Matt Vickers
Main Page: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)Department Debates - View all Matt Vickers's debates with the Home Office
Crime and Policing Bill
Matt Vickers ExcerptsMonday 10th March 2025
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I take this opportunity to thank our brave, hard-working police officers, PCSOs, police staff and volunteers for the huge sacrifices they make to keep our streets safe. I thank all hon. Members across the House for their considered and concise contributions.
The Bill covers a wide array of offences, and we all welcome that. Tackling criminality means equipping the police and enforcement agencies with the powers that they need to lock up dangerous perpetrators to make our streets safer. The Bill contains meaningful and impactful provisions, particularly in relation to knife crime, car theft, retail crime, the sharing of intimate images, child sexual abuse, drug testing and cuckooing among many others.
It is generous of the Government to hold the previous Conservative Government’s work in such high esteem: in fact, about two thirds of the measures in the Bill are copied straight from the previous Government. As was said—I think on several occasions—it is a copy-and-paste job that even the Chancellor would blush over. I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), alongside many other past and current Members of the House, for their significant work in ensuring that those offences are included in the scope of the Bill. That work will ultimately have a positive impact on the lives of all our constituents. Time does not allow me to talk through all the measures in the Bill [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I know that hon. Members are disappointed, but I will focus on a few important provisions.
First, let me turn to retail crime. As hon. Members across this House may know, having served as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the future of retail and as a former Woolies worker—no one ever questions whether I am old enough—I have been very involved in the campaign to protect our retail workers. I have joined the likes of the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), Paul Gerrard from the Co-op, Helen Dickinson and the team at the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores, USDAW, numerous retailers and others who have worked to deliver more protection for our retail workers.
Back in 2021—during my slightly rebellious phase—I tabled an amendment that helped us to make an assault on a person providing a service to the public a statutory aggravating offence. More recently in April 2024, alongside a suite of measures designed to tackle retail crime, we saw the last Government agree to the creation of a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker. I am glad that that will be taken up by the incumbent Government and hope that it will have a real impact and improve the lives of these important key workers in high streets and stores across the country.
I have two concerns, however, about the Bill regarding retail crime. First, the previous Government’s plans had proposed to make it mandatory for the courts to impose at least a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement or an electronic monitoring requirement on repeat offenders convicted of shoplifting or the new offence of assaulting a retail worker and sentenced to a community order or a suspended sentence. That had been welcomed by retailers, but the Bill does not include any provisions to this effect. I urge the Government to look again at this, to ensure that we are doing all we can to protect retail workers and avoid what appears to be the watering down of potential protections.
Secondly, on the plans to remove the £200 threshold for shoplifting, while the rhetoric sounds positive, it is untrue to say that theft under £200 was ever decriminalised. In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment tells us that 90% of charges for shoplifting relate to property worth less than £200. There is a fear that measures will lead to further delays to justice being done while not leading to tougher or longer sentences. Victims of retail crime deserve swift justice, not year-long delays while perpetrators continue to offend.
I turn now to further legislative steps that I hope Members across the House will find difficult to oppose. One hugely important measure is the introduction of a statutory aggravating factor, requiring sentencing courts to treat grooming behaviour as an aggravating factor when considering the seriousness of child sexual offences. The Opposition believe that the Government should go further and establish a national statutory inquiry, but it is right that they have brought forward this measure from the Criminal Justice Bill. It recognises the severity of the offence and ensures that third parties involved in the heinous practices of these rape gangs face justice and punishment. We must take every step possible to protect the most vulnerable and ensure that stronger laws are in place so that the terrible crimes of the past cannot be repeated.
Another key measure in the Bill, contained in clauses 96 to 100, expands the ability to conduct drug tests upon arrest. The expansion of the drug testing on arrival programme, introduced by the previous Conservative Government, has already demonstrated the sheer number of individuals found to be under the influence of substances when arrested. Between March 2022 and September 2024, police forces reported a total of 154,295 tests to the Home Office. Of these, 86,207, or 56%, were positive for cocaine, opiates or both. It is therefore right that we expand the drug testing programme to cover as wide a range of class B and C drugs as possible, allowing the police to access the information they need to manage offenders appropriately within the criminal justice system.
I also welcome the efforts to tackle off-road bikes. Having seen their impact on my constituents, I hope that during the passage of the Bill we might consider going even further, maybe even considering suggestions made by Government Back Benchers. We must use this opportunity to ensure that the police have the powers they need, and to examine where further powers are required to ensure that the law truly serves the victims of crime and provides a level of openness and transparency for our police forces so that people can have confidence in our justice system.
Additionally, we should all want to see the police doing what they do best: on the beat, preventing and investigating crime. Their time should not be wasted on matters that the public do not consider a priority. Time and again, we see reports of police officers being sent to respond to incidents that are not criminal in nature while serious offences on our streets go unchallenged. The measures in this Bill to tackle antisocial behaviour signal an understanding that removing crime from our streets must be a priority. However, we must consider whether more can be done legislatively to ensure that police time is used effectively.
I must stress that all the well-meaning measures contained in the Bill are meaningless without a well-funded police force. Forces are—[Interruption.] Forces—some led by Labour police and crime commissioners—are raising legitimate concerns about the level of funding they will receive from the Government. Any reduction in police numbers undermines every element of this Bill, weakening the police’s ability to tackle crime across the country. The head of the Metropolitan police has raised his concerns about potential job losses in our capital city—a city where 30% of England and Wales’s knife crime occurs.
I should note at this point that it is very welcome to see the Government reintroducing many of the measures on tackling knife crime put forward in the Criminal Justice Bill by the previous Conservative Government, including a power to retain and destroy bladed articles on private property and to increase the maximum penalty for the sale of dangerous weapons to under-18s. Given that the financial pressures faced by police forces amount to an estimated £118 million shortfall, there is a real concern that the Government’s actions will contribute to a decline in police numbers. The Government’s police funding increase masks the Chancellor’s national insurance hike on our police forces and their failure to build police pay awards into the baseline.
Moving forward, we will have ample opportunities as a House to scrutinise the legislation and consider potential improvements. Reading the impact assessments and economic notes accompanying the Bill reveals uncertainty about the effects of its various measures. Notably, there is a lack of clarity regarding the number of individuals expected to be imprisoned for certain offences, with significant variation in the estimates provided. The Government must back our police over the criminals and demonstrate the political will to do so. They must provide police with the resources and robust powers they need to keep officers on the beat, deliver swift justice for victims and, in turn, make our streets safer. This Bill is a step forward. Across the House, we all need to support our police officers to tackle the heinous crimes—
Neil Coyle
Thank you. On swift justice, will the Opposition Front Bench bring forward amendments regarding the shadow Home Secretary’s position on citizen’s arrest? How many amendments can we expect to see about how the police should respond to citizen’s arrests?
Matt Vickers
What the shadow Home Secretary was doing in office was putting more police on the country’s streets than ever before—149,679 police officers. We hope the Government will maintain that as we move forward, but there are lots of question marks around that.
We all need to support our police officers to tackle the heinous crimes that we have heard about in the debate. I hope the Government remain open to considering measures proposed by Opposition and Government Members who are committed to robustly tackling the very behaviours that this legislation seeks to prevent.
Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Home Office
Matt Vickers
Main Page: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)Department Debates - View all Matt Vickers's debates with the Home Office
Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting)
Matt Vickers ExcerptsThursday 27th March 2025
(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 March 2025 - (27 Mar 2025)
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, and the Police Federation of England and Wales. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 12.15 pm. Will witnesses introduce themselves briefly for the record?
Chief Constable De Meyer: I am Tim De Meyer, chief constable of Surrey and the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for disclosure.
Tiff Lynch: Good morning. I am Tiff Lynch, acting national chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales.
Dan Murphy: Morning. I am Dan Murphy, assistant national secretary of the Police Superintendents Association.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Q
Chief Constable De Meyer: The NPCC does not see any measures that have been omitted, save perhaps for the provision on begging, which was in an initial draft, but we understand there were concerns in respect of how that might be enforced. Overall, the NPCC is extremely supportive of the Bill. It seems to us that it brings a lot of laws up to date and frames the law in a way that is much more consistent with the way that a lot of crimes are now committed. It generally enables much earlier intervention and prevention on the back of the new or adapted offences that are created.
Matt Vickers
Q
Chief Constable De Meyer: The point in respect of begging is that, although we were generally supportive of the inclusion of nuisance begging in the provisions, it would require a certain amount of judgment in how to enforce that. That was the only point that NPCC colleagues noted was in the original provisions but is not here. Other than that, they are extremely supportive.
Tiff Lynch: In relation to the overarching Bill, we concur with Chief Constable De Meyer. We are supportive of new legislation that brings us up to societal issues. I do not want to sound like a broken record throughout all the questions, but our main concerns are the infrastructure that sits behind the legislation; the demand that is placed upon the officers we represent, who will be out there on the streets enacting this legislation; resourcing; and the learning, training and development of the officers who will be required to carry it out.
Dan Murphy: The Police Superintendents Association also supports the Bill and the provisions within it. With any legislation, there will obviously need to be clarity through the courts, training or the guidance that comes with the Bill. I have read with interest the debates for and against some of the clauses. On the power of entry, electronic devices and public order, some of the definitions are not defined within the legislation. There is a specific concern that I have read—it might not be a concern—about mandatory reporting in clauses 45 to 54 and whether the covert nature of policing would be dealt with through an exception or some kind of exemption with regard to that route.
Matt Vickers
Q
Dan Murphy: I think it gives you the tools to do the job, but whenever you enter private homes, you only have to look at the case law on warrants, where we have full powers, to see that they are challenged regularly. We need to make sure we are trained and get it right. As this is a new bit of legislation, I am sure there will be challenges either way as and when it is used.
Matt Vickers
Q
Dan Murphy: I think there is a role for the Government and Parliament to communicate that it is a power that has been given to policing. It is not something that policing is searching for and trying to use. The public need to understand that it has been given to us for a reason, and we are using it.
Tiff Lynch: I would go one step further in relation to the public having knowledge of the powers. That also gives our police officers confidence that the Government are behind them when they are enforcing these laws, and the knowledge that they are supported in what they are doing.
Chief Constable De Meyer: We know that the ability to track mobile devices is not sufficiently accurate at the moment for it to be relied upon without some form of corroboration. Therefore, one understands why things are more tightly framed. Where there is good intelligence for its use, this ability to enter swiftly to search for stolen goods without the need to get a warrant will mean that we are able to recover stolen property more swiftly, and that investigations are less likely to be frustrated. To ensure legitimacy in the eyes of the public, that obviously needs to be carried out carefully, but overall it will make it less likely that property, whether electronic property or property linked to rural crime, can be swiftly disposed of. Our current inability to deal expeditiously with those sorts of crimes can adversely impact public confidence. Overall, it is a very positive operational thing.
Dame Diana Johnson
Q
Chief Constable De Meyer: The requirement of belief is obviously a relatively high bar; for example, it is above suspicion. I think that that reflects the need to ensure that a new power such as this is applied carefully and with appropriate corroboration. Crucially, an inspector is going to be readily operationally available for an officer in this sort of dynamic circumstance, so the officer will be able to make contact with and get the authorisation from them. It seems to me that the thrust of the power is very much towards enabling the police to recover property quickly, so belief is a good safeguard and the inspector is appropriately senior and accessible. I would agree on those two points.
Matt Bishop
Q
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.
Matt Vickers
Q
Tiff Lynch: In relation to the powers, this is something that I find myself repeating not in this forum but in other interviews: you can bring in many laws and powers, but we need to have the infrastructure and the resources to use them. We have officers out there with casefiles that are getting longer and longer. There is only so much that can be highlighted as a priority, because if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. Yes, we support the laws. It is for Government to make the laws and for us to carry them out. We will do so, but it is about managing expectations not just from policing but from society.
Matt Vickers
Q
Dan Murphy: If you have someone who is a prolific offender, and the police are constantly dealing with them and there are constant victims, the best place for that person is in prison. Getting them into prison is sometimes not easy, but I think that is the answer.
The Chair
Just a reminder that we need to keep things really short if we want to get everybody in. It may not be possible to do so.
Matt Vickers
Q
Sir Robert Buckland: There are a couple of things, Mr Vickers. First of all, just to build on Mr Sells’s point on clause 16, I understand the huge concern about shoplifting and the perception among many shop proprietors in our towns and cities that, in some ways, it was almost becoming decriminalised and that action has to be taken. But the danger in changing primary legislation in this way is that we send mixed messages, and that the Government are sending mixed messages about what its policy intentions are.
Sir Brian Leveson is conducting an independent review into criminal procedure. We do not know yet what the first part of that review will produce, but I would be very surprised if there was not at least some nod to the need to keep cases out of the Crown court, bearing in mind the very dramatic and increasing backlog that we have. I think that anything that ran contrary to that view risks the Government looking as if it is really a house divided against itself.
It seems to me that there was a simpler way of doing this. When the law was changed back in 2014, there was an accompanying policy guideline document that allowed for the police to conduct their own prosecutions for shoplifting items with a value of under £200, if the offender had not done it before, if there were not other offences linked with it, if there was not a combined amount that took it over £200 and if there was a guilty plea.
What seems to have happened in the ensuing years is that that has built and developed, frankly, into a culture that has moved away from the use of prosecuting as a tool in its entirety. I think that that is wrong, but I do think that it is within the gift of Ministers in the Home Office and of officials in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to say, “That guidance is superseded. We hope, want and expect all offences to be prosecuted.” That would then allow offences of under £200 to be prosecuted in the magistrates court. There is nothing in the current legislation that prevents any of that, by the way, and I think it would send a very clear message to the police that they are expected to do far more when it comes to the protection of retail premises.
On clause 14, which covers assault on retail workers, I was a little surprised to see that there had been a departure from what was a rather interesting amendment tabled in the previous Session to the 2023-24 Criminal Justice Bill by, I think, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris); in fact, I think it was supported by you and others. It sought to amend the law to increase protections for shop workers, but with an important expansion: the offence would be not just an assault, but a threatening or abuse offence as well, which would encompass some of the public order concerns that many of us have about shop premises, corner shops and sole proprietor retail outlets. Yet, we have gone back here to a straight assault clause, which in my mind does not seem to add anything to the criminal code at all.
We have existing laws of assault, which was often the argument of Ministers, including me, when we debated these issues in the past. Again, it seems to me that the opportunity to widen the offence to cover different types of abuse against important retail workers is being missed at the moment. If I was advising the Government, which of course I am not, I would ask them to look again at the clause and to consider expanding it to make it much more meaningful for the people I think all of us want to protect.
Matt Vickers
Q
Sir Robert Buckland: Again, it is a missed opportunity. I think that, accompanying that type of behaviour, is a natural community concern about the prevalence of people who are—well, they are worse than nuisances—real menaces to the wellbeing of the local community. An attack on a shop, in my view, is an attack on the wellbeing of the whole local community. Given how important the local shop is as a lifeline for many people, including older and vulnerable customers, any attack on it that means that its services are lost, even temporarily, is a very serious attack on the community. Therefore, using this opportunity to increase the suite of preventive measures available would seem a very sensible thing to do, and I hope the Government will consider accepting any amendments that will no doubt be tabled with that aim in mind.
Matt Vickers
Q
Sir Robert Buckland: That is a very difficult issue that I looked at carefully when I was in the Government. One of the challenges, of course, is that the offences might be prolific but the sentences they carry often do not even cross the custody threshold.
There are two ways of looking at this. First, the community-based intensive intervention solution seems to be working, particularly in the case of young offenders, and we should look at expanding it to apply to adult offenders as well. There would, of course, be a huge concomitant cost, particularly for the probation service and all the agencies tasked with the intensive supervision of, perhaps, a drug or alcohol addiction. That is the sort of work that will take them off the streets and get them cleaned up, without sending them to a meaningless short-term sentence.
At the other end, there are people committing hundreds of offences, for whom the law cannot as yet provide a cumulative answer. It is difficult for me to suggest on the hoof how we would encompass a sentencing option that allows a roll-up, so that there was a longer term of imprisonment for someone prolific. The danger is that there is always a cliff edge: if someone has committed 24 rather than 25 offences, why should there be such a differential? The long-term answer lies in prevention. I strongly endorse the intensive community-based approach, which is not currently available to the courts.
Matt Vickers
Q
Oliver Sells: Could I touch on a subject that troubles me? It is implicit in the Bill, and it is not necessarily a popular view. The trend towards sentencing inflation has created a growing prison population of particularly young serial offenders who are serving longer and longer sentences. That is causing difficulties with the cost of the prison population and with what to do with people we cannot send to prison. The courts struggle the whole time not to send people to prison unless it is absolutely necessary. The idea that we could, for instance, abolish short sentences—there is a proposal for their removal—seems to me to be very double-edged indeed. We need to be very careful.
The courts, including the magistrates court, must have the powers to move swiftly. This is one of the problems in our system, particularly in respect of the kind of crime we are talking about. When I started out at the Bar, cases were dealt with overnight, and the next day were done and dusted in the magistrates court. It was effective and speedy. Speedy justice is much more effective than slow justice. We have created a situation and a structure, over many years now, where there is almost an acceptance of delay in the system, and I do not accept that at all. If you go to a magistrates court, you will see so many cases adjourned because it is not ready. They are piffling reasons, on the whole—complete nonsense, in my view. When a case is prepared overnight, it should be in the court within a matter of days and dealt with straight away. I do not think we have really understood that in the Bill. It is not quite there yet, in my view.
Sir Robert Buckland: With its wide scope, the Bill is an opportunity for the Government to act on, for example, the recommendations of Jonathan Fisher KC on the overdue reform of disclosure. The disclosure rules were created back in 1996 and are no longer fit for proper purpose. Anything the Bill can do to help to future-proof the use of assistive technologies would be a great opportunity for Ministers and officials. I am convinced that the use of assistive technology—I use the word “assistive” because it is technology not to replace the judge or the jury but to assist them in their deliberations, as well as assisting disclosure officers and the police in their investigations—is absolutely right.
The Chair
Thank you, Sir Robert. We have already used two thirds of the time allotted for our eminent witnesses. As time is fleeting, I request that people keep their contributions as short as possible so that we can cover the greatest amount of content and allow Committee members to ask a question.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Spike Aware UK. Once again, we must stick to the timings in the programme motion. The Committee has agreed that, for this session, we will have until 1 o’clock. Could you please introduce yourself for the record?
Colin Mackie: Good afternoon. I am Colin Mackie. I am the chair and co-founding member of Spike Aware UK.
Matt Vickers
Q
How important are the measures in the Bill, and why? Is there anything that you think the Government should be doing beyond what is in the Bill?
Colin Mackie: I think this is majorly important. It is a giant step forward. Up until now, spiking has been a very grey area. It is charged as assault, theft, poisoning or whatever; it has been such a grey area that it has been hard to process it. That has the knock-on effect of putting victims off coming forward, because they do not know where they are going to go or what is going to be talked about, and they are unsure. Perpetrators of spiking feel, “Well, nothing’s really happening over this. I don’t hear of anybody getting charged for it, and it’s only a bit of fun; we don’t think we’re going to do any harm,” so they carry on doing it.
Having a stand-alone offence is beneficial for the victims, and I also think it is beneficial for the police. I feel that once a law is in place, you are going to get a co-ordinated response from police. Currently, victims in Newcastle are treated differently from victims in Newquay, and it is the same across the whole country. That is one of the major problems that victims tell us about all the time: some forces are great, while others are not so good. I have had one victim tell me that the police said they did not have the manpower or the time to go in and check the CCTV at the club where they were spiked. Another victim told me that uniformed officers turned up and were not sure how to deal with it, but half an hour later, the CID were there and straight into the club. We cannot have that inconsistency; we need to move forward with that.
You were asking earlier, “What can we do to help?” In bringing in the Bill, we have to involve A&E, because A&E has a big part to play in this as well. All too often, as you know, it is the job of the police to gather the evidence, but a spiking victim is likely to appear at a hospital—at A&E—unconscious or confused and not sure what is going on. They are not going to think about asking for a police officer to attend—they are not in a state to do that—so unless they have a family member or a friend there, that is not going to happen. By the time they get maybe two days down the line and think, “Yeah, this is what’s happened to me; I want to report this,” there is a good chance that a lot of the evidence has gone. We need that in the Bill as well: for A&E to play a bigger part by gathering evidence and holding it for the police. Then, if the victim wants to take it forward, it is there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Q
You mentioned that you welcome the clarification in the Bill, which will create a specific offence of spiking by using the word “spiking”. Can you expand on why that will make such a difference for victims? You mentioned some of the issues with the police using different types of offences. Why will it make such a difference to have a specific offence?
Colin Mackie: A victim will recognise that spiking is an offence when they approach the police. Currently they are not sure if they can report it. They are nervous and they are not sure if it is an offence. That has been a big thing that we get fed to us. Away from just the girls, there is a lot of spiking going on with boys now. Males are being spiked as well. It is possible that anybody could be spiked. That is a big thing, because we find that a lot of males think it is a girls’ problem. They think it is tied in with a sexual assault or whatever. If you just say “spiking” males will think, “Yeah, I have been spiked,” and that is it—it is the fact that they have been spiked.
A lot of spiking is now taking place and nothing else is happening. People are not being sexually assaulted or robbed; they are just being spiked. It is what we call prank spiking. People are doing it because they can. I think the ability for someone to come forward and just say, “Yes, I have been spiked and there is a law on spiking,” is the way forward.
Crime and Policing Bill (Third sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Home Office
Matt Vickers
Main Page: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)Department Debates - View all Matt Vickers's debates with the Home Office
Crime and Policing Bill (Third sitting)
Matt Vickers ExcerptsTuesday 1st April 2025
(2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 1 April 2025 - (1 Apr 2025)
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please will everyone switch electronic devices off or to silent? I am afraid that no food or drinks are permitted in the sittings, except for water, which is provided. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or pass their written notes to the Hansard colleague in the room, to my left.
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. The purpose of grouping is to limit, in so far as that is possible, the repetition of the same points in debate. The amendments appear on the amendment paper in the order in which they relate to the Bill.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first or, in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing—please do bob, because if you do not, I will not see you. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment, or new clause or new schedule, again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote—that includes grouped new clauses and new schedules—the Member needs to let me know.
I remind Members of the rules on the declaration of interests as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 1
Respect orders
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “18” and insert “16”.
This amendment would lower the age to 16 at which a court can impose a respect order on a person to prevent them from engaging in anti-social behaviour.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
We welcome this Bill, the many of the last Government’s measures it takes forward, and the opportunity to constructively debate and potentially improve it in the coming weeks.
The clause establishes the legal framework for courts to impose respect orders on individuals aged 18 or older who have engaged, or threatened to engage, in antisocial behaviour, where the court considers it just and convenient to make such an order for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour has serious and far-reaching consequences. It can fracture communities, erode trust among neighbours and make people feel unwelcome or unsafe in their own local areas. For women and girls, it can create a climate of fear, making something as simple as walking home at night a distressing and dangerous experience. It also takes a significant toll on businesses, discouraging customers from visiting high streets and town centres, and ultimately harming local economies and livelihoods. Left unchecked, antisocial behaviour can strip communities of their vibrancy and sense of security, turning once thriving areas into places that people avoid.
We must do everything we can to tackle antisocial behaviour, and the proposed respect orders can be a useful tool. Past Governments have made many and varied efforts to tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour. Both respect orders and antisocial behaviour orders aim to prevent antisocial behaviour that causes harassment, alarm or distress to others. The Bill defines antisocial behaviour for respect orders, in proposed new section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as
“conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.”
That mirrors the definition for ASBOs under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In some ways, ASBOs were effective in targeting repeat offenders, providing a quicker alternative to prosecution and offering communities reassurance. However, their breach rates—as high as 50%—suggested that they lacked deterrent power, with some offenders even seeing them as a badge of honour.
The civil injunctions introduced by the 2014 Act also target antisocial behaviour. They use a similar definition, but have a broader scope, including, for example, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance in housing contexts. Civil injunctions have been more successful than ASBOs in reducing breaches, likely due to their more tailored restrictions and integrated support options. Unlike ASBOs, which often acted as punitive measures, injunctions take a preventive approach by aiming to stop antisocial behaviour before it escalates. They also incorporate positive requirements, such as attending rehabilitation programmes, which help individuals address the root causes of their behaviour rather than simply penalising them.
Many would argue that that shift towards early intervention and rehabilitation contributed to the greater effectiveness of civil injunctions in managing antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour can be committed by young teenage offenders, and while some cases are minor, others can have a serious impact on communities and make lives a misery for residents, denied peace in their own homes and communities. Just look at Witham library in Newland Street, which has reportedly hired a private security guard owing to a rising number of incidents, which have been blamed on local teenagers. Now, Essex county council is considering stepping up its response by issuing bodycams to librarians to deter antisocial behaviour further.
I draw attention to proposed new section A1(3), which requires that prohibitions and requirements avoid interference with the respondent’s work or education. Will the Minister outline how courts are expected to strike a balance between preventing antisocial behaviour and ensuring that individuals can continue their employment or studies? What factors will be taken into account when determining the appropriate restrictions, and how will the courts ensure that any conditions imposed remain proportionate and effective in addressing antisocial behaviour while safeguarding access to work and education?
Proposed new section A1(8) of the 2014 Act, alongside proposed new section 1A(9) introduced by schedule 1, provides that an application for a respect order may be treated as an application for a housing injunction and vice versa. That appears to be a sensible addition to allow the court flexibility. However, it would be useful for the Minister to clarify whether the Government expect one of the tools to be used more frequently than the other. Additionally, will the “harassment, alarm or distress” threshold allow the orders to be applied sufficiently broadly among housing providers?
Proposed new section B1 sets out the relevant authorities that can make applications for respect orders to the High Court or county court. Those include local authorities, housing providers, the chief officer of police for a police force area, or the chief constable of British Transport police and several other appropriate bodies. It is encouraging to see housing providers recognised as registered authorities, in particular when it comes to addressing antisocial behaviour.
The Chair
Order. Forgive me for interrupting, shadow Minister. To be clear, we are talking about amendment 31, rather than the clause as a whole.
The Chair
We will deal with clause stand part later; we are talking about the amendment at this point. That is to save us the repetition, the point that I made earlier. Thank you, shadow Minister.
Matt Vickers
Opposition amendment 31 would lower to 16 the age at which a court can impose a respect order on a person to prevent them from engaging in antisocial behaviour.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Last Thursday, in the evidence session, we heard that a large number of under-18s engage in antisocial behaviour. Does the shadow Minister agree with me and some of the witnesses we heard from that, without the age being reduced to 16, the measure will have less impact, given where a lot of the antisocial behaviour in our communities is coming from?
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend is entirely right. When you speak to some of the people who are at the sharp end of this antisocial behaviour, many of them will tell you that it is inflicted by those under 18. We heard witnesses’ concerns about where the line should be drawn. Obviously, there is a balance with respect to criminalising young people, but there is a point at which there have to be real consequences, and communities need to know that there are consequences, for those youngsters who engage in this behaviour.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
Over the past 14 or 15 years, young people have not had diversionary activities. Youth centres across the country have closed in their tens of thousands. Will the shadow Minister reflect on the fact that young people need diversionary activity, so that they are not lured into antisocial behaviour?
Matt Vickers
With a lot of these things, we need that diversionary activity and to find meaningful things for youngsters to spend their time doing. It is a big, complex mix, and we will probably address this again when we talk about knife crime. It is a big part of what we do, but there have to be sanctions for young people as well. It is not just about the young people committing antisocial behaviour; it is about the communities and the other young people that might have the antisocial behaviour—which often leads to crime—inflicted on them. It is about putting that ladder in there so that people know that, as their behaviour gets worse, the consequences and sanctions get bigger.
This is not just about punishment; but is about intervention, responsibility and, ultimately, protecting both young people and the communities in which they live. At 16, young people can work, pay taxes and make important life decisions. They are entrusted with responsibilities, and it is only right that they are also held accountable for their actions. If an individual is engaging in persistent antisocial behaviour, the courts must have the tools to intervene early, before those patterns escalate into more serious criminality.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Will the shadow Minister clarify whether it is the Conservative party’s position that we should criminalise 16-year-olds but not give them the vote?
Matt Vickers
Well, yes. The Government seem to think that we should not criminalise 16-year-olds but they should have the right to vote. I think it is the other way around: responsibilities come after people show their part in the world. I think we should be voting at 18, which allows people to become informed and knowledgeable about the process and the world around them.
If you go back to families in my constituency, some of the antisocial behaviour that they are suffering at the hands of 16-year-olds has real consequences for them, and there should be real consequences for those who inflict it upon them.
The Chair
Order. I hope Members will forgive me for saying this, but can we try not to use the word “you”? I have heard three different speakers say “you”. All speeches need to come through the Chair, and there is a reason for that—those are the courtesies of the House. Forgive me for saying that, but I think it will help the whole Committee.
Matt Vickers
I am on a mission: there will not be another infringement, Mr Pritchard.
Antisocial behaviour can devastate communities, causing distress and insecurity for residents. We cannot stand by and allow that to continue unchecked. Lowering the age to 16 would mean that we can address these issues sooner and ensure that young people receive the support and guidance—and, potentially, sanctions and deterrents—they need to change course.
Respect orders are not simply punitive measures. They come with conditions that promote rehabilitation, and provide access to education, counselling and the opportunity to turn things around. As the Minister will know, this is as much about deterrence as it is about enforcement. When young people know that there are consequences for their actions, they are less likely to engage in behaviour that harms others. By making the amendment, we would strengthen our communities, support young people and ensure that respect for others remains at the heart of society. During the evidence sessions, we heard the views of witnesses about the 16 to 18 age bracket, and I would welcome further explanation from Ministers on why 18 has been chosen as the minimum age.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
Good morning, Mr Pritchard; it is a pleasure to serve under you today.
The Bill will start to implement our safer streets mission alongside our commitment to the 13,000 additional police officers and police community support officers in our communities. Before I respond to amendment 31, it may assist the Committee if I say a little about why we are introducing respect orders. My doing so now may obviate the need for a separate debate on clause stand part.
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting out the history of successive Governments’ attempts to deal with antisocial behaviour. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a top priority for this Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. Last year, over a third of people experienced or witnessed some form of ASB, and there were 1 million police-recorded incidents. Existing powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 do not always go far enough to tackle antisocial behaviour. That is why we committed in our manifesto to introduce the respect order to crack down on those making our neighbourhoods, town centres and communities feel unsafe and unwelcoming.
The respect order partially replaces the existing civil injunctions power for persons aged 18 or over. It enables civil courts to make respect orders on application from a relevant authority in respect of individuals who have engaged in ASB. Authorities that can apply include the police, local authorities and registered housing providers, among others. Respect orders will contain prohibitive conditions set by the court to stop offenders engaging in a particular behaviour. They can also include rehabilitative positive requirements, such as attending an anger management course, to help to tackle the root cause of offending.
I mentioned that the existing ASB powers do not always go far enough. Breach of a respect order, in contrast to the power it replaces, will be a criminal offence and therefore arrestable. That is not the case for the current civil injunction, which may include a power of arrest only in certain circumstances, where it is specified by the court or where there has been the use or threat of violence or significant risk of harm. I have heard from one local authority of a civil injunction that was breached over 100 times, with the police unable to take quick action to stop breaches because they had to reapply to the courts to arrest the offender. That is not acceptable and the respect order will fix it.
As a criminal offence, breach of a respect order will be heard in the criminal courts. This will allow judges to issue a wider range of sentences—including community orders, fines and up to two years’ imprisonment—than they can currently for civil injunctions. This is an important change. Community sentences enable judges to make ASB offenders repay, often visibly, their debt to their community.
I assure the Committee that there are safeguards in place to ensure that the orders are used appropriately. These are not unilateral powers for the police and local authorities; the terms of an order must be agreed by the courts. For a respect order to be issued, two tests must be met. First, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has engaged in or threatened to engage in ASB. ASB is defined as
“conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress”.
That is a well-established definition. Secondly, the court must be satisfied that issuing a respect order is just and convenient—again, an established test for the courts.
As a further safeguard, we are introducing a new requirement for relevant authorities to carry out a risk assessment checklist prior to applying for a respect order. This will help to ensure proportionate use. We will pilot respect orders to ensure that they are as effective as possible before rolling them out across England and Wales. More details on the pilots and their location will be provided in due course. New part A1 of the 2014 Act, inserted by clause 1, also makes provision for interim respect orders, for the variation and discharge of orders, and for special measures for witnesses in proceedings—for example, to enable them to give evidence from behind a screen.
Amendment 31 would reduce the age at which an offender can receive a respect order from 18 to 16, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, outlined. As I have indicated, the respect order is intended as a powerful deterrent for addressing the most harmful adult perpetrators of ASB. Unlike the equivalent current power—the civil injunction—breach of a respect order is a criminal offence with criminal sanctions, and the Government do not believe that it is right to criminalise children unnecessarily, which is why we committed in our manifesto to introduce respect orders for adults only. However, we know that in some cases tough measures, including behavioural orders, can be useful for dealing with younger offenders.
I absolutely agree with the shadow Minister that there should be consequences for the actions that cause distress and harm to local communities if they are committed by, for example, a 16-year-old. Stakeholders have told us that the current civil injunction can be a very useful tool for this cohort. It enables youth courts to impose behavioural requirements on younger offenders, but without resulting in criminalisation. That is why we have retained that element of the existing civil injunction and renamed it the youth injunction. This will enable youth courts to continue to make orders against younger offenders—aged 10, when criminal responsibility kicks in, to 18—where the court deems it necessary. I am content that this provision covers the need for powers to deal with youth ASB. On that basis, I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 1, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(9) If a court makes a respect order against a person (P) more than once, then P is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”
This amendment means that if a person gets more than one Respect Order, they are liable for a fine.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 32, in clause 1, page 8, line 2, at end insert—
“(4) A person who commits further offences under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).”
This amendment sets out the penalties for repeated breaches of a respect order with a prison sentence of up to 5 years.
Matt Vickers
Amendment 33 would impose a financial penalty on those who receive multiple respect orders. This is about fairness, accountability and ensuring that our justice system is taken seriously.
A respect order is not a punishment; it is an opportunity. It gives individuals a chance to correct their behaviour and change course before more serious consequences arise, but what happens when someone repeatedly ignores that chance? What message do we send if the courts impose an order only for it to be disregarded time and again, with no further repercussions? The amendment would ensure that those who continue to defy the law will face meaningful consequences.
Antisocial behaviour has real victims. It disrupts neighbourhoods, damages businesses and makes people feel unsafe in their own communities. We cannot allow repeat offenders to believe they can break these orders without consequence. A fine is a clear, tangible penalty that reinforces the message that respect orders must be obeyed. We already have fines in place for many other public order offences. They are nothing new. The amendment would bring respect orders in line with other legal measures, ensuring that persistent offenders face escalating consequences.
Crucially, funds from the fines could be reinvested in tackling the very issues that led to the order in the first place, helping communities affected by antisocial behaviour. This is a common-sense amendment. It would give our justice system the tools that it needs to properly enforce respect orders.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that without this amendment the power of a respect order would be greatly diminished? As we have seen with antisocial behaviour orders and convictions for relatively minor offences, repeat offending is the problem. Without the weight of this amendment sitting behind respect orders, they are sufficiently diminished in value as a stand-alone.
Matt Vickers
We saw what happened with ASBOs: people started wearing them as a badge of honour. This amendment could strengthen respect orders, providing real sanctions and consequences for people who fail to engage with what is on offer and with the opportunity to change their behaviour. It is the right thing to do not only by the people who commit offences and need setting in a new direction but for the communities who suffer at their hands. Those communities want to see that there are real consequences for them, and that such people do not think that they are above the law and can get away with anything. It is entirely right to strengthen respect orders further.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that breaches of respect orders will result in a criminal offence that is triable either way is enough of a deterrent? The consequences of breaches will be much greater than they are now.
Matt Vickers
We need to give the justice system and agencies all the powers that they can have, because at the end of the day, it is their discretion that will determine which of these things are applied. If someone breaches an order more than once, and they are subject to several respect orders, which is what the amendment relates to, there should be a stepladder of consequences. We should give the agencies and the Ministry of Justice all the tools and powers that they can use to deter people from committing another offence or indeed being subject to yet another respect order.
This is a common-sense amendment. It gives our justice system the tools that it needs to enforce respect orders properly, protects communities from persistent offenders and upholds the principle that the law must be respected.
Dame Diana Johnson
Amendment 33 would make a person who has been given more than one respect order liable for a fine of up to £1,000. It is unlikely that a person would be given more than one respect order. An order may be given for a specified period of time or may state that it has effect until further notice. In practice, if changes are needed to a respect order after it has been approved, the applicant would return to court for the order to be varied if, for example, it was considered necessary to include additional requirements or prohibitions, or to extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect. However, a person may be given a separate order where they have engaged in antisocial behaviour that meets the legal test for use of another ASB power—for example, a housing injunction or a criminal behaviour order. Respect orders are preventive orders. They seek to prevent further antisocial behaviour by helping to address the root causes of the person’s behaviour.
Dame Diana Johnson
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh pointed out, respect orders deter people from carrying on with their behaviour because a breach can lead to arrest, being brought before a criminal court and, potentially, imprisonment. My expectation is that, if there is a need to make changes to a respect order, the requirements will be changed and the prohibitions will be extended on the respect order that has already been issued, so I am not sure that I take the point about multiple respect orders. What we all want is that, when a respect order is issued, the individual will comply with it and no further steps are necessary by anybody because they will have stopped the antisocial behaviour and dealt with their underlying problems. Simply fining someone for receiving further orders would be a punitive measure and unlikely to help that individual change their behaviour.
Amendment 32 would increase the maximum prison term available for repeated breaches of respect orders to five years. Currently, the maximum sentence for breaching a respect order is up to two years’ imprisonment upon conviction in the Crown court. We believe that is the appropriate level of sanction, and it is in line with the current civil injunction that it replaces.
As I said, respect orders take a fundamentally preventive approach, and it is appropriate that the sentence reflects that. If the offender abides by the terms of the order, there will be no further sanctions. However, it is right that custodial sentences are still available for those who continue to cause havoc to our communities. Other powers, such as criminal behaviour orders, are available on conviction for any criminal offence in any criminal court, and they carry a longer sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment. In the light of that, I hope that the shadow Minister will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for her response. As we know, a small number of people are responsible for the vast majority of crimes. It is right that we put these ladders in place for the communities out there who are frustrated because they do not think the system has consequences for the same young people who are offending again and again, and creating lots of havoc on our streets. We would like to press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matt Vickers
Amendment 32 sets out proposed penalties for repeated breaches of a respect order, with a prison sentence of up to five years. It would strengthen the enforcement of respect orders by introducing clear and proportionate penalties.
The Chair
Order. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but we are meant to be discussing amendment 30. The shadow Minister mentioned amendment 32, which we will vote on later. I just want to make sure he is speaking to the right amendment.
Matt Vickers
Thank you, Mr Pritchard.
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 1, page 2, line 30, leave out from “behaviour” to the end of line 31 and insert
“has the same meaning as under section 2 of this Act.”
This amendment would give “anti-social behaviour” in clause 1 the same definition as in section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
The 2014 definition of antisocial behaviour, as outlined in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, provides a crucial framework for tackling the real, everyday issues that affect communities across the country. It recognises that antisocial behaviour is about not just criminal activity but the negative impact that certain behaviours have on the lives of ordinary people. By encompassing actions that cause harassment, alarm or distress, the definition offers a broad, flexible approach that allows authorities to respond effectively to a wide range of disruptive activities.
The definition also strikes a vital balance between protecting individual freedoms and ensuring the safety and wellbeing of the wider community. It does not overreach, but rather targets conduct that directly harms or threatens public peace, whether it be noise disturbances, vandalism or other forms of nuisance. That makes it a vital tool for local police forces, housing authorities and community groups to act swiftly and proportionately. Rather than offering an overtly wide-ranging definition, it draws a clear connection between antisocial behaviour and housing-related issues. The definition acknowledges the complex nature of the problems. It ensures that disruptive behaviour in homes, whether public or private, is tackled with the same urgency as antisocial behaviour and actions in public spaces.
Dame Diana Johnson
Amendment 30 would expand the legal definition of antisocial behaviour for respect orders, which is currently drafted as behaviour
“that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.”
The amendment seeks to include housing-related definitions of antisocial behaviour, including causing “nuisance or annoyance”, as in section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The test for nuisance and annoyance is a lower level of behaviour than that causing harassment, alarm or distress. That is appropriate in a housing context where a victim cannot easily escape from ASB that is occurring in the area where they live. We know that ASB can have devastating consequences in such situations, undermining the victim’s safety and security in their home. That is why we have retained the test for the new housing injunction in clause 2.
The respect order goes further than the civil injunction, as I have set out, in making a breach a criminal offence and enabling a wider range of sentencing options. It is appropriate that the legal test should be behaviour that is causing, or likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress. It is also important to be mindful that the respect order sits alongside a suite of powers available to the police and local authorities to tackle ASB, which are designed to apply to the different scenarios and harm types that the amendment aims to capture. I hope I have assured the shadow Minister of our reasoning in setting the bar for a respect order at the level of harassment, alarm or distress, and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for her response, but I would like to press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 1, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
“D1 Power to move person down list for social housing
A respect order may have the effect of moving any application the respondent may have for social housing to the end of the waiting list.”
This amendment would mean that a person who receives a respect order would move to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing, if applicable.
Amendment 34 would mean that a person who receives a respect order would move to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing, if applicable. This is a crucial measure that can play an essential role in ensuring that the allocation of social housing is fair, responsible and aligned with the values of respect and community responsibility. The key benefit of the provision is that it provides an additional incentive for individuals to behave in a way that upholds community standards.
David Burton-Sampson
On that point, does the shadow Minister not believe that everybody has the right to decent housing?
Matt Vickers
I do. At the moment there are huge challenges around housing. People who live in social housing want to live next to someone who treats them with the dignity and respect that they deserve. That is fair on the people who might be their neighbours and fair on the other people in that list. There is a list for a reason, and the people who misbehave should feel the consequences of doing so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
As a constituency Member of Parliament, the shadow Minister will have handled cases where people want their neighbours to move because of the neighbours’ antisocial behaviour. Would he be willing to tell his constituents that those neighbours cannot move because they are at the bottom of the list?
Matt Vickers
Well, I will give the Ministers the reasons for it. We are talking more broadly about the powers and sanctions given to help us to tackle antisocial people who create havoc on some estates and cause absolute uproar. No one wants such people to move in next to them. Does the Minister want the empty house next door to be occupied by someone who is committing antisocial behaviour and failing to comply with the responsibility of being a civilised member of society?
Matt Vickers
They are not going to jump the queue ahead of law-abiding citizens who do the right thing. That is what the queue is about, and there is a queue because there is not space.
Matt Vickers
We are saying that they will not get ahead of others. They will join the back of the queue; they will be put down the list. The people who behave, who are responsible, who are fair, and who play by the rules will carry on in their place while others are moved down the list for misbehaving.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The shadow Minister talks about the victims of antisocial behaviour and the offenders. I completely agree with his desire to provide an incentive for those are offending, but offenders often live with their families and children, who are often equally the victims of the antisocial behaviour. Does he agree that to punish offenders’ children and partners in a way that makes their housing situation more precarious and denies them a good home and an aspirational move to a better area, is an inappropriate punishment for an individual and becomes, effectively, a group punishment?
Matt Vickers
In my part of the world, the antisocial behaviour is more often wreaked by young people. Parents should be responsible for those young people, and there should be consequences so that people help their families to fall in line and behave. I think this is the right thing to do. Those on a housing list who play by the rules should carry on, while those who misbehave, who do not play by the rules and cause absolute hell for other people, should be pushed to the bottom of the list. I stand by that.
Luke Taylor
I am not sure that the shadow Minister understands the severity of the difficulties that families find themselves in. I have a certain sympathy with wanting to sound like there is a serious consequence for families and individuals who are breaching orders, but this amendment is an extreme measure that would lead to misery for whole families. It seems an overreaction and an extreme punishment for a whole family to suffer in that circumstance.
Matt Vickers
There are decisions to make about the extremity of the consequences and sanctions, but there is a choice. Is it about the victims who suffer sleepless nights and all this havoc, whose windows have gone through, who are abused and are petrified to live in their own home, or are we on the side of the families who wreak this behaviour and the young people who terrorise others? There is a choice there.
Joe Robertson
Government Members’ interventions suggest that they may have misread and misunderstood the amendment. They seem to think it means that someone with a respect order would be removed from the housing list. That is not what the amendment says; it is about prioritisation within the waiting list. These waiting lists are based on a set of a criteria that lead to a prioritisation. It seems to me uncontroversial—although it is possible to disagree with it, of course—to add another criterion to compiling a housing waiting list: does someone have a respect order? The amendment is not a mandatory provision. It states:
“A respect order may have the effect of moving any application”
down the list. The provision is discretionary, which addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. It may be that an overriding need of the family would mean that the power would not be used. There is nothing mandatory about this. It is entirely consistent with how waiting lists are compiled.
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. The fact that housing authorities are made a relevant authority by the Bill is really powerful. We should give all these agencies—the housing associations, the police and the justice system—all the tools, the carrots and the sticks, that they need to manage and induce the correct behaviour. This measure would do that.
Jess Phillips
How does the shadow Minister not see that, if my neighbour is an absolute nightmare who engages in antisocial behaviour, I would not report them or want them to get a respect order if I thought that would make it less likely that they could move? I would want them to move, so I would not want them to be at the bottom of the social housing waiting list.
Matt Vickers
We have some really good people working in housing authorities across the country who will use all the powers we give them in a meaningful, proportionate and sensible way to get the best possible outcomes for their tenants and communities. This power would be one string on that bow. As we have said, using it would not be mandatory; it would be an option available to them.
I am glad that the Government have said that housing authorities should be a relevant authority that should be able to bring forward orders, including respect orders. That is a really powerful thing, and we should give them all the powers they need and let them get on with the job that they are qualified to do—working hard to deliver for those communities.
Dr Sullivan
To take a slightly different tack, does the shadow Minister recognise that some landlords, social landlords and councils evict tenants who exhibit the kind of antisocial behaviour he describes, which is an absolute travesty and a blight on some communities, but that if they get a respect order and these people are placed at the bottom of the list, they will not be able to be evicted. That will hamper some of our councils from moving tenants on and addressing the various issues he has raised.
Matt Vickers
As I have said, this is not a mandatory measure. It is something that housing authorities and local enforcement agencies would be able to use at their discretion, looking at all of the facts surrounding the case, to try to get the best possible outcome for communities and tenants, many of whom are suffering sleepless nights and are miserable in their own home as a result of the behaviour of some awful people. It is right that there are consequences for these people and that we empower the agencies to deal with them as they see fit.
Jess Phillips
Have any particular social housing providers or local authorities requested the amendment from the shadow Minister?
Matt Vickers
As yet, they have not—I do not know. The Minister is very good at these questions, is she not? She does not like the “name a business” questions, but I suppose we can play it both ways. The reality is that I speak to housing associations that are deeply frustrated about their lack of powers and ability to tackle some of these issues. We would give them and other agencies this power as an option; its use would not be mandatory or stipulated. It is a very sensible thing to do. We should support and empower the authorities and agencies in every way we can.
Jess Phillips
The shadow Minister is right; I am very good at those questions. He made a good point about how we need to trust the experts, and I wondered where this amendment had come from if the experts are not the ones calling for it. I have tabled a lot of Opposition amendments in my time, and I was usually working with a team of experts.
Matt Vickers
We did not invite any to the evidence session. I think the amendment would be welcomed, but I am sure we will hear from the relevant agencies and authorities in due course.
Jess Phillips
When tabling amendments to Government Bills in opposition, I never relied only on evidence given in evidence sessions. I believe the shadow Minister has an email address where those people could have lobbied him—it happens to us all the time. Have any housing or antisocial behaviour experts got in touch with him and said this is an appropriate action?
Matt Vickers
I am sure they will be in touch and can ask them that question, but I think empowering these organisations in this way is really powerful and will really help them to deal with some of the horrific antisocial behaviour their tenants are subjected to.
Harriet Cross
On this amendment and amendment 31, on reducing the age threshold to 16, we heard from the experts and people who gave evidence that we should reduce it to 16 because that is where most of the criminality of the antisocial behaviour comes from. By that same argument, because we are not hearing from housing authorities or experts does not necessarily mean that this is not a good amendment.
Matt Vickers
Some of the real experts in this Bill are the people on housing lists, feeling that they are waiting to get a house while others are getting ahead of them in the queue. This is an essential measure.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I have listened intently to the remarks, and I must say it is astounding to hear the shadow Minister suddenly become a champion for social housing. The problems due to antisocial behaviour in my constituency are, first, that families are stuck next to a problem family and cannot move because the Conservative party sold off so much council housing in my constituency and, crucially, did not replace it with new council housing stock; and secondly, my housing associations do not have enough resources from the local police, because the Conservative party slashed police numbers.
Matt Vickers
Police numbers are at a record level. There are more police on the streets of the UK than ever before. There is more funding going into the police than ever before. We toughened up sentencing for some of the worst offences. I am sure the hon. Member has lots of views on social housing, but in terms of this amendment, I think the right thing to do is to empower the agencies and ensure that some of the frustrated people in his constituency who want to move house can move ahead of those committing antisocial behaviour.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I will just draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that one of my other former roles was as a tenancy enforcement caseworker for a social housing company. I can assure the Committee that I would not be asking for this amendment. I think it would have a detrimental effect, and would actually cause more antisocial behaviour further down the line.
Matt Vickers
I thank the hon. Member for his evidence.
The amendment is a crucial measure that could play an essential role in ensuring that the allocation of social housing is fair, responsible, and aligned with the values of respect and community responsibility. The key benefit is that it provides an additional incentive for individuals to behave in a way that upholds community standards. When someone is found to have caused disruption or engaged in antisocial behaviour that harms others, placing them at the bottom of the waiting list for social housing serves as a tangible consequence of their actions. It encourages personal responsibility and reinforces the idea that those who choose to respect the rules and the people around them should be rewarded, while those who engage in disruptive behaviour should face appropriate consequences.
Moreover, this approach supports the integrity of the social housing system. Social housing is in high demand, and it is vital that we prioritise those who are not only in need, but demonstrate a commitment to being good tenants and positive members of the community. By introducing this measure, we would ensure that social housing was allocated in a manner that rewards responsible behaviour, thus safeguarding the quality of life for everyone in the community. Importantly, it would allow local authorities to manage the housing waiting list in a way that aligns with the broader objectives of social housing policy, promoting both fairness and the values that underpin our society. It is a sensible, measured approach that encourages respect for others and the community as a whole.
Dame Diana Johnson
Well, Mr Pritchard, that was a lively exchange. Clearly the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley, has had her three Weetabix this morning.
We all recognise how devastating antisocial behaviour where you live can be, and I fully understand and appreciate the passion the debate on amendment 34 has prompted this morning. As the shadow Minister pointed out, amendment 34 would enable local authorities or housing providers to move a person who receives a respect order to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing. It is for local authorities to decide who should qualify for social housing. It might be helpful for hon. Members to know that many councils already consider antisocial behaviour or other criminal behaviour before allocating a social home. They may either decide that a person with a history of antisocial behaviour does not qualify to go on the housing register, or accept the person on to the register but award them lower priority.
I note what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, said about the effect that this amendment could have on other family members not associated with the antisocial behaviour. We need to consider the potential consequences of removing access to social housing. The respect order is intended to tackle the most harmful adult perpetrators of ASB, but also aims to prevent further ASB from occurring and help people to address the root causes of their behaviour. That is why respect orders may contain positive as well as prohibitive requirements.
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman has made his point; I am not sure that I will respond to it. However, the point he made earlier about the need to ensure that innocent people are not caught up in this is one that I am willing to accept.
We do not want to create further issues for individuals who have respect orders by removing access to social housing entirely, which may increase the risk of reoffending and reduce the likelihood of rehabilitation. I hope that, as I have explained that there is already the power for local authorities to choose to take into account the antisocial behaviour or criminal records of potential tenants, the shadow Minister will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for her response. I am glad that we provoked a bit of passion and got people engaged in the debate. I would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Diana Johnson
As we have talked at length about the respect orders, I will not say anything further at this stage.
Matt Vickers
It is encouraging to see housing providers recognised as registered authorities in proposed new section B1 of the 2014 Act, particularly when it comes to addressing antisocial behaviour, which continues to plague many residents in housing communities. Registered housing providers, including housing associations and local authority landlords, serve as the backbone of the social housing sector, ensuring that tenants have access to safe, stable and well-managed homes. Their role extends beyond simply providing houses; they are legally and morally responsible for fostering strong, liveable communities where residents feel secure and supported. As designated authorities with specific legal powers, these providers are uniquely positioned to tackle antisocial behaviour head-on. This responsibility is crucial in preventing communities from becoming blighted by persistent nuisance and intimidation or criminal activity.
Rather than leaving tenants to endure these issues alone, or to rely solely on already overstretched police and council services, housing providers have the tools to intervene directly, whether through tenancy enforcement, mediation or legal action. By taking a proactive stance against antisocial behaviour, registered housing providers help maintain the quality of life for all residents, ensuring that social housing remains a place not just to live, but to thrive. Their ability to act swiftly and decisively is vital in upholding community standards and reinforcing the fundamental principle that everyone deserves to live in a safe and respectful environment.
Response times can still lag, and not all providers have the resources or the will to tackle complex cases effectively. Victims of persistent antisocial behaviour often face a daunting process: logging multiple complaints, gathering evidence and navigating bureaucracy. How will the Government ensure that all housing providers have the capacity to utilise these powers effectively?
The Environment Agency is listed as a relevant authority with the power to issue a respect order. Could the Minister clarify the specific role that the agency will play in enforcing these orders? Under what circumstances would the Environment Agency be expected to exercise this power, and what specific outcomes do the Government seek to achieve by including it? Could the Minister provide a concrete example of how the Environment Agency might use a respect order in practice? Proposed new section C1 of the 2014 Act sets out that the respect order
“may have the effect of excluding the respondent from the place where the respondent normally lives”
and that a condition the court considers is that
“the anti-social behaviour in which the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage consists of or includes the use or threatened use of violence against other persons, or…there is a significant risk of harm to other persons from the respondent.”
What implications could that have for respondents who have been issued with an order? Where will they live? What role will their local authority have in supporting them?
David Taylor
The hon. Member is being a bit unfair. The Bill is not being presented in isolation. As a Government, we are also recruiting 13,000 new officers, a starting point to getting neighbourhood policing back in a fit and proper state. Does he not welcome that move?
Matt Vickers
Recruiting 13,000 police officers sounds really good, but about a third of them will be special constables and about a third redeployed from other parts of the police force. When someone rings 999, because they want that emergency response service, they may wait even longer, because the response police officers will have been moved into neighbourhoods.
Matt Vickers
The Government are redeploying them, so they are taking them from somewhere. We would welcome any information about where the Government will or will not redeploy them from, but this is important. The Government cannot say 13,000 more are arriving, when it is about 3,000 more.
Joe Robertson
My hon. Friend makes a good point. To respond to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, we can debate policing all he likes—indeed, the previous Government increased police numbers—but the point I was making was about the courts, because we are talking about increasing the burden on Crown courts. I am not making a point against him or the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh, but I am sure they would both agree that the Government have to address the pressure on the court system. I support this provision, but although Bills such as this are well intended, they will add pressure to the prison population and the court systems if the Government do not make further provision.
Joe Robertson
I am slightly surprised that such an uncontroversial point is being met with such incredulity and that I am being asked to provide the hon. Member’s Government with solutions. He has to get used to the fact that his Government are in power now. They will have to find their own solutions.
Matt Vickers
I would never seek to defend anything that any Government have ever done—people do get things wrong—but the previous Government were right to toughen up sentences for the worst and most violent offences. It was right that we put people away for longer. It was right that we did not release people during the pandemic, or at anything like the levels that some other countries did. It was right, therefore, that the Government had the biggest prison-building programme since the Victorian era. It is right that we put those people in prison. It is right that in another Bill Committee I have been saying for weeks that foreign national offenders should be removed without the need for a 12-month prison sentence in the meantime. We have got to where we have got to for lots of reasons. I think tougher sentences were a good thing, and that it was right that we did not release people early and that we built more prison places than have been built since the Victorian era.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Diana Johnson
We are retaining the existing provisions for civil injunctions. As I set out previously, the balance of probabilities, the test and the categorisation of the antisocial behaviour will all remain the same. We are just renaming it a “youth injunction” because we are focusing the respect order on the persistent antisocial behaviour of adults over 18. The youth injunction remains exactly as it is in law now.
I am conscious of the profound problems that housing-related nuisance ASB can cause, as we have heard again in this debate. The housing injunction therefore retains the lower legal threshold of
“conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”
in a housing context—as previously discussed. Again, we heard from practitioners that the existing power is effective and proportionate for housing-related ASB, and the housing injunction therefore retains the effect of the current power in that context.
Government amendments 6 to 8 and 24 to 28 make further technical and consequential amendments to existing antisocial behaviour legislation as a result of the introduction of respect orders. In relation to the 2014 Act, that means ensuring that definitions of antisocial behaviour are captured accurately elsewhere, under the existing powers, to account for the new respect orders and injunctions in part 1 of the Act. Consequential amendments are also needed to the Housing Acts 1985 and 1988 so that the breach of a respect order, a youth injunction or a housing injunction continues to be a ground for possession under those Housing Acts, as is the case with the current civil injunction.
We know that taking possession of a property is an important tool for landlords to use to provide swift relief to victims when antisocial behaviour or criminality has already been proven by another court. It is therefore right to retain that tool with the new respect order. In addition, amendment 28 amends the Localism Act 2011 to ensure that landlords can refuse to surrender and grant tenancies on the basis that a tenant, or a person residing with the tenant, has been issued with a respect order.
Finally, amendment 28 also amends the Police Reform Act 2002 to ensure that constables in uniform can continue to require a person engaging in antisocial behaviour to give their name and address. I commend the provisions to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
Clause 2 amends the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to provide for the granting of youth and housing injunctions; I thank the Minister for outlining that. Clause 2 will limit powers under section 1 of the 2014 Act so that injunctions can be granted only to individuals aged 10 to 17. Will the Minister confirm the rationale behind that age restriction?
The clause also introduces a new type of injunction for adults aged 18 and over, specifically aimed at preventing behaviour that causes nuisance or annoyance related to housing. It shifts the approach to tackling community-specific antisocial conduct, rather than broader public disorder. How do the Government justify treating adult antisocial behaviour differently depending on whether it is housing-related or not? Is the Minister concerned that limiting injunctions for housing-related issues to adults might create enforcement gaps? What mechanisms are in place to ensure that local authorities and housing providers have the necessary resources to enforce housing-related injunctions effectively? Realising that Ministers are keen to hear exactly who wants what measures in the Bill, can she name any housing associations who specifically asked for this measure?
Dame Diana Johnson
A number of the points that the shadow Minister has raised were discussed earlier. We have set out very clearly why we believe that the respect orders should only apply to adults, because we are talking about the most serious antisocial behaviour. We believe that children and young people up to the age of 18 should not be caught by a respect order because of the criminalisation attached—if it is breached, they can be immediately arrested and brought before the criminal courts. That is why we have retained what is working well with the civil injunctions and renamed them the youth injunction and the housing injunction. On the latter, again, we heard very passionate contributions about how antisocial behaviour where people live, next to their home, and caused by neighbours, can absolutely destroy people’s lives, causing stress, distress and mental health issues, as well as sometimes breaking up families. That is why the threshold for the housing injunction is lower than that for the respect order, but for the threshold we are using what is already on the statute books and I think it is right that it is at that lower level.
On the question about whether any social housing authority has supported the plans for housing injunctions, there is a genuine view in the sector that this is a positive step to enable them to deal with the antisocial behaviour that housing authorities often have to deal with. I am very conscious that the antisocial behaviour charity Resolve has much welcomed the work that has gone into the Bill on both the respect orders and the civil injunctions. Resolve would say that there is a general view that this is a positive way forward. The approach that seems sensible is using what works well now, and keeping that—as I have said, that is why the housing and youth injunctions are doing that and are adapting it—while bringing in this tougher response through the respect order, and getting that on the statute books to deal with people who persistently engage in antisocial behaviour, to try to get to the root cause of what they are doing. I hope that deals with the questions posed by the shadow Minister.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendments made: 7, in clause 2, page 10, line 37, leave out “(injunctions)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 11, line 2, at end insert—
“(1A) Part 2 of Schedule 1 contains consequential amendments of other Acts.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 28.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Amendments of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
Amendments made: 24, in schedule 1, page 148, line 4, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
“Part 1
Amendments of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
1 The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is amended as set out in this Part.”
This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 28, makes the existing text of Schedule 1 become Part 1 of that Schedule.
Amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 150, line 4, leave out from “for” to end of line 5 and insert
“‘section 1’ substitute ‘this Part’.”
This amendment ensures that the definition in section 2(1)(b) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as amended by the Bill, applies to applications for youth injunctions as well as applications for housing injunctions.
Amendment 26, in schedule 1, page 152, line 37, at end insert—
“(za) in the words before paragraph (a), for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘this Part’;”.
This amendment ensures that the consultation requirement under section 14(3) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, as amended by the Bill, applies to applications to vary or discharge housing injunctions as well as youth injunctions.
Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 153, line 33, at end insert—
“19A In section 101 (the community remedy document), in subsection (9), for the definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ substitute—
‘“anti-social behaviour” means—
(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or
(b) housing-related anti-social conduct as defined by section 2 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section);’.
19B (1) Section 102 (anti-social behaviour etc: out-of-court disposals) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), in paragraph (c), for ‘an injunction under section 1’ substitute ‘a respect order under section A1 or an injunction under Part 1’.
(3) In subsection (6), for the definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ substitute—
‘“anti-social behaviour” means—
(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or
(b) housing-related anti-social conduct, as defined by section 2 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section);’.”
This amendment inserts into Schedule 1 provision making amendments to the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 that are consequential on the amendments made to that Act by clause 1 and by the other provisions of Schedule 1.
Amendment 28, in schedule 1, page 153, line 38, at end insert—
“Part 2
Consequential amendments of other Acts
Housing Act 1985
21 (1) Section 84A of the Housing Act 1985 (absolute ground for possession for anti-social behaviour) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4)—
(a) for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘Part 1’;
(b) after ‘2014’ insert ‘or a respect order’.
(3) In subsection (9), for the definition of ‘relevant proceedings’, substitute—
‘“relevant proceedings” means—
(a) proceedings for an offence under section I1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,
(b) proceedings under Schedule 2 to that Act, or
(c) proceedings for contempt of court;
“respect order” means an order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;’.
22 In Schedule 3 to that Act (grounds for withholding consent to assignment by way of exchange), in Ground 2A, in the definition of ‘relevant order’, for ‘an injunction under section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014’ substitute—
‘a respect order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;
an injunction under Part 1 of that Act;’
Housing Act 1988
23 (1) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 (grounds on which court must order possession of dwelling-houses let on assured tenancies), Ground 7A is amended as follows.
(2) In condition 2, in the words before paragraph (a)—
(a) for ‘section 1’ substitute ‘Part 1’;
(b) after ‘2014’ insert ‘or a respect order’.
(3) In the list of definitions for the purposes of Ground 7A, for the definition of ‘relevant proceedings’ substitute—
‘“relevant proceedings” means—
(a) proceedings for an offence under section I1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,
(b) proceedings under Schedule 2 to that Act, or
(c) proceedings for contempt of court;
“respect order” means an order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;’.
Police Reform Act 2002
24 In section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (persons engaging in anti-social behaviour), for subsection (1A) substitute—
‘(1A) In subsection (1) “anti-social behaviour” means—
(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or
(b) housing-related anti-social conduct, as defined by section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section).’
Localism Act 2011
25 In Schedule 14 to the Localism Act 2011 (grounds on which landlord may refuse to surrender and grant tenancies under section 158), in paragraph 6(4), in the definition of ‘relevant order’—
(a) after paragraph (e) insert—
‘(ea) a respect order under section A1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,’;
(b) in paragraph (f), for ‘section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014’ substitute ‘Part 1 of that Act’.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This amendment inserts into Schedule 1 a new Part 2 containing amendments of Acts other than the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in consequence of the amendments made to that Act by clause 1 and by the other provisions of Schedule 1 (which would by virtue of Amendment 24 become Part 1 of that Schedule).
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3
Maximum period for certain directions, notices and orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very pleased to hear that the shadow Minister supports the 72-hour limit, because it was in the Criminal Justice Bill that her Government brought forward and that, because of the general election, never got on to the statute books. Work was done with stakeholders on what would be required. Clearly we do not want to extend it too far, but 72 hours seemed to be the best period of time to take into account what I was just saying about weekends and bank holidays in particular.
Let me move on to closure orders. The clause extends the timeframe that the relevant agencies, after issuing a closure notice, can apply to a magistrates court for a closure order from 48 hours to 72 hours. Again, that is based on feedback from practitioners who have noted operational challenges in applying for a closure order. The 48-hour window is not always enough time to prepare evidence and serve it to the courts, particularly on weekends or bank holidays. The closure order is an important power that agencies can use to provide immediate respite to the local community, so we must ensure that it is practicable and viable for practitioners to use.
Extending the timeframe to 72 hours will allow practitioners adequate time to gather evidence and inform interested parties. It also allows respondents more time to seek legal advice, in turn reducing the number of cases adjourned by the courts. In short, the provisions will help to address operational challenges, allowing local agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour more efficiently and effectively.
Matt Vickers
Clause 3 sets out the maximum period for certain directions, notices and orders. On exclusion directions, the Bill amends section 35 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 whereby a police officer could direct a person to leave a specified area for up to 48 hours. The Bill extends this to 72 hours. If an exclusion period exceeds 48 hours, a police inspector must review the direction as soon as possible after the 48-hour mark to ensure its necessity.
Closure notices allow the police to shut down premises that cause nuisance or disorder, and could previously last 24 hours before requiring further action. The Bill extends that to 48 hours. The maximum period for an initial closure notice before a magistrates court order will be required has been extended from 48 to 72 hours. Those efforts will give greater flexibility for police and officers will have more time to manage antisocial behaviour without requiring immediate escalation to the courts. That will allow for a stronger deterrent, meaning that longer exclusion periods and closure notices could have a greater impact in preventing repeated antisocial behaviour.
In 2023, the previous Government ran a consultation on proposals to strengthen powers available to address antisocial behaviour under the 2014 Act. It is true that the Government have opted to reintroduce some of these provisions into the Crime and Policing Bill. However, I would be grateful for an understanding of why certain measures have not been taken forward. For example, provisions to remove the need for authorisation by a senior police officer for a dispersal order have not been reintroduced. Although a Member could argue that a mandatory review by an inspector for exclusion periods of over 48 hours ensures accountability, why was the decision made to require an inspector’s review for exclusion directions only after 48 hours, rather than immediately on extending them?
The Bill also removes provisions to grant senior police officers the power to make public space protection orders, meaning that it arguably becomes harder in certain instances to control disorder. In November 2024, an extraordinary and unprecedented legal order was enacted, imposing a complete closure on an entire housing estate of 376 properties. That sweeping measure was introduced as a direct response to escalating concerns over severe and persistent antisocial behaviour and rampant drug dealing that had reached intolerable levels. The closure order strictly prohibited non-residents from gathering or loitering in key communal areas, including stairwells, landings, bridges and spaces near bin chutes, as well as within open areas adjacent to residential properties. The decision was driven by an urgent need to restore safety and security for the law-abiding residents, whose daily lives had been severely disrupted by the ongoing disturbances. Authorities deemed that intervention necessary to curb the relentless activities of those engaged in criminal behaviour and to ensure that the estate could once again become a liveable and peaceful environment for its rightful occupants.
The Bill has notably failed to carry forward provisions to lower the minimum age for issuing a community protection notice to 10 years old. Why has that decision been made? As the Minister will be well aware, antisocial behaviour is frequently perpetrated by individuals under the age of 18, often causing significant disruption and distress within communities. Local residents, businesses and authorities alike have long struggled with the challenges posed by persistent youth-related disorder. Given that reality, is the Minister fully confident that the removal of this provision will not inadvertently weaken the ability of law enforcement and local councils to tackle antisocial behaviour committed by teenagers? Without appropriate measures in place, there is a real risk that communities will continue to bear the brunt of unchecked disorder and that would undermine efforts to create safer and more harmonious neighbourhoods. What safeguards are in place to prevent these extended powers from being misused or disproportionately applied to certain groups or businesses? What role will local authorities and community organisations play in reviewing the effectiveness of these measures?
Dame Diana Johnson
The shadow Minister asked a number of questions about measures that were in the Criminal Justice Bill and are not in the Crime and Policing Bill. Clearly, what we are referring to was, and it is the same, as I understand it. We carefully considered the merits of all the measures that were in the Criminal Justice Bill on a case-by-case basis, and we reintroduced the ones that we thought had clear operational benefits, would help to cut crime and antisocial behaviour and would rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system.
The shadow Minister asked about the requirement for dispersal orders to be authorised by an inspector. The Criminal Justice Bill included a measure to remove the current requirement for an inspector to authorise a dispersal order. When considering that measure and what it would deliver, we were concerned that restricting people’s freedom of movement is a serious matter and that it is important that the dispersal order is used proportionately and reasonably. Ensuring that that power is authorised by an officer of at least the rank of inspector provides an additional safeguard and ensures that the power is used only to stop activities that are causing antisocial behaviour.
The Criminal Justice Bill sought to reduce the age that someone can receive a community protection notice from 16 to 10. We take the view that the breach of a CPN is a criminal offence and this Government, as I have said a number of times, do not wish to risk funnelling children into the criminal justice system unnecessarily by lowering the age at which someone can receive a CPN to 10 years of age. As we have discussed, the civil injunction will remain in place to be used against those under the age of 16—
Crime and Policing Bill (Fourth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Home Office
Matt Vickers
Main Page: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)Department Debates - View all Matt Vickers's debates with the Home Office
Crime and Policing Bill (Fourth sitting)
Matt Vickers ExcerptsTuesday 1st April 2025
(2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 1 April 2025 - (1 Apr 2025)
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 4 serves two purposes. First, it extends the remit of the community safety accreditation scheme, to enable accredited officers to issue fixed penalty notices to tackle antisocial behaviour. Secondly, it increases the upper limit for fixed penalty notices from £100 to £500 for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices. Under the community safety accreditation scheme, a chief constable may delegate a range of powers usually reserved for the police to accredited officers involved in a community safety or traffic management role. That includes issuing fixed penalty notices for specific offences. This clause expands the list of offences to allow officers to issue fines for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices as well.
I can assure hon. Members that appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that these powers are used appropriately. To be awarded accredited status an organisation must satisfy strict criteria, and the scheme itself is accredited only through approval from a chief constable. Also, accredited officers must, rightly, undergo strict vetting and be appropriately trained in use of their powers. By expanding the range of agencies that can tackle antisocial behaviour, we will free up valuable police resources to tackle other antisocial issues and other types of crime.
The second element of the clause increases the upper limit for fines issued for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices from £100 to £500. Public spaces protection orders and community protection notices are issued where antisocial behaviour has a detrimental effect on the community’s quality of life. It is right that anyone breaching the orders is met with a proportionate punishment. The current £100 upper limit does not always carry enough weight to stop people committing further antisocial behaviour. We expect that the threat of an increased fine will act as a stronger deterrent, and in many cases will be enough to prevent reoffending.
We are clear that, although we are increasing the upper limit, the police, local authorities and CSAS officers must ensure that fines are reasonable and proportionate to the severity of the behaviour. The statutory guidance will, of course, be updated to reflect that.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Clause 4 increases the maximum fixed penalty notice that can be issued for a breach of a community protection notice or public spaces protection order from £100 to £500. In 2023 the previous Conservative Government ran a consultation on proposals to strengthen the powers available to address antisocial behaviour. That included a proposal to increase the upper limit of fixed penalty notices to £500. Following the consultation, the Government included a proposal in their 2023-24 Criminal Justice Bill to increase the value of fixed penalty notices to £500.
How will the Government ensure that public spaces protection orders and community protection notices are not used disproportionately to penalise minor or everyday behaviours? Can the Minister speak further on what oversight mechanisms and approved standards will be in place to regulate the activities of private enforcement officers issuing fines under those orders? How will the Government respond to concerns that private enforcement officers have financial incentives to issue excessive fines, and what action can be taken if that occurs? How will the Government balance the need for public order with concerns that PSPOs and CPNs might unfairly target individuals for minor infractions? What mechanisms are in place to review or challenge PSPOs and CPNs if they are deemed unfair or excessive, and how will the Government ensure that the measures are not used as revenue-generating tools, rather than as genuine deterrents against antisocial behaviour?
Dame Diana Johnson
As I set out in my opening remarks, there will be statutory guidance on the use of the powers. I hope that provides some reassurance about how they will be used. I also set out the role of the chief constable in authorising officers and extending the powers to them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about local authorities perhaps using pay-by-commission contractors to issue fixed penalty notices and how there will not be abuse of that. To make it clear, it is for local authorities to determine how to operate the powers granted to them in legislation. Only the upper limit is being increased. Local agencies that issue fixed penalty notices can of course issue fines of less than £500 if appropriate, and it is expected that the fines issued will be based on the individual circumstances and severity of the case. Contracting enforcement to third parties is now a common arrangement and it is for the local authority to ensure that the use of powers remains just and proportionate. As I said at the outset, there will also be statutory guidance.
On the other safeguards and preventing the misuse of PSPOs, it is clear from the legislation that the local authority must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to consider a PSPO appropriate and that the legal test is met. Before making a PSPO, the council must consult the police and any community representatives they think appropriate. Before making, varying, extending or discharging a PSPO, the council must carry out the necessary publicity and notification in accordance with section 72(3) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. That includes publishing the text of a proposed order or variation and publishing the proposal for an extension or variation. Anyone who lives in, regularly works in or visits the area may apply to the High Court to question the validity of a PSPO.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Closure of premises by registered social housing provider
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 5 and schedule 2 provide registered social housing providers with the power to issue closure notices and closure orders, to enable them to quickly close premises that they own or manage that are being used, or are likely to be used, to commit nuisance or disorder. Despite registered social housing providers often being the initial point of contact for tenants suffering from antisocial behaviour, the current legislation does not allow them to use closure powers. Rather, they must contact the police or local authority to issue a closure notice and subsequently apply to the courts for a closure order on their behalf. This clause changes that.
Registered social housing providers will now be able to issue a closure notice and apply for a closure order themselves, meaning that the power can be used more quickly to disrupt antisocial behaviour, in turn freeing up police and local authority time. We of course understand that closing a premises is a serious action, so it is important to note that registered social housing providers are regulated bodies, subject to criteria set out in statute before they can become registered, and that they must meet the regulatory standards set by the Regulator of Social Housing. Having those safeguards is necessary to ensure that these powers are used responsibly by providers.
Matt Vickers
Clause 5 amends the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to enable registered social housing providers to close premises that they own or manage that are associated with nuisance and disorder. We very much welcome this measure—it is right that we empower social housing providers to deal with disorder in order to support and protect tenants.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very pleased that the shadow Minister agrees.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 6
Reviews of responses to complaints about anti-social behaviour
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matt Vickers
Clause 6 and schedule 3 enable local policing bodies—police and crime commissioners and their equivalents—to conduct reviews into how authorities in their area have handled reports of antisocial behaviour. Someone could request a local policing body case review if they were dissatisfied with the outcome of an antisocial behaviour case review conducted by another agency, such as the local police force.
Proposed new section 104A of the 2014 Act requires local policing bodies to publish data on LPB case reviews, including the number of applications, the number of reviews conducted and their outcomes. As the Minister knows, it does not specify how that data should be published, which raises questions about delivering an inconsistent approach to publishing data on ASB case reviews. Without a clear specification on publication methods, does the Minister believe there is a risk that data could be inaccessible or difficult to compare across different areas? Will there be any independent oversight or monitoring to ensure that local policing bodies comply with the new transparency requirements?
Clause 6 also modifies schedule 4 of the 2014 Act to mandate that local policing bodies actively raise awareness of antisocial behaviour case reviews within their respective police areas. How does the Minister foresee each force undertaking that work, and will she work with forces to ensure that good and accessible awareness is not a postcode lottery?
Dame Diana Johnson
We have obviously been working closely with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners on how these provisions will work, to ensure that PCCs feel comfortable about what is expected of them and that there is clear guidance in place on what the provisions will actually mean. The legislation clearly sets out minimum requirements that PCCs must comply with when they are setting up and carrying out the PCC case review, including, as I have said, publicising the complaints procedure, consulting with key agencies and setting up the process. We will continue to work with the APCC to develop guidance and best practice to support PCCs in making effective use of the PCC case review.
I fully understand that the data issue is a challenge. It is clear that most partners are collecting data on antisocial behaviour. There are sometimes issues with being able to share that data effectively, and information on how data can be used by all the partners who need to see it will certainly be part of the guidance.
On the whole, however, I think this provision, which supports victims by giving them the right to a further review through the PCC, is the correct approach. I know that the Victims’ Commissioner is keen to see more use of the review procedure. One of her big complaints in the document she produced last year was that the procedure is not well known. We certainly want PCCs to ensure that information about the further right of appeal is given out as clearly as possible to the victims of antisocial behaviour.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 7
Provision of information about anti-social behaviour to Secretary of State
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
The clause introduces a power for the Home Secretary to make regulations requiring key local agencies to report information about antisocial behaviour to the Government. Regulations will be laid at a later date to specify the information that agencies must provide.
Information held by central Government on antisocial behaviour is, in some areas, limited. Despite non-police agencies, such as local authorities and housing providers, playing a crucial role in the response to antisocial behaviour, there are currently no requirements for those agencies to share information about ASB with the Government. That has resulted in a significant evidence gap in the national picture of antisocial behaviour, particularly around how many reports of antisocial behaviour are made to non-police agencies, how they are responded to, and how many antisocial behaviour case reviews they conduct.
Clause 7 takes steps to address the gap by requiring agencies to report that information to the Government. As it is a new duty, I reassure the Committee that we have considered possible new burdens on local agencies, and we have been engaging with local authorities and social housing providers to understand what information they already hold, and the impact that the requirement may have on them. We will ensure that any new requirements will be reasonable and proportionate. By collecting the information, we will be in a much better place: able to get a more accurate and granular picture of antisocial behaviour incidents across England and Wales, as well as the interventions used to tackle it. That, in turn, will help to inform future local and national activity so that we can better tackle antisocial behaviour.
Matt Vickers
Clause 7 grants the Secretary of State the authority to determine through secondary legislation the specific data on antisocial behaviour that local agencies are required to provide to the Government. At its core, the provision is about understanding the problem better. It allows the Government to demand reports on antisocial behaviour incidents, details of how authorities respond, and records of case reviews where communities hold those responses to account.
The idea is simple: if we know more about graffiti spoiling our streets, noise disrupting people’s sleep or disorder plaguing our neighbourhoods, we can do more. The Secretary of State could use that data to spot trends, allocate resources or craft policies that hit the mark. But let us not view the clause through rose-tinted glasses; it raises serious questions we cannot ignore. How much information will be demanded and how often? Will small councils, already stretched thin, buckle under the weight of collecting, creating and analysing data? How much detail will they be asked to provide? Will it be every caller, incident log, or every follow-up? How often will it be—daily updates, weekly summaries or monthly deep-dives?
Police forces, especially in rural and underfunded areas, are already juggling tight budgets and rising demands. Could the burden of gathering, generating and sifting through antisocial behaviour data pull officers away from the streets where they are needed most? A Government armed with better information could target support where it is needed most—perhaps more officers in high-crime areas or funding for youth programmes to prevent trouble before it starts. I am interested in the Minister’s view on how this will be balanced.
Dame Diana Johnson
I listened carefully to what the shadow Minister said, and in my remarks I also indicated that we wanted to be proportionate in the information we will request. It is clear that tackling antisocial behaviour is a top priority for this Government, and many of our partners, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the ASB sector, have called for better data on antisocial behaviour. Our engagement indicates that the majority of relevant agencies already have access to this data, but are not sharing it. That is the key point.
Requiring agencies to share that information with Government will enable the significant benefit of a national dataset on non-police ASB incidents and interventions, which will mean that we are then in a much better position to produce policy that fits with the issues that communities are facing up and down the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Seizure of motor vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
We all accept that antisocial behaviour is unacceptable, which is why the Government are undertaking this ambitious programme of work to tackle it, including the proposals that we have discussed in Committee today. The antisocial use of vehicles, such as e-scooters and off-road bikes, causes havoc in local communities. It is not, as it has perhaps been described in the past, low-level behaviour. It leaves law-abiding citizens feeling intimidated and unsafe in their town centres, local parks and neighbourhoods, and it happens across the country.
I fully understand the strength of feeling among the public and Members, and their desire for the Government to take swift action. We will treat antisocial driving as the blight on society that it is. That is why we are making it easier for the police to seize offenders’ vehicles and dispose of them. Clearly, the Bill will strengthen the law so that vehicles being used antisocially can be seized by police immediately without the need to first provide a warning.
Matt Vickers
I rise to speak to clause 8 as well as new clauses 30 and 36, 37, 39 and 40, which were tabled by the Opposition. Clause 8 relates to the seizure of motor vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance. It will omit section 59(4) and (5) of the Police Reform Act 2002, removing the requirement to first issue a warning prior to seizing a vehicle being used in an antisocial manner.
This issue is of particular concern to me, and many hon. Members across the House. The Opposition welcome this measure to enable police to remove bikes without warning when using this power. Off-road bikes, e-bikes and other non-road-legal bikes are a huge concern to local communities across the country. The issue has been raised time and again in this place, with increasing regularity, in Westminster Hall debates, parliamentary questions, and private Member’s Bills, which have shown the huge and increasing impact it has on communities in different parts of the country, represented by MPs of different political parties.
The antisocial use of motor vehicles is a growing concern across the UK. When vehicles are driven recklessly, dangerously or in a disruptive manner, they can cause significant harm—both physical and psychological—to individuals and the wider community. The consequences of such behaviour range from increased public fear and distress to serious injury, and even loss of life.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
This is about the impact on not just communities and individuals but on farmers, livestock and rural businesses. In many cases people are seeing their livelihoods disrupted and their livestock injured or, at worst, killed by these bikes. What are the shadow Minister’s views on the need to tackle that?
Matt Vickers
This huge problem has many different faces in many different communities. Sometimes the problem is antisocial behaviour, and sometimes it is outright crime. We should be doing more, in terms of sanctions, to get these bikes off the streets.
One of the most immediate and severe dangers posed by antisocial use of motor vehicles is the threat to public safety. Reckless driving, illegal street racing and the misuse of off-road vehicles in pedestrian areas create an environment where accidents are not just possible but inevitable. Instances of vehicles being driven at high speed through residential streets or public spaces increase the likelihood of collisions with pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users. Children, the elderly and individuals with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to such risks. Parents often express concerns about their children’s safety when motorbikes or modified cars are recklessly raced through parks and playgrounds: areas that should be havens for relaxation and recreation.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that such antisocial behaviour is particularly intimidating because noise travels, creating the perception of vehicles going at speed and the fear of accidents? Even if there is no intent to cause antisocial behaviour or injury, the fact that reckless use of these vehicles can lead to accidents makes them menacing, particularly in the minds of older and more vulnerable people but also, frankly, for any resident in the vicinity.
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a sliding scale. There are people who use these things to intimidate and cause fear: driving around with a balaclava on their head, making as much of a racket as possible, and driving as close to people as possible in what should be a normal residential street, where families should be able to grow up. There is also the other extreme, where green spaces are torn apart by people recklessly creating a lot of havoc. But my hon. Friend is right: this behaviour intimidates and causes fear even where there is no intention to do so.
Even in cases where reckless driving does not result in physical harm, the psychological impact on communities cannot be overestimated. The noise and unpredictability of vehicles, especially motorbikes and modified cars, being misused can create a climate of fear. Residents often report feeling unsafe in their own neighbourhoods, deterred from using local parks or walking near roads where such behaviour is common. For many elderly individuals, loud and erratic vehicle activity can be particularly distressing. The sound of revving engines, screeching tyres and aggressive acceleration, especially at night, can cause severe anxiety, disrupting sleep patterns and diminishing overall quality of life for those affected.
Joe Robertson
It sounds as though my hon. Friend may have a greater problem with this sort of antisocial behaviour in his constituency, but that is not to say that, in constituencies such as mine where there is a problem, that problem will not get worse if these powers are not made available to the police. It is much harder to remove and stop a type of behaviour that has set in than to stop it ever happening in the first place. I hope he agrees that the powers will help all constituencies across the UK, regardless of the extent to which they are perceived to have a problem at the moment.
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend makes a good point. In my constituency, the problem has spread. It started on estates; people may make assumptions about where it might have started. But it is now everywhere. Areas filled with old people, and normal, quiet and well-heeled streets are now being tortured by it. It is also enabling crime on a massive scale, including drugs, child exploitation, theft and offences against the person.
Balaclavas and the speed of the vehicles are being used to evade detection and capture, and the teenagers are sometimes actively goading law enforcement. We have heard some of the public debate about direct contact to take people off the bikes, and we have also seen the tragic consequences when young people lose their lives as a result. While I welcome the change, I feel that we need to go much further in order to grip the problem. We cannot wait for another person to lose their life, or indeed for yet more people in communities across the country to lose their quality of life.
The problem is continuing to grow month on month. If anyone thinks I am being over the top, they can think again, or they could speak to a couple of MPs whose constituencies are affected. The problem is growing on a huge scale. Over recent years and, particularly, recent months, it has increasingly spread across my constituency. The police have been innovative in their efforts to tackle the issue of off-road bikes. Some forces have deployed officers on off-road bikes; others have used drones and other technology to trace where bikes are being held. All forces use an intelligence-led response and the powers they have to safely seize bikes when they are not being ridden.
I have spoken to many police officers, in my locality and across the country, about the issue. All are frustrated by the challenges of trying to deal with the problem. One such officer is neighbourhood police sergeant Gary Cookland, from my local police force in Cleveland, who submitted written evidence to the Committee. Gary is an incredibly hard-working police officer, who spends a large amount of time dealing with antisocial behaviour and, in particular, off-road bikes.
Gary explains that tackling the bikes is a high priority for all the communities he serves. He describes the bikes’ role in criminal activities and the misery they cause for so many families. He says that many of the vehicles are not roadworthy and not registered vehicles. The vehicles are sold without any restrictions and are readily available to any person who wishes to purchase one; they do not even need a driving licence. That has caused an influx of dangerous imports, a high number of which are afflicting our streets. He urges the Government to amend the Bill to include some form of regulation, and to include the need to supply the name of the owner, as well as an address and driving licence, at the point of sale.
Gary explains the ridiculous situation in which some of the bikes seized by police are then resold by them and returned to the streets. He talks about the fact that in some cases, when vehicles are deemed roadworthy, they can be reclaimed by people without relevant documentation such as an accurate or up-to-date registration. He points out that section 59 recoveries do not currently need all of those documents to be in order—only proof of ownership and payment of recovery fees. Sergeant Cookland puts forward a number of suggestions to help tackle the issue, including restrictions on fuel stations selling to vehicles that are clearly illegal and driven by people without helmets or driving licences. He also talks about restricting the use of balaclavas, which is now at epidemic levels in many communities and cause huge fear among law-abiding citizens.
Gary very much welcomes the change being put forward by the Government, as do I, but we need to think about the scale of the impact it can have. The clause changes just one piece of legislation used to seize the vehicles, but in practice the police use different powers within existing legislation. In this case, we are amending section 59 of the Police Reform Act, but many seizures are made under section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988—the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 revision, which I believe does not require notice or warning as it stands. It allows for the seizure of vehicles with no insurance. Obviously, many of the offending vehicles are not road legal anyway, so by default, they cannot be insured for use in public spaces. As I understand it, there are no records of what powers police forces are using to seize bikes, and to what scale. Therefore, it is difficult to determine with any confidence the scale of any impact the measure in the Bill will have. I am keen to hear from the Minister the size or scale of the impact that she anticipates it might have.
While it is a positive move, the provision is unlikely to have a sizeable impact on the problem. Therefore, informed by conversations with many on the frontline, I have tabled a number of new clauses on the subject in the hope that the Government might consider going further. I was certainly not afraid to question Ministers on this subject when my party was in office. I hope that my new clauses might be accepted as constructive suggestions to help solve what is a huge problem in so many areas across the country.
New clause 36 would remove the prohibition on the police entering a private dwelling to confiscate an off-road bike that is being driven without a licence, uninsured or being used illegally. Bizarrely, police officers are not able to seize these bikes under either the Road Traffic Act 1988 or the Police Reform Act 2002. A person can terrorise people, cause untold misery to local communities and use such a vehicle to evade law enforcement, but law enforcement cannot come into that person’s house and seize their off-road bike using existing powers. I hope people will see this as a logical measure; in fact, it was previously put forward by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), a Labour Member.
New clause 37 would amend section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to remove the 24-hour time limit for the seizing of vehicles where a person has failed to produce a licence or evidence of insurance. This is a simple change suggested by the neighbourhood police sergeant that could make a real and meaningful difference, helping those on the frontline to seize bikes with less restriction.
Harriet Cross
Earlier, we considered extending timelines from 48 hours to 72 hours to take in, for example, weekends and bank holidays. The new clause fits quite nicely with that, and would make sure that wherever we are in the week or year we are tackling this issue effectively.
Matt Vickers
Very much so. We can end up in a perverse situation where someone who has been seen riding one of these bikes just hides it for 24 hours, knowing that the police will have a scrap to go and recover it on that basis. At the time the provision was written, I do not think it would have been foreseen that this was where things would end. We did not write the Road Traffic Act with a view that we would need to seize bikes within 24 hours. It just was not a thing at the time. When that legislation was put forward, the problems with off-road bikes would never have even been considered. The new clause would bring the measure up to date and make it relevant to the challenges faced by modern policing. It would also prevent those who know the law from hiding a vehicle away for a period before returning to their illegal activity.
New clause 39 would amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Police Reform Act 2002 to create a duty to destroy seized off-road bikes. As frontline police officers have said, all too often they go to great lengths to seize these bikes, only to then see police forces sell them back on to the streets, often landing straight back into the hands of those from whom they were removed. Police forces use this as a form of revenue, but it is hugely damaging for the morale of many officers and hugely counterproductive in tackling the problem.
New clause 40 would invite the Secretary of State to issue a consultation on a registration scheme for the sale of off-road bikes. It would consider the merits of requiring those selling off-road bikes to record the details of those buying them and verify that they have any relevant insurance. Schemes exist for the registration of farm plant equipment. Crikey, we even have to register the likes of Microsoft Windows and various apps. Why should we not look at the merits of registering the sale of these dangerous bikes, which, when misused, are now enabling crime and causing misery in our communities?
New clause 30 would amend the Police Reform Act and make a person guilty of repeat offences of using vehicles in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance liable to penalty points on their driving licence or the revocation of their licence. This is not only a matter of enforcement; it is a matter of public safety, community wellbeing and ensuring that those who repeatedly flout the law face appropriate consequences. For too long, communities across the country have suffered from the reckless and inconsiderate use of motor vehicles. Whether it is illegal street racing, off-road bikes terrorising neighbourhoods or aggressive driving that endangers pedestrians and cyclists, the misuse of vehicles is a persistent issue that affects both urban and rural areas. The current legal framework allows for vehicle seizure, but does not go far enough in deterring repeat offenders. By introducing driving licence penalties, we send a clear message that persistent antisocial behaviour involving motor vehicles will have lasting consequences.
This new clause will support our police forces, who often already struggle to tackle the volume of complaints regarding reckless vehicle use. It presents an additional tool to discourage repeat offenders without having to repeatedly seize vehicles, which is often a short-term fix. I think most Members in the room would agree with that a driver facing potential disqualification is less likely to engage in dangerous behaviour than one who simply risks losing a single vehicle.
I hope that the Minister might consider these measures before the Committee comes to vote on them later, and would welcome any reflection she might have on them. Are the Government considering any other measures to tackle the problem, and is any financial support being offered to forces to help them to make the best use of technology in this area?
Dame Diana Johnson
An additional £1.2 billion is going into policing—from today, actually—for this financial year. So there is a clear commitment from the Government to fund police forces. I understand that the police face many challenges, but financial support is certainly going in. The work of the College of Policing in setting out best practice—that authorised professional practice—is really important in giving police officers confidence to take the steps they need to in order to deal with antisocial behaviour.
The other point I wanted to make is that work is being undertaken by the Home Office and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory to progress research and development on a novel technology solution to safely stop e-bikes and enhance the ability of the police to prevent them from being used to commit criminal acts.
Matt Vickers
Of course we want more resources—we will not play politics and debate that—but using direct contact to get someone off one of these bikes comes with huge consequences for the police officers who take that risk. There are parts of the country where young people have lost their lives—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam talked about “wrong ‘uns” riding these bikes, but they are often somebody’s son—so this comes with a huge risk and a huge life cost. Of course police officers want to bring that to an end, but the solution is usually an intelligence-led response that means that bikes are picked up when they are parked in a garage or—well, not parked in somebody’s house.
Dame Diana Johnson
The shadow Minister makes an important point. This must be about intelligence-led policing, but there will be circumstances in which police officers find themselves having to pursue an individual. There is clear guidance from the College of Policing on how police officers should do that. It should be necessary, proportionate and balanced. Of course, we want to keep police officers safe and make sure that the person being pursued is not at risk of being injured or losing their life, as in the very sad cases the shadow Minister mentioned.
It is worth pointing out the powers available to the police to tackle the misuse of off-road bikes and other vehicles. The Police Reform Act 2002 provides the police with the power to seize vehicles that are driven carelessly or inconsiderately on-road or without authorisation off-road, and in a manner causing, or likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance. Section 59 of the Act enables the police to put a stop to this dangerous and antisocial behaviour. The seizure depends not on prosecution for, or proof of, these offences, but only on reasonable belief as to their commission.
Under section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the police are also empowered to seize vehicles driven without insurance or a driving licence. Under section 165B, they have the power to make regulations regarding the disposal of seized vehicles. The police can also deal with antisocial behaviour involving vehicles, such as off-road bikes racing around estates or illegally driving across public open spaces, in the same way as they deal with any other antisocial behaviour.
A number of questions were asked, but I want to deal first with the issue of when a vehicle is seized and what happens to the owner. When the police seize a vehicle, they will not immediately crush it. They need to spend time finding the registered owner in case the vehicle was stolen. Before reclaiming a vehicle, the individual must prove that they are the legal owner of the vehicle. They may be asked to prove that they have valid insurance and a driving licence. We will be consulting in the spring on proposals to allow the police to dispose of seized vehicles more quickly.
I will now turn to the constructive suggestions in the shadow Minister’s new clauses. New clause 30 would render antisocial drivers who fail to stop liable to penalty points on their licence for repeat offending. It is an offence under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 for a driver using a vehicle carelessly or antisocially to fail to stop when instructed to do so by a police officer. Offenders are liable for fines of up to £1,000, which we believe is a more effective deterrent. The police may also, where appropriate, issue penalty points for careless or inconsiderate driving or speeding, so antisocial drivers may already be liable for points. I entirely agree with the shadow Minister that the behaviour of antisocial drivers should not be tolerated. That is why we are making it easier for the police to seize their vehicles, and we will consider how to make it easier for seized vehicles to be disposed of, which we believe will be even more of a deterrent.
New clause 36 would permit the police to enter private dwellings to seize an off-road bike where it has been used antisocially or without licence. As I have already set out, the Government are keen to make it as easy as possible for the police to take these bikes off our streets. We do not, however, believe that giving the police powers to enter a private dwelling for the purpose of seizing an off-road bike is necessary or proportionate. The bar for entry to private dwellings is, rightly, extremely high. Police currently have a range of specific powers to seize vehicles being used antisocially or without a licence or insurance, and can already enter property, including gardens, garages and sheds, which is where they are most likely to be store, to seize them.
The police also have a general power of entry, search and seizure under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That means that when police are lawfully on the premises, they may seize any item reasonably believed to be evidence of any offence, where it is necessary to do so. That would include, for example, off-road bikes believed to have been used in crimes such as robbery. Magistrates may grant warrants to search for evidence in relation to indictable offences, and police may in some circumstances enter properties without a warrant being required—for example, to arrest someone for an indictable offence.
Later on in our deliberations, we will come to clause 93, which sets out the right of the police to enter a premises containing electronically tagged stolen goods when the GPS shows that that equipment—or whatever it is, and that includes a bike—with that electronic tag on it is in there. Police officers will be able to search without a warrant, on the basis that that is a stolen item. That is something to think about when we debate clause 93.
Having said all that, we believe that the measures we have brought forward to make it easier for the police to seize off-road bikes at the point of offending, as a number of my hon. Friends have discussed, are a better deterrent. That is intended to suppress the offending immediately, before it escalates, and to deliver swift justice.
New clause 37 would remove the 24-hour limit within which the police may seize an unlicensed or uninsured vehicle. Currently, the police may seize a vehicle that is being driven without a licence or insurance, either at the roadside or within 24 hours of being satisfied that the vehicle is unlicensed or uninsured. The point of that seizure power for uninsured vehicles is to instantly prevent the uninsured driver from driving. There is a separate penalty for the offence: if the vehicle is still uninsured after 24 hours, the police can seize the vehicle and give the driver a second uninsured driving penalty.
New clause 39 would expressly permit the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to ensure that the police destroy any off-road bikes they have seized. Currently, the police may dispose of seized vehicles after holding them for a certain period, but they are not required to destroy any off-road bikes. We are considering how we can make changes to the secondary legislation to allow the police to dispose of seized vehicles more quickly—to reduce reoffending and prevent those vehicles from ending up back in the hands of those who should not have them. However, we do not believe that we should restrict the ability of the police to dispose of off-road bikes as they see fit. They may, for example, auction them off to recover costs, which would not be possible under the terms of new clause 39.
Finally, new clause 40 would require the Government to consult on a registration scheme for the sale of off-road bikes, requiring sellers to record the details of buyers and to verify that they hold valid insurance. Of course, antisocial behaviour associated with off-road bikes is completely unacceptable and, as I have set out, we are taking strong measures to deal with this menace. The police already have a suite of powers to deal with those who do not use their off-road bikes responsibly. It is an offence to use an unlicensed vehicle on a public road, or off-road without the permission of the landowner, and the police can immediately seize vehicles being used in that way.
As the Committee will know, the police are operationally independent, and the Government cannot instruct them to take action in particular cases of antisocial vehicle use, but I hope I have been able to set out, and to reassure the shadow Minister, how seriously we take this unacceptable behaviour and how much we value the role the police have in tackling it.
I would also like to recognise the strength of feeling in the Committee and outside about this behaviour and the disruptive effect it has on communities. I recently met the Roads Minister and we agreed our commitment to a cross-Government approach to tackling this unacceptable antisocial use of vehicles and of course to improving road safety. I am really keen to take forward considerations about how we can go further, outside of the scope of this Bill.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move amendment 35 in clause 9, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
“(c) section 33B (Section 33 offences: clean-up costs).”.
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State’s guidance on flytipping makes the person responsible for fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, liable for the costs of cleaning up.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 18, line 5, at end insert—
“(5A) Within a month of any guidance, or revised guidance, issued under this section being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must ensure that a motion is tabled, and moved, in both Houses of Parliament to approve the guidance.”.
Clause stand part.
New clause 24—Points on driving licence for fly tipping—
“(1) The Environmental Protection Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section 33, subsection 8(a) at end insert—
‘and endorse their driving record with 3 penalty points;’.”
This new clause would add penalty points to the driving licence of a person convicted of a fly-tipping offence.
Matt Vickers
The clause seeks to address a scourge that affects all communities across Britain and all our constituencies. Fly-tipping is an inherent problem, and I welcome any provisions to help tackle this costly and environmentally damaging issue.
The clause is a step in seeking to combat this growing issue. It has been a persistent problem in the UK, causing environmental damage, undermining public health and placing an economic burden on local authorities, which are responsible for cleaning up illegal waste. Empowering local councils to take more immediate and decisive action against fly-tipping is key to making enforcement more efficient and consistent. With more resources, authority and tools, councils will be better equipped to prevent fly-tipping, address existing problems and ensure that offenders are held accountable.
Although fly-tipping is largely seen as a waste disposal issue, it is also an environmental one. Waste that is illegally dumped has far-reaching effects on local ecosystems, water sources and wildlife. Existing laws do not always capture the broader environmental harm caused by fly-tipping. Previous Governments have looked to make progress on tackling fly-tipping by increasing the fines and sanctions available to combat it.
In the evidence session, there was some criticism of the measure in the Bill, with the suggestion that it was just guidance and could be considered patronising by some councils. Although I understand that view, doing more to ensure that local authorities are aware of their responsibilities and the powers available to them by providing meaningful guidance can only be helpful.
I am sure we can all agree that fly-tipping is a scourge and a blight on our communities. Many of us will have some fantastic litter-picking groups in our constituencies —I know I do. I thoroughly enjoy getting out with the Thornaby litter pickers, who do an amazing job. It is great to see people coming together to better their communities, but it is a sad reality that more and more groups of selfless volunteers need to form because people are sick of the endless amounts of rubbish strewn in our streets and by our roads.
Britain has a long-established record of trying to tackle fly-tipping and litter. Keep Britain Tidy was set up as a result of a conference of 26 organisations in 1955. Today, it continues that hard and important work.
Fly-tipping is a significant financial burden on local councils. The annual cost of clearing up illegally dumped waste in the UK is estimated to be more than £50 million. That includes the direct costs of waste removal, disposal fees and the administrative costs involved in managing fly-tipping incidents. According to data for 2019-20 published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in that year alone local authorities in England spent approximately £11 million on clearing up over 1 million reported fly-tipping incidents. That money could be better spent on frontline services such as filling potholes, or on providing community services. Instead, it is used to clean up after those who have no respect for others. The Opposition have tabled amendment 35, which I hope the Committee will support, to complement and strengthen the Bill. Fly-tipping, as defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, is the illegal disposal of waste on land or in public spaces, but some types of fly-tipping are defined less clearly. For example, small-scale littering, such as dumping a few bags of rubbish on a roadside or on private property, may not always be captured by existing laws.
Amendment 35 seeks to define some of the guidance that the Bill will require the Secretary of State to set. The Opposition believe it is important that the heart of the legislation’s approach should be make the person responsible for fly-tipping liable for the costs of cleaning up, rather than the landowner. The amendment would require that to be a feature of the guidance, making it loud and clear to all our local authorities that such powers are available to them.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that this might be important for rural communities, and particularly for farmers? Farmers in my constituency tell me that they struggle with being responsible for clearing up after other people’s fly-tipping, for which they have to use their own time and resources.
Matt Vickers
I completely agree. Many farmers in my patch would say exactly the same. When rubbish is dumped in a park or local authority area, it gets cleaned up, at huge cost to the taxpayer, but when it is dumped beyond the farm gate, or in a field owned by a farmer—or anyone else with any scale of land in a rural area—too often they have to pick up the cost, and all the consequences beyond cost.
Currently, fly-tipping offences typically result in a fine and, in some cases, a criminal record. However, repeat offenders are often penalised in a way that does not sufficiently discourage further violations. The fines can sometimes be seen as a mere cost of doing business, especially by individuals or companies who repeatedly dump waste, often for profit. The Opposition’s new clause 24 proposes adding penalty points to the driving licence of any individual convicted of a fly-tipping offence. It is a significant proposal that aims to deter people from illegally dumping waste by linking that to driving penalties, which would impact an individual’s driving record, and potentially their ability to drive. Our new clause shows that we are serious about tackling the issue of fly-tipping. By linking fly-tipping to driving penalties, the new clause would create an additional layer of consequence for those involved in illegal dumping. People with driving licences may be more cautious if they know that their ability to drive could be impacted.
I note amendment 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, but it is unclear what that amendment would achieve. I am concerned that it would not complement clause 9, and would be counterproductive. The requirement for parliamentary approval of guidance within a month could lead to delays in the implementation of important policies or updates, particularly if there are disagreements or procedural delays in Parliament. I would not want anything to impede, by overreach, our ability to tackle and curtail fly-tipping.
Luke Taylor
We welcome measures to combat fly-tipping. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset has already mentioned, the problem is particularly concerning for rural landowners and farmers, who often have to deal with the cost of this environmental crime on their land. Amendment 4 intends to give parliamentary oversight and democratic control over the guidance. That is a good thing, which we should all support. However, I understand the concerns about delays. I think there is a balance between accountability, parliamentary approval and delays. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Dame Diana Johnson
This has been an interesting debate. We have been up mountain passes, we have been on the Isle of Wight and we have had the shadow Minister out with the Thornaby litter pickers. This debate has been very visual. Fly-tipping is a really serious crime that is blighting communities. It is placing a huge burden on taxpayers and businesses, and it harms the environment. Unfortunately, it is all too common, with local councils reporting 1.15 million incidents in 2023-24.
I want to address the issue of what we are doing in rural areas and on private land. Through the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Countryside Alliance and local authorities to share good practice on tackling fly-tipping on private land. Where there is sufficient evidence, councils can prosecute fly-tippers.
In relation to the issue of serious and organised waste crime, the Environment Agency hosts the joint unit for waste crime, which is a multi-agency taskforce that brings together His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency, the police, waste regulators from across the UK and other operational partners to share intelligence and disrupt and prevent serious organised waste crime. Since 2020, the joint unit for waste crime has worked with over 130 partner organisations, and led or attended 324 multi-agency days of action resulting in 177 associated arrests.
On the issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, we have engaged closely with the devolved Government across the Bill. As she will know, fly-tipping is a devolved matter in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so accordingly this provision applies only in England.
We want to see consistent and effective enforcement action at the centre of local efforts to combat the issue of fly-tipping. That will ensure not only that those who dump rubbish in our communities face the consequences, but that would-be perpetrators are deterred. Councils currently have a range of enforcement powers. Those include prosecution, which can lead to a significant fine, community sentences, or even imprisonment. They can also issue fixed penalty notices of up to £1,000 and seize the vehicles suspected of being used for fly-tipping.
The use of those powers, however, varies significantly across the country, with some councils taking little or no enforcement action at all. Indeed, just two councils—West Northamptonshire and Kingston upon Thames —accounted for the majority of vehicles seized in 2023-24. DEFRA also regularly receives reports of local authorities exercising their enforcement powers inappropriately, for example against householders who leave reusable items at the edge of their property for others to take for free. Through the Bill we intend to enable the Secretary of State to issue fly-tipping enforcement guidance that councils must have regard to.
I want to be clear that the guidance is not about setting top-down targets. We want to empower councils to respond to fly-tipping in ways that work for their communities, while making Government expectations crystal clear. The guidance, which must be subject to consultation, will likely cover areas such as policy and financial objectives of enforcement, how to operate a professional service, the use of private enforcement firms, and advice on how to respond in certain circumstances. Local authorities will, of course, be key stakeholders in the development of the guidance; after all, they are on the frontline in the fight against fly-tipping, and we want to ensure that the guidance provides them with the advice that they will find most helpful.
Amendment 35 aims to ensure that the person responsible for fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, is liable for the costs of cleaning up. I recognise the significant burden that clearing fly-tipped waste places on landowners. It is already the case that, where a local authority prosecutes a fly-tipper and secures a conviction, the court can make a cost order so that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. That is made clear in section 33B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, although sentencing is of course a matter for the courts. Guidance on presenting court cases produced by the national fly-tipping prevention group, which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chairs, explains that prosecutors should consider applying for compensation for the removal of waste. We will consider building on that advice in the statutory guidance issued under clause 9. We also committed, in our manifesto, to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess that they create. DEFRA will provide further details on that commitment in due course.
Amendment 4 would introduce a requirement for any fly-tipping guidance issued under clause 9 to be subject to parliamentary approval. I do not believe that there is any need for such guidance to be subject to any parliamentary procedure beyond a requirement to lay the guidance before Parliament. That is because the guidance will provide technical and practical advice to local authorities on how to conduct enforcement against fly-tipping and breaches of the household waste duty of care. The guidance will not conflict with, or alter the scope of, the enforcement powers, so I do not believe that it requires parliamentary oversight.
The requirement to lay the guidance before Parliament, without any further parliamentary procedure, is consistent with the position taken with the analogous power in section 88B of the 1990 Act and the recommendation of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the then Environment Bill in the 2021-22 Session. We will, of course, consider carefully any recommendations by that Committee in relation to this clause.
New clause 24 seeks to add three penalty points to the driving licence of a person convicted of a fly-tipping offence. As I have said, fly-tipping is a disgraceful act and those who dump rubbish in our communities should face the full force of the law, which could include spot fines of up to £1,000, prosecution or vehicle seizure. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, will appreciate that sentencing is a matter for the courts and that to direct them to place penalty points on the driving licence of a convicted fly-tipper would undermine their ability to hand down a sentence proportionate to the offence, but I will ask my DEFRA counterpart who is responsible for policy on fly-tipping to consider the benefits of enabling endorsement with penalty points for fly-tippers.
I also stress that there is an existing power for local councils to seize a vehicle suspected of being used for fly-tipping. If a council prosecutes, the court can order the transferral to the council of the ownership rights to the vehicle, under which the council can keep, sell or dispose of it.
I hope that, in the light of my explanations, the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Sutton and Cheam will be content to withdraw their amendments and to support clause 9.
Matt Vickers
It would be remiss of us to have this debate today and not mention that the Great British spring clean is happening at the moment, thanks to Keep Britain Tidy. I thought I would just put that out there; the Minister need not respond.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 10, page 18, line 38, leave out “4” and insert “14”.
This amendment would increase the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four to 14 years. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation recommended an increase in his review following the Southport attack.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 9.
Clause stand part.
Clause 11 stand part.
New clause 44—Individual preparation for mass casualty attack—
“(1) A person commits an offence, if, with the intention of—
(a) killing two or more people, or
(b) attempting to kill two or more people,
they engage in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to their intention.
(2) A person found guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.”
This new clause would allow the police to intervene early to prevent attacks, like in terrorism cases, without causing unintended consequences for wider counter-terrorism efforts. It gives effect to a recommendation by the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation following the Southport attack.
Matt Vickers
Clause 10, which creates new section 139AB of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, makes it illegal to possess a bladed or offensive weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence, cause fear of violence, inflict serious damage to property or enable another to do so. A “relevant weapon” for the purpose of the clause includes a bladed article covered by section 139 of the 1988 Act or an offensive weapon within the meaning of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. Additionally, the clause amends section 315 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to bring the offence under the mandatory minimum sentencing regime for repeat offenders, ensuring consistency with existing laws on knife possession and threats involving weapons.
Clause 11 amends the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to increase the maximum penalty for manufacturing, selling, hiring or lending prohibited weapons. In England and Wales, those offences are currently summary-only, which means they can be tried only in the magistrates court. The Bill makes them triable either way, meaning they could be tried in either the magistrates court or the Crown court.
Offensive weapons, in particular bladed articles and corrosive substances, have become one of the most pressing concerns in our fight against violent crime. The alarming rise in the use of these dangerous items in criminal activities has not only led to an increase in injuries and fatalities, but instilled fear and a sense of insecurity in communities across the country. The harm caused by these weapons, from knives to acid, is devastating; victims of attacks are often left with life-altering injuries and long-term psychological trauma.
I am sure that all Members, regardless of their party, are united in their determination to ensure that the strictest rules are in place to limit the use of such weapons and ensure that those possessing them feel the full force of the law. It is crucial that we ensure the provisions in the Bill are fair, effective and targeted. The Opposition amendments propose key constructive changes that would strengthen and complement the Bill by ensuring that it is balanced, focused and respectful of individual rights, while still taking robust action to combat the possession and use of offensive weapons in our communities.
Offensive weapons, including knives, blades and corrosive substances, have become tools of shameless violence, often used in serious criminal activities that devastate individuals and communities. We cannot help but remember the countless victims of stabbings in recent years. They are all too many and all too tragic—from PC Keith Palmer, who died in the line of duty protecting Members in this place, to Sir David Amess, one of the gentlest and most genuinely kind individuals you could ever wish to meet, who was barbarically murdered. Those two brave men were murdered not simply by evil and vile terrorists, but by evil and vile terrorists wielding bladed weapons.
I know that tragic instances of stabbing have taken place in the constituencies of many Members, with young lives extinguished or endangered by these weapons. Just recently, a group of individuals armed with knives forcibly entered a private event at Elm Park primary school in London. The assailants assaulted and robbed attendees, and a 16-year-old boy and a 19-year-old man were hospitalised after being stabbed. Twelve individuals were arrested in connection with the incident. One of the most shocking facts is that the youngest of those arrested was just 12 years old.
Already in 2025, there have been far too many cases involving knives and the extinguishing of young lives. In February, a 15-year-old boy was fatally stabbed at All Saints high school in Sheffield. He was attacked three times on his way to lessons—attacks that were witnessed by other students. The emergency services were called and, although the boy was taken to hospital, he succumbed to his injuries shortly afterwards. A fellow 15-year-old student was arrested on suspicion of murder and is in police custody.
Our aim with amendment 39 is not to obstruct but to help strengthen the Bill, so that such cases can never be repeated. The Bill includes several provisions to criminalise the possession of these items in public spaces and introduces serious penalties for individuals caught with them. The goal is to deter violent crimes and reduce the risk posed by such weapons on our streets. The amendment would make a crucial change to clause 10 by increasing the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four years to 14 years. The amendment is not only justified but necessary to ensure that our laws properly reflect the severity of such offences.
The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation recommended an increase in the maximum sentence following the Southport attack. It is clear to many that the current four-year maximum does not adequately address the serious threat posed by individuals who arm themselves with the intent to cause harm. By increasing the penalty to 14 years, we would send a clear and unequivocal message that such dangerous behaviour will not be tolerated, and that those who pose a risk to the public will face appropriately severe consequences.
Weapons in the hands of those with violent intent represent a grave danger to both individuals and society at large. The possession of a weapon with the clear purpose of causing harm, whether in a terror-related incident, gang violence or a premeditated attack, is an extreme and deliberate act. It is right, therefore, that the law provides sufficient deterrence and punishment. A 14-year maximum would better reflect the devastation that these crimes can cause and align sentences with those for similarly grave offences such as attempted murder and serious violent crimes.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
I rise in support of clauses 10 and 11 and to speak against amendment 39 and new clause 44, well-intentioned though I am sure they are. The shadow Minister mentioned Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. I want to focus briefly on his March report, to which I believe the shadow Minister was referring.
The explanatory statements to amendment 39 and new clause 44 state—I paraphrase—that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation recommended an increase in sentence in his review following the Southport attack. His report, titled “Independent Review on Classification of Extreme Violence Used in Southport Attack on 29 July 2024” and dated 13 March this year, is one that I am sure many colleagues across the House have read. I put on the record my sympathies to everybody involved in that heinous attack and to the victims of the other attacks that the shadow Minister mentioned—and, of course, we think of Jo Cox, a friend much missed and loved in all parts of the House.
There is a risk of misunderstanding in the amendments, albeit I am sure they are well-intentioned. If one looks at Mr Hall’s quite lengthy report in detail, it says a number of things about what is proposed in clause 10. He states that the new offence that we propose to create here
“appears to fill an important gap”.
He goes on to say that
“where a killing is contemplated, the available penalty appears too low for long-term disruption through lengthy imprisonment.”
He concludes by recommending that the Government bring forward legislation to create a different, new offence,
“where an individual, with the intention of killing two or more persons, engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to this intention. The maximum sentence should be life imprisonment.”
Importantly, he says:
“If this offence is created, then there is no need to reconsider the maximum sentence for the proposed offence of possessing an article with violent intent under the Crime and Policing Bill.”
I pay tribute to Mr Hall for his work. The Prime Minister and the Government have committed to acting urgently on the points that he has identified, and to considering the new offence that he references at the end of his report. Given the complexity and the interplay between terrorism and non-terrorism legislation, which Mr Hall acknowledges, they should do so with great care and in consultation with appropriate stakeholders such as the Law Commission. That must be done, in order to ensure that whatever new offence is arrived at is practical, workable and absolutely unimpeachable. That work must continue and conclude, but in the interim, clause 10 does the job.
I point out to Opposition Members that the Bill does not just create a new offence in clause 10, which in itself is sufficient, but does much on youth diversion orders—we will come to those when we debate clauses 110 to 121—and, in clause 122, on the banning of dangerous weapons such as corrosive substances. In written evidence to the Committee, Jonathan Hall himself broadly welcomed those additional measures. For the record, the written evidence reference is CPB 02. He states that youth diversion orders are “extensions” to his original recommendations and that they “are justified”. In respect of clause 122, he states that this is gap that he has previously recommended filling and that the power is much needed. Of course, the Government have done other great work, often with support from both sides of the House. On the statute book right now is Martyn’s law, which will better allow venues to tighten counter-terrorism measures.
There is a package of measures—some already on the statute book, and other important measures, which we are discussing today, that we will hopefully get on the statute book without undue delay. I therefore submit to the shadow Minister that, while they are no doubt well-intentioned, amendment 39 and new clause 44 are not needed at this time. Let the work that I have referenced, and that the Government have committed to, get under way, so that that can be done properly, in line with, and not in contradiction to, what Mr Hall has said, and let us proceed with clauses 10 and 11 as they stand.
Matt Vickers
We have heard from all parties and all corners of the country about the need to tackle the issue and about the horror that such weapons can cause. Clearly, we all wish the Government well in delivering on their knife crime ambition. We have mentioned knives more than corrosive substances, but they can have equally horrific results, so I am glad to see them included.
Solving the problem is not easy, of course, and it is not all about sanctions: there is a role for education, policing, social media, culture, stop and search, and even technology, which could revolutionise our ability to identify those carrying a knife. The horrific loss of young lives—of young people whose families would give the earth to see them again—continues. To many of the communities torn apart and forever scarred, increasing the maximum sentence available to a judge to 14 years makes nothing but sense. We will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matt Vickers
As mentioned earlier, we are united in the aim of rooting out knives and knife crime from our society. Ensuring that our streets and constituents are safe is of primary importance to us all. Clause 12 introduces a new police power to seize bladed or sharply pointed articles, referred to as “relevant articles”, under specific conditions. A police constable may exercise that power if they are lawfully on premises and find a relevant article, with reasonable grounds to suspect that it could be used in connection with unlawful violence, including damage to property or threats of violence, if not seized.
This provision gives police officers the authority to remove dangerous weapons from potential misuse, enhancing public safety and reducing the risk of harm in situations where there is a credible threat of violence. Clause 13 would create similar powers for armed forces service police. Unlike clause 12, the power for armed forces service police would apply across the UK.
We face a tragedy that continues to unfold in our streets, communities and homes: a tragedy that sees young lives cut short, families shattered and entire communities left in mourning. Knife crime has become a scourge on our society, robbing us of the future doctors, teachers, engineers and leaders who should have had the chance to fulfil their potential. Instead, too many parents now sit by empty chairs at the dinner table, their sons and daughters stolen from them by senseless violence. Every single child lost to knife crime is a story of devastation.
Broadly, clauses 12 and 13 offer great powers to our law enforcement, which of course should be welcome. We cannot ignore the role that stop and search plays in tackling this crisis. In London alone, that policing tool has taken 400 knives off the streets every month, preventing countless violent attacks. Over the past four years, 17,500 weapons have been seized as a result of stop and search, including at least 3,500 in 2024—weapons that would otherwise have remained in circulation, posing a deadly risk to communities. Nor is it is just a London issue: in 2023-24, stop and search led to more than 6,000 arrests in the west midlands and 5,620 arrests in Greater Manchester.
We must, of course, ensure that these powers are used fairly and proportionately, but we cannot afford to weaken a tool that has saved lives. Every knife seized is a potential tragedy prevented. We must stand firm in supporting our police, ensuring that they have the powers they need to keep our community safe. However, I urge caution with some of the provisions and ask the Government to look at some of them and some of the issues that they may lead to.
Clause 12 grants police officers the power to seize bladed articles found on private premises when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the item will be used in connection with unlawful violence. While the intention of this clause, to prevent violence by removing weapons before harm can be done, is clear, there are some concerns over the impact that the clauses could have. The provision in clause 12 allows for the seizure of bladed articles based on what the police deem to be reasonable grounds to suspect.
The phrase “reasonable grounds” is inherently subjective and open to interpretation, which could lead to inconsistent enforcement and, in some cases, potential abuse of power. Many individuals legally possess knives for legitimate purposes, such as work. Some might argue that this clause could inadvertently criminalise those who have no intention of using their blades for unlawful purposes. The law needs to ensure that the people who possess knives for legitimate reasons are not unjustly targeted or treated as criminals.
Clause 12 empowers the police to seize items from private premises. While there is a clear and overriding public safety rationale, the intrusion into individuals’ privacy could be seen by some as excessive. We must consider how this power might be exercised in a way that balances safety with respect for personal rights. While public safety is paramount, we must not lose sight of the importance of protecting individual freedoms. Some would argue that these clauses, although well intentioned, could pave the way for broader surveillance and unwarranted searches. It is essential that we have guidance within our police forces to create consistency of approach.
Finally, while the clauses provide the police and armed forces with significant powers, we must ask whether they address the root causes of knife crime. This is a reactive measure, seizing weapons after they have been identified as a threat. We need to ensure a comprehensive approach, including education and support, to reduce violence and prevent knife crime from occurring in the first place. I am sure I speak for all Members across the House in our desire to combat knife crime and violence on our streets.
Dame Diana Johnson
I gently point out to the shadow Minister that the clauses in the Bill before us today are exactly the same clauses that were in the Criminal Justice Bill, which obviously, as a Member of Parliament at that point, he would have supported.
Matt Vickers
I would not say I was not supportive of the clauses; I am saying that we need to continue to look at the guidance that we give police officers on the powers, particularly as we extend them.
Dame Diana Johnson
Of course we keep all such matters under review. I am just pointing out that these are exactly the same clauses that the shadow Minister voted for in the Criminal Justice Bill.
On the point that the shadow Minister made about the reasonable grounds for suspecting, which a police officer must have in order to seize the weapon, the knife or bladed item, there is not an unlimited power for the police to seize any article they may wish to take away from the property. They will have to provide reasons why they are seizing the article and, as I said in my remarks, they will have to return the item if a court determines that they have seized it in error.
On the shadow Minister’s final point, this of course is only one measure. There is a whole range of other things that we need to do, particularly in the preventive space, to deal with the issue of knives. However, this measure will give the police, as I am sure he would agree, one of the powers that will help in dealing with the problems we face with knife crime today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Crime and Policing Bill (Fifth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Home Office
Matt Vickers
Main Page: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)Department Debates - View all Matt Vickers's debates with the Home Office
Crime and Policing Bill (Fifth sitting)
Matt Vickers ExcerptsThursday 3rd April 2025
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 April 2025 - (3 Apr 2025)
Dame Diana Johnson
What we do know, from the statistics that I have just read out, is that there is a wide body of evidence to confirm what is happening to retail workers on retail premises. We know that, because that information and evidence has been collated for some time. I accept that there are questions and concerns about delivery drivers, but I do not think we are in the position to know the extent of assaults on delivery drivers. I am not disputing that they take place—they do—but we have been very clear, and it was our manifesto commitment, that we will deal with assaults on retail workers by legislating for that. The clause is about that.
Everyone has the right to feel safe at work. The new offence, which is for retail workers and premises, sends a strong message that violence and abuse towards retail workers will not be tolerated. In a later debate, perhaps, I will come on to some of the other protections that all workers have, and how they can be used. This new offence will carry a maximum prison sentence of six months and/or an unlimited fine.
Reflecting on the need to take a tough stance with meaningful criminal justice consequences, clause 15 provides that the new offence will come with a presumption for a court to make a criminal behaviour order. Such an order may prohibit the offender doing anything described in it, which might include a condition preventing specific acts that cause harassment, alarm or distress, or preventing an offender from visiting specific premises. Breach of a criminal behaviour order is in itself a criminal offence, attracting a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
Clauses 14 and 15, taken together, will significantly help better protect retail workers. On that basis, I am sure that they will be welcomed across the Committee. The hon. Member for Stockton West, who leads for the Opposition, has tabled amendment 29 and new clause 26 in this group. I plan to respond to those when winding up the debate.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan.
The Bill rightly seeks to improve protections for our amazing retail workers and looks to tackle retail crime. I pay tribute to the amazing retail workers across the country for their work, and to the many people who have been involved in the campaign to provide greater protections for them.
Retail is the biggest private sector employer in our economy. It directly employs nearly 3 million people and sits at the heart of all our communities. Clause 14 amends section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and creates a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker in their place of work. It defines “retail premises” as a place
“used wholly or mainly for the purposes of the sale of anything by retail,”
including not only buildings, but stalls and vehicles. It also defines what it is to be a “retail worker at work”, which is
“working on or about retail premises, and”
being there
“for or on behalf of the owner or occupier of those premises”.
It confirms that a person who commits the offence will be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences. I am glad that the offence also includes those doing unpaid work in a retail setting.
Clause 15 amends part 11 of the sentencing code to create a duty to make a criminal behaviour order for the offence of assaulting a retail worker. It confirms that that will apply where someone is convicted of the new offence under clause 14; where
“the prosecution makes an application to the court for a criminal behaviour order to be made against the offender”;
and where
“the offender is aged 18 or over at the time the prosecution makes the application”.
It also sets out that such an order will not apply where the court imposes a custodial sentence, or makes a youth rehabilitation order, a community order, or a suspended sentence for that specific offence or
“any other offence of which the offender is convicted by or before it”.
Until this point, police have had to rely on several criminal offences through which to prosecute violence and assault against retail workers, including assault, unlawful wounding or grievous bodily harm under the common law or the Offences against the Person Act 1861; harassment or putting people in fear of violence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; and affray, or threatening or abusive behaviour under the Public Order Act 1986. Things changed and progress was made by section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, as a result of debates on this important subject during the Act’s passage through Parliament. That added section 68A to the Sentencing Act 2020, requiring the courts to treat an offence as aggravated if the victim of the offence had been
“providing a public service, performing a public duty or providing services…goods or facilities”
to the public.
In recent years, a variety of businesses and organisations have called for a stand-alone offence. In July 2020, USDAW launched a petition calling for a specific offence of abusing, threatening or assaulting a retail worker. The petition received 104,354 signatures, which triggered a Westminster Hall debate. As a member of the Petitions Committee, I had the privilege of leading the debate and speaking on behalf of the petitioners. At that time, we were gripped by the pandemic, which helped to focus minds on the incredibly important role that our retail workers were performing as a result of it. The debate was well attended, with Members from all parties speaking passionately in support of our retail workers.
Several retailers were in support of a stand-alone offence, including Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and the Co-op. In May 2021, Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, called for a stand-alone offence to provide colleagues with the protections they needed. In June 2021, the Home Affairs Committee held its own inquiry on violence and abuse towards retail workers, concluding that the patchwork of existing offences did not provide adequate protection. The Committee said:
“The Government should consult urgently on the scope of a new standalone offence.”
As hon. Members may know, having served as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the future of retail and as a former Woollies worker, I have been very involved in the campaign to protect our retail workers. It was a privilege to join the likes of the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), Paul Gerrard from the Co-op, Helen Dickinson and the team at the British Retail Consortium, Edward Woodall of the Association of Convenience Stores, USDAW, numerous retailers and others who have campaigned over recent years to deliver more protection for our retail workers.
When I first arrived in the House, in my slightly rebellious phase, I tabled an amendment on this issue to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—now the 2022 Act—which was supported by Members from both sides of the House. As I have mentioned, that helped us to make assault on a person providing a service to the public a statutory aggravating offence. More recently, in April 2024, alongside a suite of measures designed to tackle retail crime, the last Government agreed to create a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker. The stand-alone offence aims to protect our retail workers by providing a deterrent to those who might commit retail crime, and it also has an important role to play in increasing transparency and accountability, which I will say more about later.
The changes to sanctions and recording are not the only answer to this problem; it is important that the police and retailers take action more broadly to tackle it. The last Government introduced a retail crime action plan in October 2023. My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who was then the Policing Minister and is now the shadow Home Secretary, launched it at a meeting of senior police leaders and 13 of the UK’s biggest retailers.
The plan included a police commitment to prioritise urgently attending the scene of a shoplifting incident where it involved violence against a shop worker, where security guards had detained an offender, or where attendance was needed to secure evidence. Attendance was to be assessed on risk, with prolific or juvenile offenders being treated with elevated priority. The police reaffirmed their pledge to follow up on any evidence that could reasonably lead to a perpetrator being caught, and forces stepped up targeted hotspot patrols in badly affected areas.
The plan set out advice for retailers on how to provide the best possible evidence for police to pursue any case. They are required to send CCTV footage of the whole incident and an image of the shoplifter from the digital evidence management system as quickly as possible after the offence has been committed. Where CCTV or other digital images are secured, police are required to run them through the police national database, using facial recognition technology to further aid efforts to identify and prosecute offenders, particularly prolific or potentially dangerous individuals.
The plan also created a specialist police team to build a comprehensive intelligence picture of the organised crime gangs that drive a huge number of shoplifting incidents across the country, in an effort to target and dismantle them. This initiative was branded Pegasus and is a business and policing partnership that has improved the way in which retailers are able to share intelligence, with the police gaining a greater understanding of the approach being taken by these organised crime gangs and identifying more offenders.
The initiative was spearheaded by Katy Bourne, the business crime lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. It is the first national partnership of its kind, and was backed financially by the Home Office, John Lewis, the Co-op, Marks & Spencer, Boots, Primark and several others, which pledged more than £840,000 to get it off the ground. Pegasus helped to identify high-harm offenders who were linked to organised crime groups, and has resulted in numerous arrests of individuals who are often responsible for tens of thousands of pounds in thefts.
Harriet Cross
Does my hon. Friend agree that that sort of approach is important in tackling repeat offenders with whom retail workers will be very familiar? They know who the offenders are in their area, because they see them every day. That sort of approach would help tackle those offenders and give reassurance to retail workers that they will not see these people back time and again.
Matt Vickers
The use of facial recognition in this setting is incredible. Anybody who has been out with the police force in their area and looked at it will know that the benefits are huge. It delivers great efficiency to the police, who can check thousands of people in minutes. The ability to take a face and work out who the person is and what they have done or have not done is game-changing in this and many other settings.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I have lots of sympathy with my hon. Friend on that point, but will he comment on the tension with civil liberties?
Matt Vickers
We have talked about the failure rate of modern facial recognition technology, and the number of instances in which it gets it wrong is minute. Every study we do on modern kit tells us that it results in very little error. It is virtually foolproof. There have been all sorts of noises about previous incarnations of the technology, but the most modern technology that we are using with our police forces now comes with very little fault and can be game-changing for the police.
The commitment to invest in facial recognition was a four-year investment. We have now seen a change of Government, but I know the Minister understands the huge value that facial recognition can have to the police, so I wondered whether the incumbent Government will continue with the specific funding commitment in full. Yes, lots of work has gone in and this offence will not solve all problems or necessarily have an immediate impact, but it represents a huge and important step forward. I am glad it has been taken forward by the incumbent Government and hope it will have a real impact to improve the lives of those important key workers in high streets and stores across the country.
Our retail workers define what it means to be a key worker: essential to the everyday lives of everyone. They often work the longest hours, not necessarily for the best pay, but are relied on by the public to keep their lives and the country going. For those living alone and isolated, they may be the only regular interaction they have. Our stores and town centres sit at the heart of our communities and give us a sense of place and identity. When they become dangerous and lawless, it is the saddest of signs and has real consequences for society.
According to the British Retail Consortium crime survey 2025, there are 2,000 incidents of assault on retail workers—not every month, not every week, but every single day. That figure has gone up by 50% in the last year, totalling 737,000 incidents in a year. More worryingly, 45,000 of those incidents were violent—equivalent to more than 124 incidents a day. There were over 25,000 incidents involving a weapon—that is 70 a day—and, devastatingly, that figure was up by 180% on the previous year. The survey went on to say,
“61% of retailers rate the police response to retail crime overall as poor or very poor, the same as last year, but over a third (39%) rated it as fair, good or excellent, including 3% as excellent for the first time in some years”.
In response to the report, British Retail Consortium chief exec, Helen Dickinson said,
“Behind these numbers lies a harsher truth for the people who work in our industry. Colleagues have been punched, stabbed, spat on, while having racist, misogynistic, and generally vile abuse hurled at them. These incidents can inflict serious mental and physical trauma that lasts a lifetime. The idea that any retail workers might be going to work fearing for their safety, never knowing the next time another incident may occur, should deeply concern all of us. Violence and abuse should never be part of the job.”
A colleague survey by the Association of Convenience Stores found that 87% of store colleagues had experienced verbal abuse, with over 1.2 million incidents, and 59% of retailers believe that antisocial behaviour, in or around their store, has increased over the past year. The association’s crime report also found that only 36% of crime is reported by retailers. Retailers said that they do not always report crime, and the top three reasons were, first,
“No confidence in a follow up investigation”,
secondly,
“The time it takes to file and process reports”
and thirdly,
“Perceived lack of interest from police”.
Retail workers are ordinary people going to work to earn a living, and they should be able to do so without fear of crime. Very often, they are students getting their first job stacking shelves or the semi-retired keeping themselves active, topping up their incomes to get something nice for their grandkids. To demonstrate the impact and consequences of retail crime and the value of the measures being debated, I want to share the views of some of those amazing frontline retail workers. Joshua James, an independent retailer, said:
“The high levels of verbal abuse and antisocial behaviour we are experiencing in store is both upsetting for our team members and negatively impacting their morale. Our main priority will always be their safety and that is why we have had to resort to tactics including implementing safety and preventative technologies and adjusting procedures to help the team feel safer at work. The sad truth behind this is it’s a selfish approach, as we know when these individuals stop targeting us, it’s only because they have moved onto another store.”
Amit Puntambekar from Nisa Local in Fenstanton described how he feels about the support he does not receive from the police:
“When your staff are threatened with a hammer, when someone threatens to kill you who lives near your shop and the police don’t take it seriously, what’s the point?”
In recent years during this campaign, I have had people ask me, “Why should things be different if you assault a retail worker as opposed to any other member of the public?” Retail workers are not assaulted because they wear a Tesco uniform or an Aldi shirt. They usually get assaulted for upholding the rules, which are often set by Parliament, but if they do not uphold those rules, they can face serious sanctions and consequences—for example, for failing to verify age for the purchase of knives or alcohol. Parliament and the Government impose statutory duties on our retail workers, and it is only right that we back them with statutory protections.
The Association of Convenience Stores 2025 crime survey found the top three triggers for assaults on retail workers were: encountering shop thieves; enforcing an age-restricted sales policy; and refusal to serve an intoxicated customer—which, of course, is another responsibility imposed on them by Parliament.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
My hon. Friend paints a disturbing picture of this significant problem, in many cases using the statistics. I worry that perhaps there is not the awareness within the general public—although there certainly will be among some people—of this crime compared with other crimes. Of course, this law will help to address that, but does he agree that we all share responsibility to ensure that there is better public awareness of this issue so that we can all play our small part in better supporting retail workers?
Matt Vickers
Hugely so. The likes of the BRC have run many campaigns to try to get people to shop in a more friendly and responsible way. The reality is that these places are at the heart of the community. If things are going to pot in the high street and the local shop, that undermines all the societal norms that young people might see when they go to the shop—and they then start to live in a different kind of world. There are obviously huge consequences. My hon. Friend is right; it is down to everybody to see this issue for the problem that it is.
Retailers and people who work in the sector say that it does not feel like the police see this problem as a priority. It always seems to be the last on the list. We understand that the police have a huge number of competing priorities on their time and energy, but when it comes down to it, this is a really big deal to the people who get assaulted in their workplace and have to go back there the next day, knowing that they might have to face that self-same crime.
Assaulting a retail worker, alongside assaulting the many other workers who provide a service to the public, is already a statutory offence. New clause 20 makes the case for wholesale workers to be added to the protections in the Bill. Many of us will have heard the case for similar protections for retail delivery drivers who face assault. The Federation of Wholesale Distributors is leading that campaign, stressing the urgent need for the inclusion of all wholesale workers in the stand-alone offence of assaulting or abusing a retail worker.
The Federation of Wholesale Distributors is the member organisation for UK food and drink wholesalers, operating in the grocery and food service markets, supplying retail and caterers via collect, delivery and online. Its members supply to up to 330,000 food service businesses and 72,000 retail grocery stores, supporting local high streets and businesses, large and small, across the UK.
The wholesale sector generates annual revenues of £36 billion, employs 60,000 people, and produces £3 billion of gross value added to the UK economy annually. Approximately £10 billion of that trade goes through cash and carry depots, where staff are increasingly vulnerable to criminal activities, particularly involving high-value goods, such as alcohol and tobacco. According to the FWD’s most recent crime survey, 100% of wholesalers surveyed identified crime as one of their foremost concerns, primarily attributed to what they perceive as “inadequate police responsiveness”. It argues:
“Despite substantial investments in crime prevention measures, wholesalers require stronger support from both the Government and law enforcement.”
Although it welcomes the Government’s commitment to tackling retail crime, it remains
“deeply concerned that the Bill does not extend protections to the majority of wholesale workers.”
The Bill’s current definition excludes 98% of wholesalers—those operating on a business-to-business basis—from the proposed protections. As a result, a significant number of wholesale workers remain unprotected.
Wholesale workers play a vital role in local economies and essential supply chains, ensuring the distribution of food and drink to businesses, hospitals, schools and care homes. It is argued that by leaving them out of the protections in the Bill, their safety, and the sector’s resilience, are compromised. They suggest a more inclusive definition under the stand-alone offence would better safeguard vulnerable workers and strengthen the wholesale sector. I am very keen to understand whether the Minister has considered the proposal on wholesale workers, what her perspective and thoughts on the matter are, and whether she will consider adding it during the passage of the Bill.
Matt Vickers
I very much agree. Delivery drivers go out to alien environments—they could be delivering at the end of some lane in the middle of the countryside somewhere with no one in sight—so they are at substantial risk. I am sure the Minister will tell me that the proposal was not in the previous Criminal Justice Bill, but it has come forward and USDAW has made a good case. We should definitely listen and consider it, and I hope the Minister will give us her thoughts about where we should go with that.
As well as suggesting widening the scope of the provisions to include retail home delivery drivers, USDAW has submitted written evidence suggesting that the Bill could be improved in other ways by widening its scope to include incidents of abuse and threats, and an aggravating factor for incidents following retail workers enforcing statutory requirements, such as age-related restrictions. That would mirror what USDAW considers to be the successful Scottish provisions. Will the Minister comment on those ideas—in particular, an aggravating factor for incidents that come as a result of the enforcing of statutory requirements, and the inclusion of abuse and threats?
During evidence, we heard some queries about whether the inclusion of the assault clause in the Bill is necessary. The former Lord Chancellor highlighted that there has been a departure from what he described as a
“rather interesting amendment tabled in the previous Session to the 2023-24 Criminal Justice Bill by, I think, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris)”.
He said:
“It sought to amend the law to increase protections for shop workers, but with an important expansion: the offence would be not just an assault, but a threatening or abuse offence as well, which would encompass some of the public order concerns that many of us have about shop premises, corner shops and sole proprietor retail outlets. Yet, we have gone back here to a straight assault clause, which in my mind does not seem to add anything to the criminal code at all.” ––[Official Report, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2025; c. 18, Q28.]
That lack of a significant change is noted in the economic note, which states:
“The impact of this new offence is limited as assault on retail workers is already an offence covered under wider assault charges and these cases would have been prosecuted, processed, and determined in the same way without the new offence. Increased costs are only expected through the additional consequence of CBOs for offenders and their possible breaches…There is no definitive evidence that the creation of this new offence will lead to an increase or decrease in the number of assaults on retail workers. The timing of any possible effects is also uncertain”.
That is not to speak against the measure.
Joe Robertson
Does my hon. Friend agree that delivery drivers are particularly vulnerable, given that they often work on their own in an unfamiliar place, and go to addresses they have not been to before, so there are some very strong stand-alone arguments for including them within the protections of the Bill in a stronger, more effective way?
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. People often order stuff to be delivered to their house; an Uber Eats driver might turn up at whatever time of the night. The people who arrive tend to turn up when people are not at work, so they could be there of an evening, when it is dark or at inconvenient times, when the risk is probably higher. They could be in any setting, and it will be unfamiliar to them but familiar to whoever they happen to be visiting. We have to give some thought to this issue, and I am interested in what the Minister will have to say on it.
This is not to speak against the measure, but is the Minister confident that it is drafted in a manner that will reduce assaults against shop workers, as well as abuse and threats? Could it be broader, to encompass antisocial behaviours that have no place on our streets? I am delighted that the incumbent Government are continuing with the proposals of their predecessor in creating this stand-alone offence, but we wish to make some proposals for improving it.
First, amendment 29 would require the courts to make a community order against repeat offenders for retail crime in order to restrict the offenders’ liberty. A huge amount of such crime is committed by repeat offenders. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us her perspective on the proposal.
We are grateful that the proposals from the last Government’s Criminal Justice Bill are being brought forward in this Bill, but I was disappointed that the new legislation does not include the mandatory requirement for a ban, electronic tag or curfew to be imposed on those committing a third offence of either shoplifting or assaulting a retail worker. Many retailers believe that this would ensure that the response to third offences would be stepped up, and would provide retail workers with much-needed respite from repeat offenders. To this end, we tabled new clause 26. Again, I would be grateful for the Minister’s view on it, and for her rationale for what some might consider a watering-down of the sanctions.
I note that clause 15 sets out that those under the age of 18 will not be subject to a criminal behaviour order. Will the Minister comment on the frequency of involvement in retail crime by under-18s? Why are criminal behaviour orders not necessary to deter them?
One of the points made about the stand-alone offence, over and above the sanction and the consequence, is that it is about increasing police response time, as well as accountability and transparency. By having a stand-alone offence, we will have data on where and how often these things occur, and we can then measure where the police are and are not taking the required action. On that basis, has the Minister given any thought to how to manage that data, how we might hold to account police forces with the greatest volume of such offences and how we can look at ensuring that all police forces have a consistent response?
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I will make a slightly shorter speech. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear!”] I welcome the Government’s measures to protect retail workers against assault. I have seen the evidence of this challenge at first hand in my constituency. In Frome, we have an amazing small independent shop and art gallery that has been repeatedly targeted by groups of young people who are spray painting graffiti on the windows and shouting abuse at retail workers and shoppers. This is part of a wider picture of antisocial behaviour that is happening on our high streets, and that neighbourhood police are working so hard to tackle. As we said in previous discussions, we need to support neighbourhood police and resource them to do so.
Retail workers are on the frontline of the much wider antisocial behaviour we see in our towns and cities. As we know, high street businesses are critical not only to our economic success, but to the wellbeing of the places we live and work in. It is vital that they can recruit and retain staff who can come to work without fear of being threatened or assaulted. However, the Minister should consider that it is not only retail workers who are victims of assaults; bank branch workers in customer-facing roles should have the same level of protection.
At a recent constituency breakfast, I spoke with a representative from Barclays bank. He told me that there were more than 3,500 incidents of inappropriate customer behaviour against Barclays staff in 2024, with more than 90% involving verbal abuse, as well as many other incidents of smashed windows and graffiti. Bank branch staff across the UK would be grateful if the Minister could extend to them the protections being provided to retail workers.
Matt Vickers
That point has been mentioned several times. We heard what Rob Buckland thinks about extending the offence beyond assault, because the Bill refers specifically to assault. The hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley had tabled an amendment to the previous Bill to provide a broader definition that would cover abuse as well as assault. Does the Minister feel that there is a question mark around that point, or does she feel that it has been misunderstood by the people commenting on it?
Dame Diana Johnson
I will come on to that point in more detail in a moment; I just want to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor about security staff. The offence will cover security staff who are employed directly by retailers and those employed by a third party on behalf of a retailer.
I want to move on to amendment 29 and new clause 26 tabled by the shadow Minister, which seek to make further provision on the sentencing of repeat offenders convicted of assaulting a retail worker. As I have tried to set out repeatedly, we take prolific offending extremely seriously, and it is helpful to have this opportunity to set out our approach.
As the Committee will be aware, sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary, which takes into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, and the statutory purposes of sentencing. The courts have a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders, including discharges, fines, community sentences, suspended sentences and custodial sentences where appropriate. Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with sentencing guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous conviction, when determining the sentence.
The Ministry of Justice continues to ensure that sentencers are provided with all tagging options, to enable courts to impose electronic monitoring on anyone who receives a community-based sentence, if the courts deem it suitable to do so. Additionally, although electronic monitoring is available to the courts, it may be not the most appropriate requirement to be added to an offender’s sentence. Many prolific offenders have no fixed abode and live complex, chaotic lifestyles. Imposing an electronic monitoring requirement would likely set up those individuals to fail, instead of helping to improve outcomes for perpetrators of crime and the public.
We cannot consider this issue in isolation. That is why the Government have delivered on a manifesto commitment—we are really quite keen on that—to bring sentencing up to date and ensure that the framework is consistent by launching an independent review of sentencing, chaired by the former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke. The review is tasked with a comprehensive re-evaluation of our sentencing framework, including considering how we can make greater use of punishments outside prison, and how sentences can encourage offenders to turn their back on a life of crime. The review has been specifically asked to consider sentencing for prolific offenders, to ensure that they commit fewer crimes. We look forward to considering the recommendations of the review, following which we will set out our plans for the future of sentencing. It is vital that we give the review time to finalise its recommendations, including on prolific offenders, and that we consider them.
We had quite a lot of discussion about wholesale workers, delivery drivers and bank workers. However, despite the Opposition raising those issues, they did not table any amendments on them. New clause 20, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), relates to wholesale workers, and I will discuss it in a moment, but first, a number of Members raised the issue of delivery drivers. We know the really important, dedicated work that delivery drivers do, particularly when we recall what happened during the pandemic. These drivers often deliver items to the most vulnerable in our society, including the elderly, frail and disabled. However, my approach in the Bill is that we must be sure that the new offence that we are creating is proportionate and can be used without creating legal ambiguity.
Any ambiguity in identifying whether an individual is a retail worker will lead the courts to take the case forward as a common assault, as happens at the moment, meaning that the specific recording that the shadow Minister is keen on would, importantly, not be attributed to a retail worker. Delivery drivers cover a wide range of sectors and roles, which is likely to cause issues with defining what a delivery driver is, and therefore with the courts’ ability to use the Bill as we want them to. However, we will use this parliamentary process to scrutinise the provisions in the Bill, as we are doing today, and will consider carefully any amendments that are tabled, as well as any evidence that is put forward in support of them.
On bank staff, it is worth the Committee knowing that officials in the Home Office are meeting with Barclays next week. I am happy to look into what comes out of that meeting. Again, I think we can all agree that bank staff do important work in our communities. As I have said, they are protected by other legislation and a statutory aggravating factor, as public workers. I will come on to discuss that in a moment.
New clause 20 would provide for an offence of assaulting a wholesale worker. Of course, violence and abuse towards any public-facing worker, including wholesale workers, is unacceptable. Everyone has a right to feel safe at work. I, like others present, know the dedicated work that many in the wholesale sector do to ensure that goods are in our supermarkets, so that we always have access to the things that we need in a timely way. However, I do not agree that the offence of assaulting a retail worker provided for by clause 14 should be extended to all wholesale workers.
As we heard in oral evidence—we also have clear evidence from the British Retail Consortium, USDAW and the Association of Convenience Stores’ report—there has been a very worrying increase in violence and abuse towards retail workers. The police have already taken action to assist in tackling retail crime, and I welcome the positive impact that has had on charge rates, with a 52% increase in charge volumes for shop theft in particular. In 2023, as has been referred to already, the National Police Chiefs’ Council published the retail crime action plan. Through that plan, all police forces in England and Wales have committed to prioritise police attendance at a scene where violence has been used towards shop staff, where an offender has been detained by store security, and where evidence needs to be secured and it can only be police personnel. Clearly, that commitment, and other work undertaken by retail, is not preventing this crime, so we want to go further. This new offence of assaulting a retail worker will send the very strong message that violence and abuse towards retail workers will not be tolerated,
On wholesale workers, bank staff and others, assault is already a crime. Everyone is protected from assault; it is criminalised under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in which common assault has a sentence of six months in prison. The Offences against the Person Act 1861 covers more serious violence, such as actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. However, this new offence will help to ensure that assaults on retail workers are separately recorded so that we know the true scale of the problem, enabling the police to respond accordingly.
Going back to why I am concerned about wholesale workers and others, any ambiguity in identifying whether an individual is a retail worker will likely lead the courts to take the case forward as common assault, meaning the specific recording attributed to a retail worker will not occur, which again goes back to the issue of data and recording. I stress that wholesale workers who are working in premises that provide retail sales to the public will be covered by the new offence in clause 14.
In order to help those in the wholesale sector, banking and other areas, including delivery drivers, there is the statutory aggravating factor for assaults against any public-facing worker in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. That aggravating factor ensures that the courts treat the public-facing nature of a victim’s role as an aggravating factor when considering the sentence for an offence, and it sends a very clear message that violence and abuse towards any worker will not be tolerated.
In order to have a proper picture of what is happening, it is critical that incidents of violence and abuse are always reported to the police, no matter in what sector. I encourage businesses to raise awareness of the legislative changes that have been introduced to their organisations to encourage that reporting. I think it is fair to say that the reason the retail sector has been so powerful in making the case to both the previous Government and this Government is because they have that information and data, as they are reporting it. That is why they have been able to get to the point where this clause is now in the Bill.
I think new clause 20 on wholesale workers is currently unnecessary, although I absolutely recognise the intent of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East in tabling it. Again, I echo how unacceptable violence and abuse is towards anybody. In the light of the explanation that I have given in response to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West, I hope that he will agree not to press them to a vote.
Matt Vickers
I welcome the Minister’s comments, which were thoughtful, considered and knowledgeable, as ever. I also welcome her commitment to further the use of facial recognition technology, as well as data, to maximise its benefits. I did not get a commitment on whether the funding would continue, as it was set aside in previous years.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am happy to confirm that the £3 million allocated for the financial year 2024-25 has been continued. We have used that to buy 10 vans to help us with the roll-out of live facial recognition, about which I understand the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South, is particularly concerned and anxious, so I can reassure him on that. We are now going through a spending review, and bids will be made for the technological tools that we want our police forces to have to catch criminals and keep us safe and secure.
Matt Vickers
I am confident that the Minister understands the huge value that this equipment can have, and I am sure that she will put up a good fight in any Treasury discussions.
Clearly, this is a huge issue to communities across the country. Some of the experiences faced by retail workers are horrific, and MPs are all too familiar with them. There are 2,000 incidents a day involving somebody’s mother, father, daughter, son or grandparent—ordinary people wanting to earn a living, and having to return to the scene of a crime day after day. It is easy to see the challenge the Minister faces in determining the breadth and limits of the Bill, with bids for the inclusion of high-street bank workers, delivery drivers and wholesale workers. I hope that, despite the competition, she will continue to look at how those workers can be better supported and protected.
Regarding tool theft, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North and the Gas Expert, Shoaib Awan, for leading a huge campaign. I do not quite understand how the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam was planning to slot the issue into the Bill, but he will be glad to know that some of us have done the homework, and there are some meaningful amendments to be considered later in the Committee’s scrutiny. In fact, I declare an interest: my dad is a builder.
Amendment 29 and new clause 26 seek to strengthen the Bill to deter those who would do harm to our retailers and retail workers, and we intend to divide the Committee on them—although I understand that the new clause will be decided on later.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Assault of retail worker: duty to make criminal behaviour order
Amendment proposed: 29, in clause 15, page 25, line 11, at end insert—
“(4) If the offender has previous convictions for an offence under section 14 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (assault of a retail worker) or for shoplifting under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, the court must make a community order against the offender.”—(Matt Vickers.)
This amendment clause would require the courts to make a community order against repeat offenders of retail crime in order to restrict the offender’s liberty.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling new clause 25. As he will be aware, under the previous Government shop theft was allowed to increase at an alarming rate—it was up 23% in the year to September 2024—and more and more offenders are using violence and abuse against shop workers, as we have just debated.
This Government have committed to taking back our streets and restoring confidence in the safety of retail spaces, which is why we have brought in measures to address what is essentially immunity for so-called low-value shop theft, which the previous Conservative Government introduced. Shop theft of any amount is illegal, and by repealing section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, we will help to ensure that everyone fully understands that.
Under section 22A, theft of goods worth £200 and under from shops is tried summarily in the magistrates court. The previous Government argued the legislation was introduced to increase efficiency, by enabling the police to prosecute instances of low-value theft. However, it has not worked. Both offenders and retailers perceive this effective downgrading of shop theft as a licence to steal and escape any punishment. Clause 16 therefore repeals section 22A.
Let me be unequivocal: shoplifting of any goods of any value is unacceptable, and it is crucial that the crime is understood to be serious. With this change, there will no longer be a threshold categorising shop theft of goods worth £200 and under as “low-value”. By removing the financial threshold, we are sending a clear message to perpetrators and would-be perpetrators that this crime will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate punishment. The change also makes it clear to retailers that we take this crime seriously and they should feel encouraged to report it.
I turn to the shadow Minister’s new clause 25. The Government take repeat and prolific offending extremely seriously. I remind the Committee that sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary, who take into account all of the circumstances of the offence, the offender and the statutory purposes of sentencing. The courts have a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders, including discharges, fines, community sentences, suspended sentences and custodial sentences where appropriate. In addition, as the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention has already said, previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor. Sentencing guidelines are clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous conviction, when determining the sentence.
The Ministry of Justice continues to ensure that sentencers are provided with all tagging options, to enable courts to impose electronic monitoring on anyone who receives a community-based sentence if they deem it suitable to do so. It is important to note that electronic monitoring is already available to the courts when passing a community or suspended sentence. However, it may not always be the most appropriate requirement for an offender’s sentence. We believe that the courts should retain a range of options at their disposal, to exercise their discretion to decide on the most appropriate sentence and requirements.
We cannot consider this issue in isolation. This is why we have launched an independent review of sentencing, chaired by former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, to ensure that we deliver on our manifesto commitment to bring sentencing up to date and ensure the framework is consistent. The review is tasked with a comprehensive re-evaluation of our sentencing framework, including considering how we can make greater use of punishment outside of prison and how sentences can encourage offenders to turn their backs on a life of crime. The review has been asked specifically to consider sentencing for prolific offenders, to ensure that we have fewer crimes committed by those offenders. It is vital that we give the review time to finalise its recommendations, including on prolific offenders, so that we are able to set out our plans for the future of sentencing in the round.
On this basis, I commend clause 16 to the Committee and ask the hon. Member for Stockton West not to move his new clause when it is reached later in our proceedings.
Matt Vickers
Shop thefts are on the increase, with recorded crime data showing 492,124 offences in the year—a 23% increase on the previous year. The British Retail Consortium 2025 retail crime report suggests that despite retailers spending a whopping £1.8 billion on prevention measures, such crime is at record levels, with losses from customer theft reaching £2.2 billion.
As things stand, shop theft is not a specific offence but constitutes theft under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. It is therefore triable either way—that is, either in a magistrates court or the Crown court. Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, inserted by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, provides that where the value of goods is £200 or less, it is a summary-only offence. Clause 16 amends the 1980 Act, the 2014 Act and others to make theft from a shop triable either way, irrespective of the value of the goods.
David Burton-Sampson
It was actually former Prime Minister Theresa May, when Home Secretary in 2013, who said that the new low-level threshold would “free up resources” and that
“Having to pass low-level offences to the Crown Prosecution Service wastes police time.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 75.]
I am not sure how shop workers and owners who have been subject to low-level crime over the last 10 years would feel about that. How does the hon. Gentleman feel about it?
Matt Vickers
I will probably come on to this later, but quick justice is effective justice. We do not want prolific offenders waiting for court dates in the Crown court, when we could be dealing with them more quickly.
There are two big debates about how this should play, and I am sure we will hear them at length in the Committee. There is a real issue with whether something that goes to the magistrates court is dealt with quickly or otherwise, but a lot of this is about perception and the £200. According to the impact assessment produced by the Government for the Bill, 90% of the offences of shop theft charged are for goods with a value under £200, so it is a myth that people are not being charged for offences under £200. Maybe we need to be telling retailers and police that, but people are still being charged for offences relating to goods of low value, and rightly so. If someone steals, there should be consequences, but it should be dealt with more quickly than waiting for a date in the Crown court.
We heard during the evidence sessions concerns about the impact that making theft from a shop triable either way will have. Giving offenders a choice between the Crown court and magistrates court will mean that they can opt for delays, and it will potentially result in a lower conviction rate. There are huge concerns that that could add to the backlog and further frustrate the system, and that the individuals concerned could continue to commit such crimes while awaiting justice. Oliver Sells KC said:
“Speedy justice is much more effective than slow justice.”––[Official Report, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2025; c. 20, Q29.]
A number of our witnesses seemed to share the perspective that delays to justice could come at a great cost. Does the Minister agree that, should the change lead to lengthy delays in justice, it could be counterproductive? Will she commit to reviewing the impact of the measure after a given time?
The change seems to be based entirely on a misperception that action is not taken on shoplifting of goods under £200 in value. The Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill confirms that the vast majority of shoplifting offences charged—in fact, 90%—are for goods under £200 in value. Matthew Barber, police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley, has submitted written evidence to the Committee on specifically this issue, in which he states:
“The current legislation means that in most circumstances theft below £200 will be dealt with at Magistrates Court. The idea that below £200 the police do not investigate or prosecute, let alone the courts convict, has been described as an urban myth. It is actually a clear message that has been promoted by the Home Secretary herself, despite evidence to the contrary. Many cases of shoplifting below £200 will be investigated by the police, arrests made and charges brought. Magistrates can convict and sentence for these offences and they do. Within current guidance there are also provisions that allow a case to be referred to the CPS for prosecution in the Crown Courts. This helps to deal with prolific offenders in particular.
So what is the problem that the Government is seeking to solve? If it is one of perception, then surely that is a perception in large part of their own making. At the time the changes were brought in it was estimated that it would remove approximately 50,000 cases from the CPS and Crown Courts. I do not know if the Home Office or the Ministry of Justice have made an assessment of the expected increase in cases going to the higher courts, but with the passage of time, increased reporting, and better policing of this crime it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that this proposed legislation could put 100,000 additional cases into an already overheated Crown Court system. In the majority of those cases I would hazard that offenders are likely to receive sentences that could have been delivered more swiftly and cost effectively by magistrates.
I am not suggesting that the proposed law will directly hinder the police in their work or directly lead to worse outcomes, however I can see no likely benefit to come from additional cost and delays being introduced to the system.”
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Keir Mather.)
Crime and Policing Bill (Sixth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Home Office
Matt Vickers
Main Page: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)Department Debates - View all Matt Vickers's debates with the Home Office
Crime and Policing Bill (Sixth sitting)
Matt Vickers ExcerptsThursday 3rd April 2025
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 April 2025 - (3 Apr 2025)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
New clause 25—Requirements in certain sentences imposed for third or subsequent shoplifting offence—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In section 208 (community order: exercise of power to impose particular requirements), in subsections (3) and (6) after ‘subsection (10)’ insert ‘and sections 208A’.
(3) After that section insert—
‘208A Community order: requirements for third or subsequent shoplifting offence
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person is convicted of adult shoplifting (“the index offence”),
(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting or an equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence, and
(c) the court makes a community order in respect of the index offence.
(2) The community order must, subject to subsection (3), include at least one of the following requirements—
(a) a curfew requirement;
(b) an exclusion requirement;
(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—
(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—
(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and
(ii) justify the court not including any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or
(b) neither of the following requirements could be included in the order—
(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;
(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.
(4) In subsection (1)(b), the reference to an occasion on which an offender was sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting does not include an occasion if—
(a) each conviction for adult shoplifting for which the offender was dealt with on that occasion has been quashed, or
(b) the offender was re-sentenced for adult shoplifting (and was not otherwise dealt with for adult shoplifting) on that occasion.
(5) In this section—
“adult shoplifting” means an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 committed by a person aged 18 or over in circumstances where—
(a) the stolen goods were being offered for sale in a shop or any other premises, stall, vehicle or place from which a trade or business was carried on, and
(b) at the time of the offence, the offender was, or was purporting to be, a customer or potential customer of the person offering the goods for sale;
“equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence” means—
(a) in Scotland, theft committed by a person aged 18 or over in the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of “adult shoplifting”, or
(b) in Northern Ireland, an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 committed by a person aged 18 or over in those circumstances.
(6) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be included in a community order if it could not otherwise be so included.
(7) Where—
(a) in a case to which this section applies, a court makes a community order which includes a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2),
(b) a previous conviction of the offender is subsequently set aside on appeal, and
(c) without the previous conviction this section would not have applied,
notice of appeal against the sentence may be given at any time within 28 days from the day on which the previous conviction was set aside (despite anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).’
(4) After section 292 insert—
‘292A Suspended sentence order: community requirements for third or subsequent shoplifting offence
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person is convicted of adult shoplifting (“the index offence”),
(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting or an equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence, and
(c) the court makes a suspended sentence order in respect of the index offence.
(2) The suspended sentence order must, subject to subsection (3), impose at least one of the following requirements—
(a) a curfew requirement;
(b) an exclusion requirement;
(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—
(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—
(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and
(ii) justify the court not imposing on the offender any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or
(b) neither of the following requirements could be imposed on the offender—
(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;
(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.
(4) Section 208A(4) (occasions to be disregarded) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(b).
(5) In this section “adult shoplifting” and “equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence” have the meaning given by section 208A.
(6) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be imposed by a suspended sentence order if it could not otherwise be so imposed.
(7) Where—
(a) in a case to which this section applies, a court makes a suspended sentence order which imposes a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2),
(b) a previous conviction of the offender is subsequently set aside on appeal, and
(c) without the previous conviction this section would not have applied,
notice of appeal against the sentence may be given at any time within 28 days from the day on which the previous conviction was set aside (despite anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).’”
This new clause imposes a duty (subject to certain exceptions) to impose a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement or an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement on certain persons convicted of shoplifting, where the offender is given a community sentence or suspended sentence order.
I remind hon. Members of the usual rules: no hot drinks in the Committee Room, please, and phones off. You may take your jackets off if you wish.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. In the majority of these cases, I would hazard a guess that offenders are likely to receive sentences that could have been delivered more swiftly and cost-effectively by magistrates. I am not suggesting that the proposed law will directly hinder the police in their work, or directly lead to worse outcomes; however, I can see no likely benefit to come from additional costs and additional delays being introduced to the system.
Shoplifting cases below £200 can be—and are—dealt with effectively by the police. If that is not case in some areas, it should be a matter for operational improvement, not new legislation. Does the Minister know a single police force in the country that has a policy of not pursuing shoplifters for products under £200 in value? Also, do the Government believe that trying crimes under £200 as summary offences, or in the magistrates court, meant that they were effectively decriminalised? If so, why is the offence of assaulting a retail worker a summary-only offence?
I am sure we can play the politics of the backlog in the Crown court and have a long discussion about the cause and effect. I know that Government Members appreciated my brevity this morning, so I am keen to focus on the important measures in the Bill. The backlogs are real, and making them worse will have real consequences. At the end of September 2024, the backlog stood at an unprecedented high of 73,105 open cases. The Public Accounts Committee report examined that issue, with the Ministry of Justice acknowledging that
“unless action is taken, the backlog will continue to increase for the foreseeable future, even with the courts system working at maximum capacity.”
During oral evidence, there were significant discussions about the impact of clause 16, particularly on the Crown court. Oliver Sells spoke about the clause during the evidence session and he stated:
“I recognise that there is a great public anxiety about this particular issue. Shoplifting has become endemic and almost non-criminal at the same time. It is a curious dichotomy, it seems to me, but I do not think for a moment—I am sorry to be critical—that making theft from a shop, irrespective of value, triable either way is the right answer. What that will do, inevitably, is push some of these cases up into the Crown court from the magistrates court.
I understand the reasons behind it and the concerns of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the like. However, I think it is the wrong way. One of the things we must do now in this country is reinforce the use and the range of magistrates courts, and bring them back to deal with serious low-level crimes that are very frequent in their areas. They know how to deal with them. They need the powers to deal with them. I still do not think their range of powers is strong enough. You need to take cases such as these out of the Crown court, in my judgment. I think it is a serious mistake. I can see why people want to do it”––[Official Report, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2025; c. 17, Q25.]
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
At the evidence session last Thursday, the witnesses that we spoke to about this issue said that the magistrates court was the most appropriate place for these cases to be heard. Given they are the people who know the system best, we should certainly take that evidence onboard.
Matt Vickers
I think the measure probably comes from a very good place, if the Government really believe that police forces are not taking the action that they should on the theft of goods whose value is under £200, which people have described as being decriminalised. I do not think there is any evidence for that actually being the case, because 90% of such charges relate to goods under the value of £200. All police forces in the country, as far as I understand, have a policy of still going after people, even if the value of the goods is under £200. I do not know that this clause will solve the problem, but it could well create a problem in pushing so much to the Crown court.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I understand the point that the shadow Minister is making, which is supported by the shadow Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan. However, is the point not that this perception does exist? Whether it is true in reality, the perception of this decriminalisation is powerful in and of itself. Is the Government’s move here not to remove that perception, and is that not desirable?
Matt Vickers
It is good to get rid of the perception, but it is all about the real-world consequences. As it stands, if there is such a perception, we need to smash it. People need to know that 90% of such charges relate to goods under the value of £200; it needs to be pushed out that this is a thing. When we look at retail crime overall, the biggest problem, which we tried to solve with our amendment to clause 15, is not only changing perceptions but ensuring that police forces realise that retail crime has huge consequences and needs to be prioritised. That is the fundamental problem, so it is about ensuring that the priorities are right. I do not think that changing the legislation in this space will solve that problem.
I want to go back to Oliver Sells, because I think he is a fascinating guy. He said:
“I think it is a serious mistake. I can see why people want to do it, because they want to signify that an offence is a very important in relation to shop workers. I recognise that; I have tried many cases of assaults on shop workers and the like, which come up to the Crown court on appeal, and we all know the difficulties they cause, but you will not solve the problem.”––[Official Report, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2025; c. 17, Q25.]
Sir Robert Buckland, the former Lord Chancellor, added:
“First of all, just to build on Mr Sells’s point on clause 16, I understand the huge concern about shoplifting and the perception among many shop proprietors in our towns and cities that, in some ways, it was almost becoming decriminalised and that action has to be taken. But the danger in changing primary legislation in this way is that we send mixed messages, and that the Government are sending mixed messages about what its policy intentions are.
Sir Brian Leveson is conducting an independent review into criminal procedure. We do not know yet what the first part of that review will produce, but I would be very surprised if there was not at least some nod to the need to keep cases out of the Crown court, bearing in mind the very dramatic and increasing backlog that we have. I think that anything that ran contrary to that view risks the Government looking as if it is really a house divided against itself.
It seems to me that there was a simpler way of doing this. When the law was changed back in 2014, there was an accompanying policy guideline document that allowed for the police to conduct their own prosecutions for shoplifting items with a value of under £200, if the offender had not done it before, if there were not other offences linked with it, if there was not a combined amount that took it over £200 and if there was a guilty plea.
What seems to have happened in the ensuing years is that that has built and developed, frankly, into a culture that has moved away from the use of prosecuting as a tool in its entirety. I think that that is wrong, but I do think that it is within the gift of Ministers in the Home Office and of officials in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to say, ‘That guidance is superseded. We hope, want and expect all offences to be prosecuted.’ That would then allow offences of under £200 to be prosecuted in the magistrates court. There is nothing in the current legislation that prevents any of that, by the way, and I think it would send a very clear message to the police that they are expected to do far more when it comes to the protection of retail premises.”––[Official Report, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2025; c. 18, Q26.]
The economic note for the legislation estimates that repealing the existing provision will result in approximately 2,100 additional Crown court cases in the first instance. It further states that, in the low scenario, cases entering the Crown court will not see an increase in average prison sentence length. In the high scenario, it assumes that these cases will now receive the average Crown court prison sentence, leading to an increase of 2.5 months per conviction. The central estimate falls between those extremes at 1.3 months, based on the assumption that cases involving theft under £200 are unlikely to receive the same sentences as those over £200.
That is reflected in a relatively wide range of possible prison sentences between the low and high estimates. What level of confidence can the Minister therefore provide on the number of people who will end up in prison, or end up in prison for longer, as a result of this move to the Crown court? Given that evidence, does this move, which appears to have a limited effect or outcome, outweigh the risk of prolonging the time it takes for victims to get justice, in the Minister’s view?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Let me address some of the points made by the shadow Minister, specifically on perception. There is a misconception that the threshold is used by police forces to determine whether to respond to reports of shoplifting, and that is simply not true. Police forces across England and Wales have committed to follow up on any evidence that could reasonably lead to catching a perpetrator, and that includes shoplifting; however, as we have heard, the measure has impacted the perception of shop theft among retailers, and would-be perpetrators who believe that low-value shoplifting will go unpunished and that the offence is not being taken seriously. The clause will send a clear message to those planning to commit shop theft of goods worth any amount that this crime will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate punishment.
Let me turn to the impact on our courts. It was quite heartening to finally hear the Opposition mention their concern about the impact on our Crown court backlogs, given how we got there in the first place. The Government recognise that the courts are under unprecedented pressure, and we have debated why that is on separate occasions; however, we do not anticipate that the measure will add to that impact. The vast majority of shop theft cases are currently dealt with swiftly in the magistrates court, and we do not expect that to change as a result of implementing the measure. Even with the current £200 threshold in place, defendants can elect for trial in the Crown court, but they do so infrequently. Removing the threshold and changing low-value shop theft to an either-way offence will not impact election rights, and is therefore unlikely to result in increased trials in the Crown court.
Separately, as the shadow Minister noted, in recognition of the courts being under unprecedented pressure due to the inheritance we received from the Tory Government, we have commissioned an independent review of the criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson. It will recommend options for ambitious reform to deliver a more efficient criminal court system and improved timeliness for victims, witnesses and defendants, without jeopardising the requirement for a fair trial for all involved.
Harriet Cross
Amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), seeks to increase the increase the penalty on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life. That would bring the punishment for child criminal exploitation in line with the maximum sentences for crimes such as murder, hostage taking, armed robbery, or possession of a class A drug with intent to supply. Life imprisonment is typically reserved for the most serious crimes, where society wishes to ensure public safety, deliver justice for victims and sufficiently punish perpetrators. Amendment 1 seems a reasonable amendment considering the devastating impact that CCE has on individual children, communities and crime levels across the UK.
Child criminal exploitation is a coward’s crime committed by those willing to engage in criminal activities such as drug and weapon dealing yet unprepared to get their own hands dirty. They instead prefer to put children, often very vulnerable and impressionable ones, in harm’s way, exposing them to crime and in many cases sentencing them to a life of crime. The impact on these children is multifaceted, up to and including their own death. Of course, consideration is needed of the impact of life imprisonment on prison places and resources, but it is vital where there is a need to, first, properly punish and, secondly, deter perpetrators of child criminal exploitation with a sentence commensurate to the scale of the crime.
Matt Vickers
This amendment would significantly increase the maximum penalty for offences outlined in clause 17 by removing the existing penalties in subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b) and replacing them with stricter sentencing provisions. The amendment would introduce life imprisonment as the maximum penalty for those convicted on indictment in the Crown court, while maintaining the ability of the magistrates court to impose a sentence up to the general limit, a fine, or both for summary convictions.
The effect of the amendment would be to significantly strengthen the legal consequences for those found guilty of child criminal exploitation, the worst of the worst offences. By allowing for life imprisonment, the amendment underscores the grave nature of these offences, bringing them in line with other serious criminal acts that warrant the highest level of sentencing. Punitive measures play a crucial role in both deterring criminal behaviour and ensuring the protection of society, particularly when dealing with serious offences, such as child criminal exploitation. Strong sentencing frameworks serve as a clear warning that such crimes will not be tolerated, dissuading potential offenders from engaging in illegal activities due to the fear of severe consequences. By imposing harsh penalties, including lengthy prison sentences, the justice system sends an unambiguous message: those who exploit, coerce or harm others, especially vulnerable individuals such as children, will face the full force of the law.
The amendment would act as a preventive mechanism, discouraging not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activity but those who may be considering engaging in similar offences. Punitive measures are essential for protecting victims and the wider public. By ensuring that offenders face substantial consequences, the justice system helps to incapacitate dangerous individuals, preventing them from reoffending and reducing the risk to others. That is particularly important in cases where offenders pose a long-term threat, such as organised criminal networks involved in child exploitation.
Furthermore, the retention of the magistrates court’s ability to impose a lesser penalty ensures there is proportionality in sentencing, allowing for differentiation between varying levels of criminal involvement. This approach ensures that although the most serious offenders may face life imprisonment, lesser offenders are still subject to significant penalties without overburdening the Crown court system. Ultimately, the amendment seeks to deliver a strong message of deterrence, making it clear that child criminal exploitation will not be tolerated and that those who commit such offences will face the harshest legal consequences available under UK law.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. As we have heard from both sides of the Committee, child criminal exploitation is one of the most appalling forms of abuse, in which children are manipulated or coerced into engaging in criminal activity, often by criminal gangs. Victims are frequently subjected to violence, threats and intimidation, leaving them vulnerable to long-term harm. The impact is devastating, and indeed, robs them of their safety and reduces their life chances.
As has been said, clause 17 specifically targets adults who exploit children for criminal activities. It ensures that if a child is manipulated into criminal acts—or even consents to such acts—the responsible adult can still be held criminally accountable. I am pleased that the clause is included within the Bill. It is not just another provision but a decisive measure that will significantly strengthen the ability of our police forces to tackle the grave issue of adult exploitation of children in criminal contexts.
The clause aligns with the broader aims of the Bill, which focuses on addressing the intent behind criminal activity—an essential step in ensuring that those with malicious intent cannot evade justice. The Government’s commitment to closing loopholes that have, for far too long, allowed individuals to evade justice is commendable. We have witnessed far too many cases where the exploitation of children has gone unchallenged, simply because the law has not been robust enough to confront it directly. With this clause, we are making it clear that any adult seeking to exploit children for criminal purposes will face the full force of the law.
The provision represents a significant step forward, not only in terms of the legal framework, but in our ongoing efforts to protect young people from exploitation. It is a win for justice, a win for vulnerable children and a win for the nation, as we take a stronger stance against those who would harm our future generations. Furthermore, we are providing a path to redress for victims. I have said before in this place that prevention is always better than detection, but those children who have already been subjected to this horrific exploitation will now have the opportunity to see justice, too.
Clause 17 marks a crucial turning point in our fight to protect children from exploitation. It holds offenders accountable, provides a framework for justice, and sets the stage for a more comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to safeguarding young people. This is a significant step towards the protection of our children, and one that we should all support.
Matt Vickers
I join the Minister in thanking and congratulating those who have campaigned to deliver this important change. Clause 17 rightly introduces a new criminal offence targeting adults who exploit children by coercing or encouraging them to engage in criminal activities. It is designed to address the growing problem of gangs, drug networks and other criminal groups using children to carry out illegal acts such as drug trafficking, theft or violence.
Child criminal exploitation is a scourge on our society —one that ruins lives, fuels violence and allows dangerous criminals to operate in the shadows, free from consequence. For too long, gangs and organised crime groups have preyed on the most vulnerable in our communities, grooming children, exploiting them and coercing them into a life of crime. These criminals do not see children as young people with futures; they see them as disposable assets, easily manipulated, easily threatened, and, in their eyes, easily replaced.
This exploitation is frequently linked to county lines drug trafficking, where children are exploited and coerced into transporting drugs across different regions. According to the Home Office, a key characteristic of county lines operations is
“the exploitation of children, young people and vulnerable adults,”
who are directed to transport, store or safeguard drugs, money or weapons for dealers or users, both locally and across the country.
Child exploitation is linked to a broad range of criminal activities, from local street gangs operating on a postcode basis to highly sophisticated organised crime groups with cross-border operations. The UK Government’s serious and organised crime strategy estimates that organised crime, including county lines drug networks, costs the country £47 billion annually. A single county line can generate as much as £800,000 in revenue each year.
Under the previous Conservative Government, the Home Office launched the county lines programme in 2019 to tackle the harmful drug supply model, which devastates lives through exploitation, coercion and violence. County lines gangs often target the most vulnerable people, manipulating and coercing them into debt and forcing them to transport and sell drugs. A key part of the county lines programme lies in victim support, to ensure that young people and their families have the support they need as they escape the gangs. More than 2,000 county lines were dismantled between June 2022 and December 2023, as the Government hit their target of closing thousands of those criminal networks early.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
When thousands of county lines were being shut down, can the hon. Member tell me how many people in the same period were sentenced for the modern slavery crimes that they should have been in the closure of all those lines? In fact, was anybody?
Matt Vickers
The Minister would have a better chance of knowing that than even me. But I will tell her what: one case is one too many, and that is why I am glad to see the Bill, which will bring forward measures to tackle just that.
Between April 2022 and September 2023, more than 4,000 arrests were made, while 4,800 vulnerable people caught up in those vile operations were offered support to turn their lives around. Between April and September 2023, over 700 lines were dismantled, 1,300 arrests made and 1,600 victims were supported.
I would like to mention a story that was included in the Home Office’s press release on the work, which I found inspiring. Liam, not his real name, turned his back on county lines criminality due to Catch22’s work. Liam was referred to Catch22 by social services after a raid at his home found his mother and brother in possession of class A and class B drugs, alongside £3,000 in cash. A subsequent raid found 11 bags of cannabis and weapons. Care workers were concerned that Liam was going down the same path as his family, and referred him to Catch22 for support. Liam was resistant to support at first, but the people at Catch22 were able to build a relationship with him and help him to understand the dangers of getting involved in county lines and drug use, and how to recognise and avoid criminal exploitation.
Liam never missed a session with Catch22, and his attendance and performance at college subsequently improved. He has now moved on to a construction college, knowing that support is there if he is struggling. Liam is just one of hundreds of young people who, since 2022, have been supported by Home Office-funded victim support services, which ensure that vulnerable, hard-to-reach people can, with support, make different choices and turn their backs on a life of criminality.
Action for Children warns that the crisis of child exploitation is worsening, while the absence of a legal definition means that there is no unified data collection across the UK. The available evidence highlights the scale of the issue. In 2023, the national referral mechanism, which identifies potential victims of modern slavery and criminal exploitation, received 7,432 child-related referrals, an increase of 45% since 2021. Criminal exploitation was the most common reason for referral—there were 3,123 cases, with more than 40% linked to county lines activity.
Additionally, between April 2022 and March 2023, 14,420 child in need assessments in England identified criminal exploitation as a risk, up from 10,140 the previous year. Children as young as 11 or 12 years old are being recruited by gangs, forced to transport drugs across the country, and coerced into shoplifting, robbery and even serious violent offences. These children are often threatened, beaten and blackmailed into compliance. Once they are caught in the system, it is incredibly difficult for them to escape. The clause says it is child criminal exploitation if
“the person engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child, with the intention of causing the child to engage in criminal conduct (at any time), and
(b) either—
(i) the child is under the age of 13”.
Can the Minister explain why there is a cut-off at the age of 13?
Jess Phillips
I want to reassure the hon. Member on the delay, which has been halved since its peak in 2022, since this Government came to office.
Matt Vickers
I welcome any progress that the Minister might make in that space, and I look forward to her doing even more with the measures that we are putting through today.
Matt Vickers
Well, okay, we are not—I take your word for it.
The review also highlighted that, in Scotland, the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 requires the Lord Advocate to issue instructions that prosecutors should have a presumption against the prosecution of exploited children. However, that addresses only criminal offences linked to exploitation and does not offer protection at an earlier stage.
We welcome that the Bill makes it absolutely clear that adults who encourage or coerce a child into criminal activity will face serious consequences. They will no longer be able to hide behind children, using them as pawns while evading justice themselves.
The Jay review was also clear that the current approach is far too lenient on exploiters. The number of prosecutions in England and Wales under the Modern Slavery Act remain strikingly low. Only 47 prosecutions were brought under that Act between January and June 2023, resulting in just 24 convictions. That stands in stark contrast to the scale of enforcement activity under the county lines programme, which has led to the arrest of 15,623 adults and children in England and Wales since 2019.
A similar trend is evident in Scotland: between 2020-21 and 2022-23, 116 individuals reported to the Crown court for offences under the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act. Of those, 92 cases were escalated to petition or indictment, while only two were prosecuted on summary complaint. In the first half of 2023, 24 individuals were reported for offences under the Act, with 13 of those cases proceeding to petition or indictment.
Those figures highlight a significant gap between the scale of child exploitation-related crime and the relatively low number of prosecutions and convictions. While thousands of individuals have been arrested in connection with county lines activity, very few cases progress to successful prosecution under modern slavery legislation. That suggests a need for stronger enforcement mechanisms, improved evidence gathering and greater legal support to bring more offenders to justice.
The Minister will no doubt be aware that both Catch22 and Action for Children, two leading organisations in youth support and child protection, have welcomed the measures set out in this chapter. They recognise the importance of tackling child criminal exploitation and holding those responsible to account. However, both organisations have emphasised that legislative action alone is not enough and have called on the Government to go further by introducing a comprehensive national strategy to address child criminal exploitation.
Paul Carberry, the chief executive of Action for Children, said that Action for Children
“strongly welcome both the new offence of criminally exploiting children and the new prevention orders in today’s Crime and Policing Bill, which we called for in our Jay Review last year.
These measures will help to protect children across the country who are being preyed upon by criminals and put in danger. But we need to go further. The government’s proposals will only protect children who have already been exploited.
That’s why we need a comprehensive national strategy that ensures that children at risk of criminal exploitation are identified and safeguarded at the earliest opportunity.”
Members will have read the written evidence submitted by Every Child Protected Against Trafficking, a leading children’s rights organisation working to ensure that children can enjoy their rights to protection from trafficking and transnational child sexual exploitation. It campaigns for and supports children everywhere to uphold their rights to live free from abuse and exploitation through an integrated model involving research, policy, training and direct practice. Its vision is to ensure that:
“Children everywhere are free from exploitation, trafficking and modern slavery”.
In regard to clause 17, Every Child Protected Against Trafficking said:
“We welcome the introduction of a specific offence of Child Criminal Exploitation (CCE) and the Government’s commitment to tackling this serious child protection issue. Recognising CCE in law is a vital step towards improving protection for children and ensuring that those who exploit children for criminal gain are held to account. However, more remains to be done to ensure that this legislation is as effective as possible. To strengthen this legislation, we call for sentencing parity with the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the introduction of a clear statutory definition of child exploitation, ensuring a unified and robust approach to tackling this abuse.”
What are the Minister’s thoughts on whether the measures set out by Action for Children would be a good step to achieving that? What further steps might she consider? A national strategy could provide a cohesive, long-term framework for tackling the root causes of exploitation, ensuring that law enforcement, social services, education providers and community organisations work together to protect vulnerable children. It would focus on not just prosecution but prevention, early intervention and victim support, ensuring that children caught up in criminal exploitation receive the help they need to escape and rebuild their lives. Has the Minister given serious consideration to those proposals?
Turning to clause 17, any adult who deliberately causes, encourages or manipulates a child into committing a crime, whether through grooming, coercion, threats or exploitation, will face severe legal consequences, including a prison sentence of up to 10 years. This provision aims to crack down on those who prey on vulnerable children, by using them to carry out criminal activities, while evading direct involvement themselves.
Tougher sentences are essential to deterring crime, ensuring justice for victims and reinforcing public confidence in the legal system. When penalties are lenient, criminals may feel emboldened because they believe that the risk of punishment is minimal compared with the potential gains of their illicit activities. A strong sentencing framework sends a clear message that crime will not be tolerated and that those who break the law will face severe consequences.
This is particularly crucial in cases of serious offences, such as child exploitation, drug trafficking and violent crime, where the harm caused to victims and communities is profound and long lasting. Studies have shown that the certainty and severity of punishment play a significant role in influencing criminal behaviour: individuals are less likely to engage in unlawful acts if they know that they will face lengthy prison sentences or substantial financial penalties.
Additionally, tougher sentences serve as a crucial tool for incapacitation, by preventing repeat offenders from causing further harm. For example, in the context of organised crime, longer prison terms disrupt criminal networks and limit their ability to recruit new victims. Beyond deterrence and public safety, stricter sentencing also upholds the principles of justice by ensuring that punishment is proportionate to the severity of the offence. It provides closure to victims and reassures society that the law is being enforced effectively.
Although rehabilitation remains an important component of the criminal justice system, it must be balanced with punitive measures that deter crime and protect the most vulnerable, particularly children, who are often targeted for exploitation. Strengthening sentencing laws is not just about punishment; it is about preventing crime, protecting communities and ensuring that justice is delivered with the seriousness it demands.
But do not just take my word for it. The written evidence submitted by Every Child Protected Against Trafficking raises a key concern about
“the disparity in sentencing between offences prosecuted under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and those brought under the proposed CCE offence, which risks undermining the severity of this form of exploitation. The proposed sentencing for Child Criminal Exploitation is 10 years, shorter than the penalties under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 which are life imprisonment, creating a perverse incentive where those who exploit children for criminality may face a lesser sentence than those prosecuted under modern slavery legislation. This undermines the severity of the offence and risks weakening deterrence against those that systematically exploit children.”
What assessment has been made of the Bill’s potential deterrent effect? Does the Minister believe that the 10-year maximum sentence is sufficient to dissuade criminal networks from exploiting children?
Every Child Protected Against Trafficking also states:
“Enforcement of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, as noted by the Home Affairs Committee 2023 report on Human Trafficking, ‘remains woefully inadequate’, with worryingly low levels of law enforcement responses to them in comparison to the number of children who are exploited”.
It also highlights that, as we have already discussed, child trafficking
“remains a low-risk, high-profit crime, and the persistently low prosecution and conviction rates for child trafficking and exploitation offences do not converge with the high numbers of children being referred into the NRM. Data provided by some police forces to the Insight team of the Modern Slavery and Organised Immigration Crime Unit (MSOIC Unit) showed that in October 2024, police in England and Wales were dealing with at least 2,612 live modern slavery investigations with most of these (59%) primarily involved tackling criminal exploitation. In November, the CPS provided data to the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner on human trafficking flagged offences cross-referenced with child abuse-flagged offences for England and Wales which showed a decrease in prosecutions and convictions between 2021 and 2023. In 2021, there were 32 prosecutions and 23 convictions, this decreased to 19 prosecutions and 15 convictions in 2022. Prosecutions remained the same in 2023 with 13 convictions.”
I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on her confidence in the effectiveness of the measures in clause 17.
Jess Phillips
Does the hon. Member recognise that the reason why this Bill is going on to the statute book is because of the woeful record of criminalising those people? When exactly did his party change its mind on this? Every time I tabled such an amendment, as I did on a number of Bills when the Conservatives were in government, they said “No”.
Matt Vickers
I realise that, in some of these very sensitive areas, some people still want to play politics and talk about the history of one party or another. This is a really serious thing with really serious consequences, particularly in my part of the world, so I will leave the Minister to form her own opinions about the ups and downs of it. I support this, and I am keen to see it progress.
Every Child Protected Against Trafficking said:
“Data provided by some police forces to the Insight team of the Modern Slavery and Organised Immigration Crime Unit…showed that in October 2024, police in England and Wales were dealing with at least 2,612 live modern slavery investigations with most of these (59%) primarily involved tackling criminal exploitation. In November, the CPS provided data to the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner on human trafficking flagged offences cross-referenced with child abuse-flagged offences for England and Wales which showed a decrease in prosecutions and convictions between 2021 and 2023. In 2021, there were 32 prosecutions and 23 convictions, this decreased to 19 prosecutions and 15 convictions in 2022. Prosecutions remained the same in 2023 with 13 convictions.”
As such, I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on her confidence in the effectiveness of the measures set out in clause 17, particularly on the introduction of a distinct offence of child criminal exploitation.
Jess Phillips
On a point of order, Sir Roger. Is there something in Standing Orders about repetition and the length of speeches? I think the shadow Minister, perhaps unintentionally, has read out the same page twice. I am just trying to help him out.
The Chair
Order. I am quite sure the Minister was not suggesting that anybody was out of order, because if they had been out of order, I would have said so.
Matt Vickers
Given the historically low number of prosecutions in this area, does the Minister believe that the new offence will provide the necessary legal framework to improve enforcement, to increase accountability for perpetrators, and to ensure that more cases result in successful prosecutions? Furthermore, what additional steps, if any, does she perceive being necessary to support the implementation of the provision and enhance its impact?
Jack Rankin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise to support clause 17, which creates the new offence of child criminal exploitation. For too long, we have all heard about the scourge of county lines gangs and the harm being done to children. They are usually already the most vulnerable children in society, before being used by adults to undertake and engage in criminal activity. It is right and proper that we make this a separate criminal offence.
Specific guidance, “Criminal exploitation of children and vulnerable adults: county lines,” was published by the Government of the former right hon. Member for Maidenhead. It was primarily aimed at frontline staff in England and Wales who work with children, young people and vulnerable adults—including professionals working in education, health, adult and children’s social care, early help family support, housing, the benefits system, policing, prisons, probation, youth justice, multi-agency partnerships and related partner organisations in, for example, the voluntary sector. It is a long list, but it speaks to the level of complexity involved in crimes of this nature and the continued importance of agencies working together.
Organised crime groups are, by their very nature, well resourced—the clue is in the name. They are organised and often sophisticated in entrapment. While I welcome the new law in clause 17, it is not a fix-all solution. It remains the case that continuing effort is needed across the state and society to spot the signals, and we must work together to bring down the gangs targeting our children. That is just as important as ever.
Exploiting a child into committing crimes is abusive. Children who are targeted may also be groomed, physically abused, emotionally abused, sexually exploited or trafficked. As organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children point out, however, because children involved in gangs often commit crimes themselves, sometimes they are sadly not seen by adults and professionals as victims, despite the significant harm that they have experienced. We make progress on that here today. This legislation seeks to address that issue and recognise it in law, so I wholeheartedly welcome this clause, which will make it an offence for an adult to use a child in this way.
The national statistics are stark. Action for Children’s “Shattered Lives, Stolen Futures”, a review by Alexis Jay of criminally exploited children, highlights the extent of this issue. In 2023, 7,432 children were referred to the national referral mechanism, a framework for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery and criminal exploitation. That represents an increase of 45% since 2021. Over the same period, 14,420 child in need assessments in England recorded criminal exploitation as a risk of harm—an increase from 10,140 in 2022.
Over the five years between April 2018 and March 2023, 568 young people aged 16 to 24 were violently killed in England and Wales, the vast majority of them by being stabbed. Police data published by the national county lines coordination centre in its county lines strategic threat risk assessment showed that 22% of individuals involved in county lines are children, equivalent to 2,888 children in 2023-24. The 2023-24 risk assessment also states that most children involved in county lines are aged just 15 to 17, and they are mainly recorded as being in the most dangerous “runner” or “workforce” roles within the drugs supply chain and linked to exploitation.
Victims may be subject to threats, blackmail and violence. They may be arrested, including for crimes committed by others, under the law of joint enterprise. They often find it hard to leave or cut off ties with those who are exploiting them, and their safety, or that of their friends and family, may be threatened. They are at risk of physical harm, rape and sexual abuse, emotional abuse, severe injury or even being killed, and they are at risk of abusing drugs, alcohol and other substances. That all has a long-term impact on these children’s education and employment options. There is clearly a need to protect children from the imbalance of power exercised by these criminals.
I want to highlight some of the excellent work taking place in my own constituency to prevent children from becoming involved in county lines and criminal exploitation. In 2022, Trevelyan middle school in Windsor carried out some excellent pupil-led work to address the evils of county lines child exploitation. It produced its own hard-hitting film about one child’s journey into slavery and exploitation. The film, titled “Notice Me!”, was made available to schools across the local area as a learning tool to help pupils understand the process, the risks and the realities of county lines operations.
One scene showed how county lines gangs will promise children all kinds of luxuries, only to trap them into failing and place them forever in their debt. Another scene showed the grim reality that for children who find themselves in the world of county lines, it is the gangs themselves that they are most afraid of, not the prospect of arrest. However, the film also has a message of hope. It seeks to educate children and young adults alike about the warning signs that someone might be involved, such as disappearing for stretches of time or coming home with unexplained bruises or odd equipment.
Alongside the film, a scheme of lessons for pupils to study in school included video inputs from a range of partners, as well as both a pupil and a parent guide to county lines. The guides included inputs from many experts in the field, including those working on the frontline and tackling the issue every day. It is, of course, important and welcome that our schools are raising awareness of this important issue and working together to help to prevent children falling prey to criminal gangs, but where prevention fails, I welcome these specific measures. The addition of the child criminal exploitation offence to the list of criminal lifestyle offences in schedule 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is very welcome. The practical effect of the change is that a person found guilty of the new offence will automatically be considered to have a criminal lifestyle, and a confiscation order can be made accordingly under that Act. Ultimately, all their assets will potentially be seen as derived from crime and subject to confiscation, reflecting the serious nature of such offending.
I hope that that will be a significant deterrent to the masterminds of these gangs. In March this year, the British Transport police, working with Thames Valley police and Northamptonshire police, made multiple arrests in a two-day raid on a county lines operation. Three active deal lines were identified and £25,000 in cash was seized, alongside £9,000-worth of class A drugs and 14 kg of cannabis, with a street value of around £210,000. I thank all the officers involved in that successful operation. The values involved in this criminal activity are high, as we have heard throughout the Committee, and such operations are evidence that if resourced properly, police can break the back of the issue. Let deliver justice to victims by charging criminals for related offences, such as child exploitation, that are so common in the drug trade. In seats such as mine in the home counties, the county lines trade continues to pose risks, and I support measures that strengthen the hand of the police in tackling it.
Finally, given the vulnerabilities of who are children affected by child criminal exploitation, and because of the nature of abuse that children may suffer when they are involved in these gangs—I went through some of it earlier—I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill will ensure the victims are automatically eligible for special measures, such as giving pre-recorded evidence, or giving evidence in court from behind a screen, in proceedings relating to the offences. I hope such measures will result in more successful prosecutions of this crime.