Oral Answers to Questions
Diana Johnson Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of experience in health matters. There are regular discussions between ministerial colleagues about how we can best join up public services. We know that joined-up working results in better outcomes at a local level. Collaboration and engagement between neighbourhood policing and neighbourhood health teams already exists to tackle mental health issues, and drug and alcohol addiction. I hope that this Government’s investment in neighbourhood policing will enable more of that work to continue.
Rachael Maskell
Evidence shows that integrating policing and health is vital in delivering better outcomes in areas like mental health, substance misuse and youth violence—areas that we need to address in my city of York. With both police and health realigning into neighbourhood teams, will the Home Secretary ensure that there is reach across the services, with a named lead police officer, to develop prevention and early intervention strategies, diverting those at risk through harm reduction approaches, including treatment and support?
Dame Diana Johnson
With the recently launched 10-year health plan, we are moving away from those siloed services towards a more joined-up approach, including the preventive model of care. That aligns very much with policing and keeping people safe, and supporting wellbeing. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the national neighbourhood health implementation programme and to ensure that policing is part of the conversation from the outset. By working more closely with health and care partners, we can reduce inappropriate demand on policing. Officers should not be left to pick up the pieces when other support services are better placed to help. This is about getting it right—and getting that tailored support—first time.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I thank the Policing Minister for visiting Northallerton this year and hearing directly from my farming constituents about the impact of livestock and equipment crime on their lives and health. I am grateful to North Yorkshire police for all their hard work, and for the recent funding uplift for the national rural crime unit, but does the Minister agree with me on the importance of implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 and, more broadly, ensuring that rural areas get the attention they deserve?
Dame Diana Johnson
It was a pleasure to meet the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents; I think that was way back in February—it was a very cold day in North Yorkshire. I fully recognise what he says about the mental health and wellbeing impact of some of the crime challenges facing rural communities. That is why the neighbourhood policing guarantee is so important for areas like the one that he represents. As I have said a number of times in this House, we support the implementation of the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act, and we plan to bring forward regulations shortly.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
The Government are determined to crack down on antisocial behaviour, and tackling it is a central theme of our safer streets summer initiative, which is currently under way in over 500 towns. Our Crime and Policing Bill will provide policing with a suite of new powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, including respect orders to get persistent offenders out of town centres, and stronger powers to seize dangerous and deafening off-road bikes. I again remind the House that the Conservatives voted against those measures recently.
Richard Baker
With increasing incidents of antisocial behaviour and falling police numbers in Scotland, will the Minister assure me that she will share learning from the safer streets initiative with SNP Ministers, as it is rolled out, to encourage them to raise their game on this issue? Will she also join me and Police Scotland in Fife in praising Kingdom Off Road motorcycle club in my constituency, which is such a success in running activities that divert young people from antisocial behaviour?
Dame Diana Johnson
We will of course learn lessons over the summer from our initiative and our blitz on town centres, and I am willing to share that with SNP Ministers, which I think would be very helpful in the light of what my hon. Friend said about the problems people are facing in Scotland. I of course welcome and commend the work with young people that is going on in his constituency.
Mark Ferguson
We have exciting plans for Gateshead town centre, but we have more work to do on antisocial behaviour. Northumbria police’s Operation Shield has brought down antisocial behaviour significantly, but more powers and more officers are needed. What are the Government doing to ensure that the police have both the powers and the resources to tackle persistent antisocial behaviour?
Dame Diana Johnson
First, I am very pleased to hear about the work of Northumbria police with Operation Shield, which I think is to be commended. We want to work collectively with forces to focus on town centres nationwide, while recognising that some town centres and areas of the country have more significant problems to address. We want to build on existing data, good practice and evidence to develop a model that can then be rolled out up and down the country.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Glastonbury town centre has seen increasing rates of antisocial behaviour, shoplifting and crime. A local charity shop manager told me that residents and customers are too scared to walk down the high street, which obviously has a negative impact on the local economy. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how effective community policing can be the solution to the persistent issues that Glastonbury is facing?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am, of course, very happy to meet the hon. Lady. That is why neighbourhood policing is important, and why the Government made a commitment to put 13,000 additional police personnel back into our town centres and communities over the course of this Parliament, to provide the reassurance that communities have not had for far too long, with the decimation of neighbourhood policing over previous years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her answer. I know she is very aware of what we are doing in Northern Ireland, where community police officers are an important part of our policing. The relationships they build up over a period of 12 months, 18 months or two years mean that they become a part of the community. We should share good ideas—we have good ideas, as has the Minister. Will she take the opportunity to discuss those ideas with the policing Minister and the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland, because I believe that what we do can help here as well?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very pleased to hear about the good ideas being rolled out in Northern Ireland. I hope very much to be able to visit in the near future, so that I am able to see for myself that community policing in Northern Ireland.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
My hon. Friend will know that the Government have set an unprecedented mission to halve knife crime in a decade. We are determined to tackle the scourge of serious violence on our streets. This month, we are running a major new surrender scheme for lethal weapons, including ninja swords, in hotspots across the country, alongside introducing the new provisions in our Crime and Policing Bill to crack down on the illegal sale of knives online. Those measures will help to reduce the availability of dangerous knives on our streets and ensure that those who perpetrate these offences face the full force of the law.
Joani Reid
Six weeks ago, Kayden Moy, a 16-year-old boy from East Kilbride in my constituency, was stabbed to death, leaving his family bereft and a community—my community—in grief. Since Kayden’s tragic death, I have received multiple videos and images of local youths posing while wielding machetes in their own homes, but the police claim that they are powerless to take any action whatever. Does the Minister agree that much more needs to be done to stop the very real glamourisation of knife crime online, and to prevent social media from being a breeding ground for youth violence?
Dame Diana Johnson
May I first express my condolences to Kayden’s family and friends? That is just appalling to hear. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the role that social media can play in glamourising these types of weapons. That is why it is so important that we have measures in the Crime and Policing Bill and the Online Safety Act 2023 to start to tackle that. As I say, it is absolutely appalling.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
This month, we have supported police and the retail industry to launch the new retail crime strategy, and the Home Secretary launched a safer streets blitz in town centres, with targeted action to tackle retail crime. Under the previous Government, shop theft soared to record levels and assaults against retail workers spiralled out of control. That is why, in addition to investing in neighbourhood policing, we are introducing in our Crime and Policing Bill a new stand-alone offence of assaulting a shop worker, because everybody has a right to feel safe on the job.
Alex Baker
Staff at Tesco in Aldershot tell me that the store is facing rising levels of shoplifting, with people walking out of the store with full trolleys. It is often the same individuals, who are emboldened because they do not fear the consequences. Hampshire police are doing their best, but they cannot attend every incident, and store staff feel threatened and powerless. This is a nationwide problem. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to tackle the wave of retail crime and to protect shop workers on the frontline?
Dame Diana Johnson
It is totally unacceptable that shop theft and violence and abuse towards retail workers have continued to rise, particularly over the last two years of the previous Government, when they went up by 60%. We are asking retail workers to perform a significant act of public service as they enforce restrictions on the sale of items including cigarettes, alcohol and knives. As I have set out, the bespoke offence in the Crime and Policing Bill will help to shine a spotlight on the problem and ensure that we bring perpetrators to book. The Bill will also ensure that the sanction of a criminal behaviour order can be attached to a conviction for assaulting a retail worker, which will help to protect retail workers.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Whether at Asda in Basildon or Waitrose in Billericay, there have been real issues with shop thefts, particularly by organised gangs, which often come from outside the local area. They come in, ransack stores and then drive away. What is the Minister doing to address the issues that go beyond local theft and are actually a nationwide gang issue?
Dame Diana Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. We will continue to crack down on the organised gangs that target retailers. As we have set out, we will provide £5 million over the next three years to continue to fund a specialist analysis team within Opal, the national police intelligence unit for serious organised acquisitive crime, to share information and make sure that retailers are part of the conversation. We are doing everything we can to tackle organised gangs.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
Our Crime and Policing Bill, which Opposition Members voted against on Third Reading, is giving the police greater powers to clamp down on off-road bikes and other nuisance vehicles that cause chaos in our communities. Once the changes come into force, officers will no longer be required to issue a warning before they seize a bike that is being used antisocially. On 28 May, we published a consultation to explore changes to the circumstances in which the police can seize and destroy these vehicles, and we will not hesitate to go further if needed.
Nick Smith
I thank the Minister for that answer. Gwent police are taking on dangerous, illegal off-road bikes, but a related problem is electric bikes, which are sometimes chipped to go faster and have become a new danger. Will the Minister please look into this? The bikes can be switched up from being a means to get from A to B into being a real menace.
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes, I am very happy to look into that issue and to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it. He may want to know that the 60 additional officers that are going to be available in his police force area by the end of this year will help to tackle some of the antisocial behaviour involving e-bikes and other vehicles.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
As the Home Secretary just pointed out, we have provided an additional £200 million this year to support new neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs for all our communities. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman if he would like to discuss policing further, but this Government are committed to making sure that the police have the resources they need.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
The chair of the Met Police Federation, Rick Prior, and the chair of the West Midlands Police Federation, Rich Cooke, have both been removed by the unelected chief executive of the Police Federation after speaking up for the officers they were elected to represent. Is the Home Secretary as concerned as I am that the only staff association that police officers are legally allowed to join is no longer fit for purpose?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue; I know he has experience as a police officer. I regularly meet the Police Federation and its officers and chief executive. I will raise his concerns directly with them.
Phone Theft
Diana Johnson Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing the debate and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing her experiences, particularly the “Starsky and Hutch” approach that she took to trying to recover her mobile phone when it was stolen 10 years ago.
I am grateful to all Members of the House who have made contributions. In the limited time that we have had available, we have had an important discussion, spanning many different areas, both geographically and topically. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) spoke about the experience in West Yorkshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) talked about the interchange at Stratford station and, along with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), talked about the problems with e-bikes as enablers of mobile phone theft.
I want to be very clear: this Government are absolutely determined to address the menace of mobile phone theft. I say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), that the unfortunate truth is that by the time this Government took office, this type of criminality had become so common that it was essentially a feature of daily life in some areas, and the statistics bear that out. She talked about the policing of speech and locking criminals up, but she needs to reflect on the record of the Conservative Government. They introduced the non-crime hate incident guidance under the previous Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who is now the shadow Home Secretary, and failed the prison system by not building enough prison places. This Government are having to deal with that.
Dame Diana Johnson
No, time is very short. The hon. Gentleman’s record when he was a special advisor in the Home Office really is nothing to be proud of.
I will talk about the statistics. Street theft increased by more than 40% in the last year of the previous Government, driven largely by soaring rates of snatch theft involving mobile phones. While we are starting to see some promising reductions, including a decrease in the number of mobile phone thefts by force or threat of force in the capital, levels of mobile phone theft sadly remain intolerably high, which is totally unacceptable.
We recognise that the impact of this criminality goes beyond the loss of a mobile phone, costly and stressful though that undoubtedly is. It undermines people’s sense of personal safety and security in the most insidious way. It snatches parts of people’s life, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East said, including bank details, personal records and precious memories stored on phones. Decent, law-abiding people deserve much, much better, which is why the Prime Minister has placed safer streets at the heart of his plan for change. Through that mission, we are taking decisive action to restore law and order to our town centres and high streets, and the scourge of mobile phone theft is very much in our sights.
It may be helpful if I set out for the House some of the key steps we are taking to combat this crime. It has been clear throughout the debate that we accept that if we are to drive the real change we need to see, we need to work effectively with tech companies, the police and others in civil society, both to prevent thefts from happening and to better detect the perpetrators when thefts occur. In that spirit, the Home Secretary chaired a very productive summit in February, bringing together representatives from the police, including the Metropolitan police, the National Crime Agency, the Mayor of London, local government leaders, leading technology companies and other sectors to push for much stronger collaboration in this space.
I have been working closely with stakeholders from industry and law enforcement on this important topic, so I was pleased to see the summit result in clear commitments from attendees to working in partnership, and to significantly boosting the sharing of data and intelligence on mobile phone theft, so that we can build a comprehensive picture of the problem and better understand the role of organised criminal networks. Ultimately, our aim is to disrupt, design out and disincentivise mobile phone theft. Officials are working closely with law enforcement partners, tech companies and other industry representatives to deliver practical and effective measures, so that we can crack down on these crimes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East talked particularly about mobile phone theft in London, which is a particular hotspot. That is why the Metropolitan police are an important partner in the collective effort to tackle this form of crime. We welcome the two recent periods of intensification of activity by the Metropolitan police, which together resulted in more than 500 arrests linked to mobile phone theft. We will hold a second summit in the next few weeks to reflect on the progress made, and to galvanise cross-sector agreement on the ambitious outcomes that we all want. There remains a long road ahead, but I am really hopeful that the tech companies and the wider stakeholders will come to the table with bold proposals. To be very clear, the Government will not hesitate to take more decisive action if the summit does not result in clear commitments to tackle this issue, including considering further legislation and regulation to radically reduce this—and related—criminality.
I draw Members’ attention to the fact that the Crime and Policing Bill introduces a new power to help police recover stolen mobile phones more quickly. It allows officers to enter and search premises to which a stolen device has been electronically tracked in situations in which it is not practicable to obtain a warrant. This will allow the police to act swiftly, and will increase the likelihood that criminals will be caught and punished.
We welcome the innovative steps already taken by tech companies to tackle mobile phone theft. It is crucial that we now deepen collaboration between those companies and law enforcement. That is how we will ensure that anti-theft features cannot be bypassed by criminals, and that the technology supports police investigations and the recovery of stolen phones. While anti-theft features are vital to ensure the safety of mobile phones, we acknowledge that some technology can be misused by bad actors, particularly in cases of domestic abuse. That is why we are working with tech companies to ensure that new solutions are safe and proportionate, and do not inadvertently put victims at risk. This is about making stolen phones worthless without creating new vulnerabilities.
During this debate, several proposals have been put forward for how we might strengthen our collective response to mobile phone theft. I have heard them all, and I am grateful for all of them. While we will of course keep our approach under review, we are focused on delivering our plan to reduce mobile phone theft in partnership with law enforcement, technology companies and service providers. The Government are working with those tech companies to ensure that people’s phones are protected. Through working groups established by the Home Office and attended by technology companies and policing partners, we aim to ensure that everything possible is done to disincentivise phone theft by making stolen phones effectively worthless to criminals.
I conclude by again offering my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East for securing this debate, and to all the Members who have contributed. I hope that, in the limited time available, I have addressed some of the points discussed this afternoon. In essence, this issue is as much about people as it is about policies and powers. We must always remember that behind the statistics are thousands and thousands of real victims who have suffered the shock and distress—as well as the inconvenience and disruption—of having their device snatched. Our high streets and town centres are filled with people going about their everyday lives. As they make their way from place to place, there should be no question but that they are safe, and that their belongings are secure. The notion that they might be pounced upon by thieves at any moment is simply unacceptable, and this Government will not tolerate it. Our message is clear: Britain’s streets belong to the law-abiding majority, not to thieves and muggers, and we will do whatever it takes to protect the public from those callous and harmful crimes.
Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill
Diana Johnson ExcerptsWednesday 25th June 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill 2024-26 View all Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am broadly in favour of the Bill, but I have a few questions that I hope the Minister can answer.
The Home Affairs Committee report of 2023 made a number of recommendations, including the rescheduling of psilocybin and other similar substances under the MDA 1971. I hope the Minister can confirm that, if it is passed, the Bill could be used to speed up the ability to move some controlled substances down the scheduling list and others up the scheduling list. Can she also confirm that passing this legislation will not further intensify the failed war on drugs model, as we hopefully seek to move towards an evidence-based harm reduction drug policy in this country?
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester on his success in taking the Bill to this stage and on his eloquent speech today. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill has the Government’s support.
I am grateful for the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset made an important contribution informed by his professional background in pharmacy. He knows the importance of the Bill and how it will deliver on speeding up the process for dealing with illicit drugs.
The hon. Member for West Dorset said that he has been a Member for just one year, and that he is finding new arcane practices all the time. Having spent 20 years in this place, I feel his pain. He will find many arcane practices during his parliamentary career. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North has been a doughty campaigner on the issue of drugs for some time. I hope I will be able to respond in detail to the particular issues she raised.
I know the Bill appears technical, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, its impact could be great in controlling new dangerous substances in the UK. As we all know, drugs can have a devastating impact on the lives of families and communities. In the UK, we must continue to ensure that we invest in preventing drug misuse, helping people through treatment and recovery, and protecting the public from these harmful substances through legislation. We must continue to be alert to the potential for dangerous substances, especially synthetic drugs, and it is critical that we have the appropriate tools to make any necessary legislative change at the earliest opportunity. The Bill will enable the Government to make timely changes to respond to emerging drug threats.
There were 3,618 deaths related to drug misuse registered in England and Wales in 2023. That is the highest number since records began, in 1993, and 16% higher than in 2022. Furthermore, in 2023, nearly half of all drug-related poisonings involved opiates, and potent synthetic variants of these are emerging at a concerning rate. When the Bill was introduced, at least 284 deaths had been linked to nitazenes, a potent type of synthetic opioid, across the UK. Sadly, that number now stands at over 450.
We are working very quickly to face the ongoing threat of synthetic opioids in the UK. Last year, 20 substances were controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 15 of which were synthetic opioids, with 14 being nitazenes. This year, we went a step further by introducing a generic definition of nitazenes in the 1971 Act, meaning that new variants of these substances that meet the definition are automatically controlled. While it is right that these changes receive an appropriate degree of scrutiny, the rate at which new variants of substances such as nitazenes are emerging demonstrates that pace is of the essence. Until such changes come into force, our law enforcement agencies do not have the ability to pursue the toughest penalties for criminals who are knowingly supplying these dangerous substances to vulnerable users, many of whom do not know what they are taking.
The Bill seeks to amend the delegated power contained in section 2 of the 1971 Act so that the form of amending statutory instruments will be regulations made by the Secretary of State, rather than an Order in Council. This will ultimately support our aim to ensure that substances are more rapidly made subject to controls under the 1971 Act.
Charlotte Nichols
On a point of clarification, as part of this process will there be reviews of the evidence for keeping drugs within those schedules? We know, for example, that cocaine is class A, and cocaine deaths increased by 30% last year. We all want to reduce drug harms, so at what rate will this be reviewed if the Bill is passed?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend will know that we keep drug policy under review. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs offers advice to the Government. That process is ongoing, but the Bill is specific and technical in its purpose.
As it stands, the process for controlling, removing or amending the control of drugs needs to go through the draft affirmative procedure. Following debates in both Houses of Parliament, the statutory instrument is then made by the King at a Privy Council meeting and comes into force on a specified date, generally 28 days later. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, the Privy Council meets only once a month, which can delay the statutory instrument coming into force by an extra four to six weeks. As a result, any new substance listed in the statutory instrument will not be subject to the provisions of the 1971 Act until the Privy Council meets and the order can be made.
In the interim, if the substances are captured by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, there will be no possession offence other than in a custodial setting or with intent to supply. It is also possible that, under the 2016 Act, there will be lower penalties for the supply, import or export of that substance.
On that basis, the Government support the Bill and wish it a smooth passage.
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
Diana Johnson ExcerptsWednesday 25th June 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill 2024-26 View all Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Just before I call the Minister, I want to let Members know that the correct version of the Bill is available online, if anybody wants to double-check it.
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Vickers, on this lovely June day. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing forward this Bill. I was also interested to note the involvement of Lord Brennan; in the previous Parliament, he nearly got such a Bill on to the statue book, and I hope he will play a part in the other place, if the Bill concludes its passage through the Commons today.
I am very grateful to the other Members who have participated in this discussion, many of whom declared their allegiance to various football clubs, some more dubious than others. Clearly, a wide range of clubs is represented and supported here today, and Members are very clear that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. There has been a high degree of consensus, and I am very pleased to say, right at the outset, that the Government support the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley has set out, the Bill would create a new offence of unauthorised entry or attempted unauthorised entry to elite football matches that are covered by existing football-specific public order legislation in England and Wales. I want to reflect on the fact that we are very lucky to be in the capable hands of a former Crown prosecutor in navigating this new offence through Parliament.
I also heard questions from Members about whether the Bill should have a wider application, and I will of course reflect on the comments that have been made. On the issue of the dispersal of large crowds gathering outside football matches, that is obviously an operational matter for the place and I have seen at first hand the planning that goes into dealing with those kinds of issues, but I will certainly raise the concerns of the hon. Member for Harrow East with the police when I next speak to them, particularly the Metropolitan Police.
Amanda Martin
The hon. Member for Harrow East made a really good point; there have been some developments on that issue through things such as fan zones. Fans can buy a ticket for such a zone, which is an area outside the stadium, and that allows for dispersal. It also allows fans to watch the game, particularly if they are going to Wembley. Portsmouth went a number of times and could not have all the ticket allocation, so fans could instead buy a ticket for a fan zone outside. The hon. Member is right that it is down to both club logistics and the police, but there are really good ways of letting people who do not have a ticket come and watch the game, such as in an area slightly outside the stadium.
Dame Diana Johnson
There is obviously a great deal of knowledge on this Committee about how these things operate. As someone who is not necessarily a huge football fan, I am certainly learning a lot today about some of the measures that are being put in place to help fans enjoy the event in a safe way.
Bob Blackman
I thank the Minister for that reply to my point. The Bill quite rightly seeks to penalise those who try to gain admission to football grounds without tickets. However, it is silent on anyone who facilitates that entry, such as an individual who works for a club or stadium, or who is somehow in charge of a gate. I do not think it is reasonable for a private Member’s Bill to look at that issue, but could the Minister consider what else the Government need to do to ensure that those people are also penalised?
The Chair
Order. Just before the Minister comes back in, I want to advise Members that the new, amended copy of the Bill is now available, if anybody wants to have a closer look.
Dame Diana Johnson
Before I deal with that point, I have some information that might help the Committee. The police have dispersal powers under section 34 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which can be used as appropriate. That is the operational side that I was referring to. The Bill, when enacted, would stop ticketless fans from testing the stadium security, and the police have powers and public order offences that can be used if there are threatening and abusive words or disorderly behaviour. In other words, there are powers already available to the police to deal with the dispersal of fans if there is a large group. The hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned those who may be employed by the stadium who facilitate and allow such behaviour. I will reflect on that important point. There are probably offences being committed there, which I may return to in a moment.
Licences and Licensing
Diana Johnson Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I beg to move,
That the draft Licensing Act 2003 (UEFA Women’s European Football Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 15 May, be approved.
This summer, the UEFA women’s European football championship, commonly referred to as the Women’s Euro 2025, will be hosted in Switzerland. I am pleased to report that both the England and Wales women’s national teams have qualified to participate in that prestigious tournament. The draft contingent order before the House today proposes a temporary extension of licensing hours across England and Wales, should either England or Wales—or both—progress to the semi-finals or the final of the competition. Specifically, if either team reaches these stages—I have to say, from my limited following of football, that it seems the women’s teams have a reputation for doing far better than our male teams—the order would extend licensing hours from 11 pm to 1 am on the evenings of the semi-finals, which are scheduled for 22 and 23 July, and the final, which is due to take place on 27 July.
As Members will be aware, section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 empowers the Secretary of State to make such an order in recognition of events of “exceptional national significance.” The decision to lay this draft order follows a public consultation conducted by the Home Office earlier this year. A significant majority—87% of respondents —supported the proposed extension of licensing hours for the semi-final and 84% for the final, should the home nations qualify. Respondents also agreed with the proposed duration of the extension—until 1 am—and supported its application to both England and Wales. There was also consensus that the extension should apply only to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. The order will therefore allow licensed premises to remain open until 1 am without the need to submit a temporary event notice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As a Northern Ireland MP, I wish to convey my best to the English and the Welsh ladies’ teams. Although the order will not apply to Northern Ireland, that will not stop us cheering on the English and the Welsh teams on a different timescale in our pubs, our restaurants and our cafés.
Dame Diana Johnson
It is always good to see solidarity between the four nations. I thank the hon. Member for displaying his usual courtesy in expressing his good wishes to the two women’s teams.
I was just about to explain that the reason we are taking this order forward is to reduce the administrative burden on both businesses and local authorities, saving time and resources for all involved.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
As a Leeds United supporter, I felt the need to ask what a semi-final or a final was, but—[Laughter.] I welcome the order. Does my right hon. Friend recognise the benefits that the increased opening hours will bring to the pub and entertainment industry, and hopefully—if we get that far—the impact that will have on the communities that support them?
Dame Diana Johnson
I was just about to say that businesses in the hospitality sector, particularly pubs and bars, stand to benefit from this modest extension, which would allow them to accommodate increased demand during these high-profile fixtures. I fully accept that the hospitality sector has had a difficult time over the past few years, and that this is a helpful measure.
It is right to acknowledge that police representatives have expressed some concerns regarding the potential for increased crime and disorder. While operational decisions on deployment and resourcing are a matter for individual forces, I am confident that appropriate measures will be taken to mitigate any risks, as has happened in similar cases.
Notably, there have been no significant incidents of large-scale disorder linked to previous licensing extensions, which is testament to the professionalism of our police service, to which we owe our thanks. I also emphasise that this is a limited and proportionate two-hour extension. It applies solely to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises after 11 pm and does not extend to off licences, supermarkets or other premises licensed only for off-sales.
To clarify one final point, if neither England nor Wales reach the semi-finals, the proposed extension will not apply on 22 or 23 July. Similarly, if one or both teams reach the semi-finals but do not progress to the final, normal licensing hours will apply on 27 July.
I also make Members aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) is sponsoring a private Member’s Bill, supported by the Government, which seeks to make such orders subject to the negative resolution procedure in future. That means that less time will be spent, particularly on the Floor of the House, having to agree such measures. The Bill has completed its Committee stage in the House but will not be enacted in time to apply to this summer’s tournament, hence the need for this order to be brought before the House today. Should this order receive the support of the House, as I hope and expect it will, it will reinforce the argument that debating such measures may not represent the most effective use of parliamentary time.
In conclusion, this order has been brought forward in recognition of the significant public interest in the forthcoming tournament and, in particular, the hopes and expectations surrounding the England and Wales teams. On that note, I take the opportunity to wish the players of both teams the very best of luck. I am sure they will do themselves, their fans and their nations proud, and I commend the order to the House.
Crime and Policing Bill
Diana Johnson ExcerptsWednesday 18th June 2025
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 18 June 2025 - (18 Jun 2025)
Matt Vickers
One of the things we were doing was putting record funding into policing and putting a record number of police on the streets. The one thing we were not doing was taxing our police forces off the streets. We were making huge progress.
I would also like to mention Sergeant Dave Catlow of the Metropolitan police, who joined us last week. He is doing great work on this issue.
New clause 130 proposes three key changes. First, fines for perpetrators would equate to the cost of replacing equipment, repairing the damage caused and the loss of work. Secondly, theft of tools would be treated as an aggravated offence, meaning tougher sentences for the crooks who steal tradesmen’s vital equipment. Finally, councils would be required to put in place an enforcement plan to crack down on the sale of stolen tools at car boot sales.
I will also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for her campaigning on this issue. I know how much she, too, wants to see action on tool theft. As the Minister knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) brought the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 through the House. It could make a real difference on this issue. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will table a statutory instrument to put it into action?
I turn to non-crime hate incidents. New clause 7 would change legislation and guidance to remove the recording and retention of non-crime hate incidents. The use of non-crime hate incidents has spiralled out of all control and well beyond its originally intended purpose. The deal should be simple: if the law is broken, justice must be served. But non-crime hate incidents are a different beast—you did not break the law; you just said something daft and ended up logged on police records like a criminal. We need our police on the streets, not policing hurty words on Twitter. We have all seen the utterly barmy story of a nine-year-old who insulted another pupil in the playground. Is that unkind? Yes, of course it is. But instead of a quiet word with a teacher or a call to the parents, the police were brought in. I appeal to Members across the House—would they want that happening to their child, or would they rather give them a proper telling-off at home?
This also has a bigger effect. Our police officers are being tied up documenting playground spats and Twitter comments, treating childish jibes like national security threats, while real crimes such as burglary, robbery and even violent offences are being pushed to the back of the queue. In fact, research from Policy Exchange has found that, nationally, over 60,000 police hours are being spent on non-crime hate incidents. Our police need to get back to keeping our streets safe, not policing silly words or childish playground issues.
Before concluding my remarks, I would like to draw the House’s attention to some of the Opposition’s other amendment that could protect our communities and keep our streets safe. We would have been voting today on new clause 144 to secure that national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs—a scandal that is our country’s shame. Child sexual exploitation ruins lives; preying on the most vulnerable in our communities, exploiting them for horrific sexual acts and often coercing them into a life of crime. A national inquiry is what the victims wanted, so I am glad that the Prime Minister has finally U-turned, given into the pressure and joined what he described as the far-right bandwagon of people who wanted a national inquiry.
As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, we must not have another whitewash. The national inquiry must ask the hard questions and leave no stone unturned. Criminal investigations must run in parallel to the inquiry. It must look at the whole system—Whitehall, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and local authorities—and wherever there is wrongdoing, there should be prosecutions. Foreign perpetrators must be immediately deported, and the inquiry must be fully independent, with statutory powers covering all relevant towns. Local councils simply cannot be left to investigate themselves.
New clause 125 aims to reinstate people’s confidence in policing. We have recently seen the perverse anti-racism commitment issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It calls for arrest rates to be artificially engineered to be the same across racial groups. Advice to treat black and white suspects differently is morally indefensible. It is, by definition, two-tier policing. It undermines trust and confidence in our police. This new clause would give the Home Secretary the power to amend or require the withdrawal of any code of practice intended to direct policing practices.
New clause 139 makes provisions in relation to off-road bikes. I know many Members across the House know the havoc being caused by them in local communities. The issue has been raised by Members on both sides of the House numerous times in Westminster Hall and in this place, and the tweak in approach that features in this Bill will simply not be enough. Using alternative legislation, the police are already able to seize off-road bikes without notice. The new clause would remove the prohibition on the police entering a private dwelling to confiscate an off-road bike and ensure that police destroyed seized bikes rather than selling them back into the market. I urge the Minister—in fact, I beg her—to look again comprehensively at how we tackle the scourge of off-road bikes.
I would also like to draw the House’s attention to new clause 131, which would introduce mandatory deportation for foreign nationals found in possession of child sexual abuse images. These sick paedophiles have no place in our country and they, along with all foreign offenders, should be deported.
To conclude, the British people want our police to be able to focus on putting real criminals behind bars—the thieves who nick our hard-working tradesmen’s tools—not spending time policing playground squabbles and treating them like crimes. Our Opposition new clauses are common-sense changes that I hope the whole House will get behind, protecting victims and restoring policing to what it is meant to be: tackling crime on our streets.
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members, including the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), and the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) who have taken part in the debate, and in particular those who have brought forward new clauses. There are well over 100 new clauses in this group, so I am sure the House will appreciate that, sadly, I will not be able to cover them all. I will do my best in the time remaining to respond to as many as I can.
Amanda Martin
I thank the Minister for acknowledging how tool theft affects people’s lives. Does she agree that this is not just about police on our streets and arrests, but about sentencing, and will she work with me, across Departments, to ensure that the aggravated circumstances powers that the courts already have reflect the real cost of such crime?
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes, I am very happy to do that. I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking this campaign forward and on being such a worthy advocate for it. We take the issue very seriously and we are fully committed to implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023. We are finalising our plans for commencement and we will update the House in due course.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am going to keep going, because I am conscious that I do not have much time.
To reiterate to the shadow Minister what I said in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been clear that a consistent and common-sense approach must be taken with non-crime hate incidents. Accordingly, it has been agreed with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing that they will conduct a review of this area. I say to the shadow Minister that it was the shadow Home Secretary, when he was the Policing Minister, who introduced the current code of practice and police guidance on non-crime hate incidents. He said:
“The Government fully recognises the importance of ensuring that vulnerable individuals, groups and communities continue to be protected by the police; indeed, this is the purpose of non-crime hate incident recording. We are confident that the code does precisely this.”
It seems odd that he said that the approach was right at that stage, but now he wants to scrap it.
On new clause 144, I was disappointed that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) seemed to have missed the announcement made by the Home Secretary on Monday, which answered a number of her questions. The shadow Minister did not seem to be aware of the announcement either. Using existing legislation in the Inquiries Act 2005, the independent commission will be set up under a national inquiry with full powers to compel individuals to testify, with the aim of holding institutions to account for current and historic failures in their response to group-based child sexual exploitation. The Home Secretary was clear that she is accepting all the recommendations from Baroness Casey.
Dame Diana Johnson
No, I am going to carry on.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) mentioned new clauses 87 and 88. This Government have been clear that water companies must accelerate action to reduce pollution to the environment. The Water (Special Measures) Act, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, significantly strengthens the power of the regulators and delivers on the Government’s commitment to put failing water companies under special measures. Among other measures, the Act introduced automatic penalties on polluters and banned bonuses for water company executives if they fail to meet adequate standards.
Dame Diana Johnson
No.
On new clauses 85 and 86 about neighbourhood policing, it is clear that this Government are starting to implement our neighbourhood policing guarantee.
On new clause 13, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), the Government recognise the serious consequences that can result from joint enterprise convictions. However, joint enterprise ensures that those who act together in committing a crime are all held responsible. We saw that in the cases of Ben Kinsella and Garry Newlove, as well as many others. We are aware of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend and we will continue to look at that.
I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for not being able to get through all 100 amendments that were tabled. I also need to leave time for the person whose new clause leads the group to respond.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
New clause 2, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Abolition of non-crime hate incidents
“(1) Non-crime hate incidents as a special category of incident to be recognised by police authorities are abolished. Reporting, recording and investigation of such incidents should occur only in the limited circumstances provided for in this section.
(2) For the purposes of Article 6(1) of the UK GDPR, section 35 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“the Act”) and Article 8 of the Law Enforcement Directive, the processing of relevant data by a police authority is unlawful.
(3) In this section, “relevant data” means personal data relating to the conduct or alleged of a data subject which is unlikely to constitute criminal conduct and which has been perceived by another person to be motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards one or more persons who have or who are or have been perceived to have one or more relevant characteristics and with that hostility or prejudice arising due to that or the perception of those protected characteristics.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the following are relevant characteristics—
(a) race,
(b) religion,
(c) sexual orientation,
(d) disability,
(e) transgender identity.
(5) Subsection (2) does not apply in respect of the processing of relevant data—
(a) pursuant to an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution,
(b) for the purposes of the internal administrative functions of the police authority.
(6) Subsection (2) does not apply in respect of the retention of a record (a “non-crime perception record”) of relevant data where a police officer (the “certifying officer”) of the rank of inspector or above certifies that in their opinion the retention of the non-crime perception record is likely materially to assist in the detection or prevention of criminal conduct which may occur in the future.
(7) Where a certifying officer certifies the retention of a non-crime perception record pursuant to subsection (6)—
(a) the certifying officer must include in the record a description of the future criminal conduct they have in mind and the reasons they believe that the retention of the record may assist in its detection or prevention,
(b) the relevant data which may be retained as part of the record may be no more than the certifying officer believes is likely materially to assist in the detection or prevention of criminal conduct,
(c) a copy of the record must be expeditiously provided to the data subject unless an officer of the of the rank of superintendent or above certifies that—
(i) the provision of the record to the data subject may interfere in the detection or prevention of criminal conduct, or
(ii) the officer is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to provide a copy of the record to the data subject.
(8) If the data subject objects to the retention of the non-crime perception record, subsection (6) does not apply unless a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above certifies that in their opinion the retention of the non-crime perception record is likely materially to assist in the detection or prevention of criminal conduct which may occur in the future.
(9) No police authority or police officer can be held under any circumstances to be under any duty to undertake the retention of any relevant data.
(10) After subsection 113B(3) of the Police Act 1997 insert—
“(3A) An enhanced criminal record certificate must not give the details of a relevant matter to the extent that doing so would result in the disclosure of relevant data as defined in section (The retention by the police of non-crime perception records) of the Crime and Policing Act 2025.”
(11) For subsection 39A(3) of the Police Act 1996 substitute—
“(3) No part of any Code of Practice issued by the College of Policing may be in a form which could be issued by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 60 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.”
(12) Section 60 the 2022 Act is to be amended as follows—
(a) the cross heading to be changed to “Non-crime perception records”,
(b) the section heading to be changed to “Code of practice relating to non-crime perception records”,
(c) in subsection (1) leave out from “by” to the end of the subsection and insert “of relevant data”,
(d) omit subsection (2),
(e) in subsection (3)(a), leave out “personal data relating to a hate incident” and insert “relevant data”,
(f) in subsections (3)(b), (c), (d) and (e), for “such personal data” substitute “relevant data”,
(g) in subsection (4)(a), for “personal data” substitute “relevant data”,
(h) in subsection (4)(b), leave out “personal data relating to the alleged perpetrator of a hate incident” and insert “relevant data relating to the alleged perpetrator”,
(i) in subsection (7), at end, insert “relevant data” has the meaning given by section (The retention by the police of non-crime perception records) of the Crime and Policing Act 2025”.
(13) Any code of practice previously issued under section 60 of the 2022 Act is deemed to be withdrawn.
(14) Within three months of the commencement of each calendar year, each police authority which is retaining non-crime perception records must—
(a) undertake a review of the relevant data by an independent person to ensure that any retention of such records is in compliance with the provisions of this section.
(b) publish a report in respect of the review prepared by the independent person including setting—
(i) the total number of non-crime perception records retained by the police authority;
(ii) the total number of data subject to which those records relate; and
(iii) the equivalent numbers of those records added in the previous year.
(15) In this section—
(a) “a police authority” means—
(i) a person specified or described in paragraphs 5 to 17 of Schedule 7 of the Act,
(ii) a person acting under the authority of such a person,
(b) the terms “data subject”, “processing” and “the UK GDPR” have the same meanings as under section 3 of the Act,
(c) “the Law Enforcement Directive” means the Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament,
(d) “the 2022 Act” means the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.”—(Matt Vickers.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Crime and Policing Bill
Diana Johnson ExcerptsTuesday 17th June 2025
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 June 2025 - (17 Jun 2025)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 53—Arranging or facilitating begging for gain.
Government new clause 54—Proving an offence under section 38.
Government new clause 55—Special measures for witnesses.
Government new clause 56—Causing internal concealment of item for criminal purpose.
Government new clause 57—Secretary of State guidance.
Government new clause 58—Department of Justice guidance.
Government new clause 59—Removal of limitation period in child sexual abuse cases.
Government new clause 60—Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards emergency workers.
Government new clause 61—Threatening or abusive behaviour likely to harass, alarm or distress emergency workers.
Government new clause 62—Interpretation of sections (Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards emergency workers) and (Threatening or abusive behaviour likely to harass, alarm or distress emergency workers).
Government new clause 63—Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices.
Government new clause 64—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): supplementary.
Government new clause 65—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): interpretation.
Government new clause 66—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): confidential information.
Government new clause 67—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): code of practice.
Government new clause 68—Extraction of online information: ports and border security.
Government new clause 69—Extraction of online information following agreement etc.
Government new clause 70—Lawful interception of communications.
Government new clause 71—Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred persons.
Government new clause 72—Meaning of “law enforcement employer”.
Government new clause 73—Application of section (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred person) to Secretary of State.
Government new clause 74—Application of section (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred person) to specified law enforcement employer.
Government new clause 75—Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists.
Government new clause 76—Application of section (Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists) to specified law enforcement employer.
Government new clause 77—Interpretation of sections (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred persons) to (Application of section (Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists) to specified law enforcement employer).
Government new clause 78—Special police forces: barred persons lists and advisory lists.
Government new clause 79—Consequential amendments.
Government new clause 80—Power to give directions to critical police undertakings.
Government new clause 81—Ports and border security: retention and copying of articles.
Government new clause 82—Extradition: cases where a person has been convicted.
Government new schedule 1—Amendments to Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
Government new schedule 2—Confiscation orders: Scotland.
Government new schedule 3—Special police forces: barred persons lists and advisory lists.
Amendment 157, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “The Anti-social” and insert—
“Subject to a review of existing anti-social behaviour powers under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2014 being conducted and completed by the Secretary of State within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Anti-social”.
Amendment 167, page 1, line 13, leave out “18” and insert “16”.
This amendment would lower the age to 16 at which a court can impose a respect order on a person to prevent them from engaging in anti-social behaviour.
Amendment 168, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(9A) If a court makes a respect order against a person (P) more than once, then P is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”
This amendment means that if a person gets more than one Respect Order, they are liable for a fine.
Amendment 169, page 2, line 30, leave out from “behaviour” to end of line 31 and insert
“has the same meaning as under section 2 of this Act.”
This amendment would give “anti-social behaviour” in clause 1 the same definition as in section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
Amendment 170, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
“D1 Power to move person down list for social housing
(1) A respect order may have the effect of moving any application the respondent may have for social housing to the end of the waiting list.”
This amendment would mean that a person who receives a respect order would move to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing, if applicable.
Amendment 171, page 8, line 2, at end insert—
“(4A) A person who commits further offences under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates' court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).””
This amendment sets out the penalties for repeated breaches of a respect order with a prison sentence of up to 5 years.
Amendment 158, in clause 2, page 9, line 35, at end insert—
“(4) Prior to issuing any guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must conduct a full consultation exercise.”
Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 17, line 23, insert—
“(3) To facilitate the ability of the Police, under the provisions of section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, as amended by subsection (1), to seize e-scooters or e-bikes that have been used in a manner which has caused alarm, distress or annoyance, the Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue a consultation on a registration scheme for the sale of electric bikes and electric scooters.
(4) The consultation must consider the merits of—
(a) requiring sellers to record the details of buyers, and
(b) verifying that buyers have purchased insurance.”
Amendment 172, in clause 9, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
“(c) section 33B (Section 33 offences: clean-up costs).”
Amendment 173, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
“(1A) Guidance issued about the enforcement of section 33 offences must ensure that, where a person is convicted of a relevant offence, they are liable for the costs incurred through loss or damage resulting from the offence.”
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State’s guidance on fly-tipping makes the person responsible for fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, liable for the costs of cleaning up.
Amendment 174, page 18, line 3, at end insert—
“(4A) The consultation undertaken by the Secretary of State must include an examination of establishing a penalty point fine to those found convicted of an offence under sections 33 or 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult on establishing a system for those who fly tip or leave litter to receive penalty points on their driving licence.
Amendment 175, in clause 25, page 30, line 24, leave out “4” and insert “14”.
This amendment would increase the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four to 14 years. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation recommended an increase in his review following the Southport attack.
Government amendments 24 to 33.
Amendment 176, in clause 35, page 50, line 38, at end insert—
“(4) If the offender has previous convictions for an offence under section 14 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (assault of a retail worker) or for shoplifting under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, the court must make a community order against the offender. The community order must include a tag, a ban, or a curfew.”
This amendment clause would require the courts to make a community order against repeat offenders of retail crime in order to restrict the offender’s liberty.
Government amendment 34.
Amendment 4, in clause 38, page 51, line 29, leave out “criminal conduct” and insert “conduct for criminal purposes”.
This amendment would expand the remit of the offence created under clause 38 to include exploiting a child into conduct for criminal purposes.
Amendment 7, page 51, line 31, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would remove the requirement that for an offence of child criminal exploitation to be committed, the perpetrator did not reasonably believe that the child was aged 18 or over.
Government amendment 35.
Amendment 5, in clause 38, page 51, line 37, leave out “criminal conduct” and insert “conduct for criminal purposes”.
This amendment would expand the remit of the offence created under clause 38 to include exploiting a child into conduct for criminal purposes. It is consequential on Amendment 4.
Amendment 6, page 52, line 2, leave out “or” and insert—
“(b) activity that is undertaken in order to facilitate or enable an offence under the law of England and Wales, or.”
This amendment would expand the remit of the offence created under clause 38 to include exploiting a child into conduct for criminal purposes.
Government amendments 36 to 49.
Amendment 8, in clause 53, page 61, line 5, after “(A)” insert ““aged 18 or over”.
This amendment would ensure children cannot commit an offence of cuckooing.
Government amendments 50 to 66.
Government motion to transfer subsection (4) of clause 59.
Government amendments 68 and 69.
Amendment 177, in clause 64, page 73, line 24, at end insert—
“4A) For the purpose of this section—
“Child” means a person under the age of 18.
“Grooming” means meeting or communicating (in person or online) with a child and or their network (on one or more occasion) with a view to intentionally arrange or facilitate child sexual abuse (in person or online) for an act including themselves or others.”
This amendment would introduce a legal definition of grooming.
Amendment 178, page 74, line 31, at end insert—
“70B Group-based sexual grooming of a child
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a court is considering the seriousness of a specified child sex offences,
(b) the offence is aggravated by group-based grooming, and
(c) the offender was aged 18 or over when the offence was committed.
(2) The court—
(a) must treat the fact that the offence is aggravated by group-based grooming as an aggravated factor, and
(b) must state in court that the offence is so aggravated.
(3) An offence is “aggravated by group-based grooming” if—
(a) the offence was facilitated by, or involved, the offender, who was involved in group-based grooming, or
(b) the offence was facilitated by, or involved, a person other than the offender grooming a person under the age of 18 and the offender knew, or could have reasonably been expected to know that said person was participating, or facilitating group-based grooming, or
(c) the offender intentionally arranges or facilitates something that the offender intends to do, intends another person to do, or believes that another person will do, in order to participate in group-based grooming.
(4) In this section “specified child sex offence” means—
(a) an offence within any of subsections (5) to (7), or
(b) an inchoate offence in relation to any such offence.
(5) An offence is within this subsection if it is—
(a) an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (taking etc indecent photograph of child),
(b) an offence under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent photograph of child),
(c) an offence under any of sections 5 to 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape and other offences against children under 13),
(d) an offence under any sections 9 to 12 of that Act (other child 25 sex offences),
(e) an offence under section 14 of that Act (arranging or facilitating commission of child sex offence),
(f) an offence under any of sections 16 to 19 of that Act (abuse of position of trust),
(g) an offence under section 25 or 26 of that Act (familial child sex offences), or
(h) an offence under any of sections 47 to 50 of that Act (sexual exploitation of children).
(6) An offence is within this subsection if it is—
(a) an offence under any of sections 1 to 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape, assault and causing sexual activity without consent),
(b) an offence under any of sections 30 to 41 of that Act (sexual offences relating to persons with mental disorder),
(c) an offence under any of sections 61 to 63 of that Act (preparatory offences), or
(d) an offence under any of sections 66 to 67A of that Act (exposure and voyeurism), and the victim or intended victim was under the age of 18.
(7) An offence is within this subsection if it is an offence under section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual activity in a public lavatory) and a person involved in the activity in question was under the age of 18.
(8) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “group-based grooming” is defined as a group of at least three adults whose purpose or intention is to commit a sexual offence against the same victim or group of victims who are under 18, or could reasonably be expected to be under 18.”
This amendment would introduce a specific aggravating factor in sentencing for those who participate in, or facilitate, group-based sexual offending.
Amendment 159, in clause 65, page 74, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) An officer may seek independent judicial authorisation to engage in conduct which is for the purpose of obtaining data from the person.
(2A) Authorised conduct may consist of an officer—
(a) scanning the information stored on the device using technology approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of ascertaining whether information stored on an electronic device includes child sexual abuse images,
(b) requiring the person to permit the scan, and
(c) requiring the person to take such steps as appear necessary to allow the scan to be performed.”
This amendment subjects any searches of electronic devices to prior authorisation by a judge.
Amendment 179, in clause 66, page 75, line 16, leave out subsection (7).
This amendment would keep an individual under the duty to report child abuse despite the belief that someone else may have reported the abuse to the relevant authority.
Amendment 3, page 75, line 31, at end insert—
“(2) the duty under subsection (1) applies to—
(a) any person undertaking work for the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, or any other Christian denomination on either a paid or voluntary basis,
(b) any clergy of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, or any other Christian denomination, notwithstanding any canonical law regarding the seal of confession, and
(c) any person undertaking work on either a paid or voluntary basis, or holding a leadership position, within the Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or Sikh faiths, or any other religion, faith or belief system.”
This amendment would ensure that the duty to report suspected child sex abuse covered everyone working for the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church whether paid or on a voluntary basis, including clergy, as well as all other faith groups. Reports received by clergy through confession would not be exempt from the duty to report.
Amendment 10, page 76, line 28, at end insert—
“(10) A person who fails to fulfil the duty under subsection (1) commits an offence.
(11) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse that a failure to report a suspected child sex offence should be a criminal offence.
Amendment 22, page 77, line 13, at end insert
“or
(c) an activity involving a “position of trust” as defined in sections 21, 22 and 22A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that any person working in a position of trust as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, should be designated a mandatory reporter.
Amendment 11, in clause 68, page 78, line 19, at end insert—
“(7) The sixth case is where P witnesses a child displaying sexualised, sexually harmful or other behaviour, physical signs of abuse or consequences of sexual abuse, such as pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease, to an extent that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed.
(8) The seventh case is where P witnesses a person (A) behaving in the presence of a child in a way that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that A may have committed a child sex offence.
(9) A failure to comply with the duty under subsection (1) is not an offence where the reason to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed arises from subsection (7) or subsection (8).”
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that there should be a duty to report where a person recognises the indicators of child sexual abuse. Failure to report in these instances would not attract a criminal sanction.
Government amendment 70.
Amendment 9, in clause 80, page 84, line 22, at end insert—
“(b) if the name change is by deed poll, 7 days prior to submitting an application for change of name (whichever is earlier), or”.
This amendment would require relevant sex offenders to notify the police of an intention to change a name 7 days before making an application to do so by deed poll.
Amendment 180, page 85, line 26, at end insert—
“(11) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.”
This amendment imposes a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they change their name.
Amendment 181, in clause 81, page 86, line 41, at end insert—
“(10) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.”
This amendment imposes a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they are absent from their sole or main residence.
Amendment 182, in clause 82, page 88, line 25, at end insert—
“(9) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine at Level 5 of the standard scale.”
This amendment imposes an unlimited fine if a relevant registered sex offender does not notify police if they are entering a premises where children are presented.
Government amendments 71 to 73.
Amendment 19, in clause 94, page 115, line 25, at end insert
“, or
(c) the person does so being reckless as to whether another person will be injured, aggrieved or annoyed.”
This amendment would expand the offence for administering harmful substances, including by spiking, to include those who do so being reckless.
Amendment 20, in clause 95, page 116, line 37, at end insert—
“(6A) In determining a sentence for an offence committed under this section, the Court is to treat encouragement or assistance of self-harm, when preceded by a history of abuse perpetrated against the victim/other person by D, as an aggravating factor.
(6B) The criminal liability for D, when the other person mentioned in subsection 1(a) or 1(b) commits suicide, and where D has subjected that person to physical, psychiatric or psychological harm, is the offence of murder.”
This amendment treats encouragement or assistance of serious self-harm when preceded by a history of abuse as an aggravating factor in sentencing with explicit recognition of murder as the criminal liability for perpetrators who cause serious physical, psychiatric, or psychological harm that directly results in, or significantly contributes to, suicide.
Government amendments 74 to 76.
Amendment 14, in clause 102, page 124, line 16, leave out from subsection (1) to “where” in line 29 and insert—
“(1) A person who possesses a SIM farm without good reason or lawful authority commits an offence. For the meaning of ‘SIM farm’, see section 104.
(2) In subsection (1) the reference to a good reason for possessing a SIM farm includes in particular possessing it for a purpose connected with—
(a) providing broadcasting services,
(b) operating or maintaining a public transport service,
(c) operating or maintaining an electronic communications network (as defined by section 32 of the Communications Act 2003),
(d) tracking freight or monitoring it in any other way, or
(e) providing or supporting an internet access service or the conveyance of signals (as defined by section 32 of the Communications Act 2003).
This subsection does not limit subsection (1).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1),”.
This amendment would mean that a person would only commit an offence if they possessed a SIM farm without a good reason, such as for broadcasting purposes, or lawful authority.
Amendment 15, in clause 103, page 124, line 37, leave out from subsection (1) to “prove” on page 125, line 2, and insert—
“(1) A person who supplies a SIM farm to another person commits an offence unless subsection (2) applies.
(2) It is not an offence for a person to supply a SIM farm under this section provided the person (‘the supplier’) can”.
This amendment would mean that a person would only commit an offence if they supplied a SIM farm without taking reasonable steps to confirm that the person receiving the SIM farm would have a good reason, including for broadcasting purposes, or lawful authority to possess the SIM farm.
Amendment 16, in clause 104, page 125, line 34, after “interchangeably,” insert “and designed primarily” and line 39, at end insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), a device is not a SIM farm if it uses five or more SIM cards simultaneously or interchangeably for the purposes of provided data only services or internet access services or conveyance services.”
This amendment would amend the meaning of “SIM farm” to cover only devices that are primarily used for calls and text messages and would exclude devices primarily used for data connectivity such as Bonded Cellular Devices used by broadcasters.
Amendment 164, page 128, line 5, leave out clause 108.
Amendment 184, in clause 108, page 128, line 10, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
“(2) No offence is committed under this section where a person wears or otherwise uses the item for—”
This amendment would ensure that Clause 108 does not apply to people wearing the hijab, niqab or wearing a mask for health reasons.
Amendment 185, page 128, line 25, at end insert—
“(6) Within a year of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must review the equality impact of the provisions of this section, and lay a report of the review before both Houses of Parliament within a month of its publication.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the equality impact of the provisions of Clause 108.
Amendment 165, page 128, line 26, leave out clause 109.
Amendment 166, page 129, line 28, leave out clause 110.
Government amendments 77 to 86.
Amendment 161, page 131, line 29, leave out clause 114.
This amendment would delete Clause 114 which would place restrictions on the right to protest near places of worship.
Amendment 160, in clause 115, page 133, line 12, at end insert—
“(4) Prior to imposing conditions under either Section 12 or 14, the senior officer of the Police Force in question must confirm that live facial recognition will not be in use, unless a new code of practice for the use of live facial recognition surveillance in public spaces in England and Wales had previously been presented to, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.”
Amendment 21, in clause 120, page 140, line 37, at end insert—
“(8) The authorised persons listed in Clause 71A may not use the information referenced in subsection (1) for the purposes of biometric searches using facial recognition technology”
Government amendment 87.
Amendment 162, page 148, line 1, leave out clause 126.
Amendment 163, in clause 126, page 148, line 13, at end insert—
“(3) Within a year of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must review the human rights and equality impact of the provisions of this section, and lay the report of the review before both Houses of Parliament within a month of its publication.”
Government amendments 88 to 91.
Amendment 183, in clause 141, page 168, line 5, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
“(7A) A youth diversion order must specify the period for which it has effect, up to a maximum of 12 months.
(7B) An assessment must be taken of the respondent before the conclusion of a youth diversion order to determine if they continue to hold extremist views or pose a terror threat.
(7C) An assessment must be made by a qualified expert in extremism and counterterrorism.
(7D) Assessments taken by the respondent’s youth offending team must be reviewed by an external expert with no pre-existing relationship to the respondent.
(7E) If the respondent is assessed as holding extremist views or as a terror threat the youth offending team or a chief officer of police must apply to an appropriate court for the youth offending order to be extended up to a maximum of 12 months.
(7F) All provisions, prohibitions and requirements of a youth diversion order remain in effect until the respondent has been assessed as holding no extremist views or posing a terror threat.”
This amendment would give the police the ability to apply for youth diversion orders in cases of youth extremism and terror risks. The diversion orders would conclude automatically after a maximum of twelve months without an assessment as to whether the individual remained a terror risk or extremist.
Government amendments 92 to 101, and 134 to 151.
Amendment 23, in schedule 9, page 229, line 15, at end insert—
“(11) Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (time limit for summary offences) does not apply to an offence under subsection (1).”
This amendment allows the offence of taking or recording intimate photograph or film to be tried by a Magistrates’ Court at any time by disapplying the six-month time limit in s.127 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.
Government amendments 152 to 156 and 102 to 133.
Dame Diana Johnson
Before I speak to the key Government amendments tabled on Report, I quickly remind the House why the Government have brought forward this Bill. It is a vital part of our safer streets mission, and contains a host of measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, retail and knife crime, and the epidemic of violence against women and girls, and to restore confidence and trust in policing.
It is worth reminding the House that on the previous Government’s watch, shoplifting soared to record-high levels; there was a 70% increase in their last two years in office alone. Street theft was rapidly rising; it was up by almost 60% in just the last two years. Antisocial behaviour was rampant in our towns and cities, with 1 million incidents last year. In the year to June 2024, the crime survey of England and Wales estimated that 25% of people perceived antisocial behaviour to be a fairly or very big problem in their area. That is the highest level since at least March 2013, over a decade ago. Violence and abuse against shop workers was at epidemic levels. The British Retail Consortium said that incidents of violence and abuse against shop workers stood at more than 2,000 a day in ’23-24—up by almost 50% on the previous year, and nearly treble the pre-pandemic figures from 2019 to 2020.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I have been down to the local Co-op in Chesterfield and met one of the shop workers, who faced a terrible attack. Luckily, the people were jailed, but in so many cases there is a sense that shoplifters are able to walk out the door without anything being done. The traumatic effect that this has on shop workers has to be seen to be believed. Would the Minister say that the message the Bill sends to anyone who wants to walk out of a store after doing these things is that the police will come after them, and they will end up going to jail?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend puts that very well. Attacks on retail workers are totally unacceptable. The Co-op and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers have done important work to highlight this issue and ensure that measures on it will be enacted through the Bill.
The previous Conservative Government wrote off a number of the crime types I have just talked about as low-level crime, and allowed them to spiral out of control. At the same time, they decimated local neighbourhood policing teams, causing untold damage to our communities, as we all know.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
On neighbourhood policing, I welcome the fact that we have some extra capacity coming into the west midlands, but I have not yet had clarification on whether the money that is coming to the west midlands will cover all the extra national insurance costs. The Labour police and crime commissioner is already saying that his budgets are underfunded under the Labour Government.
Dame Diana Johnson
The right hon. Lady and I have had this discussion before, and I have made it very clear that the national insurance increases have been funded through the money that is available to police forces this year. That is in stark contrast to the situation under the previous Government, who did not make a proper allocation for the police pay award for last year. This Government had to supplement it when we came into power in July.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister join me in celebrating the five new neighbourhood police officers we have in Harlow? I cannot take all the credit for them, because I only taught one of them maths.
Dame Diana Johnson
Absolutely. I think we will have 3,000 additional neighbourhood police officers by the end of March next year, as part of our commitment to putting in place 13,000 neighbourhood police officers by the end of this Parliament.
It has been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that it commands broad support across the House. I hope that over the next two days, right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House can come together and recognise the shared goals that the Bill fulfils. The Government are tireless in our drive to make our streets safer.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The right hon. Lady is setting out very clearly what the Bill is intended to be, and has rightly pointed to the cross-party support for the main thrust of it. Does she agree that that unanimity of purpose is put in grave jeopardy by the Christmas tree-ing of significant amendments relating to abortion? I know that she had a personal interest in this issue in opposition. These very dramatic changes to abortion law require a much fuller debate in this place than can be had on an amendment to a Bill that has the purpose that the right hon. Lady has set out. The Government never intended the Bill to be a Christmas tree Bill, but it has become one. The House runs the risk of fracturing its unanimity of purpose if those amendments are pressed to a vote and become part of the legislation.
Dame Diana Johnson
I do not want to try Mr Speaker’s patience, but time has been allocated for that debate this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of this House, and he will know that crime Bills often become Christmas tree Bills due to their very nature, as Members wish to table amendments on all sorts of areas of the criminal law. We have the Bill that is before us, and the amendments that have been tabled.
The Government and, I hope, other parties in this House are committed to making our streets safer. Where there are gaps in the law, we will not hesitate to address them, and the Government amendments that have been tabled are very much directed to our achieving that end. I will start by going through them. New clause 54 will aid legal certainty and the consistent application of the new offence of child criminal exploitation. The new clause makes clearer to the courts that the offence is focused on the criminal intentions of the adult only, rather than those of the child. It puts beyond doubt that the offence captures circumstances in which the child is used as an entirely innocent agent and cannot satisfy all the elements of the intended criminal conduct themselves. The new clause also puts beyond doubt that the offence is capable of capturing earlier-stage grooming; as such, it addresses the concerns raised in amendments 4 to 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). It will also cover perpetrators who arrange for another person to exploit a child on their behalf. At the request of the Scottish Government and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, we are also extending the offence of child criminal exploitation to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
New clause 56 criminalises the highly exploitative and harmful practice of coerced internal concealment. It is commonly associated with county lines drug dealing, and involves a child or adult being intentionally caused to conceal drugs or other objects—such as weapons or SIM cards—inside their body to facilitate criminality. The new clause creates two new offences. The first targets perpetrators who intentionally cause a child to conceal a specified item inside their body. The second applies in cases where an adult victim is caused to internally conceal a specified item through compulsion, coercion or deception, or through controlling or manipulative behaviour, and where the perpetrator intends, knows or reasonably suspects that the item has been or may be used in connection with criminal conduct. These new offences will carry a maximum penalty of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Bill applies to England and Wales, but it is important for knowledge and information to be shared with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, for example, so that they are aware of what is happening here—and people may move from England or Wales to Northern Ireland or Scotland. We should ensure that information can be exchanged between police forces and other authorities here and those in the devolved Administrations: if we want security and safety for all our people, that really needs to happen.
Dame Diana Johnson
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of sharing information, good practice and policy development, and I hope that that will go from strength to strength under this Government.
Let me now say something about abusive behaviour towards emergency workers. As we all know, they put themselves in harm’s way to protect us every day, and they deserve robust protection in return. That includes protection from racial and religious abuse, which is not only deeply harmful but undermines the values of decency, respect and public service. Unlike most people, emergency workers cannot walk away from abuse. When they enter private homes they do so not by choice, but because it is their duty to do so. Whether they are responding to a 999 call, providing urgent medical care or attending an incident involving risk to life or property, they are legally and professionally required to remain and act. They cannot remove themselves from the situation simply because they are being abused. The law must recognise that and ensure that they are properly protected in every setting, including private dwellings.
At present, there is a clear and pressing gap in the law. Although existing legislation provides important protections against racially and religiously aggravated offences in public places, they do not extend to abuse that occurs inside private homes. Policing stakeholders have highlighted that gap, and have emphasised the need for stronger safeguards for emergency workers. New clauses 60 to 62 therefore introduce specific offences relating to the use of racially or religiously threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards emergency workers acting in the course of their duties. Crucially, that includes incidents that take place within a private dwelling.
This is a focused and proportionate measure. It does not interfere with freedom of expression; rather, it reinforces the principle that emergency workers should be able to carry out their critical roles without being subjected to hate or hostility because of their race or religion. I hope that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) will agree that these Government new clauses achieve the underlying purpose of her new clause 120.
Clause 112 strengthens the protection afforded to nationally significant war memorials by providing for a new offence of climbing on specified war memorials without lawful excuse. We believe that the same protection should now be extended to other nationally significant memorials, starting with the statue of Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square. The Churchill statue, which is a prominent national symbol of Britain’s wartime leadership, has repeatedly been targeted and climbed on during protests in recent years. Including it within the new offence ensures the consistent protection of one of the foremost culturally significant monuments linked to national remembrance. Amendments 77 to 84 therefore expand the scope of the new offence to include other memorials of national significance, as well as adding the statue of Sir Winston Churchill to the list of specified memorials set out in schedule 12.
New clauses 63 to 70 and 81 and new schedule 1 deal with remotely stored electronic data, clarifying powers for law enforcement agencies to access information stored online and extract evidence or intelligence for criminal investigations, to protect the public from the risk of terrorism and safeguard our national security. The powers will apply when law enforcement agencies have lawfully seized an electronic device, as part of national security examination at UK borders or when a person provides his or her agreement. New clause 70 also amends the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to permit the interception of access-related communications, such as two-factor authentication codes. Those reforms are necessary to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have clear powers to access vital evidence and intelligence when investigating serious offences, including child sexual abuse, fraud, terrorism and threats to national security, at a time when more and more information is stored remotely in the cloud rather than on people’s electronic devices.
Let me now turn to new clauses 72 to 79 and new schedule 3. A crucial aspect of our safer streets mission is to rebuild public confidence in policing. Among other things, that means ensuring that only those who are fit to serve can hold the office of constable or otherwise work in our law enforcement agencies. As well as strengthening the vetting regime for police officers, the new clauses and the new schedule require the National Crime Agency, the British Transport police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the Ministry of Defence police to establish barred persons lists and advisory lists, similar to those created in 2017 for territorial police forces in England and Wales The chief officers of these forces, and others, will be under a legal duty to consult the lists before employing or appointing an individual to prevent those dismissed from policing from rejoining another force in the future.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced a new police efficiency and collaboration programme to cut waste and bureaucracy. It is important that undertakings providing services to the police are delivering the most benefit, and unlocking the efficiency savings needed by forces to achieve better outcomes for the public. Announcing the Government’s intention to consult on establishing a new national centre of policing, the Home Secretary said that she envisaged the body’s being responsible for existing shared services, national IT capabilities, and force-hosted national capabilities. It is right that the Home Secretary has the powers to ensure that those capabilities are fully aligned with the priorities of the police efficiency and collaboration programme, and that they are adequately prepared for transition into the new body with no disruption to service delivery. New clause 80 ensures that the Home Secretary has the power to direct undertakings providing critical services and capabilities to policing to take appropriate action to strengthen their service delivery to better deliver our efficiencies programme, and, ahead of any future legislation to establish the national centre for policing, to remove any barriers to the transition of services into the new centre.
We tabled new clauses 52 and 53 against the backdrop of the Government’s commitment to bring into force the repeal of the outdated Vagrancy Act 1824, which criminalises begging and many forms of rough sleeping. It is generally the case that when begging reaches the threshold of antisocial behaviour there are already sufficient powers available to the police and others to address that, but we have identified two gaps in the law that will arise from the repeal of the 1824 Act, which the new clauses would address. New clause 52 makes it a criminal offence for any person to arrange or facilitate another person’s begging for gain. Organised begging, which is often facilitated by criminal gangs, exploits vulnerable individuals and can undermine the public’s sense of safety. This provision makes it unlawful for anyone to organise others to beg—for example, by driving people to places for them to beg. That will allow the police to crack down on the organised crime gangs that use this exploitative technique to obtain cash for illicit activity.
Chris Vince
The Minister is being very generous in taking interventions. Having worked for a homelessness charity, I have seen this issue at first hand. Does she agree that when there is an organisation behind the begging, the person forced to beg is actually being exploited, so these laws will help to tackle a form of exploitation?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend makes that point very well. These individuals are exploited by serious and organised criminal gangs, and we are going to clamp down on those gangs’ activity.
New clause 53 re-enacts the offence of being on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose. It will make it an offence for a person to trespass on any premises—that covers any building, part of a building or enclosed area—with the intention of committing an offence. Without this replacement offence, the police would be able to rely only on the trespassing provisions in the Theft Act 1968, which covers trespassing only in relation to burglary. It is important that the police have the powers to tackle all cases of trespassing with intent to commit an offence, and new clause 53 will ensure that.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister both on the Bill as it stands and on today’s amendments. Near my constituency, there has been a troubling spate of recent incidents in which younger people, in some cases encouraged by older men, are filming themselves catapulting and injuring wildlife, and placing that footage on TikTok. The footage is deeply unpleasant, and I do not recommend anybody looks at it. Would the Minister agree that that behaviour goes well beyond antisocial behaviour, and may at some point require a ban perhaps on the sale of catapults, but certainly on their use for that purpose?
Dame Diana Johnson
Sadly, that is not the first time I have heard about such appalling behaviour of attacking and injuring animals using catapults. I will certainly be raising that with my counterparts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to see what more we can do. I am aware that this issue needs to be looked at, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it.
Amendments 24 to 33 will require operators of collection points for items such as knives and crossbows to carry out the same enhanced age verification checks before handing over knives to the buyer, or in the case of crossbows and crossbow parts, to the buyer or even the hirer of the item. Clause 30 imposes similar requirements on couriers.
Clause 128 introduces costs and expenses protections for law enforcement agencies in civil recovery proceedings, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, in the High Court or the Court of Session in Scotland. As currently drafted, it is not clear how the cost protection measure applies to pre-existing cases, particularly where cases have started before the provision comes into force but costs are incurred after the provision comes into force. As a result, it may be difficult and costly to determine which costs are covered. Amendment 89 provides that cost protections apply to any case where proceedings start after the measure comes into force.
Schedule 15 to the Bill introduces reforms to the confiscation regime in England and Wales in respect of the proceeds of crime. Among other things, the reforms make provision for the provisional discharge of confiscation orders made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, allowing outstanding confiscation orders to be placed in abeyance when there is no realistic prospect of recovery in the immediate term and all enforcement steps have been exhausted. Amendments to schedule 15 extend the provisional discharge measures to confiscation orders made under legislation predating the 2002 Act.
Chapter 1 of part 14 provides for youth diversion orders, which are a new counter-terrorism risk management tool for young people who, on the balance of probabilities, the court assesses to have committed a terrorism offence or an offence with a terrorism connection, or to have engaged in conduct likely to facilitate a terrorism offence, and where the court considers it necessary to make the order for the purposes of protecting the public from terrorism or serious harm.
The amendments to clause 139 make a change to the scope of YDOs to ensure that applications can be made for individuals up to and including 21-year-olds. Currently, a court may make a YDO in respect of a person aged 10 to 21, but exclusive of 21-year-olds. Following further engagement with operational partners on the types of cases that could benefit from a YDO, we have concluded that this change would increase the operational utility of the YDO and ensure that it can be considered as an intervention in a wider variety of cases involving young people.
Clause 141(2) enables a YDO to include prohibitions or requirements relating to the respondent’s possession or use of electronic devices. The amendments to this clause set out a non-exhaustive list of some of the most common or intrusive requirements that may be imposed to support the police’s ability to monitor compliance with restrictions on electronic devices, providing a clearer statutory footing for imposing such requirements. For example, it would allow the court to impose a requirement on someone subject to a YDO to enable the police to access their device for the purposes of checking compliance with restrictions such as accessing specific websites or applications. It would allow the police to identify harmful online activity at an earlier stage and intervene before it escalates. As with other YDO measures, the court would need to assess that any monitoring requirements are necessary and proportionate for the purposes of protecting the public from a risk of terrorism or serious harm.
Technical amendments are also required to clauses 142 and 150 relating respectively to the definition of “police detention” for Scotland and Northern Ireland and to the appeals process in Northern Ireland. The amendments will adapt the relevant provisions for the purposes of the law in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The amendments to clause 151 provide that, where a person ceases to have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with notification requirements but continues to fail to comply, they commit an offence.
The other Government amendments in this group, which make necessary refinements to existing provisions in the Bill, were detailed in the letter that I sent last week to the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), a copy of which has been placed in the Library. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will therefore seek to respond to the non-Government amendments in this group when winding up. For now, I commend the Government amendments to the House.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to Members for setting out the case for their amendments, and I will seek to respond to as many Members as possible in the remaining time available.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), tabled amendments 167 to 183, which echo many of the amendments considered in Committee. I do not propose to repeat the considered responses that my ministerial colleagues and I provided at that stage, but I will deal with a couple of the amendments to which the shadow Minister referred today.
Amendment 175 deals with the possession of weapons with intent to use unlawful violence. It seeks to increase the maximum sentence for possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon with the intention to use unlawful violence from four years to 14. Increasing the maximum penalty for that offence in isolation, without looking at other possession offences, would result in inconsistency in the law in this area. We have set the maximum penalty for the “possession with intent” offence at four years’ imprisonment to be consistent with the maximum penalties for all other knife-related possession offences. We will conduct a review of the maximum penalties for knife-related offences, and establish whether they are still appropriate.
The shadow Minister said that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation had recommended that the sentence for the new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to cause violence should be increased substantially. In his recent report, the independent reviewer recommended the creation of a new offence for cases where an individual prepares to kill more than two people. He said:
“If this offence is created, then there is no need to reconsider the maximum sentence for the proposed offence of possessing an article with violent intent under the Crime and Policing Bill.”
As I have said, the Government are considering creating such an offence, so increasing the maximum sentence for the new offence of possessing an article with violent intent is unnecessary. We will debate the matter further tomorrow, when we consider the shadow Minister’s new clause 143.
The shadow Minister also tabled, and referred to, amendments 172 and 173, which would make those responsible for fly-tipping
“liable for the costs of cleaning up.”
When local authorities prosecute fly-tippers, on conviction, a cost order can already be made by the court, so that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. While sentencing is a matter for the courts, guidance on presenting court cases produced by the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, which the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chairs, explains that prosecutors should consider applying for compensation for the removal of waste, and we will consider building on that advice in the statutory guidance issued under clause 9. Amendment 174 concerns points on driving licences as a penalty for fly-tipping. Again, sentencing is a matter for the courts, but I will ask my counterparts at DEFRA, who are responsible for policy on fly-tipping, to consider the benefits of enabling the endorsement of penalty points for fly-tippers.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) spoke to amendment 160 on the use of live facial recognition in the policing of protests. Live facial recognition is a valuable policing tool that helps to keep people safe. Its use is already governed by the Human Rights Act 1998 and data protection laws. I do, however, recognise the need to assess whether a bespoke legislation framework is needed, and we will set out our plans on this later in the year.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
On facial recognition, does the Minister agree that my amendment 21 would stop the police accessing everybody’s driving licences to use them for complete surveillance, which is not the intention of the Bill?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I probably will not have time to go into detail, but the amendment is not required because what my hon. Friend describes is not what the Bill is intended to do. I am very happy to speak to her outside the Chamber about that, but I reassure her that that is not its intention.
On amendment 157, the Home Office regularly engages with frontline delivery partners and practitioners to understand how the antisocial behaviour powers are being used, and their effectiveness in preventing and tackling ASB. That is why the Bill includes measures to strengthen the powers available to police and local authorities. New requirements in the Bill for local agencies to provide information about ASB to the Government will further enhance our understanding of how the ASB powers are used to tackle antisocial behaviour.
On amendment 158, I want to make it clear that housing injunctions and youth injunctions are not novel. They are already provided for in legislation in the form of the civil injunction, which is being split into three separate orders: the respect order, the youth injunction and the housing injunction. The youth and housing injunctions retain elements of the existing civil injunction that are not covered by the new respect orders—namely, elements relating to offenders under 18 and housing-related nuisance ASB. I also assure the House that any revisions to the ASB statutory guidance are extensively consulted on with relevant stakeholders, including frontline practitioners.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, also spoke to amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), which would apply the duty to report child sexual abuse to anyone working or volunteering in any capacity for religious, belief or faith groups. I know that she has had an opportunity to discuss that amendment in recent days with the Minister who has responsibility for safeguarding.
Turning to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), I thought it was very helpful and useful for the House to hear his experience and knowledge of the issues involving Jehovah’s Witness groups, and he brought to life what it means when such reports are made.
On amendment 10, the Government do not consider that it would be proportionate to provide for a criminal sanction that may inadvertently create a chilling effect on those who wish to volunteer with children or enter certain professions. We are creating a specific offence of preventing or deterring a person from complying with the duty to report, and anyone who seeks deliberately to prevent someone from fulfilling their mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse will face the full force of the law.
Dame Diana Johnson
I will continue, because I need to cover other amendments that have been tabled.
On amendment 11, assessing the signs and indications of abuse can be complex and subjective, particularly for the very large number of non-experts that this duty will apply to, many of whom are engaging with children infrequently or irregularly. We have therefore chosen to focus the duty on scenarios in which a reporter has been given an unambiguous reason to believe that they are in receipt of an allegation of child sexual abuse.
Amendment 22 seeks to add a reference to the legislative definition of “positions of trust” in schedule 7. However, a person occupies a position of trust only in relation to specific sexual offences committed against a specific child, and the term’s value as a definition for a reporter of abuse is therefore limited. The amendment also has the potential to create confusing duplication, given the significant overlap between regulated activity with children and positions of trust. The list of activities in schedule 7 has been drawn up to set out activities involving positions of trust that may not be adequately covered by the definition of regulated activity. The Government will of course keep this list under review, and amend it if necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) spoke to amendment 20, which relates to the new broader offence of encouraging or assisting self-harm in clause 95. She made a very passionate speech on this issue, and I know that she, too, has met the Minister to discuss it in recent days. On sentencing, the courts must already consider the circumstances of each case, including aggravating and mitigating factors, and follow relevant guidelines set by the independent Sentencing Council. Where a defendant has previous convictions, this is already recognised as a statutory aggravating factor in sentencing.
On whether a charge of murder should be brought in the circumstances set out in the amendment, I have to say to my hon. Friend that the amendment is wholly inconsistent with the criminal offence of murder, which has different elements that must be met before a person can be convicted. That said, it is important to recognise that where the encouragement or assistance results in suicide, the separate offence of encouraging or assisting suicide applies; manslaughter may be charged if there is a direct link between the abuse and the suicide.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke to amendment 161, which aims to delete clause 114. The clause will allow the police to impose conditions on a protest near a place of worship if the police have a reasonable belief that the protest may deter individuals from accessing the place of worship for religious activities, even if that effect is not intended. That gives the police total clarity on how and when they can protect places of worship, while respecting the right to peaceful protest.
A number of hon. and right hon. Members spoke about spiking, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) and for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), as well as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who tabled amendment 19. Before I say anything else, I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned on this issue for many years, including families and campaign groups. Richard Graham, a former Member of this House, was a pioneer of the case for bringing forward a spiking amendment.
As discussed in Committee, the offence as drafted already captures a wide range of criminal behaviours, which cover both spiking and non-spiking incidents; for example, it covers the victim being pepper sprayed. As for the reference to a specific intent to “injure, aggrieve or annoy”, that wording is of long standing and has been widely interpreted by the courts. Every case will be judged on the facts. For instance, if someone administers a harmful substance as a prank, they would likely be found to have intended to “annoy” or “aggrieve”. The broadness of the new offence, and the increase in the maximum penalty as compared to the penalty for the existing offence under section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, is, in the Government’s view, sufficient. Introducing recklessness as an alternative to intent risks over-complicating the law and is unnecessary for securing appropriate convictions.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East spent a lot of time looking at this issue, so I want to address it. The spiking clause in the Bill is modelled on the offence under the 1861 Act, which does not have a recklessness test. In the 2004 case of Gantz, an intention to “loosen up” the victim—he referred to that intention in the example he gave today—was covered; it may be helpful for him to reflect on that. We also understand that as recently as last month, a person was convicted of spiking another person “as a joke”. We therefore deem that the inclusion of “recklessness” is unnecessary to ensure the appropriate convictions that we are looking for with this new offence. However, we are very happy to continue to have conversations about this to ensure that we get the law absolutely right.
Many other speeches were made today that I would like to comment on, but I am running swiftly out of time. In my earlier comments, I referred to amendments 4 to 8 from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). I fully understand why amendment 2 was tabled by the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), but those who cycle have a duty to do so safely and in accordance with the highway code, and they are wholly responsible and liable for their actions.
In conclusion, I hope that in the light of the responses I have given to the amendments today, Members will not press them. I commend new clause 52 to the House.
Firearms Licensing: Sound Moderators
Diana Johnson Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
The Government are today publishing their response to the public consultation that was undertaken by the previous Government on a proposal to remove the firearms accessory known as a sound moderator from firearms licensing controls. The consultation ran between 21 February and 2 April 2024.
A sound moderator can be attached to a rifle barrel to reduce the sound and flash when the rifle is fired. It reduces the sound of the shot by around three quarters, and accordingly these accessories are used to protect shooters’ hearing, to reduce the disturbance to others in the vicinity of shoots, and to stop shooters being temporarily blinded by the muzzle flash of a shot. They are entirely inert objects containing no moving parts and do not of themselves create a risk to public safety. They are, however, currently defined as a firearm in the Firearms Act 1968, and therefore they are subject to the requirement to be licensed by the police.
The Government have decided to remove sound moderators from the requirement to be licensed, and that doing so will not create any public safety risk or impact in any way the strength of our existing firearms controls. We do, however, see merit in making it a requirement for a person to be in possession of a valid firearms certificate, issued by the police, in order to lawfully possess a sound moderator. This will ensure that these accessories are held lawfully only by those with a legitimate purpose.
The public consultation also sought views on whether it would be appropriate to use a legislative reform order, made under section 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, if it were decided to deregulate sound moderators. Having given careful consideration to this, the Government’s view is that it would not be appropriate to use such an order, given that this will require a change to the legal definition of a firearm set out in the Firearms Act 1968. The Government are therefore of the view that this change should be made through primary legislation, and we will therefore seek to make this change when parliamentary time allows.
A copy of the Government response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS705]
Police Presence on High Streets
Diana Johnson Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Furniss.
I start, of course, by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for making such a passionate and eloquent speech on behalf of her constituents, and for what she said about her fight—indeed, her mission—to take back Erdington High Street. I think she said that she wanted to make her voice and her community’s voice heard; she has certainly done that this afternoon. It was clear that Erdington deserved better than it was getting and she has delivered that improvement, so she should be very proud of that.
It has been a really wide-ranging debate with lots of local and national flavour. Many different areas and constituencies have been referred to, and I am grateful to all the Members who have spoken today. The fact that it has been such a comprehensive debate reflects the significance that is attached to these issues by us as parliamentarians and by our constituents.
Before I respond to some of the specific points that were raised, I will be really clear about this Government’s position. We believe wholeheartedly and unreservedly in the value of a visible and responsive police presence in our communities. As we have heard, that is especially important on high streets and in town centres.
It is very encouraging indeed to hear about initiatives that have made a real difference, such as Operation Fearless in Erdington, in Birmingham. As I have already said, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington for her work. I also commend the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, the chief constable of West Midlands police, Craig Guildford, and the assistant chief constable, Jen Mattinson, for driving this initiative forward for the community.
Across the country, however, far more needs to be done, and we need to build on the work of Operation Fearless and similar operations around the country. In recent years, too many neighbourhoods have been plagued by antisocial behaviour and crime, with shoplifting and street theft in particular surging. As those offences have shot up, we all know the reality—neighbourhood policing was eroded under previous Governments. Actually, let us be clear: it was slashed by previous Governments.
The impact of that is very well documented. Across the country, the belief set in among local businesses and residents that police were not on the streets. Antisocial behaviour and shop theft were treated as low level, and if people called the police, nobody came and nothing was done.
I think we all agree now that that is totally unacceptable and needs to be fixed. That is why this Government have made rebuilding neighbourhood policing a focus of our safer streets mission, which is central to the Prime Minister’s plan for change. Under the mission, we are aiming to halve violence against women and girls and knife crime in a decade, tackle shop theft, street crime and antisocial behaviour, and improve trust in the criminal justice system. All those aims are tied in some way to another of the mission’s core strands: rebuilding the neighbourhood policing model. Without a strong local police footprint, our communities are left exposed and people suffer. Put simply, neighbourhood policing is the beating heart of our law enforcement system. After years of neglect, this Government will restore it to full health.
I also want to make a comment about police funding and resources, because a number of hon. Members have talked about that this afternoon. Clearly, the funding formula is the one we inherited. We have been in power for 11 months, but we have been clear that we will embark on police reform, and there is a White Paper coming in the next few months. I want to make clear to hon. Members this afternoon that, within that, there will undoubtedly have to be a discussion about finances and resources for policing.
Let me turn to the points that have been raised. We have already made £200 million available to forces to kick-start year one of our programme, which will support the first step of delivering 13,000 additional officers into neighbourhood policing roles. Like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), I welcome PC Coyle to his new role in Durham. I also pay tribute to all our police officers, who work for us day in, day out, particularly the neighbourhood police officers I met this morning in Milton Keynes, who were doing a fantastic job for their community. Our approach to delivering on the 13,000 in 2025-26 has been designed to deliver an initial increase to the neighbourhood policing workforce in a manner that is flexible and can be adapted to the local context and the varied crime demands in certain neighbourhoods. Police forces have embraced that and want to make a positive start towards achieving the goal of 13,000 additional neighbourhood officers by the end of this Parliament.
The neighbourhood policing guarantee was announced by the Prime Minister on 10 April. He said that, along with the Home Secretary, he had written to all chief constables and police and crime commissioners, setting out key objectives. The guarantee aims to reverse the decline in visible policing through clear commitments, designed with the support of policing, to be achieved throughout the course of this Parliament. By July, every neighbourhood throughout England and Wales will have named contactable officers. These officers will know their areas and build relationships with residents and businesses, and they will understand local concerns. In too many instances in the past, residents felt they had no one to go to. By July, there will be a guaranteed response time to local neighbourhood police queries from members of the public and businesses of 72 hours.
Having committed to these steps, it is now down to Government and policing to deliver on them. We expect that by July, all police forces will be able to demonstrate that that commitment to the guarantee has been achieved. Additionally, the College of Policing will begin the national roll-out of its neighbourhood policing training programme during the neighbourhood policing week of action in June. The training will equip officers with essential skills, such as problem solving, relationship building and crime prevention, to effectively tackle local issues and enhance community engagement. This dedicated training aims to transform neighbourhood policing services, ensuring trusted and effective policing that cuts crime and keeps people safe. There is also the hotspot action programme, which focuses on particular hotspots and really putting in the resources—it sounds very similar to what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington referred to.
I want to make some comments about retail crime. It has been very helpful to hear from Members today who have experience of the retail sector. We know that in the last two years of the previous Government, shop theft soared by 70%. There is an epidemic in shop theft, and we need to do something about it. As has been said, in the Crime and Policing Bill we have brought forward a new offence of assaulting a retail worker to protect the hard-working and dedicated staff who work in stores, after years of campaigning by USDAW and the Co-op, among others.
Also included as part of the Bill is the removal of the legislation that makes shop theft of and below £200 a summary-only offence, which meant that it could only be tried in the magistrates court. This sends a clear message that any level of shop theft is illegal and will be taken seriously. I noted what the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said about that, but there is a deterrent in this, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins). It is about saying that shop theft of any value is theft, and action will be taken. We still expect that the vast majority of cases will be heard in the magistrates court—[Interruption.] I do not have time for an intervention, but I am happy to discuss it with Members after the debate.
There is also additional funding going into the National Police Chiefs’ Council to give further training to police and retailers on preventive tactics. We are putting £5 million into the specialist analyst team within Opal, which is the national policing intelligence unit dealing with the serious organised criminal gangs that are now getting involved in shop theft. There will also be £2 million over the next three years for the National Business Crime Centre, which provides a resource for both police and businesses to learn, share and support each other to prevent and combat crime. We also have the retail crime forum with representatives from major businesses, which I chair.
We are determined that this summer, for the next three months starting at the end of this month, we will put increasing the safety of our town centres and high streets under the microscope, in partnership with PCCs, councils, schools, health services, businesses, transport and community organisations. I am aware that tackling criminality and antisocial behaviour in town centres is already a focus for many police forces, but we need to do more and go quicker. We have to take that action, and I look forward to the plans that PCCs have been drawing up and will be providing to the Home Office in the next few days. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington for calling this debate, as it is an issue that every Member of this House cares passionately about.
Oral Answers to Questions
Diana Johnson Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
Under the previous Government, shop theft was allowed to reach epidemic proportions. There was a 70% increase in the last two years of the previous Government. We are working hard to tackle this epidemic in every area of our country, including rural areas. Through our Crime and Policing Bill, we are introducing a new stand-alone offence of assault against a retail worker. We will not tolerate workers facing abuse and violence simply for doing their job, whether that is in towns or in rural areas.
Amanda Hack
Convenience stores are at the heart of our communities and provide employment for over 700 people in shops in North West Leicestershire, but workers often face abuse. When I visited one of my local shops recently, I was told that just a few days earlier the assistant manager had been punched in the face when he was just doing his job. Although the assault had been reported, the police had yet to pay a visit. Will the Minister share her plans to support rural policing in constituencies such as mine, so that we can tackle violence against shop workers?
Dame Diana Johnson
May I express my concern about the attack on my hon. Friend’s constituent? It is totally unacceptable. Under the retail crime action plan, the police made operational commitments to prioritising attendance where violence had been used. Some progress has been made, but much more needs to be done. I will ensure that every police force understands how seriously the Government take this offence. The additional 35 police officers and 21 police community support officers who will be in place as a result of our neighbourhood policing guarantee might go some way to helping with that.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I recently visited the Huntingdon branch of Barclays bank in my rural constituency, where staff highlighted to me that although the Crime and Policing Bill will make assaulting a shop worker an offence, branch staff in banks and building societies are not included in that classification, despite the fact that they work on the high street and are subject to the same threats and intimidation as shop workers. There were over 10,000 instances of abuse in branches last year. What rationale can the Minister provide for excluding branch staff in banks and building societies from the protections given to retail staff, who work next to them?
Dame Diana Johnson
A case has been made over several years for why retail workers should be covered by this specific offence. Work was done with the Co-op, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and many others to get the evidence together. If there is evidence from the financial sector and from banks, I want to see it, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to talk to the people with whom he was having conversations about this. I am very open to looking at this, but at the moment, we have drawn up the offence on the basis of the evidence available to us.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I welcome what my hon. Friend has said; this is a problem up and down the land. At the moment, police forces are doing their best, but the Crime and Policing Bill will allow them to seize vehicles that are being used in an antisocial way, without having to give any warnings, and then to destroy them. That is the way forward, but I pay tribute to the work that is already ongoing with police forces.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Regarding non-crime hate incidents and the amount of police time taken to investigate them, does the Minister agree that the clue is in the name? They are “non-crime”. Does she also agree that already stretched police should focus their efforts on tackling real crime, rather than being the virtue-signalling thought police?
Dame Diana Johnson
The Home Secretary has been very clear about the priorities that police forces should actually focus on. As agreed with the Home Secretary, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing are conducting a review of non-crime hate incidents. We will update Parliament in due course on the findings of that review and any changes that may be required to the code of practice introduced by the shadow Home Secretary in March 2023.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Leicestershire police has signed a reported £800,000 contract with Palantir—a company that has a worrying history of racial profiling and surveillance concerns in the USA. It has since removed all the contract details from the public record, and the Home Office holds no central records of such a deal. What reassurances can the Home Secretary give that the people of Leicester are protected from intrusive and discriminatory policing practices? How can transparency and oversight be upheld in such partnerships where no central records are kept?
Dame Diana Johnson
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might write to me with the details of what he has outlined. If so, I will look at them.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for visiting my constituency last week after the horrific incident following the Liverpool football club victory parade. Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating the emergency services on acting so swiftly, but also in condemning the Reform UK party and the far right for trying to stoke up hatred? Can she explain how her Department will tackle this misinformation to prevent further action in future?