Crime and Policing Bill (Fourth sitting)

David Burton-Sampson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I find myself agreeing with the shadow Minister on the menace that unauthorised, misused motorised vehicles cause to our society. Untaxed bikes are roaring through our housing estates. Just this weekend, I was taking my dog for a walk and three untaxed motorbikes were roaring up and down the road, where there were young children and families walking along. My dog got scared every time they went past.

These vehicles are a real menace. Illegal e-scooters whizz along the pavements. In Basildon, in south Essex, two young people were killed on an illegal e-scooter only recently. That is really sad: two young children had their lives ended on one of these illegal e-scooters. Modified electric bikes are also being dangerously driven on our roads. In my constituency, this is very much an urban problem, but the problem exists in different forms in rural areas. It affects all communities in one way or another.

There is also the issue of crime associated with illegal bikes and illegal e-scooters. The shadow Minister has lots of ideas on how to solve this problem, but during the last year of the Conservative Government, there were an average of 214 snatch thefts, often facilitated by e-bikes and e-scooters, every day on our streets in England and Wales. That was a 150% increase on the previous year. That shows the former Government’s massive disregard for law and order. The Conservative party now comes here with ideas for improvement, but we are actually taking action to stop this problem.

The fact that a warning is needed before these ridiculous illegal vehicles are seized creates an element of immunity for users—if they are going to get a warning, they will keep trying to push their luck—so I welcome the removal of that requirement. It is time to get tough in this area and give the police the powers they need to act promptly.

[Harriet Cross]

I completely agree that it is time to get serious about this issue. Will the hon. Member support our new clause that would give police the power to confiscate these vehicles from people’s houses?

[David Burton-Sampson]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, but the key is to get these vehicles as soon as they are spotted on the streets.

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Where the community comes in is a game changer, because it is all about intelligence. What will make the difference in seizing these off-road bikes is the police working with our local authorities and communities.

[David Burton-Sampson]

Absolutely. I could not have said it better myself.

We need to get this provision into law as quickly as possible, as part of this whole raft of changes. The police need to be able to act promptly when they see these ridiculous vehicles causing so many problems on our roads and in our communities.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

These vehicles are also having a huge impact in Riverview and Coldharbour, in my community. The police have been doing some good work with drones to follow these people to their home addresses. With the change in the law to allow police to seize the vehicles straight away, does my hon. Friend think that such interventions could support the police and communities in cracking down on the problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Burton-Sampson]

I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. Over the past couple of weeks, Essex police has focused particularly on using similar techniques to drive down the use of illegal e-scooters.

It is time to get tough. We need to act promptly when we come across these perpetrators and get these vehicles off the road. I am pleased with the change to the law that will be made by clause 8.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

First, I express general support for the clause. I welcome the measures to combat this menace in our communities, which we have heard about in the room here today and also in the Chamber on Second Reading. We have not only the risk of the antisocial behaviour itself, but the enabled crime that it is linked to such as phone snatching and similar offences. Again, it is welcome to try to reduce those incidents where possible.

This weekend, I was in a discussion with a resident who talked about the impact of illegal off-road bikes in Overton Park in my constituency. They talked about their fear that if one of those vehicles hit their child—they are often not even full-sized off-road vehicles, but small, children’s off-road bikes—it could cause serious injury. There is a real fear among residents.

We also have an issue around illegal e-bikes being driven on our high streets, often in zones shared between pedestrians and cycles. Heavier, illegally modified bikes are used often by food delivery companies that absolve themselves of any responsibility because the bikers are all independent contractors or independent riders. The companies take no responsibility and have no interest in cracking down, so enforcement is left to the local police. They have problems spotting whether the vehicles are illegally modified and then there is the issue of police resources. Many of us sound like a broken record on this: the powers are all very well, but the challenge is actually having the resources in our neighbourhood policing units to enforce them.

I have a concern not only linked to the manpower required to police the bikes, but on some of the details and practicalities of the powers, so I would welcome further details from the Minister. Will there be any process of appeal for the individual if the bike or vehicle is taken away in the first instance without a warning? Would it just be down to a single officer who says a particular offence is antisocial? I have had people contact me with concerns because they have been stopped in a vehicle for fast acceleration or for driving in a particular way on a single occasion. They worry that under the powers granted in the Bill their vehicle could be immediately confiscated. They feel that the powers might be misused by individual police officers, so there is a concern over that process, and how the power given to a police officer can be used in a single instance.

Would vehicles be fully traced and tracked to see whether they are stolen? We should ensure that we do not crush or dispose of vehicles that can be returned to their owners. Would the powers be enforced on the owner alone? If a vehicle had been taken without permission or was being used without the knowledge of the owner, would there be a process to ensure that the vehicle was not used again without the understanding of the owner? The removal and disposal would seem to be an overreach in that circumstance.

On the timescale of disposal and how that would be done, I heard the concerns about the immediate re-selling of vehicles back to the wrong ’uns they were taken off in the first place. It is a valid concern. Will that disposal mean cubing it and putting it in the recycling, or does it mean selling it on? What constraints will be put on the police to deal with vehicles that are taken?

My understanding of the current guidance is that warnings are necessary only where repeated tickets are impractical. Can the Minister talk about where the existing description of “where impractical” is insufficient for police officers? In discussions with the police, I imagine that the phrase “where impractical” has been identified as problematic. Can we draw out a bit why it is causing issues?

There is a question around whether the powers would apply to problem areas, particularly in central London where high-powered, very expensive vehicles have been reported as causing noise nuisance and alarm to local residents. We have all read stories of vehicles being imported from the middle east by foreign owners, and these vehicles causing noise nuisance in central London, in the Kensington and Chelsea areas. Would the powers allow those vehicles, which are often very high-value vehicles, to be taken without a warning in the first place? I think there is an appetite from many for that to be the case, but there would be concerns over the sheer value of those vehicles and how the police would deal with that.

I find some of the new clauses interesting and there is actually a lot of sense in many of them. Again, I would be interested to hear the Minister explain why each power they provide for is either undesirable or already covered in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Sabine]

Broadly speaking, we welcome any effort to reduce knife crime, which is obviously a terrible and growing problem. We note Chief Constable De Meyer’s comment, in the oral evidence last week, that the police felt that the measure would allow them to deliver more sustained public protection, which is a good thing, and to have more preventive power. That is all great.

I have two specific questions for the Minister. The first concerns the offence of possessing an article with a blade or an offensive weapon with the intent to use unlawful violence. I represent a fairly rural constituency that comprises some market towns and a selection of villages. Even there, local headteachers tell me that a growing number of schoolchildren, usually boys, are bringing knives into school, because they wrongly think that bringing a knife will somehow defend them against other boys with knives. How do we ensure that no other schoolchildren will get caught up in an offence aimed at the kind of people we might think of as bringing a knife with the aim of committing an unlawful action?

My second question relates to the National Farmers Union’s evidence from last week. The NFU talked about the challenge of catapults often being used not just in wildlife crime but in damaging farming equipment. It said that it understands that it is an offence to carry in public something that is intended to be used as an offensive weapon, but with catapults, it is particularly difficult to prove that intent. It wondered if more consideration could be given to listing catapults as offensive weapons.

[David Burton-Sampson]

We all know that knife crime ruins lives—for the victim, their family and friends, the perpetrator’s family, and even for the perpetrator. My constituent Julie Taylor is the grandmother of a knife crime victim. On 31 January 2020, Liam Taylor was murdered outside a pub in Writtle—a pleasant place that not many would associate with violent crime. Four individuals approached Liam and three of them attacked him, resulting in Liam being stabbed to death and his friend receiving a serious injury. The attack came in retaliation for an earlier incident, which neither Liam nor his friend were involved in.

Since Liam’s murder, Julie has become an amazing campaigner in the battle against knife crime. She regularly visits schools, universities, colleges, football clubs, scout groups and the like to share Liam’s story and highlight how knife crime destroys lives. She has placed over 500 bleed control bags and 26 bleed control units in key locations across Essex. Sadly, 12 of those have already been used to help 13 people—yes, there was a double stabbing. Her work is all voluntary; she does it in her free time. That is how passionately she feels about the issue. When we met last week, Julie told me:

“All I want is to stop these young people carrying weapons as I can tell you once you lose a loved one to any violent crime, your family is never the same again.”

I shared with Julie the Government’s plans to tackle knife crime through the Bill, and she was delighted. She told me that clauses 10 and 11—and, if the Committee will indulge me, clause 12—are what campaigners have been calling for for so long.

With 1,539 knife crimes taking place in Essex in the year to March 2024 alone, tough action is needed now. These clauses, alongside other measures, will help with the Government’s goal of halving knife crime over the next decade. We must take a truly multi-agency approach, working with the police, charities, young people, victims’ family members, like Julie—they have a real part to play—and businesses, tech companies and sports organisations. I thank the Government for introducing the clauses; they have my full support.

[Joe Robertson]

I find myself again speaking after a number of others who have spoken eloquently, and broadly with consensus, about the direction of travel of this provision. I obviously support amendment 39 and new clause 44. Knife crime and the way it destroys lives is such a specific and horrific problem for law enforcement. The hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh gave a good summary of those affected, including young perpetrators and their families. Through using knives at a young age, those perpetrators often get swept into the worst of criminality. Once they are in that world, it is incredibly difficult for them to be brought out of it. Of course, there can be numerous innocent victims, who might stand in the way and get hurt too. I urge the Government to understand that the best possible way of tackling this is to ensure that the courts have the strongest possible sentencing powers. Clearly, 14 years for possessing an offensive weapon would not be appropriate in all cases, but there are cases where it would be—and if the courts do not have those powers, they cannot sentence people to 14 years.

Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting)

David Burton-Sampson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

Q Chief Constable De Meyer, looking at knife crime, there is a new offence of possession of a knife or offensive weapon

“with intent to use unlawful violence”.

Can you explain how operationally that bridges the gap between the current legislation on simple possession and using a bladed article or offensive weapon to threaten or harm somebody? How is this going to help us to drive down knife crime?

Chief Constable De Meyer: This allows for greater sanctions against those who are evidenced as having caused harm or are known to be intending to cause harm. The important point here—it goes to the point I made at the beginning—is that the law will now more closely reflect the circumstances of the case, because regard can be had to the totality of the circumstances when the investigation is being carried out, when the case is being presented at court, and ultimately when the sentence is being passed if the person is convicted. Rather than relying only on the simple act of possession, the investigation and the court can have regard to the intent of the individual and the much greater seriousness of the circumstances that that implies.

It also means we will be much better able to deliver what we term “sustained public protection”. Rather than simply bringing someone to justice for possessing a knife without being able to produce evidence as to what their intention might have been, we can now adduce that evidence and, one imagines, come up with a tougher sentence that has much more preventive power.

[The Chair]

If the witnesses are in broad agreement, it is fine if only one person answers, unless there is something else you want to raise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

Q Thank you again for coming along and for your campaigning. You must be proud that you have got this leap—this legislation—to try to combat some of the trauma that you experienced.

I have a broader question. Do the measures included in the Bill cover all the issues that you see around the offence? Do you think the Bill is a comprehensive measure to enable action to be taken to combat the horrible offence of spiking?

Colin Mackie: It is moving forward to that level where I think it is good. I would like to see a wee bit more on the sentencing side of it. Just listening to the previous witnesses, I know that there is a backlog through the courts and everything, and I can see that being a problem. If the people who want to report spiking, especially young women, think it is going to last two years, how much of a deterrent is it going to be for them to come forward if they think it is going to drag on? That is one bit: when it comes to the sentencing and how quickly it will be processed, will that put people off reporting it?

[David Burton-Sampson]

Q I echo my colleagues in thanking you for all you do in this vital area. You rightly said that spiking affects everybody; unfortunately, it is something that men and women can be prone to. The Government have a target of halving the level of violence against women and girls, and this measure is hopefully part of that package. How important do you think it will be in halving violence against women and girls?

Colin Mackie: It is certainly very important, because girls are still are the highest target in the group. People want to go out and enjoy themselves, and women should be able to have a night out with friends and be confident that they are safe. If they want to leave that drink for second, they should be able to. They should not have to worry that someone will add something to their drink if they go to dance, go to the toilet or are distracted. This measure is a great way of moving forward, because in the future you want all youngsters to be able to say, “I’m going for a night out, and I want to have a nice, safe night out.” That is the way forward—it has to be the way forward.

[Joe Robertson]

Q Looking at the purpose of why someone might spike, the Bill includes the words “injure”, “aggrieve” and “annoy”. From your experience, might somebody seek to spike for any other purpose that is not captured by, say, “annoy”, which is probably the broadest term?

Colin Mackie: Revenge, possibly. A girl could spike another girl because she is jealous, for example, about something that has already happened. An ex-boyfriend, in particular—or an ex-girlfriend, in some cases—could spike someone. To me, revenge is another possibility.

Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting)

David Burton-Sampson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Q Thank you very much for coming along. You will have to forgive me as I kind of wiggle around here a little bit. Clause 14 is on assault of a retail worker, and goes on to define the place of work of a retail worker. Something that you mentioned, Mr Wynn, got me quite interested in talking about delivery drivers, and the clause does say that “‘premises’ include a…vehicle”, such as a food truck. To take, for example, a washing machine installation engineer working for a Currys, do you think that the Bill protects somebody like that, who is working for a retail firm but is actually in somebody’s home? Is that something that could be covered by the Bill, or that you would look to have covered by a Bill such as this?

Christopher Morris: I would link that question back to the CBOs from a couple of questions ago. I think that there is a clear issue there. Various parts of the home delivery sector require the worker to go into people’s homes. With Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Ocado home delivery, there is an offer to almost put it in the fridge for people, and then you have those typical two-man delivery operations for washing machines or beds.

There is certainly a significant issue on the grocery side, where those delivery drivers are also having to make age verification checks when alcohol or other age-restricted products are being delivered, and are having to say that someone cannot have those. You are almost in the door with those products, and you have to say, “Sorry, if the ID isn’t here, I’ve got to take them away,” which can cause issues with violence, threats and abuse. Then, with the way that the systems operate, there are substitutions as well, and having conversations about those can raise the frustration levels of customers. We would therefore want to see those aspects, where people are going into people’s homes or delivering to people’s homes. It is not necessarily a question of the threshold being covered as well.

Part of the reason to link back to CBOs, and why we would want these things covered here, is that the link to CBOs is really good and can help. As a random example, if a Sainsbury’s delivery driver goes into someone’s home and receives a significant threat, then Sainsbury’s can take the decision to take that address off the customer list, but the other companies would not know. If a CBO is in place, a ban could be put on that address because that threat or instance of violence is so great, and those delivery drivers—who we see as retail workers—would not be required to go to it.

Those are the areas that we are keen to continue to engage with Government on, to make sure that the Bill is as effective as we believe it can be.

Graham Wynn: My understanding—I am happy to be corrected—is that the Bill does not cover delivery drivers or anyone other than people working, basically, in a retail store, and that the reference to a vehicle is not meant to be a delivery driver, a delivery van or anything like that.

We do note that the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021, although it is different, does explicitly extend to delivery drivers. We do think that that would be sensible and useful, and there are concerns about delivery drivers. We understand the difficulty of saying, “Well, where do you draw the line?” You mention people going into people’s homes; well, plumbers do, and other people go into people’s homes, so just where do you draw that line? If you dissipate it too much, it undermines the value of the whole thing. We don’t not support others being protected, but we certainly support the classic delivery driver for home produce from supermarkets being included. That is included in the Scottish Act, so perhaps it can also be included in the Bill—unless the Scottish draftsmen have got it wrong.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

Q When we look at how we are moving forward, it is good to look at where we have come from. I think it was the coalition Government who included section 176 in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which basically provided that low-value shop theft—that is, shop theft with a value of under £200—would be a summary-only offence. We know where that has taken us: we have little, if any, police attendance for those sorts of offences. What impact has that had on you and your members, and does the repealing of that £200 threshold give you better confidence that police will prioritise attendance at those types of theft?

Paul Gerrard: That provision was undoubtedly gamed by individuals engaged in retail crime. They knew what the limit was. I also think it sent a strong message to the police that it was not something they should be focused on. In truth, if you go into a Co-op store and steal £200-worth or £199-worth of product, you have still got a lot of product, and there will be flashpoints around that, be they threats, abuse or violence. It undoubtedly has had an impact, and repealing it will have an impact, combined with the fact that the police now recognise the importance of tackling retail crime—and they do.

One of the data points that we have used consistently is how often the police turn up when we have detained an offender. If someone had 10 or 12 bottles of wine that they were trying to steal, which is less than £200, and we detained that offender, the police were not turning up eight times out of 10. Now the police are turning up six or seven times out of 10. If you combine the police response with a genuine ability for them to understand when they need to engage, that makes a massive difference. Wherever you draw a line, or whatever becomes the norm, individuals involved in this criminality will game it.

I will give you another example. The police are now turning up much more consistently on violence, and therefore we have seen a little dip in violence levels, because some people are understanding that if they engage in violence, they might have a problem. This Bill will make that a real issue. People will game whatever the line is, and taking away that line makes it more effective for the police to do their job.

Christopher Morris: I completely agree with Paul. Our members have seen that the system has been gamed at the £200 threshold. Our members are working in stores, some of which are not necessarily hugely profitable, and they get to the point where they are no longer financially viable as a result of theft that goes out of the door. Another thing that we see is staff being reduced in stores because there is not enough money, so the whole store becomes more vulnerable to attack. As Paul said, taking that route away will help to ensure that stores are safer and that the system is not gamed as much as it currently is.

Graham Wynn: Yes, it has certainly been gamed; last year, in our survey, there were 20 million incidents of shoplifting, or 55,000 a day—the highest ever—and I think that shows that there are people who understand this. We know from what people tell us that there are people who go back to the same store time after time and walk off with £190-worth of goods, because they know that nothing will be picked up.

We do realise, of course, that it is important that retailers report the crime or the incident, and it is important too that they have the evidence that the police can use to prosecute. We had a meeting with the police for members just the other day, and they emphasised that they cannot put resources into turning up to incidents where there is no evidence—no CCTV, perhaps, or where the perpetrator has already left the scene and that sort of thing. So we recognise that it is incumbent, too, on retailers to do their part and on the police to do their part.

[The Chair]

Thank you. I do not think we are going to have time to allow every panel member to answer every question, so if Members could be kind enough to try to direct their questions, that would probably be helpful for everybody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Q Baroness Newlove, cuckooing is a pretty heinous crime that takes advantage of some very vulnerable victims. What impact do you think making cuckooing a specific offence will have on those victims?

Baroness Newlove: Don’t get me started on cuckooing! Cuckooing is an interesting area, and I have been working on it for quite a long time. People do not realise the level of harm it causes entire families. It can destroy them. My concern about cuckooing is centres on understanding and whether the Government will ensure there is guidance for police and other operational partners.

Cuckooing is not what you see on the soap operas. These are evil people who pick on vulnerable people and take over their lives. While this Bill creates a new offence whereby a person commits an offence if they exercise control of the dwelling, it sounds very blah-di-blah. What is needed is breaking down the problem and educating people on how this can absolutely take over the lives of the most vulnerable people. It goes into exploitation and county lines—there is no one thing. What I want is for all this to flow into this mechanism. Cuckooing has to be stated, but we must put it alongside exploitation, county lines, drugs and everything else. My concern is that when the guidance is published, victims of cuckooing will still not realise that they are being cuckooed. I do not know where they got the word cuckooing from, but that was what it was called when I went out with the police many years ago.

It is a really hard thing to break. If that person thinks that they are a part of the family, as well as the huge threat to their real family, it is very hard to recognise that. This problem must have a multi-agency approach and it must be in capitals and it must be where we are reporting. There have been many millions spent in this area, but I would like those involved to be more educated and to get a professional toolkit. I know a toolkit has been developed to help to disrupt cuckooing victimisation —I think it was issued to professionals in October 2024. I encourage authorities to utilise it. It is so important, and I have seen so much devastation from cuckooing. It is like watching a film on screen, but it is real life for some people today.

[David Burton-Sampson]

Q Again, this one is for you, Baroness Newlove. There is nothing more frustrating than having your device stolen and knowing where it is, yet the police being unable to act. Are you confident that the new powers in the Bill will give the police what they need to act in those situations where a device can be located?

Baroness Newlove: I am always confident in new powers. My reservation or caveat to all of that is about using them in a sensible way. This is anecdotal, but we hear it every day, even in Parliament, being told to put our phones in our bags—that is how bad it is. It is making sure that the police use those powers properly and understand them. We are also looking into the technology that could be equipped to research these incidents and prevent them from happening in the first place. We need to protect victims from them. Unfortunately, anecdotally, I am not hearing that the police are actually doing something. That is why we must get police better training and understanding to protect victims. Victims, doing their own investigations, phone up the police and say, “I know where my phone is,” and the police do nothing. While legislation is great for professionals, we have got to see the people on the ground delivering for the victims.

[The Chair]

Are there any further questions? We have a couple of minutes left.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

Q To the extent that it is relevant, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor.

I want to take the panel back to clause 45(2) and the duty to report. I note that the police and local authorities are treated as interchangeable in the provision about who a person must report to. I invite any thoughts about that idea that the police and local authorities are somehow interchangeable and have similar skillsets. Councillor Conway referred to the training that would be needed with local authorities, but clearly there are so many different ways you could report. Although the police are used to reporting of criminal activity, the council does not routinely receive reports in that way. I invite either of you to comment on that slightly unexpected and unusual interchangeability of police and local authorities.

Councillor Conway: Again, we would be happy to write with more detail on that. Where that relationship works effectively, I understand the interchangeability. I think it probably needs looking at. There are effective systems on the ground that do enable that, but maybe it needs looking at more closely. We can send you more information.

Councillor Garratt: If we are dealing with criminal behaviour, which I think we are in this circumstance, the obvious place to report it is the police. I do not know whether there is a provision for reporting to the council if someone is already involved with a social worker, for example; that might be deemed to be an adequate way to report it. But if the purpose of the provision is to make sure that these crimes are investigated and prosecuted, then the obvious place to report that to would be the police.

[David Burton-Sampson]

Q My questions have been answered, but I will ask another while I have the floor. The Bill provides the ability to extend community safety accreditation schemes, basically allowing councils to take on more powers that would normally be available only to the police. Do you think that is a good thing for your local authorities?

Councillor Conway: The general point about all that is that additional funding is needed to increase community safety partnerships’ capacity to deliver things on the ground. Reforming the duty and partnership landscape to ensure that the partnerships are equipped with the powers and partners to deliver would be very important.

Councillor Garratt: On the ground, in practical terms, dealing with crime and connected behaviour very often does involve partnership between the local council and the police—and other bodies, such as the Probation Service and so on. It is therefore quite normal—in fact, it is good practice—for there to be collaborative working. If you have a process of collaborative working that is working well, as I think we have in Croydon and in Sutton, it seems to make little sense not to be able to extend it.

Councillor Conway: It is important to focus on the preventive aspect as well. Just before this meeting, I was in a meeting of London’s violence reduction unit with the safer partnership chairs, and I am aware that the Government’s new provision around preventive partnerships is evolving. I think that runs alongside this and is an important step forward.

[David Taylor]

Q Councillor Conway, my ears pricked up when you talked about Clear, Hold, Build and the successes that you had had. That is a project that the police in my area, Hemel Hempstead, have been implementing in a particular neighbourhood called Grovehill. We are currently in the clear and hold phase. Given that you are ahead of us, I wonder whether you can share with the Committee some reflections on the build phase and some of the successes that you have had. Will you also reflect on how the Bill will help with the neighbourhood policing that is so central to these projects?

Councillor Conway: The success of Clear, Hold, Build in our area is thanks to everybody. That is really important: it is everyone together—the residents, who need to be part of it too; the community organisations; the police; the council. It very much is everybody. There is also ongoing clearing; Clear, Hold, Build is not a linear process, and we have certainly learned that.

As I have touched on, some of the provisions in the Bill would have been very welcome. We have not talked about the new provision on the exploitation of young people either, but there is that, the cuckooing measures, some of the respect order stuff, the CPNs and the public spaces protection orders. We have been able to use bits of those things locally, but the Bill provides a framework that I think will enable councils to deliver more, as long as there is the funding to do some of it.

Also, the collaborative approach needs to be across councils and across areas. We all learn from each other. That is a major strength of the LGA, and one that we are very happy to share with the Government. As you know yourselves, that learning across, with the need to support each other and to really deliver for all our residents, is vital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Bishop]

Q I want briefly to touch on the police appeals tribunal. Police and crime commissioners up and down the country represent the public in holding forces and chief constables to account. In the context of public confidence in policing, how important is it that PCCs have an equivalent right of appeal to the police appeals tribunal?

Emily Spurrell: Very important. It was a gap in previous legislation, so in our view, this measure seeks to correct an error. As you say, we are responsible for holding chief constables to account. We are very focused on improving the trust and confidence that the public have in the police, so it is important to have that right of appeal if we feel standards have not been met, rather than having to go through a lengthy judicial review process.

[David Burton-Sampson]

Q This is obviously a meaty Bill. There is a lot of really good stuff in here, and much of it will give new powers to existing police officers, to people across the force and to local authorities. As PFCCs or PCCs, you will have a key role in helping to ensure that the Bill is implemented, assuming it passes through Parliament. How confident do you feel about making sure that happens? It is pointless passing laws if they are not implemented on the ground.

Roger Hirst: This goes back to the point that was raised earlier about whether we have the resources. I welcome the Government’s commitment to the 13,000 additional people in neighbourhood policing, but the vital thing is that we have the funding to both sustain the current workforce and build the workforce in the way you would like us to. There is a real challenge there, because the police force has expanded by 20,000 over the last six years. Those police officers will all be going through the police contractual incremental pay scales. The big jump is when they hit five and six years, so there will be a big boost to police pay at that point without us recruiting any more people.

To be able to do what we need to do with the Bill, we will need the resources that we have and the resources that are heading down the track towards us, we believe, which we are very grateful for. But funding the existing workforce is the real challenge, and that in itself is probably going to cost some £300 million a year.

Matthew Barber: I completely agree: a lot of it comes down to the money. The only additional point that I would make is about the reliance on other partners in this area. As we awaited our session, there was a conversation about fly-tipping, which is certainly an issue that exercises the police, but at the moment the responsibility for it lies with local authorities. The Bill proposes only some guidance, rather than any duties on local authorities to clear up the waste or to investigate; currently, they have powers but they are not obliged to use them.

On some of the wider antisocial behaviour provisions, as I said in response to the Minister, there is a huge reliance on local authorities to play their part, both in sharing information around reporting and in the exercise of powers. Many of the solutions to antisocial behaviour issues in our communities do not lie within the police remit. They are to do with the provision of housing from social landlords, and to do with the powers that local authorities have, so we need to work collectively.

I am confident that policing, given the right resources, can deliver the things that are in this Bill, but what is key is making sure that all those other partners are able to assist in that. Many of these provisions cannot be delivered by the police on their own.

Emily Spurrell: To add to that, it is not just about policing and the partners that Matthew has outlined, but about criminal justice. We know that having more officers and more PCSOs going through the system will create even more pressure on an already struggling courts and prison system. We need to be very mindful of the whole criminal justice approach.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

Q Returning briefly to police accountability, you already expressed support for what the Minister said about amending some of the restrictions, in terms of the thresholds for referral and for whether a final investigation has been completed. On placing the IOPC victims’ right to review scheme on a statutory footing, presumably you would support that to build public confidence in the IOPC and what it exists to do for the accountability of police forces in our country.

Emily Spurrell: The system does not work very well for victims at all at the minute. The language used and the way that we approach it is very bureaucratic. Anything that can empower victims and ensure that they feel like they are being heard and that they have a right to have their concerns addressed is very welcome.

Roger Hirst: I absolutely agree with that. Making it more accessible would involve, as Emily said, using better language. Also, having shorter timeframes is really important.

Matthew Barber: I completely agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Ms Davies-Jones, I am conscious of the fact that most of these questions are the responsibility of the Policing Minister, but is there anything you wish to add?

Alex Davies-Jones: Nothing on this part, Sir Roger. I am happy to come in on the Ministry of Justice measures.

[David Burton-Sampson]

Q My question is for Minister Davies-Jones. I declare my interest as a member of the Women and Equalities Committee, as this relates to our work on that. I have a big interest in the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls. Can you outline to us what measures in the Bill will help to meet that goal?

Alex Davies-Jones: We see the Bill as a key tool in our arsenal for achieving our ambition of halving violence against women and girls over a decade. The Bill has a number of measures and new offences that we think will go some way towards achieving that mission, be it strengthening stalking protection orders, clarifying the law around spiking, tackling the taking of intimate images without consent, or the new laws on child sexual abuse material, which we have heard about. There are a number of new offences in the Bill that will go towards achieving our mission. It will sit nicely alongside the tackling violence against women and girls strategy, which the Government will publish later this year.

[Anna Sabine]

Q This question flows on nicely, because the Bill creates a lot of new offences and orders, but one of the themes of today has been resourcing. I wonder to what extent the Government have considered the impact that the Bill will have on the police, the courts and local authorities.

Alex Davies-Jones: All of the impact assessments have been published on gov.uk outlining this; that has been done. Members will be well aware of the crisis that we have inherited in the criminal justice system, be that within the court system or the prison system. However, we feel it necessary to make sure that there is always a prison place available for those who require a prison place, for public protection and for punishment. That is why we have introduced the Bill, while recognising that within the criminal justice system we also have a number of reviews that are taking place independently, be it the sentencing review or the review of our courts.

Dame Diana Johnson: I will just add that we had the police settlement at the end of January. We listened to what the police were saying, particularly about our commitment on around neighbourhood policing and the 13,000 additional police officers and PCSOs during the course of this Parliament. We doubled the amount of money going in to kickstart that from April, from £100 million to £200 million. Overall, the police settlement has gone up by, I think, £1.2 billion. Additional money is going in, but I agree with what the PCCs said about the challenging circumstances that some forces are in. We recognise that, and there is a proposal—a White Paper—coming forward on police reform, because we think we can do things more efficiently and effectively as we go forward.

There is certainly work now around the efficiencies that we can get out of the policing budget, in terms of things such as buying fleet, if we do it together rather than individual police forces doing it individually. IT can also be done together, rather than being done individually by 43 police forces. There are savings to be made there, which we want to plough back into police funding.

Prevent: Learning Review

David Burton-Sampson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, and of course the Home Secretary, for coming to this place for this statement. None of us in the House can imagine the pain, the suffering and the anger that the Amess family are going through after losing their beloved Sir David: their father and husband. I have met the family, and they are still in absolute devastation. We should hold them in our thoughts today.

We should never forget Sir David. I pay tribute to him and to his family for the way in which they have conducted themselves throughout this whole sorry affair. I will continue working closely with the family as well as with the Home Secretary and her team to ensure that they get the support and the answers that they need.

We will never forget Sir David in Southend. We will shortly be putting some memory boards up on the Chalkwell lifeguard station that reflect Sir David’s life and our journey to becoming a city. I thank Lady Julia and the local councillors for working closely with me on the project.

I welcome the news today that the Prevent commissioner will be reviewing this case and the implementation of recommendations in relation to it. I am glad to hear that the Home Secretary has written to Essex police about the complaint that has been logged. I thank her for her support on that. It is important that that is seen through so that once again the family get the answers that they deserve. I ask the Minister, and obviously the Home Secretary, to give me an assurance that they will continue to work closely with me and, most importantly, the Amess family, so that we can get them those answers and give them the comfort to enable them to move on with their lives. They will never forget, but we can help them to move forward.

[Dan Jarvis]

I very grateful to my hon. Friend, not least because this is an issue of the most profound importance to his constituents. He is completely right that we must hold Sir David’s family in our thoughts and in our hearts today. He is also completely right that we should strive to ensure— and I know that we will—that we never forget Sir David.

My hon. Friend is in his place close to where I remember Sir David used to stand. Sir David was, among many other things, a complete master of the pre-recess Adjournment debate. I can see him now standing there confidently, expertly and authoritatively reeling off a very long list of requests that he completely expected the Government to get on with and deliver for his constituents. He was truly inspirational. We will never forget him.

I absolutely give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks that we will continue to work closely with the family and with all hon. Members to ensure that, through the work of the independent Prevent commissioner and the work I referenced earlier with regard to the Home Secretary writing to Essex police, the family get the answers that they rightly deserve.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

David Burton-Sampson Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I need Members to work with me so that we can get in the final 10 questions; otherwise, there will be a lot of disappointment. If Members have not been here and bobbing throughout, there is no point in them trying to catch my eye now.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, which was full of action. I am pleased that last week I supported the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill so that we can start implementing much-needed safeguarding measures—unlike some Conservative Members, who attempted to wreck the Bill and spread misinformation, which led to online abuse towards many Members. Does the Home Secretary share my concern about the most rapidly evolving forms of child sexual abuse taking place online, including through artificial intelligence-facilitated child sexual abuse material? Can she outline what plans the Government have to strengthen the law in this area?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. In addition to the measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, including on the proper identification of children to strengthen child protection, which is crucial, we need much stronger measures to tackle online abuse and exploitation. I am really worried about the pace at which this problem is escalating, about the fact that it involves online grooming, abuse and indecent images, and about the impact of drawing young people into contact abuse. We will bring forward new laws in this area.

Financial Fraud and Economic Crime

David Burton-Sampson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his place and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on securing this massively important debate. This is a subject that I have been more than aware of throughout my entire professional career. In the light of that, I also declare an interest: I have been working in the financial services industry for many years.

According to the UK fraud costs measurement committee, the level of fraud in the UK directly affecting consumers in 2023 was estimated to be a staggering £8 billion. The former Conservative Government did not prioritise economic crime sufficiently, according to the Treasury Committee. Now, it is up to the new Government to take action to improve the supervisory system and combat economic crime, which is growing. Improvements need to be made to assess the extent of economic crime and fraud in the UK—it is telling that there are no clear measures of the true impact of fraud on individuals, businesses and the economy. Some of my hon. Friend’s suggestions will help us to get a real understanding of the impact.

A wide range of crimes fall under the category of fraud and economic crime, and the sums of money involved range from small to huge. To give a personal example, only last month in my constituency in Southend, some of my constituents were left feeling tricked, over—believe it or not—an inflatable fun day. They bought tickets in good faith, but it was a fictitious event. Some parents were left out of pocket after buying a number of the £15 tickets online, and clearly children were left very upset. Those sorts of things should not happen, but it is one small example of how fraud can impact families on a day-to-day basis.

The police force in my county of Essex has a serious economic crime unit, which seized £2 million-worth of assets and made 15 arrests in February alone after an intensive, month-long investigation. The squad investigates offences including romance scams, online marketplace scams, rogue traders, investment fraud, bribery and corruption.

As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer mentioned, fraud can have a devastating impact on individuals and their families, affecting not only their finances but their wellbeing, leaving them feeling manipulated and deceived. Of course, there is the long-term impact on their finances, which has a knock-on impact on the economy, as people no longer have their hard-earned savings to spend on much-needed goods and services, or just on enjoying themselves.

As I have mentioned, my background before coming to this place was in financial services, most recently in mortgages. With your indulgence, Ms Vaz, I will share a different type of fraud, where the consumer often unwittingly targets the lender. It is not usually out of malice, but done with the desire of achieving their housing dream, which for many can be seen as out of reach due to loan-to-income restrictions and high deposit requirements. Mortgage fraud can include overvaluing properties, overstating a salary or income, concealing a second mortgage from the primary lender or mis-stating the use of a property to either benefit from a more preferential rate of interest or to borrow more than the lender assesses that a client can afford.

The UK’s leading fraud prevention service, Cifas, revealed in January 2024 that one in six of UK adults—16%—admitted that they or somebody they knew had misled mortgage companies about their annual salary in order to buy their home. I agree with Cifas that more needs to be done to raise awareness of how serious a crime mortgage fraud can be. Not being honest about one’s income, debt history, employment or the value of the property is a serious matter. Being caught will have long-term effects on one’s ability to gain a mortgage, and could have other financial consequences.

I call on the Minister and the new Government to work with the relevant partners and stakeholders to strengthen and expand the fraud strategy that was announced in May 2023 to combat the ever-growing and more sophisticated fraudulent schemes that target individual consumers. Equally, awareness needs to be raised among consumers about the consequences of them falling unexpectedly into the world of fraud when applying for finance, especially mortgages. I would like to see collaboration between banks and other lenders, the regulator and the Government, to drive awareness of mortgage fraud through misrepresentation. That, of course, would be complemented by the Government’s plans to make the dream of home ownership more accessible for all.