Crime and Policing Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

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

Schedules 14 and 15.

Clause 103 stand part.

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

When the Committee adjourned this morning, I had just started to set out that the Home Office had consulted extensively on the reform of confiscation orders in clause 102. Not only did we consult extensively on those new measures, which were recommended by the Law Commission, but we had the benefit of over 20 years of operational insight. The reforms will support the delivery of key objectives endorsed by the Government in the economic crime plan 2 to reduce money laundering and increase asset recovery returns, to ensure that criminals are deprived of their benefits from crime.

The wide-ranging reforms are introduced across 12 parts in schedule 14 in relation to England and Wales. The provisions in schedule 15 largely replicate the reforms for Northern Ireland, with appropriate modifications. I do not propose to go through the whole of schedule 14 part by part because much of it contains necessarily very technical provisions, but I am happy to explain particular provisions if any hon. Member would find that helpful.

Clause 103 introduces cost protections for enforcement authorities in the High Court, and the Court of Session in Scotland, in civil recovery proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Government are concerned that the current rules that govern how costs are awarded in civil recovery cases expose enforcement authorities to the risk of excessive strains on their budgets, particularly in cases against wealthy individuals who use very expensive legal teams. Even if a law enforcement agency applies for a civil recovery order in good faith and in the public interest, losing a case exposes enforcement agencies to paying substantial legal and court fees. Enforcement authorities work to make decisions in the public interest, and it is detrimental to the protection of the public if authorities are deterred from pursuing an investigation for fear that, if any resulting legal action is unsuccessful, they would face adverse costs and expensive litigation.

Clause 103 therefore amends the so-called “loser pays” principle to ensure that the court does not make an order for costs against an enforcement authority unless the authority has acted “unreasonably”, “dishonestly” or “improperly” during the course of proceedings or it would be

“just and reasonable to make such an order”

against them considering all the facts of the case. Cost protections will provide a positive step forward for the UK’s broader goal of recovering criminal assets and disrupting criminal activity, and I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Clause 102 reforms the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, aiming to clarify and strengthen the confiscation regime for proceeds of crime in England and Wales. Schedule 14 outlines several significant amendments with the primary goal of improving the effectiveness and fairness of confiscation proceedings.

One key change introduced by schedule 14 is the insertion of section 5A into the 2002 Act. The new section provides an overarching principal objective, which has been lacking, for the confiscation powers under part 2. The principal aim as defined in section 5A(2) is

“to deprive the defendant of the defendant’s benefit from criminal conduct, so far as within the defendant’s means.”

That will help to ensure that confiscation powers are used proportionately and in line with the objectives of the law, addressing gaps in case law and providing a clear framework for the court.

Paragraph 2 of schedule 14 now allows the prosecutor to decide whether to pursue a criminal lifestyle assessment rather than automatically applying it. That change allows for more flexibility in the application of these provisions, enabling prosecutors to allocate resources more efficiently and only pursue the criminal lifestyle route where appropriate.

Paragraph 4 introduces a change to the test for determining whether an offence constitutes part of a defendant’s criminal lifestyle. Previously, the law required at least three offences to qualify, but this change reduces that threshold to two offences. That will also apply if the defendant has benefited or intended to benefit from the criminal conduct involved in the offence, making the test easier to meet and broadening the scope of the confiscation regime.

A significant reform is found in paragraph 6, which amends section 7 of POCA to clarify how the value of the recoverable amount should be calculated. Currently, certain categories of property are ignored when calculating the value of a defendant’s benefit from crime, including property that has been forfeited or is subject to a recovery order. The proposed amendment extends that to further categories of property, such as property seized under any rule of law and property returned to victims. That ensures that the confiscation amount reflects only the actual benefit derived from crime and prevents double counting of assets that have already been returned or forfeited.

In the light of the changes introduced in clause 102 and schedule 14 on criminal lifestyle provisions, can the Minister clarify how the new flexibility in prosecutorial discretion will ensure that limited resources are effectively allocated, while safeguarding the fairness of confiscation proceedings for defendants who may not meet the criteria for a criminal lifestyle?

Clause 103(1) inserts new section 288A into part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This provision aims to protect the enforcement authorities from being ordered to pay costs in civil recovery proceedings conducted in the High Court. The court is prohibited from making such orders unless the enforcement authority acted unreasonably, dishonestly or improperly during the proceedings.

Proposed new section 288A(1)(c) of the 2002 Act introduces a discretionary power for the court to determine if, in unforeseen circumstances, it would be just and reasonable for an enforcement authority to pay costs. This provision acknowledges that civil recovery orders, which result in the permanent deprivation of a person’s property, engage the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. It ensures that the enforcement process complies with the right to access to a court, as guaranteed by article 6 of the European convention on human rights. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us what mechanisms would ensure that enforcement authorities could be held accountable if acting unreasonably, dishonestly or improperly during civil recovery proceedings.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I thank the shadow Minister; he went into some detail about how schedule 14 operates. I want to refer to the issue of criminal lifestyle offences in schedule 2 to POCA, which is about what the court utilises to determine whether a defendant has a criminal lifestyle. This is about the changes that we are adding. I refer in particular to the two environmental offences:

“depositing…certain waste, otherwise than in accordance with an environmental permit”

and

“operating a regulated facility, or causing or knowingly permitting a water discharge activity or groundwater activity, otherwise than in accordance with an environmental permit.”

The third offence that we are adding is the keeping of a brothel for prostitution. I want to make clear that those offences are being added.

The shadow Minister asked how this would be kept under review and whether unreasonable measures will be introduced. The legislation will set that out, but it is my understanding that the court will still have a role to play in any measures that are deemed to be unreasonable and forming a view about that. This part of the schedule is very technical, so I am happy to put in writing to the shadow Minister any further information that I have not been able to provide, but I think the general view is that it is implementing the recommendations from the Law Commission. As I understand it, it is very similar to what the previous Government were going to support. On that basis, I commend the provisions to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 102 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 14 and 15 agreed to.

Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104

Extension of polygraph condition to certain offenders

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 107 to 109 stand part.

New clause 23—Previous conduct as factor in deciding whether to investigate a complaint—

“(1) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 3, paragraph 1(6B)(d), at end insert ‘or

(e) the complaint is made about a person serving with the police who has previous convictions or has had previous complaints made against them.’”

This new clause would make previous complaints or convictions a factor in determining how to handle a new complaint against a police officer.

New clause 31—Automatic dismissal of officers who fail vetting—

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

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

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

(a) the officer fails vetting, and

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

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

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

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

This new clause would ensure police officers who failed their vetting can be dismissed.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Part 13 of the Bill pertains to matters relating to the police. Before I talk in detail about clauses 106 to 108, it may assist the Committee if I first provide some context for these provisions. Following the shooting of Chris Kaba, and the subsequent trial and acquittal of Sergeant Martyn Blake in October 2024, the Home Secretary made a series of commitments in response to the issues raised under the previous Government’s accountability review. The measures announced by the Home Secretary will rebuild confidence in police accountability systems for both the public and the police.

As the Home Secretary said when making her announcement, the case happened against a backdrop of wider and long-standing concerns about accountability, standards and confidence in policing. The British model of policing relies on mutual bonds of trust between the public and the police. For our model of policing to work, it is essential that the police have the confidence of the communities they serve, and that officers have the confidence they need to do the vital and often extremely difficult job of keeping us all safe. Too often in recent times, both elements of that confidence have become frayed.

Clauses 106 to 108 give effect to certain findings of the accountability review. Clause 106 will improve timeliness in the system by allowing the Independent Office for Police Conduct to make referrals to the Crown Prosecution Service prior to completing its final report. Clause 107 will amend the threshold for the IOPC to make referrals to the CPS, and clause 108 places the IOPC’s victims’ right to review scheme on a statutory footing, further improving the robustness of the IOPC’s investigative process.

Clause 106 will improve timeliness in the misconduct system. At present, a number of factors cause delay in the misconduct system, one of which relates to the fact that in order for the IOPC to make a referral to the CPS, it is legally required to complete its final report, concluding its investigation, which causes delays in making referrals. The final report has to include misconduct findings and lessons learned for the IOPC. Such elements are not required for referrals to be made to the CPS, so the change that we are making will enable the IOPC to make a referral prior to completing its final report, allowing for an improvement in pace in the accountability system.

Currently, the law states that the IOPC may refer a police officer to the CPS where there is an indication that a criminal offence may have been committed. This is a relatively low bar for making referrals to the CPS. Clause 107 changes this to bring the system in line with the threshold that the police apply when making referrals of members of the public to the CPS, which requires there to be a realistic prospect of conviction. It is right and fair that, as a result of this change, officers and members of the public will be referred to the CPS at the same threshold. The CPS will continue to make charging decisions at the same threshold, which is the full code test. This change will improve overall fairness in the system.

Finally, the IOPC’s victims’ right to review currently allows for victims and their families to challenge the IOPC when it decides not to refer matters to the CPS. This right is currently available to victims and their families through guidance. Clause 108 places this right on the statute book to protect victims and demonstrate our clear commitment to victims’ rights. Taken together, these clauses are a balanced package of measures that will help to speed up IOPC investigations while strengthening the rights of those who may be aggrieved by the outcome of an investigation.

Clause 109 amends the powers of the Secretary of State to make provisions on appeals to the police appeals tribunals. It will enable chief constables to appeal the findings or outcome of police misconduct proceedings, with a similar right for police and crime commissioners to appeal where the officer subject to proceedings is a chief constable. It will also enable a right of appeal to be conferred on the director general of the IOPC where the IOPC has presented the case at the misconduct proceedings.

This Government are committed to restoring public trust and confidence in policing, which is something fundamental to our model of policing by consent. While the majority of our police officers act with bravery and integrity, where things go wrong the public rightly expect that there is a system to robustly hold the police to account.

In the context of recent high-profile cases that have damaged that vital trust and confidence, chief constables must be empowered to drive up standards. While chief constables are themselves rightly held to account for standards in their forces, they are not afforded the same ability to challenge disciplinary decisions as the officers in their force. The only route for chief constables to challenge decisions that they consider to be unreasonable is through judicial review. That is a lengthier and more complex process than the existing specialist police appeals tribunals.

Clause 109 will allow the Secretary of State to make amendments to existing rules. First, it will provide for a right of appeal for chief constables to challenge the findings or outcomes of misconduct proceedings in relation to officers within their force, and an equivalent right of appeal for police and crime commissioners where the officer concerned is a chief constable. This is designed to ensure parity within the system, supporting the wider responsibilities of police and crime commissioners in respect of chief constables.

Furthermore, the clause will provide an equivalent right of appeal for the director general of the IOPC, limited to circumstances in which the IOPC has presented at the misconduct proceedings. This again supports public trust and confidence by ensuring vital independence in the system in the most serious and sensitive cases. Amendments to secondary legislation will be developed in consultation with the sector, including the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales.

I will speak to new clauses 23 and 31, which are also in this group, once we have heard from the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers]

On 5 September 2022, an armed police officer shot and killed Chris Kaba during a vehicle stop in south London. The police referred the case to the IOPC, as required when someone dies or is seriously injured in police custody or contact. The IOPC investigated and referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service, which authorised a murder charge in September 2023. Concerns over accountability systems led the Home Office to launch a review in September 2023. In March 2024, the officer was identified and the Home Secretary announced three immediate changes to improve accountability: raising the threshold for CPS referrals; relaxing restrictions on criminal proceedings; and formalising victims’ rights under the IOPC’s victims’ right to review policy.

Clauses 106 to 108 implement these proposals, which had previously been tabled as amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. Clause 106 introduces significant procedural reform to allow certain criminal investigations into police misconduct to be expedited. It is clear that the clause will help to significantly speed up accountability, especially in cases involving clear and serious misconduct by police officers. By allowing criminal proceedings to be brought sooner, it reduces the delay in holding individuals accountable for their actions, ensuring that justice is not unduly postponed.

In situations where there is clear evidence of misconduct, that allows for quicker action. A quicker response can help to reassure the public that, where there are serious allegations, the authority is acting swiftly and decisively. It demonstrates that law enforcement and oversight bodies are committed to transparency and integrity. What safeguards are in place to prevent inappropriate or premature referrals to the Director of Public Prosecutions under this accelerated procedure? How will the IOPC or other appropriate authority be held accountable for determinations made?

Currently, chief officers have no right of appeal against panel decisions and may only challenge outcomes via judicial review. In October 2022, the Government launched a review of the dismissal process, with findings published in September 2023. Recommendations included a presumption of dismissal for gross misconduct; automatic gross misconduct designation for certain convictions; streamlined performance and vetting-based dismissal processes; and a new appeal right for chief officers. Met commissioner Sir Mark Rowley welcomed the reforms, citing the need for greater control to uphold standards. However, the Police Federation criticised the changes, warning they could undermine fair hearings and lead to excessive influence by chief officers, risking biased outcomes.

--- Later in debate ---

Importantly, the new clause includes a safeguard to prevent unfair or disproportionate outcomes. If a chief officer believes that, despite the vetting failure, the officer is still capable of performing a substantial majority of duties appropriate for their rank, and that dismissal would undermine the operational effectiveness of the force, they can decide not to proceed with a dismissal. This ensures that the decision remains proportionate, and sensitive to operational realities. The new clause builds on recommendations made in the Government’s 2023 review of police officer dismissals, which advocated for a clarified and consistent route for removing officers who fail vetting. By embedding this power in legislation, the new clause would give chief officers clearer authority to act in the interest of police professionalism and public trust.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I welcome what the shadow Minister has said. There have been no changes to the clauses that were introduced in the Criminal Justice Bill and that are now in the Crime and Policing Bill, so I think we are on the same page in terms of these being the appropriate measures to take forward. I am grateful that he set out in detail the case for introducing the new clauses, which seek to ensure that the provisions work in policing and are fit for purpose, and that everyone who is in policing is fit to be a police officer. I reassure the Committee that the Government take police integrity very seriously. It is essential, as I said in my earlier remarks, that we have public confidence in policing and that the highest standards are upheld and maintained. I think we all agree that individuals who fall below the standards the public expect should not be police officers.

New clause 23 seeks to ensure that previous complaints or convictions are considered a factor in determining when a complaint against an officer should be handled formally under schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002. I recognise the shadow Minister’s desire to strengthen the legislation to that effect but, in reality, these elements are already established practice. Under existing statutory guidance issued by the IOPC, previous complaints against an officer should be taken into account when considering whether to handle a complaint under schedule 3. All those working in policing must have regard to that statutory guidance. Compelling forces to record complaints under schedule 3, where a historical complaint exists on an officer’s record, would limit their ability to handle those complaints in the most proportionate manner and in the interests of the complainant.

Similarly, information on historical convictions is available to forces on the police national computer and is relevant in determining the most appropriate way to handle a complaint. The Government have committed to ensuring that vetting rules are strengthened with regard to historical convictions. We intend to put mandatory vetting standards into law this year, so that those who have committed certain offences cannot hold vetting clearance and serve as police officers.

New clause 31 would amend the Police Act 1996 to ensure that a code of practice may provide that a police officer who fails their vetting will be dismissed without notice. It may help the Committee to understand that the Government have acted rapidly to develop new regulations in this area, which will enable forces to dismiss officers who cannot maintain vetting clearance. The regulations have taken into account the relevant legal proceedings, such as the Di Maria judicial review, which considered the adequacy of the Metropolitan Police Service’s processes to remove those officers without vetting clearance. The Police (Vetting) Regulations 2025, which were laid just last week on 23 April, introduced a duty on police officers to hold and maintain vetting clearance, and provide a bespoke regulatory mechanism by which they can be dismissed should they fail to do so.

The Government also strongly believe that there should be no circumstances in which an officer who is unable to hold vetting clearance should remain in policing, so I cannot support the qualification in new clause 31, which suggests that an officer may be capable of deployment to other duties despite failing to maintain their vetting clearance. I hope that, having had the opportunity to consider the existing framework for complaints, the new regulations that I just referred to and the ongoing work to strengthen the vetting rules, the shadow Minister will be content not to move his new clauses later in our proceedings.

I want to mention how the IOPC will keep an eye on the changes that are being introduced. It is clear that there will be scrutiny of what happens following the changes. If there are emerging patterns of cases where, for instance, the CPS declines to charge an officer, despite the IOPC referral, I would expect the IOPC to consider whether there are lessons to be learned and a further review to be undertaken.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 106 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 107 to 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 110

Power to make youth diversion orders

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 110, page 128, line 31, leave out “an” and insert “a relevant”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 54.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 54 and 55.

Clause stand part.

Clause 111 stand part.

Government new clause 61—Notification requirements.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Part 14 of the Bill is about counter-terrorism and national security. Protecting the public is the first duty of any Government, which is why national security is a key pillar of the Government’s plan for change. The UK has one of the strongest counter-terrorism frameworks in the world, but we cannot stand by while threats evolve.

As the Home Secretary has set out in her statements to the House, the Security Service, Counter Terrorism Policing and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation have all consistently raised concerns related to the increasing number of young people being investigated for terrorism offences. While there must always be the potential to pursue prosecutions in the most serious cases, it is important to ensure that there are alternative risk management measures that do not automatically result in a young person receiving a terrorism conviction, which can have a hugely destructive impact on their life prospects. We have listened to operational partners about the need for alternative and earlier interventions, and we are taking the opportunity to build on a recommendation made by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC. Chapter 1 of part 14 therefore introduces new youth diversion orders or YDOs.

YDOs will be a new civil order designed to better manage terrorist risk from young people, while reducing the need for their further involvement in the criminal justice system. They demonstrate this Government’s commitment to ensuring that operational partners have the tools they need to reduce terrorism risk and support rehabilitation.

Clause 110 introduces a new power for the police to apply to a youth or magistrates court for a YDO. To impose a YDO, the court will need to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has either committed a terrorism offence, committed a non-terrorism offence with a terrorism connection, or engaged in conduct likely to facilitate the commission of a terrorism offence. The court will also need to consider that it is necessary and proportionate to make the order to protect the public from a risk of terrorism or serious harm, as defined in clause 111. This ensures that the new orders will be imposed only where there is a serious risk to the public.

The technical Government amendments 53 to 55 adjust the definition of “offence with a terrorist connection” to avoid the need to refer to legislation relating to sentencing. Sentencing will not take place in YDO applications, but the judge considering a YDO application will be able to consider whether the individual has committed an offence with a terrorist connection, in the same way as a judge would consider this on sentencing.

Finally, new clause 61 requires individuals to provide their personal details to the police where a YDO includes notification requirements. The relevant details are the respondent’s name, including any aliases, and their home address. This requirement will not be automatic or mandatory for every YDO, but will need to be agreed by the court on a case-by-case basis.

The notification requirement will also include a requirement to provide information about the individual’s school or other educational establishment if relevant. This information would be helpful, for example, in a scenario where someone moved school and there was no other trigger for the local authority to inform the police of the move.

The new clause is supported by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and operational partners have confirmed that it is necessary to support the effective day-to-day management of YDOs. I commend the Government’s amendments to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

The new youth diversion orders are designed as a counterterrorism risk management tool for individuals under the age of 21. The purpose of the YDOs is to divert young people from engaging in terrorist activities, and to allow police to intervene at an earlier stage.

Clause 110 grants the police the authority to apply to the courts for a YDO. Clause 110 clarifies that a YDO can be applied for by a chief officer of police when the respondent meets certain criteria based on their age and involvement in terrorist-related offences. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the respondent must be between the ages of 10 and 21, and in Scotland, between 12 and 21.

The aim of the order is diversion, rather than punishment. The YDO is intended to help prevent further involvement in terrorism or related activities. The order may give rehabilitation, counselling or other interventions designed to steer the individual away from terrorism-related conduct. Clause 111 defines serious harm in the context of YDOs.

New clause 61 introduces notification requirements for a youth diversion order, where the respondent must notify the police within three days of being served with the order. The notification includes personal details such as the respondent’s name, any additional names, home address, and the name and address of any educational establishment the respondent normally attends. It is intended to help ensure the youth’s compliance with the order, as well as assist in tracking their progress or risk of non-compliance.

This approach strengthens the monitoring aspect of YDOs by tying in an educational component. It ensures that authorities have up-to-date information regarding the young person’s school involvement, which can be a crucial element in their rehabilitation. How will the Government ensure that the notification requirements, particularly educational details, do not inadvertently stigmatise the young person, or disrupt their education experience, especially in cases where the individual might already be vulnerable or at risk of exclusion from school?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s comments. On his point about information on schools and stigmatising children, am I right in thinking he believes that information will be made available to the public? I was not clear.

[Matt Vickers]

In educational settings, if people are given the details and the contact, might that be reflected?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I do not wish to try your patience, Mrs Lewell, but my understanding is that this would not be public information that was shared. It would remain within the youth court or the magistrates court. I am looking to my officials, and they are nodding at me, so this is not information that would be in the public domain. I hope that that deals with the point around any stigmatisation of a young person who was subject to a YDO.

Amendment 53 agreed to.

Amendments made: 54, in clause 110, page 129, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert—

“‘relevant offence’ means an offence which—

(a) was committed on or after 29 June 2021,

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

(c) is not specified in—

(i) Schedule 1A to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, or

(ii) Schedule A1 to the Sentencing Code;”.

This amendment, Amendment 53 and Amendment 55 replace the concept of an “offence with a terrorist connection” with the concept of a “relevant offence with a terrorist connection” so as to enable the court dealing with an application for a youth diversion order to makes its own determination as to whether an offence has a terrorist connection.

Amendment 55, in clause 110, page 129, line 14, at end insert—

“(3A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a)(ii), a relevant offence has a terrorist connection if the offence—

(a) is, or takes place in the course of, an act of terrorism, or

(b) is committed for the purposes of terrorism.” —(Dame Diana Johnson.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 54.

Clause 110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 111 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 112

Content of youth diversion orders

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 112, page 130, line 11, leave out “subsection (2) or (3)” and insert “subsections (2) to (3A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 59.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 57 to 59.

Amendment 40, in clause 112, page 130, line 33, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

“(6) A youth diversion order must specify the period for which it has effect, up to a maximum of 12 months.

(7) 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.

(8) An assessment must be made by a qualified expert in extremism and counterterrorism.

(9) Assessments taken by the respondent’s youth offending team must be reviewed by an external expert with no pre-existing relationship to the respondent.

(10) 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.

(11) 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 amendment 60.

Clause stand part.

Government new clause 62—Electronic monitoring of compliance with order: England and Wales.

Government new clause 63—Conditions for imposing electronic monitoring requirement: England and Wales.

Government amendment 79.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 112 sets out a non-exhaustive list of prohibitions or requirements that may be included in a YDO and the safeguards that the police and courts must consider. The police must have the ability to mitigate risk to the public from young people being drawn into terrorism—a growing problem, as we all appreciate. The YDO will enable the police to impose necessary restrictions on an individual, subject to a court order. These may include limits on accessing certain websites or apps, or restrictions on engaging with specific individuals or groups. For example, this could include engagement with other children who have been assessed to be vulnerable to radicalisation. A YDO may also include positive requirements that the respondent must comply with. These may be rehabilitative in nature, including, for example, mandatory attendance at intervention sessions that seek to support the respondent in moving away from extremist ideologies.

Although it is critical that the police are able to impose necessary risk management and rehabilitative measures, the legislation ensures that there are safeguards to limit the extent of such measures. First, each measure must be necessary and proportionate for the purpose of mitigating a risk of terrorism or serious harm. Secondly, any measure included as part of a YDO must not unnecessarily interfere with a respondent’s educational or work commitments, or their religious beliefs. Thirdly, any measure may not exceed a total duration of two years. The aim is to ensure that YDOs have enough time to make a positive impact on a young person’s life while remaining proportionate to the scale of risk they pose to the public by being drawn into terrorism.

The Government amendments to clause 112 provide further examples of the measures that may be imposed through a YDO. This increases transparency and provides a clear statutory basis for the most intrusive measures that will be available. The expanded list of prohibitions and requirements represents the measures that we expect the police will most commonly apply to the court to include in a YDO.

Amendment 57 allows for potential restrictions on entering a specific area, including travel restrictions inside or outside the UK. Amendment 58 outlines potential requirements for the respondent to answer questions, provide information, or produce documents. Amendment 59 provides that, if included in a YDO, the individual may be required to comply with notification requirements, as detailed in new clause 61, and may be subject to restrictions on the possession of weapons and explosives. Amendments 56 and 60 are consequential on these other amendments.

New clauses 62 and 63 and Government amendment 79 enable a YDO to include an electronic monitoring requirement. This will enable the effective monitoring of and compliance with measures such as curfew requirements and exclusion measures. Operational partners have been explicit that having this capability will maximise the utility and effectiveness of YDOs.

Finally, amendment 40, tabled by the shadow Minister, seeks to give the police the ability to apply for a YDO in cases where a young person exhibits extremist views; it would also prevent an order from expiring unless there is an independent expert assessment that concludes the individual no longer poses a terrorist risk or holds extremist views. YDOs are designed for terrorism-related cases only. A YDO is a tool to be used only when young people pose a public safety risk. There are no plans to use YDOs for cases that do not meet terrorism thresholds, as this would interfere with the rights of young people.

This Government take extremism very seriously, and we are committed to ensuring that we have the tools and powers needed to address this issue. Efforts to counter extremism span a broad range of Government and law enforcement activity, and we must persist in our efforts to challenge extremist narratives, to disrupt the activity of radicalising groups, and to directly tackle the causes of radicalisation. The Home Office leads work on countering extremism, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will lead work with local councils on strengthening community cohesion. It is vital that the two programmes on cohesion and extremism work in parallel.

Clause 116(4), which we will debate in a later group, permits the police to apply for the extension of a YDO. There may be two extension applications, and each will be for a maximum of six months, so the maximum duration of an order is two years in total. I assure the hon. Member for Stockton West that counter-terrorism police will regularly assess the risk posed by the individual while the order is in force. Although decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, the police may decide to apply to the court to extend an order. Where the police assess that the risk posed by the respondent remains despite the order having been in place, they may consider, in consultation with the relevant prosecutorial authority, whether the relevant test for prosecution for terrorist offending is met. Should the risk posed by the individual persist for longer than 24 months, other tools may be considered.

I hope the shadow Minister will agree not to press amendment 40 given the clear operational need for the Government’s amendments, which I commend to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

Amendment 40 primarily focuses on the duration, assessment and possible extension of YDOs, and it would ensure that the orders are subject to review and that further intervention is applied when necessary. Under the amendment, YDOs must specify a period of up to 12 months in which the young person is monitored and guided through the diversion programme. This would ensure there is a clear time limit with a defined end point for the intervention.

Additionally, before the order concludes, an assessment must be carried out to evaluate whether the individual continues to hold extremist views or poses a terrorism threat. This would add an important safeguard to the process, ensuring that young people who may still be a risk are identified before the order ends. A critical element of the amendment is the requirement that qualified experts carry out the assessment. The evaluation of whether the individual continues to hold extremist views or to present a terrorism risk must be conducted by an expert in extremism and counter-terrorism. This would ensure the assessment is informed by a high level of expertise and understanding of the complexities of radicalisation.

Assessments made by the youth offending team must be reviewed by an external expert who has no pre-existing relationship with the respondent. This independent review would guarantee objectivity and minimise any potential bias in the evaluation process. If the individual was assessed to be still holding extremist views or continuing to pose a terrorism risk, the youth offending team or a chief officer of the police would have the power to apply to the court for an extension of the youth diversion order. This extension could be granted for an additional 12 months, allowing continued intervention and monitoring of the individual. Importantly, the extension would ensure that the order remained in place for as long as the individual was considered to pose a risk to public safety.

Finally, the amendment specifies that all provisions, prohibitions and requirements set by the YDO will remain in effect until the individual has been assessed as holding no extremist views or posing no terrorism threat. This would ensure that the protective measures stipulated in the order were maintained throughout the duration of the individual’s involvement in the diversion programme, offering ongoing protection to the public while allowing continued monitoring of the individual’s risk level. The amendment would ensure that the diversion process is both effective and responsive to the changing nature of extremist behaviour, and that any decision to conclude or extend the order is based on robust and independent expert evaluations, thus improving the overall effectiveness of the youth intervention measures in countering extremism and terrorism.

Clause 112 outlines the content and conditions of a youth diversion order, providing the framework for how the order can be structured and what it can include. How will the Government ensure that YDOs do not interfere with religious or cultural practices of respondents, as the clause provides, especially when it comes to limitations on association or communication?

[The Chair]

My sincere apologies to the Committee: before I called the shadow Minister, I should have proposed Government amendment 56. I call the Minister.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

To answer the question that the shadow Minister just posed, I said in my earlier remarks that there would not be restrictions that interfered with educational and work commitments, or with religious observances. I think that deals with his question. On that basis, commend the Government amendment to the Committee.

Amendment 56 agreed to.

Amendments made: 57, in clause 112, page 130, line 18, at end insert—

“(d) the respondent’s presence in, or access to, a specified area or place or an area or place of a specified description;

(e) the respondent's travel (whether within the United Kingdom, between the United Kingdom and other places or otherwise).”

This amendment provides that the prohibitions or requirements a youth diversion order may contain include ones relating to the respondent’s presence in or access to particular areas or places, or to the respondent’s travel.

Amendment 58, in clause 112, page 130, line 22, leave out “provide information” and insert

“answer questions, provide information or produce documents”.

This amendment provides that a youth diversion order may require the respondent to answer questions, provide information or produce documents.

Amendment 59, in clause 112, page 130, line 23, at end insert—

“(d) require the respondent to comply with section (Notification requirements) (notification requirements).

(3A) An order may contain any prohibition that is of a kind that could be imposed by the Secretary of State in relation to an individual by virtue of paragraph 6A of Schedule 1 to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (weapons and explosives measures).”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This amendment provides that a youth diversion order may require the respondent to comply with notification requirements under NC61 and may contain prohibitions relating to weapons and explosives.

Amendment proposed: 40, in clause 112, page 130, line 33, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

“(6) A youth diversion order must specify the period for which it has effect, up to a maximum of 12 months.

(7) 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.

(8) An assessment must be made by a qualified expert in extremism and counterterrorism.

(9) Assessments taken by the respondent’s youth offending team must be reviewed by an external expert with no pre-existing relationship to the respondent.

(10) 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.

(11) 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.”—(Matt Vickers.)

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.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Duty to consult

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 113, page 131, line 4, leave out from “order” to “consult” in line 5 and insert

“, a chief officer of police must, if the respondent will be under the age of 18 when the application is made,”.

This is a drafting change that ensures consistency between the drafting of subsection (1) of clause 113 and subsection (2) of that clause as amended by Amendment 62.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 62, 64 and 63.

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 65 and 66.

Clause 114 stand part.

Government amendment 67.

Clause 115 stand part.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clauses 113 to 115 set out duties on the police to consult with relevant authorities, provide for applications to be made without notice in urgent circumstances, and provide for interim YDOs to be made.

The Committee will recognise the importance of ensuring that the police take wider factors into consideration—for example, a person’s age, mental health, safeguarding and educational needs—before applying for a YDO. Clause 113 therefore introduces a duty to consult before applying for an order or applying for variation or discharge of an order. In England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland, the police will be required to consult with youth offending teams and the Youth Justice Agency respectively for applications involving individuals under the age of 18. In Scotland, the police will be required to consult with the Lord Advocate for all applications. This is necessary to give effect to the different position in Scotland, where consultation with the Lord Advocate is appropriate for all YDOs, including for 18 to 21-year-olds, and for without-notice YDO applications. That reflects the Lord Advocate’s specific functions in relation to their role as the head of the system for the investigation and prosecution of crime, which includes a specific working relationship with Police Scotland.

Government amendments 62 and 65 make the additional requirement in respect of Scotland that the police consult with the local authority before making an application for a YDO, irrespective of the age of the respondent, and remove the requirement for consultation with the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration for YDOs for under-18s. Again, the amendments are necessary to give effect to the different position in Scotland, where there is no equivalent to youth offending teams. Government amendments 63, 64 and 66 are consequential on those amendments, while Government amendment 61 ensures consistency of drafting between the subsections of clauses 113, as amended.

Consultation will be an important part of the YDO application process, ensuring that the police have thoroughly considered the necessity and proportionality of a YDO and taken into account the expertise of those who work closely with young people in the community. This statutory duty does not prevent the police from engaging with other authorities, such as the CPS or the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, wider social services, or the respondent’s school or college, where appropriate.

While it is likely to be rare in practice, there may be circumstances in which an urgent YDO application is required and providing notice to the respondent may increase risk. Therefore, clause 114 provides a route for police to apply for a YDO without notice to the respondent. The requirement to consult does not apply in such cases, although the police will still be required to consult relevant authorities before the full court hearing for a YDO.

Where an application is made without notice, the court will be able to consider whether to impose an interim order, in line with the approach taken with other preventive orders, such as knife crime prevention orders. Due to the temporary nature of an interim order, clause 115 ensures that the only positive requirements that can be included in such an order are to provide information and to comply with notification requirements. For example, the Bill does not allow the police to impose a requirement to attend intervention sessions similar to Prevent in an interim order, but they will be able to impose risk-management measures where necessary and proportionate, subject to the court’s permission. Amendment 67 clarifies the measures that can and cannot be imposed in an interim YDO.

I commend the amendments and the clauses to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 113 outlines the duty to consult before making an application for a youth diversion order or the variation or discharge of such an order, particularly when the individual involved is under 18. It ensures that key stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process, so that the young person’s best interests are taken into account, and it ensures that the relevant agencies are informed and consulted before any formal application is made. How do the Government plan to ensure that the agencies that are consulted—in particular the youth offending teams—have the necessary expertise and resources to adequately assess the case before the application for a YDO is made?

Clause 114 outlines the process for making an application for a youth diversion order without notice to the respondent. This provision is significant because it allows for situations in which immediate intervention is necessary and the respondent is not notified before the application is made. How will the Government ensure that respondents’ rights are protected in cases where an application is made without notice? What measures are in place to prevent misuse of this provision?

Clause 115 makes provision for an interim youth diversion order to be made during the adjournment of a hearing for a full YDO. It ensures that even while a decision on the full application is pending, the court can take immediate temporary action to manage the respondent’s risk, particularly in cases involving potential extremism or terrorism. The clause allows the courts to impose interim measures to temporarily manage a respondent’s behaviour, safeguarding public safety, while the full process is ongoing.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The shadow Minister raised the issue of consultation with youth offending teams and their equivalent in the devolved nations. My understanding is that we are not talking about a large number of individuals being subject to these provisions. The reason we say that youth offending teams have to be consulted is that they have the expertise and the knowledge of working with young people, and it is likely that the individuals they will be consulted on will already be known to them. It is a good, positive measure to undertake that consultation with youth offending teams and recognise the skills and safeguards that they will bring. Their knowledge of the individual will perhaps include, as I spoke about earlier, issues in their background or safeguarding issues that need to be considered. That is really important.

An interim YDO may be required if there is an immediate risk that has to be managed. That is why provision needs to be made for interim YDOs, but of course they are interim, and a full hearing will take place. Interim YDOs will be used only in urgent circumstances, and of course the court will have to agree; while an application can be made, if the court does not recognise the urgency, it will not be granted. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has agreed that the power to make interim measures is necessary in order for YDOs to be effective.

I hope that, on the basis of those answers, the shadow Minister is satisfied that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Amendment 61 agreed to.

Amendments made: 62, in clause 113, page 131, line 10, leave out from “Scotland” to end of line 15 and insert

“must consult—

(a) the Lord Advocate,

(b) the relevant local authority, and

(c) if the respondent will be under the age of 18 when the application is made, the Principal Reporter.”

This amendment changes who the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland must consult before making an application for a youth diversion order or for the variation or discharge of such an order.

Amendment 64, in clause 113, page 131, line 21, at end insert—

“‘relevant local authority’ means—

(a) the Scottish local authority in whose area it appears to the chief constable that the respondent lives, or

(b) if it appears to the chief constable that the respondent lives in more than one such area, whichever one or more of the relevant Scottish local authorities that the chief constable considers it appropriate to consult;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 62.

Amendment 63, in clause 113, page 131, line 21, after “section” insert “—

‘Scottish local authority’ means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994;”.—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 62.

Clause 113, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 114

Applications without notice

Amendments made: 65, in clause 114, page 131, line 27, leave out “Section 113(1) does” and insert

“Subsections (1) and (2)(b) and (c) of section 113 do”.

This amendment disapplies the requirement to consult the relevant local authority and (where the respondent is under 18) the Principal Reporter where an application for a youth diversion order is made without notice in Scotland.

Amendment 66, in clause 114, page 131, line 35, leave out “section 113(1)” and insert

“subsection (1) or (2)(b) and (c) of section 113 (as the case may be)”.—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 65.

Clause 114, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 115

Interim youth diversion orders

Amendment made: 67, in clause 115, page 132, line 8, leave out subsection (3) and substitute—

“(3) The only requirements that may be imposed by an interim youth diversion order on the respondent are—

(a) a requirement of the kind mentioned in section 112(3)(b) (requirements to provide information etc);

(b) a requirement to comply with section (Notification requirements) (notification requirements).”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This amendment enables an interim youth diversion order to require the respondent answer questions, provide information or produce documents, or to comply with notification requirements under NC61.

Clause 115, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 116

Variation and discharge of youth diversion orders

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 116, page 132, line 33, at end insert—

“(4A) The court may make provision of a kind mentioned in subsection (4) only if it considers that the provision is necessary for the purpose of protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism or other serious harm.

(4B) Subsections (5) and (7) of section 112 apply to additional prohibitions or requirements included on a variation of an order.”

This amendment provides that a court may only vary a youth diversion order to include an additional prohibition or requirement or to extend its duration if it considers it necessary; and that certain provision in clause 112 about the content of orders applies equally to such additional prohibitions or requirements.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 69 to 71.

Clause 117 stand part.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 116 ensures that the police or the subject of a YDO can apply to the relevant court to vary the order once it is in place to, for example, add or remove measures or to change the duration of existing measures. The clause also allows the police or the subject of a YDO to apply to end the order before it is due to expire, allowing the police to withdraw the order if it is no longer considered necessary.

Clause 117 sets out the route for the police or a respondent to appeal against a court decision to impose a YDO, an interim YDO or any change made under clause 116. Appeals will be made to the Crown court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Sheriff Appeal Court in Scotland. The court may then make changes on the basis of that appeal, as required. Government amendments 68 and 71 make changes to clarify and streamline the appeals process for YDOs, as do Government amendments 69 and 70, which provide that a second appeal in relation to a YDO may be made to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales.

The Committee will recognise the importance of the clauses in ensuring that there is a process for varying or revoking the order as well as for both the police and YDO subjects to have a prescribed and proportionate route for appeals.

Amendment 68 agreed to.

Clause 116, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 117

Appeal against youth diversion order etc

--- Later in debate ---

Offence of breaching youth diversion order

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 118, page 133, line 22, at end insert—

“(1A) Where a youth diversion order requires a person to provide information or produce a document, it is an offence for the person, in purported compliance with that requirement, to provide any information or produce any document which the person knows to be false.

(1B) Where a youth diversion order requires a person to comply with section (Notification requirements), it is an offence for the person, in purported compliance with that section, to notify to the police any information which the person knows to be false.”

This amendment makes it an offence for a person to knowingly provide false information, produce a false document or notify false information in purported compliance with notification requirements imposed under a youth diversion order.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 73 to 75.

Clause stand part.

Government amendment 76.

Clauses 119 and 120 stand part.

Government amendments 77 and 78.

Clause 121 stand part.

Government new clause 64—Data from electronic monitoring in England and Wales: code of practice.

Government new clause 65—Reviews of operation of this Chapter.

New clause 42—Report on the organisations responsible for implementing and enforcing youth diversion orders—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the organisations responsible for implementing and enforcing youth diversion orders.

(2) That report must include—

(a) the organisations which will be responsible for implementing and enforcing youth diversion orders;

(b) what level of counterterrorism and de-radicalisation training and expertise they have; and

(c) what additional resources they will require to effectively administer the provisions, prohibitions and requirements of youth diversion orders.

(3) Within one month of the publication of this report, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a plan assessing the—

(a) training,

(b) financing, and

(c) guidance,

available to the organisations identified in the report under subsection (1) to bring their training, expertise and funding to the requisite level identified in that report.

(4) The Secretary of State must commission a report from the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to assess whether the levels of funding, training and expertise proposed in the plan under subsection (3) are sufficient. This report will be laid before Parliament with the plan under subsection (3).”

This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on the organisations responsible for implementing and enforcing youth diversion orders and a plan and independent report on the funding, training and expertise they need.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I wonder whether it might be helpful for the Committee if I respond after the shadow Minister has spoken to his new clause 42.

[Matt Vickers]

Clauses 118 and 119 outline the offence of breaching a youth diversion order and subsequent processes for issuing and revising guidance on the exercise of functions related to youth diversion orders.

Clause 118(4) provides that if a person is convicted of breaching a youth diversion order, the court cannot issue a conditional discharge requiring a substantive penalty instead. This provision prevents a lenient approach that might fail to deter non-compliance. The clause also establishes varying penalties based on age, with difference consequences for individuals under and over 18. How do these penalties balance deterrence with the goal of rehabilitating young offenders, particularly those under 18?

Clause 119 grants the Secretary of State the authority to issue guidance for local police forces. How does the Minister plan to ensure that that guidance brings consistency in the application of YDOs across different regions? Further clauses outline wider procedures, including for applications for YDOs.

New clause 42 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report within three months of the passage of the Act detailing the organisations responsible for implementing and enforcing youth diversion orders. The report must cover the organisations involved, the counter-terrorism and deradicalisation training they possess and any additional resources required to effectively manage the YDO provisions. Within one month of the report’s publication, the Secretary of State must present a plan to address training, financing and guidance to meet the required standards. Additionally, the Secretary of State must commission an independent assessment by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to evaluate whether the proposed levels of funding, training and expertise are adequate, with that assessment being laid before Parliament alongside the plan.

The new clause would ensure the effective implementation of youth diversion orders with the necessary expertise. The requirement for a report and plan would ensure that organisations are prepared to handle counter-terrorism and deradicalisation issues. It would set clear expectations for training and funding, holding the Government accountable for providing sufficient resources. The independent assessment by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation would add scrutiny, ensuring that the Government’s plans meet the required standards. Overall, the new clause would introduce a proactive and transparent approach, fostering confidence in the system’s ability to address terrorism and extremism.

What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the organisations involved in implementing YDOs have the necessary counter-terrorism and deradicalisation training and expertise? Are the Government confident that those organisations are sufficiently prepared without the need for an independent assessment? Given the complexity of implementing YDOs, does the Minister agree that additional resources might be required to ensure that the orders are effectively enforced? If not, what plans are in place to guarantee that the organisations responsible are adequately resourced?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clauses 118 to 121 will support the implementation of YDOs. Although the aim of a YDO is to divert a young person away from terrorist offending, it is critical that there is an effective deterrent against breaching the order, and that where a young person breaches the order, the police can take action.

Clause 118 ensures that a separate criminal offence is available for breaching a YDO without a reasonable excuse. In practice, we propose that statutory guidance will set out that the police will be expected to consult youth offending teams where there is a suspected breach, and for less serious breaches the police may consider alternatives to prosecution, such as varying the measures in the order or issuing a formal warning to the individual. Prosecution for this offence will therefore be a last resort.

Government amendment 72 makes it an offence for a person to knowingly provide false information, produce a false document or notify false information in purported compliance with notification requirements imposed under a YDO. Government amendments 73 and 74 make the offences under clause 18 triable either way irrespective of the defendant’s age, with a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. The amendments ensure that there is a consistent maximum penalty for any breach of a YDO, regardless of the young person’s age, and that the legislation more accurately reflects the potential severity of breaching a YDO. For example, a serious breach may involve a breach of a weapons measure, such as by making plans to purchase knives or encouraging or assisting others to do so. We would expect a prosecution for that offence to be the last resort. Detail on other options to be considered beforehand will be included in the statutory guidance. The change is supported by operational partners and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Government amendment 75 enables a copy of a YDO to be admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings for breach of the order.

Clause 119 introduces a new power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the police in relation to YDOs. In issuing such guidance, we recognise the importance of proper consultation with relevant authorities, including the police, the prosecution service in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, and the Lord Advocate in Scotland. That is why clause 119 requires mandatory consultation with certain parties and permits the Secretary of State to consult with other stakeholders, where appropriate. Government amendment 76 expands the list of consultees to include youth justice agencies.

Clause 120 ensures that rules of court can provide for anonymity for individuals going through civil proceedings for a YDO. That is important to ensure that reporting restrictions apply, and it is in line with the general policy aim of ensuring that young people do not feel stigmatised through engagement with the justice system—something that the shadow Minister has spoken about.

Finally, clause 121 makes procedural provision in respect of applications for a YDO. Government amendment 77 disapplies the time limit that would otherwise prevent an application for a YDO from being made in relation to matters arising more than six months prior to the making of the application. Amendment 78 enables proceedings in Scotland for, or in relation to, a YDO to be heard by a summary sheriff.

I turn to the Government new clauses in this group. To safeguard effectively the data that is gathered under electronic monitoring requirements, new clause 64 will require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice for the processing of such data. The processing of such data will be subject to the requirements in the UK general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. New clause 65 will enable the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to review and report on the use and operationalisation of the youth diversion order. The independent reviewer already has a number of statutory functions, and this new clause aligns his statutory functions, enabling him to report on the YDO. The independent reviewer has been consulted on the clause, and his view is that the power to review the operation of the youth diversion order is important.

New clause 42, tabled by the shadow Minister, would require the Government to publish a report on the organisations that are responsible for implementing and enforcing YDOs, and a plan for delivering the relevant funding, training and guidance available for these organisations. It would also require the Government to commission a report from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

As Matt Jukes, the head of counter-terrorism policing, set out in his written evidence to this Committee, counter-terrorism policing is a collaboration of UK police forces with a network of exceptional investigators. It is the lead law enforcement agency for managing terrorist risk, so it is appropriate that it will lead the implementation and enforcement of YDOs. It will be supported in this role by youth justice partners who have substantial experience of working with young people who are subject to court-imposed orders.

As I have already set out, Government new clause 65 already ensures that YDOs are added to the statutory remit of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. As part of this role, the independent reviewer is required to review the operation of YDOs in practice and report to Parliament. I hope that the shadow Minister agrees that new clause 42 is therefore unnecessary.

On the other issue that the shadow Minister referred to, regarding the consistent use of YDOs across the UK, one of the key objectives of the statutory guidance under clause 119, which chief officers must have regard to, is to ensure that there is consistency. To go back to the point about the youth offending teams, given the small size of the cohort of children who are likely to be given a YDO, we do not anticipate that the changes will add significant pressures to those youth offending teams. On that basis, I commend the Government’s amendments to the Committee.

Amendment 72 agreed to.

Amendments made: 73, in clause 118, page 133, line 23, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 74.

Amendment 74, in clause 118, page 133, line 33, leave out “aged 18 or over”.

This amendment makes offences under clause 118 (breach of youth diversion order) triable either way whatever the age of the respondent.

Amendment 75, in clause 118, page 134, line 8, at end insert—

“(5) In proceedings for an offence under this section, a copy of the original youth diversion order, certified by the proper officer of the court that made it, is admissible as evidence of its having been made and of its contents to the same extent that oral evidence of those matters is admissible in those proceedings.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This amendment enables a copy of a youth diversion order to be admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings for breach of the order.

Clause 118, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 119

Guidance

Amendment made: 76, in clause 119, page 134, line 16, at end insert—

“(za) the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales;

(zb) the Scottish Ministers;

(zc) the Youth Justice Agency in Northern Ireland;”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This amendment adds to the list of persons the Secretary of State must consult before issuing or revising guidance to chief officers of police about youth diversion orders.

Clause 119, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121

Applications

Amendments made: 77, in clause 121, page 135, line 17, at end insert—

“(2) Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (time limit for complaints etc) does not apply to a complaint under this Chapter.”

This amendment disapplies the time limit that would otherwise prevent an application for a youth diversion order being made in relation to matters arising more than six months prior to the making of the application.

Amendment 78, in clause 121, page 135, line 17, at end insert—

“(3) In Schedule 1 to the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (asp 17) (civil proceedings etc in which summary sheriff has competence), after paragraph 12 insert—

‘Youth diversion orders

13 Proceedings for or in relation to a youth diversion order under section 110 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025.’” —(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This amendment enables proceedings in Scotland for or in relation to a youth diversion order to be heard by a summary sheriff.

Clause 121, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 122

Prevention of terrorism and state threats: weapons etc

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 122 amends the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 and the National Security Act 2023 to broaden the definition of weapons that are prohibited for individuals who are subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures or state threat prevention and investigation measures. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to prohibit individuals who are subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures, or to state threat prevention and investigation measures, from possessing any items that she reasonably considers could be used to cause injury. The change builds on a recommendation by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, in his annual report “The Terrorism Acts in 2022”.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 43—Travel abroad to support a proscribed organisation—

“(1) A person commits an offence if they travel outside of the United Kingdom to support a proscribed organisation.

(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘support’ includes—

(a) becoming a member of a proscribed organisation, or an affiliated group of a proscribed organisation;

(b) working for any entity, either voluntarily or for financial gain, run by a proscribed organisation;

(c) attending political, religious or social gatherings in support of a proscribed organisation;

(d) meeting with members of a proscribed organisation;

(e) creating content, both online and offline, to raise support for a proscribed organisation; or

(f) travelling to territory controlled by a proscribed organisation without an exemption.

(3) This section does not apply to—

(a) accredited non-governmental organisations and humanitarian organisations;

(b) accredited media outlets and journalists;

(c) diplomats and other governmental officials travelling in an official capacity; or

(d) independent journalists and content creators reporting on a proscribed organisation, or in a territory with a proscribed organisation present.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, to a fine (or both), or

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment of a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).”

This new clause would make travelling abroad to support a proscribed organisation an offence.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence for a person to wear or display an article in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that they are a member or supporter of a proscribed terrorist organisation. The offence is committed only if the person carries out such conduct in a public place.

Clause 123 makes two key changes to section 13 of the Terrorism Act. The first is to create a new offence where a person carries out the conduct in one of the relevant premises set out in the Bill, including prisons, young offender institutions and immigration removal centres. In 2022, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation undertook a review of terrorism in prisons. That was in the context of the UK suffering four terrorist attacks in 2019 and 2020 committed by serving prisoners or terrorist offenders who had been released on licence. One of the reviewer’s recommendations was for the Government to consider amending section 13 to extend the offence to prison settings. This clause implements and builds on that recommendation. The new offence will act as a deterrent to such harmful conduct in the prison estate, and it will help to prevent exposure to articles that are linked to terrorist organisations. That, in turn, may reduce the risk of individuals being radicalised or otherwise encouraged to support such groups.

The second change concerns the powers of seizure under section 13. In his report “The Terrorism Acts in 2022”, the independent reviewer highlighted that the existing seizure powers would not be available where the police could not connect an article, such as a flag or banner, to specific individuals for the purpose of further criminal investigation. He recommended that that gap should be rectified. The clause will therefore amend section 13 to ensure that the police can seize such articles even when there is no real prospect of prosecuting an individual for a section 13 offence. An article may therefore be seized to prevent its continuing display and to preserve it as evidence.

Both changes to section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 implement the independent reviewer’s recommendations and are supported by the police. They will ensure that the offence and associated seizure powers can be used to full effect. I am happy to respond to new clause 43 once we have heard from the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 123 amends section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which concerns the offence of wearing or displaying articles in support of a proscribed organisation. The key amendment is the introduction of a new offence:

“A person commits an offence if, on relevant premises, the person…wears…or displays an article, in such a way…as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.”

What is the rationale for introducing the concept of reasonable suspicion in the offence of wearing or displaying articles, as opposed to requiring more direct evidence of support for a proscribed organisation? I would also be grateful for clarity on how the list of relevant premises is determined. Could that include other locations or contexts beyond those listed?

New clause 43 introduces a criminal offence for individuals who travel outside the United Kingdom to support a proscribed organisation. The offence covers various forms of support, including joining or working for a proscribed organisation or its affiliated groups, attending events in support of such an organisation, meeting with its members, creating content to promote the organisation, or travelling to areas controlled by the organisation without a legal exemption. The new clause provides specific exemptions for accredited non-governmental organisations and humanitarian organisations, media outlets and journalists, and diplomats or Government officials travelling in an official capacity. A person who is found guilty under the provision could face a severe penalty of imprisonment for up to 14 years on conviction on indictment, or up to six months and a fine on summary conviction.

The measure is a proactive step to curb the influence and spread of terrorism. By criminalising travel abroad to support a proscribed organisation, it would help to prevent individuals from engaging in activities that might contribute to terrorism and destabilisation abroad. The inclusion of various forms of support, ranging from membership and financial involvement to attending gatherings or creating content, provides clarity on what constitutes illegal activity. That would ensure that law enforcement could pursue a wide range of actions that support proscribed organisations.

New clause 43 is designed to prevent individuals from becoming embedded with or supporting proscribed organisations. Why would the Government not support a preventive measure that helps to protect the UK from individuals travelling abroad to engage in terrorism-related activities?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As the shadow Minister has explained, new clause 43 seeks to introduce a new offence for travelling abroad to support a proscribed organisation. The UK has one of the strongest counter-terrorism frameworks in the world. That includes, under the Terrorism Act 2000, the ability to proscribe an organisation that the Home Secretary reasonably believes is concerned in terrorism. That means that it commits and participates in terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Some 80 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed.

As part of the counter-terrorism framework, there are a wide range of powers and offences that can be used by the Government and operational partners to disrupt travel overseas for terrorist purposes and to prosecute individuals on their return. That includes, for example, an executive power to cancel a British citizen’s passport and the power to temporarily seize a passport when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is traveling to engage in terrorism-related activity.

There are also a wide range of terrorism offences that could be engaged in relation to an individual who travels to support a proscribed organisation. For example, it is an offence to be a member of a proscribed organisation, to invite support—the invited support can be intangible, and it is not limited to money, property or support that incites violence or encourages terrorism—for a proscribed organisation, to attend a place used for terrorist training or to provide or receive terrorist training, and to undertake preparatory acts with the intention of committing an act of terrorism or assisting another to commit an act of terrorism.

The counter-terrorism framework also includes the designated area offence, which permits the Secretary of State to designate an area if she is satisfied that it is necessary for the purpose of protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism to restrict British nationals and residents from entering or remaining in the area. It is an offence for UK nationals or UK residents to enter or remain in a designated area. I recognise that the power has not been used to date, but the Government’s view is that it remains a useful tool to disrupt terrorist travel in the right circumstances.

As the shadow Minister may be aware, the Government are considering a recommendation made by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, on the topic raised by his new clause. The Government will not hesitate to address gaps in our toolkit and to ensure that it keeps pace with the modern terrorist threat. We have brought forward measures in the Bill to implement and build on recommendations the reviewer put forward under the last Government. In November 2024, the Home Secretary accepted his recommendation to consider introducing a new terrorist travel offence. Officials are currently considering it with operational partners, as well as the extent to which there is a gap. It is vital that any new offence extends the ability of operational partners and the CPS to disrupt and prosecute those involved in terrorism. In due course, the Government will respond fully to that recommendation on disrupting terrorist travel.

Before I conclude, on the issue of reasonable suspicion and the requirement, this measure simply extends beyond private settings to designated settings. We are not changing the reasonable suspicion test; I hope that that is helpful to the shadow Minister. For the reasons set out, I hope he will be content not to press his new clause 43 when we reach it later in our proceedings.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 123 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 124

Management of terrorist offenders

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 16.

Government new clause 21—Terrorism offences excepted from defence for slavery or trafficking victims.

Government amendment 23.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 124 introduces schedule 16, which amends the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. It gives powers to effectively manage a certain cohort of historical terrorism offenders. That cohort includes individuals who committed non-terrorism offences, such as conspiracy to murder, that would have been considered to have a terrorism connection had they not been committed before the relevant legislation came into effect. This is the same cohort of historical terrorism-connected offenders as captured by clause 104, relating to the polygraph testing of those offenders, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice spoke to earlier.

The 2008 Act introduced a requirement for courts to consider whether there is a connection to terrorism when sentencing certain specified offences. In circumstances where a court determines that an offence has a terrorism connection, it must aggravate the sentence. Where a terrorist connection is determined, the sentence imposed will reflect the risk profile of the offender. In addition, the offender can be more appropriately managed on their release because certain counter-terrorism risk management tools become available to the police in respect of that offender.

Since the passage of the 2008 Act, several further risk management tools have been introduced via various Acts of Parliament to manage terrorism and terrorist-connected offenders. The Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 also expanded the scope of the terrorist connection provisions to require a court to aggravate certain non-terrorism offences with a maximum penalty of more than two years.

The clause and the associated schedule will extend the application of existing risk management measures. Those measures include powers of urgent arrest and personal search for those on licence, where it is suspected that they have breached a licence condition, as well as imposing terrorist notification requirements under the 2008 Act for this cohort of historical terrorism-connected offenders.

The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation noted that the schedule will allow the police to apply important counter-terrorism measures to serious offenders involved in terrorist plots backed by proscribed organisations, but who were convicted of non-terrorism offences. The amendments made in schedule 16 will also permit the police or the Secretary of State to apply to the courts for an order imposing the terrorist notification requirements on offenders whose historical offences have a terrorist connection. If such an order is made, the urgent arrest power and the power of personal search will also apply in respect of the offender. That measure is supported by the police and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who described it as a “sensible measure”.

Government new clause 21 will add certain existing terrorism-related offences to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Government amendment 23 is consequential on new clause 21. As we have debated, schedule 4 to the 2015 Act contains a list of serious offences to which the section 45 defence of that Act does not apply. The list currently includes some terrorism offences, as well as serious violence and sexual offences. Section 45 provides a statutory defence against prosecution for victims of modern slavery, and is designed to give victims the confidence to come forward without fear of prosecution.

Schedule 4 to the 2015 Act ensures that those who commit the most serious offences specified in the schedule do not have the option to rely on that defence. New clause 21 adds existing terrorism offences to schedule 4, building on a recommendation made by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Currently, only a limited number of terrorism offences are listed in schedule 4, including those in sections 5 and 6 of the Terrorism Act 2006—preparation of terrorist acts and training for terrorism, respectively. Others, such as the offence in section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000—collection of information useful to terrorists—are in scope of the section 45 defence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 127 relates to the implementation of international law enforcement information-sharing agreements, clause 128 sets out the meaning of “appropriate national authority” and clause 129 relates to the consultation with devolved authorities about regulations under clause 127.

International law enforcement information-sharing agreements are a vital tool that provides law enforcement officers with access to new intelligence to fight crime, increase public protection and reduce the threat of societal harm posed by international criminality. Clause 127 will provide the appropriate national authority with the power to make regulations to implement any new legally binding international law enforcement information-sharing agreements. Such regulations may, for example, make provision for the technical and, where appropriate, operational detail needed to facilitate the information sharing provided for in a particular agreement. Clause 127 also stipulates that regulations can be made in connection with implementing an international agreement only in so far as it relates to the sharing of information for law enforcement purposes, and that any data sharing must comply with data protection legislation.

Clause 128 defines the appropriate national authority as the Secretary of State or, where a provision falls within devolved competence, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or the Northern Ireland Department of Justice. Clause 129 requires the Secretary of State, before making regulations, to consult devolved Governments about any provisions in the regulations that would be within the legislative competence of the relevant devolved legislature.

These measures will enable the swift implementation of new international agreements that are designed to help keep the public safe from the threat posed by international criminality and cross-border crime, and help to protect vulnerable people. I commend them to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 127 gives the Government the power to make regulations to implement international agreements relating to the sharing of law enforcement information. The agreements may evolve over time, and the clause ensures that UK law can adapt accordingly.

The clause allows regulations to override existing restrictions on information sharing, but with two key safeguards. A data protection safeguard means that regulations cannot require or allow the processing of personal data in a way that would breach UK data protection laws, unless the regulations themselves impose a legal duty or power. Regulations also cannot override the restrictions set out in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which covers the surveillance and interception of communications.

The clause aims to ensure that the UK can meet its obligations under international law enforcement agreements, while still upholding important privacy and legal protections. Clause 128 defines who the appropriate national authority is for the purposes of making regulations under clause 127.

Clause 129 places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Administrations before making any regulations under clause 127 that include provisions falling within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature, as set out in clause 128. That ensures proper engagement with, and respect for, the roles of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive when regulations touch on devolved matters. We welcome these measures, but could the Minister briefly comment on what format such consultation would take?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am happy to comment. With matters such as this, the normal procedures are in place around consultation. There has been extensive consultation on getting these provisions into the Bill. That is just the normal way that we consult. I hope that that satisfies the shadow Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 127 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 128 and 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 130

Criminal liability of bodies corporate and partnerships where senior manager commits offence

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As we know, crimes can be committed by corporate bodies, just as they can be committed by individuals. It is important that corporate bodies are held liable for committing criminality and face justice accordingly. That is achieved through what is called the identification doctrine.

In the 1970s, the Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v. Nattrass case determined that a corporation can be held liable for a crime if it is committed by its “directing mind and will”, but there is a lack of clarity on what that constitutes. As companies have grown in size and complexity, there are often multiple controlling minds within different business functions who can exert control and cause harm through different functions of the business.

Through clause 130 the Government are placing the case law test for attributing crimes to corporate bodies on a statutory footing, and clarifying and extending the circumstances under which a body corporate or partnership is liable for any criminal offence, if that offence has been committed by its senior management.

The previous Government undertook the first stage of this reform in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, placing the identification doctrine in legislation for economic crime offences. However, the identification doctrine was never intended as an economic crime-only regime. It has historically applied to any criminal offence in case law, and it is important that statute reflects that.

Clause 130 therefore repeals the relevant sections of the 2023 Act and replaces them with an identification doctrine that applies to all relevant crime, not just economic crime. As a result of the clause, a body corporate or partnership in the UK can be held liable for any criminal offence and fined accordingly where a senior manager who has control over the whole or a substantial part of the business commits an offence while acting in the scope of their actual or apparent authority.

The broadening of the principle to senior managers with control over any substantial part of the body corporate reflects the wide decision-making responsibilities of organisations and mitigates prior concerns that individuals committing crime could escape liability by changing or removing their title. That will ensure that businesses cannot continue to avoid liability where senior management have clearly used the business to facilitate or conduct crime.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 130 holds organisations criminally liable when a senior manager commits an offence within their authority, expanding liability beyond economic crimes to all criminal offences. This reform addresses gaps in the previous identification doctrine and applies to both UK and non-UK entities. However, liability will not apply if the offences occur entirely outside the UK, unless it would be criminal at the corporate level in the UK. How will the Government ensure that the broader application of corporate liability strikes the right balance between holding organisations accountable and avoiding unfair penalisation for offences that occur in part outside the UK?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for the question. It is clear that offences committed outside the UK would not be covered by the clause—I think that that answers the shadow Minster’s question. It is clearly something that we need to keep under review, because other legislation does have extraterritorial application. I am certainly willing to go away and look at that point, and to come back to the shadow Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 130 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,

That the Order of the Committee of Thursday 27 March be varied by leaving out paragraph 1(g).—(Keir Mather.)

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)

Crime and Policing Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 79 stand part.

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

Good morning, Ms Lewell. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair on this glorious day.

Clause 78 introduces two new criminal offences in relation to electronic devices used in vehicle-related theft. The first will criminalise the possession of such devices, and the second will criminalise the importing, making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply such devices. Both offences require a reasonable suspicion that the device will be used in connection with the theft of a vehicle, theft of anything in a vehicle, or taking a vehicle without authority.

A significant proportion of vehicle theft is driven by serious and organised crime groups, and it costs millions of pounds in social and economic harm each year. Given the high demand for stolen vehicles and vehicle parts, this is an attractive and lucrative area for criminals to profit from. Criminals find ways to overcome security measures, even in the latest vehicle models, by using electronic devices to exploit vulnerabilities in vehicles and new technologies. The Metropolitan Police Service estimates that electronic devices are used in approximately 60% of vehicle thefts in London.

The clause does not define specific electronic devices, but uses a broad definition to cover any electronic device that could be used in vehicle theft. That ensures that the legislation is future-proof for any new devices that may be developed and used by criminals. The offence will be triable either way and, on conviction on indictment, will carry a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.

We have also provided a defence for a person charged with this offence to show that they did not intend or suspect that the relevant article would be used in connection with the theft of a vehicle or anything in a vehicle. The clause also outlines that the court may assume that the defendant possessed the relevant article where it is on any premises at the same time as the defendant, or on premises at which the defendant was the occupier or an habitual user otherwise than as a member of the public. The defendant will have a defence where they can show that they did not know of an article’s presence on the premises or had no control over the article. During proceedings, a court can also assume that the articles in question are intended to be used in vehicle theft. That reflects the fact that the specified articles have few legitimate uses.

Clause 79 supports clause 78 by clarifying the evidential burdens for the new offence, while also inserting it into the list of lifestyle offences in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. That means that, if convicted of this offence, a person’s assets will be considered to have potentially derived from crime and may be subject to confiscation. To have a defence, a defendant will be required to establish the facts that are within their knowledge—such as demonstrating that they run a company that supplies legitimate electronic devices.

Signal repeaters, which have been approved for use by Ofcom, are legal to own and use to boost an otherwise weak mobile phone signal, for example. If a defendant can demonstrate that they did not intend, nor reasonably suspect, that the articles were to be used in vehicle theft, the evidential burden falls back on the prosecution. The prosecution will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had reasonable grounds to suspect that the article they were importing, making, modifying, supplying, offering to supply or possessing would be used in vehicle theft.

That reverse evidential burden is appropriate given the few legitimate uses associated with the specified articles. It will ensure that law enforcement agencies are able to target those individuals who keep just enough distance from the serious offences being carried out to avoid consequences under existing legislation.

Serious and organised crime has a devastating effect— I am sure we can all agree on that. Clauses 78 and 79 send a clear message about our commitment to tackling vehicle crime and associated serious and organised criminality, and to making it easier for the police to take action. That means more prosecutions and more criminals off our streets, which will help to restore public confidence.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.

Clause 78 rightly introduces new offences aimed at preventing the misuse of electronic devices such as signal jammers, signal amplifiers and devices used to access vehicle wiring systems for committing vehicle-related crimes. The offences include the possession, importation, manufacturing, adaptation, supply or offer to supply such devices when there is reasonable suspicion that they will be used in connection with crimes such as vehicle theft, stealing items from a vehicle or taking a vehicle without authority.

The subsections provide a defence for individuals who can prove that they did not intend or suspect that the device would be used for a relevant offence, and they allow a court to presume possession of a device if it is found on premises occupied or habitually used by the accused, unless the accused can demonstrate that they were unaware of its presence or had no control over it.

Clause 79 clarifies the evidential burden in cases under clause 78, which deals with electronic devices used in vehicles. It explains that where a defendant seeks to rely on such a defence—for example, that they did not intend the device to be used in a crime—they must provide enough evidence to raise the issue, and the prosecution must then disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Clauses 78 and 79 are needed to strengthen the legal response to the growing threat of tech-enabled vehicle theft, which has become increasingly sophisticated with the use of electronic devices such as signal jammers and relay attack tools. Clause 78 creates targeted offences around the possession, manufacture and supply of such devices, recognising the role they play in modern vehicle crime. By focusing on intent and suspicion, the clause allows for earlier intervention and prevention even before a theft occurs.

We support the measures, but what consultation was done with law enforcement, manufacturers and cyber-security experts to develop the provisions? Does the Minister expect this designation to lead to more asset confiscation from organised crime groups involved in vehicle theft?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I rise to speak in favour of clause 78, which tackles the growing scourge of criminals using high-tech devices to steal from hard-working people, because I know how important this is in my community. For 14 years, between 2010 and 2024, crime in my patch doubled. These thieves no longer need a crowbar; they use laptops, signal boosters and hacking tools to rob families of their vehicles, their livelihoods and their sense of safety. Enough is enough. Clause 78 strikes directly at those parasites by making it an offence not just to steal but to possess, import, manufacture or supply the very devices that make these thefts possible—it cuts off the tools of their horrific trade.

I recently heard from a Hemel resident who, back in December 2023, had his truck broken into and all his work tools stolen. Then, in November 2024, his family’s disability car was also stolen. Later, two of their neighbours’ cars were stolen along with hundreds of pounds-worth of equipment, having been parked side by side in a lay-by by their homes.

This clause sends a message: “If you are gearing up to commit a crime, this country will come down on you like a ton of bricks.” Let us be clear that this is not about targeting legitimate businesses or technology users; it is about targeting criminals, gangs and the shadow economy that thrives on stealing from working people and laughing as they do it. Subsection (3) rightly offers a defence for those acting innocently, but it removes the cloak of plausible deniability that too many criminals have hidden behind for too long.

The people of Hemel Hempstead are fed up. They are tired of waking up to find their cars stolen, they are tired of seeing criminals treated as an inevitable part of life, and they are tired of seeing their vans broken into and their tools stolen. They expect and demand that we act, and act we must. We have to stand up for the delivery driver who loses their van, for the care worker who needs her car to get to her patients, and for every family who fear that they will become a victim of crime. It is not enough simply to chase stolen vehicles after they are gone. We must prevent these thefts from happening in the first place, and we must choke off the supply of tools that fuel this criminality. We must make it clear that there are no easy pickings for those who prey on working people.

I am proud that the Bill does not stop with vehicle crime. It invests in neighbourhood policing, strengthens the fight against organised crime and clamps down on new forms of digital exploitation. It rebuilds the idea that security—real, everyday security—is a right, not a privilege. The Bill is a line in the sand; it says to criminals, “Your time is up,” and it says to our communities, “We hear you and we are on your side.” For Hemel Hempstead, for our towns and cities and for the millions of honest people who deserve better, I urge hon. Members to back clause 78 and the Crime and Policing Bill without hesitation.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I welcome the support for the two clauses. We all know the devastation that the theft of a motor vehicle and its contents can cause to our constituents. I want specifically to address the questions posed by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West. As he may recall, vehicle crime was raised in the previous Government’s serious organised crime consultation. After that, conversations with law enforcement, vehicle manufacturers and Ofcom have confirmed that this is a key issue. I know from speaking to car manufacturers that they welcome the legislation.

We are also working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for vehicle crime to reduce vehicle crime through the national vehicle crime working group and the recently established, industry-funded national vehicle crime reduction partnership. The vehicle crime action plan was formed through the national vehicle crime working group and in conjunction with the Home Office, and it includes commitments to work with motor industry representatives to consider crime prevention measures that can be taken to prevent thefts.

The hon. Member for Stockton West also asked about the effect of the clauses on offending. As I indicated, designating the new offence as a lifestyle offence under POCA will support the increased confiscation of the proceeds of vehicle crime, which chimes well with sending a clear message to criminals that enough is enough and that we will come after them.

With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 78 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80

Possession of a SIM farm

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 81 and 82 stand part.

Schedule 10.

Clauses 83 to 85 stand part.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

This group relates to SIM farms. We know that criminals abuse telecommunications networks, including texts and calls, to target people and defraud victims at a significant scale. We most likely all know of a friend, family member or constituent who has received such a text, or we have even received one ourselves—I certainly have. Such scams prey on the public, particularly those who are vulnerable. They can have a devastating emotional impact and can inflict serious financial harm on victims.

Scam texts are frequently traced back to SIM farms—electronic devices that can hold sometimes hundreds of physical SIM cards, which can be used to send out thousands of scam texts and calls in seconds. They are currently legal for anyone to buy, and it is easy to find suppliers online, making it easy to commit telecoms fraud on a very large scale. Clauses 80 and 81 therefore provide for new offences that criminalise the possession of SIM farms without good reason, and their supply without undertaking adequate due diligence.

Clauses 83 to 85 will also allow the potential extension of the ban to further technologies that may be exploited by criminals to scam the UK public, with any such extension subject to a high level of scrutiny and checks. The new offences will make it difficult for criminals to access and use these devices for the purpose of fraud. They will give the police the necessary tools to disrupt fraudsters, even before they start using SIM farms to commit fraud.

Clause 80 bans the possession of a SIM farm without good reason. A person can possess a SIM farm if they can prove that they have a good reason or lawful authority to do so. The Government have identified several legitimate uses of SIM farms, such as multi-SIM devices used in broadcast and programme-making to facilitate the production and delivery of live and pre-recorded broadcasts.

SIM farms are also used by transport providers to offer wi-fi—I am sure most hon. Members who have to travel frequently will welcome the availability of wi-fi—not only on trains, but on trams, buses, coaches and ferries, as the devices switch between mobile network operators, depending on which has the best reception where the device is located at any particular moment. We have worked closely with stakeholders to develop a defence that will allow such legitimate use to continue uninterrupted, while stopping criminals using SIM farms for criminal activities.

Clause 80 provides examples of what may be a good reason to possess a SIM farm, including the provision of broadcast services, the operation or maintenance of a public transport service and the operation or maintenance of an electronic communications network. The list of good reasons in subsection (3) is not exhaustive and it would be open to a person under investigation for, or charged with, the offence to argue that they have another good reason for possessing a SIM farm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I support the clauses, which outlaw the use of SIM farms and the supply of SIM farms to others.

It is a defence for a person to show that they have “good reason” to use a SIM farm. Examples are given in the Bill, including providing broadcasting services, operating or maintaining a public transport service and tracking freight. I do not suggest that amendments are necessary, but I wonder whether the Minister can help us understand the provisions. What are examples of legitimate use in broadcasting services or tracking freight? These are areas of legitimate commercial activity that lay people are not particularly familiar with. I would be interested to know why a company would want to use multiple SIMs and phone numbers to track freight, for example. It is not meant to be a complex question.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am glad that there is cross-party support for these measures. The clauses were, on the whole, included in the Criminal Justice Bill introduced by the previous Government.

Fighting fraud is a top priority for this Government and tackling it is really important not only for our safer streets mission but for our growth agenda. We want to address the full range of fraud threats that occur. We want to close the systemic enablers that criminals are able to exploit to operate at scale and without detection, such as SIM farms.

The hon. Member for Stockton West is right that such a provision was included in the Criminal Justice Bill, but we have updated the definition of SIM farm to reflect newly emerging use cases. In response to feedback from stakeholders, we are creating an additional offence for the possession and supply of additional technologies, to be specified in the future, with appropriate exceptions to avoid unnecessary restrictions on legitimate businesses and professionals. I hope that goes some way to reassuring the hon. Member about why we are trying to future-proof these clauses. On the issue of review, the provisions will be reviewed two years after commencement.

On the point about legitimate activity, as I said, the list in the Bill is not exhaustive; it gives some indication of legitimate reasons why a business or organisation might have a SIM farm in its possession. Whether a reason is reasonable and stands up to scrutiny will obviously be a matter for the court to decide. The list is not exhaustive, in order to provide flexibility; as I said, this area is changing rapidly. In the coming weeks, months and years there may be new legitimate reasons for businesses to possess a SIM farm to assist them in providing a service or selling something. The clauses are constructed as they are in order to allow that flexibility.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 80 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 81 and 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 agreed to.

Clauses 83 to 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86

Offence of concealing identity at protests

--- Later in debate ---

The new clause would provide better protection of public interests by ensuring that essential services and the normal functioning of society are not unduly disrupted by public gatherings; it would also offer a clearer, more predictable legal framework, reducing ambiguity for both law enforcement and protest organisers, so that everyone knows the boundaries of acceptable behaviour during public events.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 86 introduces a new criminal offence for a person

“wearing or otherwise using an item that conceals their identity or another person’s identity”

in a public place that has been designated by the police. It is a defence for a person to prove that they wore or used the item for a purpose related to either the health of the person or others, religious observance or the person’s work. Clause 87 provides that

“A constable whose rank is at least that of inspector may designate a locality in England or Wales that is in their police area for a specified period not exceeding 24 hours if they reasonably believe that—

(a) a public assembly, or public procession, which constitutes a protest may take place or is taking place in the locality,

(b) the protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences, and

(c) it is expedient, in order to prevent or limit the commission of offences, to designate the locality”.

Earlier we heard evidence—the hon. Members for Windsor and for Sutton and Cheam raised this example—about people, perhaps from the Hong Kong community, protesting against the Chinese authorities, and how this provision could affect those who legitimately want to cover their faces because of the reprisals and repercussions that might be threatened against their families back in Hong Kong. I want to be clear: this measure does not create an offence of concealing identity at every protest. The offence applies only to a protest in a locality designated by the police, and they can designate a locality only where they reasonably believe that

“the protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences,”

and that

“it is expedient, in order to prevent or limit the commission of offences, to designate the locality”.

The majority of protests are peaceful and would not be captured by these clauses. The use of these powers and the management of protests is also an operational decision for the police, and we would expect them to consider the nature of the protest, including those who are likely to be present, before deciding to designate an area using this power. I hope that deals with the point raised about protestors from the Hong Kong community, and of course others.

As I have set out, the constable at the rank of inspector who designates a locality must ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to notify the public that the designation has been made, the offences created under clause 86, the locality and the period for which the designation will be enforced. Clause 88 sets out the procedure for designation, including what must be specified. Clause 91 is the interpretation section for part 9 of the Bill.

In recent years, as a number of Members have said, the police have faced significant challenges in policing large-scale protests. While the majority of those attending these protests are exercising their rights peacefully and within the confines of the law, unfortunately we have seen a minority of individuals behave in a criminal manner while hiding their identity. It is vital that the police are able to identify those who commit criminal offences during the course of these protests, because those who commit criminal offences should face justice for their crimes and because preventing criminality at protests ensures that peaceful protestors and the wider community are protected from harm.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

The shadow Minister spoke about an incident that happened in my constituency. I want to assure everybody that the people who committed those criminal offences, which were not part of any protest, were held accountable and sent to prison.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

It is always good to hear when people are held accountable for their criminal actions and punished accordingly, so I am very pleased to hear that.

I want to explain fully how clause 86 will work. At the moment, the police have existing powers to require individuals to remove disguises in designated localities where criminality is likely, but those powers have not always worked in the way that we all want them to, with individuals complying with directions to remove disguises, but then later putting them back on. In a large protest, it is difficult to prevent that from occurring, which is why the new offence makes it a criminal offence to conceal an identity as soon as the locality has been designated.

I want to make it clear that the police have to take all reasonable steps to notify the public that a designation has been made, including the nature of the offence, the locality to which the designation applies and the period during which the designation will be enforced. A designation must be in writing, except for where that is not reasonably practicable, such as in a live and rapidly moving public order situation, in which case the police can make an oral designation instead and record that in writing as soon as reasonably practicable. The maximum penalty for this offence is one month’s imprisonment or a level 3 fine not exceeding £1,000.

Let me turn to the amendments in this group. Amendment 51 seeks to limit the defences in clause 86 to those who have given written notice to the police or, if not reasonably practicable, oral notice. While I understand the motivation behind the amendment, we believe that clause 86 already provides a sufficient and specific statutory defence for individuals who wear or use identity-concealing items for purposes related to health, religious observance or work. Crucially, this defence is subject to a reverse burden of proof, which means that the individual must prove on the balance of probabilities that their use of such an item was for one of these legitimate purposes. This mechanism already ensures that only those with genuine reasons can rely on the defence without placing an undue burden on the prosecution.

Introducing a requirement to notify the police in writing or orally would add an unnecessary and impractical layer of and risk excluding individuals with legitimate defences simply because they did not, or could not, provide prior notice, and could result in the criminalisation of innocent people on procedural grounds. The current legal framework strikes an appropriate balance between public safety and individual rights. Amendment 51 would undermine that balance without offering meaningful enforcement benefits.

New clause 34 seeks to import directly into the Public Order Act 1986 the provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023. The shadow Minister has indicated that the rationale for the new clause is to seek to mitigate the effects of the Supreme Court’s Ziegler judgment in June 2021.

The 2023 regulations amended and clarified the meaning of

“serious disruption to the life of the community”

for the purposes of the police’s powers to imposes conditions on protests under the 1986 Act. They did so by amending the examples of cases that may constitute serious disruption, specifying that the cumulative impact of protests in the same area, and all relevant disruption, may be considered by police, even when it is not protest-related, when they assess the impact of a particular protest for the purpose of imposing conditions. The serious disruption regulations also defined the term “community”. The example of cases that may constitute serious disruption aligned the use of the term with the definition provided in section 34 of the Public Order Act 2023.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Ziegler case established that the protection afforded to protesters by articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights extends to circumstances in which the disruption caused by protesters is the intentional obstruction of others. However, the extent of the disruption, and whether it was intentional, are relevant factors in the assessment of proportionality.

Let me take the subjects in turn. First, the shadow Minister will be aware that Liberty successfully challenged the serious disruption regulations in May 2024. This Government disagreed with the High Court’s ruling in that case, particularly in relation to the Court’s finding on consultation. Accordingly, we have appealed the Court’s decision, and await the Court of Appeal’s judgment, which is expected shortly.

Secondly, the provisions in the serious disruption regulations are not discernibly impacted by the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Ziegler case. That judgment relates to the reasonable excuse defence, and more recent case law, such as R v. Hallam and Others, has since made clear the limitations of such a defence.

I recognise the positive intention of new clause 34 to ensure that the changes made by the serious disruption regulations remain available to police forces in their policing of protests, but we consider that we cannot seek to address the issue—should there be one—until the Court of Appeal’s judgment is received. In short, it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the Court of Appeal’s judgment. In the meantime, the regulations remain in force until the judgment is handed down. It remains open to the Court of Appeal to overturn the High Court’s quashing order, should the judges find in favour of the Government. We will consider our response to the Court of Appeal’s judgment once it is available.

New clause 53 seeks to insert a statutory right to peaceful protest into the Public Order Act 1986, by requiring public authorities to respect, protect and facilitate the right to protest. The rights that it outlines are already firmly established in UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998, and public authorities must act in a way that is compatible with a convention right. Introducing a parallel provision risks legal duplication, confusion and inconsistent interpretation, potentially complicating the enforcement of public order. Rather than adding legal clarity, the new clause might create uncertainty without offering any new protections.

I hope that I have been able to persuade Opposition Members that their amendments are not necessary or are premature. I ask that the hon. Member for Windsor withdraws amendment 51.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

During recent protests, the police have observed that protesters are increasingly using flares and fireworks. Although there is existing legislation that prohibits the use of fireworks in public places and the possession of explosives other than for a lawful purpose, it does not consistently cover the mere possession of flares and fireworks during protests. The clause therefore creates a new criminal offence of possession of a pyrotechnic article for those taking part in a protest.

The misuse of pyrotechnic articles has implications regarding public safety. This new measure will enable the police to take the necessary preventive action against such behaviour during protests. It is a defence for a person to show they had a reasonable excuse for having the pyrotechnic article, such as a flare or firework, in their possession at the material time, or, in particular, to show they had it in their possession for use in connection with work.

The offence applies only to those taking part in a protest. It does not capture a person who is taking part in, for example, a cultural or religious event where pyrotechnic articles are customarily used. The maximum penalty for the offence will be a level 3 fine of £1,000. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

I am content.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s support and hope the Committee will agree to the clause standing part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90

War memorials

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider schedule 11.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

We all understand and accept that war memorials play a vital role in commemorating those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, including those who have no known grave. They offer a place of reflection and should be protected.

In some recent protests, protesters have climbed on war memorials, causing anger and outrage among the public. The new offence will provide greater clarity for policing. In particular, the measure makes it clear that the act of climbing on specified war memorials is unacceptable. It gives police the powers they need to ensure that justice is delivered to those who engage in such disrespectful conduct.

A war memorial is an object that preserves the memory of a war or conflict and those involved in it. It can take any form and be created by anyone at any time. It can be permanent or temporary; it can be a living thing such as a tree; it can a building or a more traditional plaque, monument or sculpture. The offence is intended to ensure that our most significant war memorials are used for their intended purpose of providing remembrance for those who have died and have no grave to be visited, and are not to be disrespected.

Schedule 11 specifies 25 war memorials, including the Royal Artillery memorial and the Cenotaph in London, the Portsmouth naval war memorial, and the Liverpool Cenotaph. The clause includes a power to amend the list of specified war memorials in schedule 11 by regulations.

The penalty for the offence will be a level 3 fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. It is a defence for a person charged with the offence to provide that they had good reason for climbing on the specified war memorial, or had the owner or occupier’s consent to climb on it. That will ensure that activities such as maintenance approved by the owner will not be criminalised. If a war memorial has a base or steps that are designed for individuals to climb, individuals will not be criminalised. On that basis, I commend the clause and schedule 11 to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

The clause introduces a new offence targeted at individuals who climb on designated war memorials without lawful justification. It is designed to protect sites of national remembrance and ensure that they are treated with appropriate respect and dignity. The act of climbing on such memorials, often during protests or large gatherings, can be seen as disrespectful, provocative or even intentionally inflammatory, particularly when shared on social media.

For example, at a pro-Palestinian demonstration in London in 2023, a group of protesters climbed on to the Royal Artillery memorial at Hyde Park Corner, which honours the tens of thousands of Royal Artillery soldiers who died in the first world war. The Metropolitan police described the actions as inflammatory, but noted that at the time no specific law prohibited climbing on war memorials, so no arrests were made.

The introduction of the offence reflects growing public unease about the perceived disrespect towards war memorials during certain protests in recent years. It is right that this measure should be put in place to protect the memory and legacy of those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am pleased with the cross-party support for the measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 90 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11 agreed to.

Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92

Suspension of internet protocol addresses and internet domain names

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider schedule 12.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The clause introduces schedule 12, which provides for a new power for law enforcement and certain investigative agencies, such as the National Crime Agency and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, to apply to the court for an order to suspend internet protocol addresses and domain names when they are used to facilitate serious crime.

All too often, criminals use IP addresses and domain names to facilitate crimes such as fraud, the distribution of child sexual abuse material, malware and phishing. Currently, law enforcement agencies do not have the legal power to mandate the suspension of IP addresses and domain names, so in some scenarios the UK public continue to be at risk of falling victim to crime.

Law enforcement agencies currently utilise voluntary arrangements with industry to request the suspension of IP addresses and domains. In the majority of domestic cases, voluntary arrangements are successful, and the Government are clear that they should continue to be the first port of call in the United Kingdom. However, most of the organisations responsible for providing the IP address or domain name are situated in foreign jurisdictions and often require a formal request, such as a court order, before they will take action. The measure will provide for such a court order to be obtained. Domestically, the provision will empower law enforcement agencies to compel the small number of organisations that do not co-operate with voluntary arrangements.

The measure will protect the public by giving law enforcement and certain investigative agencies the tools they need to tackle crimes facilitated by IP addresses and domain names, and to prevent individuals from becoming potential victims. It will ensure that the UK cyber-landscape continues to be one of the safest in the world. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

The clause rightly provides a legal framework for suspending IP addresses and domain names linked to serious crime. This is a valuable measure in the fight against cyber-enabled criminal activity, including fraud, child exploitation and unlicensed online gambling.

By allowing appropriate officers to apply to a judge for a suspension order, the clause ensures that access to digital infrastructure used for criminal purposes can be swiftly and lawfully disrupted. It will be particularly effective in cases where traditional enforcement is difficult because of the borderless nature of online platforms. Crucially, safeguards are built in to ensure that the powers are used only when necessary, and proportionately. The involvement of a judge, strict criteria for suspension, and provisions for variation or appeal ensure a fair balance between enforcement and civil liberties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for the Opposition’s support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12 agreed to.

Clause 93

Electronically tracked stolen goods: search without warrant

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 94 stand part.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 93 amends the Theft Act 1968 to create a new power for the police to enter premises to search for and seize stolen items that have been electronically tracked to the premises, without requiring a warrant from a court if it is not reasonably practicable to obtain one. Clause 94 makes the same change in respect of the service police.

Under the safer streets mission, the Government are determined to crack down on acquisitive and street crimes, antisocial behaviour, and other crimes that make people feel unsafe on our streets. Crimes such as phone theft and snatch theft are deeply invasive and can have a profound impact on those whose possessions are stolen.

Tackling mobile phone theft is a priority for the Government. According to the crime survey for England and Wales, in the year ending March 2024 an estimated 235,000 people had their mobile phone stolen. Around half of stolen phones are taken through snatch thefts or pickpocketing, known as theft from the person offences.

The latest crime survey estimates show that street crime, which includes theft from the person offences and personal robbery, increased by 43%, driven by a significant rise in snatch theft. Data published by the Metropolitan police shows that theft from the person offences involving a mobile phone increased by 30% in London during the year to January 2025. Those figures are extremely concerning.

In recent years, the ability to track valuable items such as phones, bicycles and vehicles has become vastly more sophisticated. If items fitted with GPS or other trackers are stolen, it is now far easier for victims to know where their stolen property is located. However, victims have raised concerns that when they share that information with the police, they are not always able to act. This is extremely frustrating for victims of crime and for the police.

Those who commit the offences are not just petty criminals and opportunists. There is clear evidence of organised criminality and profitability, with stolen devices often being trafficked internationally, particularly to China and Algeria. That is why, at our mobile phone summit on 6 February, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary brought together law enforcement agencies and the mobile phone industry, and secured their commitments to working jointly to tackle mobile phone theft and to breaking the business model of the organised criminal networks that drive it.

Collaborative efforts include significantly boosting data and intelligence sharing to better understand this complex problem, increased police-intensification activities, and ensuring that all parties work together to drive joint solutions. To complement these actions, the legislative reforms in the Bill will enable the police to investigate more swiftly those who conduct mobile phone and other forms of theft. Currently, the police have no general power to enter and search premises solely for the purpose of searching for and seizing stolen property without a warrant. We know that when items can be tracked to specific locations, they are quickly moved on or sold, limiting the window in which the police can act.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Burton-Sampson]

As I look around the room, we all have our mobiles glued to our hands. They do everything for us now: payments, emails, leisure and, occasionally, phone calls. These devices are massively important to us. We all know the feeling of leaving home without a mobile device—many of us would have to turn round because we cannot live without it.

There has been a significant rise in snatch-and-grab crimes throughout the country, and I know many constituents, friends and colleagues in this place who have been impacted. Given that these devices can be tracked, it is madness that the police are not currently able to go in and recover them. I take the point raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about the accuracy of tracking. I do not think it is as big an issue as he makes out, but perhaps it is something for the Minister to consider.

The biggest thing is that knowing the police can enter to recover these items will act as a deterrent. We need to drive down this crime. The prevalence of snatch-and-grabs in this country is simply unacceptable, so I welcome clause 93.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I will deal with the questions that have been raised in this short debate. First, the new measure differs from the previous Government’s proposed reform as it provides the police with specific targeted powers to retrieve electronically tagged stolen items that have been tracked to premises using the geolocation data and intelligence, and it will equip the police with tailored powers to act quickly to retrieve items, bringing offenders to justice and providing a swifter resolution for victims. We are also introducing robust safeguards, including the requirement for an officer of at least inspector rank to authorise the use of the powers, so that they are used proportionately and lawfully.

I take very seriously the issue raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about the accuracy of data. With these new powers, as I tried to set out in my opening remarks, the police will need to be satisfied that at least one item of property in question has been electronically tracked to the premises, and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is stolen and on the premises before entry is authorised. We would expect the police to undertake due diligence and, as far as possible, to use additional information or intelligence to ensure that the location is accurate. As I said, any use of the power has to be authorised by at least an inspector.

[Luke Taylor]

I thank the Minister for giving way, because I think this is a helpful query: will there be any differentiation between last known locations and live tracking? Obviously, tracking devices can be removed and batteries can run out. Will a last known location be considered sufficient evidence of an item’s current location, or will a live location be needed to prove that the item is currently in that position?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman raises legitimate questions about how this will work operationally. As I said in my opening remarks, there will be guidance on how this will function.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the possible redress for householders when things perhaps go wrong. There are existing provisions under which individuals may be able to claim compensation where the police have caused damage to property by, for example, forcing entry. Any compensation will obviously depend on the circumstances of each case and will be for the police force to determine, and it is unlikely to be paid if the damage was caused by the police acting lawfully on the evidence and information available to them.

On that basis, I commend these clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 93 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95

Access to driver licensing information

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 95 deals with access to driver licensing information. It will facilitate automatic access by the police and other law enforcement officers to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency driver information, at the point of need, for all policing and law enforcement purposes.

The police and other law enforcement officers are frequently required to deal with unpredictable circumstances, often operating under significant time pressure, as they strive to protect the public, maintain order and investigate complex criminality. The police have provided compelling operational examples of where they could better deal with the threats and harms faced by individuals if direct access to DVLA driving licence data were provided.

Protecting our communities from the threat of sexual violence, stopping drug gangs preying on the vulnerable, safeguarding people from harassment and stalking, and informing relatives of the death or serious injury of a loved one are duties that our police officers frequently undertake. Unfortunately, those are some of the activities for which police officers cannot make effective use of DVLA driving licence information within the current data access regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 95 updates and expands police and law enforcement access to driver licence data held by the DVLA. It replaces the existing section 71 of the 2000 Act with a revised framework, adding proposed new sections 71A and 71B. The modernised provision allows authorised individuals including the police, service police and other specified law enforcement bodies to access driver licensing information not just for road traffic offences but for a wider range of policing and law enforcement purposes. The Secretary of State is given power to regulate access, impose conditions and consult relevant bodies before issuing new rules or codes of practice. The clause also introduces oversight measures, such as a statutory code of practice and an annual report to Parliament, ensuring transparency and responsible data use. I welcome the Minister’s comments on the role of facial recognition technology and on the safeguards put in place to ensure the power is not used disproportionately or inappropriately.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 95 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 96

Testing of persons in police detention for presence of controlled drugs

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Schedule 13.

Clauses 97 to 100 stand part.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

These clauses relate to drug testing. There are a number of provisions we wish to introduce. Clauses 96 to 100 and schedule 13 amend existing legislation to expand the powers of the police to drug test people aged 18 or over on arrest, or aged 14 or over on charge, where the offence they have been arrested for or charged with is a “trigger offence” or where a police officer of at least the rank of inspector reasonably suspects that their drug use caused or contributed to their offending.

These clauses expand the police’s powers to drug test in three clear ways: first, by expanding the range of drugs that can be tested for, from specified class A drugs only to any specified controlled drug; secondly, by expanding the list of trigger offences which may automatically trigger a drug test; and thirdly, by expanding the power to take an additional sample for drug testing when the first is unsuitable or insufficient, and up to a maximum of two samples. The clauses also expand the regime for subsequent assessments for misuse of controlled drugs following a positive test result.

As we all appreciate, drugs can have wide-ranging and devastating impacts on individuals and society. Addressing the drug use that is linked to crime is key to the Government’s safer streets mission. The purpose of drug testing on arrest is to reduce reoffending by referring those whose offending is believed to be at least in part caused by drug use into assessment for treatment and support services. The intention is not to further criminalise drug users, although refusing to provide a sample or to attend or stay for an assessment is an offence. Nor does it mean that they will receive treatment instead of a sentence. Drug testing on arrest is a discretionary power, subject to the safeguards included in the existing legislation, the PACE codes of practice and other relevant guidance. How it is implemented and funded is a local decision made by the police and crime commissioner and service providers.

Clause 96 amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to expand the existing police power to drug test in police detention to include any “specified controlled drug” as opposed to just specified class A drugs. The list of controlled drugs will be specified in secondary legislation, subject to the negative procedure. To be specified, drugs must be controlled drugs within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Clause 96 also inserts new schedule 2B into PACE, which provides an updated list of trigger offences for drug testing on arrest. A number of the additions to the list of trigger offences are key to the Government’s safer streets mission, including offences linked to violence against women and girls, knife crime and antisocial behaviour. Some existing trigger offences are removed, such as fraud and vagrancy offences where there is no longer a clear link to drug misuse or those offences are being repealed. The clause also moves the Secretary of State’s power to amend the list of trigger offences in secondary legislation, subject to the draft affirmative procedure, into PACE. Clause 97 amends the Drugs Act 2005 and the Bail Act 1976 to reflect the expansion from class A drugs to “specified controlled drugs” to align with the changes in clause 96.

Clause 98 amends PACE to expand the police’s power to take an additional sample from a person in police detention for the purpose of testing, where the first sample is unsuitable or insufficient, up to a maximum of two samples. It allows the police to take an additional sample where required—for example, where one sample alone is not suitable or sufficient for testing across more than one machine or kit to test for additional, different drugs. Only one additional sample may be taken, and only when the first sample is unsuitable or insufficient. The legislative safeguards that apply to the first sample will continue to apply, such as being reminded that refusal to provide a sample is a criminal offence, having a maximum of two samples taken during the period of detention, and not being tested before having seen a custody officer.

Clause 99 repeals subsections (8A) and (8B) in section 37 of PACE and amends section 38, which currently enable the police to continue to detain an individual for the purpose of taking a sample for drug testing, before or after charge. We have determined that, due to changes in operational procedure and drug testing technology, the power is no longer necessary and so we are removing it.

Finally, clause 100 removes the notification conditions in section 63B of PACE and in the Drugs Act 2005. In 2011, Home Office guidance advised all forces in England and Wales that they did not need to seek additional, individual authorisation from the Secretary of State to conduct drug testing on arrest. These amendments reflect that guidance by removing the notification condition from both PACE and the Drugs Act 2005. They remove an administrative burden on the police, improving efficiency. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 96 and schedule 13 significantly expand the existing powers of the police to conduct drug testing on individuals in detention. Currently, the police can test only for class A drugs under certain conditions. The clause amends sections 63B and 63C of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to enable testing for any specified controlled drug, broadening the scope beyond class A to include class B and C substances. The change allows for testing following arrest for those aged 18 and over, or charge for those aged 14 and over, where the arrest relates to a trigger offence or where a police inspector reasonably suspects that drug misuse contributed to the offence.

The clause also inserts new schedule 2B into PACE to define the list of trigger offences, replacing the outdated schedule 6 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The updated schedule retains many existing offences, particularly theft and drug offences, but removes fraud and vagrancy offences. It adds a range of new offences such as common assault, certain violent crime and public order offences. The Secretary of State is given the power to amend the list of drugs and offences through regulations subject to either the draft affirmative or negative resolution procedures, depending on the nature of the change.

Clause 97 makes related changes to the Drugs Act 2005 to align the drug assessment framework with the new expanded testing regime. Sections 9 and 10 of the 2005 Act, which govern the process for initial and follow-up assessments following a positive drugs test, are amended to refer to specific controlled drugs rather than just class A substances.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Taylor]

I rise to support clause 96, a necessary update to the law that reflects the reality facing many of our communities. Drug misuse comes in many forms and continues to drive crime, harm and deep personal suffering. Hemel Hempstead has a long-standing drug issue going back several decades. Indeed, drugs were a significant cause of the deaths of two members of my own family, my aunt and my cousin, so I am particularly motivated to see the clause enacted to help tackle the causes of drug crime. Currently, police can test detainees only for class A drugs. Clause 96 rightly extends that power to all controlled drugs, including class B and C substances such as cannabis or illegally traded prescription drugs. Those are not harmless. They contribute to the cycles of reoffending, antisocial behaviour and exploitation, and too often go unnoticed in the system.

The clause is not about punishment; it is about awareness and intervention. Testing can be the first step forward towards treatment. It allows the police to respond more effectively and open the door to support for those struggling with addiction issues. With proper safeguards and parliamentary oversight, these changes give our officers the tools they need while protecting people’s rights. Communities, from major cities to towns like mine, will benefit from a smarter and fairer approach. This is about being honest about the harms that drugs cause, about how we help users and how we prevent the crime that drugs cause. I urge Members to support the clause.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead for his speech. He talked about his experience within his family, and how devastating drugs can be to families, individuals and communities. That is why extending the testing regime with these clauses is so important to try to assist those people who have got themselves into problems with drugs and are involved in criminality. They are not excusing that at all, but finding a way of testing and offering that support and help if people are ready to access treatment. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 13 agreed to.

Clauses 97 to 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 101

Cautions given to persons having limited leave to enter or remain in UK

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 101 expands the current criteria for foreign national conditional cautions to encompass foreign nationals with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. A foreign national conditional caution requires a foreign national to be removed from the UK as an alternative to prosecution. It will also specify that they may not return within a specified period of time.

Presently, foreign nationals may be given a foreign national conditional caution to secure their removal from the UK if they do not have existing leave to enter or remain here. The clause extends that to apply to foreign nationals with limited leave to be here. The clause will extend the pool of persons to whom a foreign national conditional caution may be given with a view to securing the removal from the United Kingdom of more foreign nationals who commit crime. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

The clause expands the definition of a “relevant foreign offender” in both the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, to include individuals who have limited leave to enter or remain in the UK as defined by the Immigration Act 1971. By doing so, it ensures that people with limited immigration status are treated as relevant foreign offenders for the purposes of issuing conditional or diversionary cautions, enabling those cautions to carry immigration-related consequences, such as potential removal from the UK.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 101 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102

Confiscation

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Schedules 14 and 15.

Clause 103 stand part.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 102 introduces schedules 14 and 15 to the Bill, which make the most significant reforms to the confiscation regime in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 since that Act was passed over 20 years ago. The confiscation regime allows courts to place confiscation orders on defendants to repay the benefit gained from criminality and to make it clear to offenders that crime does not pay.

The Government have been aware that confiscation has been in need of reform for some time. In 2018, the Home Office commissioned the Law Commission of England and Wales to review the confiscation regime and make recommendations for reform. The Law Commission’s final report was published in November 2022 and contains 119 recommendations, which have shaped the measures we are introducing in the Bill. Reform is necessary to improve enforcement of confiscation orders and streamline processes by law enforcement and court services, so that the regime operates as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Reform will be achieved by rationalising court processes, creating streamlined confiscation orders, expediting the enforcement of unpaid orders and returning more funds to victims. In particular, the Bill contains a new measure to return funds to victims following an uplift of the amount that is to be paid towards a confiscation order. If a confiscation order is uplifted, money can be redirected towards existing victims to compensate for their outstanding losses. The Home Office has consulted extensively.

Draft Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025 (VERSION 2)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Forensic Science Regulator draft Code of Practice 2025 (Version 2).

It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Sir Desmond. Upholding quality standards in forensic science is vital to securing and maintaining confidence in criminal justice outcomes. Our missions to halve violent crime, halve violence against women and girls and increase confidence in the police and criminal justice system depend on the timely delivery of high-quality and cost-effective forensic science. We also intend to consult on a new national centre of policing to bring together crucial support services, including forensics, that local police forces can draw on, in order to raise standards and improve efficiency.

When in opposition, the Labour party fully supported the then Government in passing the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021, which established the regulator as a statutory office holder and allows them to take action when they have reason to believe that forensic science activities are being conducted in such a way as to create a substantial risk to the course of justice. The Act also requires the regulator to produce a statutory code of practice that formally defines which forensic science activities will be regulated and sets out the standards that providers will be expected to meet. The code sets out the required standards of conduct and practice for forensic science providers, including the requirements for quality-management systems. It also provides definitions of forensic science activities and states which activities the code applies to.

The first version of the code came into force in October 2023, and was the first such statutory code anywhere in the world. Due to the novelty of the new statutory requirements, the regulator considered it prudent to anticipate a second version a year on from the first coming into force. As a result, a consultation on version 2 of the code was launched in early 2024. During the initial consultation approximately 1,230 comments were received from 96 respondents from a range of organisations and sectors, including law enforcement, academia and commercial providers. Law enforcement made up 64 of the 96 respondents. The regulator also held extensive discussions with specialist groups and others across the forensics community.

Version 2 of the code represents another significant milestone in the ongoing journey to enhance the integrity, reliability and effectiveness of forensic science in England and Wales. Most of the changes in version 2 are minor and technical, and clarify existing provisions. The changes address practical issues that arose when the first version of the code was implemented.

The most significant change in version 2 relates to the regulation of incident-scene examination. Many forensic stakeholders, including chief police officers and others in law enforcement, raised concerns with the regulator regarding the effectiveness of the requirements set out in version 1. As a result, version 2 streamlines the compliance process for crime-scene examination by requiring a corporate approach by each police organisation, and therefore avoids what was seen as unnecessary replication across the 149 sites where individual sites are currently assessed.

The new requirements for crime-scene examination in the code will ensure that a risk-based and proportionate approach is taken to regulation. The regulator believes this will save significant police staffing hours. The new requirements set out in version 2 of the code have widespread support among forensic practitioners, forensic leaders and chief police officers, and should lead to significant cost savings for policing. The new iteration of the code will continue to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system and help to guard against miscarriages of justice.

Finally, I put on the record my thanks to the UK’s hard-working police and forensic scientists, who do an excellent job of delivering vital services every day. I commend the draft code of practice to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I very much welcome the shadow Minister’s comments, and recognise the cross-party support for this work.

It is important that stakeholders have been listened to. Having the consultation over a considerable period of time was helpful in allowing everyone to put forward their views. I take the hon. Lady’s point about keeping the regulatory burden under review, and also her point about the transitional period. I am of the view that it is a good transitional period, but if issues are raised that cannot be dealt with by October, I am sure we can look at it again. Given the hon. Lady’s comments, there seems to be cross-party support for the measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Headingley Incident

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the incident that occurred in Headingley on 26 April.

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

First, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this urgent question. I begin by saying that my thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this horrific violent incident in Headingley, Leeds, on Saturday. I understand the shock that this incident has caused among the local community in Headingley, and I understand that my hon. Friend will want to get rapid answers for the constituents he represents. At the same time—as you have pointed out, Mr Speaker—this is a live police investigation, and we all have a responsibility not to say anything that would interfere with that investigation or any legal proceedings that may follow from it.

For the benefit of the House, though, I will recap what the police have themselves said about the incident and the ongoing investigation. On the afternoon of Saturday 26 April, West Yorkshire police were called to reports of a male on Otley Road, Headingley, Leeds, in possession of a crossbow and a firearm. Armed police arrived at the scene at 1453 hours, where the suspect was found with a self-inflicted injury. He was taken to hospital and remains in a life-threatening condition. On arrival, officers also found two members of the public who were injured and were admitted to hospital. One victim has now been discharged from hospital; the other has undergone surgery after suffering life-threatening injuries. Our thoughts remain with the victims and their families. Counter Terrorism Policing North East has taken the lead for the investigation into this attack, and is now working with West Yorkshire police.

As I have said, this is an ongoing investigation and I cannot comment on details of the case, other than to note that we must allow the police time and space to conduct their investigation. Having said that, we are very aware of concerns about the use of crossbows in violent attacks. We share that concern, and last week, the Government tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill to strengthen age verification controls on both the online sale and delivery of crossbows. Last year, the previous Government held a call for evidence on licensing systems that could apply to crossbows, to which they did not respond. As part of our wider work to get dangerous and lethal weapons off Britain’s streets, we will shortly publish our response to that consultation, setting out how we plan to go further to limit the availability and accessibility of crossbows in this country.

[Alex Sobel]

Mr Speaker, I am very grateful to you for granting this urgent question after the harrowing attack in Headingley on Saturday. My community is still reeling in shock and disbelief at the horrific act of violence that occurred in our midst on Saturday afternoon.

I begin by expressing my concern and sending my best wishes for the recovery of the two women who were harmed in the egregious attack this weekend. I also express my gratitude for the heroic efforts of the members of the public and of our local community who intervened. The details of how they helped are still emerging, but I already know that without them, we may have had a far worse tragedy. I also thank all the emergency services and Leeds city council for their swift response, and for ensuring that the situation was brought under control and isolated. The fact that this most heinous crime was committed against two women is not lost on anyone, and I thank West Yorkshire police for committing to increase its presence in the area and working to ensure the safety of women and girls. The response to this horrific attack is a testament to the Headingley community, Leeds, and the people of West Yorkshire. Our community is strong and we will show that we remain united. We will not allow this to divide us.

The key suspect was carrying a range of lethal weapons when the attack was carried out, and the two victims were both shot by crossbows, a weapon that has been used in murders before. I know that the Home Office issued a call for evidence on strengthening controls on crossbows on public safety grounds, which ran from 14 February to 9 April last year. Will the Minister now publish a response on providing further controls on the use, ownership and supply of crossbows after Saturday’s horrifying attack? We need to see action taken on those lethal weapons.

Police inquiries are ongoing, but we know that this is a critical incident and that the lead force is Counter Terrorism Policing. The fact that an individual was able to plan and carry out such a vile, hideous attack on two women requires us to ask questions about how our intelligence gathering operated prior to the attack. Can the Minister reassure me, my community and the House that there will be a thorough investigation into what intelligence gathering had been undertaken on the suspect, and whether lessons can be learned for the safety and security of the public?

I pay tribute once more to the local community in the area that I am proud to call home, and thank them for their bravery and kindness, as I do to our excellent emergency services in West Yorkshire.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. He is absolutely right to pay tribute to the community, the members of the public who came forward when the attack was happening and the emergency services, who, as ever, run towards danger when many others run in the opposite direction. It is absolutely right that we pay tribute in the way that he has done. I hope that my response to his urgent question offered him some reassurance about the Government’s approach towards crossbows and what more we want to do. As I said, we will shortly publish our response to the consultation that took place last year. The investigation is under way; I know that it will be thorough and comprehensive, and that all the issues he raised will be looked at.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Everybody will have found the reports about this incident, which was of great severity, deeply concerning. I would like to express my deepest sympathies to those who were injured during this horrendous attack. Our thoughts are with them at this time. I also thank the public, the police and the emergency services more broadly for their response to the incident.

There are two aspects that I would like to touch on with the Minister. West Yorkshire police has said that counter-terrorism police are involved in responding to the incident. We have heard from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation about the importance of not allowing an information vacuum to form. Will the Minister ensure that there is as much transparency as possible in the release of information about this case?

Secondly, I am aware that in the aftermath of the incident, although the police are not seeking anyone else in connection with it, there will be an increased police presence across Headingley and the broader city of Leeds in the coming days and weeks. Given that this horrific attack was on two young women, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether there have been any discussions about what that presence will entail and what measures are being taken, in particular to ensure that young women and girls feel safe in Leeds following this incident.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his comments; he is absolutely right to praise the public of Headingley and the emergency services. The policing presence in Headingley and across Leeds is an operational matter for the chief constable, and I know that he will be mindful of the needs of the community in making clear what police presence is needed.

I am mindful of the issue around transparency and the flow of information, but again, this is a live police investigation. The police make decisions about what information is disclosed at the appropriate time. As I have said—and as you have set out to the House, Mr Speaker—it is important that there is not speculation at this stage, and that we allow the police to do their job and to investigate, look at the evidence and take the appropriate action as and when.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) in expressing my deepest sympathies to the families of the victims of this horrendous crime. West Yorkshire police is investigating two recent murders in my constituency of Shipley. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that West Yorkshire police has the necessary resources to investigate not only this most recent incident in Headingley, but serious crime taking place in the area more broadly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. Let me reassure her that all police forces have additional resources in this new financial year—up to £19.6 billion is going into policing. We know that there are challenges in policing, but I have every confidence that West Yorkshire police has the resources it needs. West Yorkshire has a very effective mayor and deputy mayor, who leads on policing, and they make the case for their police force very well indeed.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

No one should have to live in fear of such horrific violence. The appalling events in Headingley on Saturday have left a community shocked and two women with really serious injuries. My thoughts and those of all the Liberal Democrats are, of course, with the victims, their families and all those affected by a crime of such awful brutality. This is yet another devastating example of the violence faced by women and girls across the country, which we must all work to end. It is also yet another example of a violent attack in which a crossbow has been used—one of too many in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), among others, has urged the Government to review and strengthen crossbow regulations. I note the Government’s amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, including new clause 70, and the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). Can the Minister confirm when the Government’s formal response to the call for evidence will be published?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for the comments from the hon. Member who leads on this subject for the Liberal Democrats. We all are committed to ensuring that violence against women and girls is halved over the next decade. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is sitting with me, is leading on that. It is an important strand of the safer streets mission.

I am pleased to hear of the support from the Liberal Democrats for our ongoing work on crossbows, particularly through the Crime and Policing Bill. We will bring forward details of the Government’s approach, and the response to the consultation, very shortly. I have taken a particular interest in this issue, and I have met families who have been affected by violent crossbow attacks. I recently met Laura Sugden up in Driffield, who lost her partner, Shane Gilmer. Just this morning, I met Joan Whelan, whose partner, Dave Peck, was killed in 2022 by someone using a crossbow. I am aware of the need for action on this issue.

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

I wish the victims of the Headingley attack a full recovery. My thoughts are with their friends and family and the community. Just this morning, I welcomed Joan Whelan to Westminster to meet the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire—I thank the Minister for her time, and her sage advice and counsel—following the tragic loss of Joan’s beloved partner, Dave Peck. Dave was fatally struck by bolts fired from a crossbow into an open busy pub in Westcliff in my constituency of Southend East and Rochford in 2022. Dave was affectionately known as West Ham Dave, and was a larger-than-life character. Dave and Joan together had 22 grandchildren, who no longer have their grandad in their life. The crossbow was purchased by a resident with paranoid schizophrenia who had a history of mental health struggles. It was purchased freely, unchecked and unlicensed, on the internet. Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done to stop crossbows falling into the wrong hands? Will she join me in thanking Joan for her bravery in sharing her story?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing Joan to see me today. She is an incredibly brave and impressive person, and we heard directly from her what the loss of Dave meant to her, her family and her 22 grandchildren. In the few words that my hon. Friend used, he made the case effectively for further changes to the law around crossbows.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

The Minister mentioned her meeting with Laura Sugden, and I pay tribute to Laura for her campaigning on the issue. It is more than seven years since Anthony Lawrence brutally murdered Laura’s partner Shane Gilmer. Laura was attacked with a crossbow, and was pregnant at the time. I know that a response to the consultation is coming, but can the Minister give us more detail about the timetable for that response? What next steps will we likely see?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I also pay tribute to Laura, an incredibly brave woman who faced a horrific attack when her neighbour got into the house through the roof space and attacked her and her partner. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I cannot give a specific date. I used to really dislike it when I was sitting on the Opposition Benches and a Government Minister would say “shortly” or “imminently”, but I can guarantee that I am doing my best to ensure that we respond to the consultation from last year as soon as possible.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I express my sympathies and those of the people of Central Ayrshire to the victims of this horrific attack, and those affected by it. I note the presence of the Mayor of West Yorkshire in the Gallery. Does the Minister support the excellent work that the mayor is leading to keep women and girls safe in West Yorkshire? Will the Minister commit to working with mayors, and police and crime commissioners, across the country to tackle the rise of misogyny?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I do not want to get into trouble with you, Mr Speaker, but I am very conscious of the excellent work done by the Mayor of West Yorkshire and her deputy, Alison Lowe, on violence against women and girls, and of their real commitment to making policies that will have a dramatic effect on the women and girls of West Yorkshire.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

Unhinged individuals are roaming the streets of our towns and cities with crossbows, knives, saws and other dangerous weapons, and no tinkering around with legislation or licensing will stop this madness. Is it not about time we had mandatory jail sentences for people who carry such weapons?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

We are working as quickly as possible to understand and identify the nature and scale of the growing cohort of predominantly young men and boys who are fixated with violence. We want to ensure that we have a proper approach and multi-agency interventions to manage the risk that they pose. The Prime Minister has already said that if the law needs to change in recognition of this new and dangerous threat, we will change it, quickly.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for coming forward to respond to the urgent question. Let me put on record my deepest sympathies for the victims of this terrible incident and their families. Members on both sides of the House have talked about the victims of crossbow attacks, and I find the whole issue very shocking, especially as someone who regularly visits Westcliff-on-Sea. Is there any more that we can do as a Government to support victims of these terrible attacks and their families?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend has raised the important issue of how victims of such attacks are supported. As I said, this morning I talked to Joan about the support that she received after the horrific attack on Dave Peck, and I have heard about the support and help that Laura Sugden has received since she was attacked with a crossbow; but I am well aware that there is more to do, and I will talk to my counterpart in the Ministry of Justice about that.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister share my surprise at just how easy it is to get hold of one of these weapons? A few clicks will buy someone a Guillotine X+ compound crossbow for £324.91 plus £6.99 for delivery, or a Jaguar Deluxe for £129.95, with free delivery. These things are as deadly as shotguns, yet we do not license them as such. Will the Minister, in the plans that she has heralded, consider seriously going down the same route as other European countries and ensuring that these deadly weapons are properly controlled?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

In just a few sentences, the right hon. Gentleman has made a compelling case for why change is needed in this regard. I cannot go any further today, but I hear what he says, and I share his concern about the fact that people can go online and, with a few clicks, buy one of these items.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

A number of people have mentioned to me that they have been to university in Leeds, or have kids who live in “Below Clarey” in Harrogate and go to university in Leeds. There is quite a high-density student population in the area. What conversations have the Government had with local authorities and other partners to ensure that university students and parents feel supported and reassured? May I also echo the sentiments of Members on both sides of the House who have thanked the emergency services?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point about reassurance for the public, so that they can feel confident about going out in local communities. I know that West Yorkshire police is ensuring that through the extra police presence, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) will be working with community groups and the university. Also, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Minister for Security were properly briefed about the incident over the weekend. There is engagement across the board, and all the key stakeholders are part of those conversations.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I join all the other Members in wishing the victims of this horrific crime a speedy recovery. I note that Counter Terrorism Policing has been involved in intelligence-gathering, and that there is concern about online incitement to violence. Will the Minister join me in condemning the recent statement by the so-called Irish rap band Kneecap, who are reported to have told their audience that they should kill their local MP, and that the only good Tory is a dead Tory?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Yes, of course I would condemn any such comments. Clearly, I cannot comment on anything that was posted online in relation to the case we are talking about today, but the hon. Gentleman will know that we work in partnership with technology companies to ensure that they understand their responsibility to tackle illegal content on their platforms, and we have been clear that they need to act quickly to identify and remove such content from their platforms once it has been posted. More generally, the Online Safety Act 2023 places duties on platforms to swiftly identify and remove illegal content, which we expect them to abide by. Furthermore, these platforms have a moral responsibility to keep their users and the general public safe, and we expect them to take all reasonable steps to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is very important that this matter is raised, but I am not sure that it fits in here. It might have been better if the hon. Gentleman had raised the issue in the House by making a point of order at the end.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answers. Our thoughts are with the victims and, indeed, with the police officers and the emergency services workers, who responded in such a positive way. Like others, I believe that such incidents highlight the fact that police officers, and particularly police community support officers, need to be on the ground so that they can deal with the use of crossbows, put in place measures to ensure public safety, and send the message that the police are close by. That needs to be the case not just in Headingley, but across all of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes the case for what this Government are doing on neighbourhood policing. We are putting 13,000 police officers and PCSOs back into local areas and communities to provide not only a police presence, but public reassurance, which is so important to the people we all represent.

Personal Liability Consultation

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Written Statements

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

The Government are today publishing their response to the public consultation on establishing personal liability measures on senior executives of online platforms and marketplaces who fail to remove illegal content relating to knives and offensive weapons from online platforms, search engines and market- places. The consultation ran between 13 November and 11 December 2024. This was open to the public and targeted at the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, online platforms and marketplaces, businesses, voluntary sector and community groups, and other organisations with a direct interest in the proposals.

The consultation received a total of 74 completed responses. We are grateful to all those who took the time to respond. The Government response sets out our consideration of these responses.

The Government will introduce legislation to provide the police with the power to issue content removal notices for illegal knife and other offensive weapons related content. If a company ultimately does not comply, the police are able to decide whether to issue a civil penalty notice against the company and a senior executive of that company.

A copy of the consultation response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.

[HCWS600]

VE Day 80th Anniversary: Licensing Hours Extension

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Written Statements

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

The Government will move forward with the proposal to issue a licensing hours order under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003, following growing and overwhelming support from the public to celebrate the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. To confirm, this order will extend licensing hours in England and Wales for the 80th anniversary of VE Day.

The order will apply to premises already licensed for the sale of alcohol and late-night refreshments for consumption on the premises until 11 pm. The order will extend the licensing hours for these premises from 11 pm on 8 May to 1 am on 9 May. The territorial extent of the order will be England and Wales.

The Government view VE Day as an event of exceptional national significance, and an extension to licensing hours will enable communities to come together at their local licensed premises to celebrate 80 years of peace since the end of world war two, which millions paid the ultimate sacrifice to achieve. This will also provide support to the hospitality sector by enabling businesses to extend their trading hours should they wish to do so.

The order will be laid in Parliament in due course and an economic note will be published alongside it on legislation.gov.uk.

[HCWS593]

Crime and Policing Bill (Seventh sitting)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 5.

Amendment 5, in clause 33, page 36, line 29, after subsection (5) insert—

“(6) For the purposes of section 33(5)(b), B shall be presumed to lack capacity to give consent if they—

(a) would be deemed to lack capacity under the provisions of Section 2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005; or

(b) are otherwise in circumstances that significantly impair their ability to protect themselves from exploitation, unless the contrary is established.”

Clauses 33 and 34 stand part.

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Ms Lewell. It might be helpful to the Committee to hear about amendment 5 before I respond.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

Cuckooing is the offence of exercising control over the dwelling of another person to carry out illegal activities. As this legislation is drafted, the person whose dwelling it is has to not have given consent for it to be an offence of cuckooing. Amendment 5 would strengthen protections for vulnerable individuals by modifying clause 33 to clarify when a person is presumed unable to give valid consent in certain situations involving potential exploitation.

Cuckooing is pervasive in our society. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) was in the news discussing a young man with autism who was found dead in his flat after a criminal had moved into his flat and stabbed him. Despite attempting suicide, being a victim of theft, being rescued by the emergency services after accidentally causing a fire, and being assaulted and exploited on numerous occasions, mental capacity assessments were not carried out because the authorities assumed he had capacity. His mother visited him as often as she could, asked the police for welfare checks and urged the authorities to help. My hon. Friend is campaigning with cross-party MPs to amend the Mental Health Bill.

Given that the Crime and Policing Bill will provide a new offence for cuckooing, that case shows that we also need to strengthen the protections for vulnerable individuals who may be mentally incapacitated or in vulnerable situations, as amendment 5 would do. It would shift the burden of proof, so if someone were deemed to be in an impaired state, they would automatically be presumed unable to give informed consent unless proven otherwise. It would expand the definition of vulnerability to cover not only legal mental incapacity, but those in exploitative situations such as coercion, abuse or extreme distress.

The amendment would help to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable individuals, especially in criminal policing or safeguarding contexts. It also aligns with broader safeguarding laws and human rights protections, and would make it harder for perpetrators to claim that a victim gave valid consent when actually in a compromised state. I urge the Committee to support amendment 5.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell; after some excellent contributions on this set of clauses, I hope not to disappoint you. It will not surprise you to hear that I support clauses 32 to 34 and schedule 5.

As we have heard from Members on both sides of the Committee, cuckooing destroys lives, destroys homes and serves as one of the most egregious examples of exploitation, especially of children, in society currently. It is a despicable and offensive practice, wherein criminals exploit the most vulnerable in our communities by taking over their homes for illegal activities, so I commend the Government for creating a new bespoke criminal offence to tackle the practice of home takeover.

For too long, as my hon. Friends have said, cuckooing has been a subversive injustice in our towns. As the Government state in the papers supporting the Bill, unfortunately there is no centrally held data; I hope that, after the implementation of the criminal offence of cuckooing, we will begin to see such data for all the home nations.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh said, many people may not even notice it is happening, at least to begin with. There are several signs to look out for that may indicate someone is a victim of cuckooing: frequent visitors at unsociable hours, changes in a neighbour’s daily routine, unusual smells coming from the property, and suspicious or unfamiliar vehicles outside an address—individually they seem innocuous, but in reality they are insidious and malign.

Drug dealers, human traffickers and violent gangs all can prey on children, the elderly, the disabled and the most vulnerable in our society. They force their way into their victims’ homes, using manipulation, threats, coercion and violence to turn their homes into drug dens, bases for exploitation and centres of criminality. As both the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh said, that is typically across county lines.

The victims are left terrified in their own homes, their mental and physical wellbeing deteriorating in the very place that they are meant to feel most safe. Neighbours suffer as their streets are blighted by crime and antisocial behaviour, and are unable to feel safe in their own community. As was eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, despite their tireless efforts, our law enforcement officers have lacked the legislative tools to tackle cuckooing effectively.

Clauses 32 to 34 and schedule 5 will change that. Those vital clauses will introduce the specific criminal offence of cuckooing, ensuring that those who invade and exploit vulnerable people’s homes can face the severest of consequences. By making cuckooing a distinct offence, we send a clear message that we will not stand idly by while criminals hijack the homes of the weak and defenceless. I pay tribute to all the campaigners and organisations who have researched and campaigned for the creation of this specific offence over many years.

The clauses will give police officers greater powers to intervene early, ensuring that victims are safeguarded and perpetrators are brought to justice; they will enable faster action by enabling authorities to have the necessary powers to arrest criminals, and they will allow homes to be returned to their rightful residents without the current muddy legal waters that are delaying and frustrating justice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean said.

The clauses should be seen not in isolation, but as part of a package of measures to protect children and vulnerable people. Last week, we discussed child criminal exploitation and the offence that the Bill will create in that regard. These are all essential legislative components of the Government’s safer streets mission, which should be supported across the House. I think we have seen a demonstration of that with the comments from both sides of the House in respect of these clauses. I reiterate my support for the clauses and welcome that cross-party support. Making cuckooing a stand-alone criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison, sends the clearest signal that we are on the side of victims in furtherance of our safer streets mission.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

This has been an excellent short debate on this group of clauses on cuckooing. I note the cross-party support for introducing this new law. We have had some really good contributions. I noted particularly the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham, who talked about James’s story, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh, who spoke very personally about the effects on individuals who find themselves victims of cuckooing. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton talked about the effect it has on communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean talked about his experience as a police officer, recognising the gap in the law and how justice could not be delivered for victims of cuckooing, while my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West talked about the subversive injustice of cuckooing in our communities.

Many contributions covered what cuckooing means for local communities and what they should be looking out for. I noticed my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham’s comments about one in eight people saying that they have seen signs of cuckooing in their areas; it is a problem in many communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I thank the Minister for that clear explanation in response to both my queries. I say again that it would be usual in drafting to say, “include, but are not limited to”, just to make it absolutely clear to legal practitioners that it is not an exhaustive list, so I put that on the record again. I am sure the Minister’s officials are listening, and I would be pleased if she could perhaps go away and think about a small amendment there.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to help the Government to ensure that this legislation is as good as it can be, so we will reflect on what he says.

I want to make some general observations and comments on this grouping. Clauses 32 to 34 and schedule 5 provide for the new offence of controlling another’s home for criminal purposes, commonly known as cuckooing. As I am sure we all agree, cuckooing is a truly abhorrent practice whereby criminals target and take over the homes of vulnerable people for the purposes of illegal activity. It is often associated with antisocial behaviour and the exploitation of children and vulnerable people used by criminal gangs inside properties.

Currently, a range of offences can be used to prosecute criminal activity commonly associated with cuckooing. For example, the inchoate offences under sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 may apply where cuckooing amounts to an act of

“encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence”.

Any criminal activity carried out from the cuckooed property would also already be an offence. For example, where a cuckooed property is used to supply illegal drugs, offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 may apply.

It is the Government’s view, however, that the existing legal framework does not reflect the harm caused to victims when their home—a place where they should feel safe—is taken over by criminals. I know that this view is shared by many parliamentarians from across the House. I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has championed the issue of cuckooing for some years. I also pay tribute to the organisation Justice and Care for all the work that it has done to highlight this particular issue, and recognise our former colleague Holly Lynch, who campaigned on this issue when she was a Member of the House.

Children in particular are often exploited by criminals. By introducing the offence of cuckooing, alongside the new offence of child criminal exploitation, our aim is to improve identification of such children and to strengthen the response for both adult and child victims of exploitation. I want to make clear that we expect the cuckooing offence to be used to pursue the criminals orchestrating the cuckooing, and that the victims of exploitation, including children and vulnerable people, found in properties should be safeguarded—I will say a little more about the role of children in a moment.

Clause 32 outlines that it will be an offence to control a person’s dwelling in connection with specified criminal activity without that person’s consent. The specified criminal activity is set out in schedule 5 to the Bill, reflecting the types of criminal activity that cuckooing is typically used to facilitate, as we were just discussing—for example, drugs offences, sexual offences and offensive weapons offences, among others. The offence will carry a maximum penalty on conviction on indictment of five years’ imprisonment, a fine or both.

Clause 33 provides interpretation of the terms used in clause 32 to clarify what is meant by “dwelling”, “control” and “consent”. Clause 33 also provides examples of how an individual may exercise control over another’s dwelling, including controlling who is able to enter, leave or occupy the dwelling, the delivery of things to the dwelling and the purposes for which the dwelling is used. It should be noted that the person exercising the control does not need to be present in the dwelling, thereby enabling prosecution of gang leaders who are directing the cuckooing from afar.

Clause 33 also sets out that a person cannot consent to control of their dwelling if they are under 18 years old, they do not have the capacity to give consent, they have not been given sufficient information to enable them to make an informed decision, they have not given consent freely or they have withdrawn their consent. The consent of an occupant may not freely be given where it is obtained by coercion, manipulation, deception or other forms of abusive behaviour, taking into account the vulnerability of an individual.

We recognise that criminal gangs may adapt cuckooing to other crime types. Therefore, as I said, clause 34 provides that power for the Home Secretary and for the relevant Ministers in Scotland and Northern Ireland to amend the list of specified offences in schedule 5 to future-proof the offence. Such regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which may help with scrutiny, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan.

I will say a few words about the issue of children and cuckooing. Police and stakeholders tell us that children, in particular those exploited by county lines gangs, are used as runners, to deliver drugs to cuckooed properties, and sometimes as sitters, to sell drugs from the properties. It is absolutely right that children who have been exploited and groomed into criminality should be treated first and foremost as victims, as I said a few moments ago. That does not in itself override the age of criminal responsibility, where the law holds children over a certain age to be responsible for their actions. I believe that allowing those two principles to exist alongside each other will provide the best protection and outcomes for vulnerable victims of this terrible crime.

The non-consensual control of someone’s home, the place in which they deserve to feel completely safe and secure, is a cruel and harmful violation. Therefore, where there is evidence that a child has been involved in an offence against, for example, a vulnerable or elderly person, and it is evident that they have chosen to do so and have not been manipulated or coerced, it is right that the police should be able to take action. That does not mean, however, that the police will seek charges against under-18s irrespective of any history of exploitation. I am clear that decisions as to whether to charge someone should be taken on a case-by-case basis. As with all offences, the police have operational discretion, and the Crown Prosecution Service’s public interest test will apply.

We will also issue guidance to support implementation of the cuckooing offence, including on how police should respond and identify exploitation when children are found in connection with cuckooing. As we have previously debated, the Bill provides for the new offence of child criminal exploitation to strengthen the response to perpetrators who groom children into criminality. It is intended to improve identification of, and access to support for, victims.

Amendment 5, which the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset spoke to, seeks to further define “capacity to consent” as set out in clause 33(5)(b). The amendment would set out that a person lacks capacity to consent to the control of their dwelling for a criminal purpose if they either lack capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 or are in circumstances that

“significantly impair their ability to protect themselves from exploitation.”

I agree it is important that the offence can be used to prosecute perpetrators who have preyed on those who, due to a health condition or wider vulnerabilities, do not have the capacity to provide valid consent. However, I want to clarify that we have intentionally avoided using references to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We believe that may cause confusion in this context, as that Act is designed to apply in a civil law context and has a central purpose of empowering people whose capacity is called into question, rather than identifying those who lack capacity.

Furthermore, the formulation of the amendment starts from the presumption that a person lacks capacity to consent if they are in circumstances that significantly impair their ability to protect themselves. That may imply that vulnerable people inherently lack capacity, which we think would set an unhelpful precedent. I reassure the Committee that the clause as drafted already allows for a broad interpretation of capacity. Our intention is to provide flexibility for the court to interpret capacity as relating to any impairment that may impact the person’s ability to consent. That could include circumstances where a person is unable to consent to the control of their dwelling for a criminal purpose due to disability, illness and/or the effects of substance misuse. That applies to both permanent and short-term lack of capacity.

Where a person has been subjected to coercion, deception or manipulation and is as a result less able to protect themselves against cuckooing, that is already covered by the definition of consent under clause 33(5), which provides that consent is valid only if freely given and sufficiently informed. As I have already stated, we intend to issue guidance to support the implementation of the offence and will ensure that it covers the issue of consent to assist police in identifying victims and the type of evidence that points towards ability to consent. I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset will be content not to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Protections for witnesses, and lifestyle offences

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The clause provides for the offences of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing to be designated “lifestyle offences” under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and for victims and witnesses of both offences to be automatically eligible for special measures when giving evidence in court. Child criminal exploitation and cuckooing are abhorrent practices whereby perpetrators exploit vulnerable victims to further their own criminal lifestyle. As such, we want to ensure that special measures are in place to make it easier for victims of these new offences, who are likely to be vulnerable, to give evidence during court proceedings.

Clause 35 therefore amends the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to provide for victims of these crimes to be automatically eligible for provisions such as the screening of the witnesses from the accused or giving evidence by video link or in private. Similarly, we want to ensure that perpetrators of child criminal exploitation or cuckooing are not able to profit from the harm that they have caused. Clause 35 therefore amends schedule 2 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to add both offences to the list of lifestyle offences. This means that when a person is convicted of these offences, their assets will be considered to have potentially derived from crime and may be subject to confiscation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

I do not have a specific example, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility. None of what we are dealing with is necessarily a reaction to individual cases. We create law in order to pre-empt things that may happen. It is reasonable for the Opposition to pre-empt something that may happen to ensure that it is considered when drafting a Bill. It is a completely reasonable concern for the Opposition to raise.

Finally, there are concerns about potential for witness protection schemes to undermine the right to a fair trial. If a witness is protected to such an extent that their testimony cannot be scrutinised or cross-examined fully, it could raise issues about the fairness of the trial. Clause 35 does aim, however, to offer much-needed protections for witnesses, particularly those involved in cases of organised crime or serious criminal activity. The inclusion of lifestyle offences recognises the ongoing nature of certain types of criminality, targeting habitual offences and providing opportunities for intervention.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for the very thorough speech that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan just made. I am a little concerned that she may have misunderstood what the clause attempts to do, which is to support victims and those who are vulnerable in their ability to give evidence in court, such as by enabling them to give it by video link or behind a screen, because we know that it can be quite intimidating to be in court. As the hon. Lady said, if there are people who victims are concerned or frightened about, and they worry there will be repercussions, then putting in those measures seems to be a sensible way forward.

I have not come across the specific issue with witness protection that the hon. Lady mentioned. She referred to people being relocated and moved away. The provisions within this part of the Bill are reasonable measures to address the vulnerabilities of people who may find themselves subject to child criminal exploitation or cuckooing. We are not doing anything in this clause that goes beyond what is already in place for other vulnerable witnesses in court. It is not doing anything in addition to what is already accepted as good practice for those with vulnerabilities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Child sexual abuse image-generators

[Jess Phillips]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 36, page 40, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) In Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply), in paragraph 33 (offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003), after the entry for section 41 insert—

‘section 46A (child sexual abuse image-generators)’.”

This amendment excepts the offence about child sexual abuse image-generators from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

Crime and Policing Bill (Sixth sitting)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Joe Robertson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Speaking to the last clause we debated, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice talked about the deterrent value of making the offence triable either way. A significant part of the amendment is about the deterrent value of the length of prison sentence available for someone convicted of child criminal exploitation—a horrendous crime. The adult involved uses and exploits the child, and also exploits the way the police operate by putting the criminal activity in the child’s hands. Time and again, the criminals use this as a way to avoid arrests for moving drugs around the countryside or a town, because they believe the police will not arrest a child who is perpetrating the criminal activity because they are being instructed to do so. This activity has increased in recent years—so far it has not been a criminal offence—and helps the movement of drugs. Not only does it have an impact on the children involved, but it means that drug use and drug dealing proliferates in hotspots and more generally. It can also include the movement of offensive weapons, which is another area where activity in certain hotspots has got worse.

If the new provision, which I support, is to have the added desired weight and deterrent effect to stop people engaging in child criminal exploitation, it needs the amendment that the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East tabled to increase the length of sentencing. Only then will the police feel emboldened to go after those horrendous criminals who exploit children. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment, which would have the biggest possible deterrent effect, and use the arguments of her hon. Friend to ensure that the provisions are as strong as possible.

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

Good afternoon, Sir Roger. Looking at amendment 1 before we go on to discuss clause stand part—

[The Chair]

Order. This is just amendment 1.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Yes, that is what I meant, Sir Roger. I am sorry to cause confusion.

Amendment 1 seeks to increase the maximum penalty for the new offence of child criminal exploitation in clause 17 from 10 years’ imprisonment to life imprisonment. I fully support a maximum penalty that reflects the seriousness of the offence, which holds people who criminally exploit children to account and acts as a clear warning to would-be perpetrators who might target children for their own criminal gain. However, a maximum penalty must be fair and proportionate. A life sentence is an extremely high bar, reserved for the gravest offences such as murder and rape. Ten years’ imprisonment is a very serious maximum penalty that reflects the significant physical, psychological and emotional harm done to the child. It reflects the damage done to a child’s life chances by inducing them into a criminal lifestyle, and to their welfare by subjecting them to coercive behaviours that may be traumatic and long-lasting.

To be clear, the penalty imposed for the child criminal exploitation offence does not punish perpetrators for conduct that would amount to a separate offence. It does not punish the perpetrator for the offence that they intend the child to commit—for example, drug supply. Harmful acts done to a child as part of their exploitation that would amount to a separate offence can be punished under those offences in addition to the child criminal exploitation offence. For example, an assault against a child to ensure their compliance that amounts to causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so will be subject to the maximum penalty for that offence, which is life imprisonment.

When deciding what sentence to impose, the courts are required to take into account the full circumstances of the offence and the offender. This includes the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused, and any aggravating or mitigating factors, to ensure that the overall sentence imposed on the offender is just and proportionate. Looking at the sentencing framework across the criminal law in England and Wales, the Government are of the view that a 10-year maximum penalty for child criminal exploitation is appropriate and comparable to offences that involve similar behaviours.

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

This is an unusual situation, but for future guidance, Ms Platt, you would be on safer ground if, under those rather bizarre circumstances, you abstained. It would not have affected the outcome of the Division—but we are where we are.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 17, page 26, line 29, at end insert—

“(4) In Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply), after paragraph 36C insert—

‘Crime and Policing Act 2025 (c. 00)

36D An offence under any of the following provisions of the Crime and Policing Act 2025—

section 17 (child criminal exploitation)’.”

This amendment excepts the offence of child criminal exploitation from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

New clause 8—Definition of Child Exploitation—

“(1) For the purposes of this Act, ‘child exploitation’ means any act, recruitment, or conduct by a person (A) aged over 18 involving a person (B) under the age of 18 that—

(a) takes advantage of the child (person (B)) for financial, sexual, labour, or other personal gain; and

(b) causes, or is likely to cause, physical, psychological, emotional, or economic harm to the child (person (B));

(2) Child exploitation includes, but is not limited to—

(a) Sexual Exploitation: The involvement of a child in sexual activities for gain;

(b) Labour Exploitation: The recruitment of a child into any form of work that is hazardous or interferes with their education and development;

(c) Criminal Exploitation: The use of a child to commit or facilitate criminal activities; and

(d) Economic Exploitation: The use of a child’s labour, image, or creative work for commercial gain without appropriate compensation or safeguards, including online influencer exploitation, or child performers being denied legal protections;

(3) A child (person (B)) is deemed unable to provide valid consent to any act constituting exploitation under this section.”

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 17 provides for a new offence of child criminal exploitation. The offence will criminalise any adult who exploits a child by intentionally using them to commit criminal activity, and will carry a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. Child criminal exploitation is a form of child abuse that is often committed by criminal gangs, which prey on the vulnerability of a child to groom and manipulate them into committing crimes, such as county lines drug running, organised robbery and many more offences. Perpetrators expose victims to violence, threats and intimidation, causing serious physical, psychological and emotional harms, which have devastating and long-lasting impacts on their childhood, as well as their future life chances.

--- Later in debate ---

There are some wonderful organisations out there trying to stop the incursion of gang activity into their local areas, and trying to identify at a young age children who might be induced to commit criminal activity. I will particularly refer to Community Action Isle of Wight and to the Bay Youth Project, a fantastic project that supports young people who may be vulnerable to exploitation. I was delighted to join representatives of the Bay Youth Project in London just a couple of weeks ago when they received a national award for their fantastic work.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The debate on this group has been very full, and it is good to know that there is cross-party support for clause 17, which introduces the offence of child criminal exploitation.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, highlighted that the Modern Slavery Act, which the previous Government relied on to deal with the problem, has been failing for many years. The statistics that he cited on the very limited number of prosecutions that went through the courts emphasise how sad and unfortunate it is that this bespoke offence was not put on to the statute books years ago. Given the cross-party support for it today, I am surprised that such support did not exist years ago under the previous Government.

I will deal with some of the questions about clause 17, particularly on the age limit of 13. I think it is clear that it is never reasonable to consider a child under the age of 13 as an adult. There is crossover from the approach taken around child sexual exploitation, and it would almost always be obvious when a child is under the age of 13. I hope that explains why that age limit was set.

On the question of what is happening in Scotland and Northern Ireland, I have said in previous debates that we are in discussion with the devolved authorities, particularly with the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland’s Department of Justice, about the application of the CCE provisions to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I hope that offers reassurance.

The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan asked how many defendants had relied on the section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act in respect of CCE offences. Obviously, we will not have had a CCE offence until this Bill gets on to the statute book, so the answer to that question is none. The comparator offence in terms of modern slavery and human trafficking is also excepted from the defences listed in section 45. The purpose of amendment 10 is to ensure that those prosecuted for this serious offence cannot benefit from the section 45 defence.

The shadow Minister asked how the new offence will change the dial on the systems response to CCE. I take his point: introducing the bespoke, stand-alone offence of CCE, as well as CCE prevention orders, will raise the national consciousness of the issue and finally—I emphasise that word—place it on a level playing field with other harms. That said, we do understand that the offence on its own is only part of the answer, and that is why we are working across Government to identify opportunities to improve the systems response and drive change and transformation.

I do not wish to try your patience, Sir Roger, by going into the issue about the sentence that should be given for the new offence, as we discussed whether the maximum sentence should be life imprisonment in the debate on previous group. The Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley, is undertaking a full review of the NRM, as well as looking at the Modern Slavery Act more generally, because it does not always work as effectively as we would like.

In terms of what else we can do, I want to highlight another manifesto commitment: the creation of Young Futures. That is about recognising those children who are vulnerable and who might need extra support. We will create youth hubs and prevention partnerships, which are about the cohort of very vulnerable young people who might be getting themselves into difficult situations and who are perhaps on the verge of getting involved in criminality. That will involve identifying who they are, working with them and putting in place a plan of action to ensure that they are diverted away from involvement in the gangs that we know prey on very vulnerable young people. On that basis, I commend clause 17 and amendment 10 to the Committee.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Power to make CCE prevention order

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 19 to 30 stand part.

Schedule 4.

Clause 31 stand part.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clauses 18 to 31 and schedule 4 introduce child criminal exploitation prevention orders, which will be available on application to the courts, on conviction and at the end of criminal proceedings when there has not been a conviction. The provision for on-conviction orders is made by amendment of the sentencing code by schedule 4.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan raised a number of very interesting points of detail. I do not want to detain the Committee any further this afternoon by addressing each and every one of the very important questions that she posed, but I hope that she will take my assurance that I will reflect on all her points and consider them as part of the implementation planning for the new clauses. I commend clauses 18 to 31 and schedule 4 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 19 to 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)

Crime and Policing Bill (Fifth sitting)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 29, in clause 15, page 25, line 11, 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.”

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.

Clause 15 stand part.

New clause 20—Assault of wholesale worker—

“(1) A person who assaults a wholesale worker at work commits an offence under this section.

(2) ‘Wholesale worker at work’ means a person who—

(a) is working on or about wholesaler premises, and

(b) is working there for or on behalf of the owner or occupier of those premises, or is the owner or occupier of those premises.

(3) In subsection (2), ‘wholesaler premises’ means—

(a) premises used in any way for the purposes of the sale of anything by wholesale, and here ‘working’ includes doing unpaid work.

(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or to a fine (or both).

(5) In subsection (4), ‘the maximum term for summary offences’ means—

(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for certain summary offences: England and Wales) comes into force, 6 months;

(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.

(6) In section 40(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (power to join in indictment count for common assault etc), after paragraph (ac) insert—

‘(ad) an offence under section 14 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (assault of wholesale worker);’.”

New clause 26—Requirements in certain sentences imposed for third assault of retail worker offence—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In section 208 (community order: exercise of power to impose particular requirements), in subsections (3) and (6) after ‘and sections 208B’ (inserted by section (Requirements in certain sentences imposed for third shoplifting offence) of this Act) insert ‘and 208B’.

(3) After sections 208B insert—

‘208B Community order: requirements for third or subsequent assault of retail worker offence

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person is convicted of an offence under section 14 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (assault of retail worker) (“the index offence”),

(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of an offence under section (Assault of retail worker) of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 committed when the offender was aged 18 or over, and

(c) the court makes a community order in respect of the index offence.

(2) The community order must, subject to subsection (3), include at least one of the following requirements—

(a) a curfew requirement;

(b) an exclusion requirement;

(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—

(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—

(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and

(ii) justify the court not including any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or

(b) neither of the following requirements could be included in the order—

(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;

(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.

(4) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be included in a community order if it could not otherwise be so included.’

(4) After section 292A (inserted by section (Requirements in certain sentences imposed for third shoplifting offence) of this Act) insert—

‘292B Suspended sentence order: community requirements for third or subsequent assault of retail worker offence

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person is convicted of an offence under section (Assault of retail worker) of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (assault of retail worker) (“the index offence”),

(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of an offence under section (Assault of retail worker) of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 committed when the offender was aged 18 or over, and

(c) the court makes a suspended sentence order in respect of the index offence.

(2) The suspended sentence order must, subject to subsection (3), impose at least one of the following requirements—

(a) a curfew requirement;

(b) an exclusion requirement;

(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—

(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—

(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and

(ii) justify the court not imposing on the offender any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or

(b) neither of the following requirements could be imposed on the offender—

(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;

(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.

(4) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be imposed by a suspended sentence order if it could not otherwise be so imposed.’”

This new clause imposes a duty (subject to certain exceptions) to impose a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement or an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement on certain persons convicted of an offence under section 15, where the offender is given a community sentence or suspended sentence order.

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

It is good to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. Clause 14 provides for a new criminal offence of assaulting a retail worker. This will send a clear message to retailers and perpetrators alike that we take any form of violence in a retail setting extremely seriously, and it fulfils our manifesto commitment.

I know that all Members will have experiences and information from their constituencies on the unacceptable rise in assaults on retail workers. I visited a shopkeeper on Beverley Road in my constituency who had been assaulted by a customer who was buying some alcohol and disputed its price. The customer hit the shopkeeper around the head around 50 times in an unprovoked assault, which was recorded on CCTV, so I was able to see it. It was really shocking to see. Many shop workers go to work every day with the fear of that happening. I pay tribute to Navin Sharda, that shopkeeper who was so badly assaulted.

Police recorded crime figures show that shoplifting offences increased by 23% in the 12 months to September 2024, and the British Retail Consortium’s 2025 crime report showed that there were around 737,000 incidents of violence and abuse—about 2,000 a day—in 2023-24. Figures published by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers in March 2025 show that 77% of workers said that they had been verbally abused in the 12 months to December 2024, 53% had received threats of violence, and 10% were physically assaulted during the year. Those statistics demonstrate that there are unacceptably high levels of retail crime across the country, and more and more offenders are using violence and abuse against shop workers to commit those crimes.

As well as carrying out their role of selling goods, retail workers are in some cases asked by us to restrict the sale of dozens of age-restricted items. That is an act of public service. In carrying it out, they are putting themselves at risk, as a declined sale may, sadly, cause someone to become violent and abusive.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

It is obviously the case that retail workers have to stop the sale of certain products at times, whether it is because the customer is under age or for other reasons. Of course, delivery drivers have to do exactly the same thing if they get to a house and, for example, an under-18-year-old would be in receipt of alcohol or a knife, even if it is for legitimate purposes. Does the Minister therefore agree that delivery drivers face the same risks as retail workers?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

What we do know, from the statistics that I have just read out, is that there is a wide body of evidence to confirm what is happening to retail workers on retail premises. We know that, because that information and evidence has been collated for some time. I accept that there are questions and concerns about delivery drivers, but I do not think we are in the position to know the extent of assaults on delivery drivers. I am not disputing that they take place—they do—but we have been very clear, and it was our manifesto commitment, that we will deal with assaults on retail workers by legislating for that. The clause is about that.

Everyone has the right to feel safe at work. The new offence, which is for retail workers and premises, sends a strong message that violence and abuse towards retail workers will not be tolerated. In a later debate, perhaps, I will come on to some of the other protections that all workers have, and how they can be used. This new offence will carry a maximum prison sentence of six months and/or an unlimited fine.

Reflecting on the need to take a tough stance with meaningful criminal justice consequences, clause 15 provides that the new offence will come with a presumption for a court to make a criminal behaviour order. Such an order may prohibit the offender doing anything described in it, which might include a condition preventing specific acts that cause harassment, alarm or distress, or preventing an offender from visiting specific premises. Breach of a criminal behaviour order is in itself a criminal offence, attracting a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

Clauses 14 and 15, taken together, will significantly help better protect retail workers. On that basis, I am sure that they will be welcomed across the Committee. The hon. Member for Stockton West, who leads for the Opposition, has tabled amendment 29 and new clause 26 in this group. I plan to respond to those when winding up the debate.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan.

The Bill rightly seeks to improve protections for our amazing retail workers and looks to tackle retail crime. I pay tribute to the amazing retail workers across the country for their work, and to the many people who have been involved in the campaign to provide greater protections for them.

Retail is the biggest private sector employer in our economy. It directly employs nearly 3 million people and sits at the heart of all our communities. Clause 14 amends section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and creates a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker in their place of work. It defines “retail premises” as a place

“used wholly or mainly for the purposes of the sale of anything by retail,”

including not only buildings, but stalls and vehicles. It also defines what it is to be a “retail worker at work”, which is

“working on or about retail premises, and”

being there

“for or on behalf of the owner or occupier of those premises”.

It confirms that a person who commits the offence will be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences. I am glad that the offence also includes those doing unpaid work in a retail setting.

Clause 15 amends part 11 of the sentencing code to create a duty to make a criminal behaviour order for the offence of assaulting a retail worker. It confirms that that will apply where someone is convicted of the new offence under clause 14; where

“the prosecution makes an application to the court for a criminal behaviour order to be made against the offender”;

and where

“the offender is aged 18 or over at the time the prosecution makes the application”.

It also sets out that such an order will not apply where the court imposes a custodial sentence, or makes a youth rehabilitation order, a community order, or a suspended sentence for that specific offence or

“any other offence of which the offender is convicted by or before it”.

Until this point, police have had to rely on several criminal offences through which to prosecute violence and assault against retail workers, including assault, unlawful wounding or grievous bodily harm under the common law or the Offences against the Person Act 1861; harassment or putting people in fear of violence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; and affray, or threatening or abusive behaviour under the Public Order Act 1986. Things changed and progress was made by section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, as a result of debates on this important subject during the Act’s passage through Parliament. That added section 68A to the Sentencing Act 2020, requiring the courts to treat an offence as aggravated if the victim of the offence had been

“providing a public service, performing a public duty or providing services…goods or facilities”

to the public.

In recent years, a variety of businesses and organisations have called for a stand-alone offence. In July 2020, USDAW launched a petition calling for a specific offence of abusing, threatening or assaulting a retail worker. The petition received 104,354 signatures, which triggered a Westminster Hall debate. As a member of the Petitions Committee, I had the privilege of leading the debate and speaking on behalf of the petitioners. At that time, we were gripped by the pandemic, which helped to focus minds on the incredibly important role that our retail workers were performing as a result of it. The debate was well attended, with Members from all parties speaking passionately in support of our retail workers.

Several retailers were in support of a stand-alone offence, including Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and the Co-op. In May 2021, Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, called for a stand-alone offence to provide colleagues with the protections they needed. In June 2021, the Home Affairs Committee held its own inquiry on violence and abuse towards retail workers, concluding that the patchwork of existing offences did not provide adequate protection. The Committee said:

“The Government should consult urgently on the scope of a new standalone offence.”

As hon. Members may know, having served as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the future of retail and as a former Woollies worker, I have been very involved in the campaign to protect our retail workers. It was a privilege to join the likes of the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), Paul Gerrard from the Co-op, Helen Dickinson and the team at the British Retail Consortium, Edward Woodall of the Association of Convenience Stores, USDAW, numerous retailers and others who have campaigned over recent years to deliver more protection for our retail workers.

When I first arrived in the House, in my slightly rebellious phase, I tabled an amendment on this issue to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—now the 2022 Act—which was supported by Members from both sides of the House. As I have mentioned, that helped us to make assault on a person providing a service to the public a statutory aggravating offence. More recently, in April 2024, alongside a suite of measures designed to tackle retail crime, the last Government agreed to create a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker. The stand-alone offence aims to protect our retail workers by providing a deterrent to those who might commit retail crime, and it also has an important role to play in increasing transparency and accountability, which I will say more about later.

The changes to sanctions and recording are not the only answer to this problem; it is important that the police and retailers take action more broadly to tackle it. The last Government introduced a retail crime action plan in October 2023. My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who was then the Policing Minister and is now the shadow Home Secretary, launched it at a meeting of senior police leaders and 13 of the UK’s biggest retailers.

The plan included a police commitment to prioritise urgently attending the scene of a shoplifting incident where it involved violence against a shop worker, where security guards had detained an offender, or where attendance was needed to secure evidence. Attendance was to be assessed on risk, with prolific or juvenile offenders being treated with elevated priority. The police reaffirmed their pledge to follow up on any evidence that could reasonably lead to a perpetrator being caught, and forces stepped up targeted hotspot patrols in badly affected areas.

The plan set out advice for retailers on how to provide the best possible evidence for police to pursue any case. They are required to send CCTV footage of the whole incident and an image of the shoplifter from the digital evidence management system as quickly as possible after the offence has been committed. Where CCTV or other digital images are secured, police are required to run them through the police national database, using facial recognition technology to further aid efforts to identify and prosecute offenders, particularly prolific or potentially dangerous individuals.

The plan also created a specialist police team to build a comprehensive intelligence picture of the organised crime gangs that drive a huge number of shoplifting incidents across the country, in an effort to target and dismantle them. This initiative was branded Pegasus and is a business and policing partnership that has improved the way in which retailers are able to share intelligence, with the police gaining a greater understanding of the approach being taken by these organised crime gangs and identifying more offenders.

The initiative was spearheaded by Katy Bourne, the business crime lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. It is the first national partnership of its kind, and was backed financially by the Home Office, John Lewis, the Co-op, Marks & Spencer, Boots, Primark and several others, which pledged more than £840,000 to get it off the ground. Pegasus helped to identify high-harm offenders who were linked to organised crime groups, and has resulted in numerous arrests of individuals who are often responsible for tens of thousands of pounds in thefts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

That was the joke. I am sure that my wife, who will be listening in, will be delighted that I will not be home for dinner tonight.

I welcome this legislation and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. I understand that it is similar to the Bill brought forward by the previous Conservative Government, so I am glad that we can speak on a cross-party basis in support of making assaults on retail workers and shopkeepers a specific offence in the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East talked about the current legislation, but it is nevertheless an important signal to make it a specific offence.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council, supported by the previous Government, introduced a retail crime action plan, and a group of retailers made considerable resources available for Project Pegasus to address organised crime. Although I am hearing from my local retailers and local police that there are early signs that those initiatives are beginning to deliver results, it is clear that we need to go much further to achieve the objectives set out in the RCAP. Clauses 14 and 15 are an important step in that direction.

As the Minister said on Tuesday, it is important that we listen to experts in this area. Committee members have been inundated with written evidence, alongside the oral evidence we heard, from people directly affected. It is worth getting some of that on the record, because they are the experts and we should take a steer from them. Paul Gerrard, the campaigns and public affairs director of the Co-op Group, said:

“The Co-op sees every day the violence and threats our colleagues, like other retail workers, face as they serve the communities they live in.

We have long called for a standalone offence of attacking or abusing a shopworker and so we very much welcome the government’s announcement today.

The Co-op will redouble our work with police forces but these measures will undoubtedly, when implemented, keep our shopworkers safer, protect the shops they work in and help the communities both serve.”

That is a thumbs-up from the Co-op.

Simon Roberts, the chief executive of Sainsbury’s, said something similar:

“There is nothing more important to us than keeping our colleagues and customers safe.”

I am sure we all second that. He went on:

“Alongside our own security measures like colleague-worn cameras, in-store detectives and security barriers, today’s announcement is a vital next step in enabling our police forces to clamp down further.

We fully endorse and support this legislative focus and action on driving down retail crime.”

The Minister and the Government can be confident that these measures are hitting the spot and have the support of experts.

I want to draw out some statistics, particularly from the British Retail Consortium, for which I have a lot of respect. Helen Dickinson, the chief executive, said:

“After relentless campaigning for a specific offence for assaulting retail workers, the voices of the 3 million people working in retail are finally being heard.”

However, she went on to say:

“The impact of retail violence has steadily worsened, with people facing racial abuse, sexual harassment, threatening behaviour, physical assault and threats with weapons, often linked to organised crime.”

That is not something that any of us should tolerate. As well as giving police forces and the justice system more powers, it is important that we in this House speak with one voice to say that that is unacceptable.

The British Retail Consortium’s most recent annual crime survey covers the period from 1 September 2023 to 31 August 2024. The BRC represents over 1.1 million employees, and the businesses they work for have a total annual turnover of over £194 billion. Therefore, that survey really is, in a meaningful sense, one that covers the entire industry.

The statistics are awful, to be honest. Violence and abuse have clearly spiralled, rising by over 50% in that year, which was part of an overall rise of 340% since 2020. Indeed, there are now over 2,000 incidents every single day, which is the highest figure ever recorded in that crime survey. Of those 2,000 incidents daily, 124 are violent and 70 include the use of a weapon.

That means that 70 shop workers a day in this country are being threatened with a weapon. We should just think about that; I cannot imagine how I would feel if a member of my family was threatened in that way. It means that 70 people—each one a constituent of one of us—are threatened every single day. Only 10% of incidents of violence and abuse resulted in police attendance, and only 2% resulted in conviction. Only 32% of incidents of violence and abuse were reported to police by retailers, which I am afraid to say speaks to people’s lack of faith in the effectiveness of the current system.

I am sure it is true that Members on both sides of the House hear about these incidents happening on all our high streets through our surgeries, our other contact with constituents and our correspondence. My constituency is a cross-county constituency. Matt Barber, who we heard from last week and who has been quoted a couple of times in today’s debate, is the police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley, an area that includes about two thirds of my constituency. It covers Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, which obviously is a relatively prosperous area.

Nevertheless, Matt Barber published a retail crime strategy and one of his top priorities was acknowledging the importance of the issue. He set out a series of actions to tackle shoplifting, retail crime and violence towards shop workers, including bolstering the operational capacity of Thames Valley police through the creation of a business crime team within the force to identify prolific offenders and improve investigation. That action, combined with an increase in the visible presence of police officers and police community support officers in retail spaces through Operation Purchase, is paying some dividends. We have seen an increase of over 90% in charges for shoplifting in the Berkshire part of my constituency.

Acknowledging how difficult and time-consuming it can be for retailers to report retail and shoplifting offences, Mr Barber also rolled out Disc, which is an information-sharing and reporting platform that allows retailers to report and access information about crimes such as shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. The Disc app has been rolled out quite effectively, particularly in Windsor town centre. It is available free of charge for businesses across Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Milton Keynes, and I urge the businesses in the Berkshire part of my constituency to use it. Frankly, any local businesses in that geographical area should use it, because the more retailers that use it and feed in that vital intelligence, the better the policing response will be. That will be even more important once this critical legislation is passed, because it will give police the specific powers to deal with such offences.

The other third of my constituency is in Surrey, where there is a different police and crime commissioner; that is a bit of a ball-ache for a constituency MP, but we plough on. The police and crime commissioner for Surrey, Lisa Townsend, and the chief constable of Surrey police, Tim De Meyer, who we heard from at the evidence session last week, are currently asking members of the Surrey business community to have their say on the impact of retail crime. They have launched a retail crime survey, which is open for responses until 14 April. I urge businesses in Virginia Water and Englefield Green to contribute to that important initiative. I therefore welcome clauses 14 and 15.

I turn to the two amendments tabled by the Opposition. Amendment 29 requires courts to make a community order against repeat offenders of retail crime to restrict the offender’s liberty, and new clause 26 imposes a duty to impose a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement, or an electronic monitoring device on people convicted of assaulting retail workers where they have been given a community or suspended sentence. Given what we have heard Committee members, and in written and oral evidence, about the scale and impact of these crimes, ensuring that repeat offenders are given a real deterrent, as put forward in these provisions, seems like an infinitely logical improvement to the Bill. The provisions work hand in glove with the Government to give retail workers the real protections they need.

The BRC’s crime survey calls specifically for dissuasive sentences, as there is an intrinsic link between the police response and the response of the courts. Sentencing is an issue when, I am afraid to say, those involved are repeatedly given light sentences.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister to respond to when she touches on these provisions. We have heard about the cost of crime prevention measures that retailers are incurring, some of which includes hiring private security guards to protect stores. Can the Minister confirm that those workers will also be covered by the legislation, including when they do the very difficult job of trying to apprehend people who are committing offences?

I second what the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said; it is my understanding that the legislation excludes those who work in high street banks. Like other Committee members, I am frequently contacted by constituents who are worried about the loss of banks on the high street. I am concerned that excluding that group of people will result in the loss of yet more face-to-face banking services on our high streets. Presumably, that group has been affected by similar rises in violence and in the number of assaults on staff. For example, Barclays bank reports that in 2024 there were over 3,500 instances of inappropriate customer behaviour against its staff, with more than 90% involving verbal abuse.

I commend the Opposition’s amendments to the Committee, and encourage the Government to consider them so that we can tackle the important crime of assaulting shop workers.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, for his extensive speech in this short debate, setting out in great detail the background and history of how we have reached the position that we are in today. I feel that with some of the contributions we visited every retail outlet in the country. As the shadow Minister asked me a number of questions, I will deal with those at the outset. It is a shame that, despite what he said, the fact is that in 14 years the previous Government did not deliver on introducing this provision.

On what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East said, the reason I pointed out that this was a manifesto commitment was to show that this Government, in our first Home Office Bill, are actually delivering on what we said we would do. I will go on to deal with some of the points that he and other hon. Members raised.

[Joe Robertson]

I wish to clarify for the Minister that I am criticising not the Government’s commitment to bring forward the Bill but the suggestion that something cannot go into the Bill because it was not in the Labour manifesto. I am sure that she is about to address that point.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Member is right that I will address that point in due course.

The shadow Minister referred to live facial recognition, but there are some provisions on that—new clauses 19 and 29—which I think will provide the best opportunity to discuss those points. He will know of my commitment to using live facial recognition where appropriate, with the necessary policing safeguards.

In response to the remarks about the offence set out in Scottish legislation on abuse, threats and aggravating factors, it is fair to say that, as the Minister, I am looking carefully at what other countries have legislated for. I keep that under review and will continue to do so throughout the course of the Bill’s passage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

That point has been mentioned several times. We heard what Rob Buckland thinks about extending the offence beyond assault, because the Bill refers specifically to assault. The hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley had tabled an amendment to the previous Bill to provide a broader definition that would cover abuse as well as assault. Does the Minister feel that there is a question mark around that point, or does she feel that it has been misunderstood by the people commenting on it?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I will come on to that point in more detail in a moment; I just want to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor about security staff. The offence will cover security staff who are employed directly by retailers and those employed by a third party on behalf of a retailer.

I want to move on to amendment 29 and new clause 26 tabled by the shadow Minister, which seek to make further provision on the sentencing of repeat offenders convicted of assaulting a retail worker. As I have tried to set out repeatedly, we take prolific offending extremely seriously, and it is helpful to have this opportunity to set out our approach.

As the Committee will be aware, sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary, which takes into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, and the statutory purposes of sentencing. The courts have a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders, including discharges, fines, community sentences, suspended sentences and custodial sentences where appropriate. Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with sentencing guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous conviction, when determining the sentence.

The Ministry of Justice continues to ensure that sentencers are provided with all tagging options, to enable courts to impose electronic monitoring on anyone who receives a community-based sentence, if the courts deem it suitable to do so. Additionally, although electronic monitoring is available to the courts, it may be not the most appropriate requirement to be added to an offender’s sentence. Many prolific offenders have no fixed abode and live complex, chaotic lifestyles. Imposing an electronic monitoring requirement would likely set up those individuals to fail, instead of helping to improve outcomes for perpetrators of crime and the public.

We cannot consider this issue in isolation. That is why the Government have delivered on a manifesto commitment—we are really quite keen on that—to bring sentencing up to date and ensure that the framework is consistent by launching an independent review of sentencing, chaired by the former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke. The review is tasked with a comprehensive re-evaluation of our sentencing framework, including considering how we can make greater use of punishments outside prison, and how sentences can encourage offenders to turn their back on a life of crime. The review has been specifically asked to consider sentencing for prolific offenders, to ensure that they commit fewer crimes. We look forward to considering the recommendations of the review, following which we will set out our plans for the future of sentencing. It is vital that we give the review time to finalise its recommendations, including on prolific offenders, and that we consider them.

We had quite a lot of discussion about wholesale workers, delivery drivers and bank workers. However, despite the Opposition raising those issues, they did not table any amendments on them. New clause 20, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), relates to wholesale workers, and I will discuss it in a moment, but first, a number of Members raised the issue of delivery drivers. We know the really important, dedicated work that delivery drivers do, particularly when we recall what happened during the pandemic. These drivers often deliver items to the most vulnerable in our society, including the elderly, frail and disabled. However, my approach in the Bill is that we must be sure that the new offence that we are creating is proportionate and can be used without creating legal ambiguity.

Any ambiguity in identifying whether an individual is a retail worker will lead the courts to take the case forward as a common assault, as happens at the moment, meaning that the specific recording that the shadow Minister is keen on would, importantly, not be attributed to a retail worker. Delivery drivers cover a wide range of sectors and roles, which is likely to cause issues with defining what a delivery driver is, and therefore with the courts’ ability to use the Bill as we want them to. However, we will use this parliamentary process to scrutinise the provisions in the Bill, as we are doing today, and will consider carefully any amendments that are tabled, as well as any evidence that is put forward in support of them.

On bank staff, it is worth the Committee knowing that officials in the Home Office are meeting with Barclays next week. I am happy to look into what comes out of that meeting. Again, I think we can all agree that bank staff do important work in our communities. As I have said, they are protected by other legislation and a statutory aggravating factor, as public workers. I will come on to discuss that in a moment.

New clause 20 would provide for an offence of assaulting a wholesale worker. Of course, violence and abuse towards any public-facing worker, including wholesale workers, is unacceptable. Everyone has a right to feel safe at work. I, like others present, know the dedicated work that many in the wholesale sector do to ensure that goods are in our supermarkets, so that we always have access to the things that we need in a timely way. However, I do not agree that the offence of assaulting a retail worker provided for by clause 14 should be extended to all wholesale workers.

As we heard in oral evidence—we also have clear evidence from the British Retail Consortium, USDAW and the Association of Convenience Stores’ report—there has been a very worrying increase in violence and abuse towards retail workers. The police have already taken action to assist in tackling retail crime, and I welcome the positive impact that has had on charge rates, with a 52% increase in charge volumes for shop theft in particular. In 2023, as has been referred to already, the National Police Chiefs’ Council published the retail crime action plan. Through that plan, all police forces in England and Wales have committed to prioritise police attendance at a scene where violence has been used towards shop staff, where an offender has been detained by store security, and where evidence needs to be secured and it can only be police personnel. Clearly, that commitment, and other work undertaken by retail, is not preventing this crime, so we want to go further. This new offence of assaulting a retail worker will send the very strong message that violence and abuse towards retail workers will not be tolerated,

On wholesale workers, bank staff and others, assault is already a crime. Everyone is protected from assault; it is criminalised under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in which common assault has a sentence of six months in prison. The Offences against the Person Act 1861 covers more serious violence, such as actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. However, this new offence will help to ensure that assaults on retail workers are separately recorded so that we know the true scale of the problem, enabling the police to respond accordingly.

Going back to why I am concerned about wholesale workers and others, any ambiguity in identifying whether an individual is a retail worker will likely lead the courts to take the case forward as common assault, meaning the specific recording attributed to a retail worker will not occur, which again goes back to the issue of data and recording. I stress that wholesale workers who are working in premises that provide retail sales to the public will be covered by the new offence in clause 14.

In order to help those in the wholesale sector, banking and other areas, including delivery drivers, there is the statutory aggravating factor for assaults against any public-facing worker in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. That aggravating factor ensures that the courts treat the public-facing nature of a victim’s role as an aggravating factor when considering the sentence for an offence, and it sends a very clear message that violence and abuse towards any worker will not be tolerated.

In order to have a proper picture of what is happening, it is critical that incidents of violence and abuse are always reported to the police, no matter in what sector. I encourage businesses to raise awareness of the legislative changes that have been introduced to their organisations to encourage that reporting. I think it is fair to say that the reason the retail sector has been so powerful in making the case to both the previous Government and this Government is because they have that information and data, as they are reporting it. That is why they have been able to get to the point where this clause is now in the Bill.

I think new clause 20 on wholesale workers is currently unnecessary, although I absolutely recognise the intent of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East in tabling it. Again, I echo how unacceptable violence and abuse is towards anybody. In the light of the explanation that I have given in response to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West, I hope that he will agree not to press them to a vote.

[Matt Vickers]

I welcome the Minister’s comments, which were thoughtful, considered and knowledgeable, as ever. I also welcome her commitment to further the use of facial recognition technology, as well as data, to maximise its benefits. I did not get a commitment on whether the funding would continue, as it was set aside in previous years.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am happy to confirm that the £3 million allocated for the financial year 2024-25 has been continued. We have used that to buy 10 vans to help us with the roll-out of live facial recognition, about which I understand the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South, is particularly concerned and anxious, so I can reassure him on that. We are now going through a spending review, and bids will be made for the technological tools that we want our police forces to have to catch criminals and keep us safe and secure.

Crime and Policing Bill (Third sitting)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

I am on a mission: there will not be another infringement, Mr Pritchard.

Antisocial behaviour can devastate communities, causing distress and insecurity for residents. We cannot stand by and allow that to continue unchecked. Lowering the age to 16 would mean that we can address these issues sooner and ensure that young people receive the support and guidance—and, potentially, sanctions and deterrents—they need to change course.

Respect orders are not simply punitive measures. They come with conditions that promote rehabilitation, and provide access to education, counselling and the opportunity to turn things around. As the Minister will know, this is as much about deterrence as it is about enforcement. When young people know that there are consequences for their actions, they are less likely to engage in behaviour that harms others. By making the amendment, we would strengthen our communities, support young people and ensure that respect for others remains at the heart of society. During the evidence sessions, we heard the views of witnesses about the 16 to 18 age bracket, and I would welcome further explanation from Ministers on why 18 has been chosen as the minimum age.

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

Good morning, Mr Pritchard; it is a pleasure to serve under you today.

The Bill will start to implement our safer streets mission alongside our commitment to the 13,000 additional police officers and police community support officers in our communities. Before I respond to amendment 31, it may assist the Committee if I say a little about why we are introducing respect orders. My doing so now may obviate the need for a separate debate on clause stand part.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting out the history of successive Governments’ attempts to deal with antisocial behaviour. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a top priority for this Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. Last year, over a third of people experienced or witnessed some form of ASB, and there were 1 million police-recorded incidents. Existing powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 do not always go far enough to tackle antisocial behaviour. That is why we committed in our manifesto to introduce the respect order to crack down on those making our neighbourhoods, town centres and communities feel unsafe and unwelcoming.

The respect order partially replaces the existing civil injunctions power for persons aged 18 or over. It enables civil courts to make respect orders on application from a relevant authority in respect of individuals who have engaged in ASB. Authorities that can apply include the police, local authorities and registered housing providers, among others. Respect orders will contain prohibitive conditions set by the court to stop offenders engaging in a particular behaviour. They can also include rehabilitative positive requirements, such as attending an anger management course, to help to tackle the root cause of offending.

I mentioned that the existing ASB powers do not always go far enough. Breach of a respect order, in contrast to the power it replaces, will be a criminal offence and therefore arrestable. That is not the case for the current civil injunction, which may include a power of arrest only in certain circumstances, where it is specified by the court or where there has been the use or threat of violence or significant risk of harm. I have heard from one local authority of a civil injunction that was breached over 100 times, with the police unable to take quick action to stop breaches because they had to reapply to the courts to arrest the offender. That is not acceptable and the respect order will fix it.

As a criminal offence, breach of a respect order will be heard in the criminal courts. This will allow judges to issue a wider range of sentences—including community orders, fines and up to two years’ imprisonment—than they can currently for civil injunctions. This is an important change. Community sentences enable judges to make ASB offenders repay, often visibly, their debt to their community.

I assure the Committee that there are safeguards in place to ensure that the orders are used appropriately. These are not unilateral powers for the police and local authorities; the terms of an order must be agreed by the courts. For a respect order to be issued, two tests must be met. First, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has engaged in or threatened to engage in ASB. ASB is defined as

“conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress”.

That is a well-established definition. Secondly, the court must be satisfied that issuing a respect order is just and convenient—again, an established test for the courts.

As a further safeguard, we are introducing a new requirement for relevant authorities to carry out a risk assessment checklist prior to applying for a respect order. This will help to ensure proportionate use. We will pilot respect orders to ensure that they are as effective as possible before rolling them out across England and Wales. More details on the pilots and their location will be provided in due course. New part A1 of the 2014 Act, inserted by clause 1, also makes provision for interim respect orders, for the variation and discharge of orders, and for special measures for witnesses in proceedings—for example, to enable them to give evidence from behind a screen.

Amendment 31 would reduce the age at which an offender can receive a respect order from 18 to 16, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, outlined. As I have indicated, the respect order is intended as a powerful deterrent for addressing the most harmful adult perpetrators of ASB. Unlike the equivalent current power—the civil injunction—breach of a respect order is a criminal offence with criminal sanctions, and the Government do not believe that it is right to criminalise children unnecessarily, which is why we committed in our manifesto to introduce respect orders for adults only. However, we know that in some cases tough measures, including behavioural orders, can be useful for dealing with younger offenders.

I absolutely agree with the shadow Minister that there should be consequences for the actions that cause distress and harm to local communities if they are committed by, for example, a 16-year-old. Stakeholders have told us that the current civil injunction can be a very useful tool for this cohort. It enables youth courts to impose behavioural requirements on younger offenders, but without resulting in criminalisation. That is why we have retained that element of the existing civil injunction and renamed it the youth injunction. This will enable youth courts to continue to make orders against younger offenders—aged 10, when criminal responsibility kicks in, to 18—where the court deems it necessary. I am content that this provision covers the need for powers to deal with youth ASB. On that basis, I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

We need to give the justice system and agencies all the powers that they can have, because at the end of the day, it is their discretion that will determine which of these things are applied. If someone breaches an order more than once, and they are subject to several respect orders, which is what the amendment relates to, there should be a stepladder of consequences. We should give the agencies and the Ministry of Justice all the tools and powers that they can use to deter people from committing another offence or indeed being subject to yet another respect order.

This is a common-sense amendment. It gives our justice system the tools that it needs to enforce respect orders properly, protects communities from persistent offenders and upholds the principle that the law must be respected.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Amendment 33 would make a person who has been given more than one respect order liable for a fine of up to £1,000. It is unlikely that a person would be given more than one respect order. An order may be given for a specified period of time or may state that it has effect until further notice. In practice, if changes are needed to a respect order after it has been approved, the applicant would return to court for the order to be varied if, for example, it was considered necessary to include additional requirements or prohibitions, or to extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect. However, a person may be given a separate order where they have engaged in antisocial behaviour that meets the legal test for use of another ASB power—for example, a housing injunction or a criminal behaviour order. Respect orders are preventive orders. They seek to prevent further antisocial behaviour by helping to address the root causes of the person’s behaviour.

[Harriet Cross]

Respect orders are indeed meant to be preventive, and everyone on the Committee wants them to work, but part of prevention is deterrence. Knowing that it will hit them in their pocket if they get a respect order is a huge deterrent for people who otherwise, as the shadow Minister said, wear these things as a badge of honour. It is not that people will receive multiple respect orders at the same time; they may receive them sequentially. They may have had one in the past, but it has lapsed or they have served it—whatever word is used—and then, down the line, they get another one and then another. A fine would ensure that respect orders have a direct financial impact on them, to prevent them from getting into a cycle of receiving one after another.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh pointed out, respect orders deter people from carrying on with their behaviour because a breach can lead to arrest, being brought before a criminal court and, potentially, imprisonment. My expectation is that, if there is a need to make changes to a respect order, the requirements will be changed and the prohibitions will be extended on the respect order that has already been issued, so I am not sure that I take the point about multiple respect orders. What we all want is that, when a respect order is issued, the individual will comply with it and no further steps are necessary by anybody because they will have stopped the antisocial behaviour and dealt with their underlying problems. Simply fining someone for receiving further orders would be a punitive measure and unlikely to help that individual change their behaviour.

Amendment 32 would increase the maximum prison term available for repeated breaches of respect orders to five years. Currently, the maximum sentence for breaching a respect order is up to two years’ imprisonment upon conviction in the Crown court. We believe that is the appropriate level of sanction, and it is in line with the current civil injunction that it replaces.

As I said, respect orders take a fundamentally preventive approach, and it is appropriate that the sentence reflects that. If the offender abides by the terms of the order, there will be no further sanctions. However, it is right that custodial sentences are still available for those who continue to cause havoc to our communities. Other powers, such as criminal behaviour orders, are available on conviction for any criminal offence in any criminal court, and they carry a longer sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment. In the light of that, I hope that the shadow Minister will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Matt Vickers]

I thank the Minister for her response. As we know, a small number of people are responsible for the vast majority of crimes. It is right that we put these ladders in place for the communities out there who are frustrated because they do not think the system has consequences for the same young people who are offending again and again, and creating lots of havoc on our streets. We would like to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Amendment 30 would expand the legal definition of antisocial behaviour for respect orders, which is currently drafted as behaviour

“that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.”

The amendment seeks to include housing-related definitions of antisocial behaviour, including causing “nuisance or annoyance”, as in section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The test for nuisance and annoyance is a lower level of behaviour than that causing harassment, alarm or distress. That is appropriate in a housing context where a victim cannot easily escape from ASB that is occurring in the area where they live. We know that ASB can have devastating consequences in such situations, undermining the victim’s safety and security in their home. That is why we have retained the test for the new housing injunction in clause 2.

The respect order goes further than the civil injunction, as I have set out, in making a breach a criminal offence and enabling a wider range of sentencing options. It is appropriate that the legal test should be behaviour that is causing, or likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress. It is also important to be mindful that the respect order sits alongside a suite of powers available to the police and local authorities to tackle ASB, which are designed to apply to the different scenarios and harm types that the amendment aims to capture. I hope I have assured the shadow Minister of our reasoning in setting the bar for a respect order at the level of harassment, alarm or distress, and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Matt Vickers]

I thank the Minister for her response, but I would like to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I thank the hon. Member for his evidence.

The amendment is a crucial measure that could play an essential role in ensuring that the allocation of social housing is fair, responsible, and aligned with the values of respect and community responsibility. The key benefit is that it provides an additional incentive for individuals to behave in a way that upholds community standards. When someone is found to have caused disruption or engaged in antisocial behaviour that harms others, placing them at the bottom of the waiting list for social housing serves as a tangible consequence of their actions. It encourages personal responsibility and reinforces the idea that those who choose to respect the rules and the people around them should be rewarded, while those who engage in disruptive behaviour should face appropriate consequences.

Moreover, this approach supports the integrity of the social housing system. Social housing is in high demand, and it is vital that we prioritise those who are not only in need, but demonstrate a commitment to being good tenants and positive members of the community. By introducing this measure, we would ensure that social housing was allocated in a manner that rewards responsible behaviour, thus safeguarding the quality of life for everyone in the community. Importantly, it would allow local authorities to manage the housing waiting list in a way that aligns with the broader objectives of social housing policy, promoting both fairness and the values that underpin our society. It is a sensible, measured approach that encourages respect for others and the community as a whole.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Well, Mr Pritchard, that was a lively exchange. Clearly the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley, has had her three Weetabix this morning.

We all recognise how devastating antisocial behaviour where you live can be, and I fully understand and appreciate the passion the debate on amendment 34 has prompted this morning. As the shadow Minister pointed out, amendment 34 would enable local authorities or housing providers to move a person who receives a respect order to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing. It is for local authorities to decide who should qualify for social housing. It might be helpful for hon. Members to know that many councils already consider antisocial behaviour or other criminal behaviour before allocating a social home. They may either decide that a person with a history of antisocial behaviour does not qualify to go on the housing register, or accept the person on to the register but award them lower priority.

I note what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, said about the effect that this amendment could have on other family members not associated with the antisocial behaviour. We need to consider the potential consequences of removing access to social housing. The respect order is intended to tackle the most harmful adult perpetrators of ASB, but also aims to prevent further ASB from occurring and help people to address the root causes of their behaviour. That is why respect orders may contain positive as well as prohibitive requirements.

[Luke Taylor]

To pick up the point on the root cause of antisocial behaviour, does the right hon. Lady agree that being in unsuitable housing, and then being trapped in unsuitable housing through a measure like this, may well make antisocial behaviour even worse, leading to further reactions and disruption within communities?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point; I am not sure that I will respond to it. However, the point he made earlier about the need to ensure that innocent people are not caught up in this is one that I am willing to accept.

We do not want to create further issues for individuals who have respect orders by removing access to social housing entirely, which may increase the risk of reoffending and reduce the likelihood of rehabilitation. I hope that, as I have explained that there is already the power for local authorities to choose to take into account the antisocial behaviour or criminal records of potential tenants, the shadow Minister will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

[Matt Vickers]

I thank the Minister for her response. I am glad that we provoked a bit of passion and got people engaged in the debate. I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As we have talked at length about the respect orders, I will not say anything further at this stage.

[Matt Vickers]

It is encouraging to see housing providers recognised as registered authorities in proposed new section B1 of the 2014 Act, particularly when it comes to addressing antisocial behaviour, which continues to plague many residents in housing communities. Registered housing providers, including housing associations and local authority landlords, serve as the backbone of the social housing sector, ensuring that tenants have access to safe, stable and well-managed homes. Their role extends beyond simply providing houses; they are legally and morally responsible for fostering strong, liveable communities where residents feel secure and supported. As designated authorities with specific legal powers, these providers are uniquely positioned to tackle antisocial behaviour head-on. This responsibility is crucial in preventing communities from becoming blighted by persistent nuisance and intimidation or criminal activity.

Rather than leaving tenants to endure these issues alone, or to rely solely on already overstretched police and council services, housing providers have the tools to intervene directly, whether through tenancy enforcement, mediation or legal action. By taking a proactive stance against antisocial behaviour, registered housing providers help maintain the quality of life for all residents, ensuring that social housing remains a place not just to live, but to thrive. Their ability to act swiftly and decisively is vital in upholding community standards and reinforcing the fundamental principle that everyone deserves to live in a safe and respectful environment.

Response times can still lag, and not all providers have the resources or the will to tackle complex cases effectively. Victims of persistent antisocial behaviour often face a daunting process: logging multiple complaints, gathering evidence and navigating bureaucracy. How will the Government ensure that all housing providers have the capacity to utilise these powers effectively?

The Environment Agency is listed as a relevant authority with the power to issue a respect order. Could the Minister clarify the specific role that the agency will play in enforcing these orders? Under what circumstances would the Environment Agency be expected to exercise this power, and what specific outcomes do the Government seek to achieve by including it? Could the Minister provide a concrete example of how the Environment Agency might use a respect order in practice? Proposed new section C1 of the 2014 Act sets out that the respect order

“may have the effect of excluding the respondent from the place where the respondent normally lives”

and that a condition the court considers is that

“the anti-social behaviour in which the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage consists of or includes the use or threatened use of violence against other persons, or…there is a significant risk of harm to other persons from the respondent.”

What implications could that have for respondents who have been issued with an order? Where will they live? What role will their local authority have in supporting them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Recruiting 13,000 police officers sounds really good, but about a third of them will be special constables and about a third redeployed from other parts of the police force. When someone rings 999, because they want that emergency response service, they may wait even longer, because the response police officers will have been moved into neighbourhoods.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Rubbish!

[Matt Vickers]

The Government are redeploying them, so they are taking them from somewhere. We would welcome any information about where the Government will or will not redeploy them from, but this is important. The Government cannot say 13,000 more are arriving, when it is about 3,000 more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I think we will have to leave the debate about which Government have the solutions to another day, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

I repeat my point, which I do not think is controversial and would hope is accepted: the Labour party will have to pay extra attention to court backlogs when provisions such as this, which I support, are introduced.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

We have had a wide-ranging debate on clause 1, moving from the specifics of the respect order through to policing numbers. I am very proud that we will have 13,000 additional police officers and PCSOs by the end of this Parliament. I have to say that the idea that there was the largest prison-building scheme since the Victorian times under the previous Conservative Government is utter bunkum—they built 500 places. That is why we are in the position we are in at the moment. I know that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East is a new Member, but those of us who have been in the House a little while remember what 14 years of Conservative government have delivered for this country. That is why this Government are determined to start to deal with some of the problems around antisocial behaviour, crime and the fact that we do not have enough prison places.

Getting back to clause 1 of this important Bill, I am pleased that there is acceptance across the House of the need for respect orders and a general welcoming of them. The shadow Minister asked some very detailed questions, which I will come to in a moment, but I want to comment on the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. The horrific case in his constituency of a child who cannot go out to play and the stress that antisocial behaviour puts on the family is clearly totally unacceptable. That is why respect orders will play their part, along with the housing civil injunctions, in tackling some of these problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton made an important point about individuals with addiction problems and how it is absolutely vital that respect orders deal with the requirements to get to grips with antisocial behaviour and whether an addiction issue is driving it. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Windsor talked about the antisocial behaviour that occurs even in some of the more prosperous areas of the country—he talked about Eton. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh made an important point about prevention, the work around youth hubs and the prevention partnerships that we will be introducing.

At the very start of the debate on the amendments, the shadow Minister asked whether respect orders would interfere with individuals’ work commitments. I can reassure him that it will be for the court, which is judicially independent, to set the conditions of a respect order. Courts are well practised in navigating types of circumstances, such as where a person works or lives, and we expect the courts to consider those issues when making respect orders. For example, a court is unlikely to prevent the respondent from entering a defined area if they need to access it to attend work.

The shadow Minister asked how the Environment Agency will use respect orders. The Environment Agency can play a role, particularly where an environmental ASB offence is committed, for example vandalism of local open spaces or parks, or things like that.

The shadow Minister was particularly concerned about without-notice applications for respect orders. We know that courts can issue without-notice respect orders when the matter is urgent—the shadow Minister referred to that. Courts are familiar with doing that and have done it for a very long time with civil injunctions.

The shadow Minister also asked about the burden of proof required for the courts to approve a respect order and how much police will work with communities to ensure that repeated reporting and gathering of evidence has the desired effect. The court must be satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the respondent has engaged in, or threatened to engage in, conduct that has or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The court must also be satisfied that it is just and convenient to grant the respect order for the purposes of preventing the respondent from engaging in antisocial behaviour. That is the same legal test as for the current injunction.

I was pleased that the shadow Minister welcomed the fact that housing bodies will be able to seek orders from the courts; I think that is welcome across the House. Police are just one of the number of agencies, including councils and housing authorities, that can apply for respect orders. It is expected that a multi-agency approach will be taken when applying for respect orders. We are also introducing mandatory checklists for the relevant agency to complete prior to applying for a respect order, to ensure proportionate use.

--- Later in debate ---

Youth injunctions and housing injunctions

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 2, page 10, line 36, leave out

“Schedule 1 amends Part 1 of”

and insert

“Part 1 of Schedule 1 amends”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 24.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 7 and 8.

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 24 to 28.

Schedule 1.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 2 introduces schedule 1, which makes consequential amendments to part 1 of the 2014 Act to provide for youth and housing injunctions. The purpose of the amendments in this group is to retain the existing civil injunction for cases that will not be covered by the respect order, namely those of offenders under 18 and housing-related nuisance ASB. Although in some cases powers are needed to address the behaviour of younger offenders, the Government do not want to unnecessarily criminalise children, as I said previously. Practitioners have told us that the existing injunction can be a useful power for addressing persistent ASB committed by under-18s and so it will remain in place for that cohort, operating in the same way as the civil injunction, although it will be renamed the “youth injunction”.

[Harriet Cross]

For clarity, will the threshold at which a youth injunction is given be at the same sort of level as for a respect order, but with the age element added in, or will there be a different threshold for the level of antisocial behaviour, or the sort of disruption caused?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

We are retaining the existing provisions for civil injunctions. As I set out previously, the balance of probabilities, the test and the categorisation of the antisocial behaviour will all remain the same. We are just renaming it a “youth injunction” because we are focusing the respect order on the persistent antisocial behaviour of adults over 18. The youth injunction remains exactly as it is in law now.

I am conscious of the profound problems that housing-related nuisance ASB can cause, as we have heard again in this debate. The housing injunction therefore retains the lower legal threshold of

“conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”

in a housing context—as previously discussed. Again, we heard from practitioners that the existing power is effective and proportionate for housing-related ASB, and the housing injunction therefore retains the effect of the current power in that context.

Government amendments 6 to 8 and 24 to 28 make further technical and consequential amendments to existing antisocial behaviour legislation as a result of the introduction of respect orders. In relation to the 2014 Act, that means ensuring that definitions of antisocial behaviour are captured accurately elsewhere, under the existing powers, to account for the new respect orders and injunctions in part 1 of the Act. Consequential amendments are also needed to the Housing Acts 1985 and 1988 so that the breach of a respect order, a youth injunction or a housing injunction continues to be a ground for possession under those Housing Acts, as is the case with the current civil injunction.

We know that taking possession of a property is an important tool for landlords to use to provide swift relief to victims when antisocial behaviour or criminality has already been proven by another court. It is therefore right to retain that tool with the new respect order. In addition, amendment 28 amends the Localism Act 2011 to ensure that landlords can refuse to surrender and grant tenancies on the basis that a tenant, or a person residing with the tenant, has been issued with a respect order.

Finally, amendment 28 also amends the Police Reform Act 2002 to ensure that constables in uniform can continue to require a person engaging in antisocial behaviour to give their name and address. I commend the provisions to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 2 amends the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to provide for the granting of youth and housing injunctions; I thank the Minister for outlining that. Clause 2 will limit powers under section 1 of the 2014 Act so that injunctions can be granted only to individuals aged 10 to 17. Will the Minister confirm the rationale behind that age restriction?

The clause also introduces a new type of injunction for adults aged 18 and over, specifically aimed at preventing behaviour that causes nuisance or annoyance related to housing. It shifts the approach to tackling community-specific antisocial conduct, rather than broader public disorder. How do the Government justify treating adult antisocial behaviour differently depending on whether it is housing-related or not? Is the Minister concerned that limiting injunctions for housing-related issues to adults might create enforcement gaps? What mechanisms are in place to ensure that local authorities and housing providers have the necessary resources to enforce housing-related injunctions effectively? Realising that Ministers are keen to hear exactly who wants what measures in the Bill, can she name any housing associations who specifically asked for this measure?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

A number of the points that the shadow Minister has raised were discussed earlier. We have set out very clearly why we believe that the respect orders should only apply to adults, because we are talking about the most serious antisocial behaviour. We believe that children and young people up to the age of 18 should not be caught by a respect order because of the criminalisation attached—if it is breached, they can be immediately arrested and brought before the criminal courts. That is why we have retained what is working well with the civil injunctions and renamed them the youth injunction and the housing injunction. On the latter, again, we heard very passionate contributions about how antisocial behaviour where people live, next to their home, and caused by neighbours, can absolutely destroy people’s lives, causing stress, distress and mental health issues, as well as sometimes breaking up families. That is why the threshold for the housing injunction is lower than that for the respect order, but for the threshold we are using what is already on the statute books and I think it is right that it is at that lower level.

On the question about whether any social housing authority has supported the plans for housing injunctions, there is a genuine view in the sector that this is a positive step to enable them to deal with the antisocial behaviour that housing authorities often have to deal with. I am very conscious that the antisocial behaviour charity Resolve has much welcomed the work that has gone into the Bill on both the respect orders and the civil injunctions. Resolve would say that there is a general view that this is a positive way forward. The approach that seems sensible is using what works well now, and keeping that—as I have said, that is why the housing and youth injunctions are doing that and are adapting it—while bringing in this tougher response through the respect order, and getting that on the statute books to deal with people who persistently engage in antisocial behaviour, to try to get to the root cause of what they are doing. I hope that deals with the questions posed by the shadow Minister.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendments made: 7, in clause 2, page 10, line 37, leave out “(injunctions)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.

Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 11, line 2, at end insert—

“(1A) Part 2 of Schedule 1 contains consequential amendments of other Acts.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 28.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Amendments of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

Amendments made: 24, in schedule 1, page 148, line 4, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—

“Part 1

Amendments of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

1 The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is amended as set out in this Part.”

This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 28, makes the existing text of Schedule 1 become Part 1 of that Schedule.

Amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 150, line 4, leave out from “for” to end of line 5 and insert

“‘section 1’ substitute ‘this Part’.”

This amendment ensures that the definition in section 2(1)(b) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as amended by the Bill, applies to applications for youth injunctions as well as applications for housing injunctions.

Amendment 26, in schedule 1, page 152, line 37, at end insert—

“(za) in the words before paragraph (a), for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘this Part’;”.

This amendment ensures that the consultation requirement under section 14(3) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as amended by the Bill, applies to applications to vary or discharge housing injunctions as well as youth injunctions.

Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 153, line 33, at end insert—

“19A In section 101 (the community remedy document), in subsection (9), for the definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ substitute—

‘“anti-social behaviour” means—

(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or

(b) housing-related anti-social conduct as defined by section 2 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section);’.

19B (1) Section 102 (anti-social behaviour etc: out-of-court disposals) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), in paragraph (c), for ‘an injunction under section 1’ substitute ‘a respect order under section A1 or an injunction under Part 1’.

(3) In subsection (6), for the definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ substitute—

‘“anti-social behaviour” means—

(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or

(b) housing-related anti-social conduct, as defined by section 2 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section);’.”

This amendment inserts into Schedule 1 provision making amendments to the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 that are consequential on the amendments made to that Act by clause 1 and by the other provisions of Schedule 1.

Amendment 28, in schedule 1, page 153, line 38, at end insert—

“Part 2

Consequential amendments of other Acts

Housing Act 1985

21 (1) Section 84A of the Housing Act 1985 (absolute ground for possession for anti-social behaviour) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (4)—

(a) for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘Part 1’;

(b) after ‘2014’ insert ‘or a respect order’.

(3) In subsection (9), for the definition of ‘relevant proceedings’, substitute—

‘“relevant proceedings” means—

(a) proceedings for an offence under section I1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,

(b) proceedings under Schedule 2 to that Act, or

(c) proceedings for contempt of court;

“respect order” means an order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;’.

22 In Schedule 3 to that Act (grounds for withholding consent to assignment by way of exchange), in Ground 2A, in the definition of ‘relevant order’, for ‘an injunction under section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014’ substitute—

‘a respect order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;

an injunction under Part 1 of that Act;’

Housing Act 1988

23 (1) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 (grounds on which court must order possession of dwelling-houses let on assured tenancies), Ground 7A is amended as follows.

(2) In condition 2, in the words before paragraph (a)—

(a) for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘Part 1’;

(b) after ‘2014’ insert ‘or a respect order’.

(3) In the list of definitions for the purposes of Ground 7A, for the definition of ‘relevant proceedings’ substitute—

‘“relevant proceedings” means—

(a) proceedings for an offence under section I1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,

(b) proceedings under Schedule 2 to that Act, or

(c) proceedings for contempt of court;

“respect order” means an order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;’.

Police Reform Act 2002

24 In section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (persons engaging in anti-social behaviour), for subsection (1A) substitute—

‘(1A) In subsection (1) “anti-social behaviour” means—

(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or

(b) housing-related anti-social conduct, as defined by section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section).’

Localism Act 2011

25 In Schedule 14 to the Localism Act 2011 (grounds on which landlord may refuse to surrender and grant tenancies under section 158), in paragraph 6(4), in the definition of ‘relevant order’—

(a) after paragraph (e) insert—

‘(ea) a respect order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,’;

(b) in paragraph (f), for ‘section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014’ substitute ‘Part 1 of that Act’.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This amendment inserts into Schedule 1 a new Part 2 containing amendments of Acts other than the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in consequence of the amendments made to that Act by clause 1 and by the other provisions of Schedule 1 (which would by virtue of Amendment 24 become Part 1 of that Schedule).

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3

Maximum period for certain directions, notices and orders

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 3 provides for extensions to the maximum timeframes for dispersal directions and closure orders under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and I will address each of these in turn.

The clause extends the maximum period for which a dispersal order can be in place from 48 to 72 hours and introduces a mandatory review at 48 hours. We know that the dispersal power is an effective tool that police can use in a range of situations to move on individuals who are committing, or who are likely to commit, antisocial behaviour. Despite that, feedback from police and from police and crime commissioners has highlighted operational challenges in implementing this power.

Under current legislation, the police can issue a dispersal order to require a person to leave an area for a maximum of only 48 hours. That makes no allowance or and allows no extensions for weekends or bank holidays, when incidents of antisocial behaviour are often high. The 48-hour window also allows little time for relevant authorities to identify the root causes of the issue in order to implement longer-term solutions. Extending the timeframe of the dispersal power to up to 72 hours will ensure that police can effectively cover these problem periods, such as bank holidays. It will also give local agencies more time to come together to develop long-term solutions to tackle antisocial behaviour.

[Harriet Cross]

Although I completely agree with the need to extend the power, why was 72 hours chosen? Was there work or analysis behind that figure?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am very pleased to hear that the shadow Minister supports the 72-hour limit, because it was in the Criminal Justice Bill that her Government brought forward and that, because of the general election, never got on to the statute books. Work was done with stakeholders on what would be required. Clearly we do not want to extend it too far, but 72 hours seemed to be the best period of time to take into account what I was just saying about weekends and bank holidays in particular.

Let me move on to closure orders. The clause extends the timeframe that the relevant agencies, after issuing a closure notice, can apply to a magistrates court for a closure order from 48 hours to 72 hours. Again, that is based on feedback from practitioners who have noted operational challenges in applying for a closure order. The 48-hour window is not always enough time to prepare evidence and serve it to the courts, particularly on weekends or bank holidays. The closure order is an important power that agencies can use to provide immediate respite to the local community, so we must ensure that it is practicable and viable for practitioners to use.

Extending the timeframe to 72 hours will allow practitioners adequate time to gather evidence and inform interested parties. It also allows respondents more time to seek legal advice, in turn reducing the number of cases adjourned by the courts. In short, the provisions will help to address operational challenges, allowing local agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour more efficiently and effectively.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 3 sets out the maximum period for certain directions, notices and orders. On exclusion directions, the Bill amends section 35 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 whereby a police officer could direct a person to leave a specified area for up to 48 hours. The Bill extends this to 72 hours. If an exclusion period exceeds 48 hours, a police inspector must review the direction as soon as possible after the 48-hour mark to ensure its necessity.

Closure notices allow the police to shut down premises that cause nuisance or disorder, and could previously last 24 hours before requiring further action. The Bill extends that to 48 hours. The maximum period for an initial closure notice before a magistrates court order will be required has been extended from 48 to 72 hours. Those efforts will give greater flexibility for police and officers will have more time to manage antisocial behaviour without requiring immediate escalation to the courts. That will allow for a stronger deterrent, meaning that longer exclusion periods and closure notices could have a greater impact in preventing repeated antisocial behaviour.

In 2023, the previous Government ran a consultation on proposals to strengthen powers available to address antisocial behaviour under the 2014 Act. It is true that the Government have opted to reintroduce some of these provisions into the Crime and Policing Bill. However, I would be grateful for an understanding of why certain measures have not been taken forward. For example, provisions to remove the need for authorisation by a senior police officer for a dispersal order have not been reintroduced. Although a Member could argue that a mandatory review by an inspector for exclusion periods of over 48 hours ensures accountability, why was the decision made to require an inspector’s review for exclusion directions only after 48 hours, rather than immediately on extending them?

The Bill also removes provisions to grant senior police officers the power to make public space protection orders, meaning that it arguably becomes harder in certain instances to control disorder. In November 2024, an extraordinary and unprecedented legal order was enacted, imposing a complete closure on an entire housing estate of 376 properties. That sweeping measure was introduced as a direct response to escalating concerns over severe and persistent antisocial behaviour and rampant drug dealing that had reached intolerable levels. The closure order strictly prohibited non-residents from gathering or loitering in key communal areas, including stairwells, landings, bridges and spaces near bin chutes, as well as within open areas adjacent to residential properties. The decision was driven by an urgent need to restore safety and security for the law-abiding residents, whose daily lives had been severely disrupted by the ongoing disturbances. Authorities deemed that intervention necessary to curb the relentless activities of those engaged in criminal behaviour and to ensure that the estate could once again become a liveable and peaceful environment for its rightful occupants.

The Bill has notably failed to carry forward provisions to lower the minimum age for issuing a community protection notice to 10 years old. Why has that decision been made? As the Minister will be well aware, antisocial behaviour is frequently perpetrated by individuals under the age of 18, often causing significant disruption and distress within communities. Local residents, businesses and authorities alike have long struggled with the challenges posed by persistent youth-related disorder. Given that reality, is the Minister fully confident that the removal of this provision will not inadvertently weaken the ability of law enforcement and local councils to tackle antisocial behaviour committed by teenagers? Without appropriate measures in place, there is a real risk that communities will continue to bear the brunt of unchecked disorder and that would undermine efforts to create safer and more harmonious neighbourhoods. What safeguards are in place to prevent these extended powers from being misused or disproportionately applied to certain groups or businesses? What role will local authorities and community organisations play in reviewing the effectiveness of these measures?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The shadow Minister asked a number of questions about measures that were in the Criminal Justice Bill and are not in the Crime and Policing Bill. Clearly, what we are referring to was, and it is the same, as I understand it. We carefully considered the merits of all the measures that were in the Criminal Justice Bill on a case-by-case basis, and we reintroduced the ones that we thought had clear operational benefits, would help to cut crime and antisocial behaviour and would rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system.

The shadow Minister asked about the requirement for dispersal orders to be authorised by an inspector. The Criminal Justice Bill included a measure to remove the current requirement for an inspector to authorise a dispersal order. When considering that measure and what it would deliver, we were concerned that restricting people’s freedom of movement is a serious matter and that it is important that the dispersal order is used proportionately and reasonably. Ensuring that that power is authorised by an officer of at least the rank of inspector provides an additional safeguard and ensures that the power is used only to stop activities that are causing antisocial behaviour.

The Criminal Justice Bill sought to reduce the age that someone can receive a community protection notice from 16 to 10. We take the view that the breach of a CPN is a criminal offence and this Government, as I have said a number of times, do not wish to risk funnelling children into the criminal justice system unnecessarily by lowering the age at which someone can receive a CPN to 10 years of age. As we have discussed, the civil injunction will remain in place to be used against those under the age of 16—