Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting)

David Burton-Sampson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Q Thank you very much for coming along. You will have to forgive me as I kind of wiggle around here a little bit. Clause 14 is on assault of a retail worker, and goes on to define the place of work of a retail worker. Something that you mentioned, Mr Wynn, got me quite interested in talking about delivery drivers, and the clause does say that “‘premises’ include a…vehicle”, such as a food truck. To take, for example, a washing machine installation engineer working for a Currys, do you think that the Bill protects somebody like that, who is working for a retail firm but is actually in somebody’s home? Is that something that could be covered by the Bill, or that you would look to have covered by a Bill such as this?

Christopher Morris: I would link that question back to the CBOs from a couple of questions ago. I think that there is a clear issue there. Various parts of the home delivery sector require the worker to go into people’s homes. With Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Ocado home delivery, there is an offer to almost put it in the fridge for people, and then you have those typical two-man delivery operations for washing machines or beds.

There is certainly a significant issue on the grocery side, where those delivery drivers are also having to make age verification checks when alcohol or other age-restricted products are being delivered, and are having to say that someone cannot have those. You are almost in the door with those products, and you have to say, “Sorry, if the ID isn’t here, I’ve got to take them away,” which can cause issues with violence, threats and abuse. Then, with the way that the systems operate, there are substitutions as well, and having conversations about those can raise the frustration levels of customers. We would therefore want to see those aspects, where people are going into people’s homes or delivering to people’s homes. It is not necessarily a question of the threshold being covered as well.

Part of the reason to link back to CBOs, and why we would want these things covered here, is that the link to CBOs is really good and can help. As a random example, if a Sainsbury’s delivery driver goes into someone’s home and receives a significant threat, then Sainsbury’s can take the decision to take that address off the customer list, but the other companies would not know. If a CBO is in place, a ban could be put on that address because that threat or instance of violence is so great, and those delivery drivers—who we see as retail workers—would not be required to go to it.

Those are the areas that we are keen to continue to engage with Government on, to make sure that the Bill is as effective as we believe it can be.

Graham Wynn: My understanding—I am happy to be corrected—is that the Bill does not cover delivery drivers or anyone other than people working, basically, in a retail store, and that the reference to a vehicle is not meant to be a delivery driver, a delivery van or anything like that.

We do note that the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021, although it is different, does explicitly extend to delivery drivers. We do think that that would be sensible and useful, and there are concerns about delivery drivers. We understand the difficulty of saying, “Well, where do you draw the line?” You mention people going into people’s homes; well, plumbers do, and other people go into people’s homes, so just where do you draw that line? If you dissipate it too much, it undermines the value of the whole thing. We don’t not support others being protected, but we certainly support the classic delivery driver for home produce from supermarkets being included. That is included in the Scottish Act, so perhaps it can also be included in the Bill—unless the Scottish draftsmen have got it wrong.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

Q When we look at how we are moving forward, it is good to look at where we have come from. I think it was the coalition Government who included section 176 in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which basically provided that low-value shop theft—that is, shop theft with a value of under £200—would be a summary-only offence. We know where that has taken us: we have little, if any, police attendance for those sorts of offences. What impact has that had on you and your members, and does the repealing of that £200 threshold give you better confidence that police will prioritise attendance at those types of theft?

Paul Gerrard: That provision was undoubtedly gamed by individuals engaged in retail crime. They knew what the limit was. I also think it sent a strong message to the police that it was not something they should be focused on. In truth, if you go into a Co-op store and steal £200-worth or £199-worth of product, you have still got a lot of product, and there will be flashpoints around that, be they threats, abuse or violence. It undoubtedly has had an impact, and repealing it will have an impact, combined with the fact that the police now recognise the importance of tackling retail crime—and they do.

One of the data points that we have used consistently is how often the police turn up when we have detained an offender. If someone had 10 or 12 bottles of wine that they were trying to steal, which is less than £200, and we detained that offender, the police were not turning up eight times out of 10. Now the police are turning up six or seven times out of 10. If you combine the police response with a genuine ability for them to understand when they need to engage, that makes a massive difference. Wherever you draw a line, or whatever becomes the norm, individuals involved in this criminality will game it.

I will give you another example. The police are now turning up much more consistently on violence, and therefore we have seen a little dip in violence levels, because some people are understanding that if they engage in violence, they might have a problem. This Bill will make that a real issue. People will game whatever the line is, and taking away that line makes it more effective for the police to do their job.

Christopher Morris: I completely agree with Paul. Our members have seen that the system has been gamed at the £200 threshold. Our members are working in stores, some of which are not necessarily hugely profitable, and they get to the point where they are no longer financially viable as a result of theft that goes out of the door. Another thing that we see is staff being reduced in stores because there is not enough money, so the whole store becomes more vulnerable to attack. As Paul said, taking that route away will help to ensure that stores are safer and that the system is not gamed as much as it currently is.

Graham Wynn: Yes, it has certainly been gamed; last year, in our survey, there were 20 million incidents of shoplifting, or 55,000 a day—the highest ever—and I think that shows that there are people who understand this. We know from what people tell us that there are people who go back to the same store time after time and walk off with £190-worth of goods, because they know that nothing will be picked up.

We do realise, of course, that it is important that retailers report the crime or the incident, and it is important too that they have the evidence that the police can use to prosecute. We had a meeting with the police for members just the other day, and they emphasised that they cannot put resources into turning up to incidents where there is no evidence—no CCTV, perhaps, or where the perpetrator has already left the scene and that sort of thing. So we recognise that it is incumbent, too, on retailers to do their part and on the police to do their part.

[The Chair]

Thank you. I do not think we are going to have time to allow every panel member to answer every question, so if Members could be kind enough to try to direct their questions, that would probably be helpful for everybody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Q Baroness Newlove, cuckooing is a pretty heinous crime that takes advantage of some very vulnerable victims. What impact do you think making cuckooing a specific offence will have on those victims?

Baroness Newlove: Don’t get me started on cuckooing! Cuckooing is an interesting area, and I have been working on it for quite a long time. People do not realise the level of harm it causes entire families. It can destroy them. My concern about cuckooing is centres on understanding and whether the Government will ensure there is guidance for police and other operational partners.

Cuckooing is not what you see on the soap operas. These are evil people who pick on vulnerable people and take over their lives. While this Bill creates a new offence whereby a person commits an offence if they exercise control of the dwelling, it sounds very blah-di-blah. What is needed is breaking down the problem and educating people on how this can absolutely take over the lives of the most vulnerable people. It goes into exploitation and county lines—there is no one thing. What I want is for all this to flow into this mechanism. Cuckooing has to be stated, but we must put it alongside exploitation, county lines, drugs and everything else. My concern is that when the guidance is published, victims of cuckooing will still not realise that they are being cuckooed. I do not know where they got the word cuckooing from, but that was what it was called when I went out with the police many years ago.

It is a really hard thing to break. If that person thinks that they are a part of the family, as well as the huge threat to their real family, it is very hard to recognise that. This problem must have a multi-agency approach and it must be in capitals and it must be where we are reporting. There have been many millions spent in this area, but I would like those involved to be more educated and to get a professional toolkit. I know a toolkit has been developed to help to disrupt cuckooing victimisation —I think it was issued to professionals in October 2024. I encourage authorities to utilise it. It is so important, and I have seen so much devastation from cuckooing. It is like watching a film on screen, but it is real life for some people today.

[David Burton-Sampson]

Q Again, this one is for you, Baroness Newlove. There is nothing more frustrating than having your device stolen and knowing where it is, yet the police being unable to act. Are you confident that the new powers in the Bill will give the police what they need to act in those situations where a device can be located?

Baroness Newlove: I am always confident in new powers. My reservation or caveat to all of that is about using them in a sensible way. This is anecdotal, but we hear it every day, even in Parliament, being told to put our phones in our bags—that is how bad it is. It is making sure that the police use those powers properly and understand them. We are also looking into the technology that could be equipped to research these incidents and prevent them from happening in the first place. We need to protect victims from them. Unfortunately, anecdotally, I am not hearing that the police are actually doing something. That is why we must get police better training and understanding to protect victims. Victims, doing their own investigations, phone up the police and say, “I know where my phone is,” and the police do nothing. While legislation is great for professionals, we have got to see the people on the ground delivering for the victims.

[The Chair]

Are there any further questions? We have a couple of minutes left.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

Q To the extent that it is relevant, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor.

I want to take the panel back to clause 45(2) and the duty to report. I note that the police and local authorities are treated as interchangeable in the provision about who a person must report to. I invite any thoughts about that idea that the police and local authorities are somehow interchangeable and have similar skillsets. Councillor Conway referred to the training that would be needed with local authorities, but clearly there are so many different ways you could report. Although the police are used to reporting of criminal activity, the council does not routinely receive reports in that way. I invite either of you to comment on that slightly unexpected and unusual interchangeability of police and local authorities.

Councillor Conway: Again, we would be happy to write with more detail on that. Where that relationship works effectively, I understand the interchangeability. I think it probably needs looking at. There are effective systems on the ground that do enable that, but maybe it needs looking at more closely. We can send you more information.

Councillor Garratt: If we are dealing with criminal behaviour, which I think we are in this circumstance, the obvious place to report it is the police. I do not know whether there is a provision for reporting to the council if someone is already involved with a social worker, for example; that might be deemed to be an adequate way to report it. But if the purpose of the provision is to make sure that these crimes are investigated and prosecuted, then the obvious place to report that to would be the police.

[David Burton-Sampson]

Q My questions have been answered, but I will ask another while I have the floor. The Bill provides the ability to extend community safety accreditation schemes, basically allowing councils to take on more powers that would normally be available only to the police. Do you think that is a good thing for your local authorities?

Councillor Conway: The general point about all that is that additional funding is needed to increase community safety partnerships’ capacity to deliver things on the ground. Reforming the duty and partnership landscape to ensure that the partnerships are equipped with the powers and partners to deliver would be very important.

Councillor Garratt: On the ground, in practical terms, dealing with crime and connected behaviour very often does involve partnership between the local council and the police—and other bodies, such as the Probation Service and so on. It is therefore quite normal—in fact, it is good practice—for there to be collaborative working. If you have a process of collaborative working that is working well, as I think we have in Croydon and in Sutton, it seems to make little sense not to be able to extend it.

Councillor Conway: It is important to focus on the preventive aspect as well. Just before this meeting, I was in a meeting of London’s violence reduction unit with the safer partnership chairs, and I am aware that the Government’s new provision around preventive partnerships is evolving. I think that runs alongside this and is an important step forward.

[David Taylor]

Q Councillor Conway, my ears pricked up when you talked about Clear, Hold, Build and the successes that you had had. That is a project that the police in my area, Hemel Hempstead, have been implementing in a particular neighbourhood called Grovehill. We are currently in the clear and hold phase. Given that you are ahead of us, I wonder whether you can share with the Committee some reflections on the build phase and some of the successes that you have had. Will you also reflect on how the Bill will help with the neighbourhood policing that is so central to these projects?

Councillor Conway: The success of Clear, Hold, Build in our area is thanks to everybody. That is really important: it is everyone together—the residents, who need to be part of it too; the community organisations; the police; the council. It very much is everybody. There is also ongoing clearing; Clear, Hold, Build is not a linear process, and we have certainly learned that.

As I have touched on, some of the provisions in the Bill would have been very welcome. We have not talked about the new provision on the exploitation of young people either, but there is that, the cuckooing measures, some of the respect order stuff, the CPNs and the public spaces protection orders. We have been able to use bits of those things locally, but the Bill provides a framework that I think will enable councils to deliver more, as long as there is the funding to do some of it.

Also, the collaborative approach needs to be across councils and across areas. We all learn from each other. That is a major strength of the LGA, and one that we are very happy to share with the Government. As you know yourselves, that learning across, with the need to support each other and to really deliver for all our residents, is vital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Bishop]

Q I want briefly to touch on the police appeals tribunal. Police and crime commissioners up and down the country represent the public in holding forces and chief constables to account. In the context of public confidence in policing, how important is it that PCCs have an equivalent right of appeal to the police appeals tribunal?

Emily Spurrell: Very important. It was a gap in previous legislation, so in our view, this measure seeks to correct an error. As you say, we are responsible for holding chief constables to account. We are very focused on improving the trust and confidence that the public have in the police, so it is important to have that right of appeal if we feel standards have not been met, rather than having to go through a lengthy judicial review process.

[David Burton-Sampson]

Q This is obviously a meaty Bill. There is a lot of really good stuff in here, and much of it will give new powers to existing police officers, to people across the force and to local authorities. As PFCCs or PCCs, you will have a key role in helping to ensure that the Bill is implemented, assuming it passes through Parliament. How confident do you feel about making sure that happens? It is pointless passing laws if they are not implemented on the ground.

Roger Hirst: This goes back to the point that was raised earlier about whether we have the resources. I welcome the Government’s commitment to the 13,000 additional people in neighbourhood policing, but the vital thing is that we have the funding to both sustain the current workforce and build the workforce in the way you would like us to. There is a real challenge there, because the police force has expanded by 20,000 over the last six years. Those police officers will all be going through the police contractual incremental pay scales. The big jump is when they hit five and six years, so there will be a big boost to police pay at that point without us recruiting any more people.

To be able to do what we need to do with the Bill, we will need the resources that we have and the resources that are heading down the track towards us, we believe, which we are very grateful for. But funding the existing workforce is the real challenge, and that in itself is probably going to cost some £300 million a year.

Matthew Barber: I completely agree: a lot of it comes down to the money. The only additional point that I would make is about the reliance on other partners in this area. As we awaited our session, there was a conversation about fly-tipping, which is certainly an issue that exercises the police, but at the moment the responsibility for it lies with local authorities. The Bill proposes only some guidance, rather than any duties on local authorities to clear up the waste or to investigate; currently, they have powers but they are not obliged to use them.

On some of the wider antisocial behaviour provisions, as I said in response to the Minister, there is a huge reliance on local authorities to play their part, both in sharing information around reporting and in the exercise of powers. Many of the solutions to antisocial behaviour issues in our communities do not lie within the police remit. They are to do with the provision of housing from social landlords, and to do with the powers that local authorities have, so we need to work collectively.

I am confident that policing, given the right resources, can deliver the things that are in this Bill, but what is key is making sure that all those other partners are able to assist in that. Many of these provisions cannot be delivered by the police on their own.

Emily Spurrell: To add to that, it is not just about policing and the partners that Matthew has outlined, but about criminal justice. We know that having more officers and more PCSOs going through the system will create even more pressure on an already struggling courts and prison system. We need to be very mindful of the whole criminal justice approach.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

Q Returning briefly to police accountability, you already expressed support for what the Minister said about amending some of the restrictions, in terms of the thresholds for referral and for whether a final investigation has been completed. On placing the IOPC victims’ right to review scheme on a statutory footing, presumably you would support that to build public confidence in the IOPC and what it exists to do for the accountability of police forces in our country.

Emily Spurrell: The system does not work very well for victims at all at the minute. The language used and the way that we approach it is very bureaucratic. Anything that can empower victims and ensure that they feel like they are being heard and that they have a right to have their concerns addressed is very welcome.

Roger Hirst: I absolutely agree with that. Making it more accessible would involve, as Emily said, using better language. Also, having shorter timeframes is really important.

Matthew Barber: I completely agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Ms Davies-Jones, I am conscious of the fact that most of these questions are the responsibility of the Policing Minister, but is there anything you wish to add?

Alex Davies-Jones: Nothing on this part, Sir Roger. I am happy to come in on the Ministry of Justice measures.

[David Burton-Sampson]

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

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

[Anna Sabine]

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

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

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

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