Diana Johnson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Murphy, do you have a view on this? Dan Murphy: No, nothing further.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Would either of the other members of the panel like to say anything on that? Dan Murphy : I agree with all that. The Police Superintendents Association supports that change.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mr Sells, could I ask you what you think about the measure in the Bill on SIM farms? Oliver Sells: I think it is a very important measure. The range of novel criminal offences is exponential, in my experience. We are seeing a complete change in the criminal code and conduct in relation to SIMs and the use of people in those contexts. I particularly want to refer to the backlog in the criminal courts. I feel very strongly for victims of serious crime. Most of the crimes that I try are serious sexual offences, where young female or male complainants are waiting to give evidence in their cases for two or three years, routinely. That is a completely unacceptable situation, and Parliament and this Committee should be focusing all their laser energy on reducing the backlog in the Crown court, because that is where this is. They should be looking at productivity, because it is too low, if I am honest. I also think you should be looking at the number of courts sitting. I looked today; you can go online and look at the central criminal court and the percentage of the courts there that are sitting on a routine basis. In my judgment, now, it is too low, whatever the complex reasons may be. One of the clauses I wanted particularly to speak about today was clause 16, on theft from shops. I recognise that there is a great public anxiety about this particular issue. Shoplifting has become endemic and almost non-criminal at the same time. It is a curious dichotomy, it seems to me, but I do not think for a moment—I am sorry to be critical—that making theft from a shop, irrespective of value, triable either way is the right answer. What that will do, inevitably, is push some of these cases up into the Crown court from the magistrates court. I understand the reasons behind it and the concerns of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the like. However, I think it is the wrong way. One of the things we must do now in this country is reinforce the use and the range of magistrates courts, and bring them back to deal with serious low-level crimes that are very frequent in their areas. They know how to deal with them. They need the powers to deal with them. I still do not think their range of powers is strong enough. You need to take cases such as these out of the Crown court, in my judgment. I think it is a serious mistake. I can see why people want to do it, because they want to signify that an offence is a very important in relation to shop workers. I recognise that; I have tried many cases of assaults on shop workers and the like, which come up to the Crown court on appeal, and we all know the difficulties they cause, but you will not solve the problem. I also think you need to look more widely. This Bill does begin to look at where the line is to be drawn between the magistrates courts and the Crown court and at what offences should be triable in the magistrates court. I am going to range a little wider into the third tier, which has been suggested as a proposal. I am not convinced there is a need for a third tier myself. I think you need to enhance the first tier, magistrates courts, which is, in effect, small local juries. The composition of magistrates courts has changed completely in the last five or 10 years. You are now getting people who are local, experienced, young—a range of people. They are perfectly able to try these cases, in my judgment. You should take it out of the Crown court and leave the Crown court for really serious offences. That is my view.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It is very nice to see you again, Sir Robert. I will start by asking what you welcome in the Bill. Sir Robert Buckland: There is a lot to welcome in every crime Bill, particularly given the need to update the response of police and law enforcement to the growing risks posed by technology. We are now living in an age with the extrinsic challenge of technologies, right through from digital to artificial intelligence and machine learning. It is absolutely reasonable for the public to expect that the police and our other law enforcement agencies are up to speed, most notably on the seizure of mobile telephone devices and the analysis of evidence. There is a growing crisis—we see it in our court backlogs —which is, sadly, largely caused by the failure of the system to deal at speed with the vast amount of data that needs to be analysed in order to build up a case or properly challenge it in accordance with tried and tested rules. I should have added that I am back at the Bar and that I was a part-time judge, and I obviously make any appropriate declarations. There is a lot to welcome in the Bill. I am pleased to see the child criminal exploitation offence, although I might want to say more about that if we can have that conversation. As with all Bills with a wide scope of this nature, one is always left thinking what else we can do. I am sure that lots of challenges will be posed as the Bill goes through both Houses, and hopefully you will adopt some of the suggestions made by the many people who take a great interest in this legislation.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  So your view is that it will speed up proceedings. Tiff Lynch: One would hope so.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you. Can I pick you up on the child criminal exploitation offence set out in the Bill? You said that you might have liked to see more. Could you expand on that? Sir Robert Buckland: I noted the way in which it is defined. I entirely understand that there needs to be clarity about the criminal activities of children but, on the position of children who are exploited—you will be familiar with this from our work when I was here—I do not think it will always be exploitation that results in their commission of a criminal offence. The forced labour, sexual exploitation and financial abuse of children will often not involve them committing a criminal offence at all. I am not being glib here. I see this particular offence being characterised as a Fagin-type offence, rather than something wider that could actually serve to protect children, and allow the police and enforcing authorities to take that early action where they see children at risk. That is why I think some of the ideas from Every Child Protected Against Trafficking and others about expanding the definition, so that you are clearly defining what exploitation is, rather than just leaving it to the courts to decide, would be a real opportunity seized. I think you might miss it if you restrict clause 17 in those terms.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you very much for giving evidence today. I want to follow up on the questions about allowing police to go in without a warrant to recover digital devices with tracking devices. The Bill refers to “reasonable grounds to believe”, which is the test that would have to be applied, and requires authorisation by an inspector. Does each of you believe that that is the appropriate test and authorisation level? Chief Constable De Meyer: The requirement of belief is obviously a relatively high bar; for example, it is above suspicion. I think that that reflects the need to ensure that a new power such as this is applied carefully and with appropriate corroboration. Crucially, an inspector is going to be readily operationally available for an officer in this sort of dynamic circumstance, so the officer will be able to make contact with and get the authorisation from them. It seems to me that the thrust of the power is very much towards enabling the police to recover property quickly, so belief is a good safeguard and the inspector is appropriately senior and accessible. I would agree on those two points.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mr Murphy, would you like to say something from the Police Superintendents Association? Dan Murphy: It has come under the banner of antisocial behaviour, which it is. A lot of antisocial behaviour issues that police deal with are for those who are under the age of 18. This applies to those 18 and over. The power is good, but if the public think we will be able to use this for teenagers, there will be a mismatch. I think the power of arrest is good, but I note that there is a requirement to give a warning if there is a positive requirement in the respect order. The public might think that since the respect order has been issued, we can just go out and arrest the person, but we cannot. There are a few caveats, which are obviously to make the law fair and ensure people subject to it understand what is happening. I think the power of arrest will be extremely useful, but as Tiff said, someone has to make that arrest and then someone has to put a case file together to prove the breach, so there is work to be done and resource to be put into this. It does need to be resourced if it is going to be successful, but the main point is that it is for over-18s.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  But do you think that inspector-level authorisation is the appropriate level? Dan Murphy: Yes. Tiff Lynch: Good morning, Minister. I agree with both Chief Constable De Meyer and Dan Murphy in relation to the authorisation level. Again, I would say that we have to manage the expectations of victims of crime as to how speedy the recovery of technical equipment will be, given that we have identified locations and given that demand is already being placed on officers who are out there. It is also about managing expectations.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  But you support the change in threshold. Tiff Lynch: Yes.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Baroness Newlove, thank you for your report, issued at the end of last year, “Still living a nightmare”. In it, you particularly talked about people who were suffering from ASB, the support they needed and the review process. You have touched on this a little, but I would welcome your views on the role that the police and crime commissioner will play. What do you think about that? Do you think that that is the right thing to do? Do you welcome it? Baroness Newlove: Yes, I welcome the PCC being involved. I welcome what has gone on, because that statutory duty is important. There is also a duty to consult the Victims’ Commissioner, which is important as well. In all of those stages, though, instead of adding another layer, I want to make sure that the communication is right, that people are informed about this process. I tried to put in the Victims and Prisoners Act that we would have an independent chair—somebody who is accredited, somebody who knows. It can still feel very much like they are marking their own homework, because you have the local police review and the PCC. It very much feels as though the victim has to wait for them to make the decisions. We have a review process—an appeal process—but it is about how the communication feels to them. I worry about how long this will take for the victims. That is why I keep asking for support, as I did in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The mental and physical health of victims of antisocial behaviour will really be in a bad way if we do not give them the support they need. That brings me on to having them in the victims’ code. Even if this comes under the criminal threshold—that is the bit that we used to argue about when we were debating the Victims and Prisoners Act—they should get support and not have to wait. I would imagine that they would be able to see what is happening and the decline of it. As I said previously, we are not learning from Fiona Pilkington, David Askew and my husband’s case. What people go through on a daily basis should not be acceptable. To set a threshold, we should use our common sense.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q What about the presumption that in cases of assault on a retail worker, a criminal behaviour order will be attached? We have been talking about some of the measures that we think are important to put alongside a conviction. Do you support a criminal behaviour order that could, in effect, ban the individual from attending a particular area or a particular shop? Would that also help to reassure shop workers in particular? Graham Wynn : Retailers in our latest survey, which went up to August or September last year, said they had issued 400,000 banning orders themselves, in a civil sense. I know that they are not wholly a CBO, but people do think that banning orders for a first offence are better than doing nothing or telling them to go and do community service, or discharge or whatever it may be. It is something specific, and if they breach that, more serious things can follow. A proportionate approach is probably quite sensible—that is the first option, and then unlimited fines and six-month prison sentences can follow. Yes, I think they are useful. Paul Gerrard: The Co-op is a community-based retailer. We are in every postcode in the country. Many of my colleagues who are attacked or abused or threatened know the people who did it, because they are from the same communities. A CBO is a really powerful way not only to protect them but to be seen to protect them. It stops those people coming in. Over the last eight or nine years that we have campaigned on this issue, that colleagues have said to me many times, “Even when the police come”—as I said, that has changed significantly over the last 15 months—“they will be back the next day.” The CBO gives my colleagues that legal protection to keep them away from us. It is a very powerful signal as well as practically keeping colleagues safe in the shops.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Just to be clear, are you saying that you should not be able to stop someone from covering their face at any protest? Is that your position? Venita Yeung: My position is that if it is about very obvious criminal intent, the Government need to clarify this very broadly defined offence. I think the Government should clarify it so that we can balance the power of police and organising a democratic protest.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you very much for giving evidence today. How do you think shop workers will feel about the new provision on assaulting a retail worker? Will they feel reassured that there will be action if they are assaulted in the workplace? Christopher Morris: From the evidence that we have in Scotland of some of the provisions and the feedback that we have received from members, they do feel more reassured, on the basis that they know there is a specific offence there to protect them. As was mentioned before, they are quite often involved in law enforcement, and they feel that they should have the right of law enforcement there. Such a provision also sends a slightly broader message: it sends a message to perpetrators. We were pleased that Police Scotland did a significant amount of work before the Scottish provisions came into force to educate the police force on the use of the provisions and where they could be used. As Paul was saying, we have seen a drop in violence, and it is the police using those provisions that has helped to lower violence among perpetrators. When cases reach the courts and judiciary, the provision also sends a clear message that this is a significant issue for them to deal with. So I think it helps retail workers, but it helps right along the chain of making sure that the issues are tackled and dealt with. Paul Gerrard: I say with the greatest respect to this place: do not underestimate how, over the last 10 or 12 years, retail workers have felt completely abandoned by law enforcement. This account is a couple of years old—I think the police have made great strides in the last 15 months—but when you ring to report an armed robbery with three masked men with machetes, and you are told to ring the non-emergency line, that tells you as a shop worker how to feel. I was with a colleague this morning, one of our Nisa partners. Ben, from Freshfields in Croydon, is the owner of three small shops. He told me that he and his staff know about this provision and are genuinely pleased that someone is looking out for them. Do not underestimate the impact it will have. We have 55,000 colleagues in the Co-op. My colleagues absolutely know about this and welcome it, because they feel, alongside the improved police response that they are beginning to see, that someone other than the Co-op and their families care about what happens to them at work. Graham Wynn: It sends a message to potential offenders and, indeed, to retail workers. They can see it as part of a package that includes these proposals, the Government’s action on neighbourhood policing, with specific mention of taking action on retail crime; and the retail crime action plan from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, with its desire to have better police attendance for violent crimes or where the person is detained and there is clear evidence. Last, it is part of a package leading to better and improved statistics, so that everyone can feel more confident that the police will attend and that something will happen to those who commit these offences.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you for that. You gave some interesting statistics there, so you are obviously already collating data in your local authority area. I assume that most local authority areas are collating data on ASB. I want to be clear: the intention is not to put further burdens on local government; it is to allow that data to be put together so that there is a clear picture of what is happening with ASB around the country. I assume that will not be too much of a burden. Councillor Conway: I have the data here. I think there is a variety across local authorities. I am also aware that —without stuff that I perhaps cannot say publicly—sometimes you have to draw on other funding to enable systems to happen and to work effectively. We would say that it needs looking at carefully so that we have something that works everywhere, not just in specific areas. The dialogue with local government is essential in that.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to ask about criminal exploitation prevention orders. I noted what you said about the need to sanction the exploiters, but also to protect children. Can you say more about the protection that you want to see offered to children? Sharon Maciver: At the moment, we have a system whereby exploited children will be in conflict with the law at the same time as we seek to protect them by recognising them as victims of abuse. That means children have to go through two opposing systems; one that seeks to protect them and one that seeks to find justice. We know that children cannot consent to their own exploitation, nor should we be criminalising children who are abused in this way. However, we know that the behaviours that children are exploited into are particularly concerning. They cause significant harm to others and there will be victims within that. We feel that having a dedicated child exploitation order that addresses their behaviours proportionately and appropriately, without a criminal label attached to it, is a real way to manage the risks that these children could potentially pose to others while ensuring the correct protections for them.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The Bill also provides that the IOPC can send cases to the CPS before the IOPC has concluded all its work. Do you have any views about that? Emily Spurrell: I personally welcome that. We get a lot of feedback about the timeliness of reviews and how long the IOPC takes to investigate. There is the impact that that has on, obviously, the officers, but also the victims and other people involved, so I think anything that can speed up that process—in particular, early conversations with the CPS would speed up the process—is very welcome.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q More generally on antisocial behaviour and some of the provisions in the Bill, do you support what respect orders could help to deliver in tackling antisocial behaviour in our communities? Dr Newport: I support a ream of measures before people get to 15 or more offences—before they get to the point where they are career criminals or hyper-prolific offenders. Early intervention is of course the absolute key, if you can get people before they enter that point. I support all measures to try to do this as fast as possible. That means tagging, and other such measures— [ Interruption. ] I support them, but the building does not. We have very good evidence that the earlier we intervene—it is not just early intervention, but the speed of that intervention. We have to make sure in statute that people are seen in a courtroom very soon after their first, second or third offence. That would mean that we see meaningful change and people not entering the career criminal pathway. Once they have done, we of course need to imprison them for longer periods.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The majority of shop theft cases are heard in the magistrates court. Is it your understanding that they will continue to be heard in the magistrates court? Graham Wynn : I believe so, yes. I would expect them to continue to be heard there because that is where people can get the swiftest justice. We know the other courts are very full up with cases and there are delays, so that is my understanding.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q But do you accept that we are a rules-based country with the rule of law and that there are checks and balances on the police? Venita Yeung: Yes.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Okay, that is interesting. In the past, the Modern Slavery Act has often been relied on to deal with these issues of exploitation of children. Do you think that having this stand-alone offence will deal with the problem that we have identified, which the Modern Slavery Act cannot tackle, with the exploitation of children and young people? Sharon Maciver: I certainly think that the offence is part of the solution, while also ensuring that we protect children. I think the Modern Slavery Act has fallen short in not talking specifically about criminal exploitation and assuming exploitation in other forms. That has been a limiting factor in gathering the suitable evidence to prosecute. We have obviously suggested that there needs to be a clear definition of a “criminally exploited child”. Within the Modern Slavery Act, there is the assumption that children are victims of trafficking, so we need to prove that there have been issues of modern slavery specifically. A new offence will talk about the behaviours and the concerns that we have for criminal exploitation in its own right.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It is worth reflecting on the fact that there has been a lot of public order and protest legislation in the last few years. The previous Government agreed that they were going to have post-legislative scrutiny of the 2023 Act, which will happen from this year, as well as of some of the other public order legislation. I want to ask the Local Government Association specifically about antisocial behaviour, the respect orders in the Bill, and the strengthening of some of the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. What are your reflections on how increasing the respect orders and those other powers will help local authorities to deal with antisocial behaviour? Councillor Conway: Anything that can help local authorities to deal with antisocial behaviour is very welcome. It is welcome that breaching a respect order will become a criminal offence. It is important that that will set off a different process. Again, though, there are pressures on local authorities. I note two caveats. One is the new ASB data reporting requirements, which may cause pressures in certain areas. There needs to be dialogue with Government about how to do that really effectively. Also, on the new duty for police and crime commissioners, which will bolster the role of the Victims’ Commissioner in ASB case reviews, we want to caution that that should work okay with the Victims and Prisoners Act. It should not set up two different systems and there should be consistency on the ground. On ASB itself, I will again speak from a local perspective for a minute or two. We have been fortunate to be London’s first pilot of the Clear, Hold, Build strategy. We are nearly two years into that, and overall crime is down 20%, year on year, across the board. It has also taken a collaborative approach into our policing and partnership. In my particular ward, which had a lot of issues, ASB is down by 65%, which is extraordinary. Burglary is down by 67% and violence against the person is down by 59%. Those results do not just happen. With all this, an effective and proactive local government, partnership with the police, and everyone working together are really vital. We really welcome the proposals, but it is about how we implement them in practice on the ground. Local government obviously has a very strong story to tell, and dialogue through the Bill, and once it is introduced, will be really important to demonstrate how it is working on the ground. Thank you for the powers to, hopefully, be able to do more.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is why we are very specific in what the clause says. It is not a blanket ban on hiding your face if you feel that you have to; it applies only if a senior police officer believes there is going to be the commission of offences. Venita Yeung: That is a very good question. The Government can try to clarify the provisions around the suspicion of crime to clarify what the suspicion of crime here is. I understand the proportionate need to lay out clear rules, but sometimes most of those criminal offences are quite broadly defined. For example, last time when the protest was organised, the police ordered the protesters to stay only within a very small area. If you stood outside of the area you could get arrested, and that was linked to another offence—the blockade of the highway. I urge the Committee to understand that it is a very easily reached threshold for the criminal offence of suspicion. There is a need for the Government to balance that, especially when it comes to protest-related laws.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to ask about antisocial behaviour, and particularly about the role that PCCs will take up under the Bill in the reviews that victims of antisocial behaviour can seek. As PCCs, what is your perspective on that? How might it assist with your work on supporting victims? Emily Spurrell: I think all PCCs really welcome the additional powers in relation to the ASB case review. Lots of us already promote the fact that there is an appeal process—that, if people are unhappy with how their case has been reviewed, they can come to our office and we will review that. The numbers are very low for that. There is a real challenge in making sure that the public and victims are aware that the option is available to them. One of the other challenges that many of us face is the engagement we get with local authorities, the police and other partners who are doing the initial case review. The Bill gives us an opportunity to have a clearer and stronger role from the beginning, so that we can have real oversight of how well those reviews are being conducted and how seriously the voices of victims are being heard. We can also then create consistency across our region, and hopefully across the country, so that victims do not end up in a two-tier system in which some local authorities say, “Yes, we’re going to take it and review it, because it meets the threshold,” and other areas do not. Hopefully, our having a greater steer and role in this will bring lots of benefits for victims. Matthew Barber: I would certainly welcome more involvement in this. It is something that I tried to push with my local authorities a few years ago. I got a bit of pushback because I have no statutory powers in this area. I have 14 local authorities across Thames Valley, so it is a very confused landscape for the public. Local authorities can apply additional thresholds beyond the statutory one, simply to get into the case review system, and they vary across the area. Normally, the complaint I get is about consistency across the whole policing area by the police. The problem I have here is consistency across local authorities. Being able to intervene in the reviews will be helpful, because the public often see it as local authorities or the police effectively marking their own homework. The most important thing we can do on antisocial behaviour is look at the front door into it. There are provisions in the Bill for the Secretary of State to require data to be shared with the Home Office. However, I think the biggest issue is data sharing between local authorities and the police. In my view, there ought to be a single front door for reporting antisocial behaviour. The public often do not know whether something should be reported to the police or the local authority. Sometimes it may well be both, depending on the nature of what is going on. In reality, our constituents ought to feel that they can just report something, and the public bodies, behind the scenes, can sort out who will deal with the issue. It should not be for the public to have to navigate the different bits of legislation. Certainly, I would like to see better front-end reporting. Perhaps the provisions on data could ensure that data is better shared between police and local authorities. Roger Hirst: I agree with my colleagues, but I would ask for the provisions to go that little bit further. It would be really helpful if we as PCCs had the opportunity to require local authorities to act in these cases. To be honest, the case reviews just have not taken off in Essex. The powers are there now, but you can be as loud as you like in telling the public about something that they do not want to use. Thankfully, the number of cases where they might want to use it is relatively few. Local authorities do not promote it, so we have vanishingly few of these case reviews in Essex at the moment. I would like to have some ability to hold people to account for that. Emily Spurrell: May I make one quick additional comment? It is on behalf of colleagues as well. Although this is all very welcome, I think that if we are to see an increase in the number of reviews, there is a real concern to be addressed about the additional burden and, again, the capacity of the OPCCs—offices of the police and crime commissioners—to deliver on some of it. For example, in London, there are 34 local authority areas. That is a lot of case reviews that the Met would potentially have to deal with. There is a real nervousness in lots of areas that people are suddenly going to see a big uptick in demand. I think we would probably ask for additional support in making sure this works with the resource.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q May I ask about police accountability? The Bill also proposes changes to the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s referral threshold, and that may well result in fewer cases going to the CPS. As you are PCCs, what is your view of that and do you think that it will actually be beneficial? Matthew Barber: In the light of some of the cases that have prompted the proposed changes, I certainly support them. I think it is right that that threshold is adjusted; that fits with what is right operationally. I think there are still adequate safeguards in place, and it is where the public and, hopefully, Parliament will expect the threshold to be, so I support the changes.