Firearms Licensing: Sound Moderators

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Written Statements

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

The Government are today publishing their response to the public consultation that was undertaken by the previous Government on a proposal to remove the firearms accessory known as a sound moderator from firearms licensing controls. The consultation ran between 21 February and 2 April 2024.

A sound moderator can be attached to a rifle barrel to reduce the sound and flash when the rifle is fired. It reduces the sound of the shot by around three quarters, and accordingly these accessories are used to protect shooters’ hearing, to reduce the disturbance to others in the vicinity of shoots, and to stop shooters being temporarily blinded by the muzzle flash of a shot. They are entirely inert objects containing no moving parts and do not of themselves create a risk to public safety. They are, however, currently defined as a firearm in the Firearms Act 1968, and therefore they are subject to the requirement to be licensed by the police.

The Government have decided to remove sound moderators from the requirement to be licensed, and that doing so will not create any public safety risk or impact in any way the strength of our existing firearms controls. We do, however, see merit in making it a requirement for a person to be in possession of a valid firearms certificate, issued by the police, in order to lawfully possess a sound moderator. This will ensure that these accessories are held lawfully only by those with a legitimate purpose.

The public consultation also sought views on whether it would be appropriate to use a legislative reform order, made under section 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, if it were decided to deregulate sound moderators. Having given careful consideration to this, the Government’s view is that it would not be appropriate to use such an order, given that this will require a change to the legal definition of a firearm set out in the Firearms Act 1968. The Government are therefore of the view that this change should be made through primary legislation, and we will therefore seek to make this change when parliamentary time allows.

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

[HCWS705]

Police Presence on High Streets

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Furniss.

I start, of course, by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for making such a passionate and eloquent speech on behalf of her constituents, and for what she said about her fight—indeed, her mission—to take back Erdington High Street. I think she said that she wanted to make her voice and her community’s voice heard; she has certainly done that this afternoon. It was clear that Erdington deserved better than it was getting and she has delivered that improvement, so she should be very proud of that.

It has been a really wide-ranging debate with lots of local and national flavour. Many different areas and constituencies have been referred to, and I am grateful to all the Members who have spoken today. The fact that it has been such a comprehensive debate reflects the significance that is attached to these issues by us as parliamentarians and by our constituents.

Before I respond to some of the specific points that were raised, I will be really clear about this Government’s position. We believe wholeheartedly and unreservedly in the value of a visible and responsive police presence in our communities. As we have heard, that is especially important on high streets and in town centres.

It is very encouraging indeed to hear about initiatives that have made a real difference, such as Operation Fearless in Erdington, in Birmingham. As I have already said, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington for her work. I also commend the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, the chief constable of West Midlands police, Craig Guildford, and the assistant chief constable, Jen Mattinson, for driving this initiative forward for the community.

Across the country, however, far more needs to be done, and we need to build on the work of Operation Fearless and similar operations around the country. In recent years, too many neighbourhoods have been plagued by antisocial behaviour and crime, with shoplifting and street theft in particular surging. As those offences have shot up, we all know the reality—neighbourhood policing was eroded under previous Governments. Actually, let us be clear: it was slashed by previous Governments.

The impact of that is very well documented. Across the country, the belief set in among local businesses and residents that police were not on the streets. Antisocial behaviour and shop theft were treated as low level, and if people called the police, nobody came and nothing was done.

I think we all agree now that that is totally unacceptable and needs to be fixed. That is why this Government have made rebuilding neighbourhood policing a focus of our safer streets mission, which is central to the Prime Minister’s plan for change. Under the mission, we are aiming to halve violence against women and girls and knife crime in a decade, tackle shop theft, street crime and antisocial behaviour, and improve trust in the criminal justice system. All those aims are tied in some way to another of the mission’s core strands: rebuilding the neighbourhood policing model. Without a strong local police footprint, our communities are left exposed and people suffer. Put simply, neighbourhood policing is the beating heart of our law enforcement system. After years of neglect, this Government will restore it to full health.

I also want to make a comment about police funding and resources, because a number of hon. Members have talked about that this afternoon. Clearly, the funding formula is the one we inherited. We have been in power for 11 months, but we have been clear that we will embark on police reform, and there is a White Paper coming in the next few months. I want to make clear to hon. Members this afternoon that, within that, there will undoubtedly have to be a discussion about finances and resources for policing.

Let me turn to the points that have been raised. We have already made £200 million available to forces to kick-start year one of our programme, which will support the first step of delivering 13,000 additional officers into neighbourhood policing roles. Like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), I welcome PC Coyle to his new role in Durham. I also pay tribute to all our police officers, who work for us day in, day out, particularly the neighbourhood police officers I met this morning in Milton Keynes, who were doing a fantastic job for their community. Our approach to delivering on the 13,000 in 2025-26 has been designed to deliver an initial increase to the neighbourhood policing workforce in a manner that is flexible and can be adapted to the local context and the varied crime demands in certain neighbourhoods. Police forces have embraced that and want to make a positive start towards achieving the goal of 13,000 additional neighbourhood officers by the end of this Parliament.

The neighbourhood policing guarantee was announced by the Prime Minister on 10 April. He said that, along with the Home Secretary, he had written to all chief constables and police and crime commissioners, setting out key objectives. The guarantee aims to reverse the decline in visible policing through clear commitments, designed with the support of policing, to be achieved throughout the course of this Parliament. By July, every neighbourhood throughout England and Wales will have named contactable officers. These officers will know their areas and build relationships with residents and businesses, and they will understand local concerns. In too many instances in the past, residents felt they had no one to go to. By July, there will be a guaranteed response time to local neighbourhood police queries from members of the public and businesses of 72 hours.

Having committed to these steps, it is now down to Government and policing to deliver on them. We expect that by July, all police forces will be able to demonstrate that that commitment to the guarantee has been achieved. Additionally, the College of Policing will begin the national roll-out of its neighbourhood policing training programme during the neighbourhood policing week of action in June. The training will equip officers with essential skills, such as problem solving, relationship building and crime prevention, to effectively tackle local issues and enhance community engagement. This dedicated training aims to transform neighbourhood policing services, ensuring trusted and effective policing that cuts crime and keeps people safe. There is also the hotspot action programme, which focuses on particular hotspots and really putting in the resources—it sounds very similar to what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington referred to.

I want to make some comments about retail crime. It has been very helpful to hear from Members today who have experience of the retail sector. We know that in the last two years of the previous Government, shop theft soared by 70%. There is an epidemic in shop theft, and we need to do something about it. As has been said, in the Crime and Policing Bill we have brought forward a new offence of assaulting a retail worker to protect the hard-working and dedicated staff who work in stores, after years of campaigning by USDAW and the Co-op, among others.

Also included as part of the Bill is the removal of the legislation that makes shop theft of and below £200 a summary-only offence, which meant that it could only be tried in the magistrates court. This sends a clear message that any level of shop theft is illegal and will be taken seriously. I noted what the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said about that, but there is a deterrent in this, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins). It is about saying that shop theft of any value is theft, and action will be taken. We still expect that the vast majority of cases will be heard in the magistrates court—[Interruption.] I do not have time for an intervention, but I am happy to discuss it with Members after the debate.

There is also additional funding going into the National Police Chiefs’ Council to give further training to police and retailers on preventive tactics. We are putting £5 million into the specialist analyst team within Opal, which is the national policing intelligence unit dealing with the serious organised criminal gangs that are now getting involved in shop theft. There will also be £2 million over the next three years for the National Business Crime Centre, which provides a resource for both police and businesses to learn, share and support each other to prevent and combat crime. We also have the retail crime forum with representatives from major businesses, which I chair.

We are determined that this summer, for the next three months starting at the end of this month, we will put increasing the safety of our town centres and high streets under the microscope, in partnership with PCCs, councils, schools, health services, businesses, transport and community organisations. I am aware that tackling criminality and antisocial behaviour in town centres is already a focus for many police forces, but we need to do more and go quicker. We have to take that action, and I look forward to the plans that PCCs have been drawing up and will be providing to the Home Office in the next few days. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington for calling this debate, as it is an issue that every Member of this House cares passionately about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

Under the previous Government, shop theft was allowed to reach epidemic proportions. There was a 70% increase in the last two years of the previous Government. We are working hard to tackle this epidemic in every area of our country, including rural areas. Through our Crime and Policing Bill, we are introducing a new stand-alone offence of assault against a retail worker. We will not tolerate workers facing abuse and violence simply for doing their job, whether that is in towns or in rural areas.

[Amanda Hack]

Convenience stores are at the heart of our communities and provide employment for over 700 people in shops in North West Leicestershire, but workers often face abuse. When I visited one of my local shops recently, I was told that just a few days earlier the assistant manager had been punched in the face when he was just doing his job. Although the assault had been reported, the police had yet to pay a visit. Will the Minister share her plans to support rural policing in constituencies such as mine, so that we can tackle violence against shop workers?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

May I express my concern about the attack on my hon. Friend’s constituent? It is totally unacceptable. Under the retail crime action plan, the police made operational commitments to prioritising attendance where violence had been used. Some progress has been made, but much more needs to be done. I will ensure that every police force understands how seriously the Government take this offence. The additional 35 police officers and 21 police community support officers who will be in place as a result of our neighbourhood policing guarantee might go some way to helping with that.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I recently visited the Huntingdon branch of Barclays bank in my rural constituency, where staff highlighted to me that although the Crime and Policing Bill will make assaulting a shop worker an offence, branch staff in banks and building societies are not included in that classification, despite the fact that they work on the high street and are subject to the same threats and intimidation as shop workers. There were over 10,000 instances of abuse in branches last year. What rationale can the Minister provide for excluding branch staff in banks and building societies from the protections given to retail staff, who work next to them?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

A case has been made over several years for why retail workers should be covered by this specific offence. Work was done with the Co-op, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and many others to get the evidence together. If there is evidence from the financial sector and from banks, I want to see it, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to talk to the people with whom he was having conversations about this. I am very open to looking at this, but at the moment, we have drawn up the offence on the basis of the evidence available to us.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said; this is a problem up and down the land. At the moment, police forces are doing their best, but the Crime and Policing Bill will allow them to seize vehicles that are being used in an antisocial way, without having to give any warnings, and then to destroy them. That is the way forward, but I pay tribute to the work that is already ongoing with police forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Regarding non-crime hate incidents and the amount of police time taken to investigate them, does the Minister agree that the clue is in the name? They are “non-crime”. Does she also agree that already stretched police should focus their efforts on tackling real crime, rather than being the virtue-signalling thought police?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The Home Secretary has been very clear about the priorities that police forces should actually focus on. As agreed with the Home Secretary, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing are conducting a review of non-crime hate incidents. We will update Parliament in due course on the findings of that review and any changes that may be required to the code of practice introduced by the shadow Home Secretary in March 2023.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Leicestershire police has signed a reported £800,000 contract with Palantir—a company that has a worrying history of racial profiling and surveillance concerns in the USA. It has since removed all the contract details from the public record, and the Home Office holds no central records of such a deal. What reassurances can the Home Secretary give that the people of Leicester are protected from intrusive and discriminatory policing practices? How can transparency and oversight be upheld in such partnerships where no central records are kept?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might write to me with the details of what he has outlined. If so, I will look at them.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for visiting my constituency last week after the horrific incident following the Liverpool football club victory parade. Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating the emergency services on acting so swiftly, but also in condemning the Reform UK party and the far right for trying to stoke up hatred? Can she explain how her Department will tackle this misinformation to prevent further action in future?

2025 UEFA Women’s European Championship: Extending Licensing Hours

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

[HCWS644]

Crime and Policing Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. According to the programme order agreed at the start of Committee stage, the Committee must conclude today at 5 pm.

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

On a point of order, Dr Allin-Khan. I want to clarify remarks that I made during the previous Committee sitting, in response to a point raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, about officer numbers in the Metropolitan police. I stated that the Government anticipated that, under the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime budget for 2025-26, there will be a reduction of around 1,000 police officers and police community support officers in the Metropolitan police.

There has been some confusion about the anticipated reduction in police officers, PCSOs and staff at the Met, which has been very unhelpful in getting a clear picture. The final MOPAC budget report states that the Met police is expecting a reduction of 1,419 full-time equivalent officers, PCSOs and staff—it includes staff—as opposed to the 1,700 figure that was previously reported. As I said in my remarks at the end of last week, I am obviously concerned about reductions, and the Government have done everything they can to minimise the number of officers, staff and PCSOs who will lose their roles. I hope that clarification is helpful to the Committee.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

Before we begin line-by-line scrutiny, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee, except the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to [email protected] or pass their written speaking notes to the Hansard colleague in the room. Members are reminded to bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in a debate.

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).”—(Matt Vickers.)

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.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. This new clause was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) in an effort to raise a subject that affects many of her residents. She says that dangerous delivery drivers have become an increasingly common sight on the roads of Reigate, Banstead and Redhill. She has spoken with constituents who have reported near misses, actual collisions and a growing sense that people and property are being put at risk by these individuals, who simply do not have the skills to operate their vehicles safely.

My hon. Friend believes that the new clause would both address this problem and protect the rights of regular moped users. In a world with an increasing number of home delivery transactions being undertaken, there are more and more delivery drivers on our streets. Many are not properly qualified to drive, but they are working potentially long shifts, having to find addresses in areas that are alien to them. The fact that they are doing so using a licence that exists to allow people to learn to drive poses real challenges for road safety.

The new clause would amend section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which grants police powers to seize vehicles being used in a manner that causes “alarm, distress, or annoyance”. Proposed new subsection (3A) would deem mopeds being used for commercial purposes by riders with only provisional licences as likely to fall into that category, effectively lowering the threshold for police action in such cases.

The use of mopeds for delivery services—for example, food and parcel deliveries—has expanded rapidly. However, a concerning number of riders continue to operate on provisional licences, often without any training or supervision, putting both the riders and the public at risk. By allowing the police to treat such behaviour as likely to cause alarm or distress, the new clause would ensure faster and more decisive action to remove unsafe vehicles from our roads. It would allow police to actively deal with individuals on mopeds abusing the lack of legislation.

If the Minister does not support the new clause, I would welcome her views on how the issue can be tackled.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting out the case for the new clause on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Reigate. As he explained, it concerns the important issue of mopeds being used for commercial purposes by riders with provisional licences.

I assure the Committee that any kind of antisocial behaviour is unacceptable, and that is why the Government are undertaking an ambitious programme of work to tackle it. The antisocial use of vehicles such as e-scooters and off-road bikes causes havoc in local communities, as we all know from our constituency postbags.

We are making it easier for the police to seize such vehicles from offenders and dispose of them. Clause 8, which we have already debated, strengthens the law so that vehicles being used to commit antisocial behaviour can be seized immediately by police without the need first to provide a warning. Furthermore, the Department for Transport, together with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, is considering plans to review existing requirements for motorcycle training, testing and licensing, taking account of recent proposals by the motorcycle industry.

As we have heard, it is currently legal for moped riders with provisional licences to work as delivery drivers. The new clause would therefore create an ambiguity in the law, which could result in confusion for the moped riders, as well as for employers and the police, because it is legal to drive on a provisional licence for these purposes but they could have their moped seized.

There is also no clear definition of “commercial activities”. That could extend to a range of scenarios and cover people such as food and grocery delivery riders, couriers, parking enforcement officers, medical laboratory technicians, blood bank workers and so on. The new clause could therefore result in such sectors operating with diminished capability.

The new clause may also have the unintended consequence of an increase in the use of modified electrically assisted pedal cycles that do not comply with current EAPC regulations for use on public roads, or the illegal use of off-road bikes on public roads for the same commercial purposes.

The shadow Minister asked what more we could do on this issue. I highlight the work of Transport for London, which launched a road safety charter for meal and grocery delivery companies in September 2023 to identify ways to reduce death and serious injury among riders and raise road safety standards. The charter was developed in collaboration with the then five largest meal and grocery delivery companies and consists of 10 road safety principles that aim to keep food delivery motorcycle couriers and other road users safe. TfL is evaluating the impact of the charter’s implementation over the past 18 months and will share its findings with the Government in due course.

On that basis, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw new clause 46.

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 47

National statutory inquiry into grooming gangs

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, set up a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.

(2) An inquiry established under subsection (1) must seek to—

(a) identify common patterns of behaviour and offending between grooming gangs;

(b) identify the type, extent and volume of crimes committed by grooming gangs;

(c) identify the number of victims of crimes committed by grooming gangs;

(d) identify the ethnicity of members of grooming gangs;

(e) identify any failings, by action, omission or deliberate suppression, by—

(i) police,

(ii) local authorities,

(iii) prosecutors,

(iv) charities,

(v) political parties,

(vi) local and national government,

(vii) healthcare providers and health services, or

(viii) other agencies or bodies, in the committal of crimes by grooming

(f) identify such national safeguarding actions as may be required to minimise the risk of further such offending occurring in future;

(g) identify good practice in protecting children.

(3) The inquiry may do anything it considers is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of its functions and the achievement of the requirements of subsection (2).

(4) An inquiry established under this section must publish a report within two years of the launch of the inquiry.

(5) For the purposes of this section—

‘gang’ means a group of at least three adults whose purpose or intention is to commit a sexual offence against the same victim or group of victims;

‘grooming’ means—

(a) activity carried out with the primary intention of committing sexual offences against the victim;

(b) activity that is carried out, or predominantly carried out, in person;

(c) activity that includes the provision of illicit substances and/or alcohol either as part of the grooming or concurrent with the commission of the sexual offence.” —(Matt Vickers.)

This new clause would set up a national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for setting out the rationale for his new clause, and I will refer to a number of related issues. New clause 58 would give the Home Secretary the power to amend or withdraw any code of practice, or related guidance documents, from the College of Policing and/or the National Police Chiefs’ Council. As the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament and the public for policing, it is important that she works with policing bodies to ensure consistent standards and practice across England and Wales. The issuing of guidance is just one part of achieving that aim.

The hon. Member referred to the ability of Ministers to take action. It is worth noting that there are existing provisions for the Home Secretary to approve the issuing and revision of codes of practice published by the College of Policing. Such guidance is rightly categorised as statutory and covers a wide range of issues—from armed policing through to the requirement for ethical policing—that are relevant to ensuring that the public are safe and that communities have confidence that officers are held to the highest standards.

Although the new clause would go further and provide the Home Secretary with powers to amend any guidance issued by the College of Policing and the NPCC, we should not forget—in fact, the shadow Minister referred to this—that policing is operationally independent of Government. That is a vital principle in our democratic society, and it is fundamental to our model of policing by consent. Having said that, I note that the Home Secretary and I have very productive relationships with police leaders. We work hand in hand with police leaders to develop policy and guidance with the ultimate shared aim of keeping the public safe.

I remind the Committee that the Government will publish a White Paper on police reform later this year. The Home Secretary has signalled her intention to work more closely with police leaders to drive improvements and to ensure that policing is set up to succeed. We will set out our plans for strengthening how the policing system works to tackle a range of issues, from the future workforce to tackling fast-changing crime. I encourage all hon. Members to engage with that work when the consultation on the White Paper opens.

As the hon. Member for Stockton West said, the new clause was inspired by recent issues such as the update to the police race action plan. The plan was jointly developed by the NPCC and the College of Policing, and it commits to zero tolerance of racism in policing, on which I am sure we all agree. It is worth reflecting that the plan was originally published under the previous Conservative Government.

I support the plan’s aims, and I completely reject the notion that it encourages preferential treatment for some groups over others. Of course, police officers should be conscious of the history of race relations in their local area—for example, by working with community leaders and key stakeholders from different communities on issues such as stop and search. Having said that, the police are required to apply the law equally, regardless of ethnicity.

I think this new clause is misguided. In any event, given the levers available to the Home Secretary in relation to statutory police guidance, and given the wider work on police reform, the new clause is unnecessary. For those reasons, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw it.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

New clause 59 would abolish non-crime hate incidents as a distinct form of police record. Police authorities would no longer be permitted to report, record or investigate such incidents unless specific exceptions apply. This marks a significant departure from previous practice, where incidents not amounting to criminal conduct could still be logged if perceived as motivated by hostility related to protected characteristics.

The new clause would establish that the processing of relevant data by police authorities is unlawful under key UK data protection laws. “Relevant data” is defined as personal data relating to a person’s conduct that is unlikely to constitute criminal conduct but has been perceived by someone else as motivated by hostility or prejudice. There is an exception to allow for relevant data to be processed where it is required for an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. Other forms of retention would have to meet stringent conditions. A police officer of the rank of inspector or above could authorise the retention of relevant data where they believe it is likely to assist materially in preventing or detecting future criminal conduct.

By abolishing the category of non-crime hate incidents, the new clause would address widespread concerns about the chilling effect such records can have on free speech. Under the previous system, individuals could be recorded by the police simply for expressing controversial or unpopular opinions, even when no law had been broken. The new clause would ensure that lawful speech is no longer subject to disproportionate scrutiny or police record.

Nationally there are 13,200 non-crime hate incidents recorded per annum, according to Policy Exchange, which reasonably concludes that over 60,000 police hours each year are spent on NCHIs. Given the challenges facing the police, it is essential that they are able to focus on what matters most: tackling crime.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

New clause 59 seeks to abolish non-crime hate incidents and to make the processing of personal data in relation to such incidents unlawful. It also seeks to introduce a new type of incident, known as a non-crime perception record, to ensure that data that may assist in the detection or prevention of criminal conduct can still be collected.

It may be helpful for the Committee to know that, in 2023, the previous Government introduced the statutory non-crime hate incidents code of practice on the recording and retention of personal data for police forces in England and Wales, and that the College of Policing updated its operational guidance on hate crime for the police in 2023 to ensure it aligned with the code. The College of Policing also publishes operational guidance, known as authorised professional practice, for numerous crime types and police business areas.

Members should be in no doubt that this Government’s top priority for policing is delivering on our safer streets mission, including through essential reforms to rebuild neighbourhood policing, restore public confidence and deliver our commitment to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls, as well as reducing antisocial behaviour.

Against that backdrop, the Home Secretary has been clear that a consistent and common-sense approach must be taken to non-crime hate incidents. Accordingly, she has already agreed that the National Police Chiefs’ Council, supported by the College of Policing, will conduct a review on the recording’s use and effectiveness. The review will cover when the police should record information that does not reach the criminal threshold but where it is still deemed necessary to monitor community tensions and keep the public safe. It will also consider the fundamental right of freedom of expression and recent court rulings in this area.

The Government will work closely with the NPCC and the College of Policing as we develop our findings and any proposals. I hope the hon. Member for Stockton West agrees that it would be premature to make decisions on the future of non-crime hate incidents before the review concludes later this year. I therefore invite him to withdraw his new clause.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

The new clause seeks to amend section 4A(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Order Act 1986 by removing the word “insulting”. Its effect would be to raise the threshold for the offence of intentional harassment, alarm or distress, ensuring that only behaviour that is threatening or abusive is captured under that offence.

Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of British democracy. Although it is vital to protect people from genuinely threatening or abusive behaviour, the inclusion of the term “insulting” in criminal legislation casts too wide a net. Insults, however unpleasant, are part of everyday life and public discourse; they should not, on their own, lead to criminal charges. The new clause strikes a better balance between protecting individuals and upholding free speech.

The word “insulting” is vague, subjective and open to interpretation: what one person finds insulting, another may see as fair comment or robust criticism. Laws should be clear and proportionate. Removing the term provides greater legal certainty and reduces the risk of overreach in public order policing, especially in the context of protests, political debate or challenging conversations in public spaces.

The Government have already recognised such concerns. The word “insulting” was removed from section 5 of the 1986 Act by the Crime and Courts Act 2013, following widespread concern about its chilling effect on speech. The new clause would simply extend that same principle to section 4A, which relates to intentional conduct. If “insulting” is not sufficient for non-intentional offences, it should not justify criminal liability when intent is alleged either.

The new clause would help to restore public confidence in the fairness and clarity of our public order laws. It would ensure that only serious conduct was subject to criminal sanction, while reaffirming the UK’s commitment to open, democratic debate—even when it is uncomfortable or challenging. Removing the word “insulting” from section 4A is a proportionate and necessary step to safeguard civil liberties without compromising public safety.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As the shadow Minister explained, the new clause seeks to remove the word “insulting” from section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, which deals with intentional harassment, alarm or distress. That would raise the threshold for criminal liability by ensuring that the law only captures behaviour and displays that are threatening or abusive, not “insulting”. I fully understand the motivation behind the new clause, and am sympathetic to the need to strengthen protections for free speech and reduce the risk of criminalising conduct based on personal sensitivities.

However, there are legitimate concerns that removing “insulting” could narrow the tools available to respond to deliberate and targeted harassment. Given the potential implications of this issue, we believe it warrants further consideration. I will reflect on what the shadow Minister has said and therefore ask him to withdraw his new clause at this time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

Littering from vehicles remains one of the most persistent and visible forms of environmental degradation on UK roads. Despite existing fines, enforcement has been inconsistent and existing penalties have proven insufficient to deter such irresponsible behaviour. By introducing the possibility of penalty points on the driving licence, this measure would add a meaningful consequence that better reflects the seriousness of the offence and its impact on the environment and local communities.

The addition of driving licence points introduces a real deterrent by linking antisocial environmental behaviour directly to a person’s ability to drive. Just as mobile phone use when driving or dangerous driving habits result in points, so too should reckless littering from vehicles. That aligns with the principle that the privilege of driving comes with broader responsibilities, including respect for public spaces and the environment.

Roadside litter is not just unsightly; it also poses real risks to wildlife, blocks drainage systems and requires expensive clean-up operations, costing local authorities tens of millions of pounds annually. A stronger deterrent, such as penalty points, would help reduce the burden on taxpayers and protect the UK’s countryside, towns and roadsides. Similar approaches have been adopted internationally with success. For example, jurisdictions in Australia and parts of the United States have linked littering from vehicles to driving licence consequences, resulting in measurable behavioural changes. The UK should not lag behind in taking bold, effective steps to tackle that form of pollution and to protect our environment and wildlife.

A study by National Highways revealed that 65% of drivers who admit to littering have thrown food and drink packaging from their vehicles. Additionally, the road safety charity, IAM RoadSmart, found that nearly 40% of motorcyclists had experienced car drivers or passengers throwing litter from windows while overtaking. The scale of the problem is huge. Roadside litter poses risk to wildlife, with discarded waste contributing to the deaths of millions of animals annually in the UK.

Furthermore, the cost of clearing litter from roads is substantial. For example, between April 2020 and March 2022, 45,000 bags of rubbish weighing 451 tonnes were collected from the M6 motorway alone. National Highways estimates that more than 150,000 sacks of litter are collected by contractors every year, averaging 83 bags per mile of motorway annually.

In short, introducing penalty points for littering from a vehicle would send a clear message that such behaviour is unacceptable and will carry real consequences. It would also reinforce the Government’s wider commitment to tackling environmental offences, empowering enforcement agencies and restoring pride in our public places.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

New clause 95 seeks to add three penalty points to the driving licence of a person convicted of littering from a vehicle. While I am sure we all want to see robust consequences for those who throw litter on to our streets, we do need to consider carefully how workable the proposal of the shadow Minister is. Currently, the number of prosecutions for littering when litter was dropped from a vehicle is low due to the requirement for the individual to be identified, which can prove difficult. The opportunity therefore for the courts to impose such a punishment would be limited.

The new clause also appears to assume that the person throwing the litter out of the vehicle would be the driver, which is not necessarily the case, and there will be instances when the offender does not have a driving licence to endorse in the first place. Is the shadow Minister suggesting that in such cases the driver—it could be a bus driver or a coach driver—should nevertheless be held liable? However, I agree that this is a serious issue, so I will ask my counterpart in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with responsibility for policy on littering to consider the benefits of designing a workable system to enable the endorsement of penalty points for littering offences committed from vehicles.

Local authorities can already issue civil penalties of up to £500 to the keeper of a vehicle from which litter has been thrown, and that amount doubles if not paid within 28 days. That civil penalty was introduced following consideration of the difficulty of identifying the individual who threw the litter. That measure can help when video evidence shows only the vehicle from which the litter has been thrown. The civil penalty also provides a more immediate means of redress and prevents pressures on the court system.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for raising the issue. As I said, I will talk to my counterpart at DEFRA. However, for the reasons I outlined, I ask him not to press the new clause.

[Matt Vickers]

I thank the Minister for her comments and welcome the commitment to look at the issue, but I will press the new clause.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

New clause 97 seeks to block public funding of groups or organisations that promote criminal conduct or seek to subvert the democratic functions or constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. I understand from the shadow Minister’s remarks that this stems from comments made by a group that has previously received funding through the music export growth scheme; the Committee may find it helpful to be reminded that that decision was taken under the previous Government, and it is this Government who have had to deal with the consequences.

While I utterly condemn the remarks made by the group, I stress to the Committee that it is the subject of an ongoing police investigation and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment any further. However, I want to make it clear that the Government do not believe that individuals expressing the views that we have heard should be receiving taxpayer funding. I know that the Prime Minister has asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to review urgently the music export growth scheme in the light of the comments that have emerged. It would be right to wait for that review to conclude before considering what further action may need to be taken. Therefore, I ask that the shadow Minister withdraw new clause 97.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

The new clause addresses a crucial gap in the current police inspection framework. Over the years, tragic incidents have demonstrated the potential consequences of failures in firearms licensing. Public confidence in the licensing process hinges on the assurance that robust, consistent and professional standards are being applied across all police forces. While some forces operate highly effective systems, others have been found lacking, sometimes with devastating outcomes, yet at present there is no statutory requirement for HM inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to review firearms licensing performance as part of its routine police efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy inspections.

The clause would put that right by ensuring that inspection of firearms licensing departments becomes a core part of how we assess the overall efficiency and effectiveness of police forces. By embedding that into the statutory inspection framework, we send a clear signal that public safety and accountability in firearms licensing is not optional, but essential.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for his dedicated service as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation. Throughout his tenure, Sir Geoffrey has been a steadfast advocate of responsible shooting practices and the preservation of our countryside. His efforts have contributed significantly to the ongoing discourse on firearms licensing and the importance of effective oversight in that area. His work underscores the need for continuous evaluation and improvement of our systems to ensure public safety and trust.

Importantly, the clause does not impose undue burden on our forces. It simply makes explicit what many already expect to be standard practice: that the licensing of deadly weapons is subject to the same scrutiny and performance benchmarks as other areas of policing. It is a measured, reasonable and necessary step towards a safer, more consistent and more transparent firearms licensing regime across England and Wales.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I thank the shadow Minister for explaining new clause 99. I note the work of the hon. Member for North Cotswolds and, in fact, I am due to meet him soon to discuss the subject of firearms.

The new clause would require every PEEL inspection to include an inspection of the efficiency and effectiveness of a police force’s firearms licensing department. I hope that I can persuade the shadow Minister that this change is unnecessary and, indeed, would be damaging, as it would curtail the independence of HMICFRS and its freedom to shine a light on the most pertinent issues facing policing.

It is vital that HMICFRS is independent from policing and from the Government. As part of that, it must have the freedom to set its own inspection programmes and frameworks when deciding how to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales. That allows it to inspect police forces on the most pertinent and high-profile issues facing policing and to assess the basics of forces’ operational and organisational activity. In no other area of policing does the law set out what the inspectorate must include in its regular inspections. The change proposed by the new clause would set a most unhelpful precedent.

HMICFRS conducts detailed sector consultations ahead of each PEEL cycle to determine what will be covered in its assessment framework and how forces will be graded. It regularly updates its frameworks as necessary to include or remove areas for assessment where it identifies priority issues. HMICFRS also consults publicly on its inspection programme and frameworks before they are laid in Parliament. It consulted publicly on its latest programme, covering 2025 to 2029, late last year. The final programme was published in March 2025, following the approval of the Home Secretary.

The Home Secretary already has appropriate powers to commission the inspectorate to conduct additional inspections into high-profile and concerning issues, should the need arise. We saw that with the disorder in summer last year. If there are concerns about a force’s performance in respect of firearms licensing, the local policing body may also commission the inspectorate to assess its efficiency and effectiveness.

In line with our manifesto commitment, we will further empower HMICFRS to intervene in failing forces to ensure that the most high-risk recommendations it makes are properly acted upon by police forces. As part of its recently approved programme, HMICFRS plans to commence a thematic inspection of firearms licensing later this year. It will use that inspection to highlight good practice and make recommendations for improvement to all police forces. The Government will carefully consider the outcome of the inspection and any recommendations made to us following it.

Firearms licensing by police forces is fundamental to keeping the public safe. We keep firearms licensing under review, and in February we published the Government response to the 2023 firearms licensing consultation, which contained a number of important commitments focused on continuing to improve firearms licensing controls. We will shortly be issuing to chief officers of police refreshed statutory guidance on firearms licensing, which will contain stronger guidance for police licensing departments around domestic abuse, evidence of violence and the requirements for referees for firearms applications.

There is also now in place a national programme of training on firearms licensing for forces across England and Wales, run by the College of Policing. That will drive up standards and deliver a more consistent approach and good practice across police forces. The training is considered to be mandatory for forces and we are amending the statutory guidance to make that clear.

In addition, the performance of firearms licensing departments in forces is being monitored by the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for firearms licensing, Deputy Chief Constable David Gardner. He has developed a table setting out performance data for firearms licensing departments in police forces, which was published in April this year and will be updated every quarter. It includes the percentage of applications received and decided in four months by forces. The table provides greater transparency on performance, including the time taken by licensing teams when dealing with firearms licensing applications. For all the reasons I have set out, I think the new clause is unnecessary, and I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw it.

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

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

It is customary at this stage of our proceedings to say a few words to mark the end of our deliberations in Committee. It certainly feels a very long time ago that we started this process. I have been reflecting on the tumultuous events that have happened while this Committee has been sitting. We have had the death of the Pope and the election of a new Pope. We have had the saving of the British Steel industry and some rather interesting local elections as well. Against that backdrop, although we have had some disagreements, particularly over some of the new clauses, I welcome the fact that the measures in the Bill command a substantial degree of cross-party support. I have also learned a few new things. I had no idea what potting was until my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd raised it in the Committee.

I am pleased that the Bill’s provisions and the nearly 100 new clauses have had the benefit of rigorous scrutiny by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee over the eight days we sat. I thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, and your co-Chairs, Sir Roger, Ms Lewell and Mr Pritchard, for keeping us in very good order. I thank my fellow Ministers, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Yardley and for Pontypridd, for womanfully sharing the considerable workload in Committee with me, and I thank the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby, for keeping us in good order.

I thank the Opposition Front Bench, including the hon. Member for Stockton West, who I think must be setting some new parliamentary record for the number of Bills back-to-back on which he has led for the Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, who reminded us that the proceedings on a Public Bill Committee are a marathon and not a sprint—one of her contributions was certainly a marathon in terms of the speaking notes she had provided for her.

I thank the Clerks, Hansard Reporters and Doorkeepers. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have served so diligently on the Committee from both sides, and made such thoughtful and valuable contributions. The Bill teams, other officials and lawyers from the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Transport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology have all provided excellent support to the Committee.

The Bill is, I believe, much enhanced as a result of our deliberations. The new measures we added will help us all the more with the delivery of our safer streets mission. I just realised that, of course, I have not paid tribute to the Liberal Democrat members of the Committee, and want to do so—I do not want them to feel missed out. I thank them for their contributions. I look forward to further debate on Report, which I am sure will come soon. On that basis, thank you, Dr Allin-Khan.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee—I am sure Members are aware of these. Please switch electronic devices to vibrate or silent. No food or drink is permitted during Committee sittings, except for water, unless you have a particular health need—obviously, speak to me, and I am sure that will be fine. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members email their speaking notes to [email protected], or alternatively pass their written speaking notes to the Hansard colleague in the room. Very importantly, Members are reminded to bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate. We will have a two-minute silence at 12 noon.

New Clause 21

Terrorism offences excepted from defence for slavery or trafficking victims

“(1) Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 29 (offences under the Terrorism Act 2000)—

(a) before the entry for section 54 insert—

‘section 11 (membership of a proscribed organisation)

section 12 (support of a proscribed organisation)

section 15 (fund-raising for terrorism)

section 16 (use and possession of property for terrorism)

section 17 (funding arrangements)

section 17A (insurance against payments made in response to terrorist demands)

section 18 (money laundering)

section 19 (disclosure of information: duty)

section 21A (failure to disclose: regulated sector)

section 38B (information about acts of terrorism)

section 39 (disclosure of information prejudicial to investigation)’;

(b) after the entry for section 57 insert—

‘section 58 (collection of information)

section 58A (eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc)

section 58B (entering or remaining in a designated area)’.

(3) In paragraph 31 (offences under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), after the entry for section 50 insert—

‘section 67 (security of pathogens and toxins)

section 79 (disclosures relating to nuclear security)’.

(4) In paragraph 35 (offences under the Terrorism Act 2006)—

(a) before the entry for section 5 insert—

‘section 1 (encouragement of terrorism)

section 2 (dissemination of terrorist publications)’;

(b) after the entry for section 6 insert—

‘section 8 (attendance at a place used for terrorist training)’.

(5) After paragraph 35 insert—

‘Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c.28)

35ZA An offence under section 54 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (offences relating to notification).

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (c. 23)

35ZB An offence under section 23 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (contravention of terrorism prevention and investigation measures notice).

Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (c. 6)

35ZC An offence under section 10 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (breach of temporary exclusion order or notice).’

(6) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to an offence committed before this section comes into force.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause excepts the listed terrorism offences from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

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

New Clause 61

Notification requirements

“(1) This section applies where a youth diversion order requires the respondent to comply with this section.

(2) Before the end of the period of three days beginning with the day on which a youth diversion order requiring the respondent to comply with this section is first served, the respondent must notify to the police—

(a) the respondent’s name and, where the respondent uses one or more other names, each of those names,

(b) the respondent’s home address, and

(c) the name and address of any educational establishment the respondent normally attends.

(3) If, while the respondent is required to comply with this section, the respondent—

(a) uses a name which has not been notified under the order,

(b) changes home address, or

(c) begins to attend an educational establishment the name and address of which have not been notified under the order,

the respondent must notify, to the police, the new name, the new home address or the name and address of the new educational establishment.

(4) A notification under subsection (3) must be given before the end of the period of three days beginning with the day on which the respondent uses the name, changes home address or first attends the educational establishment.

(5) A notification under this section is given by—

(a) attending at a police station in the police area in which the home address, or the court which made the order, is situated, and

(b) giving an oral notification to a constable, or to a person authorised for the purpose by the officer in charge of the station.

(6) A notification under this section must be acknowledged in writing.

(7) In this section ‘home address’ means—

(a) the address of the respondent’s sole or main residence in the United Kingdom, or

(b) where the respondent has no such residence, the address or location of a place in the United Kingdom where the respondent can regularly be found and, if there is more than one such place, such one of those places as the respondent may select.

(8) In determining the period of three days mentioned in subsection (2) or (4), no account is to be taken of any time when the respondent is—

(a) in police detention within the meaning of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (see section 118(2) of that Act);

(b) remanded in or committed to custody by an order of a court or kept in service custody,

(c) serving a sentence of imprisonment or a term of service detention,

(d) detained in a hospital, or

(e) outside the United Kingdom.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause enables a youth diversion order to require the respondent to notify to the police their name and address and the name and address of any educational establishment they normally attend.

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

New Clause 62

Electronic monitoring of compliance with order: England and Wales

“(1) A youth diversion order made by a court in England and Wales may impose on the respondent a requirement (an ‘electronic monitoring requirement’) to submit to electronic monitoring of the respondent’s compliance with prohibitions or requirements imposed by the order. This is subject to section (Conditions for imposing electronic monitoring requirement: England and Wales).

(2) A youth diversion order that includes an electronic monitoring requirement must specify the person who is to be responsible for the monitoring.

(3) The person specified under subsection (2) (‘the responsible person’) must be of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.

(4) Where a youth diversion order imposes an electronic monitoring requirement, the respondent must (among other things)—

(a) submit, as required from time to time by the responsible person, to—

(i) being fitted with, or the installation of, any necessary apparatus, and

(ii) the inspection or repair of any apparatus fitted or installed for the purposes of the monitoring;

(b) not interfere with, or with the working of, any apparatus fitted or installed for the purposes of the monitoring;

(c) take any steps required by the responsible person for the purpose of keeping in working order any apparatus fitted or installed for the purposes of the monitoring.

These obligations have effect as requirements of the order.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause enables a youth diversion order to require the respondent to submit to electronic monitoring of their compliance with the prohibitions or requirements of the order (if the conditions set out in NC63) are met.

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

New Clause 63

Conditions for imposing electronic monitoring requirement: England and Wales

“(1) This section applies for the purpose of determining whether a court in England and Wales may impose an electronic monitoring requirement under section (Electronic monitoring of compliance with order: England and Wales).

(2) An electronic monitoring requirement may not be imposed in the respondent’s absence.

(3) If there is a person (other than the respondent) without whose co-operation it would be impracticable to secure the monitoring in question, the requirement may not be imposed without that person’s consent.

(4) A court may impose the requirement in relation to a relevant police area only if—

(a) the Secretary of State has given notification that electronic monitoring arrangements are available in the area, and

(b) it is satisfied that the necessary provision can be made under the arrangements currently available.

(5) For this purpose ‘relevant police area’ means—

(a) in any case, the police area in England and Wales in which it appears to the court that the respondent resides or will reside, or

(b) in a case where it is proposed to include in the order—

(i) a requirement that the respondent remains, for specified periods, at a specified place in England and Wales, or

(ii) provision prohibiting the respondent from entering a specified place or area in England and Wales,

the police area in which the place or area proposed to be specified is situated.

(6) In subsection (5) ‘specified’ means specified in the youth diversion order.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause sets out the conditions for imposing an electronic monitoring requirement under NC62.

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

New Clause 64

Data from electronic monitoring in England and Wales: code of practice

“The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice relating to the processing of data gathered in the course of electronic monitoring of persons under electronic monitoring requirements (within the meaning of section (Electronic monitoring of compliance with order: England and Wales)) imposed by youth diversion orders in England and Wales.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice relating to the processing of data gathered under electronic monitoring requirements imposed under NC62.

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

New Clause 65

Reviews of operation of this Chapter

“In the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, in section 44(2) (provisions the operation of which the person appointed under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 is also responsible for reviewing), after paragraph (e) insert—

‘(f) Chapter 1 of Part 14 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025.’” —(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This amendment provides for the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to report on the operation of Chapter 1 of Part 14 of the Bill (youth diversion orders).

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

New Clause 66

Remote sales of knives etc

“(1) Section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (remote sales of knives) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (4) substitute—

‘(4) Condition A is that, before the sale—

(a) the seller obtained from the buyer—

(i) a copy of an identity document issued to the buyer, and

(ii) a photograph of the buyer, and

(b) on the basis of the things obtained under paragraph (a), a reasonable person would have been satisfied that the buyer was aged 18 or over.

(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4) an “identity document” means—

(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);

(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;

(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic 1988 or under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1));

(d) any other document specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.’

(3) In subsection (5)(b), for ‘a person aged 18 or over’ substitute ‘the buyer’.

(4) In subsection (6), for ‘a person aged 18 or over’ substitute ‘the buyer’.

(5) In subsection (8), omit ‘or a person acting on behalf of the buyer’ in both places it occurs.

(6) After subsection (9) insert—

‘(10) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.

(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause makes changes to the defences available to a person who sells knives etc to under 18s, in contravention of section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, where the sale is made remotely (e.g. online).

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 67—Delivery of knives etc.

Government new clause 68—Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales.

Government new clause 69—Remote sale and letting of crossbows.

Government new clause 70—Delivery of crossbows.

Government new clause 71—Sale and delivery of crossbows: supplementary provision.

Government new clause 72—“Relevant user-to-user services”, “relevant search services” and “service providers”.

Government new clause 73—Coordinating officer.

Government new clause 74—Notice requiring appointment of content manager.

Government new clause 75—Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances.

Government new clause 76—Replacement of content manager.

Government new clause 77—Duty to notify changes in required information.

Government new clause 78—Failure to comply with content manager requirements: civil penalty.

Government new clause 79—Unlawful weapons content.

Government new clause 80—Content removal notices.

Government new clause 81—Content removal notices: review.

Government new clause 82—Decision notices requiring removal of unlawful weapons content.

Government new clause 83—Failure to comply with content removal notice or decision notice: civil penalties.

Government new clause 84—Guidance.

Government new clause 85—Notices.

Government new clause 86—Interpretation of Chapter.

Government new schedule 1—Civil penalties for service providers and content managers.

Government amendments 80 and 81.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

It is nice to see you back in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. This group of new clauses makes extensive and timely changes to the law around the sale and marketing of offensive weapons, particularly knives and crossbows. These measures form part of the steps that we are taking to tackle knife crime. They will implement recommendations from the police’s independent end-to-end review of online knife sales, undertaken by Commander Stephen Clayman at the request of the Home Secretary, and will deliver on our manifesto commitment to hold to account senior managers who flout the rules on online sales.

New clauses 66 and 67 introduce new, stricter age verification at the point of sale and on delivery for knives bought online. New clauses 69 and 70 make the same changes in respect of crossbows. Commander Clayman’s review highlighted that existing age-verification methods for online sales are insufficient. Buyers can provide false birth dates and parcels can be left with neighbours so that there is no age check of the buyer. Existing legislation, as contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, already requires age checks for the sale and delivery of knives. We are introducing two key changes to the existing requirements.

First, the checks at the point of sale will have to include photographic identity documents, plus a current photograph to demonstrate that the identity documents belong to the buyer. Secondly, on delivery, couriers will be required to check photographic identification provided by the person receiving the package. There will also be a new offence of handing the knife to someone other than the buyer. That will mean that knives cannot be left on doorsteps or with neighbours with no checks of the intended recipient.

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

The Minister will remember me mentioning Julie Taylor, who has campaigned locally on this issue after the death of her grandson Liam. She welcomes these new clauses. She said to me that she welcomes anything that helps get rid of this awful crime, and that she thanks the Government for introducing them. Does the Minister agree that these measures give an even greater level of protection and prevention so that we can start to drive down the awful offence of knife crime?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. It is heartening to know that Julie supports these new clauses and recognises the important role that they can play in tackling knife crime. Again, I extend my condolences to Julie and her family on the death of Liam.

These clauses also have the support of the coalition to tackle knife crime, which involves many families, campaigners and victims of knife crime helping the Government to develop policy. They will make sure that we are held to account for our promise to halve knife crime over the next decade, including through the strengthened requirements in the new clauses, which aim to ensure that under-18s cannot easily evade checks when buying knives online, as they have sadly in the past.

Like knives, crossbows are an age-restricted item and cannot be sold or hired to anyone under the age of 18. Legislation for crossbows was brought in through the Crossbows Act 1987, but in contrast to knives, there has been little change to that legislation since. These new clauses seek to introduce the same age-verification requirements for the online sale, hire and delivery of crossbows as are being brought in, or are already in place, for knives.

New clause 69 amends the 1987 Act to introduce equivalent age-verification methods for crossbows to those in section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which provides limitations on the defence to the offence of selling a knife. For crossbows, where the seller or seller’s agent is not in the presence of the buyer, the seller will not be regarded as having taken

“all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence”

unless all the conditions are met.

Condition 1 is that the seller obtained a copy of an identity document and a photograph of the buyer. Condition 2 is that the package containing the article was clearly marked by the seller to say that it contained a crossbow or crossbow part and that it should be delivered only into the hands of a person aged 18 or over. Condition 3 is that the seller took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that it would be delivered into the hands of the buyer. Condition 4 is that the seller did not deliver the package, or arrange for its delivery, to a locker.

As with bladed articles, before the dispatch of the crossbow or part of a crossbow, the seller must receive from the buyer a copy of an identity document issued to the buyer and a photograph of the buyer, and confirm that they are aged 18 or over. New clause 70 amends the Crossbows Act 1987 to create a new offence on the part of the seller if they deliver or arrange for delivery to residential premises in respect of the sale or letting of a crossbow or part of a crossbow, similar to equivalent defences to those in section 39A of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 for knives.

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

I thank the Minister for setting out in detail the provisions for where crossbows are sold and the seller is not in the presence of the buyer. On providing identity documents and photographic evidence, is she concerned that the wording that she used is vague and that there is scope for providing false documents? Perhaps she could reassure me that, in some cases, copies would certified by a solicitor or someone of sufficient standing in the community—whatever the wording might be. I am concerned that false documents could be provided, but perhaps there is provision to stop that.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, and it is of concern to me as the Minister. We are introducing this new procedure because we think that the current legislation around buying and delivering is not strong enough. I take his point and I will reflect on it. It may be—I do need to think about it—that it would be onerous to have certified copies. We want to get this right, however, and ensure that accurate legal documents are used, so I will come back to that point.

I will return to the new clauses, so that the Committee is clear about what they will do. New clause 70 also provides for a new offence on the part of the courier or the person delivering on their behalf, equivalent to the new offence that I have described for the delivery of a knife. The courier or person delivering on behalf of the courier must provide the crossbow or parts of crossbows only into the hands of the actual buyer, and only at the address that the buyer provided at the outset. If the courier or person delivering on behalf of the courier fails to do that, they will commit a summary offence attracting a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine.

It will be a defence, however, for the courier or person delivering on behalf of the courier to show that they have checked an official identity document, and that the ID has the name of the person indicated by the seller, that it shows that the holder is over 18, and that as far as they can tell, the picture in the identity document is of the person at the doorstep. Where businesses hire out or let crossbows for corporate events or entertainment—something that I did not know happened, but apparently does—and do so online, the age-verification measures will apply to the hire and delivery of the crossbows where the hirer is an individual. New clause 71 also provides a power for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance on the new offence under the Crossbows Act 1987.

Turning to the reportable sale of knives, new clause 68 introduces a requirement to report all sales of knives where they are made remotely, including online sales. That will help the police to tackle what is called the grey market—the resale of knives on social media. The police tell us that grey market sellers act irresponsibly. For example, they promote knives as weapons, which is unlawful, and they do not conduct age-verification checks. The new clause will give the police information that will enable them to act. Sellers who do not comply will be liable to a fine.

Sales are reportable where six knives or more, or two or more qualifying sets of knives such as a block of knives, or one or more qualifying set together with five or more knives, are sold remotely in one sale and are to be delivered to the same residential address in England or Wales. The reporting requirement is also triggered when multiple sales meeting those limits are made to the same person or the same residential address in England or Wales within a 30-day period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

I welcome the new clauses—thinking back to my policing days, they are extremely welcome. Is there a risk that if we do not add these clauses to restrict such sales, knife crime and crossbow crime could become more prevalent over the coming years?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

These new clauses on bulk and suspicious sales come directly from the police—from Commander Clayman’s report and his concern about the grey market. The police clearly believe that these new measures are necessary for them to use this intelligence to tackle our problems with knife crime. Obviously, that fits with the Government’s manifesto commitment to halve knife crime over the next 10 years.

That information and intelligence will be sent to a central unit in the first instance. We will provide guidance to the police on the use of that information. We expect that the information that is not connected to other relevant intelligence linking it to criminality will be deleted and not subject to further investigation.

I turn now to the sanctions on online executives. Government new clauses 72 to 86 and new schedule 1 introduce civil penalties for online companies and their senior managers should they fail to take down illegal knife and offensive weapons content when notified of it by the police. Knives and weapons that are illegally marketed to encourage violence or to promote their suitability for use in violent attacks are commonly sold online and then used in senseless attacks. We know that the boys who murdered Ronan Kanda did so using weapons that had been illegally sold online. Many of those types of knives are marketed on social media and other platforms, meaning that those companies indirectly profit from their sale.

Commander Clayman’s review set out the extent of the problem related to the online sale of knives and offensive weapons, particularly where it relates to knives illegally being made available to young people. That report recommended that social media platforms be required to remove such prohibited material within 48 hours of police notification. These new clauses deliver on that recommendation.

The Home Office consulted widely on these measures. We engaged directly with tech companies and also held a public consultation. Tech companies and associations, charities, councils and members of the public responded to the consultation, and our response to that was published recently.

Collectively, the new clauses will grant the police the power to issue content removal notices to online marketplaces, social media platforms and search engines. The notices will require them to take down specified illegal content relating to knives or offensive weapons. If the specified content is not taken down within 48 hours, the company and an executive designated as their content manager would be liable to civil penalty notices of up to £60,000 and £10,000 respectively. Additionally, should a company fail to designate an appropriate UK-based executive when required to do so by the police, it would be liable for a civil penalty notice of up to £60,000.

These measures provide important safeguards. Both online companies and their designated executives will have the opportunity to request that the content removal notice be reviewed. The police must comply with such requests. Should online companies not have an executive who meets the criteria to be designated as their content manager, they will have the opportunity to inform the police as such. Prior to the issuing of a civil penalty notice, the company and the content manager will have the opportunity to make representations to the police. Finally, penalty notices may of course be challenged in the courts.

I fully expect online companies to act responsibly and take down harmful illegal content when made aware of it. The measures will be used in the rare cases where reckless companies choose to continue hosting such content. Taken together, this is a comprehensive package of measures that will further help to restrict the supply of weapons, particularly to children, and to keep our communities safe. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. The Opposition welcome the measures that aim to restrict the sale of knives in a wider bid to tackle knife crime. The unregulated purchase of dangerous items such as knives or crossbows presents a serious and growing threat to public safety. Without proper controls the weapons can be easily acquired by individuals with harmful intent, including gang members, violent offenders and young people at risk of exploitation. The availability of such items online without age verification, purchase limits or traceability undermines efforts to reduce knife crime and protect communities. It also places law enforcement in a reactive position, forced to respond to violence that could have been prevented through stronger regulation and control. Ensuring proper safeguards around the sale and distribution of knives is not about restricting legitimate use: it is about closing loopholes that are currently exploited to devastating effect.

Government new clause 66 strengthens the legal framework around the remote sale of knives by tightening the requirement for verifying the age of the buyer. Under the proposed changes to section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, sellers must obtain both a copy of a valid identity document and a photograph of the buyer before the sale is made. A reasonable person would need to be satisfied that the buyer is 18 or over, based on the evidence. By increasing the burden of proof on the seller and clarifying acceptable forms of ID, the measure aims to reduce the availability of knives to young people and close key loopholes in online transactions, contributing to broader efforts to curb knife crime.

Government new clause 68 introduces a legal duty for sellers in England and Wales to report bulk remote sales of knives and other bladed articles, marking a significant step forward in tackling the online flow of potentially dangerous weapons. The measure is aimed at identifying suspicious buying patterns that might indicate stockpiling for criminal use or illicit resale, helping enforcement bodies to monitor and disrupt supply chains. Notably, the duty applies to individuals and businesses unless the buyer can prove they are a VAT-registered business or incorporated company. Failure to report such sales will rightly be a criminal offence, although sellers will have a due-diligence defence if they can demonstrate they took reasonable steps to comply. The clause bolsters the UK’s strategy to reduce knife crime by increasing accountability in the remote sales sector and closing gaps that criminals may exploit.

Government new clauses 69 to 71 amend the Crossbows Act 1987 to tighten the rules on remote sale and delivery of crossbows, preventing sales to under-18s. Government new clause 69 requires sellers to verify the buyer’s age with identity documents and photographs, ensuring marked packages are delivered only to the buyer, and not to lockers. Government new clause 70 creates offences for delivering crossbows to residential premises or lockers. Government new clause 71 defines terms, allows regulations for additional offences and extends guidance to cover crossbow offences. This aligns with the Bill’s aims to enhance public safety. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee how the Government will support businesses in complying with the new verification requirements. What resources will ensure effective enforcement of delivery restrictions?

Government new clauses 72 to 83 establish a framework for regulating online service providers by requiring the appointment of content managers to oversee compliance with a new chapter of the Bill. Government new clause 73 mandates the Secretary of State to designate a co-ordinating officer from a police force or the National Crime Agency to manage functions, with authority to delegate tasks. Government new clause 74 empowers the co-ordinating officer to issue an appointment notice requiring service providers to appoint a UK resident content manager within seven days or confirm that no suitable candidate exists, and provide contact details.

Government new clause 75 requires providers to appoint a content manager within seven days if a suitable candidate emerges within two years after they reported them non-existing. Government new clause 76 allows providers to replace content managers and mandates notification within seven days if a manager no longer meets eligibility criteria, requiring a new appointment or confirmation that there is no candidate. Government new clause 77 obliges providers to notify the co-ordinating officer of any changes in required information within seven days, and Government new clause 78 authorises penalties of up to £60,000 for non-compliance, including failure to appoint a manager, provide accurate information or correct any false statements. Government new clause 80 empowers authorised officers to issue content removal notices to providers and content managers, requiring removal of unlawful weapons content within 48 hours.

Government new clause 81 allows recipients to request a review of removal notices within 48 hours, with a senior officer reviewing and confirming, modifying or withdrawing the notice. Government new clause 82 requires decision notices post-review to enforce content removal within 24 hours or the remaining 48-hour period. Will the Government do anything to support service providers—especially smaller platforms—in meeting content manager appointment requirements and ensuring that there is appropriate guidance or training available? How will the co-ordinating officer ensure consistent enforcement of these obligations across diverse online services?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I thank the shadow Minister for the general tone of his response on this group of Government new clauses, which come directly from the review that Commander Clayman set out, as well the manifesto commitment we made, particularly around tech executives and holding them to account.

There has been a great deal of consultation, particularly around the tech executives, how it would work and engagement with tech companies. I take the shadow Minister’s point about smaller platforms, but there has been that engagement. On the issue around training and enforcement in terms of the new clauses relating to sale and delivery, it is clear that all courier and delivery companies will have to ensure that their staff are trained on these new legal requirements. To be clear, if the person who is delivering the package has taken all steps to make sure that they have checked the information that is being provided and the identification document, and they are acting reasonably, that is a defence, but there will be a need for training and for people to know what their legal obligations are, particularly when they are delivering, because we know that has been a particular issue. The engagement, particularly with tech executives, that I talked about has also happened with courier firms and delivery businesses, and will continue.

I want to go back to the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East raised about identity checks, just so everybody is clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call the Minister.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard. I wanted to make it clear that the documents that are being talked about in relation to proving identity are passports and driving licences. I take the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East raised with me in his intervention, but those are the two documents that will be looked at and provided. We will want to make sure that this works, and in the future, other documents may well need to be added to that list. However, just to be clear, it is those two documents.

As I have also said, we would expect that a person who is delivering would look at those documents. I do not really want to get into how those documents can be forged, because that is obviously an issue that is on the hon. Gentleman’s mind, but at the moment those are the two documents, and we would expect them to be examined by a delivery driver or courier when the items are delivered.

[Joe Robertson]

I thank the Minister; that is helpful. Those documents are obviously very hard to forge, so I was not suggesting that they might be forged. My question was about was the possibility—I may simply be wrong here—of someone else presenting those documents. They are not forgeries; they are simply not the passport or driving licence of the buyer. Clearly, if the buyer has to be present when they present those documents to the person making the delivery, there is plainly not an issue, so I welcome that.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is clear. As we have said, photographic identity has to be provided at the beginning of the process—at the point of sale—as well as the identity document, to ensure it matches up.

With that, I commend these measures to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 66 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 67

Delivery of knives etc

“(1) The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 39 insert—

‘39A Defences to offence under section 38: England and Wales

(1) It is a defence for a person charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 38(2) of delivering a bladed product to residential premises to show that the delivery conditions were met.

(2) It is a defence for a person (“the seller”) charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 38(2) of arranging for the delivery of a bladed product to residential premises to show that—

(a) the arrangement required the person with whom it was made not to finally deliver the bladed product unless the delivery conditions were met, and

(b) the seller took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the product would not be finally delivered unless the delivery conditions were met.

(3) It is a defence for a person charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 38(3) to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid commission of the offence.

(4) The delivery conditions are that—

(a) the person (“P”) into whose hands the bladed product was finally delivered showed the person delivering it an identity document issued to P, and

(b) on the basis of that document a reasonable person would have been satisfied—

(i) that P was over 18, and

(ii) if the buyer was an individual, that P was the buyer.

(5) In subsection (4) “identity document” means—

(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);

(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;

(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic 1988 or under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1));

(d) any other document specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(6) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this section if—

(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and

(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for other defences for a person charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 38.’

(3) After section 40 insert—

‘40A Delivery of bladed products sold by UK seller to residential premises: England and Wales

(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person (“the seller”) sells a bladed product to another person (“the buyer”),

(b) the seller and the buyer are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale and the seller is within the United Kingdom at that time,

(c) before the sale the seller entered into an arrangement with a person (“the courier”) by which the courier agreed to deliver bladed products for the seller,

(d) the courier was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered the delivery of bladed products, and

(e) pursuant to the arrangement, the courier finally delivers the bladed product to residential premises in England or Wales.

(2) The courier commits an offence if, when they finally deliver the bladed product to residential premises in England and Wales, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who—

(a) is aged 18 or over, and

(b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.

(3) A person finally delivering the bladed product to residential premises in England and Wales on behalf of the courier commits an offence if, when they deliver it, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who—

(a) is aged 18 or over, and

(b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.

(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to show that the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 39A(4)) were met.

(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to show that—

(a) the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 39A(4)) were met, or

(b) the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that the person was delivering a bladed product.

(6) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this section if—

(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and

(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.

(8) Section 39(2) to (5) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) and (e) as it applies for the purposes of section 39(1)(b) and (e).

(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for other defences for a person charged with an offence under this section.’

(4) After section 42 insert—

‘42A Delivery of bladed articles sold by non-UK seller to premises: England and Wales

(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person (“the seller”) sells a bladed article to another person (“the buyer”),

(b) the seller and the buyer are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale and the seller is outside the United Kingdom at that time,

(c) before the sale the seller entered into an arrangement with a person (“the courier”) by which the courier agreed to deliver bladed articles for the seller,

(d) the courier was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered the delivery of bladed articles, and

(e) pursuant to the arrangement, the courier finally delivers the bladed article to premises in England or Wales.

(2) The courier commits an offence if, when they finally deliver the bladed article, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who—

(a) is aged 18 or over, and

(b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.

(3) A person finally delivering the bladed article on behalf of the courier commits an offence if, when they deliver the bladed article, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who—

(a) is aged 18 or over, and

(b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.

(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to show that the delivery conditions were met.

(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to show that—

(a) the delivery conditions were met, or

(b) the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that the person was delivering a bladed article.

(6) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this section if—

(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and

(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.

(8) Section 42(2) and (3) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) as it applies for the purposes of section 42(1)(b).

(9) In this section—

“bladed article” means an article to which section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies (as that section has effect in relation to England and Wales);

“delivery conditions” has the meaning given by section 39A(4), but reading the reference in that section to a bladed product as a reference to a bladed article.’

(5) In section 38(10) (offences) for “section” substitute “sections 39A and”.

(6) In section 39 (delivery of bladed products to persons under 18)—

(a) in the heading, at the end insert “: Scotland and Northern Ireland”;

(b) in subsection (1)(e) after “premises” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”;

(c) in subsection (7) omit paragraph (a).

(7) In section 40 (defences to delivery offences under sections 38 and 39)—

(a) in the heading, after “39” insert “: Scotland and Northern Ireland”;

(b) in subsection (1) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”;

(c) in subsection (2) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”;

(d) in subsection (3) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”;

(e) in subsection (4) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”;

(f) in subsection (5) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”;

(g) in subsection (6) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”;

(h) in subsection (7), omit “England and Wales or”;

(i) in subsection (14), in the definition of “appropriate national authority” omit paragraph (a).

(8) In section 41 (meaning of “bladed product” in sections 38 to 40)—

(a) in the heading, for “40” substitute “40A”;

(b) in subsection (1) for “40” substitute “40A”;

(c) in subsection (2) for “40” substitute “40A”.

(9) In section 42 (delivery of knives etc pursuant to arrangement with seller outside UK)—

(a) in the heading, at the end insert “: Scotland and Northern Ireland”;

(b) in subsection (1)(e), after “article” insert “to premises in Scotland or Northern Ireland”;

(c) in subsection (5) omit “England and Wales or”;

(d) omit subsection (10)(a);

(e) omit subsection (11)(a).

(10) In section 66(1)(j) (guidance on offences relating to offensive weapons etc) for “42” substitute “42A”.

(11) In section 68 (regulations and orders)—

(a) in subsection (2) after “State” insert, “, except for regulations under section 39A(5)(d),”;

(b) after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 39A(5)(d) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”’”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause makes changes to the offences and defences relating to delivery of knives to premises in England and Wales following a remote sale.

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

New Clause 68

Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales

“(1) In the Criminal Justice Act 1988, after section 141C insert—

‘141D Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales

(1) A person (“the seller”) must, in accordance with requirements specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument, report to the person specified in the regulations any reportable sales the seller makes of bladed articles.

(2) A reportable sale of bladed articles occurs where the seller, in any of the ways set out in subsection (4), sells—

(a) six or more bladed articles, none of which form a qualifying set of bladed articles;

(b) two or more qualifying sets of bladed articles;

(c) one or more qualifying sets of bladed articles and five or more bladed articles that do not form a qualifying set.

(3) “Qualifying set of bladed articles” means three or more bladed articles packaged together for sale as a single item, where each bladed article is a different size or shape from the others.

(4) The ways are—

(a) in a single remote sale where the bladed articles are to be delivered to an address in England and Wales, or

(b) in two or more remote sales in any period of 30 days—

(i) to one person, where the bladed articles are to be delivered to one or more addresses in England and Wales, or

(ii) to two or more persons, where the bladed articles are to be delivered to the same residential premises in England and Wales.

(5) A sale of bladed articles is “remote” if the seller and the person to whom the bladed article is sold are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) a person (“A”) is not in the presence of another person (“B”) at any time if—

(a) where A is an individual, A or a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time;

(b) where A is not an individual, a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time.

(7) A sale is not reportable if the person to whom the articles are sold (“the buyer”)—

(a) informs the seller that the buyer is carrying on a business, and

(b) is—

(i) registered for value added tax under the Value Added Tax Act 1994, or

(ii) registered as a company under the Companies Act 2006.

(8) A person who fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence.

(9) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (8) to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.

(10) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this section if—

(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and

(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(11) A person who commits an offence under subsection (8) is liable on summary conviction to a fine.

(12) In this section—

“bladed article” means an article to which section 141A applies (as that section has effect in relation to England and Wales), other than a knife which does not have a sharp point and is designed for eating food;

“residential premises” means premises used for residential purposes (whether or not also used for other purposes).

(13) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) may in particular include requirements about—

(a) how reports are to be made,

(b) when reports to be made, and

(c) the information reports must include.

(14) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(15) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend—

(a) the number of bladed articles specified in subsection (2)(a);

(b) the number of qualifying sets specified in subsection (2)(b);

(c) the number of qualifying sets specified in subsection (2)(c);

(d) the number of bladed articles specified in subsection (2)(c);

(e) the period specified in subsection (4)(b).

(16) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (15) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’

(2) In the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, in section 66(1) (guidance on offences relating to offensive weapons etc) after paragraph (g) insert—

‘(ga) section 141D of that Act (duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales),’”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause imposes a requirement on sellers of bladed articles to report bulk sales to a person specified in regulations.

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

New Clause 69

Remote sale and letting of crossbows

“(1) The Crossbows Act 1987 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1 omit ‘unless he believes him to be eighteen years or older and has reasonable grounds for the belief’.

(3) After section 1A insert—

‘1B Defences to offence under section 1: England and Wales

(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1 to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.

(2) Subsection (3) applies if—

(a) a person (“A”) is charged with an offence under section 1, and

(b) A was not in the presence of the person (“B”) to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire at the time of the sale or letting on hire.

(3) A is not to be regarded as having shown that A took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence unless, as a minimum, A shows that the following conditions are met.

(4) Condition 1 is that, before the sale or letting on hire—

(a) A obtained from B—

(i) a copy of an identity document issued to B, and

(ii) a photograph of B, and

(b) on the basis of the things obtained under paragraph (a), a reasonable person would have been satisfied that B was aged 18 or over.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an “identity document” means—

(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);

(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;

(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic 1988 or under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1));

(d) any other document specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(6) Condition 2 is that when the package containing the crossbow or part of the crossbow was dispatched by A, it was clearly marked to indicate—

(a) that it contained a crossbow or part of a crossbow, and

(b) that, when finally delivered, it should only be delivered into the hands of B.

(7) Condition 3 is that A took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that, when finally delivered, the package would be delivered into the hands of B.

(8) Condition 4 is that A did not deliver the package, or arrange for its delivery, to a locker.

(9) Where the crossbow or part of a crossbow was dispatched by A to a place from which it was to be collected by B, references in subsections (6) and (7) to its final delivery are to be read as its supply to B from that place.

(10) In subsection (8) “locker” means a lockable container to which the package is delivered with a view to its collection by B, or a person acting on behalf of B, in accordance with arrangements made between A and B.’”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause makes changes to the defences available to a person who sells crossbows etc to under 18s, in contravention of section 1 of the Crossbows Act 1987, where the sale is made remotely (e.g. online).

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

New Clause 70

Delivery of crossbows

“In the Crossbows Act 1987, after section 1B (inserted by section (Remote sale and letting of crossbows)) insert—

‘1C Offence of seller delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to residential premises in England or Wales

(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets on hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”), and

(b) A and B are not in each other's presence at the time of the sale.

(2) A commits an offence if, for the purposes of supplying the crossbow or part of a crossbow to B, A—

(a) delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises in England or Wales, or

(b) arranges for its delivery to residential premises in England or Wales.

(3) A commits an offence if, for the purposes of supplying the crossbow or part of a crossbow to B, A—

(a) delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a locker in England or Wales, or

(b) arranges for its delivery to a locker in England or Wales.

(4) In subsection (3) “locker” means a lockable container to which the crossbow or part of a crossbow is delivered with a view to its collection by B, or a person acting on behalf of B, in accordance with arrangements made between A and B.

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

(6) The “maximum term for summary offences”, in relation to an offence, means—

(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, six months;

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

1D Defences to offences under section 1C

(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1C(2)(a) to show that the delivery conditions were met.

(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1C(2)(b) to show that—

(a) the arrangement required the person with whom it was made not to finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow unless the delivery conditions were met, and

(b) the person charged with the offence took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the crossbow or part of a crossbow would not be finally delivered unless the delivery conditions were met.

(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1C(3) to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.

(4) For the purposes of this section the delivery conditions are that—

(a) the person (“P”) into whose hands the crossbow or part of a crossbow was finally delivered showed the person delivering it an identity document issued to P, and

(b) on the basis of that document a reasonable person would have been satisfied—

(i) that P was over 18, and

(ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire was an individual, that P was that individual.

(5) “Identity document” has the same meaning as in section 1B(5).

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for other defences for a person charged with an offence under section 1C.

1E Offence of delivery business delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to residential premises in England and Wales on behalf of UK seller

(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets for hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”),

(b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale or letting on hire and A is within the United Kingdom at that time,

(c) before the sale or letting on hire A entered into an arrangement with a person (“C”) by which C agreed to deliver crossbows or parts of crossbows for A,

(d) C was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows, and

(e) pursuant to the arrangement, C finally delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises in England or Wales.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) a person other than an individual is within the United Kingdom at any time if the person carries on a business of selling articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time.

(3) C commits an offence if, when they finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises in England or Wales, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who—

(a) is aged 18 or over, and

(b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.

(4) A person finally delivering the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises in England or Wales on behalf of C commits an offence if, when they deliver it, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who—

(a) is aged 18 or over, and

(b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.

(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to show that the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 1D(4)) were met.

(6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (4) to show that—

(a) the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 1D(4)) were met, or

(b) the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that the person was delivering a crossbow or part of a crossbow.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for other defences for a person charged with an offence under this section.

(8) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.

1F Offence of delivery business delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to premises in England and Wales on behalf of non-UK seller

(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets for hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”),

(b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale or letting on hire and A is outside the United Kingdom at that time,

(c) before the sale or letting on hire A entered into an arrangement with a person (“C”) by which C agreed to deliver crossbows or parts of crossbows for A,

(d) C was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows, and

(e) pursuant to the arrangement, C finally delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to premises in England and Wales.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) a person other than an individual is outside the United Kingdom at any time if the person does not carry on a business of selling articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time.

(3) C commits an offence if, when they finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow to premises in England or Wales, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who—

(a) is aged 18 or over, and

(b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.

(4) Any person finally delivering the crossbow or part of a crossbow to premises in England or Wales on behalf of C commits an offence if, when they deliver it, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who—

(a) is aged 18 or over, and

(b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.

(6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to show that the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 1D(4)) were met.

(7) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (4) to show that—

(a) the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 1D(4)) were met, or

(b) the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that the person was delivering a crossbow or part of a crossbow.’”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause creates offences relating to delivery of crossbows to premises following a remote sale equivalent to the offences relating to knives in sections 38 to 42 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019.

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

New Clause 71

Sale and delivery of crossbows: supplementary provision

“(1) After section 1F of the Crossbows Act 1987 (inserted by section (Delivery of crossbows)) insert—

‘1G Interpretation of sections 1B to 1F

(1) This section applies for the interpretation of sections 1B to 1F.

(2) A person (“A”) is not in the presence of another person (“B”) at any time if—

(a) where A is an individual, A or a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time;

(b) where A is not an individual, a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time.

(3) “Residential premises” means premises used solely for residential purposes.

(4) The circumstances where premises are not residential premises include, in particular, where a person carries on a business from the premises.

(5) A person charged with an offence is taken to have shown a matter if—

(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and

(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.’

(2) After section 6 of the Crossbows Act 1987 insert—

‘6A Regulations

(1) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Act are to be made by statutory instrument.

(2) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (alone or with other provision) regulations under section 1D(6) or 1E(7) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(3) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(3) In section 66(1) of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 (guidance on offences relating to offensive weapons etc), after paragraph (ga) (inserted by section (Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales) insert—

“(gb) any of sections 1 to 3 of the Crossbows Act 1987 (sale etc of crossbows) as they have effect in relation to England and Wales,”.’”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause makes provision about the interpretation of the new sections added to the Crossbows Act 1987 by NC69 and NC70 and extends the guidance-making power in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 to cover offences under the Crossbows Act 1987.

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

New Clause 72

“Relevant user-to-user services”, “relevant search services” and “service providers”

“(1) For the purposes of this Chapter—

(a) a ‘relevant search service’ is a search service other than an exempt service;

(b) a ‘relevant user-to-user service’ is a user-to-user service other than an exempt service.

(2) In subsection (1), ‘search service’ and ‘user-to-user service’ have the same meanings as in the Online Safety Act 2023 (the ‘2023 Act’) (see, in particular, section 3 of that Act).

(3) The following are exempt services for the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) a service of a kind that is described in any of the following paragraphs of Schedule 1 to the 2023 Act (certain services exempt from regulation under that Act)—

(i) paragraph 1 or 2 (email, SMS and MMS services);

(ii) paragraph 3 (services offering one-to-one live aural communications);

(iii) paragraph 4 (limited functionality services);

(iv) paragraph 5 (services which enable combinations of user-generated content);

(v) paragraph 7 or 8 (internal business services);

(vi) paragraph 9 (services provided by public bodies);

(vii) paragraph 10 (services provided by persons providing education or childcare), or

(b) a service of a kind that is described in Schedule 2 to the 2023 Act (services that include regulated provider pornographic content).

(4) This Chapter does not apply in relation to a part of a relevant search service, or a part of a relevant user-to-user service, if the 2023 Act does not apply to that part of the service by virtue of section 5(1) or (2) of that Act.

(5) In this Chapter, ‘service provider’ means a provider of a relevant user-to-user service or a provider of a relevant search service.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause, which together with NC73, NC74, NC75, NC76, NC77, NC78, NC79, NC80, NC81, NC82, NC83, NC84, NC85, NC86 and NS1 are expected to form a new Chapter of Part 2 of the Bill, defines key terms used in the new Chapter.

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

New Clause 73

Coordinating officer

“(1) The Secretary of State must designate a member of a relevant police force or a National Crime Agency officer as the coordinating officer for the purposes of this Chapter.

(2) The coordinating officer may delegate any of the officer’s functions under this Chapter (to such extent as the officer may determine) to another member of a relevant police force or National Crime Agency officer.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to designate a “coordinating officer” to perform the functions conferred on that officer under the new Chapter referred to in the explanatory note for NC72.

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

New Clause 74

Notice requiring appointment of content manager

“(1) The coordinating officer may give a service provider a notice (an ‘appointment notice’) requiring the provider—

(a) either to—

(i) appoint an individual who meets the conditions in subsection (2) as the provider’s content manager for the purposes of this Chapter, or

(ii) if there is no such individual, confirm that is the case to the coordinating officer, and

(b) to provide the coordinating officer with the required information.

(2) The conditions are that the individual—

(a) plays a significant role in—

(i) the making of decisions about how a whole or substantial part of the service provider’s activities are to be managed or organised, or

(ii) the actual managing or organising of the whole or a substantial part of those activities, and

(b) is habitually resident in the United Kingdom.

(3) ‘Required information’ means—

(a) the contact details of any content manager appointed;

(b) an email address, or details of another means of contacting the service provider rapidly which is readily available, that may be used for the purpose of giving the provider a notice under this Chapter;

(c) information identifying the relevant user-to-user services, or (as the case may be) the relevant search services, provided by the provider.

(4) An appointment notice must—

(a) specify the period before the end of which the service provider must comply with the notice, and

(b) explain the potential consequences of the service provider failing to do so (see section (Failure to comply with content manager requirements: civil penalty)).

(5) The period specified under subsection (4)(a) must be at least seven days beginning with the day on which the notice is given.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause confers a power on the coordinating officer to require a service provider to appoint a senior executive as their “content manager” for the purposes of the new Chapter referred to in the explanatory note for NC72 or to confirm that there is no-one who meets the appointment conditions.

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

New Clause 75

Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances

“(1) This section applies where—

(a) the coordinating officer has given a service provider an appointment notice,

(b) the provider has confirmed to the officer (in accordance with the appointment notice or under section (Replacement of content manager)(5)(b)), that there is no individual who meets the conditions in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(2), and

(c) at any time within the period of two years beginning with the day on which that confirmation was given, there is an individual who meets those conditions.

(2) The service provider must, before the end of the period of seven days beginning with the first day on which there is an individual who meets those conditions—

(a) appoint such an individual as the provider’s content manager for the purposes of this Chapter, and

(b) provide the coordinating officer with the content manager’s contact details.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause requires a service provider that at any time could not appoint a senior executive as its content manager when required to do so (because there was no-one who met the appointment conditions) to make an appointment if, following a change in circumstances within 2 years, there is someone who meets the conditions.

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

New Clause 76

Replacement of content manager

“(1) This section applies where a service provider has appointed an individual as the provider’s content manager (whether in accordance with an appointment notice or under section (Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances) or this section).

(2) The service provider may replace the provider’s content manager by appointing another individual who meets the conditions in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(2) as the provider’s new content manager for the purposes of this Chapter.

(3) The service provider must, before the end of the period of seven days beginning with the day on which an appointment is made under subsection (2), provide the coordinating officer with the new content manager’s contact details.

(4) If the individual appointed as a service provider’s content manager ceases to meet any of the conditions in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(2), the appointment ceases to have effect.

(5) The service provider must, before the end of the period of seven days beginning with the day on which an appointment ceases to have effect under subsection (4)—

(a) either—

(i) appoint another individual who meets the conditions in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(2) as the provider’s content manager for the purposes of this Chapter, and

(ii) provide the coordinating officer with the new content manager’s contact details, or

(b) if there is no longer such an individual, confirm that is the case to the coordinating officer.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause makes provision for the appointment by a service provider of a replacement content manager, including in a case where the original content manager ceases to meet the appointment conditions (and so that appointment ceases to have effect).

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

New Clause 77

Duty to notify changes in required information

“(1) This section applies where a service provider has, in accordance with an appointment notice or under section (Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances)(2)(b) or (Replacement of content manager)(5)(a)(ii)provided the coordinating officer with required information.

(2) The service provider must give notice to the coordinating officer of any change in the required information.

(3) The notice must specify the date on which the change occurred.

(4) The notice must be given before the end of the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the change occurred.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause requires a service provider that has given the coordinating officer required information (as defined in NC74) to inform the officer of any changes in that information.

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

New Clause 78

Failure to comply with content manager requirements: civil penalty

“(1) This section applies if the coordinating officer has given a service provider an appointment notice and—

(a) the period specified in the notice as mentioned in (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(4)(a) has expired without the provider having complied with the notice,

(b) the provider has failed to comply with a requirement under section (Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances), (Replacement of content manager) or (Duty to notify changes in required information),

(c) the provider, in purported compliance with a requirement to provide, or give notice of a change in, required information (whether in accordance with an appointment notice or under section (Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances)(2)(b), (Replacement of content manager) or (Duty to notify changes in required information)(2)) makes a statement that is false in a material particular, or

(d) the provider makes a statement that is false in giving the confirmation mentioned in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(1)(a)(ii) or (Replacement of content manager)(5)(b).

(2) The coordinating officer may give the service provider a notice (a ‘penalty notice’) requiring the provider to pay a penalty of an amount not exceeding £60,000.

(3) In order to take account of changes in the value of money the Secretary of State may by regulations substitute another sum for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (2).

(4) Schedule (Civil penalties for service providers and content managers) makes further provision in connection with penalty notices given under this Chapter.” —(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause confers a power on the coordinating officer to impose a monetary penalty of up to £60,000 on a service provider that fails to comply with various requirements imposed by an appointment notice or under NC75, NC76 and NC77.

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

New Clause 79

Unlawful weapons content

“(1) For the purposes of this Chapter, content is ‘unlawful weapons content’ in England and Wales if it is content that constitutes—

(a) an offence under section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 (offering to sell, hire, loan or give away etc a dangerous weapon),

(b) an offence under section 1 or 2 of the Knives Act 1997 (marketing of knives as suitable for combat etc and related publications), or

(c) an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 under the law of England and Wales (offering to sell, hire, loan or give away etc an offensive weapon).

(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, content is ‘unlawful weapons content’ in Scotland if it is content that constitutes—

(a) an offence within subsection (1)(a) or (b), or

(b) an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 under the law of Scotland.

(3) For the purposes of this Chapter, content is ‘unlawful weapons content’ in Northern Ireland if it is content that constitutes—

(a) an offence under Article 53 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160) (N.I. 24) (offering to sell, hire, loan or give away etc certain knives),

(b) an offence within subsection (1)(b), or

(c) an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 under the law of Northern Ireland.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause defines “unlawful weapons content” for the purposes of the new Chapter referred to in the explanatory note for NC72.

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

New Clause 80

Content removal notices

“(1) This section applies where an authorised officer is satisfied that content—

(a) present on a relevant user-to-user service, or

(b) which may be encountered in or via search results of a relevant search service;

is unlawful weapons content in a relevant part of the United Kingdom.

(2) The authorised officer may give a content removal notice to—

(a) the provider of the relevant user-to-user service, or

(b) the provider of the relevant search service.

(3) If the authorised officer gives a content removal notice to a service provider in a case where the coordinating officer has the contact details of the provider’s content manager, the authorised officer may also give the notice to that manager.

(4) A content removal notice is a notice requiring the service provider and (if applicable) the provider’s content manager (each a ‘recipient’) to secure that—

(a) the content to which it relates is removed (see section (Interpretation of Chapter)(2)), and

(b) confirmation of that fact is given to the authorised officer.

(5) A content removal notice must—

(a) identify the content to which it relates;

(b) explain the authorised officer’s reasons for considering that the content is unlawful weapons content in the relevant part (or parts) of the United Kingdom;

(c) explain that the notice must be complied with before the end of the period of 48 hours beginning with the time the notice is given;

(d) explain that each recipient has the right to request a review of the decision to give the notice and how a request is to be made (see section (Content removal notices: review));

(e) set out the potential consequences of failure to comply with the notice;

(f) contain the authorised officer’s contact details;

(g) be in such form, and contain such further information, as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.

(6) The authorised officer may withdraw a content removal notice from a recipient by notifying the recipient to that effect (but withdrawal of a notice does not prevent a further content removal notice from being given under this section, whether or not in relation to the same content as the withdrawn notice).

(7) In this section—

‘authorised officer’ means—

(a) a member of a relevant police force who is authorised for the purposes of this section by the chief officer of the force, or

(b) a National Crime Agency officer who is authorised for the purposes of this section by the Director General of the National Crime Agency;

‘relevant part of the United Kingdom’ means—

(a) where the authorised officer is a member of a relevant police force in England and Wales, England and Wales;

(b) where the authorised officer is a member of the Police Service of Scotland, Scotland;

(c) where the authorised officer is a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland;

(d) where the authorised officer is a member of the Ministry of Defence Police or a National Crime Agency officer, any part of the United Kingdom.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause confers power on the police or an officer of the National Crime Agency to give a service provider and (if there is one) the provider’s content manager a notice requiring them to remove unlawful weapons content from the services they provide.

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

New Clause 81

Content removal notices: review

“(1) A person who is given a content removal notice (a ‘recipient’) may, before the end of the initial 48-hour period, request a review of the decision to give the notice.

(2) A request under subsection (1) is to be made by the recipient giving—

(a) a notice (a ‘review notice’) to the authorised officer, and

(b) a copy of the review notice to the other recipient (if applicable).

(3) The grounds on which a recipient may request a review include, in particular, that—

(a) content to which the notice relates is not unlawful weapons content;

(b) content to which the notice relates is insufficiently identified for the recipient to be able to take the action required by the notice;

(c) the provider that received the notice is not, in fact, the provider of the relevant user-to-user service or relevant search service to which the notice relates;

(d) the individual who received the notice as the service provider’s content manager is not, in fact, that provider’s content manager;

(e) the notice was otherwise not given in accordance with this Chapter.

(4) On receipt of a review notice, a review of the decision to give the content removal notice must be carried out—

(a) if the authorised officer is a member of a relevant police force, by another member of that force who is of a higher rank;

(b) if the authorised officer is a National Crime Agency officer, by another officer who holds a more senior position in the Agency.

The individual carrying out the review is referred to in this section as ‘the reviewing officer’.

(6) On completing the review or (in a case where two review notices are given) both reviews the reviewing officer must, in respect of each recipient, either—

(a) confirm in full the decision to give the content removal notice,

(b) confirm the decision to give the notice, but in relation to only some of the content to which it relates, or

(c) withdraw the notice.

(7) The reviewing officer must give each recipient a notice (a ‘decision notice’)—

(a) setting out the outcome of the review or reviews, and

(b) giving reasons.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause makes provision for the police or the NCA to review the decision to give a service provider or their content manager a content removal notice under NC80 where the recipient of the notice requests a review.

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

New Clause 82

Decision notices requiring removal of unlawful weapons content

“(1) This section applies where the reviewing officer—

(a) has carried out a review or reviews under section (Content removal notices: review), and

(b) confirms the decision to give the content removal notice to the service provider, the provider’s content manager or both of them (in each case whether as mentioned in subsection (6)(a) or (b) of that section).

(2) If the reviewing officer confirms in full the decision to give the content removal notice, the decision notice must require its recipient to secure that—

(a) the content to which the content removal notice relates is removed, and

(b) confirmation of that fact is given to the authorised officer.

(3) If the officer confirms the decision to give the content removal notice but in relation to only some of the content to which it relates, the decision notice must—

(a) identify the content to which the confirmation relates (the ‘confirmed content’), and

(b) require its recipient to secure that—

(i) the confirmed content is removed, and

(ii) confirmation of that fact is given to the authorised officer.

(4) A decision notice within subsection (2) or (3) must specify the period before the end of which the notice must be complied with, and that period must be whichever of the following is the longest—

(a) the period of 24 hours beginning with the time the decision notice is given;

(b) the period—

(i) beginning with the time the review notice or, if there was more than one, the first review notice, was given under section (Content removal notices: review), and

(ii) ending with the end of the initial 48-hour period.

(5) In this section, ‘reviewing officer’ has the same meaning as in section (Content removal notices: review).”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause provides for the police or NCA, following a review under NC81 which confirms (in full or in part) the decision to give a content removal notice, to give the service provider or content manager a decision notice requiring the removal of the unlawful weapons content concerned.

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

New Clause 83

Failure to comply with content removal notice or decision notice: civil penalties

“(1) Subsection (2) applies where—

(a) a content removal notice has been given to a service provider, or to both a service provider and the provider’s content manager, in accordance with section (Content removal notices), and

(b) the initial 48-hour period has expired without the notice having been complied with or a review notice having been given.

(2) A senior authorised officer of the issuing force may give a penalty notice—

(a) to the service provider, or

(b) if the provider’s content manager also received the content removal notice, to the content manager or to both of them.

(3) Subsection (4) applies where, following a review or reviews under section (Content removal notices: review)—

(a) a decision notice has been given to the service provider or to both the provider and the provider’s content manager in accordance with section (Decision notices requiring removal of unlawful weapons content)(2) or (3) confirming the decision to give the content removal notice, and

(b) the period specified in the decision notice under subsection (4) of that section has expired without that notice having been complied with.

(4) A senior authorised officer of the issuing force may give a penalty notice—

(a) to the service provider, or

(b) if the provider’s content manager also received the decision notice, to the content manager or to both of them.

(5) In this section a ‘penalty notice’ means a notice requiring its recipient to pay a penalty—

(a) where the recipient is a service provider, of an amount not exceeding £60,000;

(b) where the recipient is a service provider’s content manager, of an amount not exceeding £10,000.

(6) In order to take account of changes in the value of money the Secretary of State may by regulations substitute another sum for a sum for the time being specified in subsection (5).

(7) See Schedule (Civil penalties for service providers and content managers) for further provision in connection with penalty notices given under this section.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause confers a power on the police or NCA to impose a monetary penalty of up to £60,000 on a service provider or up to £10,000 on a content manager if they have failed to comply with a content removal notice or a decision notice.

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

New Clause 84

Guidance

“(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the persons mentioned in subsection (2) about the exercise of their functions under this Chapter.

(2) The persons are—

(a) the chief officer, and any other member, of a relevant police force;

(b) the Director General of the National Crime Agency and any other officer of the Agency.

(3) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this section.

(4) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance or revisions issued under this section.

(5) A person mentioned in subsection (2) must have regard to any guidance issued under this section when exercising a function under this Chapter.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause confers power on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the police and the National Crime Agency about the exercise of their functions under the new Chapter mentioned in the explanatory statement to NC72.

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

New Clause 85

Notices

“(1) This section applies in relation to any notice that must or may be given to a person under this Chapter.

(2) A notice may be given to a person by—

(a) delivering it by hand to the person,

(b) leaving it at the person’s proper address,

(c) sending it by post to the person at that address, or

(d) sending it by email to the person’s email address.

(3) A notice to a body corporate may be given to any officer of that body.

(4) A notice to a partnership may be given to any partner or to a person who has the control or management of the partnership business.

(5) A notice sent by first class post to an address in the United Kingdom, is treated as given at noon on the second working day after the day of posting, unless the contrary is proved.

(6) A notice sent by email is treated as given at the time it is sent unless the contrary is proved.

(7) In this section—

‘director’ includes any person occupying the position of a director, by whatever name called;

‘email address’, in relation to a person, means—

(a) an email address provided by that person for the purposes of this Chapter, or

(b) any email address published for the time being by that person as an address for contacting that person;

‘officer’, in relation to an entity, includes a director, a manager, a partner, the secretary or, where the affairs of the entity are managed by its members, a member;

‘proper address’ means—

(a) in the case of an entity, the address of the entity’s registered office or principal office;

(b) in any other case, the person’s last known address;

‘working day’ means any day other than—

(a) a Saturday or Sunday, or

(b) a day that is a bank holiday in any part of the United Kingdom under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971.

(8) In the case of an entity registered or carrying on business outside the United Kingdom, or with offices outside the United Kingdom, the reference in subsection (7), in the definition of ‘proper address’, to the entity’s principal office includes—

(a) its principal office in the United Kingdom, or

(b) if the entity has no office in the United Kingdom, any place in the United Kingdom at which the person giving the notice believes, on reasonable grounds, that the notice will come to the attention of any director or other officer of that entity.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause makes provision about the ways in which a notice can be given, and the time at which a notice is to be treated as given, under the new Chapter mentioned in the explanatory statement to NC72.

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

New Clause 86

Interpretation of Chapter

“(1) In this Chapter—

‘appointment notice’ has the meaning given by section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(1);

‘authorised officer’ in relation to a content removal notice, means the member of a relevant police force, or officer of the National Crime Agency, who gave the notice;

‘chief officer’—

(a) in relation to a police force in England and Wales, means the chief officer of police of the force;

(b) in relation to any other relevant police force, means the chief constable of that force;

‘contact details’, in relation to an individual, means the individual’s—

(a) full name;

(b) telephone number;

(c) email address;

(d) residential address, or other service address, in the United Kingdom;

‘content’ has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023 (see section 236(1) of that Act);

‘content manager’, in relation to a service provider, means the individual for the time being appointed as the content manager of the provider (whether in accordance with an appointment notice or under section (Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances) or (Replacement of content manager));

‘content removal notice’ has the meaning given by section (Content removal notices)(4);

‘coordinating officer’ means the individual designated as such under section (Coordinating officer)(1);

‘decision notice’ means a notice given under section (Content removal notices: review)(7);

‘encounter’, in relation to content, has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023 (see section 236(1) of that Act);

‘entity’ has the same meaning as in that Act (see section 236(1) of that Act);

‘initial 48-hour period’, in relation to a content removal notice, means the 48-hour period specified in the notice as mentioned in section (Content removal notices)(5)(c);

‘issuing force’—

(a) in relation to a content removal notice given by a member of a relevant police force, means that force;

(b) in relation to a content removal notice given by a National Crime Agency officer, means the National Crime Agency;

‘relevant police force’—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means—

(i) a police force in England and Wales, or

(ii) the Ministry of Defence Police;

(b) in relation to Scotland, means—

(i) the Police Service of Scotland, or

(ii) the Ministry of Defence Police;

(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, means—

(i) the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or

(ii) the Ministry of Defence Police;

‘relevant search service’ and

‘relevant user-to-user service’ have the meanings given by section (‘Relevant user-to-user services’, ‘relevant search services’ and ‘service providers’);

‘required information’ has the meaning given by section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(3);

‘review notice’ has the meaning given by section (Content removal notices: review)(2)(a);

‘search content’ and ‘search results’ have the meanings given by section 57 of the Online Safety Act 2023;

‘senior authorised officer’, in relation to a relevant police force, means—

(a) the chief officer of the relevant police force, or

(b) a member of the relevant police force of at least the rank of inspector authorised for the purposes of this Chapter by the chief officer;

‘senior authorised officer’, in relation to the National Crime Agency, means—

(a) the Director General of the National Crime Agency, or

(b) an officer of the Agency who—

(i) holds a position in the Agency the seniority of which is at least equivalent to that of the rank of inspector in a relevant police force, and

(ii) is authorised for the purposes of this Chapter by the Director General;

‘service address’ has the same meaning as in the Companies Acts (see section 1141 of the Companies Act 2006);

‘service provider’ has the meaning given by section (‘Relevant user-to-user services’, ‘relevant search services’ and ‘service providers’).

(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, a reference to ‘removing’ content—

(a) in relation to content present on a relevant user-to-user service, is a reference to any action that results in the content being removed from the service, or being permanently hidden, so users of the service in any part of the United Kingdom in which the content is unlawful weapons content cannot encounter it;

(b) in relation to content which may be encountered in or via search results of a relevant search service, is a reference to taking measures designed to secure, so far as possible, that the content is no longer included in the search content of the service that is available in any part of the United Kingdom in which the content is unlawful weapons content;

and related expressions are to be read accordingly.

(3) The following provisions of the Online Safety Act 2023 apply for the purposes of this Chapter as they apply for the purposes of that Act—

(a) section 226 (determining who is the provider of a particular user-to-user service or search service);

(b) section 236(5) and (6) (references to content being present).”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause contains definitions of terms used in the new Chapter mentioned in the explanatory statement to NC72.

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

New Clause 87

Dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling

“(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (6).

(2) Before section 28 (dangerous cycling) insert—

‘27A Causing death by dangerous cycling

A person who causes the death of another person by riding a cycle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence.

27B Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling

(1) A person who causes serious injury to another person by riding a cycle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence.

(2) In this section “serious injury” means—

(a) in England and Wales, physical harm which amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and

(b) in Scotland, severe physical injury.’

(3) In section 28—

(a) in subsection (1) for ‘on a road dangerously’ substitute ‘dangerously on a road or other public place’;

(b) omit subsections (2) and (3).

(4) After section 28 insert—

‘28A Meaning of “dangerous cycling”

(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 27A, 27B and 28.

(2) A person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if) the condition in subsection (3) or (4) is met.

(3) The condition in this subsection is met if—

(a) the way that the person rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and

(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.

(4) The condition in this subsection is met if it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding the cycle in its current state would be dangerous.

(5) In determining the state of a cycle for the purposes of subsection (4), regard may be had (among other things) to—

(a) whether the cycle is equipped and maintained in accordance with regulations under section 81 (regulation of brakes, bells etc, on pedal cycles);

(b) anything attached to or carried on the cycle and the manner in which it is attached or carried.

(6) In determining what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard is to be had both to—

(a) the circumstances of which the person could be expected to be aware (taking account of, if relevant to the case, the age of the accused), and

(b) the circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

(7) References in this section to something being “dangerous” are references to it resulting in danger of—

(a) injury to any person, or

(b) serious damage to property.

28B Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling

A person who causes the death of another person by riding a cycle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is guilty of an offence.

28C Causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling

(1) A person who causes serious injury to another person by riding a cycle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is guilty of an offence.

(2) In this section ‘serious injury’ means—

(a) in England and Wales, physical harm which amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and

(b) in Scotland, severe physical injury.’

(5) In section 29 (careless, and inconsiderate, cycling)—

(a) after ‘a road’ insert ‘or other public place’;

(b) after ‘the road’ insert ‘or place’.

(6) After section 29 insert—

‘29A Meaning of careless, or inconsiderate, cycling

(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 28B, 28C and 29.

(2) A person is to be regarded as cycling without due care and attention if (and only if) the way the person cycles falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist.

(3) In determining what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard is to be had both to—

(a) the circumstances of which the person could be expected to be aware (taking account of, if relevant to the case, the age of the accused), and

(b) the circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

(4) A person (A) is to be regarded as cycling without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by A’s cycling.’

(7) The table in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences) is amended as follows.

(8) After the entry relating to ‘RTA section 27’ insert in columns 1 to 4—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

The devastating consequences of road traffic collisions caused by reckless or dangerous behaviour are not limited to motor vehicles. In recent years, a small but significant number of cases have emerged where pedestrians and other vulnerable road users have been seriously injured or even killed as a result of dangerous or careless cycling. This new clause rightly recognises that, while the majority of cyclists are law-abiding and responsible, the law must be equipped to deal appropriately with the minority who behave recklessly and put others at grave risk.

Currently, there is a glaring gap in the legal framework: while motorists who cause death or serious injury through dangerous or careless driving face severe legal consequences, no equivalent provision exists for cyclists. This clause introduces parity in accountability, ensuring that victims and their families are not left feeling that justice is denied simply because the vehicle involved was a bicycle rather than a car.

New clause 87, alongside Government amendment 82, ensures that the legal definitions of dangerous and careless cycling reflect the realities of modern shared road and path usage, including in public places beyond traditional roadways. With the increase in cycling on footpaths, shared spaces and pedestrianised zones, it is vital that the law keeps pace and applies wherever the public might be put at risk.

Importantly, the introduction of these offences does not criminalise cycling itself; it targets only those rare but serious cases where a cyclist’s conduct falls far below that which would be expected of competent and considerate road users. It draws on the well-established legal test from dangerous and careless driving legislation, helping to ensure that the proposed offences are proportionate, fair and clearly understood.

As Members will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has long campaigned for a change to the law regarding responsible cycling, and I pay tribute to his work to deliver this improvement to public safety. The last Government confirmed that they would adopt an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that would have resulted in a change comparable to the one we see today.

Much of this would not have been possible without the sustained efforts of people such as Matthew Briggs, who, in 2016, tragically lost his wife Kim Briggs, aged just 44, after she was hit by a cyclist riding a fixed-gear bike with no front brakes. She sustained catastrophic head injuries and sadly died a week later. Unfortunately, Kim is just one of many victims, and Matthew’s is just one of many families harmed by these situations, but he has campaigned for this change in the law after tragically losing a loved one. I pay tribute to Matt and his campaign for justice, and hope that this change effectively bridges the gap in the law that so many have highlighted.

Finally, this measure sends a strong message that all road users, regardless of their mode of transport, are responsible for the safety of others. It underlines the seriousness with which Parliament treats the loss of life or serious injuries, promotes responsible cycling, and contributes to safer public spaces for everyone.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 87 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 88

Places of worship: restriction on protests

“(1) The Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 12(1) (imposing conditions on public processions)—

(a) at the end of paragraph (ab) omit ‘or’;

(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert ‘or

(c) in the case of a procession in England and Wales, the procession is in the vicinity of a place of worship and may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness with the result that those persons are deterred from—

(i) accessing that place of worship for the purpose of carrying out religious activities, or

(ii) carrying out religious activities at that place of worship,’.

(3) In section 14(1) (imposing conditions on public assemblies)—

(a) at the end of paragraph (ab) omit ‘or’;

(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert ‘or

(c) in the case of an assembly in England and Wales, the assembly is in the vicinity of a place of worship and may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness with the result that those persons are deterred from—

(i) accessing that place of worship for the purpose of carrying out religious activities, or

(ii) carrying out religious activities at that place of worship.’

(4) In section 14ZA(1) (imposing conditions on one-person protests)—

(a) at the end of paragraph (a) omit ‘or’;

(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert ‘or

(c) the protest is in the vicinity of a place of worship and may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness with the result that those persons are deterred from—

(i) accessing that place of worship for the purpose of carrying out religious activities, or

(ii) carrying out religious activities at that place of worship.’”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause gives the police power to impose conditions on public processions, public assemblies and one-person protests that may intimidate people and deter those people from accessing a place of worship for carrying out religious activities or from carrying out religious activities there. It does not provide power to impose conditions where those who may be intimidated are using a place of worship for other purposes.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 89—Powers of senior officers to impose conditions on protests.

Government new clause 90—Amendments relating to British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

New clauses 88 to 90 further update our public order legislation to reflect operational experience. It is important that the legislation keeps pace with the operational realities faced by police on the ground.

In the wake of the events in Israel and Gaza on 7 October 2023, we have seen a wave of large-scale protests across the United Kingdom. Although the right to protest is of course a cornerstone of our democracy and the majority of demonstrations have been peaceful, we cannot ignore the very real impact that some of the gatherings have had on religious communities. We have heard troubling reports of people of all faiths feeling too intimidated to attend places of worship, and of services being cancelled due to the proximity and nature of the protests.

New clause 88 therefore seeks to provide religious communities with better protection from intimidation caused by protests within the vicinity of their place of worship. The police have powers under the Public Order Act 1986 to manage protests where there is serious disruption to the life of the community or intentional intimidation. However, the powers often do not capture the types of harm currently being experienced by religious communities, especially where the intimidation is not deliberate, but is none the less very real for those affected.

The intention of the new clause is to strengthen the police’s powers to manage intimidatory public processions, public assemblies or one-person protests near places of worship, specifically by allowing police to impose conditions where they reasonably believe that the procession, assembly or protest may result in the intimidation of and deter those seeking to access places of worship.

New clause 88 achieves that by creating a new threshold in sections 12, 14 and 14ZA of the 1986 Act, under which the police can impose conditions on public processions, public assemblies and one-person protests. To be clear, it does not ban protests outright, but it enables the police to use this threshold to consider the appropriate time, location or routing that a protest should have in order to avoid intimidating those wishing to practise their faith at their place of worship.

The new clause will allow the police to assess whether a protest may create an intimidating atmosphere that could deter people from accessing places of worship to carry out religious activities or from conducting religious activities there, regardless of whether the organisers of the protest themselves intended for the protest to have that effect.

I turn to new clause 89. In managing recent protests, the police have relied on their powers under sections 12 and 14 of the 1986 Act to impose those conditions, for example where there is a risk of serious public disorder or serious disruption to the life of the community. However, under the current law, only the most senior officers physically at the scene can impose these conditions on live protests or where people are assembling with a view to take part. That can cause delays, particularly when strategic or tactical commanders, known as the gold and silver commanders, who are often based in off-site control rooms, have better access to intelligence but are unable to impose conditions directly. That can also lead to inconsistencies in how similar protests are managed across different locations, especially when multiple events occur at once.

Policing stakeholders have made it clear that allowing gold and silver commanders to impose conditions remotely, where the statutory thresholds are met, would improve the timeliness, consistency and effectiveness of public order policing. Those commanders typically have the best oversight of unfolding events and are well placed to make informed decisions. New clause 89 therefore amends the 1986 Act to enable gold and silver commanders to exercise powers to impose conditions under sections 12(1) and 14(1) in relation to public processions and assemblies.

Finally, new clause 90 addresses two operational issues raised by the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Defence to ensure that public order powers can be used effectively by the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police. First, it amends the definitions in the Public Order Act 1986 to allow the BTP to impose conditions on public assemblies taking place at railway stations. Currently, the law restricts the use of these powers to open-air locations, which limits the BTP’s ability to manage protests in enclosed but high-risk public spaces such as major stations. This change will ensure that the BTP can act appropriately within its jurisdiction across England, Wales and Scotland.

Secondly, the new clause corrects a legislative error made in 2004 that unintentionally prevented the BTP from using section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the existing power to require individuals to remove face coverings. This amendment restores that power. It also empowers the MDP to issue authorisations under section 60AA and section 60 of the 1994 Act to enable MDP officers to exercise powers under these provisions within its jurisdiction, in the same way as territorial police forces.

These are technical but important amendments. They do not expand thresholds or the scope of the powers themselves, but simply ensure that the BTP and MDP can apply them, where appropriate, to keep people safe, particularly in transport hubs and around defence infrastructure. The proposals reflect direct feedback from operational policing and will bring clarity and consistency to the use of public order legislation. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

New clause 88 rightly seeks to strengthen protections for the freedom of religion and belief by ensuring that individuals are not deterred or intimidated from attending or participating in religious worship due to protests taking place in the vicinity of places of worship. It balances the right to peaceful protest with the fundamental right of individuals to practise their faith without fear or obstruction. Places of worship are not just buildings; they are sanctuaries for reflection, community and faith. When people are intimidated from entering these spaces or carrying out religious observance because of aggressive or targeted protests, it undermines not only their personal freedoms, but the broader principle of religious tolerance.

This new clause helps to ensure that those attending religious services can do so without being subject to harassment or psychological pressure. The provision is not a ban on protests: it enables the police to impose conditions, not prohibitions, on processions, assemblies and even one-person protests that occur in the vicinity of a place of worship, where such demonstrations risk intimidating individuals of reasonable firmness and deterring from participating in religious activities. The threshold is carefully defined to target behaviour that causes harm, while still protecting legitimate expression of opinion.

While some may easily dismiss this new clause, it is important to recognise that there are real-world examples where people believe that protests are being used to undermine the ability to worship. For example, recently in Westcliff-on-Sea, a protest organised by Action for Palestine, which the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign described as “not constructive”, took place on Shabbat during the final week of Pesach, in a Jewish neighbourhood where many residents would be travelling to and from the synagogue. The local rabbi said:

“There were quite a few people in the community who were so intimidated that they decided to go to their parents’ in London for the weekend, to get away completely.”

Others decided to attend one of the other orthodox synagogues in the area, such as the Westcliff Charedi synagogue, and ending up having to walk a mile to make Saturday’s two services. While I would not expect the Minister to comment on the specifics of whether that protest would constitute a breach of the new clause in question, it highlights how people practising their religion have felt targeted by particular protests.

Given the rise in targeted demonstrations, whether based on religion, race or identity, this new clause ensures that the law is responsive to the realities of contemporary protest dynamics. It draws on the existing powers under the Public Order Act 1986, applying them specifically in a context where dignity, privacy and religious freedom deserve particular safeguarding. Ultimately, this new clause is a proportionate and necessary step to preserve the peaceful co-existence of rights: the right to worship freely and the right to protest responsibly. It affirms that places of worship must remain accessible and free from intimidation for all communities.

I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. How will she ensure that new clause 88 strikes the right balance between protecting freedom of religion and upholding the right to protest under articles 9, 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights? What guidance will be provided to the police to assess whether a protest

“may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness”?

How will subjectivity be mitigated to avoid arbitrary enforcement? Has the Home Office identified particular recent incidents that demonstrate a pressing need for the power? How frequently does the Minister expect it to be used?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Burton-Sampson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. Like my right hon. Friend the Minister, I will always defend the right to protest, but it must be appropriate. Having one’s voice heard must not come at the expense of intimidating those who are peacefully worshipping.

As the hon. Member for Stockton West mentioned, only recently in Southend my constituents were affected by a march that was purposely routed past a place of worship at the time when people were due to be leaving that place of worship. We have heard similar evidence of that happening across the country. Let us be clear: it is not acceptable that people should be intimidated while they go to or from, or are in, their place of worship, whatever their religion. I welcome the new clauses.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for the short speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh just made. He has spoken to me about the events in Westcliff-on-Sea and their impact on that community. I was also grateful to the shadow Minister for referencing that incident, because it sets out clearly why the provision in new clause 88 is necessary. I welcome that.

The shadow Minister asked whether we will stop legitimate protests, and somehow put the right to religious worship above the right to protest. I want to make it clear that the new clause does not place the freedom of religion above the right to protest. I think we all agree that the right to protest is an important part of our democracy. The new clause seeks to balance those rights by ensuring that protesters do not unduly intimidate or prevent individuals from accessing places of worship.

Although the right to protest remains key and fundamental, the provisions in the new clause clarify police powers to manage those protests near places of worship, ensuring that the freedom of religion is protected without imposing a blanket restriction on demonstrations. The intent is not to curtail protest rights, but to prevent situations where protests create a hostile environment that discourages religious observance. It is important to note that it applies equally to all faiths and all places of worship, not just, as we started off talking about, a specific religious group.

The shadow Minister raised the resource implications for BTP and MDP. The request to bring forward the provisions was because of the operational needs of those police forces. I am expect that they will be able to deal with any costs arising from new clause 90 from their existing budget. The shadow Minister also mentioned training and making sure that police officers understood the introduction of these provisions. I am sure he agrees that there is extensive training of police officers. With public order in particular, we know that there is a very well-worn path of how officers are trained at the right level, depending on the situation.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting Metropolitan police officers, who do a lot of public order work, down at Gravesend to see that training first hand, and I saw the amount of resource that goes in to ensuring that those officers are equipped and know their rights and how most effectively to use them. The new provisions will be part of the continuation of that training for police officers, alongside the work of the College of Policing. On that basis, I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 88 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 89

Powers of senior officers to impose conditions on protests

“(1) The Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 12 (imposing conditions on public processions)—

(a) in subsection (1), for ‘the’, in the first place it occurs, substitute ‘a’;

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) in the words before paragraph (a) omit ‘the’;

(ii) in paragraph (a) for the words from ‘, the most’ to the end substitute ‘—

(i) the most senior in rank of the police officers present at the scene, or

(ii) in the case of a procession in England and Wales, a police officer authorised by a chief officer of police for the purposes of this subsection, and’.

(3) In section 14 (imposing conditions on public assemblies)—

(a) in subsection (1), for ‘the’, in the first place it occurs, substitute ‘a’;

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) in the words before paragraph (a) omit ‘the’;

(ii) in paragraph (a) for the words from ‘, the most” to the end substitute ‘—

(i) the most senior in rank of the police officers present at the scene, or

(ii) in the case of an assembly in England and Wales, a police officer authorised by a chief officer of police for the purposes of this subsection, and’;

(c) in subsection (2ZB), for ‘reference in subsection (2)(b) to a chief officer of police includes’, substitute ‘references in subsection (2) to a chief officer of police include’.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause allows the powers in sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 to impose conditions on public processions and public assemblies to be exercised by a police officer authorised to do so by a chief officer of police.

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

New Clause 90

Amendments relating to British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police

“(1) The Public Order Act 1986 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).

(2) In section 14A(9) (prohibiting trespassory assemblies), in the definition of ‘land’, after ‘“land”’ insert ‘, except in subsections (4A) to (4C) of this section,’.

(3) In section 16 (interpretation), in the definition of ‘public assembly’, for the words from ‘wholly’ to the end substitute ‘—

(a) wholly or partly open to the air, or

(b) within any of paragraphs (a) to (f) of section 31(1) of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003;’.

(4) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended in accordance with subsections (5) and (6).

(5) In section 60 (powers to stop and search in anticipation of or after violence), after subsection (9A) insert—

‘(9B) So far as they relate to an authorisation by a member of the Ministry of Defence Police—

(a) subsections (1) and (9) have effect as if the references to a locality in a police area were references to a place in England and Wales among those specified in section 2(2) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987, and

(b) subsection (1)(aa)(i) has effect as if the reference to a police area were a reference to the places in England and Wales specified in section 2(2) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987.’

(6) In section 60AA (powers to require removal of disguises)—

(a) for subsection (8) substitute—

‘(8) So far as subsections (1), (3) and (6) relate to an authorisation by a member of the British Transport Police Force, those subsections have effect as if the references to a locality or a locality in a a police area were references to a place in England and Wales among those specified in section 31(1)(a) to (f) of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.

(8A) So far as subsections (1), (3) and (6) relate to an authorisation by a member of the Ministry of Defence Police, those subsections have effect as if the references to a locality or a locality in a police area were references to a place in England and Wales among those specified in section 2(2) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987.’;

(b) in subsection (9) omit ‘and “policed premises” each’.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This new clause extends certain powers under Part 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 to land which is not open to the air; allows Ministry of Defence Police to issue authorisations under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; and allows British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police to issue authorisations under section 60AA of that Act.

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

New Clause 91

Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences

“(1) This section applies where in criminal proceedings in a court in England and Wales, or in proceedings (anywhere) before a service court, a person (‘D’) is charged with a qualifying offence.

(2) An offence is a ‘qualifying offence’ if—

(a) it is alleged to have been committed by D acting in the exercise of functions as an authorised firearms officer,

(b) the conduct alleged to constitute the offence involved the use by D of a lethal barrelled weapon to discharge a conventional round, and

(c) D was, at the time of the alleged offence, authorised by the relevant authority to use that weapon with that round.

(3) The court must—

(a) cause the following information to be withheld from the public in proceedings before the court, in each case unless satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so—

(i) D’s name;

(ii) D’s address;

(iii) D’s date of birth;

(b) give a reporting direction (see section (Authorised firearms officers: reporting directions)) in respect of D (if one does not already have effect), unless satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.

(4) The court may, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so, make an anonymity order (see section (Authorised firearms officers: anonymity orders)) in respect of D.

(5) If D is convicted of the offence—

(a) subsections (3) and (4) cease to apply in respect of D, and

(b) any restriction put in place under subsection (3)(a) and any reporting direction given, or anonymity order made, under this section in respect of D cease to have effect at the time D is sentenced for the offence.

(6) In subsection (1), ‘authorised firearms officer’ means—

(a) a member of a relevant police force who is authorised by the relevant chief officer to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round in the exercise of functions as a constable,

(b) a National Crime Agency officer who is authorised by the Director General of the National Crime Agency to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round in the exercise of functions as a National Crime Agency officer,

(c) a member of the Police Service of Scotland or the Police Service of Northern Ireland who—

(i) is provided under section 98 of the Police Act 1996 for the assistance of a police force in England and Wales, and

(ii) is authorised by the relevant authority to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round in the exercise of functions as a constable, or

(d) a member of the armed forces who—

(i) is deployed in support of a relevant police force or the National Crime Agency, and

(ii) is authorised by the Secretary of State to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round for the purposes of that deployment.

(7) In this section—

‘conventional round’ means any shot, bullet or other missile other than one designed to be used without its use giving rise to a substantial risk of causing death or serious injury;

‘lethal barrelled weapon’ has the meaning given by section 57(1B) of the Firearms Act 1968;

‘member of the armed forces’ means a person who is subject to service law (see section 367 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);

‘relevant authority’ means—

(a) in relation to a member of a relevant police force, the relevant chief officer;

(b) in relation to a National Crime Agency officer, the Director General of the National Crime Agency;

(c) in relation to a member of the Police Service of Scotland, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland;

(d) in relation to a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;

(e) in relation to a member of the armed forces, the Secretary of State;

‘relevant chief officer’ means—

(a) in relation to a police force in England and Wales, the chief officer of police of that police force;

(b) in relation to the British Transport Police Force, the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force;

(c) in relation to the Ministry of Defence Police, the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;

(d) in relation to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Chief Constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;

‘relevant police force’ means—

(a) a police force in England and Wales,

(b) the British Transport Police Force,

(c) the Ministry of Defence Police, or

(d) the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;

‘service court’ means—

(a) the Court Martial, or

(b) the Court Martial Appeal Court.

(8) This section does not apply in relation to proceedings begun before the coming into force of this section.”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This new clause provides for a presumption of anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with (but not convicted of) an offence relating to the discharge of their firearm in the course of their duties

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

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

Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luke Taylor]

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

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Domestic abuse aggravated offences

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

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

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

(2) In this section—

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anna Sabine]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

[Luke Taylor]

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anna Sabine]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

Furthermore, the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, significantly strengthens the power of the regulators and delivers on the Government’s commitment to put failing water companies in special measures. The Act introduced automatic penalties on polluters, and will ban bonuses for water company executives if they fail to meet adequate standards. Before introducing secondary legislation to implement automatic penalties, the Government will consult on the specific offences that will be in scope, and on the value of the penalties.

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

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

[Anna Sabine]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

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

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

[Luke Taylor]

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

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 22

Duty to follow strategic priorities of police and crime plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

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

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

Licences and Licensing

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Victory in Europe Day Licensing Hours) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 23 April, be approved.

Next week marks the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, which was of course a hugely significant and consequential moment in our country’s history. After more than five long years, during the first of which we stood alone, on 8 May 1945 Prime Minister Churchill proclaimed to cheering crowds in Whitehall, just a few hundred yards from this Chamber:

“This is your victory. It is the victory of the cause of freedom in every land.”

As the 75th anniversary commemorations involving public gatherings were, sadly, cancelled in 2020 due to the covid outbreak, the upcoming milestone is a precious chance to pay tribute to that greatest generation and hear the stories of those who lived through the war. At this point, I want to refer to my father, Eric Johnson, who served in the Royal Navy in the second world war, and my mother, Ruth Johnson, who worked in munitions factories.

Many people will want to come together with friends and family to mark the occasion, and to raise a glass to those who fought for our freedoms—the soldiers, sailors and airmen from the United Kingdom and across the Commonwealth, as well as our allies in Europe, and also those who contributed to the war effort at home, including civilians working in the emergency services, transport, the home guard, the wardens and those working in factories and on the land. Twenty three Members of this House and 20 Members of the other place gave their lives in world war two, and I know that Mr Speaker is working to mark that. We should celebrate the role of this place and our wartime coalition in saving democracy beyond our shores from what Winston Churchill called

“the abyss of a new dark age”.—[Official Report, 18 June 1940; Vol. 362, c. 60.]

Commemorative events will be held in many locations during the anniversary week, including: a military procession from Whitehall to Buckingham Palace; street parties across the country on the bank holiday; evensong at Manchester cathedral, followed by a celebratory ringing of bells; a celebratory picnic at Cardiff castle; a living history event at Sterling castle in Scotland; a series of commemoration events at Belfast city hall; and a service at Westminster Abbey, which will serve as both an act of shared remembrance and a celebration of the end of the war.

VE Day falls within the annual Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s War Graves Week, and the commission is marking the 80th anniversary of VE Day with the “For Evermore” tour, a mobile exhibition travelling the UK sharing stories of those who died in world war two. The commission is also holding a special VE Day concert on 2 May at the historic Coventry cathedral, which was rebuilt after being destroyed by bombing in 1940. A concert will also take place at Horse Guards Parade to mark the end of commemorations on 8 May.

As a Member of Parliament who represents Kingston upon Hull, a city that was routinely referred to anonymously in the second world war as a “north-east coastal town” despite bombing comparable to the east end of London, Hull’s celebrations for VE Day will be accompanied by a desire to see greater national recognition of the effects of the blitz on my city than we have had over the course of the past 80 years. Hull will have a memorial service at Hull cenotaph; the Hull History Centre will show free screenings of archive footage from VE Day in 1945 of the celebrations that took place in Hull; and in Cottingham there will be a 1940s music singalong at Cottingham civic hall.

It promises to be a special atmosphere in many communities and the order will allow people to celebrate for longer, should they so wish. Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make a licensing hours order to allow licensed premises to open for specified, extended hours on occasions of exceptional international, national or local significance. By way of background, past occasions where the then Home Secretary has exercised this power to extend licensing hours have included: the King’s coronation; Her late Majesty the Queen’s platinum and diamond jubilee celebrations; the royal weddings in 2011 and 2018; and, most recently, the semi-final and final of the men’s UEFA European championship last year. The Government consider the 80th anniversary of VE Day to be an occasion of national significance and, as such, worthy of the proposed extension before the House today.

Turning to the practical details, the order makes provision to relax licensing arrangements in England and Wales, and allow licensed premises to extend their opening hours on Thursday the 8 May for a further two hours, from 11pm until 1am the following morning. A truncated consultation was conducted with key stakeholders who were supportive of the extension, and we take the view that the order will not bring about any significant crime and disorder due to the nature of the events. However, we recognise that there may be implications for police resourcing, and we will continue to work with stakeholders to mitigate any concerns around the impact.

As well as enabling celebrations, the extension has the added potential benefit of providing a welcome boost to the hospitality sector. I hope that Members across the House will agree that this order represents an appropriate use of the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by the Licensing Act 2003.

To conclude, this extension reflects our commitment to remembering what was a truly momentous event—our finest hour—and to celebrating those who defended our country, liberated Europe and secured peace. With that, I commend this order to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Crime and Policing Bill (Ways and Means)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her support, but on the financial settlement to police forces this year, it is worth saying that there is up to £19.6 billion going into policing. She will be well aware of the additional funding going in to support neighbourhood policing, which we want to restore after the decimation that happened under the previous Conservative Government.

The shadow Minister can make her points, but it is this Government who are committed to funding policing and supporting police officers. We are getting more police officers on our high streets, and in our communities and local areas. I know that she has only recently joined the House, but 14 years of history explain why we have found ourselves in the position where police forces are in challenging circumstances with their finances. This Government are committed to supporting policing, and the financial settlement this year does exactly that.

Question put and agreed to.

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.