Crime and Policing Bill (Third sitting)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

[Harriet Cross]

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

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

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I thank the hon. Member for his evidence.

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

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

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

[Luke Taylor]

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

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

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

and that a condition the court considers is that

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Rubbish!

[Matt Vickers]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

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

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Youth injunctions and housing injunctions

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

“Schedule 1 amends Part 1 of”

and insert

“Part 1 of Schedule 1 amends”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 24.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 7 and 8.

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 24 to 28.

Schedule 1.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

[Harriet Cross]

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

“conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”

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

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

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

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

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

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

Amendment 6 agreed to.

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

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.

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

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

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 28.

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

Schedule 1

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

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

“Part 1

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

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

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

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

“‘section 1’ substitute ‘this Part’.”

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

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

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

This amendment ensures that the consultation requirement under section 14(3) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as amended by the Bill, applies to applications to vary or discharge housing injunctions as well as youth injunctions.

Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 153, line 33, at end insert—

“19A In section 101 (the community remedy document), in subsection (9), for the definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ substitute—

‘“anti-social behaviour” means—

(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or

(b) housing-related anti-social conduct as defined by section 2 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section);’.

19B (1) Section 102 (anti-social behaviour etc: out-of-court disposals) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), in paragraph (c), for ‘an injunction under section 1’ substitute ‘a respect order under section A1 or an injunction under Part 1’.

(3) In subsection (6), for the definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ substitute—

‘“anti-social behaviour” means—

(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or

(b) housing-related anti-social conduct, as defined by section 2 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section);’.”

This amendment inserts into Schedule 1 provision making amendments to the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 that are consequential on the amendments made to that Act by clause 1 and by the other provisions of Schedule 1.

Amendment 28, in schedule 1, page 153, line 38, at end insert—

“Part 2

Consequential amendments of other Acts

Housing Act 1985

21 (1) Section 84A of the Housing Act 1985 (absolute ground for possession for anti-social behaviour) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (4)—

(a) for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘Part 1’;

(b) after ‘2014’ insert ‘or a respect order’.

(3) In subsection (9), for the definition of ‘relevant proceedings’, substitute—

‘“relevant proceedings” means—

(a) proceedings for an offence under section I1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,

(b) proceedings under Schedule 2 to that Act, or

(c) proceedings for contempt of court;

“respect order” means an order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;’.

22 In Schedule 3 to that Act (grounds for withholding consent to assignment by way of exchange), in Ground 2A, in the definition of ‘relevant order’, for ‘an injunction under section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014’ substitute—

‘a respect order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;

an injunction under Part 1 of that Act;’

Housing Act 1988

23 (1) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 (grounds on which court must order possession of dwelling-houses let on assured tenancies), Ground 7A is amended as follows.

(2) In condition 2, in the words before paragraph (a)—

(a) for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘Part 1’;

(b) after ‘2014’ insert ‘or a respect order’.

(3) In the list of definitions for the purposes of Ground 7A, for the definition of ‘relevant proceedings’ substitute—

‘“relevant proceedings” means—

(a) proceedings for an offence under section I1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,

(b) proceedings under Schedule 2 to that Act, or

(c) proceedings for contempt of court;

“respect order” means an order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;’.

Police Reform Act 2002

24 In section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (persons engaging in anti-social behaviour), for subsection (1A) substitute—

‘(1A) In subsection (1) “anti-social behaviour” means—

(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or

(b) housing-related anti-social conduct, as defined by section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section).’

Localism Act 2011

25 In Schedule 14 to the Localism Act 2011 (grounds on which landlord may refuse to surrender and grant tenancies under section 158), in paragraph 6(4), in the definition of ‘relevant order’—

(a) after paragraph (e) insert—

‘(ea) a respect order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,’;

(b) in paragraph (f), for ‘section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014’ substitute ‘Part 1 of that Act’.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

This amendment inserts into Schedule 1 a new Part 2 containing amendments of Acts other than the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in consequence of the amendments made to that Act by clause 1 and by the other provisions of Schedule 1 (which would by virtue of Amendment 24 become Part 1 of that Schedule).

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3

Maximum period for certain directions, notices and orders

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

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Clause 3 provides for extensions to the maximum timeframes for dispersal directions and closure orders under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and I will address each of these in turn.

The clause extends the maximum period for which a dispersal order can be in place from 48 to 72 hours and introduces a mandatory review at 48 hours. We know that the dispersal power is an effective tool that police can use in a range of situations to move on individuals who are committing, or who are likely to commit, antisocial behaviour. Despite that, feedback from police and from police and crime commissioners has highlighted operational challenges in implementing this power.

Under current legislation, the police can issue a dispersal order to require a person to leave an area for a maximum of only 48 hours. That makes no allowance or and allows no extensions for weekends or bank holidays, when incidents of antisocial behaviour are often high. The 48-hour window also allows little time for relevant authorities to identify the root causes of the issue in order to implement longer-term solutions. Extending the timeframe of the dispersal power to up to 72 hours will ensure that police can effectively cover these problem periods, such as bank holidays. It will also give local agencies more time to come together to develop long-term solutions to tackle antisocial behaviour.

[Harriet Cross]

Although I completely agree with the need to extend the power, why was 72 hours chosen? Was there work or analysis behind that figure?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am very pleased to hear that the shadow Minister supports the 72-hour limit, because it was in the Criminal Justice Bill that her Government brought forward and that, because of the general election, never got on to the statute books. Work was done with stakeholders on what would be required. Clearly we do not want to extend it too far, but 72 hours seemed to be the best period of time to take into account what I was just saying about weekends and bank holidays in particular.

Let me move on to closure orders. The clause extends the timeframe that the relevant agencies, after issuing a closure notice, can apply to a magistrates court for a closure order from 48 hours to 72 hours. Again, that is based on feedback from practitioners who have noted operational challenges in applying for a closure order. The 48-hour window is not always enough time to prepare evidence and serve it to the courts, particularly on weekends or bank holidays. The closure order is an important power that agencies can use to provide immediate respite to the local community, so we must ensure that it is practicable and viable for practitioners to use.

Extending the timeframe to 72 hours will allow practitioners adequate time to gather evidence and inform interested parties. It also allows respondents more time to seek legal advice, in turn reducing the number of cases adjourned by the courts. In short, the provisions will help to address operational challenges, allowing local agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour more efficiently and effectively.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 3 sets out the maximum period for certain directions, notices and orders. On exclusion directions, the Bill amends section 35 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 whereby a police officer could direct a person to leave a specified area for up to 48 hours. The Bill extends this to 72 hours. If an exclusion period exceeds 48 hours, a police inspector must review the direction as soon as possible after the 48-hour mark to ensure its necessity.

Closure notices allow the police to shut down premises that cause nuisance or disorder, and could previously last 24 hours before requiring further action. The Bill extends that to 48 hours. The maximum period for an initial closure notice before a magistrates court order will be required has been extended from 48 to 72 hours. Those efforts will give greater flexibility for police and officers will have more time to manage antisocial behaviour without requiring immediate escalation to the courts. That will allow for a stronger deterrent, meaning that longer exclusion periods and closure notices could have a greater impact in preventing repeated antisocial behaviour.

In 2023, the previous Government ran a consultation on proposals to strengthen powers available to address antisocial behaviour under the 2014 Act. It is true that the Government have opted to reintroduce some of these provisions into the Crime and Policing Bill. However, I would be grateful for an understanding of why certain measures have not been taken forward. For example, provisions to remove the need for authorisation by a senior police officer for a dispersal order have not been reintroduced. Although a Member could argue that a mandatory review by an inspector for exclusion periods of over 48 hours ensures accountability, why was the decision made to require an inspector’s review for exclusion directions only after 48 hours, rather than immediately on extending them?

The Bill also removes provisions to grant senior police officers the power to make public space protection orders, meaning that it arguably becomes harder in certain instances to control disorder. In November 2024, an extraordinary and unprecedented legal order was enacted, imposing a complete closure on an entire housing estate of 376 properties. That sweeping measure was introduced as a direct response to escalating concerns over severe and persistent antisocial behaviour and rampant drug dealing that had reached intolerable levels. The closure order strictly prohibited non-residents from gathering or loitering in key communal areas, including stairwells, landings, bridges and spaces near bin chutes, as well as within open areas adjacent to residential properties. The decision was driven by an urgent need to restore safety and security for the law-abiding residents, whose daily lives had been severely disrupted by the ongoing disturbances. Authorities deemed that intervention necessary to curb the relentless activities of those engaged in criminal behaviour and to ensure that the estate could once again become a liveable and peaceful environment for its rightful occupants.

The Bill has notably failed to carry forward provisions to lower the minimum age for issuing a community protection notice to 10 years old. Why has that decision been made? As the Minister will be well aware, antisocial behaviour is frequently perpetrated by individuals under the age of 18, often causing significant disruption and distress within communities. Local residents, businesses and authorities alike have long struggled with the challenges posed by persistent youth-related disorder. Given that reality, is the Minister fully confident that the removal of this provision will not inadvertently weaken the ability of law enforcement and local councils to tackle antisocial behaviour committed by teenagers? Without appropriate measures in place, there is a real risk that communities will continue to bear the brunt of unchecked disorder and that would undermine efforts to create safer and more harmonious neighbourhoods. What safeguards are in place to prevent these extended powers from being misused or disproportionately applied to certain groups or businesses? What role will local authorities and community organisations play in reviewing the effectiveness of these measures?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The shadow Minister asked a number of questions about measures that were in the Criminal Justice Bill and are not in the Crime and Policing Bill. Clearly, what we are referring to was, and it is the same, as I understand it. We carefully considered the merits of all the measures that were in the Criminal Justice Bill on a case-by-case basis, and we reintroduced the ones that we thought had clear operational benefits, would help to cut crime and antisocial behaviour and would rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system.

The shadow Minister asked about the requirement for dispersal orders to be authorised by an inspector. The Criminal Justice Bill included a measure to remove the current requirement for an inspector to authorise a dispersal order. When considering that measure and what it would deliver, we were concerned that restricting people’s freedom of movement is a serious matter and that it is important that the dispersal order is used proportionately and reasonably. Ensuring that that power is authorised by an officer of at least the rank of inspector provides an additional safeguard and ensures that the power is used only to stop activities that are causing antisocial behaviour.

The Criminal Justice Bill sought to reduce the age that someone can receive a community protection notice from 16 to 10. We take the view that the breach of a CPN is a criminal offence and this Government, as I have said a number of times, do not wish to risk funnelling children into the criminal justice system unnecessarily by lowering the age at which someone can receive a CPN to 10 years of age. As we have discussed, the civil injunction will remain in place to be used against those under the age of 16—

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

13. What steps her Department is taking to tackle shoplifting.

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

In the last year of the previous Government, shop theft reached a record high, with devastating consequences for our high streets and town centres. The Conservative party wrote that off as low-level crime, but the Labour Government are determined to take back our streets from thugs and thieves. That is why we are ending the effective immunity for shop theft of goods under £200, introducing a new offence of assaulting a shop worker and delivering 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers in communities across the country.

[Jessica Toale]

Many retailers in Bournemouth town centre and across my constituency have told me that the same people over and over again are responsible for shoplifting and putting their staff’s safety at risk. Good progress has been made locally with Dorset police’s Operation Shopkeeper and the town centre business improvement district’s use of the UK partners against crime system, but what more can be done to tackle repeat offenders and to learn the lessons from successful initiatives such as those in my constituency?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing to the House’s attention the excellent initiative taking place in Bournemouth. It is a real example of the results that can be achieved when we get local authorities, businesses and law enforcement all coming together. I am keen to look carefully at examples such as that of Bournemouth and what is happening in the town centre to see how we can learn from such best practices and they can be disseminated.

[Jim Dickson]

May I thank the Minister for her earlier answer? Across my constituency, from the Co-op in Dartford to the Subway on the high street and Pet & Garden Supplies on Colney Road, I hear the same frustrating tales from business owners and shopworkers about how powerless they feel to tackle shoplifting. The measures contained in the Crime and Policing Bill to tackle that problem have just been set out and they cannot come soon enough. Will the Minister bring hope to people across the Dartford constituency that we will turn the tide on shoplifting after it was clearly deprioritised by the Conservative party?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the Conservative party left office, shop theft was at a record level, up 40% in the space of two years. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), now says “ZERO TOLERANCE” on shop theft, even in cases where less than £200 worth of goods has been stolen. Yet, in the two years that he was the police and crime Minister he left that £200 limit in place, allowed thieves to escape with impunity and, in the absence of any police, said that people should make their own citizen’s arrest. While shop thefts soared, all he had to say to the public was, basically, that they were on their own and should sort it out themselves.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Many of my constituents are exasperated by the fact that the police are unable to turn up when there is shoplifting or a burglary, yet they were able to send six officers to get themselves involved in a dispute with a local school and to warn off local elected representatives from getting involved. Sadly, that misallocation of resources and unwarranted police overreach is not an isolated example. May I urge the Minister to avoid engaging in political point scoring and instead join me in sending a very clear message from both sides of this House that our expectation is that the police should be focused on solving real crimes and staying out of legitimate free expression and democratic debate?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I think it is fair to say that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have been very clear about the priorities of this Government for tackling crime through our safer streets mission. We want to halve violence against women and girls over the course of the next decade. We want to halve knife crime over the course of the next decade. We will deliver the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers back into our communities that were decimated under the previous Government. The priorities of this Government are very clear in tackling crime and policing.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

My constituent lives just 500 metres from the Tesco Express store in Eastbourne where she works. She does not feel safe leaving as a result of the retail crime there and so gets a taxi back home in the evening. Will the Minister explain not just what the Government can do to help protect shop workers like my constituent, but what can big business such as Tesco do to better protect the employees who do such an important role for them and for their communities?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Clearly, legislation has been brought forward to protect retail workers from assault. However, a good employer will want to ensure their staff are well looked after. If there are issues about leaving work and needing to take a taxi, I am sure that good employers would want to address that and support those retail workers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) has outlined, this weekend we heard the shocking reports that the parents of a nine-year-old girl were arrested by six Hertfordshire police officers and placed in a cell for 11 hours because they complained about their daughter’s primary school on WhatsApp. At the same time, 270,000 shoplifting cases have been closed without a suspect being identified. Does the Minister agree that the police should be able to get on with the job of tackling crime on our streets? Can she comment on whether they were getting their priorities right in that case?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As the shadow Minister will know, this is an operational matter for policing, and it is quite clear that the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner have set out that there will be a review of what happened in that particular case.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

6. What steps her Department is taking to tackle violence against shop workers.

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

To repeat what I was saying, under the previous Government violence and abuse towards retail workers increased to unacceptable levels. Everyone has a right to feel safe at their place of work. Alongside the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the Co-op, who have long campaigned for stronger protections for retail workers, we are bringing in through the Crime and Policing Bill a new offence of assaulting a retail worker, to protect those hard-working and dedicated staff who work in stores, and to send a really strong message that violence against retail workers will not be tolerated.

[John Whitby]

On Friday I visited the central Co-op in Ashbourne, which recently experienced an armed robbery. Elizabeth and Georgia were working there when the robbery took place and are still deeply affected several months later. What action are the Government taking to stop violence against shop workers, especially in rural areas where the geographical distances involved often mean that the police take longer to respond?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that shocking case to the attention of the House. All our thoughts will be with Elizabeth and Georgia after what they have been through. I also want to applaud the Co-op for the leading role that it has played in helping us to develop this new offence of assault against shop workers, to ensure that it is not just armed robbery against its staff that will be punished but the acts of violence and intimidation that far too many shop workers find happening on a daily basis. On the issue of serious crime in rural areas, our neighbourhood policing guarantee will deliver thousands of neighbourhood police community support officers across England and Wales, including in rural areas, to speed up response times, build up public confidence and ensure that for those violent criminals who commit acts such as armed robbery, there will be no hiding place from the law.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

In Ashford and Staines in my constituency we have a real plague of shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. Inspector Matthew Walton of the North division is doing a great job with his team to tackle it, in combination with the community and the retailers, but still the problem is getting worse. After the success of the facial recognition software roll-out in Croydon, will Ministers please consider extending it to Spelthorne, because it would be a welcome addition to policing in my area?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As an operational matter, live facial recognition is something for the police to use as they deem fit, but from my experience of it being used in Croydon, I can see the benefits to policing. It seems to be a very effective tool that police forces should have in their armoury.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to tackle the antisocial use of off-road bikes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

9. What steps she is taking to help tackle rural crime.

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

The Government are committed to tackling rural crime and safeguarding rural areas through tougher measures to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping and the theft of agricultural equipment. Alongside our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we are also providing funding to the national rural and wildlife crime units to ensure their valuable work can continue.

[Paul Davies]

Crime rates in rural areas have surged by 32% since 2011, compared with 24% for urban areas, with a total rise of almost 130 reported offences. Rural crime in my constituency includes theft of agricultural machinery, livestock and fuel. The area’s remote locations make it vulnerable to such crimes, which impact on local farmers and residents. What are the Government doing to ensure that rural crime gets the attention that it deserves?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that vital issue. Just last month I held a rural crime roundtable in North Yorkshire and met local residents and farmers to discuss this important topic. Last week, in recognition of the success of the national rural and wildlife crime units, I announced additional funding for both in the next financial year, so that they can continue to support the police in rural areas. We are also working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on the next iteration of the rural and wildlife crime strategy. Later this year we will implement the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 and put the necessary secondary legislation in place. Ahead of that, we will publish the Government’s response to the call for evidence on the scope of that legislation.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

One of the less widely recognised rural crimes is the use of catapults to maim and kill wildlife. Those weapons are also used in urban settings. I know that the Home Office takes the view that the wildlife protection legislation and the police powers ought to be adequate to deal with that, but at the moment they patently are not. Will the Minister consider reviewing that and possibly amending the Crime and Policing Bill to take account of it?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am always happy to review legislation and ensure that it is fit for purpose. I would be very happy to discuss that further with the right hon. Gentleman.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

10. What her policy is on the use of live facial recognition technology by police forces.

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

I thank the right hon. Member for his interest in this subject and for the Westminster Hall debate that he secured last year. I want to support the police to use live facial recognition safely while balancing public safety and safeguarding individuals’ rights. The Home Office invested over £3 million in 2024-25 to develop a small national live facial recognition capability by purchasing and equipping 10 mobile LFR units for deployment later this year. I have been listening to stakeholders and will outline our plans in the coming months.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Although I recognise that the use of facial recognition technology can lead to more offenders being caught, does the Minister accept that deployment of a permanent network of fixed cameras across Croydon represents a significant escalation in their use, which makes it all the more important that a clear legislative framework governing their use is debated and approved by Parliament?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I fully accept that there is a need to consider live facial recognition. At the moment the law governing the use of that technology comes from various different things—human rights and equalities legislation, and other measures—and we want to see whether that should be brought together. That is why I have been having a series of meetings over the last few months. As I said, we will set out our plans for live facial recognition in the coming months.

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

Harlow police department’s recent successful trial of facial recognition has led to some arrests. Does the Minister agree that technology can play a vital part in tackling crime but cannot be a substitute for neighbourhood policing?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we have committed to neighbourhood policing and 13,000 additional police officers and PCSOs on all our high streets and in communities up and down the land.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

11. Whether she has received legal advice on the compatibility of recent changes to her Department’s guidance entitled “Good character: caseworker guidance”, updated on 10 February 2025, with the 1951 refugee convention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

15. What steps her Department is taking to support police forces in Gloucestershire.

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

Total funding for Gloucestershire police for 2025-26 will be up to £169.3 million, which is an increase of up to £11.2 million on last year and includes £1.5 million to kick-start the recruitment of additional neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers in Gloucestershire—to get those bobbies back on the beat in our local communities.

[Cameron Thomas]

I thank the Minister for her response. In 2015, Baroness May of Maidenhead, the then Home Secretary, accused police forces of “crying wolf” over funding cuts. In the decade since, police services across the country, such as mine in Gloucestershire, have never truly recovered from her scandalous cuts to their numbers. Gloucestershire constabulary is one of the worst funded in the country—the victim of an unfit-for-purpose funding formula. Last week, the chief constable announced 60 staff cuts as she battles with a £12 million deficit. Will the Minister meet me and my chief constable to discuss those challenges?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Yes, of course I will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

As the Minister has said, getting more bobbies on the beat in Gloucestershire and across the country is crucial to delivering the frontline policing that our communities deserve, but recent freedom of information figures show that more than 1,500 police officers are stuck on long-term sick leave, including 148 in my own Greater Manchester police force. On the job, officers witness violent and traumatic events that can damage their mental health, but too many report being left without enough support. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that mental health support is good enough in the police? That is one of the ways to get officers fit for a return to work more quickly, to be part of restoring the proper community policing that our communities deserve.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Lady raises a very important point about the wellbeing of police officers and police staff. We have the police covenant, which is very important. I have already had the first meeting about the steps we are taking to improve work around the police covenant, but fundamentally occupational health is a matter for chief constables in their own forces. We are very keen that the work that has gone on to improve those occupational health standards continues and that the wellbeing of police officers is at the front and centre of our work, so that we have a healthy workforce to deliver for us on our safer streets mission.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

T2.   Residents of Exeter, particularly female residents, have raised with me their alarm at Tory-led Devon county council’s decision to dim or completely turn off 80% of Exeter’s street lights during the night, including on streets and paths to railway stations and bus stops. Many shift workers come home late at night or start early in the morning, and having well-lit routes offers them a sense of security. Does the Minister agree that Devon county council should think again, and should consult with resident groups and other groups on a way forward that puts the safety of residents at the centre of its decision making?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It is absolutely key that people feel safe walking at night, particularly shift workers and residents, and good street lighting is a key part of that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

T3. Cambridgeshire’s rural crime action team is successful, but it does not have the resources to be available 24/7. Indeed, it was not available during the recent hare coursing incursion into my constituency of Ely and East Cambridgeshire. What assessment has the Minister made of ensuring the 24/7 availability of rural crime action teams?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I was very concerned to hear about the incident to which the hon. Lady refers. I announced earlier that additional funding is going into the national wildlife crime unit and the national rural crime unit to assist forces in providing the cover necessary in rural areas.

[Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)]

T8. During a recent walkabout in Wallsend with Northumbria’s police and crime commissioner, Susan Dungworth, and the North Tyneside cabinet member for community safety, Karen Clark, I heard about how the police, retailers and the council work in partnership to tackle retail crime. However, while larger retailers can provide personal safety equipment for staff, that is not affordable for small retailers. Does the Minister have any plans to help small shop owners with such costs?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The Government have announced that we will provide £7 million over the next three years to support the police in tackling retail crime, including by continuing to fund a specialist policing team. There is £100,000 available to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to assist with measures that retailers can introduce to make their shops and retail outlets more secure. That that may well be of use.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Topical questions should be short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

T9. Socketts newsagents in my constituency is more than 100 years old, but it faces closure because of gangs of masked youths shoplifting. What will the Minister do to help Socketts and ensure that it can stay open?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Well, that is totally unacceptable. That is why we need our neighbourhood policing guarantee, and bobbies working on the high streets and in communities that have been devoid of police officers for too long, because of decisions taken by the previous Government. I am happy to discuss that case with my hon. Friend.

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

T5. Under the Police Regulations 2003, officers in Hertfordshire receive an allowance of up to £3,000, and those in Bedfordshire receive £2,000. Officers in Cambridgeshire are not eligible for the south-east allowance, despite being in the same tri-force area. The Policing Minister has previously informed me that the Government will give careful consideration to representations regarding the south-east allowance. Will she take steps to award the south-east allowance to Cambridgeshire constabulary police officers?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am certainly willing to hear representations on that.

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

T10. Following the gripping storyline of “Adolescence” and the rise of incel culture contributing to youth crime, what specific measures is the Home Office implementing to address the root causes and create a safer and more supportive environment for our young people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

In the south-west last year, 77 police community support officers were taken off our streets; my local Avon and Somerset force accounted for 60 of them. It said that the change was a direct result of lack of funding. Will the Home Secretary agree to raise the matter with the Chancellor as a matter of urgency, so that we can put more money back into frontline policing?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

An extra £1.2 billion is going into policing for the financial year starting tomorrow. Obviously, past Governments must account for their failure to fund the police adequately.

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

When the Home Secretary visited Nuneaton to speak to local business owners, she heard from them directly about the problem of retail crime. There was a glimmer of hope, because our town centre officer was having a big impact, but that role is now vacant. Shops and other businesses say that retail crime is at an all-time high, with a 58% increase since January. Now that Labour is putting more money into people’s pockets, what more can be done to ensure that it is safe for it to be spent in town centres?

Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

Q Earlier we heard legal opinions about the fact that moving offences under £200 into triable either way could lead to significant delays. On prolific offenders coming time and again, it was suggested earlier that speedy justice is effective justice. Do you think it is important that justice is dealt out speedily in these cases, and should that play a part in our decision making?

Graham Wynn: Yes, it is important. If not dealt with speedily, the people who could give evidence in the trial or to the court might well have moved on, or they might no longer recall the offence or work for the same retailer, especially when there is a violence issue, so speedy and swift justice is worth while and makes the point. In terms of the types of sentences, when we were in the EU the Commission always used to say in its directives that the sentence must be “dissuasive”. I think that is a good term: the penalties must be dissuasive. On exactly what the range should be, it is for the Government and people to place it in the context of other offences and evidence of what works best.

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

Q Thank you very much for giving evidence today. How do you think shop workers will feel about the new provision on assaulting a retail worker? Will they feel reassured that there will be action if they are assaulted in the workplace?

Christopher Morris: From the evidence that we have in Scotland of some of the provisions and the feedback that we have received from members, they do feel more reassured, on the basis that they know there is a specific offence there to protect them. As was mentioned before, they are quite often involved in law enforcement, and they feel that they should have the right of law enforcement there.

Such a provision also sends a slightly broader message: it sends a message to perpetrators. We were pleased that Police Scotland did a significant amount of work before the Scottish provisions came into force to educate the police force on the use of the provisions and where they could be used. As Paul was saying, we have seen a drop in violence, and it is the police using those provisions that has helped to lower violence among perpetrators. When cases reach the courts and judiciary, the provision also sends a clear message that this is a significant issue for them to deal with. So I think it helps retail workers, but it helps right along the chain of making sure that the issues are tackled and dealt with.

Paul Gerrard: I say with the greatest respect to this place: do not underestimate how, over the last 10 or 12 years, retail workers have felt completely abandoned by law enforcement. This account is a couple of years old—I think the police have made great strides in the last 15 months—but when you ring to report an armed robbery with three masked men with machetes, and you are told to ring the non-emergency line, that tells you as a shop worker how to feel.

I was with a colleague this morning, one of our Nisa partners. Ben, from Freshfields in Croydon, is the owner of three small shops. He told me that he and his staff know about this provision and are genuinely pleased that someone is looking out for them. Do not underestimate the impact it will have. We have 55,000 colleagues in the Co-op. My colleagues absolutely know about this and welcome it, because they feel, alongside the improved police response that they are beginning to see, that someone other than the Co-op and their families care about what happens to them at work.

Graham Wynn: It sends a message to potential offenders and, indeed, to retail workers. They can see it as part of a package that includes these proposals, the Government’s action on neighbourhood policing, with specific mention of taking action on retail crime; and the retail crime action plan from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, with its desire to have better police attendance for violent crimes or where the person is detained and there is clear evidence. Last, it is part of a package leading to better and improved statistics, so that everyone can feel more confident that the police will attend and that something will happen to those who commit these offences.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q What about the presumption that in cases of assault on a retail worker, a criminal behaviour order will be attached? We have been talking about some of the measures that we think are important to put alongside a conviction. Do you support a criminal behaviour order that could, in effect, ban the individual from attending a particular area or a particular shop? Would that also help to reassure shop workers in particular?

Graham Wynn: Retailers in our latest survey, which went up to August or September last year, said they had issued 400,000 banning orders themselves, in a civil sense. I know that they are not wholly a CBO, but people do think that banning orders for a first offence are better than doing nothing or telling them to go and do community service, or discharge or whatever it may be. It is something specific, and if they breach that, more serious things can follow. A proportionate approach is probably quite sensible—that is the first option, and then unlimited fines and six-month prison sentences can follow. Yes, I think they are useful.

Paul Gerrard: The Co-op is a community-based retailer. We are in every postcode in the country. Many of my colleagues who are attacked or abused or threatened know the people who did it, because they are from the same communities. A CBO is a really powerful way not only to protect them but to be seen to protect them. It stops those people coming in. Over the last eight or nine years that we have campaigned on this issue, that colleagues have said to me many times, “Even when the police come”—as I said, that has changed significantly over the last 15 months—“they will be back the next day.” The CBO gives my colleagues that legal protection to keep them away from us. It is a very powerful signal as well as practically keeping colleagues safe in the shops.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q The majority of shop theft cases are heard in the magistrates court. Is it your understanding that they will continue to be heard in the magistrates court?

Graham Wynn: I believe so, yes. I would expect them to continue to be heard there because that is where people can get the swiftest justice. We know the other courts are very full up with cases and there are delays, so that is my understanding.

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

Q Thank you very much for coming along. You will have to forgive me as I kind of wiggle around here a little bit. Clause 14 is on assault of a retail worker, and goes on to define the place of work of a retail worker. Something that you mentioned, Mr Wynn, got me quite interested in talking about delivery drivers, and the clause does say that “‘premises’ include a…vehicle”, such as a food truck. To take, for example, a washing machine installation engineer working for a Currys, do you think that the Bill protects somebody like that, who is working for a retail firm but is actually in somebody’s home? Is that something that could be covered by the Bill, or that you would look to have covered by a Bill such as this?

Christopher Morris: I would link that question back to the CBOs from a couple of questions ago. I think that there is a clear issue there. Various parts of the home delivery sector require the worker to go into people’s homes. With Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Ocado home delivery, there is an offer to almost put it in the fridge for people, and then you have those typical two-man delivery operations for washing machines or beds.

There is certainly a significant issue on the grocery side, where those delivery drivers are also having to make age verification checks when alcohol or other age-restricted products are being delivered, and are having to say that someone cannot have those. You are almost in the door with those products, and you have to say, “Sorry, if the ID isn’t here, I’ve got to take them away,” which can cause issues with violence, threats and abuse. Then, with the way that the systems operate, there are substitutions as well, and having conversations about those can raise the frustration levels of customers. We would therefore want to see those aspects, where people are going into people’s homes or delivering to people’s homes. It is not necessarily a question of the threshold being covered as well.

Part of the reason to link back to CBOs, and why we would want these things covered here, is that the link to CBOs is really good and can help. As a random example, if a Sainsbury’s delivery driver goes into someone’s home and receives a significant threat, then Sainsbury’s can take the decision to take that address off the customer list, but the other companies would not know. If a CBO is in place, a ban could be put on that address because that threat or instance of violence is so great, and those delivery drivers—who we see as retail workers—would not be required to go to it.

Those are the areas that we are keen to continue to engage with Government on, to make sure that the Bill is as effective as we believe it can be.

Graham Wynn: My understanding—I am happy to be corrected—is that the Bill does not cover delivery drivers or anyone other than people working, basically, in a retail store, and that the reference to a vehicle is not meant to be a delivery driver, a delivery van or anything like that.

We do note that the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021, although it is different, does explicitly extend to delivery drivers. We do think that that would be sensible and useful, and there are concerns about delivery drivers. We understand the difficulty of saying, “Well, where do you draw the line?” You mention people going into people’s homes; well, plumbers do, and other people go into people’s homes, so just where do you draw that line? If you dissipate it too much, it undermines the value of the whole thing. We don’t not support others being protected, but we certainly support the classic delivery driver for home produce from supermarkets being included. That is included in the Scottish Act, so perhaps it can also be included in the Bill—unless the Scottish draftsmen have got it wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

That is fine. I just want to make sure that there is nothing you want to add.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Baroness Newlove, thank you for your report, issued at the end of last year, “Still living a nightmare”. In it, you particularly talked about people who were suffering from ASB, the support they needed and the review process. You have touched on this a little, but I would welcome your views on the role that the police and crime commissioner will play. What do you think about that? Do you think that that is the right thing to do? Do you welcome it?

Baroness Newlove: Yes, I welcome the PCC being involved. I welcome what has gone on, because that statutory duty is important. There is also a duty to consult the Victims’ Commissioner, which is important as well. In all of those stages, though, instead of adding another layer, I want to make sure that the communication is right, that people are informed about this process. I tried to put in the Victims and Prisoners Act that we would have an independent chair—somebody who is accredited, somebody who knows. It can still feel very much like they are marking their own homework, because you have the local police review and the PCC. It very much feels as though the victim has to wait for them to make the decisions. We have a review process—an appeal process—but it is about how the communication feels to them.

I worry about how long this will take for the victims. That is why I keep asking for support, as I did in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The mental and physical health of victims of antisocial behaviour will really be in a bad way if we do not give them the support they need. That brings me on to having them in the victims’ code. Even if this comes under the criminal threshold—that is the bit that we used to argue about when we were debating the Victims and Prisoners Act—they should get support and not have to wait. I would imagine that they would be able to see what is happening and the decline of it.

As I said previously, we are not learning from Fiona Pilkington, David Askew and my husband’s case. What people go through on a daily basis should not be acceptable. To set a threshold, we should use our common sense.

[Luke Taylor]

Q We have done a lot of work in my constituency on stalking legislation, due to some casework that we received. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust previously identified

“systemic issues with the police response to stalking”,

and I very much agree with that statement. To what extent do you think the measures in this Bill will address that? This is a bit open-ended, so I apologise, but do you think the Bill could go further in that respect, to improve the response of police around the country—my experience is in London—to prevent these hideous crimes from occurring in the first place?

Suky Bhaker: You may be aware that, on behalf of the National Stalking Consortium, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust issued a super-complaint, from which the recommendations came out late last year. The super-complaint committee found significant evidence of police failings in identifying and evidencing stalking. In fact, fewer than 2% of reported cases result in any level of conviction. We also find significant difficulties when it comes to the judiciary and magistrates, and with prosecutors’ understanding of what constitutes stalking, which leads to missed charges and the dismissal of stalking cases.

Clause 71 and the provision of statutory guidance would go some way to providing a single authority on the law and encouraging consistent understanding of stalking across the criminal justice system. At the moment, the guidance is inconsistent—in fact, parts are conflicting. We have guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour with a different emphasis from the guidance on stalking that the Crown Prosecution Service has produced. It is really important that multi-agency statutory guidance is produced. The super-complaint made reference to magistrates and judges not understanding the presentation of the psychological harm that victims experience. Again, we hope the statutory guidance might go some way in addressing that.

There has been significant evidence about the lack of use of stalking protection orders. We hope that the guidance will bring together the Stalking Protection Act 2019 and the guidance issued under it. It is important that any statutory guidance is drawn up in consultation with specialists across the sector. Obviously, training is pivotal to underpin that.

Risk management is central to addressing some of the systemic issues. We know from the victims we support that clause 72 would go some way toward managing risk, and that is critical. At the moment, victims do not have the right to know, particularly if the stalker is a stranger. That information is sometimes possessed by the police or other agencies, and the victims are not able to obtain it. You might be familiar with the case of Nicola Thorp, the broadcaster and actor, who campaigned quite heavily on this issue. Her stalker was a stranger stalker. He made comments such as that he was sitting so close to her on the tube that he could touch her. She did not know who her stalker was, so everybody became her stalker.

Protective orders are not used enough, so it is often left to the victim to protect themselves, and without the identity of the perpetrator, that becomes really difficult. We know that stalkers often contact multiple people around the victim—on average, 21 family members, friends or colleagues. Again, if we do not know who the perpetrator is, how can protections be put in place? Recent research also shows that 90% of all femicides had stalking in their antecedent history. When we are looking at the prevalence in terms of risk, there is really no question but that those safety mechanisms need to be put in place.

In terms of where you could go further, we would certainly support changes to the stalking protection orders enabling the court to issue those on acquittal and conviction, because we see significant challenges to obtaining those orders, as I said. In the year ending March 2023, 531 applications were made for stalking protection orders, against more than 116,000 stalking offences being recorded, so we are seeing less than 1% of all stalking offences attracting stalking protection orders.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Q This question is probably best aimed at Action for Children. It is on a point that was raised in some of our written evidence about the proposed sentencing under the proposed child criminal exploitation offence compared with the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The proposed sentencing for child criminal exploitation is 10 years, which is much shorter than the penalty of up to life imprisonment under the Modern Slavery Act. That might create a perverse situation where you can be sentenced for child criminal exploitation and get much less than you would under the Modern Slavery Act. Do you have any views on that?

Sharon Maciver: As I mentioned in my introduction, the harms caused to children are lifelong and traumatic and devastate children, young people and their communities. On the length of the sentence, I do not suppose there is any length of sentence that would be justifiable in terms of the harms that are caused by exploitation. I share the concerns on what you described—the length of time in the Modern Slavery Act versus what is described in the Bill. We would want to see that increased.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q I want to ask about criminal exploitation prevention orders. I noted what you said about the need to sanction the exploiters, but also to protect children. Can you say more about the protection that you want to see offered to children?

Sharon Maciver: At the moment, we have a system whereby exploited children will be in conflict with the law at the same time as we seek to protect them by recognising them as victims of abuse. That means children have to go through two opposing systems; one that seeks to protect them and one that seeks to find justice. We know that children cannot consent to their own exploitation, nor should we be criminalising children who are abused in this way.

However, we know that the behaviours that children are exploited into are particularly concerning. They cause significant harm to others and there will be victims within that. We feel that having a dedicated child exploitation order that addresses their behaviours proportionately and appropriately, without a criminal label attached to it, is a real way to manage the risks that these children could potentially pose to others while ensuring the correct protections for them.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q So if a criminal offence was taken through the courts, you could make a criminal exploitation prevention order, and you are saying that there could also be a child exploitation order alongside that. That would all fit together.

Sharon Maciver: Yes.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Okay, that is interesting. In the past, the Modern Slavery Act has often been relied on to deal with these issues of exploitation of children. Do you think that having this stand-alone offence will deal with the problem that we have identified, which the Modern Slavery Act cannot tackle, with the exploitation of children and young people?

Sharon Maciver: I certainly think that the offence is part of the solution, while also ensuring that we protect children. I think the Modern Slavery Act has fallen short in not talking specifically about criminal exploitation and assuming exploitation in other forms. That has been a limiting factor in gathering the suitable evidence to prosecute.

We have obviously suggested that there needs to be a clear definition of a “criminally exploited child”. Within the Modern Slavery Act, there is the assumption that children are victims of trafficking, so we need to prove that there have been issues of modern slavery specifically. A new offence will talk about the behaviours and the concerns that we have for criminal exploitation in its own right.

[Matt Bishop]

Q I have a question for Ms Maciver. How will the measures on child criminal exploitation help to ensure that there is a more effective and consistent response to it?

Sharon Maciver: Having a clearly defined offence will offer the police increased powers to disrupt and sanction these individuals, and will shift the focus on to what these individuals are doing. We know from our work that children often idolise these people who are exploiters; they do not see them as exploiters but as people with status and reputation. These people certainly do not see themselves as child abusers, and would not want to go to prison for abusing children. We hope that in itself will be a suitable deterrent for them to avoid the use of children in their activity.

Just yesterday, one of the members of staff contacted us to say that he had received a text message from a child who was missing, and had been for three days. The child felt that he could not go home because his house would be targeted. His house had previously had the windows smashed in on two occasions, and he had been stabbed several times on the street a few months ago by a gang. The text message said, “I will be murdered if I’m seen on the street. It’s me against a hundred people.” I feel that we do not have the option not to do something about this, given these harms are being caused to children every single day. That child did not feel that he could trust the system enough to support him, so he was trying to manage his own exploitation in that situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Q There are limitations on the ability of the police to seize them from places including private dwellings. Do you have a view on that?

Councillor Garratt: In terms of vehicles, I think that is positive. Another thing about private dwellings or properties, which is not related to vehicles, is the provisions on GPS-tracked devices. You can stick a GPS tag on all kinds of things, including mobile phones and bicycles. That is an extremely useful power that we would welcome, but it also requires the police to decide that it is a priority to track those things. Dr Newport, who I believe is coming later, chained his bike outside Scotland Yard, which definitely has the power to look at its own CCTV and chose not to. That challenge will remain.

I produced a report a couple of months ago showing that every six minutes a mobile phone is stolen in London. That is increasing year on year. We did some polling and the majority of Londoners are now wary in the way they use their phone. You see people turning away or going into doorways, essentially because the criminals who are stealing these phones are operating in a fairly risk-free environment. Anything that introduces some countermeasures to that is very welcome, and making it easier for the police to track and apprehend those people is also very welcome.

Councillor Conway: We welcome the provision on cars to help to create a peaceful and respectful environment. I am very aware of the issues that can happen locally with that. Obviously, increased collaboration between councils and police may require further resourcing, but I note, again, that we are already delivering that collaboration on the ground. We do that quite a lot, but it would be very welcome to have an increased focus and more resourcing.

I wanted to pick up on phones. I was fortunate to represent the LGA at the mobile phone summit that the Home Secretary organised—the Minister was there—and that summit was very welcome. I note, again, that through a proactive relationship with our local police force, really effective action is happening. Local councils have a real role to play in how we work as leaders of place, and how we tackle the crimes that affect people’s everyday lives.

As a Barnet councillor I should add that we are fortunate in Barnet to have funding from the Mayor for London for a specific violence-reduction-unit project over the next two years. That is designed exactly to tackle the mobile phone issues, with a whole range of after-school activities, and we enable people to mark their property and so on. There are solutions to things, and we really welcome the framework that the Bill will provide, but local government needs resourcing to deliver effectively on some of the obligations that are coming in.

Councillor Garratt: Can I make an additional point closely connected to that? New powers are proposed in clauses 78, 80 and 81 on SIM farms and electronic devices used for vehicle offences. They are good measures and we welcome them. I have a useful suggestion. In 2023, an additional power relating to lock-on-type offences was added to stop and search, to allow police to stop and search someone on the basis that they were looking for equipment that would be used for a lock-on-type protest. With the new offences relating to SIM farms and electronic USB devices that plug into a car and allow people to steal it, it would potentially be useful to add an additional stop-and-search power so that the police would be able to stop and search people they believe are equipped for those crimes. Otherwise, there is potentially a gap, whereby a new crime has been created but it is difficult for the police to enforce it.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q It is worth reflecting on the fact that there has been a lot of public order and protest legislation in the last few years. The previous Government agreed that they were going to have post-legislative scrutiny of the 2023 Act, which will happen from this year, as well as of some of the other public order legislation.

I want to ask the Local Government Association specifically about antisocial behaviour, the respect orders in the Bill, and the strengthening of some of the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. What are your reflections on how increasing the respect orders and those other powers will help local authorities to deal with antisocial behaviour?

Councillor Conway: Anything that can help local authorities to deal with antisocial behaviour is very welcome. It is welcome that breaching a respect order will become a criminal offence. It is important that that will set off a different process. Again, though, there are pressures on local authorities.

I note two caveats. One is the new ASB data reporting requirements, which may cause pressures in certain areas. There needs to be dialogue with Government about how to do that really effectively. Also, on the new duty for police and crime commissioners, which will bolster the role of the Victims’ Commissioner in ASB case reviews, we want to caution that that should work okay with the Victims and Prisoners Act. It should not set up two different systems and there should be consistency on the ground.

On ASB itself, I will again speak from a local perspective for a minute or two. We have been fortunate to be London’s first pilot of the Clear, Hold, Build strategy. We are nearly two years into that, and overall crime is down 20%, year on year, across the board. It has also taken a collaborative approach into our policing and partnership. In my particular ward, which had a lot of issues, ASB is down by 65%, which is extraordinary. Burglary is down by 67% and violence against the person is down by 59%. Those results do not just happen. With all this, an effective and proactive local government, partnership with the police, and everyone working together are really vital.

We really welcome the proposals, but it is about how we implement them in practice on the ground. Local government obviously has a very strong story to tell, and dialogue through the Bill, and once it is introduced, will be really important to demonstrate how it is working on the ground. Thank you for the powers to, hopefully, be able to do more.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Thank you for that. You gave some interesting statistics there, so you are obviously already collating data in your local authority area. I assume that most local authority areas are collating data on ASB. I want to be clear: the intention is not to put further burdens on local government; it is to allow that data to be put together so that there is a clear picture of what is happening with ASB around the country. I assume that will not be too much of a burden.

Councillor Conway: I have the data here. I think there is a variety across local authorities. I am also aware that —without stuff that I perhaps cannot say publicly—sometimes you have to draw on other funding to enable systems to happen and to work effectively. We would say that it needs looking at carefully so that we have something that works everywhere, not just in specific areas. The dialogue with local government is essential in that.

[Luke Taylor]

Q It is good to see Neil, my ward councillor and council colleague in Sutton. I want to focus on the seizure of motor vehicles, which relates to an issue we have on our high street in Sutton, but I want to take a slightly different angle and ask whether Neil and Sara think the powers might go too far. Would the ability to seize vehicles without warning, and without an initial pushback on the behaviour, potentially give too much power to the police? Is there a risk of—I will not say “misuse”—over-policing? Do you have thoughts on that? Sutton is a good example but, Neil, your London Assembly seat also covers Croydon, where there might be slightly more rural issues. Sara, do you have any examples from the LGA area that you represent?

Councillor Garratt: You are right to flag that. I spoke earlier about why I think it is potentially of benefit that the police would not have to catch the same person twice. I spoke to a police officer about this, and that is essentially how he described it to me: the way the law stands, you have to catch the same person twice. He gave the example of the Ace Cafe in London, where there is an issue with motorbikes, rather than cars. It is tricky to keep track of precisely who you have recently given a warning. Sometimes the behaviour is so egregious, and well beyond what would require a mere warning, but it does require a warning, and then they ride off and are gone.

You are right to flag up the possibility that the threshold moves such that what might have been a warning turns into a seizure. That is absolutely a concern. In a way, that relates to my point earlier about levels of disruption from protest. Parliament sends words into the world and they take on a life of their own when interpreted by the police or the courts. I would want to see provisions in the Bill to make sure that the power could not be abused. But, fundamentally, as a matter of practical policing, not having to catch the same person, in the same vehicle, in the same kind of act twice would be a benefit of the Bill.

Councillor Conway: We can certainly send in more information to give a range of experience from across the country. Speaking specifically about what I have observed locally, those powers would be very welcome. Often, cars are used for all sorts of things, and completely blight a local street, area, park or whatever. It is important really to have those powers and see how it goes. We are happy to follow up with some more detail.

Councillor Garratt: Councillor Conway’s point about persistence in the same place is very important. Some people do not see this problem from one year to the next; other people see it almost every week.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

This will be the final answer on this subject.

Roger Hirst: We use both. We use what we can. We have crushed hundreds of e-scooters so far.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q I want to ask about antisocial behaviour, and particularly about the role that PCCs will take up under the Bill in the reviews that victims of antisocial behaviour can seek. As PCCs, what is your perspective on that? How might it assist with your work on supporting victims?

Emily Spurrell: I think all PCCs really welcome the additional powers in relation to the ASB case review. Lots of us already promote the fact that there is an appeal process—that, if people are unhappy with how their case has been reviewed, they can come to our office and we will review that. The numbers are very low for that. There is a real challenge in making sure that the public and victims are aware that the option is available to them.

One of the other challenges that many of us face is the engagement we get with local authorities, the police and other partners who are doing the initial case review. The Bill gives us an opportunity to have a clearer and stronger role from the beginning, so that we can have real oversight of how well those reviews are being conducted and how seriously the voices of victims are being heard. We can also then create consistency across our region, and hopefully across the country, so that victims do not end up in a two-tier system in which some local authorities say, “Yes, we’re going to take it and review it, because it meets the threshold,” and other areas do not. Hopefully, our having a greater steer and role in this will bring lots of benefits for victims.

Matthew Barber: I would certainly welcome more involvement in this. It is something that I tried to push with my local authorities a few years ago. I got a bit of pushback because I have no statutory powers in this area. I have 14 local authorities across Thames Valley, so it is a very confused landscape for the public. Local authorities can apply additional thresholds beyond the statutory one, simply to get into the case review system, and they vary across the area. Normally, the complaint I get is about consistency across the whole policing area by the police. The problem I have here is consistency across local authorities. Being able to intervene in the reviews will be helpful, because the public often see it as local authorities or the police effectively marking their own homework.

The most important thing we can do on antisocial behaviour is look at the front door into it. There are provisions in the Bill for the Secretary of State to require data to be shared with the Home Office. However, I think the biggest issue is data sharing between local authorities and the police. In my view, there ought to be a single front door for reporting antisocial behaviour. The public often do not know whether something should be reported to the police or the local authority. Sometimes it may well be both, depending on the nature of what is going on.

In reality, our constituents ought to feel that they can just report something, and the public bodies, behind the scenes, can sort out who will deal with the issue. It should not be for the public to have to navigate the different bits of legislation. Certainly, I would like to see better front-end reporting. Perhaps the provisions on data could ensure that data is better shared between police and local authorities.

Roger Hirst: I agree with my colleagues, but I would ask for the provisions to go that little bit further. It would be really helpful if we as PCCs had the opportunity to require local authorities to act in these cases. To be honest, the case reviews just have not taken off in Essex. The powers are there now, but you can be as loud as you like in telling the public about something that they do not want to use. Thankfully, the number of cases where they might want to use it is relatively few. Local authorities do not promote it, so we have vanishingly few of these case reviews in Essex at the moment. I would like to have some ability to hold people to account for that.

Emily Spurrell: May I make one quick additional comment? It is on behalf of colleagues as well. Although this is all very welcome, I think that if we are to see an increase in the number of reviews, there is a real concern to be addressed about the additional burden and, again, the capacity of the OPCCs—offices of the police and crime commissioners—to deliver on some of it. For example, in London, there are 34 local authority areas. That is a lot of case reviews that the Met would potentially have to deal with. There is a real nervousness in lots of areas that people are suddenly going to see a big uptick in demand. I think we would probably ask for additional support in making sure this works with the resource.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q May I ask about police accountability? The Bill also proposes changes to the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s referral threshold, and that may well result in fewer cases going to the CPS. As you are PCCs, what is your view of that and do you think that it will actually be beneficial?

Matthew Barber: In the light of some of the cases that have prompted the proposed changes, I certainly support them. I think it is right that that threshold is adjusted; that fits with what is right operationally. I think there are still adequate safeguards in place, and it is where the public and, hopefully, Parliament will expect the threshold to be, so I support the changes.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q The Bill also provides that the IOPC can send cases to the CPS before the IOPC has concluded all its work. Do you have any views about that?

Emily Spurrell: I personally welcome that. We get a lot of feedback about the timeliness of reviews and how long the IOPC takes to investigate. There is the impact that that has on, obviously, the officers, but also the victims and other people involved, so I think anything that can speed up that process—in particular, early conversations with the CPS would speed up the process—is very welcome.

[Anna Sabine]

Q Ms Spurrell, you wondered whether we had talked about resources a lot, and it will not surprise you to learn that we have. I want to talk specifically about neighbourhood policing resources. In my local police force, we have seen a 20% drop in the number of police community support officers since 2023, and I know that my principal town of Frome currently has vacancies for PCSOs. Do you have a view on whether the Bill’s provisions, including well-intentioned measures such as the retail crime provisions, can be delivered with the neighbourhood policing that we currently have in place?

Emily Spurrell: We are very honest about the fact that there are severe challenges in policing. It varies across different police forces, but we know that some forces are facing significant financial deficits. The recent announcement on neighbourhood policing has absolutely helped with that. We very much welcome the additional £200 million announced by the Government a few weeks —or months—ago, and lots of that is being used to invest in areas such as PCSOs and putting that visible presence into areas, which I think will help with some of this.

There has also been some flexibility around that funding. Because of the way the previous uplift programme was run, it was very much ringfencing police officers. We absolutely value that, and we know the public value that, but you end up in a very difficult position where forces are having to look at PCSOs and staff jobs to be able to balance the budget. Any flexibility that we can get around how the funding is given to police forces, through us, would be very welcome, because that will means you can start to see PCSOs, for example, playing a more visible role. Certainly the recent neighbourhood policing guarantee has helped with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Q Do you have any views on the approach to hyper-prolific offenders and how to ensure they are properly sanctioned?

Dr Newport: I think there should be provision in the Bill to ensure that, particularly for career criminals—people with 15 previous offences to their name—the more offences they commit, the longer they spend in prison for their current offence. That is technically in the current guidelines, but there are a lot of exemptions in the way they are drafted by the Sentencing Council. It should be put into statute that that is a direct, clear statement that the Sentencing Council should follow, and we should make sure it is super clear to judges.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q More generally on antisocial behaviour and some of the provisions in the Bill, do you support what respect orders could help to deliver in tackling antisocial behaviour in our communities?

Dr Newport: I support a ream of measures before people get to 15 or more offences—before they get to the point where they are career criminals or hyper-prolific offenders. Early intervention is of course the absolute key, if you can get people before they enter that point. I support all measures to try to do this as fast as possible. That means tagging, and other such measures—[Interruption.] I support them, but the building does not.

We have very good evidence that the earlier we intervene—it is not just early intervention, but the speed of that intervention. We have to make sure in statute that people are seen in a courtroom very soon after their first, second or third offence. That would mean that we see meaningful change and people not entering the career criminal pathway. Once they have done, we of course need to imprison them for longer periods.

[The Chair]

Dr Newport, I do apologise for the lighting effects.

Dr Newport: It is okay. It is like stadium lighting— I like it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Q The challenge for the Government is that a huge amount of money is spent managing protests in this country. In London, we spent around £53 million managing pro-Palestinian protests. Some of the measures are designed to aid the police in managing protests and protecting the public from people who would do them harm. How do you think we can best balance the need to allow peaceful protest with the need to prevent disruption and prevent people from using face coverings to avoid being detained by the police?

Venita Yeung: That is an interesting question. I can only speak from the experience of anti-CCP protests, most of which are very peaceful and do not result in any kind of arrests. To balance the needs of public order, the police could always communicate with protest organisers ahead of the protest, and improve their relationships with community leaders to see how they can facilitate a peaceful protest, instead of deploying measures that inadvertently assist authoritarian repression.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q I listened very carefully and am very concerned by what you have said, but I want to highlight that the provisions in the Bill, specifically clauses 86 to 88, do not apply to all protests. It is not a blanket provision that says, “You can’t hide your face at a protest.” Clause 87 is designed only for those purposes where a senior police officer reasonably believes that a protest is

“likely to involve or has involved”

the commission of criminal offences. Having set that out, do you have a different view on that clause?

Venita Yeung: This is a complex issue, but I will try to summarise my view. The power is devolved into police hands to decide whether criminal offences will take place in a protest. At the recent Chinese embassy protests, where there were over 20 police cars and over 6,000 protesters, there were clashes between organisers and police where a disproportionate amount of police power was designated at those protests. For context, lots of Hongkongers who have recently settled here might not understand English perfectly, which could lead to them misunderstanding police instructions.

If more police powers are given, in that case, it could easily have led to an abuse of power, especially when the police do not understand the nuances. I believe there is a letter addressed to the Met police about disproportionate measures being applied to the Hong Kong and repressed Chinese community protests, drafted by Tom Tugendhat MP and Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q But do you accept that we are a rules-based country with the rule of law and that there are checks and balances on the police?

Venita Yeung: Yes.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

That is why we are very specific in what the clause says. It is not a blanket ban on hiding your face if you feel that you have to; it applies only if a senior police officer believes there is going to be the commission of offences.

Venita Yeung: That is a very good question. The Government can try to clarify the provisions around the suspicion of crime to clarify what the suspicion of crime here is. I understand the proportionate need to lay out clear rules, but sometimes most of those criminal offences are quite broadly defined.

For example, last time when the protest was organised, the police ordered the protesters to stay only within a very small area. If you stood outside of the area you could get arrested, and that was linked to another offence—the blockade of the highway. I urge the Committee to understand that it is a very easily reached threshold for the criminal offence of suspicion. There is a need for the Government to balance that, especially when it comes to protest-related laws.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Just to be clear, are you saying that you should not be able to stop someone from covering their face at any protest? Is that your position?

Venita Yeung: My position is that if it is about very obvious criminal intent, the Government need to clarify this very broadly defined offence. I think the Government should clarify it so that we can balance the power of police and organising a democratic protest.

[Anna Sabine]

Q I think you are doing really well, Ms Yeung; thank you for coming in. Just a quick question, although I probably know the answer: can I assume that your concerns about face coverings would also apply to the use of live facial recognition technology for protests?

Venita Yeung: Yes.

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.