Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group: Fifth Annual Report

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) has today made the following written ministerial statement:

Today I am pleased to announce the publication of the fifth annual report of the Biometrics and Forensic Ethics Group. The group provides Ministers with independent advice on matters relating to ethical issues in forensic science and biometrics and considers issues in data ethics.

I would like to thank the group for their valuable advice concerning the use and retention of human biometric identifiers, and regarding the use and implementation of projects involving both large and complex datasets.

The Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group have continued to show commitment to advising the Home Office biometrics programme on matters regarding changes to biometric regulations and biometric enrolment.

I am grateful to the Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group for maintaining strong relationships with internal Home Office teams in order to establish a strong presence and to identify a range of projects, within their remit, which can benefit from expert ethical guidance.

The Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group annual report can be viewed on the website of the Group at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/biometrics-and-forensics-ethics-group and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS649]

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Home Secretary should know better. This is sub judice.

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

He has been convicted—it is not sub judice.

[Mr Speaker]

He has appealed his sentence, and I do not need any lectures from the Front Bench either. I look forward to an apology. Am I going to get an apology?

[Chris Philp]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. Home Secretary, will you take the advice that I have been given? I know you do not like it, but I am only working on the facts of the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

6. What recent progress her Department has made on reviewing the police funding formula.

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important topic. The Government are committed to reviewing the police funding formula, in which there are some unfairnesses. The police funding formula is historical and somewhat out of date, and we intend to consult on it in the near future.

[Andrew Selous]

Will the new funding formula be crime based, rather than just population based? Will it be implemented immediately for the winners, to stop the gross unfairness of the current formula to forces such as Bedfordshire?

[Chris Philp]

The intended consultation will cover topics such as the demand drivers of crime and how we should take account of the different costs of providing a police service in different parts of the country. In the meantime, Bedfordshire’s excellent police and crime commissioner, Festus Akinbusoye, is working incredibly hard to spend his budget effectively and to drive down crime in Bedfordshire.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Minister aware that many police forces are struggling to obtain good forensic science facilities? Is he further aware that the Westminster commission on forensic science, with which I am involved, is deeply concerned about the instability of forensic science in our country?

[Chris Philp]

Forensic science is critically important, as the hon. Gentleman says. The Home Office is continually discussing forensic science provision with our colleagues in the policing family to make sure there is adequate provision. We are always looking at the funding arrangements and the range of providers, so I can assure him that this topic is the subject of continual scrutiny.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to reduce antisocial behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

13. What steps her Department is taking to tackle knife crime.

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

Tackling knife crime is a priority. That is why, since 2019, we have not only spent £340 million on diverting young people into alternative activity via the violence reduction units, but had targeted Grip hotspot policing in areas where knife crime is particularly prevalent. That has led to a 19% reduction over the last three years in hospital admissions with a bladed weapon injury, and since 2010, according to the crime survey for England and Wales, violence is down by 38%.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Last year knife crime in Salford fell, thanks to the extensive work with young people by the Salford community safety partnership and Greater Manchester police operations to remove weapons from circulation. Sadly, since January this year there has been a spate of serious knife crime incidents that have destroyed lives and distressed the community. We need urgent Government support to implement a wider proactive reduction strategy. Will the Minister commit to ringfencing dedicated funding today for knife crime reduction initiatives and for lifesaving bleed kit roll-outs across Salford?

[Chris Philp]

That is a very fair question. We are already directing ringfenced money towards Greater Manchester and other areas via the Grip hotspot funding, which we are going to at least maintain and possibly increase next year, and the violence reduction units, which try to get young people on to a better path. I am visiting Greater Manchester a week today and look forward to discussing those initiatives and more with Chief Constable Stephen Watson, who I must say is doing a very good job, and others in Manchester.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Deterrence through tough sentencing must play an important part in dealing with the scourge of knife crime, such as that committed against my constituent Ellie Gould some years ago. I very much welcome Ms Wade’s report, which came out on Friday, about sentencing in murder cases involving knives, but I am disappointed that the Government have so far accepted only three of the 17 recommendations. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues at the Ministry of Justice to ensure that all 17 of the recommendations are implemented?

[Chris Philp]

I know that my hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner on this topic over many years following the appalling murder of his constituent. Yes, I will raise the issues that he mentions with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, who I am sure will be extremely receptive.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

This week, the five young men who murdered a 17-year-old boy from Poplar using knives were pictured for the first time. Those young men were sentenced to a total of 93 years in prison. Although sentencing is a form of justice, the reality is that this Government have lost their grip on preventing such violent crimes. Time and again, they have failed to act until it is too late—sticking-plaster politics at the heart of power. When will the Secretary of State show some leadership and lay out a proper plan for crime prevention?

[Chris Philp]

As I set out to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), the Government have spent £340 million in the last three years directly to tackle knife crime, and, contrary to the hon. Lady’s question, that is yielding results. Hospital admissions for injuries caused by knives have dropped by 19% in the last four years, and violent offences, as measured by the crime survey—the only statistically approved measure of crime—have come down by 38% since the last Labour Government left office.

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

T1. . If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

We have seen a number of murders recently in Walsall as a result of knife crime, but we have seen no sign of the Labour police and crime commissioner. Does the Minister agree that it is important that the police and crime commissioner visits all part of the west midlands, rather than simply staying in Birmingham?

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Police and crime commissioners, particularly the one in the west midlands, should visit all parts of their patch. I was also rather concerned to hear that the Labour PCC in the west midlands is formulating plans to close up to 20 police stations, despite having received a 10% increase in funding over recent years, which I think is pretty shocking.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

On the back of last week’s Budget, I made a speech about industrial hemp. The industry is telling me that it can create 105,000 jobs and pay £1 billion in tax if it is allowed to grow—pun intended. I will be writing to the Minister to explain this in detail, but it would be really helpful if I could sit down with the relevant Minister and industry representatives so they can make their case.

[Mr Speaker]

Who wants it?

[Chris Philp]

Mr Speaker, I will take this question. The hon. Member and I have had a number of discussions on this topic. We are always happy to engage, discuss points of detail and hear industry representations, so if he would like to meet face to face to discuss it further, I would be very happy to do that.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

It was great news in the Budget last week that Dinnington High Street got £12 million for regeneration, knocking down the burnt out building and opening up the marketplace. What we need now is a police station to combat antisocial behaviour. Will the Minister support my campaign to reopen the police station on Dinnington High Street, which will clamp down on antisocial behaviour, and use some of the underspend in the Labour police and crime commissioner’s budget to do that?

[Chris Philp]

I think my hon. Friend has formulated an excellent plan. I notice that South Yorkshire next year is getting an extra £10.7 million in funding, and the idea he suggests sounds like a good way of spending some of that.

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Today I heard harrowing testimonies from the Turkish community in Coventry North West who have lost family members in the tragic earthquake. They would like to be reunited with the family members they have left, hopefully via a family visa scheme, so what steps is the Home Office taking to provide support to those affected by the earthquake in Turkey and Syria?

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Children are regularly detained in police cells for long periods and for too long without an appropriate adult being present, despite that being both a requirement and an essential safeguard for children. Will the Minister confirm today that, when police powers and procedures data is published later this year, it will include the number of minutes taken for an appropriate adult to arrive and the duration of time present—and if not this year, when?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady is raising a very important question. The case of Child Q is of course on our minds as we consider this. Some revisions are being made to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code of practice—it is code C—that are relevant in this area. In relation to the reporting question she asks, I can certainly undertake to look into that.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Far-right Islamophobic Danish politician Rasmus Paludan has said he is going to travel from Denmark to Wakefield for the sole purpose of burning a Koran in a public place. Mr Paludan was previously jailed in Denmark for his hateful and racist statements. He is a dangerous man who should not be allowed into this country. Can the Home Secretary assure me and my community that the Government are taking action to prevent this?

Knife Crime: West Midlands

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) for securing this debate and giving such a powerful testimony about the terrible tragedies that she described. All of us here will want to remember the victims of the terrible crimes that she described: Ryan Passey, Cody Fisher, Bailey Atkinson, Akeem Francis-Kerr and Olly Stephens. Their deaths are a tragedy, and we will all want to remember them and convey to their families our very deepest sympathy. Every death is a tragedy, and each of them is mourned deeply by the families. It is our duty in public life to do everything that we can to try to protect families from similar tragedies occurring in the future.

[Wendy Morton]

The Minister is rightly naming a number of individuals. I would like him to acknowledge James Brindley—the son of Mark and Bev Brindley—who was stabbed to death in Aldridge, hence the James Brindley Foundation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I thank my right hon. Friend for mentioning the name of her constituent James Brindley. Each death is mourned deeply, and we must do everything that we can to try to prevent them from happening.

Confronting serious violence is clearly a priority for this Government, and it is a focus for the Home Office as well. The starting point for that must be to ensure that there are sufficient police officers and police resources available to enable the police to combat violence. As Members will know, we are in the middle of recruiting an additional 20,000 police officers across England and Wales, and once that programme has completed, which is due to happen by the end of this month, we will have more police officers in England and Wales, by some thousands, than we have ever had at any time in this country’s history. Clearly, ensuring that those police officers are available to protect our streets and protect the public is a critical element in the fight against violent crime.

[Marco Longhi]

The Minister rightly emphasises that we are putting so much more resource into policing and recruiting so many more police officers to do the job that the people of this country deserve and need, but it is also true that police need the infrastructure—a place that they can call their own base. To be a little parochial—I hope that the Minister will forgive me—my predecessor announced that there would be a brand-new police station in Dudley in 2019, and the then police and crime commissioner said that it would be implemented. In 2023, we still do not have one. Where can these new police officers operate from when the previous police and crime commissioner closed all police stations, including the main police station in Dudley?

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. We have given police and crime commissioners resources. Next year, they will have, between them, over £500 million extra, and there will be more money for the west midlands as well. I understand that the West Midlands police and crime commissioner is even today looking at closing up to 20 police stations across the west midlands, which is a terrible mistake, and I certainly do not support those plans at all. I urge the West Midlands police and crime commissioner to think again about the closures that he is contemplating. I have heard Members today make the case that perhaps the powers currently exercised by the west midlands police and crime commissioner might be better exercised by the directly elected Mayor of the West Midlands. I will take that proposal away and consider it very carefully, given the serious problems that have been outlined.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge mentioned some of the serious problems with knife crime and violent crime in the west midlands, which are rightly of deep concern to Members of Parliament across the region. The problems are particularly stark given that they run against the national trend. The most reliable measure of crime is the crime survey for England and Wales, which is the only source of crime data authorised by the Office for National Statistics. Since March 2010, violent crime across England and Wales has fallen by 38%, from 1.84 million offences to 1.15 million. When it comes to measuring violent crime where a knife is involved, the Home Office has been tracking admissions to hospital with a knife injury, and since 2019 they have dropped by around 20%. I am deeply concerned to hear that in the west midlands the trend appears to be going in the opposite direction. It is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge and others are raising this issue.

I have mentioned the additional resources being given to policing. We are also investing in prevention; in particular, violence reduction units have received £64 million. Those entail identifying people, particularly young people, in danger of following the wrong path, and intervening by ensuring they stay in education, have the right social care if they need it and providing them with alternative activities, such as sport. I visited Everton and the community on Merseyside in Liverpool last week to look at a scheme that is being funded there that also helped young people into employment.

Violence reductions units are critical, as is the Grip programme, which is a hotspot policing initiative funded by the Government, identifying geographical areas where there is a high risk of violent crime and patrolling and policing them heavily. Where that is done, it dramatically reduces crime. Interestingly, it does not displace crime somewhere else; it actually reduces it. I strongly encourage police and crime commissioners around the country to pursue the violence reduction unit and Grip initiatives. The west midlands receives funding to do those things, as would be expected.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge raised a few questions. One of them was about sentencing for knife crime, and that is an extremely good question. We want to have strong deterrents for knife crime possession. Members will know that the maximum sentence for possessing a knife—or a “bladed article”, as the law describes it—is four years’ imprisonment. We recently legislated through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to strengthen the presumption, making it near certain that if someone is convicted for a second time carrying a bladed article, the court will impose a minimum six-month custodial sentence for adults, or a four-month detention and training order sentence for 16 and 17-year-olds. We have strengthened the law in this area to ensure that the consequences that follow knife crime are strong. The deterrent effect that my hon. Friend described is very important.

My hon. Friend also asked a couple of questions relating to the trial of Ryan Passey’s killer, and the jury acquittal that occurred. She asked me if I could signpost her towards the Ministers responsible for policy in that area. The policy around that sits with the Ministry of Justice. The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, or the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who has responsibility for courts, would be the right people to approach regarding that policy. Provision in the Crown Prosecution Service’s guidance states that in exceptional circumstances, it can seek a retrial, where there is new compelling evidence that was not available at the time of the original trial. It is possible to seek the quashing of an acquittal, but that is extremely rare. I hope that gives my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge some assistance when she is thinking about who else to speak to.

We have heard harrowing stories this morning about the devasting effect of knife crime on people’s lives—particularly those of young people—in the west midlands, but clearly it applies elsewhere as well. Nationally, the Government are doing everything they can in terms of more police officers, funding violence reduction units, Grip hotspot policing, diversionary activities and stronger sentences for knife possession. Police and crime commissioners also play a critical role by using those resources in their local areas in a way that is appropriate and wise. I strongly commend my hon. Friend and her colleagues for shining a light on this issue. The Home Office will do everything it can to work with her and colleagues to fight this abominable crime.

Question put and agreed to.

Proscribed Psychedelic Drugs

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

In the short time that I have available, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) for securing the debate and for the thoughtful, knowledgeable and carefully considered manner in which he delivered his speech. I also recognise the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who is in her place. I know that she has a deep personal interest in the topic, about which we had a detailed meeting a few days ago, so I am delighted to see her in the Chamber.

Of course, the Department of Health and Social Care leads on questions concerning the availability of medicines and prescribing, because medicines are licensed and regulated by the MHRA. The Home Office, however, is responsible for controlled drugs legislation and our controlled drugs licensing regime to support research and clinical trials in the UK, which is why I am responding rather than a Health Minister.

I am keen to encourage research into the use of drugs in the UK as far as we can. We have an internationally well-regarded research sector in universities and, of course, in commercial pharmaceutical companies. It can be a great source of national competitive advantage to make their research projects as straightforward as possible.

Drugs scheduled in schedule 1 can be used for research purposes, but with a licence. As I discussed with the hon. Member for Warrington North a few days ago, I know that some people feel that the process to obtain such a licence can be onerous, particularly for universities and NHS trusts. Clearly, for drugs scheduled in schedule 2 and higher, those restrictions do not apply in the same way. I am very aware of the point about research.

I am also aware that, to consider whether there are medical benefits that would support the rescheduling of drugs from schedule 1 to schedule 2 or higher, which might enable them to be prescribed to patients for medical purposes, there needs to be a research base. I accept that there is an element of chicken and egg or Catch-22 about the situation, because we need to do the research before there is an evidence base to justify the rescheduling that might be merited.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, I received part 1 of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’ advice on reducing barriers to research with controlled drugs, which focused on synthetic cannabinoids. In December last year, so just a few weeks ago, I formally commissioned it to conduct part 2 of its review, which is designed and intended to consider, and will consider, research with schedule 1 drugs more widely. That of course includes LSD and MDMA. In my letter to the ACMD commissioning that work, I specifically highlighted psilocybin. It would be open to the Government, depending on the ACMD’s advice, to change the research rules to say that all schedule 1 drugs might be capable of being used for research purposes without the onerous requirements that currently apply, in the same way as happens with schedule 2 drugs and higher, or some variation of that. There is obviously quite a lot of policy detail that one would have to consider, but were that move to be made, it would clearly address the barriers to research that my hon. Friend highlighted. Were those barriers to research to be removed, the evidence base could then be developed, which might provide a basis for the MHRA to make a case that such a drug should be moved to schedule 2 or higher, and that would facilitate doctors prescribing these drugs to the patients who need them.

My hon. Friend very kindly said that he would not press me too hard, given that I am relatively new in this position. I think the comments I have made do suggest that there is a path forward. I do strongly support making it as easy as possible for UK institutions—universities, hospitals and private companies—to conduct research using not just psilocybin, but all drugs, and there is clearly a commercial as well as an academic benefit. I am looking forward to receiving the ACMD advice as soon as possible, and I can certainly assure my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Warrington North and others that, when that is received, it will receive my prompt and positive attention.

[Crispin Blunt]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Philp]

I think you are indicating that we are almost out of time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure my hon. Friend and I can speak briefly afterwards, and on that point, I will rest.

Question put and agreed to.

Non-crime Hate Incidents: Personal Data

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today laid before Parliament the statutory Non-crime Hate Incidents Draft Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data, which police officers and staff must have regard to. This code is being laid under the provisions of sections 60 and 61 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Government are introducing this code to establish a proportionate and common-sense approach to the recording of non-crime hate incidents. This approach should better protect personal data, emphasise the importance of the right to freedom of expression, and reduce the number of unnecessary non-crime hate incidents that are recorded whilst still ensuring that vulnerable individuals, groups and communities continue to be safeguarded by the police.



This Government fully recognise the sensitivities surrounding the recording of non-crime hate incidents by the police, particularly in relation to concerns that this process infringes on the right to freedom of expression. We know there are concerns that individuals who express lawfully held views are at risk of becoming the subject of a non-crime hate incident report if their views are considered to be offensive, and that in turn, this may result in their personal data being stored on a policing record. This Government are clear that this should never be the case. The code makes it clear that offending someone is not, in and of itself, a criminal offence, nor does it warrant a non-crime hate incident being recorded. This aligns with this Government’s stance that everyone in this country, no matter who they are or what their views are, should be able to engage in lawful debate without police interference.



The code emphasises the importance of free speech with case studies that are designed to assist the police in considering how the right to freedom of expression should be taken into consideration. The code clarifies that debate, humour, satire and personally held views which are lawfully expressed are not, by themselves, grounds for the recording of a non-crime hate incident. Furthermore, the code sets out that a non-crime hate incident should not be recorded if the report is deemed by the police to be trivial, irrational, malicious, or if there is no basis to conclude that it was motivated by intentional hostility.



The code provides new personal data-related safeguards, setting out that the personal data of some who is the subject of an NCHI report should only be included in a record if the incident poses a real risk (a) of significant harm to individuals or groups with a protected characteristic, or (b) that a future criminal offence may be committed against individuals or groups with a protected characteristic. For the purposes of the code, protected characteristics are considered to be race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. If this new threshold is not met, personal data should not be recorded, and any personal data previously noted by the police in relation to the incident—for instance, personal information recorded by the initial call taker—should be deleted. This code therefore ensures that non-crime hate incidents, and relevant personal data, will only be recorded when absolutely necessary. We believe this will increase transparency and public trust in this process.



The Government fully recognise 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. We are grateful for the advice provided by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and senior police officers during the process of drafting this code. This has allowed us to publish a code that strikes the right balance between respecting the operational importance of this type of recording for the police, while improving safeguards for free speech. If someone is targeted because of hostility or prejudice towards their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity, and the criteria in the code are met, the incident can and should be recorded as a non-crime hate incident. This approach will enable the police to intervene as appropriate in order to prevent significant harm or future criminal offences from materialising, while ensuring the right to freedom of expression is protected.



A copy of the draft code which has been laid before Parliament will also be published on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS626]

Public Order Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

There is some factual confusion about this, and I am grateful for the opportunity to clear that up. In the other place, the Lords made an amendment to clause 19, which said that the orders could be made without a conviction. The Government accept that amendment—we do not seek to overturn it—and we accept that a conviction is required before an SDPO can be made. Clause 20 is rather misleadingly titled, because it implies that an SDPO can be made without a conviction. If Members read the clause, however, they will see, now that we have accepted the amendment to clause 19, that it applies to circumstances in which there has been a conviction and the police wish to apply to the court for an SDPO at a later date, which will still be after a conviction has been made, so we have conceded the point that my hon. Friend is making. It is rather confusing because the title of clause 20 is a bit confusing, but we have conceded that point.

[Sir Charles Walker]

I am relieved to hear that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I will confine my comments to the amendments that touch on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair. We did not look at the debate on abortion buffer zones because that was not part of the original Bill, so I will not comment on that. In general terms, some of the points made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) could be carried across. I could very well ask of him why, if that is what he so clearly believes, he would support a power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion? So it cuts both ways.

However, I will confine my comments to support for Lords amendments 1, 6 to 9, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 31, 32 and 33, which can basically be grouped into suspicion and stop and search, serious disruption prevention orders, and the meaning of the phrase “serious disruption”. I will speak to the Joint Committee’s report on our legislative scrutiny of the Bill, which was published on 8 June last year. It was a unanimous report of our cross-party Committee, which of course contains both MPs and peers.

The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, which should be championed and protected rather than stifled. The Joint Committee concluded that while the stated intention behind the Bill was to strengthen police powers to tackle dangerous and highly disruptive protest tactics, its measures went well beyond that to the extent that we feel the Bill poses an unacceptable threat to the fundamental right to engage in peaceful protest. We have heard speeches about the historic basis of that right, and of course it is also protected in modern times under article 10 of the European convention on human rights, which deals with freedom of speech, and article 11, which deals with freedom of association.

In our report, we recommended that the power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion should be removed from the Bill. Other hon. Members have spoken about that in some detail. Basically, what we said was that the power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion inevitably gives rise to a risk of arbitrary or discriminatory use, and that it is disproportionate and inconsistent with the right to engage in peaceful protest. As we heard from other hon. Members, the police themselves said it is counterproductive and I do not understand that it is a power the police actually want as a whole. Lords amendments 6 to 9 take that out of the Bill, and I think that should be supported by this House.

[Chris Philp]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for giving way. On a point of clarification, clause 11, prior to amendment by the Lords, states that although an individual does not have to be subject to suspicion before an officer can activate this section, the officer has to “reasonably believe” that a number of offences may be committed. So it is not a wholly unconstrained power to search. That reasonable suspicion in clause 11(1) does have to be engaged.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am not sure the Minister is right about that. I think what he is trying to say is that the police officer could have a highly subjective view prior to stopping, and a highly subjective view is not a reasonable suspicion. We took all these matters into account in our report.

[Joanna Cherry]

The Minister must know that we are still bound by the European convention on human rights. Clearly, from what the Home Secretary said earlier this afternoon, some Government Members are trying to find a pretext to take us out of the convention, but we are still bound by it just now. The Minister must know that in order to interfere with freedom of assembly or freedom of association, under article 11 the interference has to be lawful, necessary and proportionate. What my hon. Friend just described is not lawful, necessary and proportionate.

[Chris Philp]

rose—

[Joanna Cherry]

The Minister will get to speak at the end. I do not want to take up too much time as I have already spoken for five minutes and I do not want to upset Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister can take the tenor of the comments so far across the House, including from the Government Benches. People are not happy about the power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion. The cross-party Committee of MPs and peers shared that unhappiness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I will make this point, and then I will give way.

We are all aware of the Bible story about Daniel daring to pray and being put in jail—

[Chris Philp]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Paisley]

Of course I will give way to the Minister.

[Chris Philp]

The Government are not saying anything about this matter. It is a free vote, and there is no Government position on the “buffer zone” amendment.

[Ian Paisley]

I look forward to the Minister joining me in the Lobby this evening.

Whenever we walk into the Palace of Westminster, we walk beneath a massive portrait of Moses by Benjamin West. We walk through St Stephen’s Hall, and what is St Stephen’s Hall? It is a church. We walk over the catacombs under which is another church. We come to this place—to the “mother of Parliaments”—and debate a piece of legislation that essentially says, “If you dare to pray in a certain part of this Christian nation, in silence, you will be arrested.”

--- Later in debate ---

I understand that the House will not divide on Lords amendment 17, but it follows the arrest of journalists in Hertfordshire at a Just Stop Oil protest. If there is no need for the amendment, I would like to hear the Government outline what they will do to prevent the arrest of legitimate journalists and observers at protests in future. If we all care about democracy and freedom to protest and ensuring that those rights are applied, we need to have journalists and observers involved.

[Chris Philp]

The Government accept that protection for journalists might helpfully be set out, and that is why Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 17 will substantively do what the Lords request, albeit in slightly different language.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am pleased to hear that.

If Lords amendment 1 is disagreed to and Government amendment (a) to it is passed, I would disagree with the broadening of the definition of “serious disruption”. Whatever the Government may think of protesters, they are not terrorists, and applying similar legislation where no offence is committed is simply wrong.

[Chris Philp]

As I said in my earlier intervention, the Government have accepted that serious disruption prevention orders can only be handed out by a court, following a conviction. The title of clause 20 is somewhat confusing, but we have accepted the point that there must be a conviction first.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, but the point I made while he was not in his place still stands: this is confusing. We are presenting confusing legislation to police officers to apply and potentially to take away people’s liberty accordingly.

Policing needs to be done with consent. This is knee-jerk legislation, as I have said throughout, to replace powers that already exist and that the police say they can utilise now. It also prevents the important discussions that take place between protest groups and police officers; we are going to create a chilling effect not only on the right to protest, but on the relationships that help us to enable legitimate protest. I think that is why the Lords rejected these clauses outright in their previous guise in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Lords have attempted to ameliorate the worst excesses of this Bill, and I will certainly vote in support of keeping the Lords amendments in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I completely agree. Having talked to the police for nearly three years in this role, I know that they want clarity. The amendment provides not clarity but unbelievable confusion, whereas a 150-metre zone provides clarity, and that is what the police want.

The Bill remains an affront to our rights. The Government’s own impact assessment shows that it will not have much effect. It is our job as parliamentarians to come up with laws that solve problems and really work. The Bill does not do that, so the Opposition will vote against the Government tonight. We agree with the Lords, and I urge every Member to look to their conscience and do the same.

[Chris Philp]

As always, it is a great pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). She has faced a number of Policing Ministers in her time, and I hope she faces many more during what I hope will be a very long tenure as shadow Minister.

We have heard some extremely thoughtful and well-considered contributions from both sides of the House on quite profound issues, touching as they do on conscience, free speech and a woman’s right to choose in relation to an abortion, as well as slightly more prosaic questions on policing protests. The objective of the Bill is to better balance the rights of individuals to protest—which this Government respect—with the rights of individuals to go about their daily lives without suffering from disruption. Those include the rights of parents to get their children to school, of people to get to hospital for vital treatment and of people to go to work without having their way impeded.

We have seen so many protests impeding the rights of the law-abiding majority, particularly in the latter half of 2022. There were 10-mile tailbacks on the M25. People glued themselves to roads in London and it took a long time to remove them. In December, we saw protesters walking slowly down streets, deliberately trying to cause as much disruption as possible—not so much exercising the right to protest as seeking to make a point by deliberately inconveniencing their fellow citizens. That is not something that this Government support, which is one reason why we are now legislating. The Metropolitan police have confirmed that between October and December last year they spent 13,600 officer shifts policing such protests, at a cost of nearly £10 million. That is time and money that would be much better spent elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the Minister confirm something for the sake of clarity? In the past, major peaceful demonstrations such as anti-nuclear demonstrations have blocked roads, but it was done with the permission of the police. That would continue, would it not?

[Chris Philp]

Yes, it would. My right hon. Friend pre-empts my next point, which I think an Opposition Member raised earlier. Where a protest has been authorised and licensed in advance by the police, of course these provisions will not be engaged. Protests such as the Iraq war protests aimed at the former Labour Government would, of course, be licensed. Protests against this Government would no doubt be licensed as well and could properly be held.

The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who I see is back in his place, made a point about whether the Bill could be used to disrupt strike action. I draw his attention and that of the House to the Bill’s original clauses 6 and 7, which as a result of the Lords amendments have been renumbered as clauses 7 and 8. Subsection (2)(b) of each clause makes it clear that it will be a defence to offences under the Bill that the act in question was undertaken

“in…furtherance of a trade dispute”,

so trade union protests and anything to do with strikes are exempted from the provisions of the Bill.

I think that the definition we have set out is reasonable. The police have asked for it, the former Deputy President of the Supreme Court supports it, it backs up the case law and I strongly commend it to the House.

Lords amendments 2, 3 and 4 deal with tunnelling. They are clarificatory amendments, making it clear that the offence of causing serious disruption by being present in a tunnel, as defined by clause 4, is committed only if the tunnel has been created for the purposes of a protest. Lords amendments 10 and 16 relate to some clarifications involving the British Transport Police which we think are important. Lords amendments 6,7, 8, 9 and 36 pertain to so-called suspicionless stop and search.

[Sir John Hayes]

Before my hon. Friend moves on to this subject, will he give way?

[Chris Philp]

In just a moment.

As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) correctly said in an intervention, these so-called suspicionless stop and searches can only take place in the absence of personal suspicion, when an officer of the rank of inspector or above believes, or has reason to believe, that in the next 24 hours a number of offences may be committed in the locality. That reasonable belief is required before any suspicionless stop and search can take place, and even then it is time-bound to a period of 24 hours. We think that that is proportionate. We have heard some views from the police and, in particular, from the His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which has said: “On balance, our view is that, with appropriate guidance and robust and effective safeguards, the proposed stop and search powers would have the potential to improve police efficiency and effectiveness in preventing disruption and making the public safe.” So this is something that HMIC has supported.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I think we all accept that suspicionless stop and search can be triggered quite rightly, for example if there is a danger of terrorism, but the Bill now allows it to take place when, for instance, there could be a danger that someone somewhere might commit a public nuisance or lock themselves to a fence. That could lead to hundreds or even thousands of suspicionless searches, which is surely disproportionate.

[Chris Philp]

I do not accept that. When there is a reasonable suspicion that in the next 24 hours offences may be committed which may themselves have a profoundly disruptive effect on members of the public, it is reasonable to prevent that. Let me point the hon. Gentleman to the example of the protests on the M25 last November, when a 10-mile tailback was caused. I suggest that preventing that would be a reasonable thing to do.

Lords amendment 17 deals with the question of journalists. As I have said previously, although the law as it stands does protect journalists—in fact, an apology rapidly followed the arrest of the journalist in Hertfordshire —the Government accept that clarification and reaffirmation of journalistic freedom is important, so we accept the spirit and the principle of the amendment. We have improved the wording slightly in our amendment in lieu, but we accept that journalists need special protection.

Lords amendments 18, 19 and 20 deal with serious disruption prevention orders. There has been some confusion over this, on both sides of the House, so I will reiterate the point for the purpose of complete clarity. The Government have accepted the point made in the Lords that a conviction is required before a serious disruption prevention order can be made. That is a significant concession. However, we do not accept Lords amendment 20, because clause 20—as formerly numbered —simply allows for an application to be made at a time after conviction, but a conviction must previously have taken place. We have therefore tabled an amendment in lieu.

I think it important to emphasise that there will be a free vote on buffer zones, at least on the Government side, because it concerns an issue of conscience, namely abortion. There is no Government position on this matter, and Members will vote according to their consciences. We have heard Members on both sides of the House speak about this issue passionately and with conviction.

[Sir John Hayes]

I hear what the Minister says about that, and he has heard the strong opinions expressed from this side of the Chamber in favour of the freedom to pray silently. Speaking personally and for the guidance of the House, will he tell us whether he will be supporting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), which allows free and silent prayer?

[Chris Philp]

My right hon. Friend is putting me on the spot a little bit. I would like to reiterate that the Government are neutral on this position. It is a free vote and there is no Government position, and in my capacity as a Government Minister I do not have a view. Obviously, as a Member of Parliament, I will be voting as an individual on this question. I do think, speaking personally, that women should be free to use these services without intimidation or harassment, which is why I voted for the amendment from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) when it was first tabled, but I do not think the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South undermines that, particularly given the words in proposed subsection (3B), which say that prayer

“shall not, without more, be taken to”

influence a person’s decision. So, personally, I will vote for that, but I emphasise again that the Government do not have a position and this is a free vote. We have heard some extremely thoughtful, well-considered, well-argued and sincerely held views on both sides, and Members will no doubt make up their own minds. up.

[Stella Creasy]

I respect the fact that the Minister has his own personal opinion. For the avoidance of doubt, can he confirm to the Chamber that this legislation, as amended in the Lords, is compliant with the European convention on human rights and that it does not criminalise praying but sets out boundaries for where it should occur?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I think we will ultimately have to defer to the Attorney General, but my understanding is that the legislation, as amended by the Lords and if amended by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South’s amendment, would in both cases be compliant with the European convention on human rights. Indeed, it is our opinion that the entire Bill is consistent with the European convention on human rights.

I think I have probably spoken for long enough—[Interruption.] Did someone say, “Hear, hear”? This Bill strikes the right balance between protecting the right to protest and making sure that our constituents can go about their day-to-day business without unreasonable hindrance, that parents can get their children to school, that patients can get to hospitals and that people can get to their place of work. That is the right balance, and I commend the Government amendments to the House.

Question put, That amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5 be made.

Coronation: Extended Licensing Hours

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

The Government have consulted on, and will be proceeding with, the proposal to make a licensing hours order under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 to relax licensing hours in England and Wales to mark His Majesty the King’s coronation. The order is intended to enable people in England and Wales properly to celebrate the constitutional, historic, and momentous significance of the coronation of the King and the beginning of his reign.

The order will apply to premises already licensed until 11 pm for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, for the provision of late-night refreshment—only where there is also the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and for the provision of regulated entertainment in England and Wales. The order will extend the licensing hours for such premises from 11 pm to 1 am the following day, on Friday 5 May, Saturday 6 May and Sunday 7 May.

An economic assessment is being prepared and will be published alongside the order on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS602]

Alcohol Licensing

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

The Government are today launching a consultation on alcohol licensing regulatory easements. Our objective is to support businesses as they deal with ongoing economic and financial challenges and the effects of the pandemic, cutting red tape while making sure that local authorities can recover their costs without an additional burden on central Government finances.

The Licensing Act 2003 allows premises licence holders to sell alcohol for consumption on site, off site or both. The holder of an on-sales licence can apply to their licensing authority for a variation if they wish to add off-sales to their licence. Provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020 enabled on-sales premises licence holders to automatically also do off-sales, without any need to amend their licence.

The Licensing Act 2003 also allows licensable activities to be carried out on a one-off basis without the need for a premises licence or any other authorisation, by means of a temporary event notice. Provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020 temporarily increased the annual number of temporary event notices that a licensed premise user can have in respect of a premises from 15 to 20.

We are consulting to understand whether there is support for making the regulatory easements permanent, in some form, or whether to return to the provisions in the Licensing Act. We will at the same time carry out a survey of local authorities so that we can better understand their actual costs for processing and enforcing licensing legislation.

The consultation will run for eight weeks and the Government will publish their response in early summer 2023. We intend to make any changes related to the consultation as soon as parliamentary time allows thereafter. A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS601]

Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 3rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

It is a great pleasure to speak on this important Third Reading debate. I begin by thanking hon. Members for joining us, particularly those who may have been elsewhere yesterday and perhaps, in some cases, may have had quite a late night.

I extend a particularly warm thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) for taking the initiative and pursuing this private Member’s Bill with such eloquence, tenacity and ability. I congratulate him on corralling cross-party support from the Government, from Opposition Front Benchers and from hon. Members across the House, and I add my birthday felicitations to those that have been expressed. He has made a very good job of the Bill, which the Government have supported from the outset and which has received resounding support across the House on Second Reading, in Committee and today on Third Reading. It is a great example of Back Benchers, Government and law enforcement working together to protect hard-working people from various forms of theft.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), mentioned enforcement. A couple of days ago, I met Superintendent Huddleston, the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s rural crime co-ordinator, and David Exwood, vice-president of the National Farmers Union, to discuss the significant impact that the Bill will have on protecting farmers from the effects of such thefts on individuals and businesses. The theft of agricultural vehicles from a farmer can cause severe disruption to essential cultivation work, as well as risking animal welfare and putting livelihoods on the line.

We are almost at the end of our programme to recruit an extra 20,000 police officers. When the programme concludes in just a few weeks’ time, we will have more police officers across England and Wales than at any point in our country’s history. We will substantially exceed the previous peak under the last Labour Government and deliver record numbers of officers, including in rural areas, where they will be able to police laws such as the Bill. It is a Conservative Government who have delivered those record numbers.

As a result of the Bill, we expect a real decrease in the theft of all-terrain vehicles. The introduction of the extremely effective technology of immobilisers and forensic marking will certainly help to prevent and deter theft and, in the case of forensic marking, to enable detection. It will make it harder for criminals to sell on stolen machinery, which will have an important deterrent effect. We have heard about how the theft of agricultural machinery, particularly all-terrain vehicles, is of great concern, and we recognise the distress caused when such property is stolen.

As hon. Members including the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) have said, there is a strong desire on both sides of the House to ensure that the statutory instruments made under the Bill go beyond all-terrain vehicles to include larger agricultural equipment and the tools used by tradespeople. To answer the shadow Minister’s question, I can confirm that my intention is to make statutory instruments under the Bill that deal not just with ATVs, but with other agricultural machinery and with tradespeople’s high-value tools. We will need to consult to ensure that we get the details right, but I would like us to cover all such equipment.

This excellent Bill will confer that flexibility. It may initially have been conceived with ATVs in mind, but its scope is far wider. Clause 1(2) will provide a statutory basis for secondary legislation to cover not just ATVs, but

“mechanically propelled vehicles that…have an engine capacity of at least 250 cubic centimeters”

and are designed for off-road use, which includes a whole load of other agricultural machinery. Clause 1(2)(b) clearly covers

“other equipment designed or adapted primarily for use in agricultural or commercial activities”,

including for builders and tradespeople. It strikes me as sensible to use the powers in the Bill to address that equipment as well.

[Jane Hunt]

I thank the Minister very much for what he has just said. It is an amazing thing, and lots of small businesses out there will be very grateful for it.

[Chris Philp]

This is a good example of parliamentary scrutiny delivering improvements. Those issues were raised forcefully by my hon. Friend and others on Second Reading and in Committee. The Government can, should and will respond. We need proper consultations with industry groups and others to ensure that we get the details right, but it strikes me as an important thing to do, as Members on both sides of the House have pointed out. Without question, it will benefit the entire economy by reducing theft—I am happy to make that clear once again on Third Reading.

Those consultations are very important. We need to get the details right, as I have said. We will work with industry groups, the police-led national business crime centre and the combined industries theft solutions group to help us understand the details. We are grateful for the expertise that those bodies bring to bear in this area.

I would like to conclude—often the most popular line in my speeches—by putting on record my thanks to the National Farmers Union and the National Police Chiefs Council lead for construction and agricultural machinery theft, Superintendent Andy Huddleston, who I met just a few days ago, for their work developing the measures in the Bill. Most of all, I thank the birthday boy, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, for the initiative he has shown in introducing the Bill.

[Greg Smith]

With the leave of the House, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, not least their kind words in wishing me a happy birthday. I recommend to all right hon. and hon. Members a sitting Friday as the perfect definition of what a good birthday looks like. In particular, I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), who has supported this Bill throughout. He pointed out that the demand right now is outstripping supply, which is giving a far greater urgency to the need for the provisions of the Bill.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), who like me is a fan of “Clarkson’s Farm,” which has done more to bring the British public closer to the realities of British farming than “Countryfile” has managed in decades. He pointed out that GPS units are a particularly targeted item of equipment at the moment, particularly as farms have moved to a reliance on GPS units for spraying, drilling and bringing the harvest in with the combine. The loss of that equipment has a massive impact on yields and on the ability to feed the nation.

The hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) made a very valid point about hill farmers’ reliance on quad bikes and ATVs. I do not have many hill farms in my constituency, but in many parts of the country that is incredibly important. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) referenced the Pig & Abbot pub rural crime survey. He highlighted that all 30 of the farmers he spoke to had been a victim of rural crime, underlying the necessity for the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) pointed out that we need to ensure that rural crime is a priority for the additional police officers that the Government are recruiting.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for her support and for being one of the voices to push for the extension of the Bill into many other sectors, including tool theft. I have to give special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) for supporting me in the original iteration of this Bill as a ten-minute rule Bill a couple of years ago, all the way through Second Reading and in Committee, and now on Third Reading. I am very grateful for her support and her voice, as acknowledged by my right hon. Friend the Minister a few moments ago, to ensure that we got the Bill beyond just quad bikes and ATVs, to protect all our trades up and down the land from tool theft.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), another constituency neighbour, made a very valid point on the stress that equipment theft brings to farmers and tradespeople. When that equipment is gone, people cannot do their jobs and earn their living. Their livelihoods are brought under question, particularly in agriculture, because when the crops need to come in, they have to come in. If people have lost that equipment, it has a huge impact on food production and on animal welfare; the equipment is vital to ensuring that our farmers are able to deliver.

I am grateful once again to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). He may not have many combine or tractor thefts in his constituency, but I assure him that when a combine or other agricultural machinery is stolen, it has an impact on us all, because it affects the food production that farmers up and down the land are able to deliver. We will all go hungry if farmers are not able to do the work they want to do. I offer my sincere thanks and gratitude to the Opposition for supporting the Bill and enabling its smooth passage thus far.

My right hon. Friend the Minister has been a great support throughout the process. I have been grateful for our conversations outside the Chamber as well as those inside it and in Committee. I am grateful for the Government’s support and particularly grateful for his comments this afternoon that the Bill can go further and that the provisions in the Bill to enable him and the Home Secretary to bring in secondary legislation to expand its scope will make a huge difference in defending our farms, our tradespeople and everybody who depends on such equipment to go about their day-to-day lives. I am confident that the Bill will make a huge difference and I am grateful to the Minister for his enthusiasm and support in making it happen.

Finally, an enormous number of people have contributed to getting the Bill to where it is now. I once more place on record my thanks and gratitude to Superintendent Andy Huddleston and to Inspector Hutchings of the Thames Valley Police rural crime taskforce. I thank Anna Dawson and the whole office team at the Home Office for the support they have given throughout the process, from sitting with me in one of the first roundtables with manufacturers, at Yamaha in Reading, to getting the Bill to this point. I thank the NFU vice president David Exwood and the whole team at the National Farmers Union and NFU Mutual for their support.

I also put on record my thanks for the expert advice and efficiency of the Public Bill Office, particularly Anne-Marie Griffiths, who has supported me so ably in getting all the details and the right procedures in place for this Bill. I thank my senior parliamentary assistant, Ian Kelly, who has done an enormous amount of heavy lifting to support me in getting us to where we are today.

Finally, as hopefully the Bill leaves this House and goes to the other place, I thank my noble friend, Lord Blencathra. When he was a Member of this House, he specialised in talking out private Members’ Bills, but I am delighted that he has agreed to pilot this one through the House of Lords. I am very confident that he will do so with great skill and ability and ensure that this Bill, which can do so much for rural Britain, for our farmers and for our tradespeople, whichever trade they are in, can make a huge and lasting difference.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Firearms Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) on introducing this private Member’s Bill and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) on stepping into his place with such eloquence and command of the House, as we heard just a few moments ago.

Time is relatively short, so I am not going to repeat at length a description of the provisions that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South have both already covered. Suffice it to say that, as they have laid out, the Bill intends to more tightly define the legislation around miniature rifles to ensure that a limitation of .22 is placed on their calibre and that the people operating miniature rifle ranges need to have licences.

As others have laid out, clause 2 seeks to make it clear that having an intent to assemble components into ammunition will constitute an offence. As the Bill passes through Committee, we may want to make sure that we cover not only people intending to manufacture ammunition themselves, but those facilitating others to do so. However, that is a definitional detail that I am sure we can consider properly in the course of Committee proceedings.

The shadow Minister asked a number of questions. I am sure we will discuss them more on other occasions, but 3D printed weapons—either the weapons themselves or the components thereof—are treated the same as regular weapons. We will, of course, keep that under review. He asked about the fees charged for firearms licensing; as I said to the House a week or two ago, we have committed to consulting this year—probably in the summer or early autumn—about increasing those fees to make sure that the full costs are recovered by police forces. The question of accreditation of firearms examination officers is one that I discussed with the College of Policing’s chief executive, Andy Marsh, just this week. That is an area that we would like to see taken forward by policing, and it is something that the College of Policing will consider in conjunction with the National Police Chiefs’ Council.

On the question about firearms backlogs and temporary licences, I reviewed the data on that only yesterday and, of the 43 forces, I consider four to have unacceptably high backlogs. I will be communicating with the chief constables of those four forces in the very near future.

Last week or the week before, I made a statement on the terrible shootings that we have seen; as the shadow Minister knows, the Government are waiting for the prevention of future deaths report from the Plymouth coroner so that lessons can be learned and whatever changes need to be made can be made, in order to prevent appalling tragedies such as that. We will also consider the recommendations made by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, as well as a report by the Scottish Affairs Committee prompted by a tragedy that took place on the Isle of Skye. We will consider all three things together, and the Government will respond substantively within 60 days of receiving that prevention of future deaths report, which we believe we will receive in the very near future.

I am conscious that I have strayed somewhat beyond the strict topic of the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I wanted to answer some of the shadow Minister’s questions; we can discuss the others later. I put on record the Government’s support for the Bill. It is well constructed and will certainly contribute to public safety, and I look forward to working with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to make this excellent Bill law as soon as possible.