Diana Johnson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jul 2025 · Phone Theft · Hansard source

  More

  No, time is very short. The hon. Gentleman’s record when he was a special advisor in the Home Office really is nothing to be proud of. I will talk about the statistics. Street theft increased by more than 40% in the last year of the previous Government, driven largely by soaring rates of snatch theft involving mobile phones. While we are starting to see some promising reductions, including a decrease in the number of mobile phone thefts by force or threat of force in the capital, levels of mobile phone theft sadly remain intolerably high, which is totally unacceptable. We recognise that the impact of this criminality goes beyond the loss of a mobile phone, costly and stressful though that undoubtedly is. It undermines people’s sense of personal safety and security in the most insidious way. It snatches parts of people’s life, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East said, including bank details, personal records and precious memories stored on phones. Decent, law-abiding people deserve much, much better, which is why the Prime Minister has placed safer streets at the heart of his plan for change. Through that mission, we are taking decisive action to restore law and order to our town centres and high streets, and the scourge of mobile phone theft is very much in our sights. It may be helpful if I set out for the House some of the key steps we are taking to combat this crime. It has been clear throughout the debate that we accept that if we are to drive the real change we need to see, we need to work effectively with tech companies, the police and others in civil society, both to prevent thefts from happening and to better detect the perpetrators when thefts occur. In that spirit, the Home Secretary chaired a very productive summit in February, bringing together representatives from the police, including the Metropolitan police, the National Crime Agency, the Mayor of London, local government leaders, leading technology companies and other sectors to push for much stronger collaboration in this space. I have been working closely with stakeholders from industry and law enforcement on this important topic, so I was pleased to see the summit result in clear commitments from attendees to working in partnership, and to significantly boosting the sharing of data and intelligence on mobile phone theft, so that we can build a comprehensive picture of the problem and better understand the role of organised criminal networks. Ultimately, our aim is to disrupt, design out and disincentivise mobile phone theft. Officials are working closely with law enforcement partners, tech companies and other industry representatives to deliver practical and effective measures, so that we can crack down on these crimes. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East talked particularly about mobile phone theft in London, which is a particular hotspot. That is why the Metropolitan police are an important partner in the collective effort to tackle this form of crime. We welcome the two recent periods of intensification of activity by the Metropolitan police, which together resulted in more than 500 arrests linked to mobile phone theft. We will hold a second summit in the next few weeks to reflect on the progress made, and to galvanise cross-sector agreement on the ambitious outcomes that we all want. There remains a long road ahead, but I am really hopeful that the tech companies and the wider stakeholders will come to the table with bold proposals. To be very clear, the Government will not hesitate to take more decisive action if the summit does not result in clear commitments to tackle this issue, including considering further legislation and regulation to radically reduce this—and related—criminality. I draw Members’ attention to the fact that the Crime and Policing Bill introduces a new power to help police recover stolen mobile phones more quickly. It allows officers to enter and search premises to which a stolen device has been electronically tracked in situations in which it is not practicable to obtain a warrant. This will allow the police to act swiftly, and will increase the likelihood that criminals will be caught and punished. We welcome the innovative steps already taken by tech companies to tackle mobile phone theft. It is crucial that we now deepen collaboration between those companies and law enforcement. That is how we will ensure that anti-theft features cannot be bypassed by criminals, and that the technology supports police investigations and the recovery of stolen phones. While anti-theft features are vital to ensure the safety of mobile phones, we acknowledge that some technology can be misused by bad actors, particularly in cases of domestic abuse. That is why we are working with tech companies to ensure that new solutions are safe and proportionate, and do not inadvertently put victims at risk. This is about making stolen phones worthless without creating new vulnerabilities. During this debate, several proposals have been put forward for how we might strengthen our collective response to mobile phone theft. I have heard them all, and I am grateful for all of them. While we will of course keep our approach under review, we are focused on delivering our plan to reduce mobile phone theft in partnership with law enforcement, technology companies and service providers. The Government are working with those tech companies to ensure that people’s phones are protected. Through working groups established by the Home Office and attended by technology companies and policing partners, we aim to ensure that everything possible is done to disincentivise phone theft by making stolen phones effectively worthless to criminals. I conclude by again offering my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East for securing this debate, and to all the Members who have contributed. I hope that, in the limited time available, I have addressed some of the points discussed this afternoon. In essence, this issue is as much about people as it is about policies and powers. We must always remember that behind the statistics are thousands and thousands of real victims who have suffered the shock and distress—as well as the inconvenience and disruption—of having their device snatched. Our high streets and town centres are filled with people going about their everyday lives. As they make their way from place to place, there should be no question but that they are safe, and that their belongings are secure. The notion that they might be pounced upon by thieves at any moment is simply unacceptable, and this Government will not tolerate it. Our message is clear: Britain’s streets belong to the law-abiding majority, not to thieves and muggers, and we will do whatever it takes to protect the public from those callous and harmful crimes.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Phone Theft · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing the debate and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing her experiences, particularly the “Starsky and Hutch” approach that she took to trying to recover her mobile phone when it was stolen 10 years ago. I am grateful to all Members of the House who have made contributions. In the limited time that we have had available, we have had an important discussion, spanning many different areas, both geographically and topically. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) spoke about the experience in West Yorkshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) talked about the interchange at Stratford station and, along with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), talked about the problems with e-bikes as enablers of mobile phone theft. I want to be very clear: this Government are absolutely determined to address the menace of mobile phone theft. I say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), that the unfortunate truth is that by the time this Government took office, this type of criminality had become so common that it was essentially a feature of daily life in some areas, and the statistics bear that out. She talked about the policing of speech and locking criminals up, but she needs to reflect on the record of the Conservative Government. They introduced the non-crime hate incident guidance under the previous Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who is now the shadow Home Secretary, and failed the prison system by not building enough prison places. This Government are having to deal with that.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 25 Jun 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is obviously a great deal of knowledge on this Committee about how these things operate. As someone who is not necessarily a huge football fan, I am certainly learning a lot today about some of the measures that are being put in place to help fans enjoy the event in a safe way.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Before I deal with that point, I have some information that might help the Committee. The police have dispersal powers under section 34 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which can be used as appropriate. That is the operational side that I was referring to. The Bill, when enacted, would stop ticketless fans from testing the stadium security, and the police have powers and public order offences that can be used if there are threatening and abusive words or disorderly behaviour. In other words, there are powers already available to the police to deal with the dispersal of fans if there is a large group. The hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned those who may be employed by the stadium who facilitate and allow such behaviour. I will reflect on that important point. There are probably offences being committed there, which I may return to in a moment.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Vickers, on this lovely June day. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing forward this Bill. I was also interested to note the involvement of Lord Brennan; in the previous Parliament, he nearly got such a Bill on to the statue book, and I hope he will play a part in the other place, if the Bill concludes its passage through the Commons today. I am very grateful to the other Members who have participated in this discussion, many of whom declared their allegiance to various football clubs, some more dubious than others. Clearly, a wide range of clubs is represented and supported here today, and Members are very clear that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. There has been a high degree of consensus, and I am very pleased to say, right at the outset, that the Government support the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley has set out, the Bill would create a new offence of unauthorised entry or attempted unauthorised entry to elite football matches that are covered by existing football-specific public order legislation in England and Wales. I want to reflect on the fact that we are very lucky to be in the capable hands of a former Crown prosecutor in navigating this new offence through Parliament. I also heard questions from Members about whether the Bill should have a wider application, and I will of course reflect on the comments that have been made. On the issue of the dispersal of large crowds gathering outside football matches, that is obviously an operational matter for the place and I have seen at first hand the planning that goes into dealing with those kinds of issues, but I will certainly raise the concerns of the hon. Member for Harrow East with the police when I next speak to them, particularly the Metropolitan Police.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester on his success in taking the Bill to this stage and on his eloquent speech today. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill has the Government’s support. I am grateful for the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset made an important contribution informed by his professional background in pharmacy. He knows the importance of the Bill and how it will deliver on speeding up the process for dealing with illicit drugs. The hon. Member for West Dorset said that he has been a Member for just one year, and that he is finding new arcane practices all the time. Having spent 20 years in this place, I feel his pain. He will find many arcane practices during his parliamentary career. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North has been a doughty campaigner on the issue of drugs for some time. I hope I will be able to respond in detail to the particular issues she raised. I know the Bill appears technical, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, its impact could be great in controlling new dangerous substances in the UK. As we all know, drugs can have a devastating impact on the lives of families and communities. In the UK, we must continue to ensure that we invest in preventing drug misuse, helping people through treatment and recovery, and protecting the public from these harmful substances through legislation. We must continue to be alert to the potential for dangerous substances, especially synthetic drugs, and it is critical that we have the appropriate tools to make any necessary legislative change at the earliest opportunity. The Bill will enable the Government to make timely changes to respond to emerging drug threats. There were 3,618 deaths related to drug misuse registered in England and Wales in 2023. That is the highest number since records began, in 1993, and 16% higher than in 2022. Furthermore, in 2023, nearly half of all drug-related poisonings involved opiates, and potent synthetic variants of these are emerging at a concerning rate. When the Bill was introduced, at least 284 deaths had been linked to nitazenes, a potent type of synthetic opioid, across the UK. Sadly, that number now stands at over 450. We are working very quickly to face the ongoing threat of synthetic opioids in the UK. Last year, 20 substances were controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 15 of which were synthetic opioids, with 14 being nitazenes. This year, we went a step further by introducing a generic definition of nitazenes in the 1971 Act, meaning that new variants of these substances that meet the definition are automatically controlled. While it is right that these changes receive an appropriate degree of scrutiny, the rate at which new variants of substances such as nitazenes are emerging demonstrates that pace is of the essence. Until such changes come into force, our law enforcement agencies do not have the ability to pursue the toughest penalties for criminals who are knowingly supplying these dangerous substances to vulnerable users, many of whom do not know what they are taking. The Bill seeks to amend the delegated power contained in section 2 of the 1971 Act so that the form of amending statutory instruments will be regulations made by the Secretary of State, rather than an Order in Council. This will ultimately support our aim to ensure that substances are more rapidly made subject to controls under the 1971 Act.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will know that we keep drug policy under review. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs offers advice to the Government. That process is ongoing, but the Bill is specific and technical in its purpose. As it stands, the process for controlling, removing or amending the control of drugs needs to go through the draft affirmative procedure. Following debates in both Houses of Parliament, the statutory instrument is then made by the King at a Privy Council meeting and comes into force on a specified date, generally 28 days later. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, the Privy Council meets only once a month, which can delay the statutory instrument coming into force by an extra four to six weeks. As a result, any new substance listed in the statutory instrument will not be subject to the provisions of the 1971 Act until the Privy Council meets and the order can be made. In the interim, if the substances are captured by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, there will be no possession offence other than in a custodial setting or with intent to supply. It is also possible that, under the 2016 Act, there will be lower penalties for the supply, import or export of that substance. On that basis, the Government support the Bill and wish it a smooth passage.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Licences and Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  I was just about to say that businesses in the hospitality sector, particularly pubs and bars, stand to benefit from this modest extension, which would allow them to accommodate increased demand during these high-profile fixtures. I fully accept that the hospitality sector has had a difficult time over the past few years, and that this is a helpful measure. It is right to acknowledge that police representatives have expressed some concerns regarding the potential for increased crime and disorder. While operational decisions on deployment and resourcing are a matter for individual forces, I am confident that appropriate measures will be taken to mitigate any risks, as has happened in similar cases. Notably, there have been no significant incidents of large-scale disorder linked to previous licensing extensions, which is testament to the professionalism of our police service, to which we owe our thanks. I also emphasise that this is a limited and proportionate two-hour extension. It applies solely to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises after 11 pm and does not extend to off licences, supermarkets or other premises licensed only for off-sales. To clarify one final point, if neither England nor Wales reach the semi-finals, the proposed extension will not apply on 22 or 23 July. Similarly, if one or both teams reach the semi-finals but do not progress to the final, normal licensing hours will apply on 27 July. I also make Members aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) is sponsoring a private Member’s Bill, supported by the Government, which seeks to make such orders subject to the negative resolution procedure in future. That means that less time will be spent, particularly on the Floor of the House, having to agree such measures. The Bill has completed its Committee stage in the House but will not be enacted in time to apply to this summer’s tournament, hence the need for this order to be brought before the House today. Should this order receive the support of the House, as I hope and expect it will, it will reinforce the argument that debating such measures may not represent the most effective use of parliamentary time. In conclusion, this order has been brought forward in recognition of the significant public interest in the forthcoming tournament and, in particular, the hopes and expectations surrounding the England and Wales teams. On that note, I take the opportunity to wish the players of both teams the very best of luck. I am sure they will do themselves, their fans and their nations proud, and I commend the order to the House.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Licences and Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  It is always good to see solidarity between the four nations. I thank the hon. Member for displaying his usual courtesy in expressing his good wishes to the two women’s teams. I was just about to explain that the reason we are taking this order forward is to reduce the administrative burden on both businesses and local authorities, saving time and resources for all involved.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Licences and Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the draft Licensing Act 2003 (UEFA Women’s European Football Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 15 May, be approved. This summer, the UEFA women’s European football championship, commonly referred to as the Women’s Euro 2025, will be hosted in Switzerland. I am pleased to report that both the England and Wales women’s national teams have qualified to participate in that prestigious tournament. The draft contingent order before the House today proposes a temporary extension of licensing hours across England and Wales, should either England or Wales—or both—progress to the semi-finals or the final of the competition. Specifically, if either team reaches these stages—I have to say, from my limited following of football, that it seems the women’s teams have a reputation for doing far better than our male teams—the order would extend licensing hours from 11 pm to 1 am on the evenings of the semi-finals, which are scheduled for 22 and 23 July, and the final, which is due to take place on 27 July. As Members will be aware, section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 empowers the Secretary of State to make such an order in recognition of events of “exceptional national significance.” The decision to lay this draft order follows a public consultation conducted by the Home Office earlier this year. A significant majority—87% of respondents —supported the proposed extension of licensing hours for the semi-final and 84% for the final, should the home nations qualify. Respondents also agreed with the proposed duration of the extension—until 1 am—and supported its application to both England and Wales. There was also consensus that the extension should apply only to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. The order will therefore allow licensed premises to remain open until 1 am without the need to submit a temporary event notice.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to keep going, because I am conscious that I do not have much time. To reiterate to the shadow Minister what I said in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been clear that a consistent and common-sense approach must be taken with non-crime hate incidents. Accordingly, it has been agreed with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing that they will conduct a review of this area. I say to the shadow Minister that it was the shadow Home Secretary, when he was the Policing Minister, who introduced the current code of practice and police guidance on non-crime hate incidents. He said: “The Government fully recognises the importance of ensuring that vulnerable individuals, groups and communities continue to be protected by the police; indeed, this is the purpose of non-crime hate incident recording. We are confident that the code does precisely this.” It seems odd that he said that the approach was right at that stage, but now he wants to scrap it. On new clause 144, I was disappointed that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) seemed to have missed the announcement made by the Home Secretary on Monday, which answered a number of her questions. The shadow Minister did not seem to be aware of the announcement either. Using existing legislation in the Inquiries Act 2005, the independent commission will be set up under a national inquiry with full powers to compel individuals to testify, with the aim of holding institutions to account for current and historic failures in their response to group-based child sexual exploitation. The Home Secretary was clear that she is accepting all the recommendations from Baroness Casey.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I am going to carry on. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) mentioned new clauses 87 and 88. This Government have been clear that water companies must accelerate action to reduce pollution to the environment. The Water (Special Measures) Act, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, significantly strengthens the power of the regulators and delivers on the Government’s commitment to put failing water companies under special measures. Among other measures, the Act introduced automatic penalties on polluters and banned bonuses for water company executives if they fail to meet adequate standards.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Happy to.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I am very happy to do that. I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking this campaign forward and on being such a worthy advocate for it. We take the issue very seriously and we are fully committed to implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023. We are finalising our plans for commencement and we will update the House in due course.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No. On new clauses 85 and 86 about neighbourhood policing, it is clear that this Government are starting to implement our neighbourhood policing guarantee. On new clause 13, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), the Government recognise the serious consequences that can result from joint enterprise convictions. However, joint enterprise ensures that those who act together in committing a crime are all held responsible. We saw that in the cases of Ben Kinsella and Garry Newlove, as well as many others. We are aware of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend and we will continue to look at that. I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for not being able to get through all 100 amendments that were tabled. I also need to leave time for the person whose new clause leads the group to respond.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady and I have had this discussion before, and I have made it very clear that the national insurance increases have been funded through the money that is available to police forces this year. That is in stark contrast to the situation under the previous Government, who did not make a proper allocation for the police pay award for last year. This Government had to supplement it when we came into power in July.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I think we will have 3,000 additional neighbourhood police officers by the end of March next year, as part of our commitment to putting in place 13,000 neighbourhood police officers by the end of this Parliament. It has been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that it commands broad support across the House. I hope that over the next two days, right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House can come together and recognise the shared goals that the Bill fulfils. The Government are tireless in our drive to make our streets safer.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes that point very well. These individuals are exploited by serious and organised criminal gangs, and we are going to clamp down on those gangs’ activity. New clause 53 re-enacts the offence of being on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose. It will make it an offence for a person to trespass on any premises—that covers any building, part of a building or enclosed area—with the intention of committing an offence. Without this replacement offence, the police would be able to rely only on the trespassing provisions in the Theft Act 1968, which covers trespassing only in relation to burglary. It is important that the police have the powers to tackle all cases of trespassing with intent to commit an offence, and new clause 53 will ensure that.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Sadly, that is not the first time I have heard about such appalling behaviour of attacking and injuring animals using catapults. I will certainly be raising that with my counterparts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to see what more we can do. I am aware that this issue needs to be looked at, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it. Amendments 24 to 33 will require operators of collection points for items such as knives and crossbows to carry out the same enhanced age verification checks before handing over knives to the buyer, or in the case of crossbows and crossbow parts, to the buyer or even the hirer of the item. Clause 30 imposes similar requirements on couriers. Clause 128 introduces costs and expenses protections for law enforcement agencies in civil recovery proceedings, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, in the High Court or the Court of Session in Scotland. As currently drafted, it is not clear how the cost protection measure applies to pre-existing cases, particularly where cases have started before the provision comes into force but costs are incurred after the provision comes into force. As a result, it may be difficult and costly to determine which costs are covered. Amendment 89 provides that cost protections apply to any case where proceedings start after the measure comes into force. Schedule 15 to the Bill introduces reforms to the confiscation regime in England and Wales in respect of the proceeds of crime. Among other things, the reforms make provision for the provisional discharge of confiscation orders made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, allowing outstanding confiscation orders to be placed in abeyance when there is no realistic prospect of recovery in the immediate term and all enforcement steps have been exhausted. Amendments to schedule 15 extend the provisional discharge measures to confiscation orders made under legislation predating the 2002 Act. Chapter 1 of part 14 provides for youth diversion orders, which are a new counter-terrorism risk management tool for young people who, on the balance of probabilities, the court assesses to have committed a terrorism offence or an offence with a terrorism connection, or to have engaged in conduct likely to facilitate a terrorism offence, and where the court considers it necessary to make the order for the purposes of protecting the public from terrorism or serious harm. The amendments to clause 139 make a change to the scope of YDOs to ensure that applications can be made for individuals up to and including 21-year-olds. Currently, a court may make a YDO in respect of a person aged 10 to 21, but exclusive of 21-year-olds. Following further engagement with operational partners on the types of cases that could benefit from a YDO, we have concluded that this change would increase the operational utility of the YDO and ensure that it can be considered as an intervention in a wider variety of cases involving young people. Clause 141(2) enables a YDO to include prohibitions or requirements relating to the respondent’s possession or use of electronic devices. The amendments to this clause set out a non-exhaustive list of some of the most common or intrusive requirements that may be imposed to support the police’s ability to monitor compliance with restrictions on electronic devices, providing a clearer statutory footing for imposing such requirements. For example, it would allow the court to impose a requirement on someone subject to a YDO to enable the police to access their device for the purposes of checking compliance with restrictions such as accessing specific websites or applications. It would allow the police to identify harmful online activity at an earlier stage and intervene before it escalates. As with other YDO measures, the court would need to assess that any monitoring requirements are necessary and proportionate for the purposes of protecting the public from a risk of terrorism or serious harm. Technical amendments are also required to clauses 142 and 150 relating respectively to the definition of “police detention” for Scotland and Northern Ireland and to the appeals process in Northern Ireland. The amendments will adapt the relevant provisions for the purposes of the law in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The amendments to clause 151 provide that, where a person ceases to have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with notification requirements but continues to fail to comply, they commit an offence. The other Government amendments in this group, which make necessary refinements to existing provisions in the Bill, were detailed in the letter that I sent last week to the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), a copy of which has been placed in the Library. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will therefore seek to respond to the non-Government amendments in this group when winding up. For now, I commend the Government amendments to the House.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend puts that very well. Attacks on retail workers are totally unacceptable. The Co-op and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers have done important work to highlight this issue and ensure that measures on it will be enacted through the Bill. The previous Conservative Government wrote off a number of the crime types I have just talked about as low-level crime, and allowed them to spiral out of control. At the same time, they decimated local neighbourhood policing teams, causing untold damage to our communities, as we all know.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will continue, because I need to cover other amendments that have been tabled. On amendment 11, assessing the signs and indications of abuse can be complex and subjective, particularly for the very large number of non-experts that this duty will apply to, many of whom are engaging with children infrequently or irregularly. We have therefore chosen to focus the duty on scenarios in which a reporter has been given an unambiguous reason to believe that they are in receipt of an allegation of child sexual abuse. Amendment 22 seeks to add a reference to the legislative definition of “positions of trust” in schedule 7. However, a person occupies a position of trust only in relation to specific sexual offences committed against a specific child, and the term’s value as a definition for a reporter of abuse is therefore limited. The amendment also has the potential to create confusing duplication, given the significant overlap between regulated activity with children and positions of trust. The list of activities in schedule 7 has been drawn up to set out activities involving positions of trust that may not be adequately covered by the definition of regulated activity. The Government will of course keep this list under review, and amend it if necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) spoke to amendment 20, which relates to the new broader offence of encouraging or assisting self-harm in clause 95. She made a very passionate speech on this issue, and I know that she, too, has met the Minister to discuss it in recent days. On sentencing, the courts must already consider the circumstances of each case, including aggravating and mitigating factors, and follow relevant guidelines set by the independent Sentencing Council. Where a defendant has previous convictions, this is already recognised as a statutory aggravating factor in sentencing. On whether a charge of murder should be brought in the circumstances set out in the amendment, I have to say to my hon. Friend that the amendment is wholly inconsistent with the criminal offence of murder, which has different elements that must be met before a person can be convicted. That said, it is important to recognise that where the encouragement or assistance results in suicide, the separate offence of encouraging or assisting suicide applies; manslaughter may be charged if there is a direct link between the abuse and the suicide. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke to amendment 161, which aims to delete clause 114. The clause will allow the police to impose conditions on a protest near a place of worship if the police have a reasonable belief that the protest may deter individuals from accessing the place of worship for religious activities, even if that effect is not intended. That gives the police total clarity on how and when they can protect places of worship, while respecting the right to peaceful protest. A number of hon. and right hon. Members spoke about spiking, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) and for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), as well as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who tabled amendment 19. Before I say anything else, I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned on this issue for many years, including families and campaign groups. Richard Graham, a former Member of this House, was a pioneer of the case for bringing forward a spiking amendment. As discussed in Committee, the offence as drafted already captures a wide range of criminal behaviours, which cover both spiking and non-spiking incidents; for example, it covers the victim being pepper sprayed. As for the reference to a specific intent to “injure, aggrieve or annoy”, that wording is of long standing and has been widely interpreted by the courts. Every case will be judged on the facts. For instance, if someone administers a harmful substance as a prank, they would likely be found to have intended to “annoy” or “aggrieve”. The broadness of the new offence, and the increase in the maximum penalty as compared to the penalty for the existing offence under section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, is, in the Government’s view, sufficient. Introducing recklessness as an alternative to intent risks over-complicating the law and is unnecessary for securing appropriate convictions. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East spent a lot of time looking at this issue, so I want to address it. The spiking clause in the Bill is modelled on the offence under the 1861 Act, which does not have a recklessness test. In the 2004 case of Gantz, an intention to “loosen up” the victim—he referred to that intention in the example he gave today—was covered; it may be helpful for him to reflect on that. We also understand that as recently as last month, a person was convicted of spiking another person “as a joke”. We therefore deem that the inclusion of “recklessness” is unnecessary to ensure the appropriate convictions that we are looking for with this new offence. However, we are very happy to continue to have conversations about this to ensure that we get the law absolutely right. Many other speeches were made today that I would like to comment on, but I am running swiftly out of time. In my earlier comments, I referred to amendments 4 to 8 from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). I fully understand why amendment 2 was tabled by the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), but those who cycle have a duty to do so safely and in accordance with the highway code, and they are wholly responsible and liable for their actions. In conclusion, I hope that in the light of the responses I have given to the amendments today, Members will not press them. I commend new clause 52 to the House.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of sharing information, good practice and policy development, and I hope that that will go from strength to strength under this Government. Let me now say something about abusive behaviour towards emergency workers. As we all know, they put themselves in harm’s way to protect us every day, and they deserve robust protection in return. That includes protection from racial and religious abuse, which is not only deeply harmful but undermines the values of decency, respect and public service. Unlike most people, emergency workers cannot walk away from abuse. When they enter private homes they do so not by choice, but because it is their duty to do so. Whether they are responding to a 999 call, providing urgent medical care or attending an incident involving risk to life or property, they are legally and professionally required to remain and act. They cannot remove themselves from the situation simply because they are being abused. The law must recognise that and ensure that they are properly protected in every setting, including private dwellings. At present, there is a clear and pressing gap in the law. Although existing legislation provides important protections against racially and religiously aggravated offences in public places, they do not extend to abuse that occurs inside private homes. Policing stakeholders have highlighted that gap, and have emphasised the need for stronger safeguards for emergency workers. New clauses 60 to 62 therefore introduce specific offences relating to the use of racially or religiously threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards emergency workers acting in the course of their duties. Crucially, that includes incidents that take place within a private dwelling. This is a focused and proportionate measure. It does not interfere with freedom of expression; rather, it reinforces the principle that emergency workers should be able to carry out their critical roles without being subjected to hate or hostility because of their race or religion. I hope that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) will agree that these Government new clauses achieve the underlying purpose of her new clause 120. Clause 112 strengthens the protection afforded to nationally significant war memorials by providing for a new offence of climbing on specified war memorials without lawful excuse. We believe that the same protection should now be extended to other nationally significant memorials, starting with the statue of Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square. The Churchill statue, which is a prominent national symbol of Britain’s wartime leadership, has repeatedly been targeted and climbed on during protests in recent years. Including it within the new offence ensures the consistent protection of one of the foremost culturally significant monuments linked to national remembrance. Amendments 77 to 84 therefore expand the scope of the new offence to include other memorials of national significance, as well as adding the statue of Sir Winston Churchill to the list of specified memorials set out in schedule 12. New clauses 63 to 70 and 81 and new schedule 1 deal with remotely stored electronic data, clarifying powers for law enforcement agencies to access information stored online and extract evidence or intelligence for criminal investigations, to protect the public from the risk of terrorism and safeguard our national security. The powers will apply when law enforcement agencies have lawfully seized an electronic device, as part of national security examination at UK borders or when a person provides his or her agreement. New clause 70 also amends the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to permit the interception of access-related communications, such as two-factor authentication codes. Those reforms are necessary to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have clear powers to access vital evidence and intelligence when investigating serious offences, including child sexual abuse, fraud, terrorism and threats to national security, at a time when more and more information is stored remotely in the cloud rather than on people’s electronic devices. Let me now turn to new clauses 72 to 79 and new schedule 3. A crucial aspect of our safer streets mission is to rebuild public confidence in policing. Among other things, that means ensuring that only those who are fit to serve can hold the office of constable or otherwise work in our law enforcement agencies. As well as strengthening the vetting regime for police officers, the new clauses and the new schedule require the National Crime Agency, the British Transport police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the Ministry of Defence police to establish barred persons lists and advisory lists, similar to those created in 2017 for territorial police forces in England and Wales The chief officers of these forces, and others, will be under a legal duty to consult the lists before employing or appointing an individual to prevent those dismissed from policing from rejoining another force in the future. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced a new police efficiency and collaboration programme to cut waste and bureaucracy. It is important that undertakings providing services to the police are delivering the most benefit, and unlocking the efficiency savings needed by forces to achieve better outcomes for the public. Announcing the Government’s intention to consult on establishing a new national centre of policing, the Home Secretary said that she envisaged the body’s being responsible for existing shared services, national IT capabilities, and force-hosted national capabilities. It is right that the Home Secretary has the powers to ensure that those capabilities are fully aligned with the priorities of the police efficiency and collaboration programme, and that they are adequately prepared for transition into the new body with no disruption to service delivery. New clause 80 ensures that the Home Secretary has the power to direct undertakings providing critical services and capabilities to policing to take appropriate action to strengthen their service delivery to better deliver our efficiencies programme, and, ahead of any future legislation to establish the national centre for policing, to remove any barriers to the transition of services into the new centre. We tabled new clauses 52 and 53 against the backdrop of the Government’s commitment to bring into force the repeal of the outdated Vagrancy Act 1824, which criminalises begging and many forms of rough sleeping. It is generally the case that when begging reaches the threshold of antisocial behaviour there are already sufficient powers available to the police and others to address that, but we have identified two gaps in the law that will arise from the repeal of the 1824 Act, which the new clauses would address. New clause 52 makes it a criminal offence for any person to arrange or facilitate another person’s begging for gain. Organised begging, which is often facilitated by criminal gangs, exploits vulnerable individuals and can undermine the public’s sense of safety. This provision makes it unlawful for anyone to organise others to beg—for example, by driving people to places for them to beg. That will allow the police to crack down on the organised crime gangs that use this exploitative technique to obtain cash for illicit activity.