Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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 Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

rose—

[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

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Crime and Policing Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Happy to.

[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.

[Nick Timothy]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[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.

[Esther McVey]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[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.

[Esther McVey]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[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 Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Sam Carling]

Will the Minister give way?

[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

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Written Statements

[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

Thursday 5th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[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

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle violence against shop workers in rural areas.

[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)]

5. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of creating a visa scheme for people in Gaza related to UK nationals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

T5. On Saturday, residents in Westerhope told me how nuisance vehicles, illegal and modified e-bikes, off-road bikes and speeding cars are making their lives an absolute misery, and I have had similar complaints from residents in Slatyford and Newbiggin. The chief constable of Northumbria tells me that his force has already tripled the number of vehicles impounded over the past few years, so it is keen to enforce the laws, such as they are. Will the Minister set out how her new proposals will make life better for residents in Newcastle?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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)]

T9. Doncaster East’s neighbourhood policing team recently seized multiple stolen offroad bikes using tactics including drones and high-visibility patrols. Its swift action has made a real difference in tackling antisocial behaviour in places such as Hatfield and Dunscroft. I commend the team on its work and the public support it has received through its “Where’s the bike” campaign. In the light of that, I ask the Minister about the progress around the neighbourhood policing guarantee and when Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme can see named police officers in their towns—

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

2025 UEFA Women’s European Championship: Extending Licensing Hours

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

The Government consulted on, and will be proceeding with, the proposal to make a contingent licensing hours order under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003, after the majority of respondents to the consultation were in favour of the relaxation. This order will relax licensing hours in England and Wales for the 2025 UEFA women’s European championship, subject to any of the competing home nation teams (England and Wales) reaching the semi-final(s) or final of the tournament.

The order will apply to premises already licensed until 11pm for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises in England and Wales. The order will extend the licensing hours for such premises from 11 pm to 1 am the following day on the days of the semi-final(s) (22 and/or 23 July) and final (27 July) of the tournament should the criteria of the contingent order be met.

The Government consider the semi-finals and final of the tournament to be an occasion of exceptional national significance and an extension to licensing hours will enable communities to come together at their local licensed premises to support any of the home nation teams if they reach the later stages of the tournament and celebrate any subsequent success. This will also provide support to the hospitality sector by enabling businesses to extend their trading hours if they so wish.

The results of the consultation will be published on gov.uk and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Government are grateful to everyone who responded to the consultation. The order will be laid in Parliament in due course and an economic note will be published alongside it on legislation.gov.uk.

[HCWS644]

Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

Requiring CCTV on the rail network to meet police access and retention standards could bring important benefits for public safety and criminal justice. Ensuring footage is readily accessible to the police would help to deter crime, enable faster investigations and support prosecutions with reliable evidence.

Victims and witnesses benefit when their accounts can quickly be corroborated, and cases are more likely to be resolved effectively. Standardising CCTV systems across train operators would also reduce inefficiencies, removing delays that can occur due to incompatible formats or outdated technology. In high-risk areas or busy urban transport hubs, this kind of clarity and consistency could make a real difference to public confidence and police capability.

No doubt some will argue that increased surveillance on public transport raises questions about privacy and civil liberties, particularly if passengers feel that they are being constantly monitored. Also, rail operators may face high financial and logistical burdens if they are required to overhaul existing CCTV infrastructure to meet new standards. For smaller operators in particular, the cost of compliance could be significant, potentially impacting service provision or ticket prices.

I would be grateful if the Liberal Democrats told us whether this requirement would apply to all train operating companies, including heritage railways and smaller, regional operators. What specific technical or operational standards would CCTV systems be expected to meet, and how would those be determined or updated over time? Have they reviewed how many operators already meet or fall short of the proposed standards, and what level of upgrade would typically be required? Have they assessed the financial implications for train operators, and would they expect any Government funding or support to assist implementation?

[The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

New clause 9 would introduce a requirement that all CCTV camera images on the railway be made immediately accessible to the British Transport police and the relevant local Home Office police force. I am sympathetic to the cases that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, shared with the Committee. I particularly sympathise with his plight and predicament when his saddle was stolen; having to cycle home without a saddle must have been incredibly painful, so I fully welcome the aims of this new clause. We know that lack of immediate access to railway CCTV camera images has been a significant issue for the British Transport police, as it may reduce their ability to investigate crime as quickly as possible. However, I do not believe that legislation is necessary to address the issue. Let me explain why.

My colleagues at the Department for Transport are looking to implement a system that will provide remote, immediate access for the BTP, Home Office forces and the railway industry where relevant. As I said, that does not need legislation. What is needed is a technological solution and the resources to provide for that. I am sure that the hon. Member will continue to press the case with the Department for Transport, and for updates on the progress of the work, but for now, I invite him to withdraw his new clause.

[Luke Taylor]

In response to the specific comments from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West, this measure relates entirely to existing footage and would allow access to existing footage. I thank the Minister for addressing the points made. At this point, are happy to withdraw the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Domestic abuse aggravated offences

“(1) Any criminal offence committed within England and Wales is domestic abuse aggravated, if—

(a) the offender and the victim are personally connected to each other, and

(b) the offence involves behaviour which constitutes domestic abuse.

(2) In this section—

(a) ‘domestic abuse’ has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and

(b) ‘personally connected’ has the meaning given by section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”—(Luke Taylor.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Rural communities deserve the same protection, visibility and voice as those in urban areas, yet too often rural crime goes under-reported, under-resourced and underestimated. From equipment theft and fly-tipping to wildlife crime and antisocial behaviour, the challenges facing rural areas are distinct and growing. Having rural crime recognised in police structures and developing a specific taskforce could send a strong signal that rural communities matter, that their concerns are heard and that they will not be left behind when it comes to public safety.

However, although the new clause is clearly well-intentioned I would like to put some operational questions to those who tabled it, to ensure greater clarity. What assessment has been made of the additional resources that police forces might need to implement such a strategy effectively, particularly in already stretched rural areas? The new clause refers to the creation of new roles. The National Police Chiefs’ Council already has a rural crime lead and many police forces across the country already appoint rural crime co-ordinators. How would the suggested additional roles be different?

How does the new clause balance the need for a national strategy with the operational independence and local decision making of police and crime commissioners? Is there a clear definition of what constitutes a rural area for the purposes of this strategy? How will this be applied consistently across the country? I am interested to hear the answers, but would be minded to support the new clause if it was pressed to a Division.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset set out, new clause 14 would require the Government to establish a rural crime prevention taskforce. Let me first say that the Government take the issue of rural crime extremely seriously, and that rural communities matter. I want to outline some of the work going on in this area.

I take the opportunity to acknowledge the vital role that the national rural crime unit and the national wildlife crime unit play in tackling crimes affecting our rural areas, as well as helping police across the UK to tackle organised theft and disrupt serious and organised crime. Those units have delivered a range of incredible successes. The national rural crime unit co-ordinated the operational response of several forces to the theft of GPS units across the UK, which resulted in multiple arrests and the disruption of two organised crime groups. The unit has recovered over £10 million in stolen property, including agricultural machinery and vehicles, in the past 18 months alone.

The national wildlife crime unit helped disrupt nine organised crime groups, with a further nine archived as no longer active, as well as assisting in the recovery of £4.2 million in financial penalties. It also oversees the police national response to hare coursing, which has resulted in a 40% reduction in offences.

I am delighted to say that the national rural crime unit and the national wildlife crime unit will, combined, receive over £800,000 in Home Office funding this financial year to continue their work tackling rural and wildlife crime, which can pose a unique challenge for policing given the scale and isolation of rural areas. The funding for the national rural crime unit will enable it to continue to increase collaboration across police forces and harness the latest technology and data to target the serious organised crime groups involved in crimes such as equipment theft from farms. The national wildlife crime unit will strengthen its ability to disrupt criminal networks exploiting endangered species both in the UK and internationally with enhanced data analysis and financial investigation, helping the unit to track illegal wildlife profits and to ensure that offenders face justice.

The funding comes as we work together with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to deliver the new NPCC-led rural and wildlife crime strategy to ensure that the entire weight of Government is put behind tackling rural crime. That new strategy is expected to be launched by the summer. We want to ensure that the Government’s safer streets mission benefits everyone, no matter where they live, including those in rural communities. This joined-up approach between the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and policing, as well as the confirmed funding for the national rural crime unit and the national wildlife crime unit, will help to ensure that the weight of Government is put behind tackling rural crimes such as the theft of high-value farm equipment, fly-tipping and livestock theft.

Given the work already ongoing in this area, I believe that the Liberal Democrat new clause is unnecessary, and I urge the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset to withdraw it.

[Anna Sabine]

I want to come back on some of the questions asked by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West. He asked about the resources that would be required to implement the strategy. Having spoken to the rural police force in my area, my understanding is that the issue is not necessarily one of rural officers being under-resourced, although more resource clearly would be helpful; it is actually to do with how those officers are allocated. For example, in Frome we have a rural crime team, but because of a lack of neighbourhood policing, if there is an incident in Frome on an evening—a fight outside a pub, for example—rural officers are deployed to go and deal with that rather than fighting rural crime. One of the challenges for those officers is that they are not actually allowed to do the job they are trained for, because they are covering for other areas.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the strategy was necessary when we already have various regional rural crime leads. The reason is that we need to ensure that rural crime is seen to be significant nationally—we need to have a national push and develop some strategies to tackle it. I welcome what the Minister said about that.

The shadow Minister’s third question was about defining rural areas. We are quite good at defining them now, so I am not sure why we could not continue to define rural crime areas in the way that constabularies do currently, but we could look at that.

I welcome the Minister’s comments on what is clearly a growing Government drive to take rural crime seriously. I do not doubt any of her figures about the reduction of crimes such as hare coursing. All I would say is that farmers in my constituency are really not reporting crimes, and I worry that crime figures are dropping simply because crime is not being reported, not because it is not occurring. The longer rural crime is not taken seriously, the more those numbers will drop.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I will respond directly to the points that have just been made about the Metropolitan police. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Metropolitan police are the best-funded part of policing in England and Wales. They constitute around 25% of policing, and this year they are receiving up to £3.8 billion to provide policing in London—it is worth reflecting on that. They have also received, as has every other police force, additional money to fund neighbourhood policing. I have had reassurance from the Met that the money will actually go into neighbourhood policing, which I think is worth saying.

While I fully appreciate what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is concerned about for his constituents, it has to be made clear that we have just come out of 14 years, many of which were years of austerity. I do not wish to labour the point, but the hon. Gentleman’s party was involved in the first five years of austerity, when cuts to the public services were most acute and severe. We are now at the end of that period and this Labour Government are trying to put money back into policing. I have been very clear that more money is going into the Metropolitan police and into every other police force, to build up neighbourhood policing in particular. A little bit of humility on the part of the Liberal Democrats might be helpful.

[Luke Taylor]

Again, I invite the Minister to respond to the specific point about the 1,700 fewer officers in London. Whatever the circumstances, people today are concerned about crime, including tool theft and sexual offences. We can argue back and forth about the note from the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which said that there was no money left, about austerity or about how long memories go back. If there are to be cuts to the number officers next year in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam, and across London, let us address the issues at hand about how we mitigate the impact on our residents tomorrow.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point loud and clear. All members of this Committee are concerned about crime and want to ensure that crime goes down, that victims are supported and that the police are properly funded. We can probably all agree on that in this Committee. On the particular point about the Metropolitan police, I dispute the numbers that he has given. He is right that there will be a loss of PCSOs and police officers in ’24-25, but my understanding is that it is around 1,000, not 1,700. Subject to what happens in the spending review, we will have to look at what happens in future years.

The Metropolitan police have not had the necessary funding for years, which is why they are having to make some really tough decisions. Nobody wants to see a reduction in police officer numbers—I certainly do not, as the Policing Minister. The Home Secretary and I are working to do everything that we can to support police forces and not see reductions in PCSOs and police officers.

New clauses 15 and 16 seek to legislate for minimum levels of neighbourhood policing. I certainly agree with what the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said about the need to address the lamentable decline in neighbourhood policing since 2010, which we can all see, but legislating in the way that she proposes is unnecessarily prescriptive and risks imposing a straitjacket on the Home Office, police and crime commissioners and chief officers.

The Government are already delivering on our commitment to restore neighbourhood policing. We have already announced that police forces will be supported to deliver a 13,000 increase in neighbourhood policing by the end of this Parliament. By April ’26, there will be 3,000 more officers and PCSOs working in neighbourhood policing than there are today. This is backed up by an additional £200 million in the current financial year, as part of the total funding for police forces of £17.6 billion, which is an increase of £1.2 billion compared with the ’24-25 police funding settlement.

Additionally, the neighbourhood policing guarantee announced by the Prime Minister on 10 April sets out our wider commitment to the public. As part of that guarantee, every neighbourhood in England and Wales will have dedicated teams spending their time on the beat, with guaranteed police patrols in town centres and other hotspot areas at peak times, such as a Friday and Saturday night. Communities will also have a named, contactable officer to tackle the issues facing their communities. There will be a dedicated antisocial behaviour lead in every force, working with residents and businesses to develop tailored action plans to tackle antisocial behaviour, which we all know has blighted communities.

Those measures will be in place from July this year, in addition to the new neighbourhood officers, whom I have already mentioned, who will all be in their roles by next April. Finally, through the Government’s new police standards and performance improvement unit, we will ensure that police performance is consistently and accurately measured. The work of the unit will reinforce our commitment to transparency through the regular reporting of workforce data and the annual police grant report.

I wholeheartedly support the sentiment behind the new clauses. We absolutely need to bolster neighbourhood policing, reverse the cuts and set clear minimum standards of policing in local communities. Working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the policing inspectorate, the College of Policing and others, we have the levers to do that. Although the new clauses are well intentioned, I do not believe that they are necessary, so I invite the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

[Anna Sabine]

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, made a couple of points. The first related to who would set the levels of neighbourhood policing under the new clause. Our proposal is that it would be the Home Office, in discussion with local police forces and local councils—the people who know their area best. I can easily see that there would be a way of doing community engagement through councils as part of that discussion, which is another point that he made.

Of course it is important for local police and crime commissioners to have flexibility, but there is a problem with the lack of structure around the numbers for neighbourhood policing. In my constituency, if a big issue, event or activity happens in Bristol, a lot of the local police get taken off there, and we lose our neighbourhood policing. It is similar point to the one that was made earlier.

I welcome the Minister’s response, which was thoughtful as always, and I appreciate the commitment that the Government are making to neighbourhood policing. I hear all of that, but we will still press both new clauses in the group to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for explaining the intention behind new clauses 17 and 18. The Government have been clear that water companies must accelerate action to reduce pollution to the environment. Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator of the water industry, sets water companies’ performance commitments, including those on pollution incidents, in the five-yearly price review process.

Where those performance commitments are not met, companies can incur financial penalties, which are returned to customers through lower bills in the next financial year. As a result of underperformance in the 2023-24 financial year, Ofwat is requiring companies to return £165.2 million to customers. Ofwat has just expanded those performance commitments further for the 2025-2030 period to include storm overflow spills and serious pollution incidents. That means that the regulator is already punishing water companies for failing to meet their pollution commitments.

Furthermore, the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, 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 in special measures. The Act introduced automatic penalties on polluters, and will ban bonuses for water company executives if they fail to meet adequate standards. Before introducing secondary legislation to implement automatic penalties, the Government will consult on the specific offences that will be in scope, and on the value of the penalties.

On the subject of senior management liability, the Water (Special Measures) Act creates a statutory requirement for all water companies to publish annual pollution incident reduction plans. The plans will require companies to set out clear actions and timelines to meaningfully reduce the frequency and seriousness of pollution incidents. Both the company and the chief executive will be personally liable for ensuring a compliant plan and report is published each year. In addition, measures from the Act, which came into force on 25 April, introduce stricter penalties, including imprisonment, where senior executives in water companies obstruct investigations by the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate.

The new clauses would cut across the recently strengthened regulatory regime, with enhanced penalties for the water companies that fail to live up to their obligations and increased powers for the regulator. Given that, the new clauses are unnecessary; indeed, they would add complexity and uncertainty in the regulatory process. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

[Anna Sabine]

I enjoyed the new clauses being called headline grabbing. They are certainly headline grabbing; the whole issue of sewage in our waters has been massively headline grabbing, because the public feel incredibly strongly that our waterways, and the rivers that we use and want to swim in, should not be full of sewage pumped out by private water companies. I think many members of the public would welcome a slightly more punitive approach than we saw under the last Government.

In terms of being unworkable, I think the new clauses are very practical and measurable—I am not sure in what way they are unworkable. Turning to the Minister’s comments, the Lib Dems have said that we welcome many of the directions taken in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, but we do not feel it goes far enough. Banning bosses’ bonuses is not the same as making them criminally responsible for some of the actions they are taking in terms of environmental negligence. Again, we will press both new clauses in the group to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

When deployed responsibly and with appropriate safeguards, facial recognition technology is an incredibly valuable tool in modern policing and public protection. It is already being used to identify serious offenders wanted for violent crime, terrorism and child exploitation; to locate vulnerable individuals, including missing children at risk; and to enhance safety in high-risk environments such as transport hubs, major events and public demonstrations. It enables rapid real-time identification without the need for physical contact—something that traditional methods, such as fingerprinting and ID checks, cannot provide in fast-moving situations. It can accelerate investigations, reduce resource demand and ultimately make public spaces safer.

The technology is improving in accuracy, especially when governed by transparent oversight, independent auditing and clear operational boundaries. I would be grateful for further comments on whether the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and the Government feel that this proposed regulation of this crucial technology could limit the ability of law enforcement to respond swiftly to emerging threats or intelligence-led operations.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for setting out the case for introducing new safeguards for the use of live facial recognition. I agree there need to be appropriate safeguards, but the issue requires careful consideration and I do not think that it can be shoehorned into this Bill.

I say strongly to the hon. Member that live facial recognition is a valuable policing tool that helps keep communities safe. If I may say so, I think that some of his information is a little out of date. Despite what he implied, the use of facial recognition technology is already subject to safeguards, including, among others, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 2008.

I fully accept, however, that there is a need to consider whether a bespoke legislative framework governing the use of live facial recognition technology for law enforcement purposes is needed. We need to get this right and balance the need to protect communities from crime and disorder while safeguarding individual rights. To that end, I have been listening to stakeholders and have already held a series of meetings about facial recognition, including with policing, regulators, research institutions, civil society groups and industry, to fully understand the concerns and what more can be done to improve the use of the technology.

I will outline our plans for facial recognition in the coming months. In the meantime, I hope that the hon. Member, having had this opportunity to air this important issue, will be content to withdraw his new clause.

[Luke Taylor]

Based on the comments and reassurances, I will be happy to withdraw the new clause. I would be interested in being involved in any discussions and updates as they come forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 22

Duty to follow strategic priorities of police and crime plan

“(1) The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 8(1) (Duty to have regard to police and crime plan), for ‘have regard to’ substitute ‘follow the strategic priorities of’.

(3) In section 8(2) for ‘have regard to’ substitute ‘follow the strategic priorities of’.

(4) In section 8(3) for ‘have regard to’ substitute ‘follow the strategic priorities of’.

(5) In section 8(4) for ‘have regard to’ substitute ‘follow the strategic priorities of’.”—(Matt Vickers.)

This new clause would require Police and Crime Commissioners to follow the strategic priorities of the police and crime plan rather than have regard to it.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

Police and crime plans are regularly reviewed and updated in consultation with local communities and partners. The new clause would ensure that, once priorities are agreed, they are not sidelined, but instead become the backbone of local policing strategy. The new clause would strengthen the link between the democratic mandate of the police and crime commissioner, and the operational activity of police forces. It would ensure that the police and crime plan is not a token document, but a guiding framework for strategic decision making. By reinforcing the duty to follow agreed priorities, the new clause would enhance accountability, improve public trust and support the delivery of better, more responsive policing.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I thank the shadow Minister for tabling the new clause. As hon. Members will be aware, those vested with responsibility for providing democratic oversight of police forces—whether PCCs or mayors with PCC functions—have an important role in policing across England and Wales. They are responsible for holding their chief constable to account for the performance of their force and for setting, through their police and crime plan, their strategic objectives for the area. In setting police and crime plans, PCCs must consult their chief constable, the public and victims of crime in their area, as well as their local police and crime panel. As the directly elected representatives for policing in their area, PCCs have a choice as to how they implement their plan and the weight they give to each priority.

The new clause would have the effect of placing an inflexible duty on PCCs to follow their own priorities, with no ability to adapt to and reflect changing circumstances. The new clause would also encroach on the operational independence of chief constables. It risks constraining chief constables and the officers under their command, limiting their ability to balance local priorities as set out in the police and crime plan with their own assessment of threat, risk and harm.

In setting their police and crime plan, PCCs and chief constables must also have regard to the strategic policing requirement. If the amendments to the 2011 Act set out in the new clause were made, they would also have the effect of creating an inconsistency, making local police and crime plans the most important instrument for PCCs and others to follow, potentially at the expense of national priorities. The Home Secretary and I have been clear that the Government will work with PCCs and chief constables to set clear expectations for policing on performance and standards, and to ensure that our communities have an effective and efficient police force within their force area.

Through our forthcoming police reform White Paper, we are working closely with policing to explore and develop specific proposals to deliver effective and efficient police forces and to address the challenges faced by policing. That includes ensuring that policing is responsive to national and regional priorities, as well as to local needs. The Home Secretary will set out a road map for police reform in a White Paper to be published later this year, which will consider proposals to strengthen the relationship between PCCs and chief constables in a revised policing protocol. For those reasons, I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw his new clause.

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

--- Later in debate ---

Used transparently and proportionately, stop and search can be a legitimate and effective tool in reducing violence. Clear communication about the rationale for its use, including public notifications when section 60 is authorised, helps to build trust in its deployment. Lowering the threshold would not undermine public confidence if the powers are exercised responsibly. Proposed new clause 35 is a measured and operationally meaningful change. It preserves the structure and safeguards of section 60, while allowing earlier, more effective intervention in response to anticipated violence. In so doing, it would strengthen the ability of the police to keep the public safe, particularly in urban areas, where violence may escalate quickly, and ensure that the law better matches the practical needs of modern policing, without compromising accountability or fairness.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I thank the hon. Member for his suggestions about the police response to violence and other serious offending. However, I believe that the changes contained in the proposed new clauses are unnecessary.

Regarding proposed new clause 29, I agree that transparency is important. That is why the Home Office already annually publishes extensive data on police recorded crime and the use of police powers. That data includes the number of stop and searches conducted, broken down by individual community safety partnership and police force areas. In addition, members of the public have access to detailed crime and stop and search maps on police.uk, which use monthly data directly provided by police forces. Police forces also publish detailed information on deployments of live facial recognition.

Turning to proposed new clause 35, I note that stop and search is a vital tool for tackling crime, particularly knife crime, but it must be used in a fair and effective way. That is particularly true of section 60 powers, which are the focus of the proposed new clause. Such powers may be authorised under certain conditions in response to, or anticipation of, serious violence, and allow officers to search individuals without the normal requirement for reasonable suspicion. The powers are rightly subject to strict constraints.

In practical terms, changing the threshold from “serious violence” to “violence” would not represent a meaningful change. Section 60 provides powers to search for offensive weapons or dangerous implements, and any use of such items is, by definition, serious violence. In the year to March 2024, the latest for which data is available, 5,145 stop and searches were undertaken in England and Wales under section 60 powers. They resulted in 71 people being found carrying offensive weapons and 212 arrests made on suspicion of a range of offences. I therefore urge the hon. Member to withdraw his proposed new clause.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

The new clause would mandate that the Secretary of State, through regulations, grant police access to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ tobacco track and trace system. Such access would enable law enforcement to determine the provenance of tobacco products sold by retailers, specifically to identify whether those products were stolen. According to HMRC, the illicit market in tobacco duty and related VAT was £2.8 billion in 2021-22, preying on the most disadvantaged of communities. In 2023, about 6.7 billion counterfeit and contraband cigarettes were consumed, representing one in four cigarettes, thus undermining progress towards a smoke-free England by 2030.

With the negative impact that the illicit tobacco market has on communities and with UK revenue in mind, it is paramount that our police forces be provided with the resources required to counter the organised crime groups that dominate the illicit tobacco market. The sale of illicit tobacco on the black market also poses significant risks to public health, with illegal tobacco often containing five times the standard level of cadmium, six times as much lead, 1.6 times more tar and 1.3 times more carbon monoxide than regulated cigarettes and rolling tobacco.

The illicit tobacco market poses significant challenges, including revenue loss for the Government and health risks for consumers. Professor Emmeline Taylor’s report, “Lighting Up”, emphasises the potential of TT&T in identifying and prosecuting offenders involved in the illegal tobacco trade. Granting police access to TT&T would strengthen efforts to dismantle organised crime networks profiting from counterfeit tobacco sales.

Giving the police access to TT&T technology has the potential to disrupt the illicit tobacco trade and has been highlighted by the National Business Crime Centre, which argues that police utilisation of TT&T would allow them to routinely check tobacco sold by local retailers to ensure legitimacy, thus shrinking the pool of buyers for criminal gangs and lowering demand for stolen tobacco, helping police to tackle organised crime and safeguard legitimate business.

As a signatory to the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control, the UK is obligated to implement measures that curb illicit tobacco trade. Providing police with TT&T access aligns with those commitments by enhancing the traceability and accountability of tobacco products throughout the supply chain. Illicit tobacco sales undermine legitimate retailers who comply with regulations and pay due taxes. Empowering police to identify and act against illegal tobacco products helps to level the playing field, ensuring that law-abiding businesses are not disadvantaged by competitors engaging in unlawful practices.

With that in mind, the Opposition believe that new clause 38, which would grant police access to the UK TT&T system to help determine whether a retailer has obtained stolen or counterfeit tobacco illegally, is necessary to facilitate the police in carrying out their duty in delivering the current plans for smoke-free England 2030. It will help to claim back revenue currently lost to the black market trade of tobacco and protect public health by disrupting the trade in these bogus products.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

New clause 38 seeks to grant the police access to the tobacco track and trace system, as we have just heard. The scourge of the illicit tobacco trade threatens the health of UK citizens, robs the public purse of billions of pounds and funds the wider activities of organised crime. All businesses in the tobacco supply chain are required to register within the track and trace system, and individual tobacco products are tracked from the point of manufacture up to the point of retail. The track and trace system includes a reporting platform that enables nominated authorities to access registry data, traceability data for individual products and UK-wide tobacco market data.

I understand the intention behind the shadow Minister’s new clause, and I know that we both share the same goal of working with our law enforcement agencies to tackle illicit tobacco. The principle of maximising the use of traceability data in these efforts to tackle illicit tobacco is sound. Existing legislation strictly limits who can access traceability and the purposes for which it may be used. At the moment, only HMRC and trading standards may access this data.

I reassure the Opposition that engagement is already under way between the police and HMRC to investigate opportunities for extending access for the police to traceability data. When that engagement is complete, the Government will consider whether it is appropriate to bring forward any necessary legislative changes. However, I do not wish, at this stage, to pre-empt the outcome of that engagement through legislation. In the light of those reassurances, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the motion.

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