Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Harriet Cross and Matt Bishop

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

Q Mr Murphy, can I pick up on the point about under-18s and respect orders? What sort of age would it be beneficial for the age limit to be reduced to, if that is what you were saying? Is there a particular age group where we see prolific antisocial behaviour starting to become more apparent? Also, is the definition of antisocial behaviour in the Bill wide enough? Clause 1(2)(9) states:

“‘anti-social behaviour’ means conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.”

My direct question would be: is it therefore being restricted to just a “person”, or does it include instances of neighbourhood or property nuisance, where there is a large-scale impact but no single person can be identified as the recipient?

Dan Murphy: On your first point, it would obviously capture more incidents and issues if the threshold was set at a lower age, but do we want to be criminalising children with this type of offence? There is a balance, and it is a matter for Parliament and society as to whether they would like to lower that age. I can understand why it has been set at 18, but I wanted to make the point that, as it is set at 18, that power could not be used for young people.

On harassment, alarm and distress, that is a person-specific issue, compared with a community or area. In policing, if we could have something that captured that as well, we would welcome it—again, it is an extension of powers. You are putting me on the spot here, as I am thinking, “How would you prove that? Who would be your witness or injured party for a community?” I think what is provided at the moment is useful. Would it be good if it could be widened? Yes. Practically, could it be widened? I think we would probably need a whole other Committee and some lawyers to discuss that one.

[Matt Bishop]

Q May I take a moment to thank the panel, and your colleagues, for your service and continued efforts in making our communities safer? It is important to recognise that. My question is on the measures that we are implementing to provide more protection against retribution for authorised firearms officers who are facing criminal proceedings for offences committed during their duties. Do you think the measures will reassure firearms officers that the Government value the unique and dangerous work that they do? Will the measures give them more confidence moving forward than the CPS has given them recently?

Chief Constable De Meyer: It is important to point out how rare it is in this country for a firearms officer to discharge their weapon; reassuringly, it is rarer still that someone dies as a result. Obviously, it is right that there is a proper investigation wherever that happens, but I do not think it is in the interest of public safety for an officer doing such an important job to feel inhibited from doing what might be necessary, and what they are trained to do, in rare and extreme circumstances, because they are concerned that their name will be made public in a subsequent investigation, with all the risk to them personally that that entails. I cannot say for certain, and colleagues here would give a better indication as to the extent that such a measure might assuage their concerns, but it seems to me to be a necessary and sensible move.

Tiff Lynch: Without repeating what Chief Constable De Meyer has said, certainly we were pleased with the Home Secretary’s announcement on the granting of anonymity to firearms officers in those situations, particularly with NX121 and the case that followed.

Our firearms officers are volunteers. That is key and it really needs to be noted. They put themselves and their lives at risk to protect society. In these cases, for their families and their own wellbeing, and because of what may follow, it is absolutely right for them to be granted anonymity for a required period of time. To answer your question specifically about reassuring our firearms officers out there today, there is some reassurance, but again, it is a matter of time passing until they actually feel that that will continue.

Dan Murphy: It is definitely a step in the right direction. Firearms officers, like all police officers, are interested in actions rather than words. They would like to see a difference, so once they start seeing that difference, it will make a difference to them. I know that there will be some announcements on the accountability review soon. I think Dame Diana is involved in that, and I know the Government are looking at it. We are really encouraged that there may be some more positive steps that will lead to actions that support officers who put themselves in those more difficult situations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Bishop]

Q Sir Robert, during your tenure as Justice Secretary you acknowledged that the number of people prosecuted and convicted for rapes had fallen to the lowest level since records began—including having more than halved in the space of three years—while the number of reported rapes was still increasing. What specific measures did the previous Government implement to address the shortcomings? Do you believe that those efforts were sufficient to meet the victims’ needs? How can the important work on the new measures that this Government have been pursuing be taken further?

Sir Robert Buckland: Thank you for asking that question, because how to deal with what were unacceptable figures was a real judgment call on my part. I thought it was far better, as the responsible Secretary of State, to fess up and apologise, frankly, for the way in which things had happened.

It was through nobody’s deliberate fault, but you may remember the case of a young man called Liam Allan, who was accused of rape and was about to face trial when the disclosure of very important text messages totally undermined the prosecution case, and rightly it was dropped. That, and other cases of that nature, had a bit of a chilling effect—to use a well-worn phrase in these precincts—on prosecutors’ appetite for risk when it came to rape. We then entered a sort of cul-de-sac, whereby, because of concerns about disclosure and the threshold, we saw fewer and fewer cases being brought.

The situation was compounded by the fact that many complainants and victims, when faced with the rather Manichean choice between giving over your phone for months or carrying on with your phone—which is, let us face it, the basis of your life—were saying, “No, thank you. I don’t want any more of this. Frankly, I don’t want to be put through the mill again, bearing in mind the trauma I’ve already suffered,” so the attrition rates were really high.

I therefore thought it was very important that we, the police and the CPS really looked again at the way in which the cases were investigated. That is why I thought it was important that we had things such as the 24-hour guarantee on the return of phones, and Operation Soteria, which was the roll-out operation, refocusing the way in which the police and the CPS worked together on cases to yield results. I am glad to say that we have seen a progressive increase in the number of cases brought. I do not think we are there yet, and we still have to give it a bit of time and a lot more will to get to a position where we can look back.

Let us go back to the Stern review, which was done over 10 years ago. Baroness Stern produced an impressive piece of work that acknowledged the fact that there are many victims and complainants who do not want to through prosecution, and want other means by which they can come to terms with, and get to support for, their trauma. Until we get the prosecution element right and we see the right balance, I do not think we can offer a wide range of different options so that victims feel that they are respected and listened to, that action is taken early, and that they are not having to relive the trauma all over again in a way that, frankly, causes the attrition rates.

From what I see in the Bill, there are certain measures and initiatives that will help in that process, but it does require—and I emphasise this—a huge amount of political will, and the attention of this place, to make sure that the authorities are doing what you want, on behalf of your constituents, them to do.

[Harriet Cross]

Q I have a quick question about how the definitions in the Bill might have an impact on the pressure relating to the number of cases that come to court. Largely, it is about the cases that need a level of subjectiveness—for example, where there is just judgment, or there are reasonable grounds for belief. If the definitions were tightened up, would, or could, that feed through to making sure that the right cases come to magistrates and other courts? Would that help the backlog, or would it put too much pressure back on the police on the ground, who are at the frontline?

Oliver Sells: I am not sure I am able to answer that question. I have not considered the matter in great detail, and when I have not considered something I tend not to answer the question. You must forgive me if I pass that one on to a politician who no doubt has no such inhibitions.

Sir Robert Buckland: No, I have never had any inhibitions, as I think you all well know!

We have to go back to the fundamentals. We should not be bringing prosecution cases unless there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest. That is the very simple test for prosecutors. You need the evidence, and that is the task that can often be very difficult for the investigating authorities. I will labour the point, because it is really important. We are faced with extrinsic challenges, in which digital and assistive technologies are being used on a scale and at a pace that are at once awe-inspiring and terrifying. Unless we can enable our police and investigative agencies to have the same level of firepower, we are never going to win, and we are going to have increasing difficulty in piecing together cases that can then be prosecuted. I think particularly about fraud and the use of blockchain and virtual technology. I want to make sure that in all the work that is being done to try to improve our response to fraud—whether by the Serious Fraud Office, the CPS or the City of London police—we are really on it when it comes to technology.

As Ministers will know, the Criminal Justice Board is the ideal forum for this work to be prioritised in. Ministers can make it the board’s priority and give tasks to all the arms of the criminal justice system to get it right. We did it with rape and we have done it with other types of criminality. I think this is the moment—if it is not being seized already—at which the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary can really step up and make sure that our response to cyber-crime is not just as good as but ahead of the trends that we now see, not just here but internationally. The extrinsic threats are a wake-up call.

Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Harriet Cross and Matt Bishop

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Harriet Cross]

Q I want to reflect quickly on knife crime, and the Bill’s provisions on that. First, what are your comments on the clause to make it an offence to possess with the intent to cause unlawful violence? Do you think that is practically workable? How will that be enforced? More generally on tackling knife crime, what have you seen in your areas that has been good, bad or indifferent? Is there anything in particular missing from the Bill?

Matthew Barber: An awful lot of focus in legislation goes on the type of knife being used—the talk about zombie knives and so on. Although I would not oppose the legislation that has been put in place to prohibit the use or ownership of those weapons, the reality is that the vast majority of knife-enabled incidents—whether that is robbery, theft or injury—are caused by kitchen knives, which we cannot realistically outlaw in our society.

I think the use of intent and the ability to seize within private dwellings is really important. The police may be dealing with a suspect for an unrelated offence around drug possession, for example, and while they are in that property, they may see a stash of knives that are clearly likely to be used for criminal purposes—not for someone cutting their salad—yet they would currently be powerless to do anything about that, because they are being legally held in private premises. This is one of the things that I would put in that category of tying up some of the loopholes in legislation, which will not actually cost policing anything. At the moment we have police officers in situations where they cannot use current legislation to protect the public.

More broadly, where we have seen success, certainly in Thames Valley and across the country where it has been done, it is that focus on the possession of knives that is absolutely vital. It is about a good use of stop and search, and making sure that we are focusing not just on the people who are already committing the dangerous offences of robbery and assault, but on getting the knives off the streets in the first place, recognising that possession itself is critical to enabling others to commit further offences.

Roger Hirst: I very much agree with that. It has always been a difficult area, but I have never really understood why the previous legislation, and perhaps therefore this legislation, could not simply ban all bladed instruments that do not have a legitimate use in the environment in which they are found.

We had a machete battle on Southend seafront last summer, which was extraordinary. None of those young people had any reason to be carrying a two-foot bladed instrument. In fact, why on earth were they allowed to buy them in the first place? The provisions around purchase over the internet need to be enforceable. It must be the case that people have to produce ID when they order it, and when it is delivered, to prove that they are over 18. But also, why are things like that available over the internet at all? Having talked to agricultural and nature groups, I know there is nothing that you can do with a machete that you cannot do with a billhook, and you are not going to take a billhook to a battle, so why not just ban machetes? That would really help.

Also, with the way the Bill is phrased at the moment, the defence of saying, “I’m only carrying it for self-defence,” would effectively still work, because the implication is that you need to be going out with the intent to cause harm. I think if you are carrying it for self-defence, you are prepared to use it. I would ask the legal brains to think about a way of phrasing it to mean that the plea of, “I am only carrying it to defend myself,” is equally an offence, because that is something you can carry into a street fight.

Emily Spurrell: On Merseyside, notwithstanding some really tragic incidents, we have actually seen knife crime going down. We have seen about a 7% reduction in serious violence, and particularly knife crime incidents. I think there are two reasons for that. First, there has been a huge amount of proactivity. We were the first force to pilot serious violence reduction orders, which have made a difference in terms of identifying the individuals who are routinely carrying knives and posing the threat that has been described. It has been helpful to monitor that. There was a previous question about prolific offenders; we have seen some good success with that.

The flip side of that is public education and engagement, particularly with young people. We work with KnifeSavers to educate about the dangers of carrying a knife, and the fact that you are more likely to be a victim of a stabbing if you carry a knife yourself, even if you are doing it for protection. Through our violence reduction partnership, we have done some work to educate young people and help them to understand how they can get into that situation and what the alternatives are. There is a huge amount of work on education and prevention, which has to go hand in hand with all the enforcement activity.

[Matt Bishop]

Q I want briefly to touch on the police appeals tribunal. Police and crime commissioners up and down the country represent the public in holding forces and chief constables to account. In the context of public confidence in policing, how important is it that PCCs have an equivalent right of appeal to the police appeals tribunal?

Emily Spurrell: Very important. It was a gap in previous legislation, so in our view, this measure seeks to correct an error. As you say, we are responsible for holding chief constables to account. We are very focused on improving the trust and confidence that the public have in the police, so it is important to have that right of appeal if we feel standards have not been met, rather than having to go through a lengthy judicial review process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Bishop]

Q Minister Johnson, could you briefly explain the Government’s rationale and thinking in not making it a criminal offence for a person in regulated activity to fail to report child sexual abuse?

Dame Diana Johnson: We heard from witnesses today who talked about this, and we are very conscious that regulated activity does not just include the people you would expect—perhaps social workers or teachers—but it can include, for example, taxi drivers who are taking children to school on the taxi run in the morning. It can also include volunteers who run the football club on a Saturday. It can include all sorts of people who volunteer their time to help out and work with young people, and to give back to their community.

We were very conscious that the recommendations that came out of Alexis Jay’s inquiry were not about criminalising those individuals. We want to make sure that individuals report to local authorities and the police when they hear really disturbing things from children and young people about sexual abuse—of course we do—but we did not think that it was appropriate to criminalise in that way. What we were very clear about—again, I think that Alexis Jay’s inquiry made this point—is that if anybody tries to interfere with or stop that reporting, that is the criminal offence. That is the bit that we think is important to have in the Bill. Alex has probably got something else to say on that.

Alex Davies-Jones: I just wanted to briefly come in to counteract some of the evidence that we received from Councillor Garratt earlier today. He was incorrect. There are sanctions in the Bill—professional sanctions—for those who fail to report. That also covers anyone working voluntarily or professionally with children in a religious setting. I just wanted to put that on the record.

Dame Diana Johnson: That is absolutely right. If you are a social worker and you do not report to the local authority or the police, there will be repercussions through your regulatory body and also through the Disclosure and Barring Service.

[Harriet Cross]

Q Thank you both. On retail crime, we heard in panel 4 that in Scotland, delivery drivers are included in provisions relating to the abuse, and so on, of retail workers. What work was done alongside the Scottish Act, or looking at Scotland, to reach the decision that they would not be included in this Bill?

Secondly, on respect orders, we have discussed reducing the age from 18. Why was 18 chosen? After the evidence that we have heard today, would any consideration be given to reducing the age, given who is responsible for most, or a lot, of antisocial behaviour?

Dame Diana Johnson: On the point about antisocial behaviour and why respect orders apply at 18 and above, that is because we are really clear that we do not want to criminalise young people. We do not think that it is appropriate to reduce the age limit to 16. Of course, civil injunctions are already in place to deal with young people under 18 who engage in antisocial behaviour. I think they will be called youth injunctions. They will carry on. We are also committed to prevention partnerships, which means identifying those young people who are getting themselves into difficulty, antisocial behaviour or other criminal activity, and trying to work with them early on. I think that keeping young people and children out of the criminal justice system as much as we can and diverting them is key to this. That is why the respect order is post 18.

On retail crime, it was a manifesto promise in the Labour manifesto last summer that we would introduce this particular measure. That was specifically about the fact that some retail workers are carrying out a public service duty. For sales of alcohol, they have to check the age of the individual, and they do so in many other instances as well. For sales of knives, you have to check. That is why we wanted to have a specific offence dealing with assaults on retail workers carrying out that particular role.