Crime and Policing Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Jack Rankin and Jess Phillips

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

Clause 59 seeks to curb the ability of registered sex offenders to change their names and thereby evade detection and pose a renewed threat to public safety. It does so by introducing a mechanism whereby police can issue a notice to a registered sex offender that prohibits them from changing their name on official documents, such as passports or driving licences, without prior authorisation. It is contingent on the police’s assessment that such a change would pose a risk to the public or specific individuals. Exceptions are considered for legitimate reasons, including marriage, religious conversion or protection from harm, and offenders retain the right to appeal the decisions in a magistrates court.

The current legal provisions clearly allow some of the most dangerous in society to evade detection and sometimes even to secure positions of trust, often leading to further offences. Take the case of convicted paedophile Terry Price, who sexually abused Della Wright when she was between the ages of six and 11. Terry Price changed his name five times and offended over three decades. Monsters like that simply must be stopped, and the current provisions are clearly not enough to prevent such criminals from using multiple identities to evade detection and commit the very worst kinds of crime. Thankfully, he is now serving a 22-year sentence. Della Wright bravely waived her right to anonymity and has campaigned tirelessly for measures to close the legal loopholes that allow sex offenders to change their names. Her campaigning has given this issue the attention it deserves.

The measures introduced in the clause are proportionate in that they are contingent on the police’s assessment that such a change would pose a risk to the public or specific individuals. I welcome clause 59, but wish to speak to the Opposition amendments that have been tabled to strengthen it. I welcome the constructive way in which the Minister dealt with them.

Amendment 36 seeks to impose a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they change their name. Fining registered sex offenders who do not notify the police when they change their name would be a meaningful extra deterrent. We spoke earlier in Committee about fines for littering; if we impose fines of up to £2,500 for persistent or serious cases of littering, why should we not impose a similar financial penalty for registered sex offenders who clearly try to evade the law?

Amendment 50 would place a duty on police forces to notify victims if their abuser legally changes their name. It is beyond comprehension that there is no provision in place to give victims the dignity and transparency of being updated if their convicted abuser legally changes their name. I take the Minister’s point that some victims do not want to know—that was a good retort to the amendment—but the suggestion of an opt-in or opt-out system was constructive.

Clause 60 will introduce a requirement for registered sex offenders to inform the police if they plan to be away from their sole or main residence for more than five days. Specifically, offenders must notify the police at least 12 hours before leaving, providing details about the date of departure, travel arrangements, accommodation plans during their absence and their expected date of return. If any of this information changes before departure, offenders will be obligated to update the police accordingly. Additionally, if the actual return date differs from the one notified to police, they must inform the police within three days of returning.

Under the current legal framework, offenders are required to notify authorities only if they stay at a new address for seven consecutive days or more, which has allowed some to exploit the system by moving between different locations for shorter periods without notification, thereby evading effective monitoring. By reducing the notification threshold to five days, clause 60 seeks to prevent such circumvention and ensure continuous oversight.

I wholly support Opposition amendment 37, which seeks to add more teeth to the clause by imposing a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they are absent from their sole or main residence. Earlier, I used the example of litter fines; if we can fine parents up to £2,500 for persistent absences from school, as is currently the case, we could and should fine registered sex offenders who go absent from their sole or main residence. It is something that the average, sensible, small c conservative citizen of this country would see as an entirely appropriate additional deterrent.

Clause 61 introduces a new provision into the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to mandate that certain registered sex offenders notify the police before entering premises where children are present. While registered sex offenders are currently already subject to various notification requirements, there has been no explicit mandate for them to inform authorities before entering environments where children are present. The enhanced ability of police to monitor high-risk individuals effectively, while also deterring potential reoffending by increasing the accountability of registered sex offenders, is clearly welcome. Knowing that additional safeguards are in place to protect children will hopefully give communities greater peace of mind.

I urge Committee members to back Opposition amendment 38, which would impose an unlimited fine if a relevant registered sex offender did not notify police that they were entering premises where children were present. There should be no excuses for registered sex offenders in making such a serious breach. If we are seeking to give communities peace of mind, amendment would 38 provide an additional mechanism through which paedophiles would be compelled to think twice about flouting the law, and parents would feel like the law was well and truly on their side when it comes to protecting children from the most dangerous criminals.

[Jess Phillips]

I have realised that I did not answer one question after the Divisions. The hon. Member for Stockton West asked about the justification for the regulation-making power in clause 60; I refer him to paragraph 90 of the delegated powers memorandum for the details on that.

On amendments regarding a £2,500 fine, under the existing legal framework a person would go to prison for up to five years and face an unlimited fine, so the amendment would weaken the current position. I want to make that completely clear before we divide.

On the hon. Member for Windsor’s point about it being a constructive conversation, as somebody who sat on the Opposition Benches and moved hundreds of amendments over the years, in my view the point was always to have a constructive conversation with the Government about what would make things better. That is absolutely the spirit in which I wish to proceed. I always welcome any conversation that any Opposition Back Bencher, and indeed Front Bencher, wishes to have with me.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Crime and Policing Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Jack Rankin and Jess Phillips

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jess Phillips]

I do not ask this to catch out the hon. Gentleman, but has he read either of the two independent inquiries specifically into Rotherham? One was written by Alexis Jay and the other by Dame Louise Casey for the previous Government. What does the hon. Gentleman think will be found for the Rotherham victims that was not found in either of the two independent inquiries or in the statutory grooming gang inquiry undertaken by Alexis Jay? We say, “Never again,” but we still have not implemented the recommendations of those inquiries.

[Jack Rankin]

I have read the Jay report but not the other report. I am speaking to clause 43, not the amendments, so I am supporting the Government in my remarks—the Minister can get me later.

Clause 43 is intended to compel transparency. It holds those in positions of power accountable when they turn away, and it provides law enforcement with the tools it needs to intervene earlier, investigate more thoroughly and prosecute more decisively.

Crime and Policing Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Jack Rankin and Jess Phillips

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Rankin]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, but not quite as much of a pleasure as listening to something akin to the Gettysburg address from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West.

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

That was short.

[Jack Rankin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, she went on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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