Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting)

Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Bishop]

Q Baroness Newlove, given that intimate image abuse disproportionately affects women and girls, how do you think the changes will specifically help to address the unique challenges that they face in seeking justice and support?

Baroness Newlove: It is all about regulations. As the Victims’ Commissioner, I am working closely with Ofcom. It feels very much that this is designed for individuals. It is not designed to really get the tech companies to show up and do what they are supposed to do. We need to get more of the tech companies to take more responsibility and not leave it to the party who has been damaged.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Q Baroness Newlove, cuckooing is a pretty heinous crime that takes advantage of some very vulnerable victims. What impact do you think making cuckooing a specific offence will have on those victims?

Baroness Newlove: Don’t get me started on cuckooing! Cuckooing is an interesting area, and I have been working on it for quite a long time. People do not realise the level of harm it causes entire families. It can destroy them. My concern about cuckooing is centres on understanding and whether the Government will ensure there is guidance for police and other operational partners.

Cuckooing is not what you see on the soap operas. These are evil people who pick on vulnerable people and take over their lives. While this Bill creates a new offence whereby a person commits an offence if they exercise control of the dwelling, it sounds very blah-di-blah. What is needed is breaking down the problem and educating people on how this can absolutely take over the lives of the most vulnerable people. It goes into exploitation and county lines—there is no one thing. What I want is for all this to flow into this mechanism. Cuckooing has to be stated, but we must put it alongside exploitation, county lines, drugs and everything else. My concern is that when the guidance is published, victims of cuckooing will still not realise that they are being cuckooed. I do not know where they got the word cuckooing from, but that was what it was called when I went out with the police many years ago.

It is a really hard thing to break. If that person thinks that they are a part of the family, as well as the huge threat to their real family, it is very hard to recognise that. This problem must have a multi-agency approach and it must be in capitals and it must be where we are reporting. There have been many millions spent in this area, but I would like those involved to be more educated and to get a professional toolkit. I know a toolkit has been developed to help to disrupt cuckooing victimisation —I think it was issued to professionals in October 2024. I encourage authorities to utilise it. It is so important, and I have seen so much devastation from cuckooing. It is like watching a film on screen, but it is real life for some people today.

[David Burton-Sampson]

Q Again, this one is for you, Baroness Newlove. There is nothing more frustrating than having your device stolen and knowing where it is, yet the police being unable to act. Are you confident that the new powers in the Bill will give the police what they need to act in those situations where a device can be located?

Baroness Newlove: I am always confident in new powers. My reservation or caveat to all of that is about using them in a sensible way. This is anecdotal, but we hear it every day, even in Parliament, being told to put our phones in our bags—that is how bad it is. It is making sure that the police use those powers properly and understand them. We are also looking into the technology that could be equipped to research these incidents and prevent them from happening in the first place. We need to protect victims from them. Unfortunately, anecdotally, I am not hearing that the police are actually doing something. That is why we must get police better training and understanding to protect victims. Victims, doing their own investigations, phone up the police and say, “I know where my phone is,” and the police do nothing. While legislation is great for professionals, we have got to see the people on the ground delivering for the victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Sabine]

Thank you.

[Louise Jones]

Q The Bill introduces a new offence of cuckooing, and I am particularly interested in your opinion because, unfortunately, a lot of cuckooing takes place in council properties. Having lived on a street where cuckooing was going on, I have seen at first hand the impact on the wider neighbourhood as well. I am interested to get your views on how welcome the provision is and how effective it will be.

Councillor Garratt: I welcome the provision. Again, there is a hint of déjà vu about it. This is serious. We talk about county lines-type crime. Often London is the originator of that, and therefore we are dealing with the holders of those lines. This type of crime, where people take over a vulnerable individual’s property, often in quite unpleasant ways, is currently quite difficult. There are a number of provisions that connect to it, including some of the modern slavery provisions, but I welcome wholeheartedly a specific offence for that type of crime, which is definitely prevalent and definitely needs tackling.

Councillor Conway: We are echoing each other a bit here, which is good. To echo that, we very much welcome the provision. I note that case studies from councils were actually used to argue for the provisions in the Bill. The LGA’s modern slavery network will be publishing further case studies. Obviously there has to be a link between the strategies for modern slavery and for violence against women and girls; it all has to talk to each other.

I have signed closure orders on behalf of residents to stop issues—everything that comes with this, not just in the property itself, but for a local authority or the residents in the area. I cannot help but reference Clear, Hold, Build, because it has fundamentally changed the way things are happening locally, together with a proactive approach by our local police. It has fostered that more collaborative approach, and the more residents are able to speak up and feel that they are heard and that authorities will listen and recognise the problem on the ground, the more effective we can all be. This one has been a long time coming.

[Joe Robertson]

Q To the extent that it is relevant, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor.

I want to take the panel back to clause 45(2) and the duty to report. I note that the police and local authorities are treated as interchangeable in the provision about who a person must report to. I invite any thoughts about that idea that the police and local authorities are somehow interchangeable and have similar skillsets. Councillor Conway referred to the training that would be needed with local authorities, but clearly there are so many different ways you could report. Although the police are used to reporting of criminal activity, the council does not routinely receive reports in that way. I invite either of you to comment on that slightly unexpected and unusual interchangeability of police and local authorities.

Councillor Conway: Again, we would be happy to write with more detail on that. Where that relationship works effectively, I understand the interchangeability. I think it probably needs looking at. There are effective systems on the ground that do enable that, but maybe it needs looking at more closely. We can send you more information.

Councillor Garratt: If we are dealing with criminal behaviour, which I think we are in this circumstance, the obvious place to report it is the police. I do not know whether there is a provision for reporting to the council if someone is already involved with a social worker, for example; that might be deemed to be an adequate way to report it. But if the purpose of the provision is to make sure that these crimes are investigated and prosecuted, then the obvious place to report that to would be the police.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Louise Jones]

Q In my constituency of North East Derbyshire, we have real issues with car theft, and in this Bill we have a couple of clauses affecting signal jammers. I am interested to hear your thoughts on how that will have a practical impact on preventing car theft.

Roger Hirst: Car theft has been growing across the country, but it has been particularly spectacular in Essex. Last year, in one area of our county, it rose by 80%, which is dreadful. Jammers are undoubtedly a help. The technology is available to stop the passive entry system, but the criminals are very inventive, and are currently buying in quite expensive bits of kit from Poland, which they can bring in legally. As Mr Barber said earlier, we really need to have the legislation to mean that owning those things is a crime. They are good only for one purpose, but at the moment buying them is perfectly legal. Using them is a crime; having them should be illegal as well.

I have been to see and talk to Jaguar Land Rover, because it was one of the companies particularly hard hit by theft in our area—I think Essex has a good reputation for being good buyers of Range Rovers. It responded very well, and committed to retrofitting security to its vehicles to change the risks of passive vehicle entry, which is basically where you have a key that you do not have to press a button on, and there is a dialogue and signal between your vehicle and your key. That is possible for a criminal to read very easily, because there is no single instance where you are pressing the button. Jaguar Land Rover has made that much more difficult to intercept.

To ban the equipment that could do that would be really helpful. At the moment you have to pay for it, but it is readily available over the internet. It is possible for the car manufacturers to make that more difficult—I think they are always working on it, but they will, however, always have to run ahead of the inventiveness of the criminal. Whatever can be done about the ownership of the bits of equipment that criminals need to be able to break into vehicles that easily would be extremely helpful.

Matthew Barber: What will be key here is the secondary legislation—from memory, I think it is clause 78 or 79 that allows the Secretary of State to make additional secondary legislation. That will be critical in years to come. As Mr Hirst said, that technology is constantly changing. A definition in legislation now around signal jammers will no doubt be out of date—possibly even before the Bill gets Royal Assent. It will be critical for the Home Office to keep that list of prohibited equipment under review.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Sabine]

Q I represent Frome and East Somerset, which has a large number of NFU members and farmers, who I meet a lot. They tell me frequently that they do not bother reporting rural crime, because they just do not think there is any value in doing so or that it will ever be resolved, which massively frustrates the local rural crime PCSO, because she never gets the intelligence she needs about what is happening. From an NFU point of view, do you feel there is enough in the Bill on rural crime to reassure farmers that the Government are taking their concerns seriously, and that, if they report rural crime, something will be done about it?

Sam Durham: Not necessarily in the Bill; it is all linked to funding, and the fair allocation of police funding as well. A lot of rural forces that I speak to, including Avon and Somerset and Lincolnshire, will say that the funding they receive from central Government does not necessarily reflect the operational issues they have in remote rural areas with tourists and vulnerable communities that take a long time to get to.

We challenge our membership to report crime. There is a culture in farming to just get on with it—if your fence is damaged, you repair it yourself, and it is not worth reporting—but we have sent that message out, and we are working with the police to say, “You do need to report it, because there’s no way you can increase police support or funding without that understanding of how much crime is occurring in rural areas.” We work with other agencies, which say that a lot of that crime is potentially linked to organised criminal networks. The reporting aspect is an important part of building that picture.

[Louise Jones]

Q Farmers in my constituency of North East Derbyshire tell me that they have a frustrating issue with off-road bikes often being used across their land. Do you think the Bill goes far enough with the new powers to seize those vehicles?

Sam Durham: I think it does. That power to seize vehicles that are being used in an antisocial manner is key. We think of farming in rural areas, but the urban fringe area is key to where vehicles—bikes, quad bikes or even off-road vehicles—are used in an antisocial manner. Many farmers flag it to me that those people are out there, and the measures in the Bill look positive on that side.

[Harriet Cross]

Q Missing from the Bill is anything to do with livestock theft or worrying. Do you consider those to be covered sufficiently in other legislation, or would you like to see something included in the Bill to recognise that that is a huge issue for farmers and rural landowners? I do not want to diminish theft from a shop in any way, but the value of a cow or sheep is significant. Should that be better represented in the Bill?

Sam Durham: On the livestock worrying issue, there is a private Member’s Bill progressing at the moment—the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill—that I believe the Government have said they will support. A lot of the measures in it have appeared at other times in legislation but then been dropped. We have worked quite closely with National Police Chiefs’ Council and others, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Kennel Club, and we would support a lot of those measures to give the police more powers to investigate, seize dogs and take samples to link dogs to attacked animals. I think that that Bill, if it progresses, will cover that issue.

Livestock theft is a complicated issue, because you need the skills to handle livestock in order to steal livestock, but it is a concern, because there are routes for livestock to enter the food chain, and if animals are being stolen and processed in a different way, there are potential food hygiene issues. The picture on livestock theft is not clear at the moment. The National Rural Crime Unit now has a livestock theft co-ordinator, who is doing a lot of research into how livestock theft is recorded by the police. At the moment, there is not a clear picture of how it is recorded by each force, so there is not a national picture on livestock theft. Again, we have the issue of how it is reported by our farming members. There are not measures in the Bill on livestock theft, but, potentially as a result of the research that the National Rural Crime Unit is doing, there could be scope for future legislation on it.