Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent, please. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.

Today, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally, without debate.

I first call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in her name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee.

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

Good morning, Dr Allin-Khan. I am minded that we have a busy day ahead of us, so I will move the preliminary motions formally.

Ordered,

That—

1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 27 March) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 March;

(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 1 April;

(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 3 April;

(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 8 April;

(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 24 April;

(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 29 April;

(g) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 1 May;

(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 8 May;

(i) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 13 May;

2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence on Thursday 27 March in accordance with the following Table:

[The Chair]

Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.

Resolved,

That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Q Do you have any other comments on entry without a warrant being narrower in this Bill?

Dan Murphy: I think there is a role for the Government and Parliament to communicate that it is a power that has been given to policing. It is not something that policing is searching for and trying to use. The public need to understand that it has been given to us for a reason, and we are using it.

Tiff Lynch: I would go one step further in relation to the public having knowledge of the powers. That also gives our police officers confidence that the Government are behind them when they are enforcing these laws, and the knowledge that they are supported in what they are doing.

Chief Constable De Meyer: We know that the ability to track mobile devices is not sufficiently accurate at the moment for it to be relied upon without some form of corroboration. Therefore, one understands why things are more tightly framed. Where there is good intelligence for its use, this ability to enter swiftly to search for stolen goods without the need to get a warrant will mean that we are able to recover stolen property more swiftly, and that investigations are less likely to be frustrated. To ensure legitimacy in the eyes of the public, that obviously needs to be carried out carefully, but overall it will make it less likely that property, whether electronic property or property linked to rural crime, can be swiftly disposed of. Our current inability to deal expeditiously with those sorts of crimes can adversely impact public confidence. Overall, it is a very positive operational thing.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Thank you very much for giving evidence today. I want to follow up on the questions about allowing police to go in without a warrant to recover digital devices with tracking devices. The Bill refers to “reasonable grounds to believe”, which is the test that would have to be applied, and requires authorisation by an inspector. Does each of you believe that that is the appropriate test and authorisation level?

Chief Constable De Meyer: The requirement of belief is obviously a relatively high bar; for example, it is above suspicion. I think that that reflects the need to ensure that a new power such as this is applied carefully and with appropriate corroboration. Crucially, an inspector is going to be readily operationally available for an officer in this sort of dynamic circumstance, so the officer will be able to make contact with and get the authorisation from them. It seems to me that the thrust of the power is very much towards enabling the police to recover property quickly, so belief is a good safeguard and the inspector is appropriately senior and accessible. I would agree on those two points.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Does any other panel member want to comment?

Dan Murphy: I think we need to make sure that we have the right training and guidance. Because of the power that we have, we should expect challenge. There will be challenge. My “reasonable grounds to believe” may be different from those of somebody else around the table. To form that belief, we would have gone through a process of using proportionate, necessary and justified means, and looking at the intelligence and evidence in front of us, but that is different for everyone. There is not a black and white answer to how that will be decided.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

But do you think that inspector-level authorisation is the appropriate level?

Dan Murphy: Yes.

Tiff Lynch: Good morning, Minister. I agree with both Chief Constable De Meyer and Dan Murphy in relation to the authorisation level. Again, I would say that we have to manage the expectations of victims of crime as to how speedy the recovery of technical equipment will be, given that we have identified locations and given that demand is already being placed on officers who are out there. It is also about managing expectations.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Thank you. I want to talk about respect orders. The Bill will introduce respect orders for the most persistent adult offenders of antisocial behaviour. Can each of you say something about how these new measures will enable the police to tackle antisocial behaviour more effectively?

Chief Constable De Meyer: We think that the new powers—placing, as they will, requirements on those who have committed ASB, including positive requirements to carry out certain actions—will give us rather more flexibility in dealing with this type of behaviour. They are also preventive and, in some cases, restorative. We think the deterrent value will be greater, and making the breach of the order a criminal offence will allow us to quickly arrest where there has not been compliance. Overall, the NPCC thinks that this will enable earlier intervention. We know that antisocial behaviour has a very serious effect on community confidence and on people’s ability to engage in educational, social and economic life, so anything that enables us to deal more swiftly with problems when they are in their infancy is to be welcomed.

Tiff Lynch: Without repeating, we agree. Perpetrators can be required to address the root cause of the problems, once they have been dealt with. Again, I come back to resource and demand. Certainly on the arrest element, perpetrators going into custody places a huge demand on the custody department and police officers. We need the infrastructure that is placed behind it. We are already seeing, certainly on custodial sentences, a backlog of cases in the criminal justice system, and then prison spaces overcrowding. We need to have the infrastructure behind this to make it effective and believable.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q The commitment to introducing 13,000 neighbourhood police officers to tackle some of this antisocial behaviour in communities, high streets and town centres links together quite well with that. Would you agree?

Tiff Lynch: Yes, it does, but I come back to the time required for the follow-on processes. Once you have dealt with a perpetrator, there are hours spent with paperwork and systems following that. That could wipe out our neighbourhood officers in one shift. Sadly, until we get that infrastructure and the systems that back up any law—certainly with these new laws—demand and all the other priorities could wipe out those additional officers in one shift.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Mr Murphy, would you like to say something from the Police Superintendents Association?

Dan Murphy: It has come under the banner of antisocial behaviour, which it is. A lot of antisocial behaviour issues that police deal with are for those who are under the age of 18. This applies to those 18 and over. The power is good, but if the public think we will be able to use this for teenagers, there will be a mismatch. I think the power of arrest is good, but I note that there is a requirement to give a warning if there is a positive requirement in the respect order. The public might think that since the respect order has been issued, we can just go out and arrest the person, but we cannot. There are a few caveats, which are obviously to make the law fair and ensure people subject to it understand what is happening. I think the power of arrest will be extremely useful, but as Tiff said, someone has to make that arrest and then someone has to put a case file together to prove the breach, so there is work to be done and resource to be put into this. It does need to be resourced if it is going to be successful, but the main point is that it is for over-18s.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Can I ask about the new offences for assaults on a retail worker and the £200 threshold being removed? How will both of those assist policing in dealing with the spike in shop thefts we have seen over the last few years?

Chief Constable De Meyer: When I appear at community events, I often find that the £200 point is a source of great confusion and misunderstanding. To resolve that ambiguity is extremely welcome, as it has wrongly been supposed that shoplifting under that threshold is legal, which plainly is not the case. To resolve that ambiguity is a good thing.

The specific offence of assaulting a retail worker acknowledges the vital role that retail workers play in community and local economic life, and the disproport- ionate likelihood of their being assaulted in the course of their work. By creating this offence, it enables us to identify much more precisely the extent of the problem and to deal with the crime in circumstances that the law much more closely reflects. It is certainly welcome from our perspective.

Tiff Lynch: I would like to focus on the assaults on retail workers offence. We support this. Nobody should go to their place of work with the expectation that they will be assaulted—absolutely nobody. Again, it comes down to resourcing, but it is worth mentioning that the same principle was applied for the assaults on emergency workers offence only a few years ago, which was championed by the Police Federation of England and Wales. Unfortunately, due to the backlog within the criminal justice system, we have now seen that that legislation is not being used effectively. Actually, with the assaults on emergency workers legislation, they are now reverting to the assaults on police constables legislation. If we bring in this law, we need to see strong execution of it and support for retail workers in the same way as for emergency service workers.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Mr Murphy, do you have a view on this?

Dan Murphy: No, nothing further.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q May I ask Tiff Lynch about the proposed changes to the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s referral threshold? The view is that it will probably result in fewer referrals to the Crown Prosecution Service around misconduct. Why will that be beneficial?

Tiff Lynch: It is simply about time and the length of investigations. For far too long, the length of the investigations has been an issue for police conduct. We expect that officers who do not uphold the warrant they carry should be exited from the organisation swiftly. Those referrals will cut down the time it takes to deal with those investigations dealt with. Essentially, that will prevent any disillusionment from the public, the complainant or the victim, but also the officer concerned.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

So your view is that it will speed up proceedings.

Tiff Lynch: One would hope so.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

But you support the change in threshold.

Tiff Lynch: Yes.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Would either of the other members of the panel like to say anything on that?

Dan Murphy: I agree with all that. The Police Superintendents Association supports that change.

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

Q Thank you for joining us today to assist us with scrutiny of the Bill. I want to look at the clauses about concealing identity. Clauses 86 to 88 make it an offence for someone to conceal their identity at certain protests. The challenge on that is that Hongkongers in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam, who are attending protests in central London against Chinese transnational repression, are concerned that their identities will be monitored by the Chinese Communist party and then used to conduct repression on family and friends in Hong Kong and China.

Obviously, protesting—being able to exercise our rights in a democracy to demonstrate our displeasure with something—is incredibly important. What is your understanding of the definition of a protest? In what situations would these measures be imposed on a protest? How would somebody at one of those protests—the Chinese protests are a good example—be treated by officers if a designation was put in place and they were concealing their identities?

Chief Constable De Meyer: It is extremely challenging to give a definitive answer, as the question implies.

On the point about the definition of protest, first, there is of course no single definition of protest. A broad range of activities could qualify as a protest—one person, a gathering, a vigil, a march, the playing of music, chanting or other sorts of activities. It is a very challenging area of law and operational policing.

On the point about concealing identity and the potential threat to safety in respect of transnational repression, I am afraid that, again, my response is going to be not quite as definitive as might be hoped for. We would have to apply the same judgment as we do in other areas of public order operational life, such as in relation to searching. That means if an offence is suspected, it is for the officer to engage with the individuals in question and to carry out a dynamic investigation of what is going on, seeking expert tactical advice where appropriate, or senior authority as well.

It is important to point out that the provision does not say that the power has to be used; it is what may be done, not what must be done. It does very much come down to circumstances and the engagement and judgment of the officer. The advice will be vital. One would expect sensitivities such as this to be addressed through the training of the various public order operatives—the gold commanders, the silver commanders, the bronze commanders and the public order officers themselves. Inevitably, there will be some learning through case law as well.

Tiff Lynch: I agree with the chief constable. I come back to what I said earlier about training and learning the law. Our police officers who are out there during protests work within the confines of the law. They utilise the national decision-making model. It is all about what they see in front of them on the day. We pride ourselves on people being able to protest lawfully, within the confines of the law. How the officers act on the day, depending on what they are presented with, will be determined on the day.

Dan Murphy: It is a long time since I ran a public order operation. To me, as a police officer and a commander—we have talked about neighbourhood policing—it is about talking to people. If you are presented with what you as a commander think is a protest that you can justify, if you have a protest that is not going to cause any particular problems, why would you go down this route, even as a preventive thing? If you have people present who are covering their faces and you think it might raise an issue, you could just send an officer to go and speak to them and say, “Would you mind identifying yourself, so that we know who you are?” You deal with it by talking to people.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from the right hon. Sir Robert Buckland KBE KC and Oliver Sells KC. Again, we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this evidence session, we will have until 12.45 pm. Those who want to ask questions should catch my eye. I will try to prioritise those I was not able to get in last time. Could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Sir Robert Buckland: I am Sir Robert Buckland, former Member of this place, and former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Solicitor General, Secretary of State for Wales and Minister of State for prisons.

Oliver Sells: I am Oliver Sells. I practised in the world of criminal justice for many years, and I have sat at the Old Bailey for many years.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q It is very nice to see you again, Sir Robert. I will start by asking what you welcome in the Bill.

Sir Robert Buckland: There is a lot to welcome in every crime Bill, particularly given the need to update the response of police and law enforcement to the growing risks posed by technology. We are now living in an age with the extrinsic challenge of technologies, right through from digital to artificial intelligence and machine learning. It is absolutely reasonable for the public to expect that the police and our other law enforcement agencies are up to speed, most notably on the seizure of mobile telephone devices and the analysis of evidence.

There is a growing crisis—we see it in our court backlogs —which is, sadly, largely caused by the failure of the system to deal at speed with the vast amount of data that needs to be analysed in order to build up a case or properly challenge it in accordance with tried and tested rules. I should have added that I am back at the Bar and that I was a part-time judge, and I obviously make any appropriate declarations.

There is a lot to welcome in the Bill. I am pleased to see the child criminal exploitation offence, although I might want to say more about that if we can have that conversation. As with all Bills with a wide scope of this nature, one is always left thinking what else we can do. I am sure that lots of challenges will be posed as the Bill goes through both Houses, and hopefully you will adopt some of the suggestions made by the many people who take a great interest in this legislation.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Thank you. Can I pick you up on the child criminal exploitation offence set out in the Bill? You said that you might have liked to see more. Could you expand on that?

Sir Robert Buckland: I noted the way in which it is defined. I entirely understand that there needs to be clarity about the criminal activities of children but, on the position of children who are exploited—you will be familiar with this from our work when I was here—I do not think it will always be exploitation that results in their commission of a criminal offence. The forced labour, sexual exploitation and financial abuse of children will often not involve them committing a criminal offence at all.

I am not being glib here. I see this particular offence being characterised as a Fagin-type offence, rather than something wider that could actually serve to protect children, and allow the police and enforcing authorities to take that early action where they see children at risk. That is why I think some of the ideas from Every Child Protected Against Trafficking and others about expanding the definition, so that you are clearly defining what exploitation is, rather than just leaving it to the courts to decide, would be a real opportunity seized. I think you might miss it if you restrict clause 17 in those terms.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Thank you; that is helpful. Could I ask you about the cuckooing offence as well? What is your view on that?

Sir Robert Buckland: I am very supportive of that proposal. I signed an amendment with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I had a lot of evidence of cuckooing issues in my constituency, including the exploitation of vulnerable people—often adults with a learning disability —and vulnerable people being befriended by unscrupulous criminals and having their premises used and abused for the supply of drugs and other criminal activities. I strongly support the measures on cuckooing.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Mr Sells, could I ask you what you think about the measure in the Bill on SIM farms?

Oliver Sells: I think it is a very important measure. The range of novel criminal offences is exponential, in my experience. We are seeing a complete change in the criminal code and conduct in relation to SIMs and the use of people in those contexts.

I particularly want to refer to the backlog in the criminal courts. I feel very strongly for victims of serious crime. Most of the crimes that I try are serious sexual offences, where young female or male complainants are waiting to give evidence in their cases for two or three years, routinely. That is a completely unacceptable situation, and Parliament and this Committee should be focusing all their laser energy on reducing the backlog in the Crown court, because that is where this is.

They should be looking at productivity, because it is too low, if I am honest. I also think you should be looking at the number of courts sitting. I looked today; you can go online and look at the central criminal court and the percentage of the courts there that are sitting on a routine basis. In my judgment, now, it is too low, whatever the complex reasons may be.

One of the clauses I wanted particularly to speak about today was clause 16, on theft from shops. I recognise that there is a great public anxiety about this particular issue. Shoplifting has become endemic and almost non-criminal at the same time. It is a curious dichotomy, it seems to me, but I do not think for a moment—I am sorry to be critical—that making theft from a shop, irrespective of value, triable either way is the right answer. What that will do, inevitably, is push some of these cases up into the Crown court from the magistrates court.

I understand the reasons behind it and the concerns of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the like. However, I think it is the wrong way. One of the things we must do now in this country is reinforce the use and the range of magistrates courts, and bring them back to deal with serious low-level crimes that are very frequent in their areas. They know how to deal with them. They need the powers to deal with them. I still do not think their range of powers is strong enough. You need to take cases such as these out of the Crown court, in my judgment. I think it is a serious mistake. I can see why people want to do it, because they want to signify that an offence is a very important in relation to shop workers. I recognise that; I have tried many cases of assaults on shop workers and the like, which come up to the Crown court on appeal, and we all know the difficulties they cause, but you will not solve the problem.

I also think you need to look more widely. This Bill does begin to look at where the line is to be drawn between the magistrates courts and the Crown court and at what offences should be triable in the magistrates court. I am going to range a little wider into the third tier, which has been suggested as a proposal. I am not convinced there is a need for a third tier myself. I think you need to enhance the first tier, magistrates courts, which is, in effect, small local juries. The composition of magistrates courts has changed completely in the last five or 10 years. You are now getting people who are local, experienced, young—a range of people. They are perfectly able to try these cases, in my judgment. You should take it out of the Crown court and leave the Crown court for really serious offences. That is my view.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Thank you. You have given us lots of food for thought.

[Matt Vickers]

Q Is there anything in the Bill that gives you cause for concern? We would obviously be interested in Robert’s views on that £200 threshold as well. Are there any measures that you would like to have seen in the Bill that you have not seen in it?

Sir Robert Buckland: There are a couple of things, Mr Vickers. First of all, just to build on Mr Sells’s point on clause 16, I understand the huge concern about shoplifting and the perception among many shop proprietors in our towns and cities that, in some ways, it was almost becoming decriminalised and that action has to be taken. But the danger in changing primary legislation in this way is that we send mixed messages, and that the Government are sending mixed messages about what its policy intentions are.

Sir Brian Leveson is conducting an independent review into criminal procedure. We do not know yet what the first part of that review will produce, but I would be very surprised if there was not at least some nod to the need to keep cases out of the Crown court, bearing in mind the very dramatic and increasing backlog that we have. I think that anything that ran contrary to that view risks the Government looking as if it is really a house divided against itself.

It seems to me that there was a simpler way of doing this. When the law was changed back in 2014, there was an accompanying policy guideline document that allowed for the police to conduct their own prosecutions for shoplifting items with a value of under £200, if the offender had not done it before, if there were not other offences linked with it, if there was not a combined amount that took it over £200 and if there was a guilty plea.

What seems to have happened in the ensuing years is that that has built and developed, frankly, into a culture that has moved away from the use of prosecuting as a tool in its entirety. I think that that is wrong, but I do think that it is within the gift of Ministers in the Home Office and of officials in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to say, “That guidance is superseded. We hope, want and expect all offences to be prosecuted.” That would then allow offences of under £200 to be prosecuted in the magistrates court. There is nothing in the current legislation that prevents any of that, by the way, and I think it would send a very clear message to the police that they are expected to do far more when it comes to the protection of retail premises.

On clause 14, which covers assault on retail workers, I was a little surprised to see that there had been a departure from what was a rather interesting amendment tabled in the previous Session to the 2023-24 Criminal Justice Bill by, I think, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris); in fact, I think it was supported by you and others. It sought to amend the law to increase protections for shop workers, but with an important expansion: the offence would be not just an assault, but a threatening or abuse offence as well, which would encompass some of the public order concerns that many of us have about shop premises, corner shops and sole proprietor retail outlets. Yet, we have gone back here to a straight assault clause, which in my mind does not seem to add anything to the criminal code at all.

We have existing laws of assault, which was often the argument of Ministers, including me, when we debated these issues in the past. Again, it seems to me that the opportunity to widen the offence to cover different types of abuse against important retail workers is being missed at the moment. If I was advising the Government, which of course I am not, I would ask them to look again at the clause and to consider expanding it to make it much more meaningful for the people I think all of us want to protect.

Zombie-style Knives: Surrender and Compensation Scheme

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Written Statements

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

The Government have implemented the ban on zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes approved by Parliament last year. The ban came into force on 24 September 2024. It follows the holding of a surrender and compensation scheme that ran from 25 August and concluded on 23 September 2024. An analysis of the scheme is set out below.

Ninja Swords Ban: Statutory Instrument

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Written Statements

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

The Government are today laying before Parliament a statutory instrument to ban ninja swords. Under the Criminal Justice Act (Offensive Weapons Order) 1988, ninja swords will be added to the list of prohibited weapons, making it an offence to manufacture, import, sell or possess one.

The Government are delivering their manifesto commitment and making our streets safer by restricting access to ninja swords and preventing their use as weapons of crime. This will be known as part of Ronan’s law and is an important step forward in our mission to halve knife crime within a decade.

We sought views on the proposals across a four-week period through a public consultation, and the responses are in support of the ban. A copy of the Government’s response to the public consultation can be found on gov.uk.

The surrender scheme for ninja swords will precede the ban, enabling those in possession of a ninja swords to safely surrender it. Those who own a ninja sword on or prior to today, the cut-off date of 27 March—the day on which this statutory instrument is being laid in Parliament —will be eligible for compensation. Those who come into possession of a ninja sword after today will not be able to claim compensation. It will also be possible to surrender a ninja sword without seeking compensation or without attending a police station.

[HCWS554]

Consultation on Prohibiting Ninja Swords

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Written Statements

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

The Government are today publishing their response to the public consultation, “Prohibiting ninja swords: legal description and defences”. The consultation ran between 13 November and 11 December 2024. This was open to the public, businesses, the voluntary sector and community groups, and other organisations with a direct interest in the proposals.

The consultation received a total of 312 completed responses, and we are grateful to all those who took the time to respond. The Government response sets out our consideration of these responses.

The Government will introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, adding ninja swords to the prohibited list. This will mean that it will become an offence to manufacture, import, sell and generally supply or possess a ninja sword, unless a defence applies. Preceding a ban will be the surrender scheme, allowing individuals to claim compensation for ninja swords that they surrender.

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

[HCWS556]

Knife Crime: Children and Young People

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Let me start by thanking the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this debate on an issue that matters enormously to us all. As ever, his opening speech was, as is his way, eloquent, thought-provoking and challenging. It ranged widely, including on the role of social media—he referred specifically to drill rappers’ music influencing children and young people. I refer him to the important work of Project Alpha based in the Met, and the role that the Online Safety Act 2023 will have as its provisions come into force, along with Ofcom.

There have been many insightful and heartfelt speeches, and I am grateful to every Member who has spoken. In particular, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), who spoke on behalf of the victims’ families. I am sure the whole House would like to thank the parents of child A in the horrific Southport attack for what they had to say.

My hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) all spoke with such knowledge, and they have done a huge amount in their local areas to tackle knife crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) spoke in a very personal way about the attack on her nephew, and how it had affected him and her family. Again, I hope the whole House will wish her nephew well in recovering from that attack.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) gave us the Scottish perspective. It is always useful to hear what is happening in other parts of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) spoke very personally about being the victim of knife crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) has spoken to me at length about harm reduction and rounded kitchen knives, and I reassure him that nothing is off the table when it comes to tacking the scourge of knife crime and saving young lives. The Home Office is considering a proposal on rounded kitchen knives.

Before I deal with many of the issues raised this afternoon, I want to comment on the prevailing message of the debate. No matter what side of the House we sit on, whatever party we belong to and whatever constituency we represent, we can all agree that knife crime causes enormous harm in our communities. It is destructive and all too often deadly. Too often, those affected are teenagers and young people with the rest of their lives ahead of them. We all know that when someone carries a knife or a dangerous weapon, the potential for bloodshed is always only ever seconds away and each fatal stabbing triggers a trail of devastation. First and foremost, there is the victim deprived of his or her future. Then there is the victim’s family, left to come to terms with the most unimaginable loss. There is also an impact on the wider community when these incidents occur. While we discuss policies, legislation and initiatives, we must always keep the individuals and the families affected at the forefront of our minds. On that note, I take the opportunity to say that my thoughts and prayers are with all those who have suffered as a result of knife crime. I also thank all our police and emergency service workers who have to deal with knife crime in our communities.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising the great work done by PCSOs Nikki, Demi, Gavin and others in my constituency to prevent knife crime, and the Reel Rod Squad in Bedworth, which encourages young people to put down knives, take up fishing rods and enjoy the peace of the water instead?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling the House about the excellent work in her constituency, in particular the role of the PCSOs.

Time is short and a lot of questions were raised with me. If I do not have the chance to answer all of them, I will write to hon. Members specifically. The House will know that, under the safer streets mission led by the Home Secretary, we are driving a whole-of-Government approach to halving violence against women and girls, halving knife crime, and restoring confidence in the policing and justice system. As a part of that, the plan for change sets out our key reforms to strengthen neighbourhood policing, tackle antisocial behaviour and improve public confidence in law enforcement.

On offensive weapons, any effective response must include action to get dangerous knives and weapons out of circulation and off our streets. We have already demonstrated our commitment to putting in place stronger controls in the months since the general election. We implemented the ban on zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes on 24 September. It is now illegal to sell or own those weapons. Furthermore, we committed in our manifesto to banning ninja swords. We have consulted on the legal description and are progressing our plans to bring forward an effective ban later this year.

A number of hon. Members referred to online sales. We are clear that we need stronger checks in place to prevent under-18s from being able to purchase knives online, which is why, last October, the Home Secretary commissioned Commander Stephen Clayman, as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for knife crime, to carry out a comprehensive review into the online sale and delivery of knives, which was published on 19 February. We are taking immediate action on a number of key recommendations from the report.

We have also announced Ronan’s law, named after Ronan Kanda, who was fatally stabbed in June 2023, following dedicated campaigning by his mum, Pooja Kanda. Ronan’s law will comprise a range of measures including requiring online retailers to report any bulk or suspicious-looking purchase of knives to the police, and the introduction of a new offence of possessing an offensive weapon with intent for violence.

The Home Secretary has also announced that the Government intend to strengthen age verification controls and checks for all online sellers of knives at the point of purchase and on delivery. As raised by the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, we will be bringing forward amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill to enact our manifesto commitment to introduce personal liability measures for executives of online companies that fail to take action against illegal knife and offensive weapons content.

The coalition to tackle knife crime, announced by the Prime Minister in September 2024, brings together campaign groups, families of those who have tragically lost their lives to knife crime, young people who have been impacted and community leaders, united in their mission to save lives. It is important that we have the lived experience of young people in that coalition, and we are working with our member organisations to ensure they have a platform to hear those young voices share their views, ideas and solutions for making Britain a safer place for the next generation.

Many of my hon. Friends have referred to Young Futures hubs and prevention partnerships, including my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) and for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal). We know that too many children and young people today are facing poorer life outcomes, including becoming involved in knife crime, because they are not effectively identified and supported early on. This can be caused by limited life opportunities or because they are particularly vulnerable. To address these issues, we have committed to the creation of the Young Futures programme, which will establish a network of Young Futures hubs and prevention partnerships to intervene early on, to ensure that this cohort is identified and offered support in a more systematic way.

The Young Futures hubs will bring together the support services that tackle the underlying needs of vulnerable children and young people, making them more accessible to those who need them. The hubs will promote children and young people’s development, improve their mental health and wellbeing, and prevent them from being drawn into crime. The Young Futures prevention partnerships will identify children and young people who are vulnerable to being drawn into crime and violence, including knife crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls, and divert them by offering them effective and evidence-based support in a more systematic way.

I will refer briefly to county lines and child criminal exploitation, which was referred to by a number of hon. Members. County lines is the most violent model of drug supply and is a harmful form of child criminal exploitation. Through the county lines programme, we are and will continue to target exploitative drug dealing gangs and break the organised criminal groups behind the trade. We know that knives play a huge part in that. [Interruption.] I can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you want me to conclude.

There is so much more to say on this, but, in conclusion, I again want to congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon on securing this debate. We have to get a grip of what is, as we said in our manifesto, a national crisis. The public want change and we are determined to deliver it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Ben Obese-Jecty to wind up quickly.

Use of Stop and Search

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you this morning, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for securing this important debate, and for an eloquent speech setting out his concerns about the issues of knife crime and stop and search. I want to remember, as the hon. Gentleman did, the young people who he referred to—the victims of knife crime in the West Midlands. Jack Donoghue, Reuben Higgins, James Brindley and Leo Ross were all victims of knife crime, and all our thoughts and prayers will be with their friends and family.

I also acknowledge, just as the hon. Gentleman did, the work of the police. They work tirelessly, day in and day out, to keep us all safe. And I pay tribute to West Midlands police, Chief Constable Craig Guildford and the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster. I was also just reflecting on the fact that in the West Midlands, the figures for knife-enabled robbery are declining, so the data is going the right way in the West Midlands on that particular issue, which is worth flagging.

I am very grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to this wide- ranging and very thoughtful debate on this important topic. Of course it is always helpful to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the experience in Northern Ireland. He is absolutely right that, as the Policing Minister, I am very keen that we learn from the different nations and countries and regions about what is working. We all want to see a reduction in the crime that blights parts of our communities, so I welcome his insights from Northern Ireland.

As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) spoke thoughtfully and with great eloquence about the knotty problems around stop and search, its disproportionate use on certain communities and the lived experience of individuals. I will make some comments about that in a moment, but first I note the interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder). Again, it was very helpful to hear his perspective as a former police officer; his experience adds to the richness of the debate that we can have in this place.

As I said, I will talk about stop and search, but I will also make some comments about knife crime in a moment. Stop and search is a complex issue and, as we have heard, often a divisive issue as well. It is a vital tool for tackling crime, but it must be used fairly and effectively. Getting that balance right is key to this Government’s mission to make our streets safer and restore confidence in the police.

I will just refer to two points made by the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East. The first one was about officer confidence. It is absolutely essential that the police have the confidence of the communities they serve, but of course it is also essential that officers have the confidence they need to do the vital and often extremely difficult job of keeping us all safe. Every police officer should have the confidence to use stop-and-search powers where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that someone is carrying weapons, drugs or other illicit items.

Chief constables and other police leaders play a critical role in ensuring that officers have that confidence. We have been discussing how important it is that police officers understand PACE code A and use it properly. Of course the College of Policing also provides detailed and authorised professional practice on stop and search, to ensure that police officers have both knowledge and confidence.

In the majority of forces across England and Wales, the total number of searches conducted has risen for the last two years in a row; that is not the case in the Metropolitan police area, but in the majority of areas the number is going up. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), asked me about knife detection technology, as did the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East. I agree with the shadow Minister that technology has an important part to play; I know that the former Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), is very passionate about this issue and talks about it a lot.

As I said on Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill, the Home Office is working with industry partners to develop systems that are specifically designed to detect knives concealed on a person at a distance. Phase one of that work is expected to be delivered by the end of May, resulting in the first prototype systems, so I hope I will be able to talk more about that technology after May.

I will just say again why we think stop and search is so important. In the year to March 2024, stop and search led to over 16,000 offensive weapons being taken off our streets. There were more than 75,000 arrests following a stop and search for a range of offences, including weapons possession and intent to supply drugs. In short, stop and search helps police to save lives and tackle crime. When officers have reasonable grounds, they should, as I have said, feel confident using these powers.

Policing sector leaders, including Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary Sir Andy Cooke and the Independent Office for Police Conduct, are all clear that stop and search is an important part of the police toolkit. Public opinion agrees: recent research shows that a majority of people, across all ethnic groups, support the use of stop and search, and a majority of young people also agree that the police should have stop-and-search powers. However, policing sector leaders stress that, if done badly, stop and search undermines trust in the police and can damage their relationships with the communities they serve, which in turn can lead to less co-operation and compliance and ultimately make it harder for the police to keep people safe.

Turning to the issue of fairness, stop-and-search powers have long been seen to affect some communities disproportionately, with stark ethnic disparities in their use, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill mentioned. This Government cautiously welcome the fact that disparities in the use of stop and search have fallen in recent years. Five years ago, black people were over nine times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people, but that has fallen to 3.7 times more likely in the most recent data. That number is still far too high, which is why the Government backs the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s police race action plan. Earlier this month, I met the NPCC team leading the work on that action plan, along with the independent scrutiny and chair of the oversight board.

The plan aims to foster anti-racist culture, values and behaviours in policing that will inform all operational policing practices, improving experiences and outcomes for black people. On stop and search in particular, the plan commits chief constables to identifying and addressing stop-and-search disparities, particularly on drug searches and the searches of children. I will work with police leaders to ensure that the aims of the plan are adopted and embedded in all forces. The Government are also introducing a requirement for police forces to collect data on the ethnicity of people stopped by police under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1998, which will help to address concerns about potential disparities in the use of traffic stops.

I turn now to section 60 “without suspicion” searches. Where serious violence has occurred, or where intelligence suggests that it may occur, a senior police officer may authorise police to use stop and search without reasonable suspicion. These authorisations, known as section 60 authorisations, are limited to a particular area for a particular period of time, usually no longer than 24 hours. The powers are used exceptionally and are rightly subject to strict constraints, but these searches are contentious within communities, and it is concerning that rates of ethnic disproportionality for section 60 searches are particularly high. The Home Office is introducing new data collection on section 60 that will come into effect from April, including on the authorisation decisions and the locations authorised. That will help improve transparency and accountability for the use of this power.

His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services has made a range of recommendations on section 60 for police forces and agencies, and the public will expect to see the policing sector respond comprehensively to those recommendations. Looking at the effectiveness of stop and search, we know that it works best when it is used in a targeted and intelligence-led way against active offenders and when officers have strong grounds for suspicion. This point is supported in recent work by the highly respected Youth Endowment Fund.

I will move on to knife crime. We should not lose sight of the fact that, while stop and search is one part of how we address the problems around knife crime, enforcement is only one part of the overall approach. We need to tackle knife crime in many different ways and prevention remains the most effective mechanism for tackling crime, which is why this Government have made a commitment to halving knife crime. Within that effort, investing in vulnerable young people is a key priority. The Young Futures programme aims to intervene earlier, ensuring that vulnerable children are identified and offered support in a much more systematic way. It will also create more opportunities for young people in their communities through the provision, for example, of open access mental health support, mentoring and careers support.

We are also bringing in new and stronger laws to crack down on the sale of dangerous knives. These measures will help to deter potential perpetrators—young people—and make our streets safer. It is also worth referring back to a manifesto commitment that this Government made to ensure that every young person found in possession of a knife is referred to a youth offending team and given a mandatory plan to prevent reoffending.

To the questions raised about neighbourhood policing, part of making our streets safer is seeing that visible police presence, which, sadly, has reduced over recent years in our neighbourhoods, town centres and villages. That is why we are putting 13,000 uniformed officers back on to our streets. A question was asked about the allocation of that 13,000. The 13,000 is over the course of this Parliament. The Government have doubled the amount of money going into neighbourhood policing from next month to £200 million. We initially identified £100 million in the provisional police settlement, but we have doubled that to £200 million. We are in discussions with police forces to make sure that the allocations work for the individual police forces; they are coming forward with the workforce mix that they believe will work best for them in the communities that they serve. That announcement will be made shortly.

[Matt Vickers]

In terms of the big concerns around redeployment in that space, does the Minister think there is any risk that the redeployment of police officers from response policing could affect the response times when people dial 999?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Of course we want to see all parts of policing properly staffed and funded. That is why there is more than £1 billion going into the policing settlement for the coming year, over and above what was in the 2024-25 Budget. This Government are committed to making sure we have officers in our neighbourhoods and communities. Equally, response is something that PCCs and chief constables will be very mindful of, but it is clear that policing can walk and talk at the same time. We are saying that neighbourhood policing needs to be built up again after the decimation that we have seen, but that does not mean that other parts of policing will not be business as usual. Policing will be able to deal with that.

There was mention of the Metropolitan police and their stop-and-search charter; I think that was raised by the shadow Minister. I welcome that charter, with its emphasis on respect, training, supervision and oversight. I look forward to seeing how its delivery plan progresses, and what impact it has on the work of building public trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill referred to.

On violence reduction, we recognise the valuable work and significant progress made by violence reduction units, which were set up under the previous Government to understand what is going on with serious violence. The police funding settlement for next year includes £49.7 million for the continuation of their work to prevent serious violence, delivered through their VRU programmes. The VRUs bring together local partners to understand and tackle the drivers of serious violence in their area and facilitate the sharing of data across organisational boundaries to build a shared understanding of the root causes of violence locally. In response to those programmes, VRUs are delivering a range of early interventions, doing preventive work to divert young people in particular away from a life of crime. That work includes mentoring, trusted adult programmes, intensive behavioural therapies and sports-based diversionary activities, which are all really positive.

We want the Young Futures programme to build on the work of the VRUs to improve how we identify, reach and support young people at risk of being drawn into violence. That is why we will be asking them to play a leading role in the establishment of the Young Futures prevention partnerships programme, which builds on the existing partnership networks and their considerable experience and expertise to test and develop a model before moving to national roll-out.

It is also worth mentioning the coalition to tackle knife crime. We have an ambitious target of halving knife crime over the next 10 years, but we will not be able to achieve that in isolation; we need to work together with those who share our vision for safer communities. That is why the Prime Minister launched the coalition to tackle knife crime in September, bringing together campaign groups, community leaders, the families of those who have tragically lost their lives to knife crime—James Brindley’s family are involved with the coalition—and young people who have been impacted, united in their mission to save lives. From the west midlands, we have Pooja Kanda, Lynne Baird and, as I said, Mark Brindley as members of the coalition. Having the lived experience of young people is critical to the coalition, and we are keen to ensure that they have a platform to share their views, ideas and solutions to make Britain a safer place for the next generation.

I also want to mention serious violence reduction orders, because they are pertinent to the west midlands. Four police forces, including West Midlands police, are currently piloting serious violence reduction orders, as part of a two-year pilot that began in April 2023 and is due to finish in April this year. These are court orders that can be placed on adults upon conviction of a knife or offensive weapons offence, and they provide police with the power to automatically stop and search individuals convicted of knife offences, with the aim of deterring habitual knife-carrying behaviour. The pilot is being robustly and independently evaluated in terms of its effectiveness in tackling knife crime, as well as any disproportionality in its use, and I look forward to seeing the results.

Finally, I want to talk about gangs, which a number of Members referred to. It is crucial that we tackle the gang culture that lures children and young people into crime and runs county lines through violence and exploitation. As we committed to do in our manifesto, we are introducing a new offence of criminal exploitation of children in the Crime and Policing Bill. That new criminal offence is necessary to increase convictions of exploiters, deter gangs from enlisting children and improve identification of victims.

Alongside the new offence, we are creating a new regime for child criminal exploitation prevention orders, to prevent exploitative conduct committed by adults against children from occurring or reoccurring. We all know that county lines are the most violent model of drug supply and the most harmful form of child criminal exploitation. Through the county lines programme, we will continue to target exploitative drug-dealing gangs and break the model of organised crime groups behind the trade.

We know that through stop and search, police may come into contact with children who they suspect are victims of criminal exploitation, and it is vital that police take an appropriate safeguarding approach to potential victims and ensure they receive appropriate support. We are providing specialist support for children and young people to escape county lines and child criminal exploitation, and we will be delivering on our manifesto commitment to roll out further support through the Young Futures programme.

I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East for securing the debate, and to all Members who have participated. This is a sensitive issue, and I am grateful for the constructive and insightful nature of the discussion today. The Government’s position is clear: stop and search is an important tool, but it must be used fairly and effectively. Getting that balance right is key, and I am keen to carry on working with the police to achieve the best outcomes we can.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

With a little more than the usual two minutes, I call Saqib Bhatti to wind up the debate.

Anti-social Behaviour: East of England

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and am very interested to hear of his role as a volunteer police officer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this debate. I am grateful to her and all the Members who have spoken passionately about their constituency and made reference to the antisocial behaviour blighting their areas, which needs to be dealt with.

I am a member of the group of MPs who represent the east of England, so I am pleased to respond to the debate as the Minister. I have direct knowledge and experience as an east of England MP. My hon. Friend made a number of important points in her excellent speech on antisocial behaviour. Like her, I pay tribute to the police and the work that they already do on antisocial behaviour in the east of England and all around the country. I will come to neighbourhood policing issues and the Government’s approach to them in a moment.

Today’s focus on the east of England has raised a number of specific local and regional aspects of the debate, and we have been fortunate to have a geographical spread across the east of England. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) spoke about the role of social landlords and tackling antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) referred to the Young Futures programme and the need to engage with young people. He talked about the Thirst youth café, which he said was a good example of the work that goes on with young people.

I am pleased to confirm that we have a cross-departmental approach to working on the agenda around young people. Our safer streets mission is across Government and not just for the Home Office or DCMS. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) talked about problems that older people, pensioners and young children face and the menace of antisocial behaviour from vehicles, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) talked about dirt bikes and the noise, fear and no-go zones. She specifically asked about the need for neighbourhood policing and making sure that police forces act on what the Government ask them to do. I will talk about that in a moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) talked about not having any PCSOs in Norfolk. That was a decision taken by a previous Conservative PCC. It is interesting because in almost every other part of the country we know how important PCSOs are, and that they provide really important community-based policing.

The Government are working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on a rural crime strategy, recognising the particular issues that rural areas have. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) referred to county lines and vulnerable children. He also spoke about his police ride-along, to see for himself the vital work they do in communities. I will say something about drugs in a moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) asked about respect orders and the fact that they will apply only to over-18-year-olds. We want to deal with young people who get into bother and engage in antisocial behaviour through our prevention partnerships. They need support and encouragement to do more positive things rather than engage in antisocial behaviour, but of course there are measures that can be brought in if they fail to engage.

I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), that memories in this place can get very clouded. The Liberal Democrats were part of the Government between 2010 and 2015 during the years of austerity when councils saw massive cuts to their budgets, which then resulted in cuts to youth services. I welcome that the Liberal Democrats are now talking about the need to invest in youth services, but we have to remember that when they were in government they were part of the decisions to slash public services.

I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, has a slight case of amnesia about what has actually happened over the past 14 years, with massive cuts to policing. Over 20,000 experienced police officers were lost, as well as many police staff, over the 14-year period, though I recognise that at the end of that time there was a mad scramble to deal with the realisation that cutting police officers had big consequences for all our communities.

[Dr Mullan]

I think memories are definitely being scrambled. The Government have talked a lot about the supposed £20 billion deficit in day-to-day expenditure. I remind the Minister that it was around £100 billion when we came in in 2010. The Government talk about difficult decisions they had to take; we had five times as many difficult decisions to take as they have.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The black hole that the previous Government left this Government to clear up is actually £22 billion. As a Minister who has been in post for nine months, I am very conscious that the whole area of prevention was slashed under previous Conservative Governments, and we are now reaping the consequences. One of my hon. Friends referred to the prison population and the fact that preventive measures were not available; now we see what that actually means.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North mentioned a number of ways in which antisocial behaviour manifests itself at the local level in her constituency, including fly-tipping, littering, loud music and nuisance neighbours. She talked about derelict sites being set on fire, toilets being vandalised, and parking generally being used in an antisocial way. I share her concerns regarding all those examples, which are yet more evidence of the damage and distress caused by antisocial behaviour and the need to tackle it as a priority. ASB is especially damaging when it occurs around people’s homes and the places they visit daily in their communities. It is not merely a nuisance; it has devastating consequences, corroding people’s freedom, damaging their mental health and ultimately undermining their sense of hope and home.

My hon. Friend asked about the Government’s commitment to recruit 13,000 neighbourhood officers and whether the funding package provided will result in more police officers on Norfolk’s streets. The Government have committed to restore neighbourhood policing, which includes putting thousands more uniformed officers on the beat in neighbourhoods up and down the country, including in the east of England—visible and in all our communities, rural and urban. We have made £200 million available to forces in England and Wales for the next financial year beginning in April to support the first steps in delivering those 13,000 neighbourhood personnel. Every part of England and Wales needs to benefit from that pledge.

Our approach to delivery in 2025-26, which will be year one of a four year programme, is designed to deliver an initial increase in the neighbourhood policing workforce in a manner that is flexible and can be adapted to the local context and varied crime demands. That means that the precise workforce mix will be a locally made decision, including in Norfolk. That major investment supports the commitment to make the country’s streets safer, and reflects the scale of the challenge that many forces face and the Government’s determination to address it. Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the PCC in Norfolk, Sarah Taylor, and the Labour council for the work that they are doing. It is crucial that police and partner agencies listen to the experiences of their communities and of victims.

[Jen Craft]

The Minister speaks about the excellent work of the police and crime commissioner in her area and in Norfolk; however, in Essex our police, fire and crime commissioner took the controversial decision to slash all 98 PCSOs—a decision he rowed back on after outcry from myself, my Labour colleagues and Opposition Members. Where does the Minister think we are in areas where police, fire and crime commissioners perhaps do not share our goal for neighbourhood and community policing? How does she see us working with them to encourage them that this is the way policing needs to go?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend raises a really interesting point. On the specifics of that example, we were very clear when the provisional police settlement was announced before Christmas that we wanted to listen to what policing had to say about the figures. One of the issues that was raised was about neighbourhood policing. That is why we put £100 million in the provisional settlement, which we then decided to increase up to £200 million in the final settlement. That assisted PCCs, such as the one we are referring to, to say that the proposals put forward in December could change. We are a Government who want to listen to and work with policing, and PCCs of all complexions are clear that neighbourhood community policing is something that the Government are going to drive forward. I think that almost all of them want to work with us on that.

The antisocial behaviour case review is an issue that needs to get a bit more attention. This is a tool—a safety net—that can support victims of persistent ASB to ensure that action is taken, by giving those victims the ability to demand a formal case review to determine whether further action can be taken. The Victims’ Commissioner has talked a lot about it, and wants to ensure that everyone is aware that they can ask for a review if they do not feel they are getting help from the statutory agencies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North mentioned antisocial driving and speeding, which I and many other hon. Members spoke about extensively in a Westminster Hall debate last week. The Crime and Policing Bill, which was debated yesterday in the main Chamber, will give the police greater powers to immediately seize vehicles that are being used in an antisocial manner, without having first to give a warning. Removing the requirement to give a warning will make the powers under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 easier to apply, allow police to put an immediate stop to offending and send a message to antisocial drivers that their behaviour will not be tolerated.

I was particularly saddened to hear my hon. Friend’s examples of staff needing extra support to deal with antisocial behaviour in libraries. No one should face that kind of abuse in their workplace, especially not in a place set up to help the public. She also spoke about the public resources being spent on repairing vandalised property and fire crews attending arson. That is precisely why we are determined to intervene early to prevent young people in particular from being drawn into antisocial behaviour and crime, and to put tough measures in place to stop persistent adult perpetrators of ASB.

Sadly, the sort of incidents that my hon. Friend and many others spoke about are happening in lots of areas of the country, so I want to touch on the national context. As we have heard, antisocial behaviour takes many forms: off-road bikes, nuisance neighbours, unruly gangs roaming the streets and creating intimidation and fear, or any other manifestation of this menace. It causes distress and misery in all our communities. The impact on decent, law-abiding people is undeniable: they are left feeling isolated and frightened at home, in their neighbourhoods or in their town centres. As we have heard, the enjoyment of parks and other public spaces is affected.

I have said this before, but fundamentally this issue comes down to respect—respect for our laws, our fellow citizens and our expectations as a society. None of us can accept a situation in which the actions of a selfish few blight the lives of others, but that is happening too often and in too many places. It needs to stop.

The response to antisocial behaviour has been weak and ineffective for too many years, and this Government are determined to put that right. As part of our plan for change, we are delivering a wide-ranging safer streets mission. A central part of that mission is tackling antisocial behaviour, with a particular emphasis on improving the police response, alongside tougher powers to tackle perpetrators. We are committed to restoring and strengthening neighbourhood policing and taking steps to tackle antisocial behaviour.

[Dr Mullan]

I do not know whether this is coming up in the Minister’s speech, but will she set a target for the reduction in antisocial behaviour that the Government are going to achieve in their time in office, as I asked in my speech?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I think that the shadow Minister—obviously he is not the shadow Policing Minister—

[Dr Mullan]

I am doing my best.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Yes, I am sure he is doing his best. I would say to him that, over 14 years, the previous Conservative Government removed targets in the Home Office and removed the accountability structures that the Home Office should have set in place. We are going to have a performance framework in the Home Office so that we can hold police forces to account—something that was dismantled under his Government.

To add to that point, over the last decade, we have seen that decline in neighbourhood policing to such an extent that many of the bonds of trust and respect between the police and local communities have been damaged. Neighbourhood policing sits at the heart of the British policing model. It is a critical building block in helping communities feel safe, and the public rightly expect their neighbourhood police to be visible, proactive, and accessible. Through our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we will restore those patrols to town centres and ensure that every community has a named neighbourhood officer to turn to.

Those working on the ground are best placed to understand what is driving antisocial behaviour in their areas and the impact it is having, and to determine the appropriate response. That goes to the point that hon. Member for Broxbourne raised about housing associations and their ability to use the law to tackle antisocial behaviour in housing. I believe that the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 do not go far enough. The Government will ensure that police, local authorities, housing providers and other agencies have the powers they need to respond to antisocial behaviour.

We will put that right—we have discussed this already—by introducing respect orders. Under these new measures, persistent adult perpetrators of antisocial behaviour will face tough restrictions such as bans on entering the areas where they have been behaving antisocially, such as town centres or other public places. Anyone found breaching a respect order could also face being arrested and could end up behind bars. We will pilot these measures initially to ensure they are as effective as possible, before rolling them out across England and Wales, and this will be supported by a dedicated lead officer in every force working with communities to develop a local antisocial behaviour action plan.

Practitioners and antisocial behaviour organisations have also asked for additional changes, to enhance the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and improve the tools that local agencies have at their disposal to tackle antisocial behaviour. These changes include extending the maximum time limit for dispersal directions from 48 to 72 hours, increasing the upper limit for fixed penalty notices for breaches of community protection notices and public spaces protection orders from £100 to £500, and extending the power to issue a closure notice to registered social housing providers, among others.

We will also introduce a duty for key relevant agencies, including local authorities and housing providers, to report ASB data to the Government. Following commencement of the Crime and Policing Bill, regulations will be laid to specify which data the relevant agencies should provide, and the form and regularity of submission. This change will give the Government a clearer picture of local ASB and how the powers are being used by local agencies, which will inform future local and national activity. This measure will close a key evidence gap to ensure a strong and comprehensive national picture of ASB incidents and interventions. These changes are long overdue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford raised the Young Futures programme. We are very clear that no single agency holds all the levers to tackle antisocial behaviour. We must work in a multi-agency way to reduce ASB and make communities safer. We are committed to intervening earlier to stop young people being drawn into crime. An essential part of achieving this will be the Young Futures programme, which will establish a network of Young Futures hubs and Young Futures prevention partnerships across England and Wales, to intervene earlier to ensure that vulnerable children are offered support in a more systematic way, as well as creating more opportunities for young people in their communities, through the provision of open access to, for example, mental health and careers support.

[Lewis Cocking]

The Minister mentions a multi-agency approach. I think the public get frustrated with us when we have meeting after meeting about the same issue. What assurances can she give us that this multi-agency approach will lead to action taken on the ground to solve some of this antisocial behaviour in our communities?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am very focused on delivery. Of course we want partner agencies to all be sitting around the table, but we want them to deliver, and that is why, for example, we are putting additional funding into neighbourhood policing, to ensure that there is a local presence. We are bringing in respect orders. We have introduced these new measures so that we can see what is working and where there may be problems that we need to address in a different way.

I want to mention shop theft, because a number of hon. Members also mentioned it. We know that it has a huge impact on town centres, where many small and independent businesses trade, and it is at record high levels and continues to increase at an unacceptable rate. In the last two years before the general election, shop theft went up by 60%, and more and more offenders are using violence and abuse against shopworkers. It is damaging business and hurting communities. It is vital that people feel safe in their local shops and in their local areas.

The police have given a commitment in the retail crime action plan to prioritise attendance where violence has been used towards shop staff, where an offender has been detained by store security, or where evidence needs to be secured by police personnel. Although retailers have indicated early positive outcomes, there is much more to do.

As set out in the Crime and Policing Bill, we will end the effective immunity, introduced by the previous Government, that was granted to the low-level shop theft of goods worth less than £200, to end the perception that those committing low-value shop theft will escape punishment.

We are also introducing the new offence of assaulting a retail worker, to protect the hard-working and dedicated staff who work in shops. Everybody has a right to feel safe at work. The new offence will carry a maximum prison sentence of six months and/or an unlimited fine. However, as a reflection of the need for us to take a tough stance, with meaningful criminal justice consequences, the offence will also come with a presumption that a court will apply a criminal behaviour order. This will prohibit the offender from doing anything described in the order, which might include a condition preventing specific acts that cause harassment, alarm or distress, or preventing an offender from visiting specific premises.

I also wanted to mention drugs. Tackling illegal drugs is key to delivering the Government’s mission to make our streets safer, halve knife crime, crack down on antisocial behaviour, and go after the gangs luring young people into violence and crime.

The issue of county lines was raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead. I say to him that there has been some really excellent work to try to smash county lines; it is work that this Government will continue and are committed to. Since July 2024, over 400 county lines have been closed and there have been hundreds of arrests, which is very positive.

In conclusion, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North for securing this debate today; I am grateful to her and to everyone who has contributed to it. Antisocial behaviour plagues the lives of all those it affects. It is a serious threat and under this Government it will be dealt with as such, in the east of England and everywhere else.

Crime and Policing Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I am just going to develop a point, and then I will be happy to take interventions—particularly from the Home Secretary.

In 2014, it was changed from being an either-way offence to a summary-only offence. Either-way means the offence can be tried in the magistrates court or the Crown court; summary-only means magistrates court only. It was still a criminal offence, and people could still be convicted and sentenced to up to a year in prison for committing it—it certainly was not decriminalised. In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment says that about 90% of the charges for shoplifting involved goods under £200 and were tried in a magistrates court. If it was ineffective, why did 90% of charges relate to goods under £200?

The Home Secretary claims that this alteration will herald some sort of extraordinary change in the way shoplifting is treated, but I would respectfully refer her to page 28 of her economic note 1007, which I am sure Members present have all read—silence. Paragraph 144 says that the central scenario in the Government’s impact assessment assumes that the number of charges, with this change, will remain constant. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, there will be no change in the number of charges as a result of this alteration. The Home Secretary points to this matter as some kind of silver bullet, but I am afraid to say that her own impact assessment says something very different indeed.

The measure has potentially adverse consequences too. This is a serious point, and I genuinely ask the Home Secretary to think about it carefully. When the offence is made either-way, rather than summary only, lots of people who are charged will elect to have a Crown court jury trial instead of a magistrates court trial. A magistrates court trial, for a not guilty plea, is generally heard in six to eight weeks—it is relatively quick—but a Crown court jury trial could take a year and a half to be heard.

The first adverse consequence that I would caution about is that, instead—[Interruption.] I am making a serious point, so it would be good for hon. Members to think about it. Instead of those cases being heard in the magistrates court in six to eight weeks, there could be a delay of one and a half years. I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention, but that is what could happen if the change is made.

The second adverse consequence is that if lots of shoplifting cases that are currently heard in the magistrates court end up in the Crown court before a jury, valuable and scarce Crown court jury trial time that should be used for serious cases such as rape, murder and grievous bodily harm will be taken up with shoplifting. I understand that the Home Secretary wants to send a signal—I really do—but I ask the Government to reflect carefully on the potential unintended consequences. That is a serious point, and I ask the Government to consider it. The change may end up having the opposite effect from what they intend.

The Home Secretary raised one or two other things that I would like to talk about, the first of which is knife crime. There are some measures in the Bill that are designed to address knife crime. We will support those measures; I am sure that all hon. Members want to fight the scourge of knife crime, which is responsible for about a third of all homicides. Almost all hon. Members will have encountered a constituency case; I will never forget attending the funeral of 15-year-old Elianne Andam in Croydon. She was murdered at 8.30 am on the morning of 27 September 2023 on Wellesley Road in central Croydon by a 17-year-old perpetrator with a knife. I will never forget seeing the grief that her parents and her little brother Kobi suffered. I am sure that we would all want to fight knife crime for that reason.

In addition to the measures in the Bill, which we will support, I would be grateful if the Policing Minister could confirm that the patrolling of hotspots, started under the last Government, will continue in areas where knife crime is a problem, and that the funding will continue. That could make an important difference.

It is also important that stop-and-search powers are used. In my view, taking knives off the street is the most important thing. In London, in the past, stop and search took about 400 knives a month off the streets—knives that could have been used to kill someone like Elianne. I am concerned that stop-and-search numbers are down due to misplaced concerns about community tension. I encourage the Government to get police forces to use stop and search more, and to amend legislation, including PACE—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—code A, to make the use of stop and search easier.

I spoke to a police officer in Croydon last Sunday, and he said that he felt that the police were worried about misconduct proceedings if they used the power of stop and search. I would like to make it easier for police officers to use those powers to protect the public. I would like to hear the Government’s views on that, but we are minded to table amendments in this area to give the police more confidence to use stop-and-search powers to save the lives of people like Elianne.

When I was Policing Minister about a year ago, I provided some funding to invest in exploring new technology to scan for knives at a distance of perhaps 10 metres—not very far. That would mean that people walking down the street in areas where knife crime is a problem could be scanned and, if they had a knife concealed on their person, it would be identified. About a year ago, that technology was emerging and I put the money behind it to develop it to the point where it could be deployed. I was told by the company doing that, and by Home Office officials, that by about spring 2025, a version of that technology would be available that could be used experimentally on the street.

I would be grateful to know, perhaps in an intervention from the Policing Minister now, whether that work has been carried forward and whether that scanning technology is ready to deploy. It could, I think, help to take knives off our streets and save lives. I would be happy to take an intervention now.

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

indicated dissent.

[Chris Philp]

The Minister will come back to it later.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an honour and privilege to wind up the debate on what is, as the Home Secretary set out in her opening speech, a critically important Bill. It is critically important for all sorts of reasons, many of which have been highlighted during the debate. It has been a wide-ranging discussion, which is unsurprising given the Bill’s scope and breadth.

There have been many excellent and powerful contributions, particularly from the Government Benches, with over 57 Back-Bench speakers. There is a thread that binds all the Bill’s measures together: this Government’s unwavering commitment to the security of our country and the safety of our communities and people we all represent. We are on the side of the law-abiding majority, who have had enough after 14 years of Conservative Governments.

This Bill will support and progress our safer streets mission, which is integral to the Government’s plan for change. We are determined to rebuild neighbourhood policing, restore confidence in the criminal justice system and reduce the harm caused by crime. We have already taken action to strengthen the response to threats, including knife crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls, but to deliver the change that the British people want and deserve, we must go further, and this Bill will allow us to do that.

It is evident from the debate that there is broad cross-party support for many of the Bill’s measures. It has been helpful to have the insights and experience of hon. Members who have previously served as police officers—my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) and for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop)—as well as the wise words from a former Crown prosecutor who now sits on the Government Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth).

Many of my hon. Friends welcomed the commitment to neighbourhood policing, the focus on antisocial behaviour, the introduction of respect orders and the new powers for vehicles being used for antisocial behaviour. In fact, there is a very long list of those Members: my hon. Friends the Members for Telford (Shaun Davies), for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith), for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Makerfield (Josh Simons), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert), for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Mansfield (Steve Yemm). They all spoke with great passion about their constituencies and the effect that antisocial behaviour has had on their communities.

Similarly, many hon. Friends spoke about retail crime and the ending of the shoplifters’ charter, and welcomed the new offence that will better protect retail workers. We heard about that from my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson), for St Helens North (David Baines), for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) and for High Peak (Jon Pearce).

Members spoke eloquently in support of the new offences to tackle child criminal exploitation, stalking, cuckooing, spiking and knife crime, including my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington South (Sarah Hall), for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey).

I also pay tribute to the Members who have campaigned on these issues for some time, including the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones). The measures for which they have been campaigning are in the Bill. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who we recognise is a doughty campaigner, that we are certainly considering dangerous cycling in detail.

In the limited time available to me, I will focus on a few of the points raised throughout the debate, but there will clearly be opportunities during line-by-line scrutiny in Committee to debate all the matters raised this evening fully and properly. I will start with the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who asked a number of questions—some of which were not a surprise, given his focus on technology in particular. In his speech, he seemed to be suffering from amnesia about what has happened to policing and crime over the past 14 years. It is worth gently reminding him that, in the period from April to June last year, when his Government were still in post and, in fact, he was Policing Minister, police numbers were going down. I just thought that I would gently remind him of that, because he obviously needs a bit of help to recall what was happening on his watch. Of course, neighbourhood policing was decimated under the previous Government.

Let me get to some of the specific questions that the shadow Home Secretary wanted me to answer. We all agree that rough sleeping and nuisance begging are complex issues. We are working closely with the Deputy Prime Minister and her Department to ensure that such individuals, who are often vulnerable, are appropriately supported—that is set against our commitment to stand by the police and effectively tackle crime and antisocial behaviour. As it stands, the Vagrancy Act 1824 remains in force, and we know that police forces in many areas also use the ASB powers to tackle the antisocial behaviour associated with begging and rough sleeping.

The shadow Home Secretary also asked about the provisions to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings. As announced in the King’s Speech in 2024, those measures will be introduced in the forthcoming victims, courts and public protection Bill.

[Chris Philp]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I would really like to get on actually. The shadow Home Secretary had quite a lot of time at the beginning of the debate, and I would like to respond to the Back Benchers who have spent many hours in the Chamber in order to make their points. However, in response to a question that he asked about knife scanning technology, the Home Office is still working with industry partners to develop systems that are specifically designed to detect at a distance knives concealed on a person. That work is part of the Innovation competitions that were launched last year, and phase one is expected to be delivered by the end of May, resulting in the first prototype systems.

Facial recognition was mentioned by the shadow Home Secretary and a number of hon. Members, and such technology is an important tool to help the police to identify offenders more quickly and accurately. It is showing significant potential to increase police productivity and effectiveness, and it could substantially contribute to our safer streets mission. We need to support the police by ensuring that they have clarity, especially where there is a balance to strike between ensuring public safety and safeguarding the rights of individuals. I will be considering the options for that, alongside broader police reforms that will be in the White Paper later in the spring.

Public order, particularly the issue of protest, was raised by a number of hon. Members including my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Bristol North East (Damien Egan), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, and we are fully committed to protecting and preserving that right. However, it is vital that we strike the right balance between the right to protest and the rights of the wider community. I am sure we will debate that issue more fully in Committee. We will also be carrying out expedited post-legislative scrutiny of the Public Order Act 2023, beginning in May. That process will look at how the legislation has operated since coming into force, and we will consider carefully the outputs of that review.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) asked me to confirm that any amendments to the Bill on the subject of abortion will be subject to a free vote. All women have access to safe legal abortions on the NHS up to 24 weeks, including taking early medical abortion pills at home where eligible. We recognise that this is an extremely sensitive issue, and there are strongly held views on all sides of the discussion. My hon. Friend will understand that whipping on the Government Benches is a matter for the Government Chief Whip.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) spoke knowledgably about the issue of mandatory reporting. He referred particularly to religious groups and spoke about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and he asked for a meeting to discuss the matter further. The purpose of mandatory reporting is obviously to improve the protection of children, and our aim is to create a culture of support, knowledge and openness when dealing with child sexual abuse. That is why we consider it more appropriate for those who fail to discharge their duty to face referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service, and professional regulators where applicable. Those bodies can prevent individuals from working with children, potentially losing their livelihood, which is a serious consequence. The strongest possible sanctions will apply to individuals where deliberate actions have been taken to obstruct a report being made under the duty. Anyone who seeks to prevent a reporter from carrying out their duty to report will face the prospect of up to seven years’ imprisonment.

My hon. Friends the Members for Gower and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert), and the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) asked whether the Bill could be used to reform our prostitution laws. I assure hon. Members that the Government are committed to tackling the harms and exploitation that can be associated with prostitution, and ensuring that women who want to leave prostitution are given every opportunity to find routes out. The Government are closely monitoring new approaches that are being developed in Northern Ireland and parts of mainland Europe, working closely with the voluntary and community sector, and the police, to ensure that the safeguarding of women remains at the heart of our approach.

The repeal of part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 was also raised regarding unauthorised encampments, including by my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Liverpool Riverside. I thank my hon. Friends for raising that issue. The Government are considering the High Court’s decision and will respond in due course.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) raised questions about the application of certain provisions in the Bill to Northern Ireland. I assure him and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who raised similar questions, that we are continuing to discuss with the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland whether further provisions in the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland.

Questions about domestic abuse were raised by the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). As was discussed in the debate, domestic abuse covers a wide range of behaviours and is already considered by the courts as a factor that increases the seriousness of offending, which may lead to an increase in the length of a sentence. I am sure that the Minister for Safeguarding would be happy to talk to the hon. Member for Eastbourne about his specific concerns about the current legislation.

In conclusion, this is a wide-ranging and ambitious Bill. It has the straightforward purpose of making our country safer. It will achieve that by restoring neighbourhood policing, by giving law enforcement stronger powers to combat threats that ruin lives and livelihoods, and by rebuilding public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is clear that people around the country want change. They want to feel protected by a visible, responsive police service; they want to know that when our laws our broken, justice will be sought and served; and they want to have a sense of security and confidence, so that they can go about their lives freely and without fear. That is why we have put the safer streets mission at the heart of our plan for change, and it is why we have brought forward this Bill, which I wholeheartedly commend to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Crime and Policing Bill: Programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Crime and Policing Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 13 May 2025.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to.

Antisocial Behaviour and Illegal Bikes

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) on securing this debate and on her very powerful and energetic opening speech. I am grateful to her and all the other hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. The number who have been able to speak shows how important this issue is to our constituents.

We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Jim Dickson), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), for North Durham (Luke Akehurst)—in particular, we heard about the 10-minute rule Bill he brought forward—for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) and for Telford (Shaun Davies), and of course the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It just shows the geographical spread of this problem. We are all in agreement that antisocial behaviour is a blight on people and places, wherever it happens. It affects communities in different ways and comes in different forms.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

In Morecambe, local organisations have come together to try to tackle antisocial behaviour. I met with Safe Morecambe to give my support and to find out more about what they are doing. Does the Minister agree that bringing local organisations together is an effective way to tackle antisocial behaviour and these bikes, and that all police forces should be working with other local organisations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Absolutely. Bringing together all the key partners is vital if we are to tackle this—I will say something about that in a moment.

The main focus of the debate has been the antisocial use of off-road bikes and other vehicles. In her opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury catalogued the very real impact this has on the people in her constituency—I think she must have set a record for the number of constituents and places in her constituency she mentioned. We heard some shocking examples, and I share her deep concerns about all of them.

It is unacceptable for law-abiding citizens to be left feeling unsafe and intimidated by the actions of a selfish, reckless few. The near-misses; the noise; the damage to parks and green spaces—it is simply not acceptable. People have the right to feel safe in their neighbourhoods, town centres and public spaces.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury set out, the police are operationally independent and Government cannot instruct them on what to do, or instruct the local authority to take action on particular cases. However, I want to reassure her and all hon. Members that we are very much alive to the menace and harm that antisocial behaviour, particularly through the use of vehicles, is causing to communities. We take it extremely seriously. As a constituency MP, I know very well this is a real problem in my patch, too.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Every single week, I hear about this issue from constituents in Park End, Easterside and across south Middlesbrough. Will the Minister assure my constituents that passing the Crime and Policing Bill will ensure that these bikes are seized and crushed, and that our streets are made safe again?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Absolutely. I will come to that in just a moment.

It is really important to recognise the role that the police have to play in this. It is reassuring to hear in this debate about the proactive steps that many police forces are taking to get to grips with this issue. I pay particular tribute to the work going on in the west midlands, where police teams are leading the effort that we have heard about. It is really important to recognise that there is good work going on, but we need to give the police the powers they need to tackle this effectively.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury described the holistic approach being adopted in the west midlands, combining technology, enforcement and engagement. I hope that that translates into tangible improvements for the local community; but we know that this is not a problem in just one constituency or one area of the country. We have heard contributions from so many Members this afternoon, and, as was referenced, the fact that this issue has been debated on numerous occasions in Parliament in recent years speaks to the continued toll that it is having in different parts of the country.

I have a real issue with the fact that the previous Government dismissed this type of antisocial behaviour as low level, as was referenced in the examples mentioned in the debate. It has a genuinely detrimental effect on people and places. It is a blight on our society and, under this Government, it will be treated as such. We want to make it easier for the police to act when these incidents occur and to enable them to dispose of the vehicles that they seize from offenders quickly.

Strong measures to deal with the menace of off-road bikes are included in the Crime and Policing Bill, which, as Members are aware, was introduced to the House a few weeks ago. When this Bill comes into law, police forces will have greater powers to immediately seize off-road bikes and other vehicles that are being used in an antisocial manner without first having to give a warning. Removing the requirement to give a warning will make the powers in section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 easier to apply, allowing police to put an immediate stop to the offending and send a message to antisocial drivers that their behaviour will not be tolerated.

We are also considering how we can make changes to secondary legislation to allow the police to quickly dispose of seized off-road bikes. That will help to reduce reoffending. I am also aware of the concerns around criminality facilitated by e-bikes and e-scooters, which were expressed by many Members. We are progressing research and development on a novel technological solution to stop e-scooters and e-bikes safely and to enhance the police’s ability to prevent them from being used to commit criminal acts.

As well as working closely with the police on these issues, we are strengthening collaboration across Government. On Monday, I had a constructive and helpful meeting with my colleague from the Department of Transport, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). We agreed that the antisocial behaviour associated with off-road bikes and other vehicles is unacceptable, and we share a vision of working together to tackle this criminality and improve road safety. That is an overview of some of the steps that we are taking, but I emphasise that we are determined to deliver real change on this issue, and we will be working with partners across Government, policing and beyond to make that happen.

I want to mention a couple of other issues in the remaining seconds of this debate. We have talked a lot about neighbourhood policing. Putting those 13,000 police officers, PCSOs and specials back into our high streets and communities is going to be really important in providing that reassurance to communities and tackling the antisocial behaviour that we have been hearing about in this debate.

I say gently to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), that £1.1 billion extra is going into policing, over and above what was put in under his Government in the last police settlement. That money is available, but police forces are finding this challenging, because they have had 14 years of Conservative Government and 20,000 police officers have been got rid of. I also say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), that his party was part of that coalition Government that got rid of the 20,000 police officers.

Alcohol in Licensed Pavement Areas: Consultation Results

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Written Statements

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

The Business and Planning Act 2020 introduced a number of measures to allow businesses to continue to operate during the covid-19 pandemic. This included a temporary easement to the Licensing Act 2003 that allowed premises licence holders who were only permitted to do on-sales (i.e. to sell alcohol for consumption on site) additionally to automatically make off-sales (i.e. to sell alcohol for takeaway and delivery, and for consumption within an adjacent licensed pavement area) without having to apply to their licensing authority for a licence variation.

The previous Government launched a consultation, which ran from 16 May 2024 to 11 July 2024, that gave three options to maintain these easements on a more long-term basis. These options were to make permanent the alcohol licensing provisions in the BPA, to amend the wording in the Licensing Act 2003 to extend the definition of on-sales so that it includes consumption in a licensed pavement area, or to amend the Licensing Act 2003 to permit on-sales-only premises licence holders the right to make off-sales to any area for which there is a pavement licence.

There were 67 complete responses to this consultation exercise, from licensing authorities, trade organisations and residents’ organisations, as well as members of the public. The majority of these respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with all three options proposed. In the light of those responses, the Government do not currently have a basis to proceed with any of the legislative options to maintain the temporary easements for the long term. As such, the off-sales measure will expire on 31 March 2025 and the Licensing Act 2003 will automatically revert to the pre-covid position.

While the Government must accept the results of the consultation exercise conducted under the previous Administration, we are disappointed that there was not a consensus in favour of retaining an easement from which many pubs and pubgoers have benefited, and which supports our objectives both to promote the growth of the UK economy, and specifically to support the nation’s pub trade. We therefore want to make it as simple as possible for those pubs who wish to continue making off-sales to secure the licensing permission to do so from their local authorities.

To that end, the Government will be amending the guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act to advise licensing authorities that—where businesses have been benefiting from the current easement and wish to continue making off-sales beyond April 2025—applications to amend a licence should be treated as minor variations. This process is quicker and cheaper than major licence variations and, for example, does not require a local newspaper advertisement.

The Government will monitor the decisions made around the country by local authorities on these requests for licence variations, in liaison with the beer and pub industries, and will assess any evidence that pubs where the current easements have been working successfully are being denied the opportunity to continue making off-sales beyond April 2025 without reasonable cause. In those circumstances, and notwithstanding the results of last year’s consultation exercise, we will consider what further steps may need to be taken through the licensing regime to support our local pubs.

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

[HCWS477]