Draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2025

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 General Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I echo the Minister’s thoughts and sympathies with regard to the horrendous incident inflicted on your community.

For the reasons the Minister has outlined, I can state clearly our support for this order. We all recognise the need to maintain our international agreements and to ensure that our extradition laws remain in line with our current realities. On the more positive side of the ledger, it is always welcome to see the enhanced agreement with Chile; the UK’s first extradition treaty with the country dates back to the 19th century.

Although this piece of secondary legislation encompasses multiple countries, it would be improper not to reflect on the terrible situation faced by those who have had to leave Hong Kong, and by those who have remained and suffered abominable infringements of their rights. Those rights, once so firmly instilled, have withered away under intolerable changes in the law. Jimmy Lai’s recent trial is a timely reminder of how people’s freedoms continue to be undermined.

Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom itself, we see complete disregard for individual freedoms. Pro-democracy protester Bob Chan—a Hongkonger—was injured after being dragged on to consulate grounds and beaten by assailants in 2022. More recently, the use of bounties by Hong Kong’s police force, encouraging the targeting of opposition voices, is heinous. That underscores why it was paramount that the last Government took steps to suspend the treaty, and it is right that the Government recognise that concern by continuing legal steps to sever extradition powers. I hope that the Minister and his former colleagues, many now outside the Home Office, recognise the need to be robust with representatives of Hong Kong and China when dangers present themselves.

On the order itself, I thank the Minister for providing written assurance to my colleagues about these proposals, as it is right that we make sure that any changes the UK makes do not undermine the security of people living in this country, and that extradition is not a tool that can be misused. I particularly welcome his commitment that the Government will never allow a situation where Hongkongers or people of any other nationality are extradited for politically motivated purposes. I hope that the Security Minister continues to take steps to ensure that, including by making certain that no diplomatic building can be used for malign purposes.

It is right that our extradition system is fit for purpose, so I am pleased to be able to support these proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Let me begin by welcoming the new Ministers to their places.

The last Conservative Government recruited a record number of police officers, but earlier this year we discovered that despite Labour’s promise of more police, the headcount had already fallen by 1,316 since it came to office. Both the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have warned that we will lose even more officers. When will the Minister restore police numbers to the levels they were at under the last Conservative Government?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my opposite number for his welcome. Let me also use this opportunity to thank the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who did a brilliant job as Policing Minister over the past year.

Under the last couple of years of the Conservative Government, shoplifting soared: we saw a 70% increase. Street theft rose by 60% in two years, and the Conservatives ignored antisocial behaviour. Violence and abuse against shop workers was at epidemic levels, and the yo-yoing of the police numbers did not help; the hon. Gentleman may remember that the Conservatives cut them by 20,000. We are prioritising neighbourhood policing. We will ensure that the police have the resources that they need, and we will use new technology to ensure that we are tackling crime as much as we can. Those 3,000 neighbourhood police officers will be in place by next year, and the 13,000 police officers that we have pledged in our manifesto will make a real difference to people’s lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Lots of people know that under this Government, the number of people arriving illegally has hit a record high. What many do not know is that this Labour Government are repealing the power to scientifically test the age of those arriving and are hiding the data on the number making false claims about their age. Why are the Government doing away with powers that could prevent adult migrants from getting into classrooms with children, and why are they hiding this data from the British people?

Draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 General Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the Minister on her new role in what I am sure will be the first of many encounters. In what can be a divisive Department, I am pleased to begin with an issue on which we can agree.

The Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, put forward by the previous Government during the last Parliament, sought to enable joint processing between qualifying competent authorities and intelligence services under part 4 of the Data Protection Act 2018. As the Minister summarised, it was rightly recognised that there was an increasing expectation that law enforcement and the intelligence services would work jointly in operational partnerships, particularly in response to lessons learned from the tragic terrorist incidents at the Manchester Arena and Fishmongers’ Hall.

Under the existing regime, it is understandable that sharing data across Data Protection Act regimes proves cumbersome, making the necessary decision making in our national security infrastructure more challenging. Removing those obstacles and allowing partnerships to process data under a single regime is a step to be welcomed. Any measure that enables more effective and efficient use of data to enhance our national security is to the benefit of us all. Indeed, it is essential that we learn from the events of the past. We owe it to the victims of these abhorrent acts of terrorism. As such, we should welcome the change in the Government’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and the regulations debated today.

Regarding joint processing, it has been noted previously that the controls and safeguards under part 4 of the 2018 Act will apply. Although I am aware that each body has expertise to manage the use of data, the creation of a single regime can pose specific challenges. Therefore, considering that some of the data used in such cases may be particularly sensitive, have Ministers engaged sufficiently with the relevant agencies and competent authorities to ensure that they are prepared to use the new rules effectively and without incident? In addition, although the use of designation notices by the Home Secretary is an integral part of the new regime, I must ask Ministers whether they are satisfied that the process for providing notices for joint controllership of specific processing will be effective.

Although I appreciate that, for security reasons, the Minister will not be able to provide details as to why one competent authority has been included, it will be useful to receive assurances that robust systems are in place to ensure that such processes include appropriate safeguards and that the data being used is in line with the notice. These safeguards are critical, as we all recognise the public’s desire for their data to be protected while ensuring that national security is maintained. I therefore welcome the draft regulations and hope they are implemented effectively.

Orgreave Inquiry

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Growing up in the north-east, I know the emotions stirred by the miners’ strike; decades after the events, they continue to cause significant division and disagreement in our communities. Regardless of people’s views on the rights and wrongs of the incident, historic events such as this, which saw conflict and violence on our streets, will always be deeply regrettable.

We must acknowledge that in the decades since, no Government—including the last Labour Government, which had 13 years—deemed it necessary to establish such an inquiry. That Labour Government included three current Home Office Ministers, with the current Minister for Border Security and Asylum, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), serving in the Home Office at the time. If this inquiry has a real contribution to make, why did the then Labour Government not hold one? What has changed?

As Members will know, there have been previous calls for such an inquiry, but when the decision was made not to grant one, it was based on reasoned grounds. There has been a passage of time, and there have been significant legislative and systematic changes in the decades since. As the Home Secretary said in her written statement,

“there have been significant changes in the oversight of policing since 1984, and to the way that public order is now policed”.

Does the Minister believe that an inquiry is likely to result in any meaningful and relevant lessons for today’s policing system?

The Minister is a long-standing advocate for those impacted by infected blood—a case of truly disgraceful systematic treatment over decades. Similarly, the Hillsborough panel highlighted the deep injustice of a tragedy involving this police force, but both those inquiries understandably came at considerable cost. Will the Minister outline what the Department anticipates that delivering a proportionate and meaningful inquiry on this issue will cost?

The press reports on the proposed chairman raise serious questions about his ability to act in a politically neutral and independent manner. Can the Minister assure the House that the inquiry will not be political in nature and that it will listen to the views of all parties present on the day, so that it is not merely an example of the Government putting the interests of the unions ahead of the police? As with so many issues recently, this raises questions about the commitment of the Government to supporting brave police officers, who act within the law to do their job. Can she confirm that the Government are committed to supporting police officers who put themselves in harm’s way to keep public order and comply with their training and instructions?

Finally, I note from the Government’s publication that the inquiry will be statutory, with powers to compel individuals to provide information where necessary. That sounds remarkably similar to a request that we have made to the Government, which was repeatedly rejected. The victims and survivors of rape gangs deserve detailed updates on the progress of that inquiry, yet the lack of information about how the new inquiry will be set up and how it will compel evidence leads me to conclude that the Government have prioritised the miners over the minors who suffered horrific exploitation at the hands of rape gangs. This Labour Government’s union paymasters should not determine the pecking order of justice in this country. There are still perpetrators of child sexual exploitation and those who covered it up who have gone unpunished, yet the Government have chosen to prioritise this inquiry. In her audit, Baroness Casey spoke of the need to implement inquiries that are time limited. I ask the Government to focus on this issue and, given their initial refusal to do so, ensure that action is taken at a much greater speed to bring about justice for those young, vulnerable women who suffered at the hands of rape gangs.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I was going to start by saying that I welcomed the shadow Minister’s initial comments, in which he recognised how the situation at Orgreave all those years ago still casts a shadow over communities in Yorkshire, the north-east and other parts of the country. I must say that I was surprised by some of his comments, because I know that he is a good man and is trying his best to fulfil the role of shadow Policing Minister. I will answer his questions, and will come on to the issue of grooming gangs that he raised in the latter part of his contribution, but I must say that I found his comments extremely distasteful, as well as not accurate or correct.

First, I will deal with the question of why we are having this Orgreave inquiry. Our manifesto committed us to ensuring that there was a thorough investigation or inquiry, so that

“the truth about the events at Orgreave comes to light.”

We are delivering on that manifesto commitment today. As I said in my statement, we are also committed to rebuilding public confidence in policing, and campaigners and mining communities have spent decades searching for answers about what happened. The purpose of the inquiry will be to aid the public understanding of how the events at Orgreave on 18 June 1984 and immediately afterwards came to pass. I hope that explains why we are taking this action today.

The shadow Minister asked about the cost. We have been very clear that the Home Office will meet the cost of the inquiry. We are also mindful that we want the inquiry to be as expeditious as possible, and to be value for money. That is why we have looked at the model of the Hillsborough independent inquiry—we think that is a good model to follow. Certainly, there will be conversations with the chair about the projected cost and the timeline that he will want to set out.

Turning to the issue of the chair, again I was really disappointed by the shadow Minister’s remarks about the bishop. Bishop Pete has previously supported calls for an inquiry. It is important to note that that was in the context of his pastoral role, in which he has supported members of the diocese of Sheffield who were impacted by the events at Orgreave. He certainly did not show any favour towards either the police or the picketers when calling for that inquiry. I do not think that that call detracts from the necessary credibility, impartiality and independence that I believe Bishop Pete will bring to his role as chair of the inquiry. He has the backing and support of the key stakeholders in taking that role forward. It is also important to remember that the chair of the inquiry will be supported by a small group of independent members, who will have expert knowledge in certain areas to help the chair fulfil his terms of reference.

As the shadow Minister said, the inquiry is statutory. That is because we recognise the importance of ensuring that documents can be brought forward. It is important that people can be compelled to produce documents and that witnesses can be compelled as well.

Finally, the shadow Minister referred to the issue of grooming gangs. He will know that a great deal of work has been done to make sure that the hideous, appalling situations that have been uncovered around the grooming gangs will now be dealt with. The Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), has given statements to the House, as has the Home Secretary, and there has been a clear list of the actions that are being taken. It is absolutely right that that work is done. Of course, when the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse was set up under the previous Government, there was support across the House for the work of Professor Alexis Jay. It is a great pity that the previous Government did not enact any of Professor Jay’s recommendations. That is the hugely shameful state of affairs that this Government inherited, but I am absolutely clear that this Government are dealing with grooming gangs. That is the right thing to do, but equally, setting up the Orgreave inquiry today is the right thing to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

May I join you, Mr Speaker, in marking the anniversary of the 7/7 London bombings? Our thoughts are with the victims and families, and all who did all they could to help those in need.

Yesterday, Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley called the spending review “disappointing”, highlighting that he is being forced to cut 1,700 officers and staff. Policing may not be a priority for this Labour Government, but the last Government put a record number of police on our streets. Will the Home Secretary commit to keeping total number of police officers above 147,746, as it was under the last Government—yes or no?

[Yvette Cooper]

Unfortunately, the trouble is that actually the Conservatives did not put police on the streets. They may have tried to reverse the massive cuts that they had made to policing after 2010, but they did not put police on the streets. Neighbourhood policing was slashed under the Conservatives and some areas saw neighbourhood policing halve as a result. I am glad to say that this year the Metropolitan police will put 470 additional neighbourhood police on the streets, as a result of the support that they have been given.

[Matt Vickers]

I think that was a failure to commit to that total number. During the passage of the Crime and Policing Bill, we asked the Government to stop our police having to investigate playground squabbles and hurty words online as non-crime hate incidents, and now senior police officers are joining that call. Merseyside chief constable, Serena Kennedy, has said:

“Non-crime hate incidents are having a disproportionate impact on trust and confidence in policing”.

I realise that U-turns are quite fashionable for the Government, so will the Home Secretary now finally scrap non-crime hate incidents and save 60,000 hours of police time?

[Yvette Cooper]

I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that police forces are following the guidance that the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), drew up on this issue. We have a review that is happening under the College of Policing at the moment, but the shadow Minister refers to the Crime and Policing Bill, which is introducing new measures on stalking, spiking, respect orders, e-bikes, off-road bikes and a whole serious of different issues, and which sadly the Conservatives voted against—so much for caring about tackling crime.

Crime and Policing Bill

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I may have said it yesterday, but it cannot be said enough: once again, I pay tribute to the hard work of police officers, PCSOs and police staff across the country. They put themselves in harm’s way every day to keep our streets safe, under immense pressure. I hope that every Member across the House will join me in thanking them for their service.

Yesterday I mentioned the Opposition’s support for many of the measures in the Bill, although given that the vast majority are carried over from the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, it is probably no great surprise. Enforcing the Bill will require resources. I have already outlined concerns about funding for our police forces and the devastating impact that will have on frontline police numbers. I asked that question of the Minister yesterday, and I am not quite sure I heard an answer. Will the Minister confirm whether there will be more police officers at the end of this Parliament than the record high levels achieved by the last Government in March 2024? [Interruption.] Yes, the highest number on record.

I turn to new clause 130, which relates to tool theft, and I declare an interest as the son of a builder.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Not a toolmaker?

[Matt Vickers]

He is not a toolmaker, no.

Tool theft is completely out of control, and I know the impact it has on people’s lives. Research from Direct Line shows that 45,000 tool thefts were reported to the police in a single year, amounting to one every 12 minutes. This country is built on the back of our tradesmen—they are the small businesses that make a huge contribution to our economy and literally build the world around us. Just imagine getting up at daft o’clock to go to work and earn a living, leaving the house only to find your van has been completely raided and all the tools stolen. The ability to work is stolen as well. The impact is huge: it is not only the cost of replacing the stolen tools, but days of lost work and disappointed customers, many of whom may have taken a day off work themselves. The issue is made worse still when tradesmen go to car boot sales only to see stolen equipment being sold in broad daylight, with no action taken by the authorities.

In recent months I have been campaigning alongside tradesmen for real action on this issue. Just last week the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) met tradesmen, businesses and the police to hear at first hand about the impact. We heard from campaigners, including the gas expert Shoaib Awan and Frankie from On The Tools, alongside affected businesses such as Checkatrade, Balfour Beatty and BT Openreach.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

If the Conservatives had won a 15th year in government, would they have started to tackle this epidemic?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

One of the things we were doing was putting record funding into policing and putting a record number of police on the streets. The one thing we were not doing was taxing our police forces off the streets. We were making huge progress.

I would also like to mention Sergeant Dave Catlow of the Metropolitan police, who joined us last week. He is doing great work on this issue.

New clause 130 proposes three key changes. First, fines for perpetrators would equate to the cost of replacing equipment, repairing the damage caused and the loss of work. Secondly, theft of tools would be treated as an aggravated offence, meaning tougher sentences for the crooks who steal tradesmen’s vital equipment. Finally, councils would be required to put in place an enforcement plan to crack down on the sale of stolen tools at car boot sales.

I will also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for her campaigning on this issue. I know how much she, too, wants to see action on tool theft. As the Minister knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) brought the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 through the House. It could make a real difference on this issue. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will table a statutory instrument to put it into action?

I turn to non-crime hate incidents. New clause 7 would change legislation and guidance to remove the recording and retention of non-crime hate incidents. The use of non-crime hate incidents has spiralled out of all control and well beyond its originally intended purpose. The deal should be simple: if the law is broken, justice must be served. But non-crime hate incidents are a different beast—you did not break the law; you just said something daft and ended up logged on police records like a criminal. We need our police on the streets, not policing hurty words on Twitter. We have all seen the utterly barmy story of a nine-year-old who insulted another pupil in the playground. Is that unkind? Yes, of course it is. But instead of a quiet word with a teacher or a call to the parents, the police were brought in. I appeal to Members across the House—would they want that happening to their child, or would they rather give them a proper telling-off at home?

This also has a bigger effect. Our police officers are being tied up documenting playground spats and Twitter comments, treating childish jibes like national security threats, while real crimes such as burglary, robbery and even violent offences are being pushed to the back of the queue. In fact, research from Policy Exchange has found that, nationally, over 60,000 police hours are being spent on non-crime hate incidents. Our police need to get back to keeping our streets safe, not policing silly words or childish playground issues.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to draw the House’s attention to some of the Opposition’s other amendment that could protect our communities and keep our streets safe. We would have been voting today on new clause 144 to secure that national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs—a scandal that is our country’s shame. Child sexual exploitation ruins lives; preying on the most vulnerable in our communities, exploiting them for horrific sexual acts and often coercing them into a life of crime. A national inquiry is what the victims wanted, so I am glad that the Prime Minister has finally U-turned, given into the pressure and joined what he described as the far-right bandwagon of people who wanted a national inquiry.

As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, we must not have another whitewash. The national inquiry must ask the hard questions and leave no stone unturned. Criminal investigations must run in parallel to the inquiry. It must look at the whole system—Whitehall, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and local authorities—and wherever there is wrongdoing, there should be prosecutions. Foreign perpetrators must be immediately deported, and the inquiry must be fully independent, with statutory powers covering all relevant towns. Local councils simply cannot be left to investigate themselves.

New clause 125 aims to reinstate people’s confidence in policing. We have recently seen the perverse anti-racism commitment issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It calls for arrest rates to be artificially engineered to be the same across racial groups. Advice to treat black and white suspects differently is morally indefensible. It is, by definition, two-tier policing. It undermines trust and confidence in our police. This new clause would give the Home Secretary the power to amend or require the withdrawal of any code of practice intended to direct policing practices.

New clause 139 makes provisions in relation to off-road bikes. I know many Members across the House know the havoc being caused by them in local communities. The issue has been raised by Members on both sides of the House numerous times in Westminster Hall and in this place, and the tweak in approach that features in this Bill will simply not be enough. Using alternative legislation, the police are already able to seize off-road bikes without notice. The new clause would remove the prohibition on the police entering a private dwelling to confiscate an off-road bike and ensure that police destroyed seized bikes rather than selling them back into the market. I urge the Minister—in fact, I beg her—to look again comprehensively at how we tackle the scourge of off-road bikes.

I would also like to draw the House’s attention to new clause 131, which would introduce mandatory deportation for foreign nationals found in possession of child sexual abuse images. These sick paedophiles have no place in our country and they, along with all foreign offenders, should be deported.

To conclude, the British people want our police to be able to focus on putting real criminals behind bars—the thieves who nick our hard-working tradesmen’s tools—not spending time policing playground squabbles and treating them like crimes. Our Opposition new clauses are common-sense changes that I hope the whole House will get behind, protecting victims and restoring policing to what it is meant to be: tackling crime on our streets.

[The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members, including the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), and the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) who have taken part in the debate, and in particular those who have brought forward new clauses. There are well over 100 new clauses in this group, so I am sure the House will appreciate that, sadly, I will not be able to cover them all. I will do my best in the time remaining to respond to as many as I can.

Crime and Policing Bill

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I would like to express my appreciation to all those who have worked on the legislation to develop and shape the policies, whether they be the majority developed under the previous Conservative Government or members of the Bill team, who I am sure have provided helpful assistance to Ministers. As I am sure we will hear today, some of the measures in the Bill are the result of amazing people who have suffered the worst experiences, but who have worked to ensure that others do not have to suffer them in future.

In addition, considering the context of the legislation, it is right to pay tribute to the excellent work of police officers across the country. Week in, week out, those serving in our police forces put themselves in harm’s way to keep our streets safe. Those who serve and place themselves in danger cannot be thanked enough. Many people ask themselves whether they would have the bravery to stand up and intervene. Officers across the country do so on a daily basis. Thanks to the efforts of the previous Conservative Government, the police force numbered over 149,000 officers in 2024, with 149,769 recorded in March 2024. This was the highest number of officers, on both full-time equivalent and headcount basis, since comparable records began in March 2003.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out those policing numbers. Does he share my concern about the additional police officers we are getting? When I look at our figures for the west midlands, the boost is coming from deployments. I worry about where they are actually coming from and just how much of an increase we are really going to see.

[Matt Vickers]

I wholeheartedly agree. There are a lot of concerns about the neighbourhood policing guarantee and where the resource comes from: whether it is through specials or volunteers—of course, we want to see more of them—or redeployments. When people ring 999, they want to know that they are going to get the response they expected. They do not want to see that depleted to move officers from one bucket to the next. That has real consequences. The biggest hit to our police force numbers at the moment will be the national insurance rise—the tax that is taxing police off our streets.

[Chris Vince]

The shadow Minister and I probably disagree on many things, but he is giving a very well-presented speech. Does he not recognise, however, that there may well be an increase in police numbers, but we have seen a decrease in police staff? In Essex, we lost over 400 police staff during the Conservatives’ period in office and a number of police officers have been redeployed to roles that could have been done by police staff.

[Matt Vickers]

I am glad to see all those police officers getting proper training through the hon. Gentleman’s maths teaching. I am glad he has new recruits in his part of the world, but people are concerned about the frontline numbers. The number of police on our streets is a huge concern to the public. The chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council has said that the funding will not match the Government’s ambitions and falls short of maintaining the existing workforce. And just listen to the Police Federation, which states quite simply:

“This Chancellor hasn’t listened to police officers.”

Can the Minister confirm that by the end of this Parliament there will be more police officers than were serving in March 2024?

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister will know from our time in Committee that I am an ex-police officer, and I thank him for his words about police officers serving the country. Does he agree that the Bill will give the police more confidence that they will have the right powers, so that they are able to make a difference?

[Matt Vickers]

I welcome lots of the measures in the Bill and I hope they will really help our police officers to keep our streets safe, but the police need the resource, funding and support to be out there enforcing the legislation we are putting forward today. I thank the hon. Member for his service—on the Committee as well as in the police force.

The House will debate a number of amendments and new clauses today and tomorrow. The Opposition amendments are sensible and aim to improve the Bill, which our constituents would want us to get behind. Amendment 175 relates to the Government’s objective, which we all want to achieve, of reducing knife crime by 50%. We know the untold damage knife crime causes to victims, families and communities across the country. This legislation introduces a new offence: possession of an article with a blade or point, or an offensive weapon, with the intent to use unlawful violence.

Let me put that in context. Imagine you are at home in your garden enjoying a nice peaceful afternoon with the kids. Suddenly, our hard-working police officers swoop in on a man walking down the street—a man carrying a knife or offensive weapon who is then proven beyond all reasonable doubt to have planned to use it for violence. He could have been coming for your neighbours, your friends or your family. This is a man who clearly needs to be locked up. Would you want to see him put away for four years or 14 years? In fact, with the sentencing review, whatever he is sentenced to, he is likely to serve significantly less. Who knows how much of that four years he would serve before he could walk back down your street?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

According to Keep Britain Tidy, littering and fly-tipping cost the country £1 million a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is money that could go to frontline services, so it is about time we took more stringent measures to change behaviour, along with some good enforcement?

[Matt Vickers]

I could not agree more. A small minority wreak havoc on our countryside and our streets, and create absolute chaos. That is what this amendment is about: tougher sanctions to divert people from doing such mindless things.

The money wasted every year on cleaning up would be better spent on frontline services, such as filling potholes or providing community services. Instead, it is used to clean up after those who have no respect for others or for our natural environment. The most common location for fly-tipping is on pavements and roads, which accounted for 37% of all incidents in 2023-24. The majority—59%—involved small van-sized dumps, or an amount of waste that could easily fit in a car boot. It is therefore logical to conclude that a significant majority of fly-tipping incidents stem from vehicles. Using a vehicle to dump a van full or a boot full of waste should come with real consequences, and the people who do it should feel that in their ability to use their vehicle, as well as through financial penalties. The previous Government increased fines for fly-tipping from £400 to £1,000, but we can go further to deter people from dumping on the doorsteps of others. The amendment would require the Home Secretary to consult on the establishment of a scheme of driving licence penalty points for fly-tippers and those who toss rubbish from vehicles.

In Committee, the Minister pledged to engage with DEFRA on this issue. By passing this amendment, we could go further by committing to undertake a consultation to develop a workable and effective scheme. For the benefit of all those who want to be able to enjoy their green spaces, and for our environment and the wildlife that suffers at the hands of fly-tippers and those who toss waste, I urge Members to support the amendment. Let us send a message to the mindless minority who wreak havoc on our green spaces.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to draw the attention of the House to amendments 167, 168, 170 and 171, which, among other Conservative proposals, aim to strengthen respect orders. We have heard the Minister speak both in Committee and in the Chamber of the role these orders can play in tackling antisocial behaviour. The success of the policy will be contingent on its effective enforcement by the police, and on perpetrators being aware that they will face tough sanctions if they breach the orders. I hope the Government will continue to consider these amendments.

I draw Members’ attention to these amendments as they are indicative of the constructive approach Conservative Members have taken towards improving the Bill in ways that we believe would benefit the legislation as a whole. I hope that Members across the House will give serious consideration to our amendments and new clauses over the coming two days.

The Minister and I have spent more time together than she probably ever envisaged, and I believe we can agree that the Bill contains some sensible and proportionate measures: greater protections for our retail workers, efforts to tackle antisocial behaviour, and more measures to tackle vile and horrendous child exploitation. However, we can work together to go further, and that is what our Opposition amendments seek to do.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I begin by once again welcoming the Bill. It will deliver so much for my constituents by protecting people from crime and enabling tough action on antisocial behaviour, including in areas that have too long been labelled “low level” and ignored, such as the illegal off-road bikes that constituents so often raise with me.

The Bill will introduce mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse—one of the key recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, or IICSA. This is a long-overdue measure, which has long been called for by our Labour Home Secretary and Prime Minister personally. However, I remain concerned that the Government are not going far enough on the issue of mandatory reporting. I have therefore tabled three amendments to the Bill on that subject—amendments 10, 11 and 22—on which I will focus my speech today.

Amendments 10, 11 and 22 are not intended to change Government policy—quite the opposite. They are intended to deliver the Government’s stated policy to implement the IICSA recommendations relevant to the Home Office in full. The Home Secretary stated in January that that was the Government’s intention, and reaffirmed that just yesterday, responding with a firm “yes” to my question after her statement on whether it remained Government policy to implement the recommendations in full.

However, there are three significant gaps in our plans to implement recommendation 13 on mandatory reporting, where the Bill does not deliver what IICSA recommended. With these gaps, I am concerned that the duty to report will be ineffective in some of the settings where it is most needed. My concern applies to religious groups in particular. I will use the example of the Jehovah’s Witnesses—the religious group I grew up in—to illustrate how and why.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have a deep cultural distrust of secular authorities, which, as happens in a lot of religious groups, leads to a culture of dealing with everything internally, including child sexual abuse, and reporting nothing to the police. Their internal processes for doing so are atrocious. Jehovah’s Witnesses have something called the “two witness rule”, which means that no action is taken on any report of wrongdoing unless there are two witnesses to it. There are never two witnesses to child sexual abuse. I give that context to highlight why the mandatory duty to report must be absolutely watertight, as IICSA recommended, to prevent people in the leadership of organisations like the Jehovah’s Witnesses from avoiding it.

I will cover the three gaps in turn. First, there are no criminal sanctions if someone does not comply with the duty. I understand that the Government are proposing professional sanctions, such as a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service and to relevant professional regulators, but that is not set out in the Bill and would apply to only a fraction of people under the duty. It would not, for example, do much in religious settings, where so many of the failings are happening, and where the duty would, if constructed properly, help immensely to protect children.

IICSA was clear that failure to comply should be a criminal offence, and amendment 10 would make that the case. It proposes a fine as the appropriate sanction, which is in line with best practice overseas. Many other countries—France, Australia, parts of Canada and so on—have introduced mandatory reporting, and many have done so with criminal sanctions of this kind. While the Government will likely say that criminal sanctions could have a chilling effect that would stop people going into professions that work with children, the international evidence clearly shows that this does not happen—in the Australian state of Victoria, for instance. Professor Ben Mathews has done extensive research on mandatory reporting laws and their efficacy, which I thoroughly encourage the Minister to ask officials to examine.

The second gap relates to those who come under the duty to report. IICSA recommended that the duty should apply first to anyone working in regulated activities with children under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, and the Bill uses that criterion—tick. However, IICSA also recommended that it should apply to anyone in a position of trust over a child, as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which the Bill does not include. Amendment 22 would make it so.

The Bill sets out a list of relevant activities in part 2 of schedule 8, which replicates about 90% of what is in the Sexual Offences Act. However, that missing 10% is critical; for a start, it includes sports coaches and teachers, which schedule 8 does not. Going back to my earlier example, section 22A of the Sexual Offences Act includes a very effective definition of religious leaders. Schedule 8 does include a definition of religious leaders, but requires such people to have “regular unsupervised contact” with children to be subject to the duty. That qualification will allow virtually any religious leader—be they paid clergy or a volunteer elder, like in the Jehovah’s Witnesses—to escape the duty, as very few have regular unsupervised contact with children, despite being in a significant position of power and influence.

I personally know at least one person who was sexually abused as a child in that organisation. When they went to speak to religious leaders about it, in the presence of their parents—not unsupervised—they were advised that going to the police would mean bringing reproach on God’s name. So no report was made, by either the victim or their family, or by those religious elders. That is commonplace.

Under the Bill as drafted, there is no sanction for that. Those elders are not mandated reporters; even if they were, the proposed offence in clause 73 of stopping someone else from making a report—an offence I very much welcome, for the record—applies only to other mandated reporters. If, therefore, someone pressures a victim or their parents not to make a report, that will not be illegal. That offence needs to be broadened, too.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is calling for the Government to consider a broader offence of concealing child sexual abuse, to which I urge the Government to give serious consideration. I will give more detail on that later, if there is time.

Police Presence on High Streets

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing this important debate and for her passionate work on this subject. In fact, I thank all hon. Members for their insightful contributions to this debate. I welcome the news that the brother of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) has joined up to the police force, particularly as he has done so in Durham—on my streets, no less. We all know the brilliant work that our hard-working police officers, PCSOs and civil enforcement officers do to protect our high streets and local communities. The police put themselves in dangerous situations to stop the criminals who blight our communities and undermine the social fabric that binds them together. Although it is welcome that headline figures from the crime survey for England and Wales show that crime fell by more than 50% between 2010 and 2024, there is still much more to be done, and protecting our high streets is an integral part of that mission.

I have the honour of representing Stockton, whose high street is a great place and home to some incredible businesses. I will always encourage people to support them, but I would fail in my duty if I did not acknowledge or try to tackle the many challenges they face. If my grandparents were alive today, they would be devastated to see what has become of our high street. Over decades, Stockton’s Labour council has allowed it to decline and to become home to unacceptable levels of crime and antisocial behaviour. Instead of employing more civil enforcement officers and street wardens, the council chooses to employ a huge number of managers on £100k-plus salaries—it recently came to light that it had spent £15.8 million on recruitment consultants in the last three years.

[Daniel Francis]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the cuts from the previous Government have resulted in my local authority, the London borough of Bexley, having to make every one of its CCTV staff redundant, so that the council is no longer able to assist the police in fighting crime?

[Matt Vickers]

It is incredibly important that whatever money councils have is put to good use. In Stockton, we have terrible examples: people being flown abroad to watch shows to scout for festival appearances, and the CEO of the council recruiting a chum of his on £900 a day, without it ever being seen and considered by the council. Councils have a responsibility to spend properly the money that is given to them, and in Stockton there are too many examples where that is not the case.

Instead of the council using all the powers available through public spaces protection orders to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, its soft approach means that lots of antisocial behaviour has gone unchallenged. Moreover, Stockton’s Labour council volunteered as a dispersal authority, taking a completely disproportionate number of asylum seekers. For many years it has had one of the highest asylum seeker-to-resident ratios of any local authority across the entire country. Those asylum seekers are all housed near the town centre, creating challenges in accommodation, public services, and integration, and leaving huge numbers of lone men hanging around the town centre. The situation is made worse by the council’s approach to housing, which allows huge amounts of houses in multiple occupation, bedsits and bail accommodation to emerge around the town centre.

I will continue to push the council and local police for more action to support Stockton’s fantastic high street and the incredible businesses therein. Before addressing the police’s specific role in protecting the great British high street, we must acknowledge the challenges facing our high streets as a result of this Labour Government’s actions. The Government’s jobs tax and the slashing of small businesses—well, of small business rate relief, though actually they are slashing small businesses—is putting the survival of many of our high street businesses at risk. Confidence has been sapped, and in April business confidence once again turned negative.

The Government will always have the support of the Conservative party in backing our hard-working police officers. We need more officers than ever. It was interesting to hear, during Home Office questions, the Minister and the Home Secretary reading with some excitement a table listing the number of neighbourhood policing officers in each area. How many more police officers—those who can arrest the most serious criminals in our society—does the Minister expect to be in place by the end of the year? Will that number exceed the March 2024 figure?

This discussion comes against the backdrop of six of Britain’s most senior police chiefs warning that important and laudable ambitions to tackle knife crime, violence against women and girls, and neighbourhood policing are all at risk because of funding shortfalls. The Government’s decision to let criminals out of prison early, many of whom will inevitably commit more crime, will put more pressure on our police.

The proposed settlement for policing in 2025-26 is insufficient and risks causing job losses. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, has said that his force is facing the potential loss of 1,700 officers, PCSOs and other staff. I am keen to hear from the Minister whether she thinks that Sir Mark’s figures are correct.

Special constables are invaluable, but we also need full-time officers to investigate serious crimes and secure convictions against the worst offenders on our high streets. That is critical; the public expect not only a police presence, but effective action. Although we were pleased to agree on stronger laws in the Crime and Policing Bill to address offences on our high streets, such laws are meaningless without proper enforcement and punishment. Having spent a long time campaigning alongside the likes of the Co-op, the BRC and USDAW, I am delighted to see the stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker on the statute book.

On policing our high streets. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on recent remarks made by the Mayor of London and his Drugs Commission. Within the mayor’s expression of support for the proposal to decriminalise possession of small amounts of cannabis, there were concerning references to police stop-and-search powers, in which he questioned the scope of their application. Frankly, that is extraordinary, reflecting a worrying disregard for public spaces such as our high streets, where all of us should expect to feel safe. I hope that the Minister will condemn those comments in the strongest possible terms and send a message to our hard-working police officers that stop and search is a vital tool in their armour, and that we entirely support them in using it.

This week, I met representatives of the Federation of Independent Retailers, who shared their experiences of retail crime and the way that the use of in-store facial recognition and AI technology is making a real difference. They suggested that a grant scheme could help them to take the fight to criminals; I would be delighted to hear whether the Minister has given any consideration to introducing such a scheme.

In conclusion, we should celebrate the work of the hard-working police on our streets and of the retail workers in our stores, but we must remember the challenges that they face because of the decisions of this Government. High streets are at the heart of our local communities. The Government must do much more to ensure that they are safe and thriving places that people want to visit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Six of Britain’s most senior police officers have warned that the Government’s actions are making it harder to keep our streets safe. From the damaging jobs tax to releasing criminals early, Labour is pushing forces to the brink. Does the Home Secretary agree with Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley that he will be forced to cut 1,700 police officers, PCSOs and staff this year?

[Yvette Cooper]

I gently remind the hon. Member that thousands of police and PCSOs were taken off our streets under the Conservatives. That is why the number of people who say that they never see the police in their communities doubled under the Conservatives. This Government are turning that around, with 3,000 additional police on our streets this year alone. That includes 470 more neighbourhood police on London’s streets.

[Matt Vickers]

We did not get to whether Mark Rowley was right or wrong, and I notice that the Home Secretary forgot to mention the hundreds of millions being gobbled up by Labour’s jobs tax, or the fact that police numbers reached record levels under the last Government.

That aside, the National Police Chiefs’ Council has published its anti-racism commitment, saying that racial equality does not mean treating everyone the same or being colour blind, and calling for arrest rates to be artificially engineered to be the same across racial groups. Does the Home Secretary agree that the police should respond to people’s actions regardless of race? If so, why did the policing Minister endorse this barmy document?

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Minister is, as he knows, talking nonsense. The police have to police without fear or favour; that is the standard that they apply and sign up to. I am really sorry that he wants to undermine the important work of police across the country, just as his party in government undermined the number of police on the streets—took them off the streets—so we ended up with thousands fewer police on our streets. This Government are finally putting them back into communities and back on the beat where they belong.

Crime and Policing Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. This new clause was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) in an effort to raise a subject that affects many of her residents. She says that dangerous delivery drivers have become an increasingly common sight on the roads of Reigate, Banstead and Redhill. She has spoken with constituents who have reported near misses, actual collisions and a growing sense that people and property are being put at risk by these individuals, who simply do not have the skills to operate their vehicles safely.

My hon. Friend believes that the new clause would both address this problem and protect the rights of regular moped users. In a world with an increasing number of home delivery transactions being undertaken, there are more and more delivery drivers on our streets. Many are not properly qualified to drive, but they are working potentially long shifts, having to find addresses in areas that are alien to them. The fact that they are doing so using a licence that exists to allow people to learn to drive poses real challenges for road safety.

The new clause would amend section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which grants police powers to seize vehicles being used in a manner that causes “alarm, distress, or annoyance”. Proposed new subsection (3A) would deem mopeds being used for commercial purposes by riders with only provisional licences as likely to fall into that category, effectively lowering the threshold for police action in such cases.

The use of mopeds for delivery services—for example, food and parcel deliveries—has expanded rapidly. However, a concerning number of riders continue to operate on provisional licences, often without any training or supervision, putting both the riders and the public at risk. By allowing the police to treat such behaviour as likely to cause alarm or distress, the new clause would ensure faster and more decisive action to remove unsafe vehicles from our roads. It would allow police to actively deal with individuals on mopeds abusing the lack of legislation.

If the Minister does not support the new clause, I would welcome her views on how the issue can be tackled.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting out the case for the new clause on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Reigate. As he explained, it concerns the important issue of mopeds being used for commercial purposes by riders with provisional licences.

I assure the Committee that any kind of antisocial behaviour is unacceptable, and that is why the Government are undertaking an ambitious programme of work to tackle it. The antisocial use of vehicles such as e-scooters and off-road bikes causes havoc in local communities, as we all know from our constituency postbags.

We are making it easier for the police to seize such vehicles from offenders and dispose of them. Clause 8, which we have already debated, strengthens the law so that vehicles being used to commit antisocial behaviour can be seized immediately by police without the need first to provide a warning. Furthermore, the Department for Transport, together with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, is considering plans to review existing requirements for motorcycle training, testing and licensing, taking account of recent proposals by the motorcycle industry.

As we have heard, it is currently legal for moped riders with provisional licences to work as delivery drivers. The new clause would therefore create an ambiguity in the law, which could result in confusion for the moped riders, as well as for employers and the police, because it is legal to drive on a provisional licence for these purposes but they could have their moped seized.

There is also no clear definition of “commercial activities”. That could extend to a range of scenarios and cover people such as food and grocery delivery riders, couriers, parking enforcement officers, medical laboratory technicians, blood bank workers and so on. The new clause could therefore result in such sectors operating with diminished capability.

The new clause may also have the unintended consequence of an increase in the use of modified electrically assisted pedal cycles that do not comply with current EAPC regulations for use on public roads, or the illegal use of off-road bikes on public roads for the same commercial purposes.

The shadow Minister asked what more we could do on this issue. I highlight the work of Transport for London, which launched a road safety charter for meal and grocery delivery companies in September 2023 to identify ways to reduce death and serious injury among riders and raise road safety standards. The charter was developed in collaboration with the then five largest meal and grocery delivery companies and consists of 10 road safety principles that aim to keep food delivery motorcycle couriers and other road users safe. TfL is evaluating the impact of the charter’s implementation over the past 18 months and will share its findings with the Government in due course.

On that basis, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw new clause 46.

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 47

National statutory inquiry into grooming gangs

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, set up a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.

(2) An inquiry established under subsection (1) must seek to—

(a) identify common patterns of behaviour and offending between grooming gangs;

(b) identify the type, extent and volume of crimes committed by grooming gangs;

(c) identify the number of victims of crimes committed by grooming gangs;

(d) identify the ethnicity of members of grooming gangs;

(e) identify any failings, by action, omission or deliberate suppression, by—

(i) police,

(ii) local authorities,

(iii) prosecutors,

(iv) charities,

(v) political parties,

(vi) local and national government,

(vii) healthcare providers and health services, or

(viii) other agencies or bodies, in the committal of crimes by grooming

(f) identify such national safeguarding actions as may be required to minimise the risk of further such offending occurring in future;

(g) identify good practice in protecting children.

(3) The inquiry may do anything it considers is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of its functions and the achievement of the requirements of subsection (2).

(4) An inquiry established under this section must publish a report within two years of the launch of the inquiry.

(5) For the purposes of this section—

‘gang’ means a group of at least three adults whose purpose or intention is to commit a sexual offence against the same victim or group of victims;

‘grooming’ means—

(a) activity carried out with the primary intention of committing sexual offences against the victim;

(b) activity that is carried out, or predominantly carried out, in person;

(c) activity that includes the provision of illicit substances and/or alcohol either as part of the grooming or concurrent with the commission of the sexual offence.” —(Matt Vickers.)

This new clause would set up a national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 50 would amend the Children Act 1989 by inserting a new section 2A to suspend parental responsibility for any individual convicted of serious sexual offences involving or relating to children. It is not in a child’s best interests for a person who has committed a serious sexual offence against a child to retain any legal rights over them, whether that child was the direct victim or not. The new clause would put child safety above all else, by ensuring that there is no ambiguity about the offender’s legal standing as a parent.

Although the courts do have the power to strip parental responsibility when it is in the best interest of a child, families and former partners of perpetrators are currently required to instigate and fund proceedings to secure these orders to protect their children. The costs for these types of proceedings can run into tens of thousands of pounds. However, under the new rule, the automatic suspension would make proceedings simpler. The new clause would send a powerful message that those who commit serious sexual offences against children forfeit the rights of parenthood. Parenthood comes with responsibilities, chief among them being the duty to protect. Breaching that duty in the most serious and damaging way should have equally serious consequences under the law.

There is wide public and cross-party support for measures that prioritise the protection of children over the rights of offenders. The new clause would ensure that the law reflected both moral clarity and practical necessity, putting children first and ensuring that legal rights are not abused by convicted predators. It would introduce a long overdue legal safeguard for vulnerable children by ensuring that no individual convicted of a serious child sex offence continued to exercise legal power as a parent while in prison, unless and until a court independently decided that it was safe and appropriate for them to do so. It would strengthen the child protection framework and put survivors’ welfare and dignity at the centre of family law.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

New clause 50 seeks the automatic removal of parental responsibility where a parent has been convicted of a serious sexual offence against a child. To begin with, I wish to be clear that child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime that leaves a lasting impact on victims and their families, and those affected have my deepest sympathies. The shadow Minister’s motivation in tabling the amendment is laudable—protecting children and vulnerable adults is a top priority for this Government—but there are several compelling reasons why we cannot support it.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause seeks to amend the Sentencing Act 2020 to ensure that the starting point for sentencing anyone convicted of the murder of a child is a whole life order. Specifically, it would amend schedule 21 to insert the murder of a child as a stand-alone aggravating factor warranting the highest penalty available under the law.

The murder of a child is one of the most heinous and incomprehensible crimes in our society. It represents a total breach of the duty of care and protection that adults owe to children, the most vulnerable members of our communities. Unlike many other forms of homicide, the murder of a child is rarely spontaneous and often involves an abuse of trust, authority or access. These are crimes that permanently scar the moral fabric of society and must be treated with the utmost severity in our justice system.

Under the current law, a whole life order for child murder is applied only in cases involving additional aggravating factors, such as abduction, sexual abuse or premeditated sadism. This creates an unjust distinction that can result in disparities in sentencing. A child’s life is not made more or less valuable by the specific nature of the crime. The act of taking a child’s life should, in itself, warrant the strongest possible sentence. The new clause would eliminate ambiguity and bring clarity and consistency to sentencing practice, ensuring that the most severe punishment is applied to the most serious offence.

By making the starting point for child murder a whole life order, Parliament would send a powerful and unambiguous message that the deliberate killing of a child will never be met with any leniency. That would not only strengthen public confidence in the justice system, but serve as a deterrent to those who might commit such unforgivable acts. It would reinforce the principle that the protection of children is paramount, and that their murder is an attack on the very core of civilised society.

The new clause would recognise the unique horror of child murder and ensure that our sentencing laws reflect that reality. By adopting the measure, we would show victims’ families that their suffering is acknowledged, and uphold the principle that the life of every child must be fiercely protected in both law and practice.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The new clause seeks to make the starting punishment for child murder a whole life order. I thank the shadow Minister for his commitment to tackling crimes involving children and reiterate the offer made at the last sitting by the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley, that if he seriously wishes to address these crimes and all the others we have debated throughout the Committee’s sittings, we stand willing to work with any Member across the House to make that a reality. As yet, no acceptance of that offer has come forward.

I share the desire, as many do, to ensure that those responsible for these terrible crimes are punished properly. The murder of the most vulnerable in our society causes extreme grief and devastation for loved ones who are left behind. Those affected have my deepest sympathies.

It may be helpful if I set out in what circumstances the murderer of a child would currently receive a whole life order. Everyone convicted of the murder of a child will receive a life sentence. That means they will only be released, after serving their minimum term, if the Parole Board is satisfied that their detention is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. Even if released—and I say “if”—the offender will remain on licence for the rest of their life, subject to recall to prison if they breach the conditions of their licence.

When a life sentence is imposed, the court must determine the minimum period to be served in custody for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. When sentencing adult offenders, the starting points are 15, 25 or 30 years, or a whole life order. Judges must then consider relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and adjust the minimum term accordingly.

Whole life orders are the most severe form of punishment that the courts can impose. These sentences have no tariffs and no possibility of Parole Board release. As such, they are reserved for the most heinous cases of murder. As of 31 December 2024, there are 69 offenders serving whole life orders in our prisons. There are certain instances of child murder that are regarded as so heinous that they are normally subject to a whole life order starting point. Currently, a whole life order will normally be the appropriate starting point for the murder of a child if it involved the abduction of the child, sexual or sadistic motivation, or a substantial degree of premeditation or planning.

Some instances of child murder may also fall within other circumstances where a whole life order is normally the appropriate starting point. Those additional circumstances apply to murders involving victims of any age—for example, a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause, or a murder committed by someone already convicted of murder. The court may also impose a whole life order for murders where it considers that the seriousness of the offence is exceptionally high, even if it does not fall within one of the categories of case specified as normally warranting a whole life order starting point.

There are several reasons why we cannot support the new clause. It is important to recognise that cases involving the murder of a child can be incredibly complex and it is therefore right that we do not introduce legislation that treats them all the same. Given their severity, whole life orders must be reserved for the most serious cases, and it is right that in other cases judges retain broader discretion to impose the appropriate minimum term in accordance with the statutory framework.

However, the Government recognise that there are serious concerns regarding homicide law and sentencing, which do need addressing. The Lord Chancellor recently announced a Law Commission review of homicide law and sentencing. The review will consider the law relating to homicide offences, including full and partial defences to those offences, and the existing sentencing framework for murder, as set out in schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020. Any changes to schedule 21, including to whole life orders, will therefore be considered in the context of the Law Commission’s review. The Law Commission planned to begin its work on the review earlier this year, and we understand that it will publish a timeline of that work shortly. It would not be right to anticipate the recommendations of the commission by introducing legislation on murder sentencing prior to the publication of its review. Instead, its findings should be considered independently and in their totality.

I thank the shadow Minister again for his commitment to punishing offenders that commit crimes against children. However, as I hope I have made clear, crimes against children are complex and need all due consideration in sentencing by the independent judiciary. I therefore urge him to withdraw his new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would introduce a new aggravating factor into sentencing decisions for child sexual abuse offences under the Sentencing Act 2020. It would establish that where an individual has financially profited, directly or indirectly, from the exploitation or abuse of a child, that financial gain must be treated as a serious aggravating factor. It would also require the court to state that publicly when passing sentence.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Opposition believe that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 falls short in not addressing sexual relationships between first cousins. New clause 57 would abolish this loophole by explicitly prohibiting sexual relationships between first cousins, bringing these relations in line with prohibitions on other familial relationships. New evidence published by the BBC in February 2025, drawn from new data from the Born in Bradford study conducted by researchers at Bradford University, highlights the key health and social issues caused by consanguineous marriage between first cousins, which new clause 57 seeks to address.

A child of first cousins is twice as likely to inherit a recessive health disorder such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease. Indeed, in the private Member’s Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), data was presented that showed the higher risk of birth defects, increased infant mortality rates and more heart, brain and kidney problems due to recessive disorders among children born to cousin parents.

The medical evidence shows that health conditions and genetic disorders are compounded by cousin marriage, particularly when the practice persists through generations in a family or wider community. There may potentially be thousands of such marriages each year. Some may argue that this is a minor issue, but if it involves an act that we regard as deeply damaging to the potential health of a child, it cannot be ignored. To do so would be deeply irresponsible.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Again, I thank the hon. Member for the new clause, which would extend existing offences relating to sexual activity between certain family members to first cousins. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 currently makes it a criminal offence for a person aged 16 or over to sexually penetrate an adult family member where they are related as a parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.

The rationale for the offence in relation to sexual relations between family members generally is the fundamental breach of trust involved in particular family members engaging in sexual activity with other family members. It is also important to acknowledge that criminal offences help to ensure that patterns of abuse established in childhood are not allowed to continue into adulthood.

If the intention of the new clause, as the shadow Minister stated, is to prevent marriage between first cousins, this Bill is the wrong vehicle for that. The Marriage Act 1949 deals with prohibited degrees of relationship for marriage. It is therefore the case that under this new clause, although sexual penetration between first cousins would become a criminal offence in certain circumstances, first cousins would still be legally able to marry. Marriage will always be one of our most important institutions, and we must, and are, considering any recommendations to change wedding law carefully, including in relation to cousin marriage.

I acknowledge that the new clause does not seek to criminalise continued sexual relations between first cousins where the sexual relationship started before the Bill is passed. However, the practical reality is that many first cousins would be permitted to continue having sex, while for others it would become criminal behaviour. The new clause also seeks to make it a specific criminal offence for a person to sexually touch a child who is their first cousin, or to incite a child who is their first cousin to engage in sexual activity, where the child is under 18 and the perpetrator does not reasonably believe that they are 18 or over.

Regardless of the new clause, it is already an offence for anyone, of any age, to engage in sexual activity with children under the age of 16, even if that child purports to give their consent. These are serious sexual offences, and they are treated as such across the criminal justice system. We consider the existing protections for children under 16 to be sufficient. Therefore, for the reasons I have set out, I ask the hon. Member for Stockton West to withdraw the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause would empower the Secretary of State to require revisions to any code of practice, policy, guidance or strategic document issued by the College of Policing or the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It would ensure that policing standards and practices remain aligned with the Government’s democratically accountable vision for public safety and law enforcement.

The College of Policing and the NPCC play critical roles in setting the professional standards and operational frameworks that govern police conduct across England and Wales. However, those bodies are not directly accountable to the public. The new clause would ensure that, when necessary—particularly in response to changing threats, public concerns or parliamentary direction—the Secretary of State has the power to intervene and ensure that the frameworks reflect the national interest and the expectations of the British people.

Policing in the UK rightly enjoys operational independence, but that is not the same as independence from oversight. When public confidence in policing is strained, whether due to failings in standards, inconsistency in approach or a lack of responsiveness to major public concerns, the Government must be able to act. The new clause would provide a clear, proportionate mechanism for ministerial oversight of the non-statutory frameworks that underpin much of modern policing policy.

From rising levels of serious violence to emerging threats such as online abuse or disruptive protests, the nature of crime and disorder is changing rapidly. The Government must be able to ensure that national policing guidance adapts accordingly. Whether it is guidance on stop and search, digital investigation, safeguarding or public order, it is vital that these documents are kept under review and reflect current priorities. The new clause would enable timely updates when needed, without undermining police independence in operational decisions.

With the sentencing guidelines legislation, we have seen the need for the Government to intervene to prevent unhelpful practices that fly in the face of equality, as well as public opinion. The shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), has rightly highlighted that everyone must be treated equally before the law. Given the important role that these bodies play, we welcome the added accountability that would come from allowing Ministers to intervene if necessary. Would the Minister not be grateful for the ability to take action if such a situation were to arise?

The new clause would not erode police independence; it would reinforce public accountability. It would ensure that when Parliament or the Secretary of State identifies a critical issue in how police standards are set or enforced, they have the tools to respond. In doing so, it would help maintain confidence in the police, strengthen the integrity of the policing profession and ensure that national guidance reflects the values and priorities of the society it serves.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 52, in clause 135, page 146, line 4, at end insert—

“(3A) Section [The retention by the police of non-crime perception records] comes into force at the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This amendment would add a commencement provision in relation to NC59.

[Matt Vickers]

New clause 59 would abolish non-crime hate incidents as a distinct form of police record. Police authorities would no longer be permitted to report, record or investigate such incidents unless specific exceptions apply. This marks a significant departure from previous practice, where incidents not amounting to criminal conduct could still be logged if perceived as motivated by hostility related to protected characteristics.

The new clause would establish that the processing of relevant data by police authorities is unlawful under key UK data protection laws. “Relevant data” is defined as personal data relating to a person’s conduct that is unlikely to constitute criminal conduct but has been perceived by someone else as motivated by hostility or prejudice. There is an exception to allow for relevant data to be processed where it is required for an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. Other forms of retention would have to meet stringent conditions. A police officer of the rank of inspector or above could authorise the retention of relevant data where they believe it is likely to assist materially in preventing or detecting future criminal conduct.

By abolishing the category of non-crime hate incidents, the new clause would address widespread concerns about the chilling effect such records can have on free speech. Under the previous system, individuals could be recorded by the police simply for expressing controversial or unpopular opinions, even when no law had been broken. The new clause would ensure that lawful speech is no longer subject to disproportionate scrutiny or police record.

Nationally there are 13,200 non-crime hate incidents recorded per annum, according to Policy Exchange, which reasonably concludes that over 60,000 police hours each year are spent on NCHIs. Given the challenges facing the police, it is essential that they are able to focus on what matters most: tackling crime.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

New clause 59 seeks to abolish non-crime hate incidents and to make the processing of personal data in relation to such incidents unlawful. It also seeks to introduce a new type of incident, known as a non-crime perception record, to ensure that data that may assist in the detection or prevention of criminal conduct can still be collected.

It may be helpful for the Committee to know that, in 2023, the previous Government introduced the statutory non-crime hate incidents code of practice on the recording and retention of personal data for police forces in England and Wales, and that the College of Policing updated its operational guidance on hate crime for the police in 2023 to ensure it aligned with the code. The College of Policing also publishes operational guidance, known as authorised professional practice, for numerous crime types and police business areas.

Members should be in no doubt that this Government’s top priority for policing is delivering on our safer streets mission, including through essential reforms to rebuild neighbourhood policing, restore public confidence and deliver our commitment to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls, as well as reducing antisocial behaviour.

Against that backdrop, the Home Secretary has been clear that a consistent and common-sense approach must be taken to non-crime hate incidents. Accordingly, she has already agreed that the National Police Chiefs’ Council, supported by the College of Policing, will conduct a review on the recording’s use and effectiveness. The review will cover when the police should record information that does not reach the criminal threshold but where it is still deemed necessary to monitor community tensions and keep the public safe. It will also consider the fundamental right of freedom of expression and recent court rulings in this area.

The Government will work closely with the NPCC and the College of Policing as we develop our findings and any proposals. I hope the hon. Member for Stockton West agrees that it would be premature to make decisions on the future of non-crime hate incidents before the review concludes later this year. I therefore invite him to withdraw his new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause seeks to amend section 4A(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Order Act 1986 by removing the word “insulting”. Its effect would be to raise the threshold for the offence of intentional harassment, alarm or distress, ensuring that only behaviour that is threatening or abusive is captured under that offence.

Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of British democracy. Although it is vital to protect people from genuinely threatening or abusive behaviour, the inclusion of the term “insulting” in criminal legislation casts too wide a net. Insults, however unpleasant, are part of everyday life and public discourse; they should not, on their own, lead to criminal charges. The new clause strikes a better balance between protecting individuals and upholding free speech.

The word “insulting” is vague, subjective and open to interpretation: what one person finds insulting, another may see as fair comment or robust criticism. Laws should be clear and proportionate. Removing the term provides greater legal certainty and reduces the risk of overreach in public order policing, especially in the context of protests, political debate or challenging conversations in public spaces.

The Government have already recognised such concerns. The word “insulting” was removed from section 5 of the 1986 Act by the Crime and Courts Act 2013, following widespread concern about its chilling effect on speech. The new clause would simply extend that same principle to section 4A, which relates to intentional conduct. If “insulting” is not sufficient for non-intentional offences, it should not justify criminal liability when intent is alleged either.

The new clause would help to restore public confidence in the fairness and clarity of our public order laws. It would ensure that only serious conduct was subject to criminal sanction, while reaffirming the UK’s commitment to open, democratic debate—even when it is uncomfortable or challenging. Removing the word “insulting” from section 4A is a proportionate and necessary step to safeguard civil liberties without compromising public safety.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As the shadow Minister explained, the new clause seeks to remove the word “insulting” from section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, which deals with intentional harassment, alarm or distress. That would raise the threshold for criminal liability by ensuring that the law only captures behaviour and displays that are threatening or abusive, not “insulting”. I fully understand the motivation behind the new clause, and am sympathetic to the need to strengthen protections for free speech and reduce the risk of criminalising conduct based on personal sensitivities.

However, there are legitimate concerns that removing “insulting” could narrow the tools available to respond to deliberate and targeted harassment. Given the potential implications of this issue, we believe it warrants further consideration. I will reflect on what the shadow Minister has said and therefore ask him to withdraw his new clause at this time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Littering from vehicles remains one of the most persistent and visible forms of environmental degradation on UK roads. Despite existing fines, enforcement has been inconsistent and existing penalties have proven insufficient to deter such irresponsible behaviour. By introducing the possibility of penalty points on the driving licence, this measure would add a meaningful consequence that better reflects the seriousness of the offence and its impact on the environment and local communities.

The addition of driving licence points introduces a real deterrent by linking antisocial environmental behaviour directly to a person’s ability to drive. Just as mobile phone use when driving or dangerous driving habits result in points, so too should reckless littering from vehicles. That aligns with the principle that the privilege of driving comes with broader responsibilities, including respect for public spaces and the environment.

Roadside litter is not just unsightly; it also poses real risks to wildlife, blocks drainage systems and requires expensive clean-up operations, costing local authorities tens of millions of pounds annually. A stronger deterrent, such as penalty points, would help reduce the burden on taxpayers and protect the UK’s countryside, towns and roadsides. Similar approaches have been adopted internationally with success. For example, jurisdictions in Australia and parts of the United States have linked littering from vehicles to driving licence consequences, resulting in measurable behavioural changes. The UK should not lag behind in taking bold, effective steps to tackle that form of pollution and to protect our environment and wildlife.

A study by National Highways revealed that 65% of drivers who admit to littering have thrown food and drink packaging from their vehicles. Additionally, the road safety charity, IAM RoadSmart, found that nearly 40% of motorcyclists had experienced car drivers or passengers throwing litter from windows while overtaking. The scale of the problem is huge. Roadside litter poses risk to wildlife, with discarded waste contributing to the deaths of millions of animals annually in the UK.

Furthermore, the cost of clearing litter from roads is substantial. For example, between April 2020 and March 2022, 45,000 bags of rubbish weighing 451 tonnes were collected from the M6 motorway alone. National Highways estimates that more than 150,000 sacks of litter are collected by contractors every year, averaging 83 bags per mile of motorway annually.

In short, introducing penalty points for littering from a vehicle would send a clear message that such behaviour is unacceptable and will carry real consequences. It would also reinforce the Government’s wider commitment to tackling environmental offences, empowering enforcement agencies and restoring pride in our public places.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

New clause 95 seeks to add three penalty points to the driving licence of a person convicted of littering from a vehicle. While I am sure we all want to see robust consequences for those who throw litter on to our streets, we do need to consider carefully how workable the proposal of the shadow Minister is. Currently, the number of prosecutions for littering when litter was dropped from a vehicle is low due to the requirement for the individual to be identified, which can prove difficult. The opportunity therefore for the courts to impose such a punishment would be limited.

The new clause also appears to assume that the person throwing the litter out of the vehicle would be the driver, which is not necessarily the case, and there will be instances when the offender does not have a driving licence to endorse in the first place. Is the shadow Minister suggesting that in such cases the driver—it could be a bus driver or a coach driver—should nevertheless be held liable? However, I agree that this is a serious issue, so I will ask my counterpart in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with responsibility for policy on littering to consider the benefits of designing a workable system to enable the endorsement of penalty points for littering offences committed from vehicles.

Local authorities can already issue civil penalties of up to £500 to the keeper of a vehicle from which litter has been thrown, and that amount doubles if not paid within 28 days. That civil penalty was introduced following consideration of the difficulty of identifying the individual who threw the litter. That measure can help when video evidence shows only the vehicle from which the litter has been thrown. The civil penalty also provides a more immediate means of redress and prevents pressures on the court system.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for raising the issue. As I said, I will talk to my counterpart at DEFRA. However, for the reasons I outlined, I ask him not to press the new clause.

[Matt Vickers]

I thank the Minister for her comments and welcome the commitment to look at the issue, but I will press the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would ensure that taxpayers’ money was not used to support organisations or groups that promote or condone criminal activity or seek to undermine the democratic fabric of the United Kingdom through violence or illegality. It is a fundamental principle that public funds—taxpayers’ money—should serve the public good, not be channelled directly or indirectly towards those whose actions threaten public safety, the rule of law or constitutional order.

By setting clear criteria for eligibility, the clause would protect public trust in Government spending and send a strong signal that support for criminality or violent extremism will not be tolerated or subsidised by the state. It also provides a consistent basis for denying or withdrawing funds from groups whose conduct falls outside the bounds of lawful democratic engagement. Public funds must be allocated with care, transparency and accountability. It is vital that taxpayer money is not inadvertently used to support organisations that undermine the very laws, institutions and democratic values that uphold the UK’s civil society.

The new clause ensures that public funds are directed to organisations that act in good faith and within the law, thereby maintaining public confidence in Government funding mechanisms. The UK rightly protects the right to lawful protest and freedom of expression. However, there is a critical distinction between legitimate democratic dissent and organisations that support criminal conduct or use violence to pursue political or ideological goals. The new clause draws that line clearly. Public money should never subsidise those who break the law or undermine democratic institutions through illegal means.

The recent controversy surrounding the Irish rap group Kneecap underscores the importance of the new clause. The group has faced criticism for lyrics and public statements that appear to glorify violence and support proscribed terrorist organisations. For instance, during performances, a band member allegedly stated that “the only good Tory is a dead Tory” and suggested that people should kill their local MP. He also expressed support for groups banned in the UK.

Those actions have prompted investigations by British counter-terrorism police and raised concerns about the potential misuse of public funds in supporting such entities. By implementing the new clause, we can prevent money from being allocated to organisations that promote or condone criminal conduct, ensuring that funding supports lawful and constructive contributions to society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause addresses a crucial gap in the current police inspection framework. Over the years, tragic incidents have demonstrated the potential consequences of failures in firearms licensing. Public confidence in the licensing process hinges on the assurance that robust, consistent and professional standards are being applied across all police forces. While some forces operate highly effective systems, others have been found lacking, sometimes with devastating outcomes, yet at present there is no statutory requirement for HM inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to review firearms licensing performance as part of its routine police efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy inspections.

The clause would put that right by ensuring that inspection of firearms licensing departments becomes a core part of how we assess the overall efficiency and effectiveness of police forces. By embedding that into the statutory inspection framework, we send a clear signal that public safety and accountability in firearms licensing is not optional, but essential.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for his dedicated service as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation. Throughout his tenure, Sir Geoffrey has been a steadfast advocate of responsible shooting practices and the preservation of our countryside. His efforts have contributed significantly to the ongoing discourse on firearms licensing and the importance of effective oversight in that area. His work underscores the need for continuous evaluation and improvement of our systems to ensure public safety and trust.

Importantly, the clause does not impose undue burden on our forces. It simply makes explicit what many already expect to be standard practice: that the licensing of deadly weapons is subject to the same scrutiny and performance benchmarks as other areas of policing. It is a measured, reasonable and necessary step towards a safer, more consistent and more transparent firearms licensing regime across England and Wales.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I thank the shadow Minister for explaining new clause 99. I note the work of the hon. Member for North Cotswolds and, in fact, I am due to meet him soon to discuss the subject of firearms.

The new clause would require every PEEL inspection to include an inspection of the efficiency and effectiveness of a police force’s firearms licensing department. I hope that I can persuade the shadow Minister that this change is unnecessary and, indeed, would be damaging, as it would curtail the independence of HMICFRS and its freedom to shine a light on the most pertinent issues facing policing.

It is vital that HMICFRS is independent from policing and from the Government. As part of that, it must have the freedom to set its own inspection programmes and frameworks when deciding how to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales. That allows it to inspect police forces on the most pertinent and high-profile issues facing policing and to assess the basics of forces’ operational and organisational activity. In no other area of policing does the law set out what the inspectorate must include in its regular inspections. The change proposed by the new clause would set a most unhelpful precedent.

HMICFRS conducts detailed sector consultations ahead of each PEEL cycle to determine what will be covered in its assessment framework and how forces will be graded. It regularly updates its frameworks as necessary to include or remove areas for assessment where it identifies priority issues. HMICFRS also consults publicly on its inspection programme and frameworks before they are laid in Parliament. It consulted publicly on its latest programme, covering 2025 to 2029, late last year. The final programme was published in March 2025, following the approval of the Home Secretary.

The Home Secretary already has appropriate powers to commission the inspectorate to conduct additional inspections into high-profile and concerning issues, should the need arise. We saw that with the disorder in summer last year. If there are concerns about a force’s performance in respect of firearms licensing, the local policing body may also commission the inspectorate to assess its efficiency and effectiveness.

In line with our manifesto commitment, we will further empower HMICFRS to intervene in failing forces to ensure that the most high-risk recommendations it makes are properly acted upon by police forces. As part of its recently approved programme, HMICFRS plans to commence a thematic inspection of firearms licensing later this year. It will use that inspection to highlight good practice and make recommendations for improvement to all police forces. The Government will carefully consider the outcome of the inspection and any recommendations made to us following it.

Firearms licensing by police forces is fundamental to keeping the public safe. We keep firearms licensing under review, and in February we published the Government response to the 2023 firearms licensing consultation, which contained a number of important commitments focused on continuing to improve firearms licensing controls. We will shortly be issuing to chief officers of police refreshed statutory guidance on firearms licensing, which will contain stronger guidance for police licensing departments around domestic abuse, evidence of violence and the requirements for referees for firearms applications.

There is also now in place a national programme of training on firearms licensing for forces across England and Wales, run by the College of Policing. That will drive up standards and deliver a more consistent approach and good practice across police forces. The training is considered to be mandatory for forces and we are amending the statutory guidance to make that clear.

In addition, the performance of firearms licensing departments in forces is being monitored by the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for firearms licensing, Deputy Chief Constable David Gardner. He has developed a table setting out performance data for firearms licensing departments in police forces, which was published in April this year and will be updated every quarter. It includes the percentage of applications received and decided in four months by forces. The table provides greater transparency on performance, including the time taken by licensing teams when dealing with firearms licensing applications. For all the reasons I have set out, I think the new clause is unnecessary, and I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.