Crime and Policing Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

That is an interesting point. It has been raised with us by the coalition against knife crime that we have formed, bringing together campaigning families and campaigning networks and organisations, and as a result it is being examined further.

A range of measures in the Bill, along with amendments that will be tabled, make up Ronan’s law. Pooja, Ronan’s mother, has said:

“I wish this was done years ago, and my son would be with me today.”

We are taking action in memory of Ronan, but also as a tribute to Pooja and all Ronan’s family who have campaigned so hard to keep other children safe.

The Bill also introduces stronger measures to tackle violence against women and girls, and the abuse and exploitation of children. According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, one in four women have experienced domestic abuse, one in four have suffered sexual assault, and one in five have been stalked. Those are the most traumatic and appalling crimes, and it is high time we treated this as the national emergency that it so clearly is. Decade after decade, we have uttered warm words in the House, but too little has changed. It is imperative that we take action, not just through the Bill but across the board. This is part of our ambition to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, an integral part of the safer streets mission, because no one should live in fear.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Those of us who represent Northern Ireland constituencies are very pleased to know about the 51 clauses that will affect Northern Ireland through a legislative consent motion. It is important to recognise the benefits that that will have not just here, but in Northern Ireland. However, there are one or two others that we might like to see in the future. Has the Home Secretary had an opportunity to speak to the policing and justice Minister in Northern Ireland about that?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have had discussions with Northern Ireland Ministers, and I am happy for them to continue.

I am very conscious of the time, and I know that many Members wish to speak, so I want to make some progress now. Through the Bill we will protect people better by making stalking protection orders more widely available and introducing a new criminal offence of administering a harmful substance, for instance by spiking. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has long campaigned for our measures to strengthen the management of offenders in the community and introduce enhanced notification requirements for registered sex offenders, as well as a bar on their changing their names when there is a risk of sexual harm.

We are also taking stronger measures to protect our children, which is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of all. The Bill will create a new duty to report child sexual abuse, backed up by criminal sanctions for those who seek to cover up abuse by preventing or deterring someone from carrying out the duty. That was recommended by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and the Prime Minister and I both called for it more than a decade ago. The Bill will make grooming an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offenders, because these are the most vile and damaging of crimes, and will introduce new criminal offences to combat the use of artificial intelligence technology in the making or sharing of child sexual abuse material, and stronger action against those who organise grooming online, where the scale of abuse and crime is increasing steeply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.

On the whole, the Bill is to be welcomed. A number of the provisions are already in place in Northern Ireland, such as the offensive weapons penalty, and there are others that the Northern Ireland Executive is in the process of introducing. In my intervention on the Home Secretary, I welcomed the 51 clauses that require a consent motion, because they are the sort of provisions that we want in Northern Ireland as well. On the things that are outstanding, the Home Secretary kindly said that she would, through the Minister and the Assembly, take them further, so that is also good news.

There are other measures that I agree with and some that I believe do not go far enough, such as the provisions on policing and investigation. I think of the absolutely heartbreaking interview with David Amess’s daughter about the refusal to carry out a public inquiry into her father’s murder by an ISIS supporter. David Amess was my friend, as he was to many in this House, and we are the poorer for his passing. With all due respect, I believe that the decision not to carry out an inquiry is the wrong decision. I hope this Bill, and perhaps the clauses on investigation in part 13, may lead to further powers being available for families to seek an inquiry into why the police have ceased their investigations. David Amess’s family deserve that inquiry and this House deserves that inquiry, but I will leave it at that.

I welcome the shoplifting provisions, and I very much welcome those on knife crime, which has been a scourge across this great nation, and the Government have accepted the need for such legislation. I wish the tightening of the provisions on child sexual exploitation was not necessary, but it certainly is. Between 2022 and 2023, recorded crimes relating to child pornography were up by 40.6%, which is a shocking figure. As a father and a grandfather, such statistics upset me, but as a parliamentarian, such statistics galvanise me to ensure that we shut down this horrific industry, including by jailing all those involved in sharing videos or producing them. None of those crimes are victimless, and we must take strides to address that. Consequently, I welcome those provisions.

No Bill can ever be perfect, and there are amendments to be made, but it is clear that our system currently allows too many criminals to slip through loopholes, and the police need greater powers of investigation and of drug testing as well. Security must, however, be balanced with—and the Bill should not impinge on—the existing rights of British citizens. The right to protest is a vital mechanism for freedom of speech, but it must be safe protest. I speak as someone who has protested for nearly all my life, and we have lived in a nation and a country where protesting became the name of the game. I have to say that those were always peaceful protests—I underline that very quickly—but a balance must be struck. I look forward to the Minister outlining how we can protect our freedoms in this Bill, such as the right to have a religious belief and to express it in a balanced way, and not be persecuted or discriminated against for that reason.

We also need protection for our service personnel, including by providing support in relation to the vexatious allegations that we are seeing in Northern Ireland. We will not recruit police services or armed forces personnel if they know they will be abandoned and hung out to dry at the first hint of an allegation. The Bill must strengthen that protection. That is one of the things I look forward to trying to do.

There is much in the Bill that we should welcome, and the Home Secretary and the Government are definitely on the right road. We will also see a difference in Northern Ireland, and the Bill is good news for everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Crime and Policing Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

The Bill was amended in Committee to provide for offences relating to dangerous and careless cycling. Amendments 74 to 76 make various consequential amendments to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and other enactments. Clause 120 clarifies the existing power of the Secretary of State to give access to driver licensing information held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to various policing and law enforcement bodies, for policing and law enforcement purposes. Amendment 87 makes employees of the economic crime and confiscation unit in Jersey authorised persons for the purpose of these provisions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Bill applies to England and Wales, but it is important for knowledge and information to be shared with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, for example, so that they are aware of what is happening here—and people may move from England or Wales to Northern Ireland or Scotland. We should ensure that information can be exchanged between police forces and other authorities here and those in the devolved Administrations: if we want security and safety for all our people, that really needs to happen.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of sharing information, good practice and policy development, and I hope that that will go from strength to strength under this Government.

Let me now say something about abusive behaviour towards emergency workers. As we all know, they put themselves in harm’s way to protect us every day, and they deserve robust protection in return. That includes protection from racial and religious abuse, which is not only deeply harmful but undermines the values of decency, respect and public service. Unlike most people, emergency workers cannot walk away from abuse. When they enter private homes they do so not by choice, but because it is their duty to do so. Whether they are responding to a 999 call, providing urgent medical care or attending an incident involving risk to life or property, they are legally and professionally required to remain and act. They cannot remove themselves from the situation simply because they are being abused. The law must recognise that and ensure that they are properly protected in every setting, including private dwellings.

At present, there is a clear and pressing gap in the law. Although existing legislation provides important protections against racially and religiously aggravated offences in public places, they do not extend to abuse that occurs inside private homes. Policing stakeholders have highlighted that gap, and have emphasised the need for stronger safeguards for emergency workers. New clauses 60 to 62 therefore introduce specific offences relating to the use of racially or religiously threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards emergency workers acting in the course of their duties. Crucially, that includes incidents that take place within a private dwelling.

This is a focused and proportionate measure. It does not interfere with freedom of expression; rather, it reinforces the principle that emergency workers should be able to carry out their critical roles without being subjected to hate or hostility because of their race or religion. I hope that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) will agree that these Government new clauses achieve the underlying purpose of her new clause 120.

Clause 112 strengthens the protection afforded to nationally significant war memorials by providing for a new offence of climbing on specified war memorials without lawful excuse. We believe that the same protection should now be extended to other nationally significant memorials, starting with the statue of Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square. The Churchill statue, which is a prominent national symbol of Britain’s wartime leadership, has repeatedly been targeted and climbed on during protests in recent years. Including it within the new offence ensures the consistent protection of one of the foremost culturally significant monuments linked to national remembrance. Amendments 77 to 84 therefore expand the scope of the new offence to include other memorials of national significance, as well as adding the statue of Sir Winston Churchill to the list of specified memorials set out in schedule 12.

New clauses 63 to 70 and 81 and new schedule 1 deal with remotely stored electronic data, clarifying powers for law enforcement agencies to access information stored online and extract evidence or intelligence for criminal investigations, to protect the public from the risk of terrorism and safeguard our national security. The powers will apply when law enforcement agencies have lawfully seized an electronic device, as part of national security examination at UK borders or when a person provides his or her agreement. New clause 70 also amends the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to permit the interception of access-related communications, such as two-factor authentication codes. Those reforms are necessary to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have clear powers to access vital evidence and intelligence when investigating serious offences, including child sexual abuse, fraud, terrorism and threats to national security, at a time when more and more information is stored remotely in the cloud rather than on people’s electronic devices.

Let me now turn to new clauses 72 to 79 and new schedule 3. A crucial aspect of our safer streets mission is to rebuild public confidence in policing. Among other things, that means ensuring that only those who are fit to serve can hold the office of constable or otherwise work in our law enforcement agencies. As well as strengthening the vetting regime for police officers, the new clauses and the new schedule require the National Crime Agency, the British Transport police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the Ministry of Defence police to establish barred persons lists and advisory lists, similar to those created in 2017 for territorial police forces in England and Wales The chief officers of these forces, and others, will be under a legal duty to consult the lists before employing or appointing an individual to prevent those dismissed from policing from rejoining another force in the future.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced a new police efficiency and collaboration programme to cut waste and bureaucracy. It is important that undertakings providing services to the police are delivering the most benefit, and unlocking the efficiency savings needed by forces to achieve better outcomes for the public. Announcing the Government’s intention to consult on establishing a new national centre of policing, the Home Secretary said that she envisaged the body’s being responsible for existing shared services, national IT capabilities, and force-hosted national capabilities. It is right that the Home Secretary has the powers to ensure that those capabilities are fully aligned with the priorities of the police efficiency and collaboration programme, and that they are adequately prepared for transition into the new body with no disruption to service delivery. New clause 80 ensures that the Home Secretary has the power to direct undertakings providing critical services and capabilities to policing to take appropriate action to strengthen their service delivery to better deliver our efficiencies programme, and, ahead of any future legislation to establish the national centre for policing, to remove any barriers to the transition of services into the new centre.

We tabled new clauses 52 and 53 against the backdrop of the Government’s commitment to bring into force the repeal of the outdated Vagrancy Act 1824, which criminalises begging and many forms of rough sleeping. It is generally the case that when begging reaches the threshold of antisocial behaviour there are already sufficient powers available to the police and others to address that, but we have identified two gaps in the law that will arise from the repeal of the 1824 Act, which the new clauses would address. New clause 52 makes it a criminal offence for any person to arrange or facilitate another person’s begging for gain. Organised begging, which is often facilitated by criminal gangs, exploits vulnerable individuals and can undermine the public’s sense of safety. This provision makes it unlawful for anyone to organise others to beg—for example, by driving people to places for them to beg. That will allow the police to crack down on the organised crime gangs that use this exploitative technique to obtain cash for illicit activity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Every day is a school day.

My amendment, new clause 1, would disapply the criminal law related to abortion for women acting in relation to their own pregnancies. NC1 is a narrow, targeted measure that does not change how abortion services are provided, nor the rules set by the 1967 Abortion Act. The 24-week limit remains; abortions will still require the approval and signatures of two doctors; and women will still have to meet the grounds laid out in the Act.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Not at the moment, but I will later. Healthcare professionals acting outside the law and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy would still be criminalised, as they are now.

There has been a cacophony of misinformation regarding new clause 1, so let us be clear: if it passes, it would still be illegal for medical professionals to provide abortions after 24 weeks, but women would no longer face prosecution. Nearly 99% of abortions happen prior to 20 weeks, and those needing later care often face extreme circumstances such as abuse, trafficking or serious foetal anomalies. The reality is that no woman wakes up 24 or more weeks pregnant and suddenly decides to end her own pregnancy outside a hospital or clinic, with no medical support, but some women in desperate circumstances make choices that many of us would struggle to understand. New clause 1 is about recognising that such women need care and support, not criminalisation.

As Members will know, much of the work that I do is driven by the plight of highly vulnerable women and by sex-based rights, which is why I tabled new clause 1. I have profound concerns about new clause 106, tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), which would remove the ability of women to have a consultation either on the phone or via electronic means, rowing back on the progress made in 2022 and again requiring women to attend a face-to-face appointment before accessing care. Introduced in 2020, telemedical abortion care represented a revolution for women and access to abortion care in this country. We led the world: evidence gathered in the UK helped women in some of the most restrictive jurisdictions, including the United States, to access abortion remotely. Here, the largest study on abortion care in the world found that telemedicine was safe and effective, and reduced waiting times.

The fact is that half the women accessing abortion in England and Wales now use telemedical care. Given the increases in demand for care since the pandemic, there simply is not the capacity in the NHS or clinics to force these women to attend face-to-face consultations. New clause 106 would have a devastating effect on abortion access in this country, delaying or denying care for women with no clinical evidence to support it.

What concerns me most about the new clause, however, is the claim that making abortion harder to access will help women in abusive relationships. Let me quote from a briefing provided by anti-violence against women and girls groups including End Violence Against Women, Rape Crisis, Women’s Aid, Solace Women’s Aid and Karma Nirvana, which contacted Members before the vote in 2022. They said:

“the argument that telemedicine facilitates reproductive coercion originates with anti-abortion groups, not anti-VAWG groups. The priority for such groups is restricting abortion access, not addressing coercion and abuse. Forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term does not solve domestic abuse.”

I could not agree more.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who tabled new clause 20, had a terrible experience today: she was unable to walk into Parliament because of the abuse that she was receiving outside and the pictures that were being shown. That was unforgivable, and I want to extend the hand of friendship to her and make it clear that we are not in this place to take such abuse.

While my hon. Friend and I share an interest in removing women from the criminal law relating to abortion, new clause 20 is much broader in terms of the scope of its proposed change to the well-established legal framework that underpins the provision of abortion services. While I entirely agree with her that abortion law needs wider reform, the sector has emphasised its concern about new clause 20 and the ramifications that it poses for the ongoing provision of abortion services in England and Wales. The current settlement, while complex, ensures that abortion is accessible to the vast majority of women and girls, and I think that those in the sector should be listened to, as experts who function within it to provide more than 250,000 abortions every year. More comprehensive reform of abortion law is needed, but the right way to do that is through a future Bill, with considerable collaboration between providers, medical bodies and parliamentarians working together to secure the changes that are needed. That is what a change of this magnitude would require.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank my friend the hon. Member for his intervention, and I heard him make that point in an earlier intervention on the Minister. The fact is that new clause 1 would take women out of the criminal justice system, and that is what has to happen and has to change now. There is no way that these women should be facing what they are facing. Whether or not we agree on this issue, and this is why I have not supported new clause 20, a longer debate on this issue is needed. However, all that this new clause seeks to do is take women out of the criminal justice system now, and give them the support and help they need.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady and I have been friends for all the time we have been here. We had time last night to chat about these things, and we both know each other’s point of view. May I ask her to cast her mind back to telemedicine, if she does not mind? It is said that telemedicine is needed to protect vulnerable women who are unable to attend a clinical setting, but the risks are surely greater. Women may be coerced into abortions against their will with an abuser lurking in the background of a phone call, and pills can fall into the wrong hands, as we all know. Does she accept that, with all the protections she is putting forward to safeguard women, the one thing that does not seem to be part of this process is the unborn baby, and that concerns me greatly?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution, and for the recognition that, while our voices and opinions differ across the House, we have respect for each other. I do not see this as a discussion about the Abortion Act or raising any issue relating to it, because this is the Crime and Policing Bill, and the new clause is only about ensuring that vulnerable women in those situations have the right help and support. That is the whole purpose of it; it is not about the issues that he would like to discuss now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

I respect the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not agree with abortion, but as I have said throughout my life when campaigning on this issue, stopping access to abortion does not stop abortion; it stops safe abortion. We are talking about how to provide abortion safely. He disagrees with abortion, and I will always defend his right to do so, but I will also point out the thousand women who have now had abortions in Northern Ireland safely, which means that their lives are protected. Surely if somebody is pro-life, they are pro-women’s lives as well. New clause 20 is on that fundamental question.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I am sorry, but I cannot. I will tell him afterwards why I cannot, but I promise that it is not out of a lack of respect for his position.

Some say that Northern Ireland is different, but why would we think that women in Northern Ireland are different from women in England and Wales when it comes to human rights? We are seeking not to remove our regulations, but to apply the same test to them. We simply want the Secretary of State to ask whether they are human-rights compliant. Those who celebrated bringing abortion to Northern Ireland, and who continue to promote it, did not just celebrate the provision of a service; they celebrated the liberation of women from this inequality, which we risk perpetuating for our constituents.

Crime and Policing Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I am proud to have stood on a manifesto pledge to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, and I know that colleagues on the Front Bench take that extremely seriously. There are significant measures in this Bill on intimate image abuse, stalking, spiking and the sexual exploitation of children. I know they mark only the beginning of the Government’s mission to tackle those shameful crimes. As a national inquiry into child sexual exploitation perpetrated by grooming gangs rightly gets under way, we must now also confront the adult sexual exploitation being perpetrated on an industrial scale by pimping websites and men who pay for sex, both of which currently enjoy near-total legal impunity.

Laws against the commercial sexual exploitation of adults in this country are outdated, unjust and totally ineffective. In fact, our current legal framework creates a conducive context for commercial sexual exploitation—a failing that overwhelmingly affects women. Pimping websites, which function as massive online brothels, operate openly and freely, supercharging the sex trafficking trade by making it easier and quicker for exploiters to advertise their victims. Those online mega-brothels make millions of pounds every year by advertising thousands of vulnerable women from across the world for prostitution in the UK. Sadly, our legislation allows that.

Men who pay for sex, so often left out of conversations on prostitution and sex trafficking but who are the beating heart of such a brutal trade, abuse with impunity. Their demand and their money drives the sex trafficking trade, yet we do very little to deter them. Let us therefore start that process today by making it crystal clear as a Parliament that it is not possible to buy sexual consent. Giving someone money, accommodation, goods or services in exchange for sex acts is sexual exploitation and abuse; it is never acceptable.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady and her party for bringing this legislation forward. She is probably well aware that we in Northern Ireland, through Lord Morrow and the Assembly sometime back, brought in specific legislation on this, for the first time in the United Kingdom. Has she had an opportunity to look at that legislative change we had at Stormont? What she brings forward is even better than what we had originally tried to get at the Assembly. Does she feel, in all honesty, that women will be protected from sexual exploitation, as she has clearly said that they should?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

The hon. Member is right to say that there is excellent practice in Northern Ireland, and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I chair, is looking at that. He may be interested in that.

Crime and Policing Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was going to say. I will explain what we want to see as we go forward. It is important to recognise that the court will need to consider the necessity and proportionality of the order when making its decision, and that will necessarily include consideration of alternative options where relevant. All that being said, in the light of the most recent decision by the Lords, we have tabled a further amendment in lieu that builds on the previous Government amendment. It offers further reassurance on the role of wider organisations, and we hope it addresses their lordships’ concerns.

The amendment in lieu extends the list of considerations that the statutory guidance may advise the police to consider as part of a youth diversion order application to include the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the police to consult others, beyond the youth justice teams mandated in clause 174 of the Bill. That will extend to applications for an order, as well as when the police are considering a variation or discharge of a youth diversion order. It will go further and make it a requirement for the statutory guidance to include guidance on these matters, rather than there simply being a power to do so, as the previous amendment provided for. I trust that with these changes, the Liberal Democrats will now be content that we have met the intent of their amendment.

Lastly, Lords amendment 359 relates to the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is disappointing, to say the least, that the Opposition seek to return to this issue yet again. Successive Governments have adopted the position that it would be wrong in principle to give a running commentary on which organisations are being considered for proscription under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The decision to proscribe an organisation is a serious matter, requiring careful analysis of whether the test in section 3 has been met. To suggest, as the amendment provides, that the Government should review every organisation related to the Iranian Government within one month of Royal Assent is simply not a serious proposition. To help the Opposition and others to understand the proscription process, we have instead brought forward an amendment in lieu that requires the Government to lay before Parliament within six months of Royal Assent a statement about the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State in relation to their powers under section 3 of the 2000 Act.

Before I conclude, let me briefly explain Lords amendments 265D to 265H. Members will recall that last week we agreed amendments to criminalise the possession or publication of pornography that depicts sexual activity involving an adult credibly role-playing as a child. This new offence is intended to capture content that mimics child sex abuse and risks normalising such horrific conduct. The Government amendments agreed in the Lords clarify the drafting of the new offence. The revised drafting makes the offence clearer, ensuring that context can be taken into account, where it is relevant to whether the person is being depicted as a child under 16 and whether the content is showing sexual activity. That will ensure that the offence can, for example, capture a scenario of one person on camera being directed by another behind the camera to engage in sexual acts.

I fully respect the role of the House of Lords as a revising Chamber. It is entitled to ask this House to think again. On each of these four issues I am addressing today, we have already done that once.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister, as always, for her hard work. In the other place, Lord Weir of Ballyholme highlighted freedom of speech in relation to the Public Order Act 1986. Within the Bill coming forward tonight, there is a fine line in terms of the expression of belief, such as through street preaching. Does the Minister believe that the legislation will ensure that people in this Christian nation can publicly speak the word of God in every corner? Some of us believe that it cannot. Can the Minister confirm that, please?

[Sarah Jones]

As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a fine line to tread throughout public order legislation. We come back to these issues time and again, and it is right that we do so. As times change, the nature of protests changes and the nature of the risks changes. We have new debates about public order. This Home Secretary felt strongly that it was time for a more fundamental look at our public order legislation. That is what we are going through with the review of our public order legislation and our hate crime legislation that Lord Macdonald is undertaking. He will look at whether it is in the right place and doing the right things. I have every confidence in the legislation we are passing today, but the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a review to follow. It perhaps will have more to say, and we will bring it back to this place.

Last Tuesday, this House voted on all four issues that we are debating today and emphatically rejected the Lords amendments. We should again send these amendments back to their lordships with a clear message that they have done their duty but the elected House is clear and unequivocal in its own mind, and the time has come to let this Bill pass. The time for debate has ended. It is now time that this Bill goes to His Majesty for Royal Assent, so that we can get on with implementing the provisions and making our streets, communities and country safer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Rural communities across the country know only too well the consequences of hare coursing, and making an example of it and that being seen in our community sends a real message to those who would offend in such a way.

Lords amendment 359 relates to proscription of the IRGC. There is simply no suitable argument as to why the Government should refuse to proscribe the IRGC and associated organisations. I am sure that the Home Secretary and Ministers will once again, as justification for inaction, point to the fact that the previous Government did not proscribe the IRGC. The reality is that the international situation is now radically different from when we left office almost two years ago. Even before the current conflict began, it was clear that the IRGC was ramping up aggressive activity. It oversaw the deaths of more than 40,000 protesters, and overseas it has continued to extend its influence through the backing of terrorist cells. In 2025 alone, the security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots. The IRGC is a dangerous and lethal organisation.

[Jim Shannon]

Just yesterday, two young men in their 20s and 30s who had stood up for freedom in Iran were hanged by the IRGC, because it is in charge there at the moment. Four weeks ago, six people whose only crime was fighting for freedom by protesting on the streets were hanged by the neck until they were dead. Is it not now time, regardless of what is happening in the world, immediately to proscribe the IRGC, given everything it has done that is despicable, wicked and evil?

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I can tell by your smile that you were not expecting to call me, but I am very grateful that you spied me in this corner at the back of the Chamber.

You will know because I have said it before, Madam Deputy Speaker, that waste crime, fly-tipping and the rest have, sadly, had too much of an impact in Newcastle-under-Lyme. I am thinking of Walleys quarry landfill site and the other examples that continue to blight my community, which I have talked about since my election to this place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) noted, the impact fly-tipping can have on rural communities and our constituents’ lives speaks for itself not just in our surgeries, but in our inboxes. I am thinking of all the people in Betley, Bradwell and Audley who have shared with me the corrosive impact that fly-tipping, industrial crime and waste crime have on communities such as mine.

Conscious of the fact that you did not plan to call me, Madam Deputy Speaker—and judging by the looks of Members, they are keen to get to the votes—

[Jim Shannon]

Well said!

[Adam Jogee]

It was very well said, but it is also important that my constituents are heard in the fight against fly-tipping and keeping our communities safe, clean and green.

When the Minister winds up, I hope she will provide confirmation to Members of the House and to my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme that strengthening the statutory guidance on enforcement, including the use of vehicle seizure powers, will help councils. This is important because the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme will be voting in the Newcastle district borough council elections on Thursday 7 May, and I really hope that people in my community vote for the excellent Labour candidates on the ballot paper that day. It is also important because we need our councils to take tougher, more visible action against the fly-tippers who blight our communities. I hope the Minister will provide that confirmation when she winds up, because it is important not just to me, but to the good people of Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Crime and Policing Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

It is with regret that we return to the Lords amendments to this Bill. The elected House has made its views crystal clear on the issues before us. We have already voted twice, by substantial margins, to reject the Lords amendments. It is time for the considered views of this House to prevail. Let me deal briefly with the two remaining issues before us.

In our earlier debates, I have been clear that the Government agree that the enforcement of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices must be proportionate. Fixed penalty notices must never simply be seen as a money spinner for enforcement agencies, but as an appropriate and proportionate means of tackling antisocial behaviour in our communities. We will make this distinction absolutely clear in our statutory guidance. To this end, we have already agreed amendments to provide that the statutory guidance issued under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 must address the proportionate use of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons. I know the Liberal Democrats want early action on this, so we have brought forward a further amendment to provide that such guidance must be issued within six months of Royal Assent.

It is particularly regrettable that the Opposition have returned yet again to Lords amendment 359, albeit in modified form. The amendment is simply unworkable, and it is wholly contrary to the approach taken by successive Governments to the exercise of the powers in the Terrorism Act 2000 to proscribe terrorist organisations. There is no more important duty on the Government than to safeguard this country from terrorist attack, but requiring the Government to in effect give a running commentary on whether any organisation linked to the Iranian armed forces should be proscribed does not for one moment add to our security. Their lordships can keep insisting on this amendment, but our response will be the same. This is not an amendment that any responsible Government can or should entertain.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In the papers today, there are pictures of six ladies who are going to be executed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is in charge in Iran, because they protested in the streets for liberty and freedom. For those six ladies whose lives are on the line and for the millions of people in Iran who want freedom, I think the Government should proscribe the IRGC, and they should not delay in doing so. I say respectfully to the Minister that it is time to face the realities we have in this world.

[Sarah Jones]

None of us would say for one second that we are anything other than appalled by what we see happening in Iran. None of us supports the Iranian Government and none of us supports the IRGC. We have sanctioned over 550 individuals and organisations, including the IRGC, to prevent them from coming here and to take their assets where we can do so. The point is that this Parliament is not the place for a Government to say one way or the other what they are going to proscribe or not proscribe. That is not the way government is done in this country, and it is not the way we are going to operate now. However, I get the hon. Gentleman’s point for sure. None of us supports the IRGC or anything it does, and we are appalled by the very significant, awful number of deaths we have seen in recent times and, indeed, over many years.

In conclusion, we are reaching the stage where the issue before the House is no longer the detail of the various Lords amendments, but whether the unelected Lords should continue to disregard the clearly and unequivocally expressed views of the House of Commons and delay the enactment of the Bill. We have already rejected the Lords amendments on two occasions, with majorities of well over 100. Let us send these amendments back to the Lords, hopefully for one last time.