vetting will happen on an ongoing basis—we have funded that. Maintaining vetting clearance throughout an officer’s career, which could be 30 years, rather than just having it at the beginning, will help to rebuild confidence.

[Jess Phillips]

If the vetting has to be ongoing, where is that written into primary legislation? I do not doubt the good faith of the Minister—we have all said as much in Committee—but how can people like me have a guarantee that it will happen forever? Secondly, the Minister made a valiant effort to point out to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, where exactly all the duty-of-candour things appeared in the ethical code of practice for policing. But I have just had a quick scan of that, and it does not mention domestic or sexual violence once.

[Chris Philp]

Maintaining vetting throughout an officer’s career rather than just at the beginning of it is set out in the vetting code of practice, which was published by the College of Policing, I think, in July last year. The ongoing checking against the police national database is an operational practice. We have put funding behind it, so there is money to pay for it, and the relevant National Police Chiefs’ Council lead has publicly committed to doing it. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley is right that such vetting is not a statutory duty, but the Government have funded it and the police have said that they will do it, so Parliament will hold them to account to ensure that they deliver on that commitment and continue to do so.

The hon. Lady asked about the “Guidance for ethical and professional behaviour in policing”, which was published recently. Some relevant information, which the Committee will want to hear about, is in that document. Two more documents are also relevant, one of which was published earlier this week. This is confusing, because three documents fit under the umbrella of the codes of practice.

The statutory document, under section 39A of the Police Act 1996, was published on 6 December and I quoted from it previously. Two more documents were published in the past few days: “Guidance for ethical and professional behaviour in policing”—also issued by the college, and I can provide a copy—and “Ethical policing principles”. Those three documents should be taken together.

The first of the two new ones is relevant to amendment 135. It has some sections that answer the questions that have just been asked, including the one about inappropriate relationships. The “Guidance for ethical and professional behaviour in policing”, published only a few days ago, has a section on “Fairness and respect”, which includes things such as:

“protect vulnerable people and groups from behaviour that is abusive, harassing, bullying, intimidating, exploitative or victimising”

and

“avoid any behaviour that could cause unreasonable distress or harm, including any behaviour that might interfere with…colleagues’ ability to carry out their duties”.

Clearly, exploitation, which obviously includes domestic abuse, is covered, but so are other things such as victimisation, harassment and abusive behaviour.

[Jess Phillips]

Does the document say whether that is on or off duty? Does it include officers’ own personal relationships or does it just apply to members of the public?

[Chris Philp]

The document talks about treating everybody in those ways. It also goes on to talk about relationships, which obviously can happen inside and outside policing. It also talks about—I think this was the topic of amendment 135—ensuring that there are appropriate boundaries between police officers’ professional roles and personal relationships. It particularly talks about recognising

“the need to manage…relationships with the public because of the existence of a power imbalance”,

respecting “personal and professional boundaries” and maintaining

“the integrity and rights of those we come into contact with”.

Critically, it also states:

“do not use our professional position to pursue a sexual or improper emotional relationship with a member of the public”.

I think that speaks directly to the concerns raised in paragraph (a) in amendment 135, which expressly references the same thing. That is in the document that I just mentioned.

What the whole group of amendments tabled by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley calls for is covered in these documents, which have been published by the College of Policing under section 39A of the Police Act 1996. If there are gaps in them, obviously they can be updated.

Someone—I think it was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley—asked, “Why not set it all out in the Bill?”. The documents are quite long—29 pages, 10 pages and something like 30 pages: there is a total of 60 or 70 pages of guidance. It is rather difficult to put that much detail into the Bill. What the Bill is doing is compelling—not asking—the College of Policing to publish these documents. The detail is obviously in the documents, and I hope that the Committee can see, from the examples that I have given having rifled through the documents, that they address the topics that one would want to see addressed.

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the Minister for giving way again; it is good to have this debate. I must say, as an expert in this field, that what the document says is not good enough. That brings me to amendment 136—which specialist agencies who work with victims of domestic violence did the College work with to write this? It is not good enough, I am afraid to say. I can take that up with the College of Policing, but that is also not the mechanism.

[Chris Philp]

There is obviously a duty to consult various bodies in preparing the code of practice. I know that the College of Policing and its chief executive, Chief Constable Andy Marsh, engages extensively with a number of people. The hon. Lady lists in amendment 136 the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, and the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. I do not know whether the College of Policing expressly consulted those people in preparing the codes of practice, but I can undertake to ask its chief executive and find out.

I appreciate that the hon. Lady has probably not had a chance to read the documents, because two of them got published only earlier this week. Once she has had a chance to look at them, if, based on her experience and work in this area, which I know is extensive and long-standing, she thinks that some things have not been properly addressed, I am happy to commit to raising them directly with the College and ask that they be addressed in the next iteration of the documents. I am definitely happy to do that whenever the hon. Lady is ready; if she can set down what she thinks is missing, I will raise those issues.

I am told that the three organisations that I just read out, which appear in the hon. Lady’s amendment, actually were consulted routinely on the documents. However, as I said, if, once she has had the chance to read the documents, she finds in them things that are not properly constructed, I will definitely raise them with the chief executive of the College on her behalf. She can obviously do so directly, but I will certainly do so reflecting her advice as well.

I essentially agree with the spirit of all the amendments. However, because of the detail published relatively recently, on 6 December and in just the last few days, my view is that what is being asked for has been essentially incorporated into the documents. As I said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, if she especially or any members of the Committee feel that things are missing, I will absolutely take them up with the chief executive, should a view be formed that changes would be useful and appropriate.

[Alex Norris]

This has been a really important debate, and I am grateful for the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley. The Minister’s very full answer was much appreciated by us all. Interestingly, my hon. Friend and I focused on two different issues, but they have the same principle at root: the public must be able to expect that public organisations—in this case, the police—are candid, transparent and making their best efforts to do the best job in all circumstances. That should be obvious, but we know that too often that has not been the case, and Hillsborough brought that into sharp relief. Alongside that, in the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend there is a more numerous although less high-profile drumbeat of mundane failure, which has been almost baked into the system. Those will never be the subject of a high-level inquiry; instead, there are people dying in doorways, unaccounted for, unknown and unseen. We should believe that we can do better than that.

I am grateful for what the Minister introduced in relation to the work of the College. I was going to say this in the next debate when we talk about vetting, but we have full confidence in and we believe in Chief Constable Andy Marsh. He is excellent; he has engaged with us on the Opposition Benches and he is always very good, so no point that I make is against either him or the College. The question, for us, is about the degree to which we are comfortable with subcontracting important judgments about how one of the most crucial public services operates to other organisations that we cannot scrutinise in the same way as the Minister and the Home Office. There are times when that is very much the right thing to do, and when we cannot and should not seek to operate those things remotely from here; we would not have the time and it would not be appropriate.

[Chris Philp]

We both have confidence in the College and Chief Constable Andy Marsh—in fact, now is a good time to thank him for the work that he and his colleagues at the College have done. On the subcontracting of important things to the College of Policing, I should say that the statutory code must be approved by the Home Secretary prior to its coming into force. That gives not parliamentary approval, but at least some level of democratic oversight on what goes into it.

[Alex Norris]

If I am honest, that level of oversight might not give much comfort to us in the Opposition, but never- theless that at least gives the code a statutory footing, which is in itself very much valued. We must make the judgment of when we are happy for others to make those decisions and when we believe that it is our responsibility to set a tone. That remains the case, particularly around candour; I will come on to amendment 149 in a second.

I turn to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley. One of the most important things we can say—and I hope that the Minister will say this at some point; I do not think that he has said it yet and it is really important for the amendment—is that we believe that off-duty conduct is relevant to establishing the character and suitability of officers. My hon. Friend’s amendment mentions a couple of cases where standards that we would routinely expect to be met have not been, whether that is in a domestic abuse or sexual violence situation or related to the point around spy cops. We ought to send a stronger signal on that.

I confess that I have not yet had the chance to see the documents that have been published in recent days. I hope that they pass the test that the Government’s own documents often fail around gender. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley said, the Government managed a whole Domestic Abuse Act without mentioning women. We cannot lose sight of what is happening here—it is not exclusively male perpetrators and women victims, but that is largely the case. This is a gendered crime, and we ought to treat our regulation in that way.

I heard the Minister’s point about amendment 136. While we have to admire the College of Policing’s diligence in publishing the code prior to its becoming a statutory requirement, if the consultation has not happened yet there will be a period of time when that work could take place, prior to the Secretary of State signing it off, and for it to be understood that the commissioners mentioned in the amendment would be routinely consulted during the development of the process. The insight that those individuals have on those cases, as we saw in the evidence sessions, is hugely valuable.

I turn to new clause 48. As my hon. Friend said, the public should be able to expect that relevant intelligence is always considered; it is not. The Gaia Pope-Sutherland case is absolutely devastating. If the Bill is not the place for this detail, we need to hear a strong signal that it is what we expect of policing—what the public expect and should be able to expect.

On amendment 63, I think the Minister is right. I am happy to withdraw it as it is covered by the document he mentioned. I cannot quite share his view on amendment 149. We should not misconstrue that what is in the Bill now means that police officers are obliged to act with a duty of candour. What is in the Bill is that chief officers have a duty; what is in the College of Policing’s guidance, at paragraph 4.5, is that that duty to act with openness and—I forget the other word—is then pushed to other officers.

[Chris Philp]

“Openness and candour”.

[Alex Norris]

Openness and candour. But that does not have a statutory underpinning. There is carrot but no stick—that is the point I am trying to make. The code covers chief officers. It will not really cover their staff—not so that we can have confidence that the job has been done with regard to the duty of candour. There is still a gap.

As I have said, I have doubts about whether the Bill is the right vehicle for the change that the Opposition seek on duty of candour, so I will not press that point to a Division yet. But the issue will come back at later stages and in other legislation as well. We certainly do not think that the job has been finished.

[Jess Phillips]

On amendment 135, the Minister offered to sit down and talk to me about what needs to be in the document. On reflection, I will not press the amendment, in the expectation that that will happen before the Bill goes to the other place. We shall see how we feel about the matter then.

[Chris Philp]

On a point of order, Dame Angela. Could I ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, through you, to make contact with me with her thoughts when she has looked at the document? I would be grateful.

Draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2024

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 General Committees

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2024.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairman-ship, Mr Hollobone.

This draft order, laid before Parliament on 27 November last year, proposes amendments to schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to control or ban 15 substances as class A drugs, four substances as class B drugs, and one substance as a class C drug under the Act.

Members will have seen the ruinous effect of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids elsewhere in the world, particularly in the United States where they devastate lives and communities. As part of the Government’s continuing efforts to mitigate the threat of synthetic opioids in the UK, this legislation will control 15 additional synthetic opioids as class A drugs under the 1971 Act. This will include 14 nitazenes, some of which are even more potent than fentanyl, as class A drugs under the 1971 Act, following recommendations from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in its report of 18 July 2022 and addenda of 19 December 2022 and 6 October 2023. I want to put on the record my thanks to Professor Owen Bowden-Jones, who chairs the ACMD, and all the members for the work that they have done in this area and in others.

Three of the synthetic opioids, isotonitazene, metoni-tazene and brorphine—I can see the shadow Minister smiling; I look forward to his pronunciations later—were controlled under schedule 1 to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, to which the UK is a signatory. Following this, the Government commissioned the ACMD for its advice on the appropriate classification and we are now following that advice.

The ACMD looked at some other substances as well. Cumyl-PeGaClone, a synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist—SCRA—was added to schedule 2 to the United Nations convention on psychotropic substances in April 2021. That will be controlled as a class B drug under the Act. Many SCRAs are currently class B under a generic definition in the 1971 Act. However, owing to the structure of that particular substance, it falls outside that definition, which is why we are adding it here.

Also to be controlled as class B drugs under the 1971 Act by the order are three stimulants—diphenidine, ephenidine and methoxyphenidine. Again, this follows international control of diphenidine under schedule 2 to the UN convention that I have mentioned already. That happened in 2021, after which the Government commissioned the ACMD. In its report of 25 May last year the AMCD noted the involvement of those substances in a number of drug-related deaths worldwide and recommended that we control them, which we are now doing.

Finally, remimazolam, a benzodiazepine, will be controlled as a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Remimazolam is the active ingredient in a product given marketing authorisation by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, but the ACMD recommended in December 2022 that it should be controlled as a class C drug because of the potential harms that it can cause.

According to the ACMD’s advice, all of the substances are psychoactive and therefore may be subject to the offences under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, which contains various offences for the production, supply, possession with intent to supply, and import or export of a psychoactive substance. The control of those substances under the 1971 Act will make it an offence to possess them and imposes higher penalties and stronger enforcement provisions for the supply and production offences.

Although many are caught under the PSA, the sanctions, including for possession, are now much stronger. Those who supply or produce a class A drug could face up to life imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both. Meanwhile, those found in unlawful possession of a class A drug could face up to seven years in prison, an unlimited fine or both. Members of the Committee will see that the controls, under the 1971 Act, are much stronger.

One of the substances I have mentioned, remimazolam, has known medicinal value and has been given a marketing authorisation by the MHRA. It will therefore be placed in part 1 of schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 by a statutory instrument made under the negative procedure to make sure it can be used for legitimate medicinal purposes. The other 19 substances will be placed in schedule 1 to the 2001 regulations by that same negative SI owing to their lack of known medicinal value. Those substances, excluding remimazolam, will therefore be added to part 1 of schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (England, Wales and Scotland) Order 2015. Controlled drugs are designated when the Secretary of State believes it is in the public interest for production, supply and possession to be wholly unlawful or unlawful except for research or special purposes, or for medicinal use of the drug to be unlawful, except under specific licence.

The drugs we are scheduling today under the 1971 Act all have potential to cause enormous harm. We know that synthetic opioids are powerfully addictive. They are very potent; often far more than heroin, for example. We have seen the devastation synthetic opioids have caused in the USA and are determined to avoid the same thing happening here in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the measures we take today in the order are just part of the work the UK Government are doing to protect our citizens against the harm that synthetic opioids can cause. On that basis, I commend the order to the Committee.

[The Chair]

I remind Members that the debate may last until 4 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Let me briefly respond to the points that have been made. I welcome the support for the order from both the shadow Minister and the SNP spokesperson, who have said that they will not oppose it. On the shadow Minister’s questions regarding the use of synthetic opioids, it is a real concern. We have seen what has happened in the USA. We have not seen widespread problems in the UK; we have seen some issues, but nothing like the scale in the US, and we would like to keep it that way. How will we do that? One way is through very careful monitoring—for example, by looking at post-mortem toxicology reports. Wastewater analysis is another way. We are also significantly increasing surveillance at the border to detect any attempts to import either synthetic opioids or their precursor chemicals.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings asked about enforcement, and he is quite right to say that the law is only as good as the enforcement that accompanies it. We have had a number of conversations with the police to make sure that they are aware of the systemic threat that synthetic opioids pose, particularly nitazenes, including those being banned today. I specifically discussed this issue with Richard Lewis, who is the chief constable of Dyfed-Powys police and the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on drugs, to make sure that he is fully appraised of the risk that synthetic opioids pose, particularly nitazenes. I can assure my right hon. Friend that I will continue to press the police to make sure that they enforce hard against these drugs.

We need to have a zero-tolerance approach to all forms of illegal drugs, and synthetic opioids are at the top of that list because of the harm they cause. I therefore respectfully disagree with the hon. Member for Glasgow Central on her suggestion that banning drugs has no effect or is a foolish undertaking. Where drugs are highly addictive, devastate lives and cause people to die, it is right that Parliament legislates to ban them. I am sure we will debate this issue at greater length at another time, but we have seen some American cities essentially decriminalise drugs and public drug consumption. They have then seen an explosion in drug consumption, particularly of synthetic opioids, but of other drugs as well. In fact, some of those same cities, which are very often run by extreme liberal administrations, have now begun to think again and look at reversing some of the liberalisation that they instituted because they have seen the effect it has had.

[Alison Thewliss]

On the point about synthetic opioids, many charities are concerned about the impact that the stymieing of the flow of drugs from Afghanistan may have on the development of synthetic opioids in Europe, because they do not need to be transported; they can be made right here. That is a risk factor should the supply of heroin into the UK be stopped as a result of the action taken in Afghanistan. What assessment has the Minister made of that risk?

[Chris Philp]

We have assessed the risk. We are aware of the new Taliban policy to ban opium production in Afghanistan and the consequent likely reduction in the heroin supply into western Europe and North America. It will take a while to filter through the supply chain—it will not have an immediate effect—but we are aware of the problem. The hon. Lady identifies one of the risks, which is why staying ahead of synthetic opioid importation through surveillance, border control and a zero-tolerance law enforcement approach is particularly important—more so than it would ordinarily be because of the substitution risk that she rightly refers to.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings asked about the ACMD’s remit. The Home Office is able to commission the ACMD to look at various matters. Whenever a matter of concern arises, we commission ACMD to look at it, and monkey dust is an example of that. A number of colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme, raised that issue, and we commissioned the ACMD to take a look at it. We can take action whenever a new harmful illegal substance pops up.

The final question relates to treatment. Although members of the Committee will discern from my comments that I believe in having a strong—indeed, a zero-tolerance—approach to enforcement, treatment is also important. Naloxone should be used as routinely as possible because, as Members know, it combats the effect of opioid overdose. It is successful and effective at doing that, but treatment is also important for getting people off drugs. We have invested £532 million over three years in creating 55,000 extra treatment places, and we are tracking the uptake of those places. I am encouraging the police to refer addicted people into treatment in addition to prosecuting criminals, and I am encouraging the courts to do the same thing. A combination of strong enforcement and referrals to treatment can keep our society free from drugs, and today’s order is an important part, but only a part, of that fight.

Question put and agreed to.

Licensing Act: Age Verification: Digital Identity, Technology and Remote Sales

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

The Government are today launching a consultation on whether to allow digital identities and technology to play a role in age verification for alcohol sales, as well as whether to amend legislation in order to specify that for sales of alcohol that do not take place face to face, age verification should take place at the point of delivery as well as sale.

The Licensing Act 2003 covers the retail sale and supply of alcohol. One of the licensing objectives that the Act seeks to uphold is the protection of children from harm, meaning that alcohol must not be sold to someone under 18. Secondary legislation made under the Act specifies that if anyone appears to be under 18, they need to produce identification which bears their photograph, date of birth and either a holographic mark or ultraviolet feature. In practice this means that currently only physical identity documents are permitted.

The Government are keen to enable the secure and appropriate use of new technologies that can improve the experience of consumers and retailers. However, the current wording of the Act does not allow technology to play a part in the age-verification process for alcohol sales. A person must make the decision on whether an individual is old enough to purchase alcohol.

We are therefore consulting on whether to amend the Act so as to allow digital identities and technology to play a role in age verification. The need for robust national standards for digital identities and technology remains paramount in order to provide confidence to retailers and consumers alike that they are fit for purpose. Any change would reflect the wider cross-Government position on the use of digital identities and technology for the sale of age-restricted products and will take effect only once there are Government-approved national standards in place.

We are also considering whether the Act adequately covers transactions that do not take place face to face. Currently, the Act only sets out a requirement to verify age at the point of sale or appropriation to a contract, not at the point of delivery. We are reviewing whether this is still right and whether there should additionally be checks at the point of delivery and/or service. We are consulting on whether to amend the Act so that it is explicit about when age verification must take place.

The consultation will run for eight weeks and the Government will publish their response in due course. A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.

[HCWS205]

Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner: Annual Report 2022-23

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today publishing the annual report of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner.

The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, who is appointed by the Home Secretary under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, covers independent statutory roles.

The report covers the exercise of the statutory functions over the reporting year.

This was the final report by Professor Sampson before leaving his post on 31 October 2023. I am grateful for his contribution to this important area of work.

The report has been laid before the House and it will be available from the Vote Office and on gov.uk.

[HCWS204]

Criminal Justice Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Chris Philp Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 53 to 55 stand part.

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham.

The nuisance rough sleeping direction in clause 51 was debated just before we adjourned this morning; it is one of a suite of tools that the Bill introduces to help local authorities and the police to tackle rough sleeping where it poses a nuisance. Clauses 52 to 55 additionally introduce nuisance rough sleeping prevention notices and outline how they will operate.

Although aimed at different behaviour, nuisance rough sleeping prevention notices will operate in a similar way to nuisance begging prevention notices, which we debated this morning. That being the case, I will not go into the detail of clauses 52 to 55, which largely mirror clauses 39 to 42, which we have already discussed. We also discussed at some length the substance of nuisance rough sleeping as part of the debate on clause 51. We may discuss what exactly constitutes nuisance rough sleeping when we come to clause 61, so I will leave my remarks there and simply respond to the shadow Minister or other colleagues as necessary.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Minister says, we gave the issue a pretty thorough airing in the debate on clause 51 this morning. The Opposition are in the same place as we were this morning: we do not think that the provisions are good additions to the Bill and we will not support them.

Having had a chance to reflect on some of the Minister’s arguments, I might test some of them. He mentioned San Francisco frequently. I find it very hard to believe that what is standing between this country’s situation and that of San Francisco, whose challenges are well documented, is the Vagrancy Act 1824—not least because San Francisco never had such legislation, so repeal of legislation could not have led to its problems.

The Minister challenged me on what alternative measures could be used. Actually, I did not detect—certainly not in the debate earlier—much enthusiasm from the Minister for the provisions in the Bill; he was more interested in our view rather than in what the Government were putting forward. Having reflected on that, we will go on to talk about community protection notices—an important civil power, from the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, that the Government are very keen on. The Minister’s question was: if these clauses do not stand part of the Bill, what could be done if an individual sleeping in the doorway of a shop refused to move? I wondered about section 43 of the 2014 Act, which states that an authorised person would have the power to issue a community protection notice

“to an individual aged 16 or over, or a body, if satisfied on reasonable grounds that—

(a) the conduct of the individual or body is having a detrimental effect, of a persistent or continuing nature, on the quality of life of those in the locality, and

(b) the conduct is unreasonable.”

In the case that the Minister discussed, both those tests would be satisfied. They would provide the backstop without the need for any of the provisions that we are discussing. Using those section 43 powers would have the value, on the face of it, of not being targeted at rough sleepers. There would be a general power for use in the locality or amenity that would not require any of this dog and pony show. It would provide enough of a backstop and would pass the test that the Minister set us earlier.

I turn to the clauses themselves. The idea that a rough sleeping prevention notice could be handed, without any sense of adequate follow-up support, to someone sleeping rough, is, to me, for the birds—as if handing it to a person who has so little with them in the world would make any difference. Turning to clause 54, an appeals process would be an important part of such a regime, but we have a duty to be sure that what is written in a Bill in some way reflects the reality that we live in. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley has made that point on multiple occasions.

We are talking about some of the most challenged people in society—the people with the fewest assets, and often those living with the most challenging mental health or substance abuse-related issues. I find it very difficult to believe that they will have the resources and support to lodge an appeal against their rough sleeping prevention notice and go to a magistrates court to uphold their rights.

We do not think that these measures are a good addition to legislation. I have given the Minister what is probably a better alternative. On that basis, we will vote against clause 52.

[Chris Philp]

First, I thank the shadow Minister for giving consideration to the comments I made before the lunch break. That was very helpful and perhaps facilitates a more thoughtful debate.

The shadow Minister referenced the comparison I have drawn with San Francisco and other cities on the American west coast and elsewhere. The point I was making was a slightly broader one. Essentially, some of those cities—Oakland, California is another on the bay—have adopted a very permissive approach to public drug consumption, antisocial behaviour, rough sleeping and things such as shoplifting, which we have debated previously.

A consequence of that very liberal approach has been widespread disorder on the streets of San Francisco and other cities. That has really undermined the quality of life in those places, and I do not think it has done any favours to the people who end up living those lifestyles either. There is no doubt that there is also a lack of treatment and support, but that very liberal approach has led to very bad outcomes. Some of those American cities, which are generally Democrat controlled, as the Committee can probably imagine, are beginning to reverse some of the measures on drug liberalisation, for example, because they have led to such bad outcomes. A complete removal of current laws would be a significant step in that direction, and that would concern me. That was the broader point that I was making.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

To go back to a conversation that we were having prior to the sitting about fentanyl in the US, does the Minister agree that the very strict rules about these sorts of things in various other US states have also led to terrible outcomes with regard to substance misuse?

[Chris Philp]

The tolerance of drug consumption in public places that we see in San Francisco and elsewhere has led to very bad outcomes. There are also serious problems with synthetic opioids in North America, which are, thankfully, not replicated in the UK. We are very anxious to prevent that from happening, as the hon. Lady can imagine.

The shadow Minister also suggested that there were other powers that could be used in some circumstances. He specifically referenced CPNs. We will debate those a bit more later, but they do not have the same powers as the notices that we are discussing. For example, a CPN does not allow for positive requirements to be set out—a requirement to attend treatment, for example—so it is not quite the same thing. CPNs also require individualised consideration. Many of the notices that we are discussing do too, which is fine, but they are quite intensive instruments to use.

Finally, the shadow Minister denigrated the approach taken in these clauses by saying that they simply criminalise rough sleeping without offering any support. They obviously do not do that. They criminalise nuisance rough sleeping, with “nuisance” defined in clause 61. [Interruption.] I can tell that he is eagerly anticipating our discussion of the precise provisions of clause 61.

On the support point, the purpose of some of these provisions is to help people into support. I think all of us would agree that the first step should be to support people with mental health issues, drug problems and alcohol problems, and to support them into housing. Everybody agrees that support should be the first step. That is what the police and local authorities should do initially, but if that fails and the rough sleeping is preventing a business from operating or adversely impacting other members of society, there needs to be some backstop power. That is the balance that we have tried to strike in these clauses, as we discussed before lunch.

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

--- Later in debate ---

Nuisance rough sleeping prevention orders

[Chris Philp]

I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 56, page 51, line 13, after “application” insert “by complaint”.

This amendment provides for applications for nuisance rough sleeping prevention orders to be made by complaint.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 57 stand part.

Government amendments 78 to 83.

Clauses 58 to 60 stand part.

[Chris Philp]

Clauses 56 to 60 provide a further tool for local authorities and the police to tackle nuisance—I stress the word “nuisance”—rough sleeping: namely, nuisance rough sleeping prevention orders. The clauses set out how the orders will work, specify the maximum time they can last and how they can be varied and discharged, and provide an avenue for appeals.

The clauses essentially mirror clauses 43 to 47 in relation to nuisance begging protection orders, so I will not repeat what I said about those clauses this morning. Similarly, amendments 77 to 83 mirror for nuisance rough sleeping prevention orders amendments 70 to 76 in respect of nuisance begging prevention orders, which we debated this morning. I will of course respond to any points raised by the shadow Minister.

[Alex Norris]

The Minister is right that we have already given these issues a run-out, so I will not rehash our earlier debate. With specific regard to these clauses, however, they give us at least some degree of comfort that this regime will be reliant on a magistrates court—an impartial arbiter. There is legitimate concern that a constable who might have had some training but not very much, or someone from the local authority—we will have very little sense of what training they have—could make profound judgments with respect to the first two tiers of powers, relating to directions and notices, with minimal oversight and recourse to justice. At least we will get an airing in a magistrates court. I suspect the magistrates will wonder why they are having to deal with the problem and why it was not dealt with by either an earlier intervention or a more positive intervention to help change someone’s behaviour.

Clause 58 allows a duration of five years for a nuisance rough sleeping prevention order. That is five years of not being allowed to go to a certain place or act in a certain way. There are now actually very few crimes, except the most serious, for which someone would be prevented from doing anything for five years. I wonder what the logic is for that duration. Most of what is in these clauses is a counterpart to what is in the clauses on nuisance begging, and the line drawn there is three years. I am interested in the difference.

Again, we will not support the lead clause in this group, clause 56, because we think that these clauses should not be in the Bill at all.

[Chris Philp]

I think that the maximum period for a nuisance begging prevention order, as opposed to notice, was five years, which mirrors this provision. The lengths of time match up. As we discussed this morning, the power is for the court to use, and it can use its discretion. It is a maximum duration; the court can use its discretion to hand down a shorter period. Courts often pass prison sentences that are lower than the maximum, and that may well be the case here as well.

Amendment 77 agreed to.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Chris Philp]

Clause 61 is important; we referred to it during this morning’s proceedings. It sets out the conditions that need to be met for rough sleeping to be counted as a nuisance. To repeat my earlier point, the Government do not want to criminalise rough sleeping in general; that is why the Vagrancy Act 1824 is being repealed. However, there are some kinds of rough sleeping that cause nuisance to other people to the point that the general public’s own rights are unreasonably infringed. The definition tries to strike a balance. As I said, we do not want to criminalise rough sleeping in general, but we do want to define a threshold where the rough sleeping is unreasonably interfering with other members of society. The definition we have set out in the clause aims to strike that balance. I will be interested to hear Committee members’ views on it.

The clause sets out the behaviours accompanying rough sleeping that either cause or are capable of causing nuisance to others: damage, distress, disruption, harassment, creation of a health and safety or security risk, or prevention of the determination of whether there is such a health and safety risk.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I wonder whether three teenagers who grab their tent and decide to sleep at the end of a farmer’s field are causing a nuisance and will therefore fall under this law.

[Chris Philp]

That is obviously a fact-specific question. [Interruption.] Well it is, obviously. Every piece of behaviour, to assess whether it is criminal or not, needs to be measured against the relevant statute. It would obviously depend on whether it caused damage, disruption, harassment, distress and so on. But let me try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question—it is quite a good case study, so let us have a look at it and see whether it meets the test.

First, if we look at subsection (4), does the behaviour cause damage? Well, if the teenagers are simply pitching a tent at the end of a track, it probably would not. On the other hand, if they threw a load of rubbish everywhere and trashed the farm, then it might. It depends whether their behaviour causes damage or not, but, as the hon. Gentleman described it, it sounds like it probably would not.

We then come to disruption, which is defined in subsection (5) as

“interference with…any lawful activity…or…a supply of water, energy or fuel”.

If the tent stopped the farmer bringing farm equipment in or out of the farmyard, that might count as interference, but if it did not, and if it did not interfere with water, energy or fuel, then that would not be disruption.

We then come to distress, the next limb of the test. If the people in the tent used

“threatening, intimidating, abusive or insulting words or behaviour,”

then the test might be met, but if their behaviour did not include any of those things—no threats, no intimidation, no abuse, no insulting words—then it would not be.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockton North for intervening, because this little illustration gives us an opportunity to demonstrate that it is only where those tests are met that the provisions of the clause become engaged. I hope that it was clear from the way I talked through that little case study that the measure is relatively reasonable. That is what I think, but I am interested to hear other views. The clause sets a threshold, and only when that threshold is crossed do its provisions become engaged.

[Alex Norris]

I do think that was a useful worked exercise. The problem is that the Minister only did half of it, because he only applied the test of whether something causes damage, disruption, harassment or distress. He missed the test of whether something is capable of causing damage, disruption, harassment or distress. Will he do the exercise again for the “capable” test?

[Chris Philp]

The behaviour concerned might actually cause damage, distress or disruption, but it might also be capable of doing so. For example, someone might set up a tented encampment in a place that blocks a business premises. Let us imagine that they set it up at 4 o’clock in the morning, when the business is closed and there is no one coming in or out. At that point, it is not actually causing disruption. Let us say that the business wants to open at 6 o’clock in the morning. Would we want the police to wait until the business opens and the customers or the employees try to come in, when disruption is actually caused and the provisions are engaged? The police might want the power to take action not when the disruption is actually caused, but when it becomes reasonably foreseeable that it will be—in this case, in advance of the business premises opening.

Members can imagine circumstances like the one I just outlined where, although disruption is not being caused at that moment, it is clear that it is capable of being caused, and it is reasonably foreseeable that such disruption will be caused.

[Jess Phillips]

I just wonder what else that is annoying that might be outside the front of someone’s business that we could criminalise. The bin lorry? It seems like there are loads of things. Cars get parked outside the front of businesses where I live, and it impedes the Warburtons van bringing in the loaves. The literally happens outside the corner shop right next to my house—bloody criminal! Why is it just homeless people that are a nuisance? I find cars to be a massive nuisance all the time. There are loads of things that are a nuisance. Kids going in and out of school? Nuisance. Criminalise ’em!

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Lady for her characteristically emollient intervention. We are defining precisely what “nuisance” means, not using it as a general term. It means damage, disruption, distress or a health, safety or security risk. We are being precise about what we mean. We are not using it in a general sense; we are being specific.

The hon. Lady mentions a car blocking the highway and asks whether we should criminalise that. I refer her to section 137 of the Highways Act 1980, with which she is no doubt intimately familiar, which does precisely that. It criminalises wilfully obstructing a highway. We are not just picking on people whose disruption is associated with rough sleeping. There are plenty of other things on the statute book, including wilful obstruction of the highway, that seek to do similar things. I do not think it is reasonable to say that this is a unique set of provisions that have no analogues anywhere else on the statute book. [Interruption.] Would the hon. Lady like to make another intervention?

[Jess Phillips]

Oh yes, absolutely. It seems to me that there is this idea that it would cause distress to somebody to see a homeless person in a tent. I have greater faith in the British public than that. They are not just immediately distressed by somebody who is down and out. I am not immediately distressed by homeless people; I am distressed that they are homeless, but my distress is directed at the Government—who, by the way, I also find to be quite a nuisance, but I am not for one second suggesting that we should criminalise the Minister.

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Lady for her forbearance. Of course we want to combat homelessness. That is why £2 billion is being spent for that purpose. On the serious point, the Government’s position is categorically not that homeless people—or rough speakers, to be precise—cause distress. That is not what the Bill says. Distress is defined in clause 61(5) as being caused by

“the use of threatening, intimidating, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour”.

The Bill is not saying that rough sleepers in general automatically cause distress. It is only saying that threatening, intimidating, abusive or insulting words are taken as causing distress. It is really important not to mischaracterise what the clause does. It is very precise and specific, and it is very limited, for all the reasons that the Opposition have been pointing out.

[Jess Phillips]

Just to push my example, if I am obstructed in my daily life by a group of schoolchildren doing exactly that—using abusive, insulting words, saying “bitch” and things when I walk past—why is that any different? Surely causing distress to people is already illegal, so we do not need to define it in terms of rough sleepers.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady asked what happens if she was insulted in the way she describes, which I am sure rarely happens. There are provisions in the Public Order Act 1986, particularly sections 4, 4A and 5—

[Jess Phillips]

You’re such a geek!

[Chris Philp]

I am not sure if Hansard is going to record that, but I will take it as a compliment. I do try to stay on top of the detail. There are provisions in that Act that would afford the hon. Lady some protection in those circumstances.

This definition is very important, and we are trying to strike a balance. We do not want to criminalise rough sleeping in general or make a generic assertion that rough sleeping causes distress automatically. It does not, and the Bill does not say that. We are trying to define some very precise circumstances for when this clause is engaged to ensure that if interventions to support people either do not work or get declined, there is some backstop power to ensure that members of wider society do not suffer adverse consequences. We are trying to achieve that protection, and this clause is carefully crafted to strike the right balance.

[Jess Phillips]

I will not speak for long. The Minister and I have had a back and forth, and for the benefit of Hansard, when I called him a geek it was definitely a compliment. He is without a doubt on top of the detail not only of this Bill but of how it interacts with other legislation. It is a pleasure to sit on a Committee with a Minister in that position. I am a massive geek about how all these nice subsections will actually pan out in reality.

My main problem with the clause, although I appreciate it is less specific than the one on begging that we debated this morning, is that I am still at a loss about why we need laws specifically about nuisances caused by the most vulnerable people in society. There are so many things in the public realm that cause me much more nuisance than homeless people or people rough sleeping, such as the sexism that women experience in the street all the time. I get that we have to replace the vagrancy law and that we need guidelines, but do we really need specific laws about those people? Absolutely we need the provisions in the Public Order Act 1980, the year before I was born—

[Chris Philp]

1986.

[Jess Phillips]

Oh, 1986. I was actually five years old then. I was a big fan of it back then.

But why do we need a specific law about this group of people? Why can they not be covered by the laws on the nuisances, insults and harassment that we can all define easily? That is the bit that I find alarming. If people are shooting up in the street or are openly engaged in dangerous practices such as pimping people, we are talking about a different thing, but there are laws covering those things already. If only I were the Minister, I could tell the Committee which ones. I am not him, but I am fairly certain they exist.

My brother, who slept on the streets, said to me, “It isn’t the drugs that will kill me; it’s the stigma. The stigma is the thing that is going to kill me.” He has been clean for seven years, and he said that when he stands at the school gate to pick up his children, he feels like everyone knows he was a homeless drug addict. The idea that you are less—that you are a vagrant, a tramp—never leaves you. That is why I do not want to see people like my brother, who, as I said earlier, was a nuisance to me on many occasions—I just do not want to write that stigma into the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Just to make it clear, at the end of subsection (2)(a) there is the critical word “and”. It is not enough simply to be sleeping rough or intending to sleep rough; it needs to be clear in addition that a nuisance is being committed. The clause requires both conditions to be met; one alone is not enough.

[Alex Norris]

I appreciate that, and I was getting on to that part of my argument, but that does not dilute the impact of the language “intending to sleep rough”, which is a broad and subjective judgment that we will be asking people likely to have little or no training in this regard to make. The Minister says that the definition is precise. There is nothing precise about that.

As I said, subsection (2)(b) refers to nuisance. We are given a definition of nuisance that is not specific, precise or, I would argue, limited. The Minister half-applied his test to the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North of the tent in the field. He was keen, and made a great display of going through the factors that could constitute having caused, or being in the act of causing, nuisance, but he did not address the factors that constituted being capable of causing it; he would not do that half of the exercise.

[Chris Philp]

Is the shadow Minister saying that if the words “capable of” were deleted, he would support the clause?

[Alex Norris]

It would be an improvement to the clause, but that is not what is in the Bill, and we would still have problems with “intending to sleep rough”. There are even issues with “causing” in subsection (5), which mean that we cannot support it. That subsection says,

“‘damage’ includes…damage to a place”,

and being capable of causing damage. If I sleep on a park bench, am I capable of damaging it? Well, I am using it for a purpose for which it was not intended, so, yes, presumably there is a risk of causing damage.

[Chris Philp]

With respect, I do not think that sleeping on a bench would cause damage to it, would it?

[Alex Norris]

Using anything for a purpose for which it was not intended risks damage, because the possibility of that damage has not been designed out. What if someone is sleeping on the bench persistently over a period? “Damage” could be breaking one of the wooden slats, but it could also be whittling down the paint or varnish. The Minister rolls his eyes. If he gave the commitment today that he personally will make all these decisions every day across the country, well, that might give me some comfort, but he clearly will not apply the test. It will be applied by possibly relatively junior members of staff with very little training. If the test is applied overly officiously, and there is a clear risk of that, then the damage to an individual could be considerable, and their recourse minimal. That is why this point matters, even in an extreme case.

Subsection (5)(c) refers to

“damage to the environment (including excessive noise, smells, litter or deposits of waste)”.

“Smells” is particularly problematic. That is part of the stigma relating to people who do not have a roof over their head. Smelling could be enough to make them a nuisance. That is a real problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley talked about the stigma test; the provision does not pass that test.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

As do the Government, as the hon. Gentleman says, but the question is whether that balance has been found. I do not see anything in the real-life example that he used that would not be covered by section 43 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. That notice could be used in that way. When I put that to the Minister in the previous debate, his only quibble, which I found a little hard to accept, was that these notices will give so much more support and that a reliance on section 43 would not provide enough help to homeless people. That does not chime with reality.

I am emerging from these discussions with much more hope than I had thought. I believe, much more than I did when the Bill was published, that the Government want to do something really limited in this space, but there is a significant landing zone for them to do more. We are interested in working on that point between stages. I understand how the mistake—the original sin—has happened. There is an elegance in trying to create a duplicate arrangement with nuisance begging, but actually that misses the point.

We will not be supporting the clause, for the reasons that we have given. Indeed, I am not sure how the Minister can support it, either, because it fails his own tests. We will have to divide the Committee. I think we can do much better than this, and, as I have said, there is a landing zone for that.

[Chris Philp]

I have made my points already, so I do not want to irritate the Committee by repeating them. The definition is pretty specific. As the shadow Minister has said, it is much more limited—and intentionally so—than the nuisance begging provisions that we debated this morning. However, if there are ways of ensuring that the right balance is struck, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, we are always willing to look at them. It is our intention to make this limited, narrow and specific. I think we have done that, but we are always open to ways of improving it.

[The Chair]

I am not permitted to have a view on these matters, but I will say how welcome it is to see displays of courtesy on the Committee.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I hope that we now sail into less contentious waters. This clause recreates, in modern terminology, the current offence from the Vagrancy Act 1824 of being on enclosed premises for unlawful purposes. While a great deal of the Vagrancy Act is outdated and needs either repealing or replacing, we know through engagement with the police and other stakeholders that this particular offence is still used. It is still useful when someone is found on premises where they should not be and there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they are intending to commit a crime. It could be any crime—it does not necessarily have to be linked to begging or rough sleeping, and is probably rarely, if ever, linked in that way. Accordingly, this clause makes it an offence for a person to trespass on any premises, which covers

“any building, part of a building or enclosed area”,

with the intention to commit any offence. The maximum penalty for this summary offence upon summary conviction is three months’ imprisonment, a level 3 fine, which is £1,000, or both.

I checked whether there had been convictions using the offence from the Vagrancy Act, and there have been quite a few in the last few years, numbering in the hundreds, so it is actually used by police. I was made aware of a case involving a former premier league footballer. Somebody was found on their residential premises. They had not stolen anything, but it was reasonably suspected that they might, and a conviction was secured using those provisions. The offence is useful for the police in some circumstances, which is why we are seeking to legislate here.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63

Power to require person’s details

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 64 stand part.

[Chris Philp]

Clauses 63 and 64 make supplementary provision relating to earlier clauses on nuisance begging and, I hesitate to say, nuisance rough sleeping. Clause 63 enables an authorised person, defined as a constable or local authority, seeking to issue a direction or prevention notice, or to apply to a court for a prevention order, to require a person to provide specified personal details, specifically their name, date of birth and, if applicable, their address.

Failure to provide those details, or giving false information, will be an offence subject to a maximum penalty of one month’s imprisonment, a fine, or both. That is necessary because, otherwise, an individual who does not want to receive a direction notice or order could simply refuse to provide their details. Failure to comply with the process required to make the direction notice or order is a form of non-compliance and carries the same maximum penalty as failing to comply with the direction notice or order itself.

Clause 64 defines the terms “relevant local authority” and “local authority” for the purposes of clauses 38 to 63. In essence, the definition focuses primarily on the area in which the nuisance begging or nuisance rough sleeping occurred, or the area for which the relevant notice direction or order was given. On that basis, I commend clauses 63 and 64 to the Committee.

[Alex Norris]

I will be very brief, because I do not want to repeat the arguments that I have already made. Clause 64 defines “local authority” and addresses local councils. I have raised this issue a number of times, but have not asked a direct question. What guidance will be made available to enable local authority staff to apply the provisions in the way outlined by the Minister, as opposed to an overly officious, harmful and unhelpful way?

[Chris Philp]

Clause 64 relates to which local authority can issue the notice, which is a geographic question. The hon. Gentleman asks a different but valid question about the guidance. I repeat what I said earlier: the guidance will make clear that the first resort, as he and we would want, should always be to help people who are rough sleeping or having issues in their life that cause them to beg, whether that is support with mental health issues, drug treatment, alcohol treatment or support into housing. I reiterate what I said earlier: the guidance will emphasise support, help and treatment, if necessary, as the first action.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65

Circumstances in which court may attach power of arrest to injunction

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 144, in clause 66, page 58, line 18, at end insert—

“in subsection (4), after ‘48 hours’ insert—

‘, unless—

(a) the individual has been issued with a direction under this section, relating to the same or a substantially similar or related location or behaviour, on one previous occasion, in which case the exclusion period may extend to seven days;

(b) the individual has been issued with a direction under this section, relating to the same or a substantially similar or related location or behaviour, on more than one previous occasion, in which case the exclusion period may extend to twenty-eight days.’”

This amendment would allow for longer exclusion periods under section 35 of the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 for individuals who receive more than one such direction.

Clauses 66 and 67 stand part.

Amendment 145, in clause 68, page 58, line 37, at end insert—

“(2) Within twelve months of Royal Assent to this Bill, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on police use of the power to make public spaces protection orders and expedited orders under Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (as amended by this Bill).”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on the police’s use of PSPO powers.

Clause 68 stand part.

That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

Clause 69 stand part.

That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.

Clause 70 stand part.

Government new clause 21—Dispersal powers: removal of senior police officer authorisation.

Government new clause 22—Dispersal powers: extension to local authorities.

[Chris Philp]

This is quite a large group of amendments, but I shall try to be concise. Before I turn to new clauses 21 and 22, which I have tabled with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, let me set out briefly why clauses 65 to 70 and schedules 6 and 7 should be included in the Bill.

The Government have a strong track record on tackling antisocial behaviour. In March 2023, we launched our antisocial behaviour action plan, which was backed by £160 million of new funding. The plan sets out a new framework for the Government, police forces, police and crime commissioners, local authorities and other partners, including housing associations and youth offending teams, to work together to prevent and tackle antisocial behaviour.

Off the back of the action plan, we launched the community safety partnership review and the antisocial behaviour powers consultation in March 2023. The consultation included a range of proposals to strengthen the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The majority of respondents supported most of the proposals and, as a result, we are taking the opportunity presented by the Bill to back our police, local authorities and other partners to do even more to tackle the blight of antisocial behaviour.

Clauses 65 to 70 make provision for strengthened ASB powers as consulted on last year. Clause 65 provides that a power of arrest can be attached to any civil injunction by the court where it deems it appropriate. Clause 66 extends the period for which a dispersal direction can be in place from 48 hours to 72 hours and, following the issuing of a closure notice, extends from 48 hours to 72 hours the timeframe available to the relevant agency to apply to a magistrates court for a closure order.

Clause 67 amends community protection notices, to which the hon. Member for Nottingham North referred, to lower the age at which they can be given from 16 years to 10 years, bringing them in line with the criminal age of responsibility and the age at which civil injunctions might apply. Clause 68 and schedule 6 give police, in addition to local authorities, the power to issue public safety protection orders. Clause 69 and schedule 7 enable registered social housing providers to use both the closure notice and the closure order to quickly close premises that are being used, or are likely to be used, to commit nuisance or disorder. Clause 70 expands the community safety accreditation scheme so that CSAS officers can impose fixed penalty notices for a wider range of offences, and it increases the upper limit of the value of those FPNs from £100 to £500.

Finally, Government new clauses 20 and 21 build on those provisions by further reforming the dispersal powers provided for in part 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act. The powers will help the police and others, including local authorities, to tackle antisocial behaviour, and follow a consultation that we ran last year. On that basis, I hope that the Committee can accept the proposals.

Amendments 144 and 145 were tabled by the Opposition, so it would be courteous and appropriate to respond to them once the hon. Member for Nottingham North has had the opportunity to speak to them.

[Alex Norris]

Antisocial behaviour is a scourge on communities, and it is right that in legislation of this type we seek to ensure that police and local authorities have the correct tools to combat it. This is an issue about which our constituents have serious concerns and, like all right hon. and hon. Members, I have lots of conversations about this with people locally. Tackling antisocial behaviour is one of their top priorities, so we are broadly supportive of the measures in the Bill, although we might have gone a little further.

We have to ground this debate in a conversation about why we are where we are. We should test the effectiveness of the Government’s action on antisocial behaviour, but the roots of the challenges lie in a diminution of neighbourhood policing: there are still 10,000 fewer on the frontline, and our communities have suffered as a result. A move away from proper problem-solving, problem-oriented policing has led us to a lack of focus on the issue. That is why we have many more challenges than we would like.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendment would provide for a reporting requirement. The Minister is perhaps tired of responding with boilerplate language about such requirements, but they are a common and effective tool—well, they are definitely a common tool for Oppositions, and they are important way for us to be clear with the Government about what guardrails there are. The amendment would allow us to have a look at how the powers work. It might also—I do not think my remarks are out of scope, but I know you will tell me if they are, Sir Graham—give us a chance to reflect on powers that are unused. The Public Order Act 2023 allowed for PSPOs to be used in the case of buffer zones around abortion clinics. It is my understanding that that provision has not commenced yet. Can the Minister tell us when those powers will be commenced? I do not think the amendment places a hugely onerous duty on the Government, but I am interested in the Minister’s views on that, so I will leave it there.

[Chris Philp]

I will briefly reply to some of the points raised by the shadow Minister. On clause 21, and the removal of the requirement for an inspector to make the authorisation, any officer of any rank can make that authorisation to speed things up where necessary. In relation to his points regarding amendment 144, which I think extends the exclusion period from seven to 28 days—

[Alex Norris]

It is seven days for the second offence and 28 days for a subsequent offence.

[Chris Philp]

Yes. I understand the thinking behind the amendment, and obviously I have a great deal of sympathy for it, as he can probably imagine. The Government considered it, but we need to be cognisant of the restrictions imposed by various articles of the European convention on human rights, on which views around the House vary, to put it mildly. Clearly, if one goes beyond a certain point, one begins to stretch the ECHR articles, for example, concerning freedom of assembly. There is a balancing exercise between what is permitted in domestic law and those European convention rights, and they can conflict. That is why we have set the boundary where we have.

[Alex Norris]

That is an important answer, but I am conscious that nuisance begging prevention notices, for example, could mean that someone has to quit an area for a period as long as three years. Surely that could not be the case for people engaged in nuisance begging, but not for those who are engaging in antisocial behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Clearly, it is at the maximum and will follow fact-specific consideration. A calibration exercise can be performed, and there will be guidance around it, which can ensure that that balance is appropriately struck.

In response to Opposition amendment 145, I will of course mention the regular mechanisms for reviewing legislation, including review three to five years after passage. The Government regularly review the use of police powers under the 2014 Act. In fact, in November last year, just a couple of months ago, the Government reviewed police perceptions of the powers in that Act. We published a report on gov.uk that included data and police perceptions of the use of the 2014 Act powers, including public spaces protection orders. I hope that illustrates that the review of these powers is not just a theoretical exercise that Ministers refer to in resisting Opposition amendments; it actually happens.

On the shadow Minister’s point about the interaction between police and crime commissioners and local councillors, he is right to say that the relationship between elected councillors and the council is a bit different from that between PCCs and the police. While a PCC sets the budget and strategic priorities and holds the police to account, they do not, for obvious reasons, have operational control over the police; they cannot direct the police. He is right to say that the relationships are a bit different; none the less the PCC has an important role to play in co-ordinating, convening and holding the police to account. Although there are slight differences, I think strengthening the role of the PCC in the system is useful and a good step forward. The public mostly know who the PCC is and hold them accountable for the delivery of public priorities on crime. I accept that the shadow Minister raises a fair point, but I think we should welcome the involvement of PCCs.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66

Maximum period of certain directions, notices and orders

Amendment proposed: 144, in clause 66, page 58, line 18, at end insert—

“in subsection (4), after “48 hours” insert—

“, unless—

(a) the individual has been issued with a direction under this section, relating to the same or a substantially similar or related location or behaviour, on one previous occasion, in which case the exclusion period may extend to seven days;

(b) the individual has been issued with a direction under this section, relating to the same or a substantially similar or related location or behaviour, on more than one previous occasion, in which case the exclusion period may extend to twenty-eight days.””—(Alex Norris.)

This amendment would allow for longer exclusion periods under section 35 of the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 for individuals who receive more than one such direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 8.

New clause 42—Requirement for anti-social behaviour lead—

“(1) The chief officer of each police force in England and Wales must appoint a designated officer for each neighbourhood within the relevant force area to act as the force’s lead on work relating to anti-social behaviour in that neighbourhood area.”—(Alex Norris.)

This new clause would require each police force to appoint a designated officer for each neighbourhood area to lead work on anti-social behaviour in that area.

[Chris Philp]

As darkness falls over the Thames outside, I rise to speak to clause 71 and its associated schedule 8, along with new clause 42. Clause 71 and its associated schedule give effect to commitments made in part 2 of the police and crime commissioner review by expanding the ways in which local policing bodies work with relevant agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour.

The provisions also define the role of local policing bodies in the implementation of ASB case reviews, which afford a vital safety net for victims to request a review of their case. We recognise that no single agency has sole responsibility for antisocial behaviour. Preventing and tackling ASB depends on strong collaborative working between the police, local authorities, housing associations, health services and a range of other partners. Agencies must, however, collaborate and share information to create a full picture.

Government new clause 42 is—Sir Graham, I have just noticed that new clause 42 is, in fact, an Opposition new clause. I was just testing to see who is awake! I will not speak to the new clause, because I am looking forward to hearing the shadow Minister do so in a minute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

Exactly, on someone else. But those are important reporting requirements, actually. Having that evidence will be of interest to local communities. I think that transparency could, at times, be challenging for local policing bodies, but that would not be a bad thing.

There are, again, issues relating to antisocial behaviour reviews. We want them to be done properly. We do not want people to get through to the end of the process and feel that they have not been listened to—that would be a double insult, given what they would have already suffered. I do fear that the lessons have never really been learned on the failure of community trigger over the past decade. We do not want to see, particularly with regard to the statistics reviews, a desire to localise blame for failures that often happen at a national level. Nevertheless, that is an argument to have at a later point. We have no issues with the requirements at all.

I have sought to improve the Bill with new clause 42, and I hope the Minister will be minded to show his support for it in other ways, if not directly. If the new clause were to be agreed to, that would be a really important building block in restoring neighbourhood policing for communities across England and Wales, and it would be at the frontline of our battle against antisocial behaviour. As I have said, the diminution and denuding of community policing over 14 years has had a significant impact. That is why half the population now say they rarely ever see the police on the beat—a proportion that has doubled since 2010.

People feel powerless to deal with antisocial behaviour, even though it happens right on their doorstep. That is compounded by the reduction in drug intervention services, as we have discussed in previous debates. Youth service budgets have been cut by £1 billion. Community penalties have halved, and there is a backlog of millions of hours in community payback schemes. We are creating the challenges we face because we are not contesting public space, and we must do something about it. That is what clause 42 offers. It is not a silver bullet, but it would entail rebuilding the fundamentals of good policing: officers serving and protecting their community, which requires the restoration of neighbourhood policing. Communities should know their police officers and be able to approach them directly if they need to.

We know that putting in the hard yards and building relationships makes the difference, and new clause 42 would be the first step towards achieving this. It would introduce a requirement that the

“chief officer of each police force in England and Wales must appoint a designated officer for each neighbourhood…to act as the force’s lead on work relating to anti-social behaviour”.

In other words, there should be a named officer leading on antisocial behaviour in every community. No longer would members of the public feel that, when they report antisocial behaviour, nothing is done and it disappears into the ether. Perhaps they do not have any contact with the police, or perhaps they have to ring 101 and get promised a call-back that does not happen. Instead, an officer embedded in the community—a face and name they recognise—would act as the lead on antisocial behaviour.

That is what the new clause would do, and it does not take much to imagine how an officer could work in this way. They could visit schools, community groups and youth clubs, engage with young people, build trust, try to prevent youngsters from being drawn into antisocial behaviour, and build relationships with parents where there are early concerns. That is what policing used to be, and it is what policing could be: policing in the community and serving the community. I know that there is demand among police officers, who want to be doing this sort of policing. The new clause would be a real enhancement to the Bill, so I hope the Minister is minded to accept it.

[Chris Philp]

Let me respond to the shadow Minister’s comments on new clause 42. I sympathise with the intention behind it, which is to make sure that there is a named officer working on ASB issues, but we have an important principle: the operational independence of policing.

Neither the Government nor Parliament direct the police to operate or behave in a certain way; they are operationally independent. That separation of powers is a fundamental principle, and instructing the police on how to structure their operations probably crosses the line of operational independence. However, I am sure that police and crime commissioners and chief constables will have heard about the Government’s focus on antisocial behaviour via our ASB action plan. They will have heard our debates in Parliament, including this one, and will understand the significance that we attach to this particular issue.

On accountability and local connections, most forces have safer neighbourhood teams, who are typically attached to a council ward. We certainly have them in London, and they exist in many other places as well. Three or four months ago, we extracted from the police a commitment to always follow all reasonable lines of inquiry in relation to all crime, including where antisocial behaviour crosses the criminal threshold. That is a National Police Chiefs’ Council commitment and we expect all forces to deliver it, including for the criminal elements of ASB.

On local accountability, we also have police and crime commissioners. If the public want to make sure that the police are held to account for delivering the commitment to always follow up on criminal offences, including criminal ASB, they can contact the police and crime commissioner, who is elected. Their job is to hold the local police forces to account for doing exactly the kind of thing that the shadow Minister outlined.

[Jess Phillips]

The Minister has somewhat answered my question, but what happens if the police do not follow up on every line of inquiry? Let us be honest: we will all have cases in our constituencies where that has happened.

[Chris Philp]

That is a great question. We have reached this national commitment, and the National Police Chiefs’ Council has agreed to do this. But how will we know whether it happens? How can we ensure that the police deliver on that promise? First, we in the Home Office are following up via the National Policing Board. We have a meeting next week—I think it is on 30 or 31 January—and the first item on the agenda is investigations into crime. I will press the police chiefs particularly on the delivery of this commitment. Secondly, Chief Inspector of Constabulary Andy Cooke, former chief constable of Merseyside police, will conduct a thematic inspection of this issue in the spring, checking up on every police force in the country to ensure that they are actually doing this.

Thirdly, the commitment is being incorporated into the regular cycle of Peel inspections. Every couple of years, every police force is inspected. The commitment is going to be checked up on as part of that regular series of inspections. I also expect Members of Parliament and police and crime commissioners to hold the police to account. If we ever hear examples of the police not delivering this commitment, we should be asking the police about that.

The measure was inspired by the work done by Chief Constable Stephen Watson in Greater Manchester, which Sir Graham and I were discussing before the Committee started. He was appointed a couple of years ago and instituted this policy: always following up reasonable lines of inquiry for every criminal offence; no such thing as minor crime. That approach led to a 44% increase in arrests in Greater Manchester, and some previously closed down custody suites and magistrates courts had to be reopened because a load more people were being arrested. We are looking to apply that approach nationally. Of course, the police are never going to get it 100%, but it is the job of parliamentarians and the chief inspector to hold them to account and get as close to 100% as possible. We discussed facial recognition. CCTV evidence, for example, is a critical part of that for ASB and for all crime types.

[Jess Phillips]

The Minister’s story about Manchester was great and a delight to hear; I hope that is replicated elsewhere because of this scheme. Are the Government committing to opening magistrates courts that have been closed in order to deal with that capacity?

[Chris Philp]

Magistrates courts are, of course, a matter for the Ministry of Justice. I am sure my MOJ colleagues will do whatever is necessary to ensure appropriate arrangements are in place. I know that they labour night and day—“labour” meaning work—to make sure the right arrangements are in place. I fear I may be about to stretch Sir Graham’s patience in terms of scope.

I hope that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, will hear that I am in great sympathy with the spirit of the new clause. However, for reasons of police operational independence and because the police and crime commissioner has a role in terms of accountability, I do not think new clause 41 is appropriate. But I understand and appreciate its intent.

[Alex Norris]

I understand, Sir Graham, that I can have a second bite at the cherry; I think I am in order. Very briefly—I would not want to stretch your patience either—I am grateful for the Minister’s response, although I think that he is in danger of falling into a trap, as the Home Office sometimes does, when it comes to defending the status quo. Neighbourhood teams at the level of 10,000 people, which would be a council ward—that is not what we are talking about here. That is part of the public disconnect about scale.

Similarly, the point about accountability to the police and crime commissioner is very good; that is an important part of the democratic process. I have a lot more enthusiasm than perhaps others have expressed previously for that role and its importance. However, my police and crime commissioner has nearly a million people in her footprint—her footprint is by no means the biggest—so there is a challenge about operating at the right scale.

On the Minister’s point about all reasonable lines of enquiry—well, we will see. It very much remains to be seen whether that really is going to be meaningful beyond the rhetoric, but I am pleased to hear the Minister say that he thinks that applies more broadly. One of the most pernicious concepts is the idea of low-level antisocial behaviour; all sorts of problems are allowed to develop and a lot of misery is caused by looking at the issue in that way. That should not ever be the view we take.

The Minister’s point about operational independence is a good one and it is probably enough for me to resolve not to push my new clause to a vote. Perhaps I will come back with a different way of addressing the issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 71 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)