Orgreave Inquiry
Diana Johnson Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement regarding this Government’s commitment to establishing the truth about events at Orgreave in 1984.
The clashes at Orgreave coking plant in 1984 are etched indelibly into our nation’s memory. The clash marked a pivotal moment in the nationwide miners’ strike that was ongoing during that period. Some 95 picketers were arrested and charged with riot and violent disorder, but all charges were later dropped after evidence was discredited. As a result of the violence, there were serious implications for the relationship between policing and coalfield communities at that time, and the passage of time has not diminished the impact on those present and their families.
On Thursday last week, the Home Secretary visited the site of the former Orgreave coking plant, along with campaigners from the National Union of Mineworkers and the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, as well as a number of Members of this House and the Mayor of South Yorkshire. I know that the Home Secretary was very grateful to all those who took the time to attend and that she was moved by the experience they shared and by walking part of the route that picketers walked on that day 41 years ago. It is this Labour Government’s commitment to get truth and justice for those coalfield communities.
It is important to note that there have been significant changes in the oversight of policing since 1984 and the way in which public order is policed. Nevertheless, questions about the specific events at Orgreave have remained unanswered for far too long. More than four decades may have passed, but those questions must still be answered. That is why we committed in Labour’s manifesto to ensure, through an investigation or inquiry, that the truth about events at Orgreave comes to light. Yesterday we made good on that promise, as the Home Secretary announced the establishment of an inquiry into events surrounding the clashes at the Orgreave coking plant in 1984.
The Rt Rev Dr Pete Wilcox, the Bishop of Sheffield, has agreed to chair the inquiry. The bishop is a very well-respected member of the local and wider regional community in South Yorkshire, and his credibility and impartiality will stand him in very good stead to deliver this inquiry. He will be supported by a small panel of independent experts who will be appointed in due course, in a similar vein to the Hillsborough panel chaired by the Bishop of Liverpool in 2010.
The purpose of the inquiry will be to aid public understanding of how the violent clashes and injuries caused at Orgreave on 18 June 1984, and the events immediately afterwards, came to pass. It will be a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, with the appropriate powers to compel the provision of information where necessary. The direction of the inquiry’s investigation will be a matter for the chair. As the sponsoring Department, the Home Office will provide support and ensure that the inquiry has the resources needed to fulfil its terms of reference, but it will have no other say in the conduct of the inquiry or the conclusions that it may reach until it is time for us to respond to them.
It will be key for the inquiry to have access to all information that it deems relevant. For that reason, the Home Secretary has recently written to all police forces, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and all Government Departments to ask that all material they hold relating to the events at Orgreave be retained, in order that it can be provided in a timely manner to the inquiry if requested. Recognising the need to deliver swiftly while avoiding any undue impact on individuals’ wellbeing, I hope the inquiry will look to previous examples of good practice, such as the Hillsborough independent panel, to inform its method of delivery.
The Home Secretary is in the process of consulting the inquiry chair on proposed terms of reference. She has asked him to engage with key stakeholders, including the National Union of Mineworkers and the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, as part of that process. We will place a final copy of the terms of reference in the Libraries of both Houses at the earliest opportunity thereafter. It is our expectation that the inquiry will launch in the autumn.
For the police to perform their critical functions effectively, it is essential that they can secure and maintain the confidence of the people they serve. That is why this Labour Government have made rebuilding trust in policing an integral part of our plan for change. Of course, much of that effort is concerned with strengthening forces for the challenges of now and the future, but where historical events cast a long shadow that stretches into the present day in our coalfield communities, we must shine a light on what happened and ensure that any and all lessons are learned.
Questions about events at Orgreave have gone unanswered for too long. This Government committed to putting that right, and the upcoming inquiry will work independently, fairly and without fear or favour to establish the truth about what happened. I commend this statement to the House.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Growing up in the north-east, I know the emotions stirred by the miners’ strike; decades after the events, they continue to cause significant division and disagreement in our communities. Regardless of people’s views on the rights and wrongs of the incident, historic events such as this, which saw conflict and violence on our streets, will always be deeply regrettable.
We must acknowledge that in the decades since, no Government—including the last Labour Government, which had 13 years—deemed it necessary to establish such an inquiry. That Labour Government included three current Home Office Ministers, with the current Minister for Border Security and Asylum, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), serving in the Home Office at the time. If this inquiry has a real contribution to make, why did the then Labour Government not hold one? What has changed?
As Members will know, there have been previous calls for such an inquiry, but when the decision was made not to grant one, it was based on reasoned grounds. There has been a passage of time, and there have been significant legislative and systematic changes in the decades since. As the Home Secretary said in her written statement,
“there have been significant changes in the oversight of policing since 1984, and to the way that public order is now policed”.
Does the Minister believe that an inquiry is likely to result in any meaningful and relevant lessons for today’s policing system?
The Minister is a long-standing advocate for those impacted by infected blood—a case of truly disgraceful systematic treatment over decades. Similarly, the Hillsborough panel highlighted the deep injustice of a tragedy involving this police force, but both those inquiries understandably came at considerable cost. Will the Minister outline what the Department anticipates that delivering a proportionate and meaningful inquiry on this issue will cost?
The press reports on the proposed chairman raise serious questions about his ability to act in a politically neutral and independent manner. Can the Minister assure the House that the inquiry will not be political in nature and that it will listen to the views of all parties present on the day, so that it is not merely an example of the Government putting the interests of the unions ahead of the police? As with so many issues recently, this raises questions about the commitment of the Government to supporting brave police officers, who act within the law to do their job. Can she confirm that the Government are committed to supporting police officers who put themselves in harm’s way to keep public order and comply with their training and instructions?
Finally, I note from the Government’s publication that the inquiry will be statutory, with powers to compel individuals to provide information where necessary. That sounds remarkably similar to a request that we have made to the Government, which was repeatedly rejected. The victims and survivors of rape gangs deserve detailed updates on the progress of that inquiry, yet the lack of information about how the new inquiry will be set up and how it will compel evidence leads me to conclude that the Government have prioritised the miners over the minors who suffered horrific exploitation at the hands of rape gangs. This Labour Government’s union paymasters should not determine the pecking order of justice in this country. There are still perpetrators of child sexual exploitation and those who covered it up who have gone unpunished, yet the Government have chosen to prioritise this inquiry. In her audit, Baroness Casey spoke of the need to implement inquiries that are time limited. I ask the Government to focus on this issue and, given their initial refusal to do so, ensure that action is taken at a much greater speed to bring about justice for those young, vulnerable women who suffered at the hands of rape gangs.
Dame Diana Johnson
I was going to start by saying that I welcomed the shadow Minister’s initial comments, in which he recognised how the situation at Orgreave all those years ago still casts a shadow over communities in Yorkshire, the north-east and other parts of the country. I must say that I was surprised by some of his comments, because I know that he is a good man and is trying his best to fulfil the role of shadow Policing Minister. I will answer his questions, and will come on to the issue of grooming gangs that he raised in the latter part of his contribution, but I must say that I found his comments extremely distasteful, as well as not accurate or correct.
First, I will deal with the question of why we are having this Orgreave inquiry. Our manifesto committed us to ensuring that there was a thorough investigation or inquiry, so that
“the truth about the events at Orgreave comes to light.”
We are delivering on that manifesto commitment today. As I said in my statement, we are also committed to rebuilding public confidence in policing, and campaigners and mining communities have spent decades searching for answers about what happened. The purpose of the inquiry will be to aid the public understanding of how the events at Orgreave on 18 June 1984 and immediately afterwards came to pass. I hope that explains why we are taking this action today.
The shadow Minister asked about the cost. We have been very clear that the Home Office will meet the cost of the inquiry. We are also mindful that we want the inquiry to be as expeditious as possible, and to be value for money. That is why we have looked at the model of the Hillsborough independent inquiry—we think that is a good model to follow. Certainly, there will be conversations with the chair about the projected cost and the timeline that he will want to set out.
Turning to the issue of the chair, again I was really disappointed by the shadow Minister’s remarks about the bishop. Bishop Pete has previously supported calls for an inquiry. It is important to note that that was in the context of his pastoral role, in which he has supported members of the diocese of Sheffield who were impacted by the events at Orgreave. He certainly did not show any favour towards either the police or the picketers when calling for that inquiry. I do not think that that call detracts from the necessary credibility, impartiality and independence that I believe Bishop Pete will bring to his role as chair of the inquiry. He has the backing and support of the key stakeholders in taking that role forward. It is also important to remember that the chair of the inquiry will be supported by a small group of independent members, who will have expert knowledge in certain areas to help the chair fulfil his terms of reference.
As the shadow Minister said, the inquiry is statutory. That is because we recognise the importance of ensuring that documents can be brought forward. It is important that people can be compelled to produce documents and that witnesses can be compelled as well.
Finally, the shadow Minister referred to the issue of grooming gangs. He will know that a great deal of work has been done to make sure that the hideous, appalling situations that have been uncovered around the grooming gangs will now be dealt with. The Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), has given statements to the House, as has the Home Secretary, and there has been a clear list of the actions that are being taken. It is absolutely right that that work is done. Of course, when the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse was set up under the previous Government, there was support across the House for the work of Professor Alexis Jay. It is a great pity that the previous Government did not enact any of Professor Jay’s recommendations. That is the hugely shameful state of affairs that this Government inherited, but I am absolutely clear that this Government are dealing with grooming gangs. That is the right thing to do, but equally, setting up the Orgreave inquiry today is the right thing to do.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Policing Minister announcing to the House the actions that the Government will be taking. I was active at the time of the miners’ strike, and I now represent 23 former mining villages. Many of the men I represent were at Orgreave, and if we were to take even a small sample of opinion as to what those men think happened there, they would say that the finger points in one direction only: at No. 10, and at people closely associated with Mrs Thatcher.
I want to ask about the inquiry’s terms of reference. On the day, 90-odd men were arrested on trumped-up charges, with evidence falsified by police officers. I have met some of those police officers, and they say that they had orders from above telling them what to say and what to write. That is a serious matter: men were put on bail, put in prison or even hospitalised, all on trumped-up charges. Will the inquiry’s terms of reference allow the bishop—who is a good man—to pursue the trail of evidence wherever it leads, in order to determine once and for all how that injustice was organised by people in the Conservative party?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question; I know that he has a great deal of experience and knowledge in this area. As I said in my statement, the terms of reference are currently being discussed with the chair, but it is very clear that the inquiry should look at the evidence, and should hear testimony if that is what it wishes to do. It will do so without fear or favour, wherever the evidence leads it to look.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I came into the Chamber for this statement to hear and speak about the Orgreave inquiry, so it was pretty shocking to hear the shadow Minister use it as an opportunity to yet again play politics with child sexual abuse and exploitation. As a survivor myself, I find that particularly appalling.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the announcement of a statutory inquiry into the events that took place between police and miners at Orgreave on 18 June 1984. For years, those caught up in the harrowing events of that day have had to carry the painful trauma of that unresolved injustice—not just the injuries sustained, but the police charges that were subsequently dropped. Over 40 years on, we must come together to ensure that this inquiry reaches its full potential and uncovers the answers that those impacted deeply deserve. That must include proper consultation, which will be key to rebuilding public trust. I would therefore welcome more details from the Minister about how local communities, campaigners, and impacted miners and their families will be involved throughout the inquiry.
Inquiries can be a powerful tool for uncovering the truth about injustice, but they will only reach their full potential when there is a duty of candour that requires public officials and authorities to co-operate fully. As such, although the Government have committed to bringing such a duty of candour into force, will the Minister take this opportunity to provide a clear timeline for introducing a Hillsborough law to Parliament?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. To put things in context, the Home Secretary and I have met a range of key stakeholders already to hear their respective views on the scope and nature of the Orgreave inquiry and what it should seek to achieve. There has already been a consultation with the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, the National Union of Mineworkers, South Yorkshire police, the Mayor of South Yorkshire and many Members of this House who have an interest in this issue, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), as Orgreave lies in her constituency.
We have also met other interested parties in the field of law. One of them whom I met personally was Michael Mansfield KC. He was the lawyer who represented a number of those who were charged at Orgreave. We have also met academics, because we know that there is value in looking at what academics can show us about what works with inquiries. We have therefore already engaged in a lot of consultation. There is further ongoing consultation on the terms of reference, and that is the responsibility of the chair. I expect that all the parties we have met will be engaged again.
There is active work being done on the Hillsborough law at the moment. I cannot give a timeline today, but I know that it will be brought to the House shortly.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
It is a privilege to be in the Chamber today to hear that we are finally getting the inquiry that has long been campaigned for by the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, the NUM and many in my community and across South Yorkshire. They are simply asking for the truth. The shadow Minister has just said that the inquiry should not be politicised, but does the Minister agree that Orgreave is political? It is one of the most political things that has ever happened to South Yorkshire, and it is incredibly important that the inquiry is put on a statutory footing so that it can compel people to give evidence and get to the truth of something that many in our communities still bear the scars of.
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge about how Orgreave has affected her community so many years on. She makes the important point that there is a political context to this inquiry. Those of us who were around then know that it was a very political time, with the miners’ strike and all that. It is absolutely right that we have this opportunity to look across the piece at what happened at Orgreave. As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said, there was perhaps the involvement of other politicians, so it is important that we recognise the political context. That is why, again, it is so important that the inquiry will be put on a statutory footing, to allow documents to be demanded and witnesses to be compelled to give evidence.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
First, I welcome the statement that has been made by the Minister today. It is an enormous step forward, and we should pay a huge tribute to the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, and in particular Kate Flannery and Chris Peace and their colleagues, for all the great work that they have done for a long time. Labour pledged to hold an inquiry in its last three manifestos—in 2017, 2019 and 2024—so this is a good step forward.
Will the Minister bear in mind carefully what the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said in his excellent question? Lives were ruined. People were badly injured as a result of Orgreave. They suffered for many years and were unable to work because they were blacklisted and for other reasons. Charges were made on trumped-up evidence and consequently people suffered. It has gone on for a long time.
We need to know a number of things. Will the terms of reference allow evidence to be taken under oath from wherever it needs to be taken, and from whoever was there? Arthur Scargill and many others, and all those surviving miners who were there must be given time to explain exactly what happened. We also need to know the role of South Yorkshire police in the attacks that took place against those miners, so that we can get to the truth. I realise that putting a timetable on an inquiry is a slightly difficult thing to do, because we do not want to prevent the inquiry from getting all the evidence it needs, but we also do not want the inquiry to run on forever and lose its impetus and purpose. Can the Minister therefore give us some idea of roughly how long she expects the inquiry to take to report? Is she prepared to accept interim reports, so that rapid progress can be made?
Will the Minister assure the House that where the evidence leads to the culpability of Ministers, police officers, senior civil servants or many others throughout the command chain for the events that the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth explained, prosecutions will follow, with evidence put before the courts and, if necessary, people brought to justice for it? We have to bring justice to the totality of this event.
Dame Diana Johnson
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about paying tribute to the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign. I had the privilege to meet some of the members of that campaign, and I fully acknowledge and appreciate how lives were ruined and families have suffered a lot. Not just the people there on the day, but the wider families have suffered. It is absolutely right that we set up this inquiry; lives have been ruined.
I know that the chair will take note of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about what he would like to see in the terms of reference. As to the timetable, I absolutely agree. I want this inquiry to be conducted as quickly as possible, but as thoroughly as possible. We were looking at a timeframe of around two years, but that was in the early discussions that we had. I obviously cannot prejudge the recommendations of the inquiry; we will need to look at those recommendations when they are made.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
As chair of the coalfields group of Labour MPs, and on behalf of the group, I welcome this statement. It is an historic moment, and I know that Orgreave Truth and Justice campaigners and many more Labour colleagues would have been present had they had a little more notice.
The Minister will know that, even last year, organisations such as Northumbria police were destroying documents. Those actions could hinder this inquiry, and it is vital that individuals and organisations are held accountable, not just for what happened 40 years ago, but for any attempts to undermine justice by destroying evidence. Will the Minister confirm that the inquiry will have access to all information and evidence, and that no further documents will be destroyed or evidence withheld? Will the inquiry have the power to compel witness testimony?
I hope that this inquiry will not only uncover the truth, but make recommendations to right the wrongs done to many miners, including some of my constituents, who were wrongly convicted under riot and unlawful assembly laws. Ray Patterson, now sadly no longer with us, is one of those miners. I thank the Minister and the Government for honouring the manifesto pledge.
Dame Diana Johnson
First, I will deal with this issue around documents. The Home Secretary recently wrote to all police forces in England and Wales and all Government Departments to remind them of the relevant legislative frameworks for records management and to ask that information relating to the events at Orgreave on 18 June 1984 be retained. The Home Secretary has asked, if any documents have been destroyed, what those documents were and why they were destroyed. It is also worth reminding the House that under section 35 of the Inquiries Act 2005, it is a criminal offence to destroy or conceal information relevant to a public inquiry.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her statement, and for her carefully chosen words on a contentious issue. I ask her this question gently from experience. Does she appreciate that, similar to the prosecution of veterans and service personnel in Northern Ireland, asking a retired officer why he made a split-second decision 40 years ago, what was happening in detail when he made that decision and the exact wording of directions given to him is and can be incredibly distressing and upsetting? Those officers are now in their 80s or perhaps even their 90s. What support can the Minister offer them to enable them to cope with the re-traumatisation that they will undoubtedly suffer?
Dame Diana Johnson
That is an important point. This is not the first time a Minister has had to stand here and agree to an inquiry into events that happened a long time ago. The hon. Gentleman and I have worked together on the infected blood inquiry, so he will know that it took a long time to arrive at that point. I fully recognise that the length of time involved means some people, sadly, will have died, while others will be very elderly and having to recall what happened. This is not how we would want it to be, is it? As for the hon. Gentleman’s point about those who will be called to give testimony to the inquiry, I know that the bishop will be considering what support should be provided to help the witnesses, whether they are police officers or picketers and their families, and I am sure that that will be uppermost in his mind.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
As one who represents a constituency in the heart of the Durham coalfield, I recognise the pressing need for an inquiry into the events that occurred at the Orgreave plant on 18 June 1984, and, like others, I send a huge thank you to the members of the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, who have worked for decades for this moment. Does the Minister share my frustration at the length of time it has taken the House to invoke such a crucial inquiry, and will she commit herself to investigating the role and involvement of central Government in the planning and instruction on how to allocate resources—financial and otherwise—in the lead-up to, during and after that day at the height of the 1984-85 miners’ strike in Rotherham?
Dame Diana Johnson
I bitterly regret the fact that it has taken so long for the inquiry to be established. As I have said, there were a number of other causes, but we should have been looking at this far earlier. I think it helpful that Members are expressing their views about what should be covered by the terms of reference for the inquiry, because I know that the bishop will want to note what the House and its Members have to say and ensure that they form part of his discussions about those terms of reference.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It was alleged that Amber Rudd refused to hold an Orgreave inquiry because it would slur the memory of Thatcher. Can the Minister confirm that this inquiry will have a statutory power to compel witnesses to provide evidence, and that politics will not get in the way of uncovering the truth once and for all?
Dame Diana Johnson
I can absolutely confirm that this is a statutory inquiry, with all the legal powers that a statutory inquiry has to compel the provision of documents and of evidence from witnesses and to go wherever the evidence leads it.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for miscarriages of justice and a lifelong trade unionist, I welcome the long overdue announcement of a statutory inquiry into Orgreave and pay tribute to all who have campaigned for truth and justice, particularly the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign. However, given the serious concerns about evidence that has been destroyed, tampered with or withheld, will the Minister confirm that any inquiry will be underpinned by a clear legal duty of candour to guarantee full transparency and accountability on the part of all those involved, including the police and former Government officials, so that the victims and campaigners receive the full answers that they deserve?
Dame Diana Johnson
We gave careful consideration to the role played by the Hillsborough independent inquiry, because we think it would be very useful for the chair of this inquiry to look at the model that it provides. I take my hon. Friend’s point about the duty of candour, and work is being done on putting that into statute, but the bishop will be looking at all these issues.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I remember clearly the miners’ strike of 1984 and, in particular, what happened at Orgreave, and I know that it has many painful memories for a lot of people, so let me first thank and commend the Government for holding this statutory public inquiry. It appears that after four decades we will finally secure some truth and justice in relation to what happened on 18 June 1984, and also what happened to the 95 miners and how they were treated. Will the Minister please assure the House that if the inquiry does reveal evidence of misconduct and wrongdoing, the necessary action will be taken, and that we will learn lessons to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is clear that once the inquiry has been established we must let it do its work and make its recommendations, and we will then seek to respond to those recommendations.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement and for launching the inquiry, thus keeping our manifesto promise. In coalfield communities such as mine, many former miners still bear the scars, physical and mental, of what happened at Orgreave 41 years ago, and our towns and villages still feel that collective sense of injustice. A great many men want to share their stories of that day, to ensure their own closure but also to ensure that the truth will out. Will the Minister assure my constituents, and ex-miners up and down the country, that they will have an opportunity to contribute to the inquiry?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am sure that the bishop will listen carefully to the comments that Members have made. I know that some people would feel very comfortable talking about what happened, explaining and giving testimony, while others would not want to do that. It will be for the bishop to decide on the best way forward, to ensure that the inquiry hears from individuals and has access to the documents, and he will be setting out the terms of reference shortly.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Minister’s statement and the fulfilment of that manifesto commitment and, like others, I pay tribute to the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign.
I am sure that Members across the House will have been disturbed by reports of the destruction of potentially relevant documents—a point that has already been ably raised. The Home Office is currently considering the case for instituting a public inquiry into the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings, and I do not expect the Minister to pre-empt that today, but in respect of the preservation of records, will the Department consider taking the same actions to preserve potentially relevant documents, including those held by external bodies, in advance of that decision? The Northumbria police case highlights the particular risk of accidental loss or deliberate destruction in advance of that legal protection kicking in. I would welcome the chance to discuss this matter further with the Minister.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very happy to discuss this matter with my hon. Friend. I think it worth pointing out that police forces are independent of Government and that decisions concerning the management of their records are for them to make in accordance with their respective reviews and policies on retention and disposal. The Government expect any such decisions to be made in accordance with relevant legislation and national guidance and, as I have said, it is a criminal offence to destroy documents that may be relevant or to conceal information that would interest a public inquiry.
Forensic Science Regulator: Appointment
Diana Johnson Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I am today announcing the appointment of the Forensic Science Regulator. Following an open competition conducted in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments, I have decided to appoint Dr Marc Bailey. He is a highly experienced scientist who brings a wealth of scientific and administrative experience to the role. He has held multiple roles within the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency including as Chief Science, Research and Innovation Officer and Head of Analytical and Biological Sciences. His three-year term of appointment commences on 26 July.
I should like to record the Government’s appreciation of the former Regulator, Gary Pugh OBE, for his contribution towards the regulation of Forensic Science in England and Wales as the first ever statutory Regulator.
[HCWS864]
Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity
Diana Johnson Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on criminal activity by illegal immigrants at asylum hotels.
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
As the House will be aware, on Tuesday 8 July an arrest was made by Essex police following incidents that took place in Epping earlier that day, and a man was subsequently charged. His trial is due to start on 26 August, and he has been remanded in custody until that time. These are very serious allegations and it is vital that criminal justice procedures are able to run their course—Superintendent Tim Tubbs of Essex police has said that
“the last thing we want is for any public discussion to hinder an ongoing prosecution.”
I thank Essex police both for its swift response on that case and for handling the protests in Essex yesterday evening and in previous days with diligence and professionalism.
Criminal activity of any kind is totally unacceptable, wherever it occurs and whoever it is perpetrated by. As outlined following the recent Casey report, we are improving joint protection arrangements between the police and immigration enforcement linked to the asylum system. We are clear that where crimes are committed, every effort must be made to catch, prosecute and punish those responsible.
Let there be absolutely no doubt: foreign nationals, including asylum seekers, who abuse our hospitality by breaking our laws should expect to be removed from this country. In the first year of this Government, 5,179 foreign national criminals were removed from the UK—a 14% increase on the previous year. That is important progress, but we want to go further. Through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we are changing the law to ensure that individuals convicted of any registered sexual offence are not granted asylum, and we are legislating to allow for the tagging of any migrant considered to pose a threat to public safety or national security, as well as strengthening our crackdown on illegal working.
But we must go further to end hotel use. This Labour Government inherited an asylum system in chaos, with 400 hotels in use at the peak in 2023 at a cost of almost £9 million a day. We are changing that, clearing the asylum backlog and increasing returns to end the use of asylum hotels all together by the end of this Parliament. Alongside those actions, we are mounting a comprehensive and wide-ranging effort to tackle small boat crossings, including the intensified co-operation and pilot returns scheme with France outlined by the Home Secretary in her statement last week.
There is no quick fix for the chronic problems this Government inherited, but, for the first time in years, there is now a serious and sensible plan to restore order and proper management to the asylum and immigration system. Let me state plainly to the House that we expect rules to be respected and enforced, and we expect the law to be followed. When it is not, we expect those involved to face the full force of the law. We are taking every possible step to deliver the strong border security that the country needs, because nothing matters more than the safety of the British people.
Chris Philp
The Policing Minister was crowing about the Government’s action on small boats, but the truth is this: so far this year, the Government have allowed in 23,000 illegal immigrants across the channel—that is 52% up on last year; this year has been by far the worst ever; and numbers in asylum hotels are now higher than at the time of the election. This is a border security crisis, but it is also a public safety crisis, especially for women and girls. Many nationalities crossing—for example, Afghans—commit up to 20 times more sex offences than average; Louise Casey made that point in her report.
Now we have press reporting on the huge scale of the crime committed by illegal immigrants housed in the Government’s own asylum hotels. The Sun found 339 charges in the last six months based on only half the hotels currently operated. The Mail on Sunday found 708 charges based on only a third of those hotels. Those crimes included multiple cases of rape, sexual assault, violence, theft and arson, including the case that the Minister referred to in Epping, where a 38-year-old Ethiopian man has been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. An illegal immigrant in Oxford has been convicted of raping a 20-year-old woman in a churchyard. A Sudanese man was convicted of strangling and attempting to rape a woman in a nightclub toilet in Wakefield. Violent protest in response to those appalling crimes is never justified. The public, though, are rightly sick of this illegal immigrant crime wave. It has to end.
Will the Minister commit now to doing the following things? First, will she record and publish the immigration status of all offenders? Secondly, will she close that asylum hotel in Epping? Thirdly, will she repeal the Human Rights Act for immigration matters? Finally, will she emulate Greece’s new approach, which started today, and deport all illegal immigrants on arrival from France without judicial process either back to their country of origin or to a safe third country? Will she give the House and the country those commitments?
Dame Diana Johnson
Let me repeat to the House that any allegation of crime or sexual assault—including by individuals in the asylum system—is incredibly serious and is to be treated so by the authorities and by the Government. I regret the tone that the shadow Home Secretary is taking on such a serious and important matter. I also gently remind him to look at his record and that of the Conservative party on this issue. More than 400 asylum hotels were in operation at their peak, housing over 50,000 people at a cost of almost £9 million a day. Enforced returns were down 50% on 2010. Returns of foreign national offenders had fallen by a thousand. Criminal smuggler gangs were able to exploit our weak border security—
Dame Diana Johnson
There was no proper management of public safety risks posed by individual asylum seekers. [Interruption.]
Dame Diana Johnson
There was no proper management of public safety risks posed by individual asylum seekers, and migrants could work illegally in the gig economy with few sanctions for the companies responsible.
This Government are gripping the situation and turning the system around. We have removed 5,179 foreign national offenders in our first year in office. Just to put that in perspective for the benefit of the House, that is more foreign criminals than were removed in the entire 20 months when the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister for Immigration.
Dame Diana Johnson
Excuse, excuse, excuse.
I would say that the same pattern is true of illegal working—but actually it is even worse. In the first quarter of this year, we delivered more raids, more arrests and more fines for illegal working than the shadow Home Secretary managed in the entire time he was Immigration Minister. We did more in three months to crack down on illegal working than he managed in 20. Now—
Dame Diana Johnson
It is not nonsense; it is facts.
Now we are trying to go further in all these areas, but it is clear that the Conservatives and their friends in Reform are the ones trying to stop us. We introduced counter-terror measures at the border to smash the gangs responsible for the vile trade; they voted against the Bill that delivers that. We introduced measures to ban sex offenders from getting asylum in the UK; they voted against the Bill that delivers them. We introduced tagging for those arriving illegally who pose a risk to the public, and extended illegal working duties to cover the gig economy; once again, they voted against it. We have seen 14 years of inaction, leaving our borders exposed and our communities fractured—yet the shadow Home Secretary has the cheek to lecture us about keeping the country safe.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my declaration of interests. People who come to this country legally and work hard are welcome, but the Minister is right to say that those who do not are not. We know that one of the big pull factors is the ability to work illegally in the UK. Can the Minister set out what the Government are doing to stamp out illegal working, and in particular the role of the new fair work agency introduced by the Employment Rights Bill, which will be critical in stopping illegal working in the UK?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend will know that the Immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), who I believe gave evidence to the esteemed Home Affairs Committee on which he sits, is looking at that issue. A number of companies have been reported in the press as employing or using people in particular from asylum hotels—I know the shadow Home Secretary has taken a particular interest in this—and the Minister is working very hard to ensure that those companies are held to account, and that the new provisions we are bringing in to ensure that the gig economy is treated in the same way as other employers, who have to check individuals’ immigration status, are followed through. There is much more to do, but certainly I know the Immigration Minister is working hard on this.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The scenes of violent unrest at the Bell hotel this weekend are deeply concerning. Liberal Democrats will always defend the right to peaceful protest, but what we saw went far beyond that. There is no place for that sort of violence and thuggery in our society. I thank the police and the emergency services for their brave and professional response, and my thoughts go out to anyone who is feeling frightened as a result of those unacceptable scenes.
It is completely understandable that people are concerned about criminal activity, not least after the former Conservative Government’s chaotic approach to immigration shattered public trust. That is why we need an efficient asylum system that swiftly returns those without a genuine right to stay. I would welcome details from the Minister on what steps the Government are taking to deliver that. Clear rules that are properly enforced will be key to rebuilding public trust in the system after it was broken by the Conservatives.
Dame Diana Johnson
I welcome the tone of the hon. Lady’s contribution. This is a serious issue; I fully agree with her on peaceful protest, but it is totally unacceptable when that steps over into violent disorder, as we saw last summer, for example. She will know that there is a huge effort going in to deal with the backlog we inherited from the previous Government—to speed up the process so that those people who should not be in our country are swiftly removed, and those refugees and asylum seekers whose claims are accepted can get on with the rest of their lives.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the surge in returns that we have seen and the raids on companies with illegal working practices. As we have spoken about many times in this House, those companies are incentivising the boat crossings and ultimately undermining our national security. Can the Minister set out what further enforcement there can be? Is it possible that conversations could be had with the Treasury about further measures that could be taken to bring some of these companies to heel?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am the Policing Minister, but I know that work is already under way on that issue. The Immigration Minister has had a number of conversations, particularly with employers, as I have just said, about where work should not be taking place because of individuals’ immigration status. There has been investment in the National Crime Agency—additional officers are working on this issue—and work is under way on smashing the gangs who were behind bringing people across in the small boats. There are also our international arrangements and treaties that we are signing with various countries, which the previous Government were unable to do.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This is a real national crisis, and there is such an outcry and such outrage in the country that there is a real danger that people will take the law into their own hands, which we all deprecate. We have to solve this, and the only way to do so is to have a reasonable and proper deterrent. We must arrest the people who land on our shores, detain them and send them back to where they came from. The Human Rights Act 1998 was never intended to cover illegal immigrants of this sort. We have to do this for all our sakes; otherwise, people will wrongly take the law into their own hands.
Dame Diana Johnson
As I just said to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, peaceful protest is completely acceptable. We understand that there are different opinions on immigration in this country, and people should be allowed to voice those opinions. When that turns into violent disorder, as we have seen, it is not acceptable. I know that the police behave in a very professional way. They allow protests to take place, but they clearly have to keep the King’s peace as well. The Father of the House is correct to say that we need a functioning system, where applications are dealt with swiftly, people are not waiting for years for applications to be decided, and those who should not be in this country are removed.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think many of us agree with the Minister when she says that it is important that we are able to debate immigration and refugees and how we as a country support them, and that we recognise when allegations of incredibly serious sexual offences are involved that people are rightly concerned. Peaceful protest plays its part, but she will be conscious that the police themselves have condemned the “mindless thuggery” that we have seen in Epping. Also, there are reports that seem quite serious about neo-Nazi groups and their leaflets being circulated. In order to protect peaceful protest, which many of us seek to do, we have to stop the direct targeting of individuals with violence. What assessment has been made of any co-ordination of violence by groups in these incidents?
Dame Diana Johnson
I say again that we absolutely believe that peaceful protest is part of our democratic process. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend will know, there are always people who will seek to exploit situations, and we probably saw some of that over the last few days in Epping. I say again that there were people from the local community who were expressing genuinely held views, and it is important that we note that. However, I am also aware that literature was being distributed and that other groups were perhaps going to Epping to stir up problems. The police are aware of that, and they are looking at all the information and evidence about what happened, and they will obviously keep that under review.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Two weeks ago in Epping, there were three alleged sexual assaults on school-age girls; my thoughts are with the victims, their families and their peers. These were allegedly linked to the Bell hotel, which has been stood up as an asylum hotel against all advice. Since then, we have had numerous major protests involving hundreds of people, injuries to police officers and damage to police vehicles. People quite rightly have the right to peaceful protest, but these violent scenes are not us. They are not Epping and they are not what we stand for. I want to thank Essex police for all that they are doing to keep us safe in these challenging and distressing times for our town. Following the protests, we have churches cancelling services, businesses closing early and local residents feeling like they are barricaded in their own homes. The hotel is in the wrong place: it is near a school and there is inadequate safeguarding of the hotel’s vulnerable residents. This is a crisis that is boiling over, and for the sake of community safety the Home Secretary and the Government must get a grip of the situation. They must listen and act now to close this hotel immediately. Will they now do that?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman’s comments on behalf of his constituents were measured, and he is absolutely right that our first thoughts should be with those affected by what happened in Epping—the victims and their families. It is important for the House to note that. I also want to reiterate that this Government are committed to closing all asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s concern about crimes linked to the asylum system—that is a concern held across the House. Why does the Minister think the Conservatives and Reform voted against the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which allows the tagging of asylum seekers who pose a threat to public safety?
Dame Diana Johnson
I have absolutely no idea; it is for the shadow Home Secretary to explain that one. Clearly, I would expect all hon. and right hon. Members in the House to want to do everything to keep our communities safe.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I look forward to the swift deportation of anybody who takes advantage of our hospitality by breaking our laws and attacking women and young girls. In July 2024, I warned my constituents not to throw away their futures, as the far-right lynch mobs threatened to spread to Gloucestershire. Once again this thuggery has flared up, this time in Epping. What actions are the Government taking to support authorities in the prosecution of those who whip up this furore, both online and in positions of influence?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman may know that a great deal of work has been undertaken since the disorder of last summer to ensure that intelligence is gathered from the online space, as well as the offline space, and that all the authorities are prepared and ready if there is any sign of disorder again. Just to reiterate, all of us in this House would recognise that peaceful protest is an important part of a democratic society, but not when it crosses over into the disorder and mayhem we saw last year when criminal acts were perpetrated by individuals.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I agree that it is important that we are able to debate immigration and asylum. People across the country know the consequences of the asylum system failing to protect the public, communities and businesses—we have had experience of that in my own city. Does the Minister agree that public safety must come first and that it is indefensible that the Tory party and Reform opposed measures allowing the tagging of high-risk individuals? Does she agree that the breadth and depth of this crisis needs us all to work together to regain public confidence?
Dame Diana Johnson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend—she put that eloquently. Again, I expect that all Members of this House would want to do everything to protect the members of all communities in this country.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister says that an asylum seeker convicted of an offence will not be granted asylum. Does she have some special method of sending them back to a country to which we cannot send anyone back if they have broken into our country illegally? Otherwise, what does her sanction amount to?
Dame Diana Johnson
To the right hon. Gentleman’s specific question, this is about not granting asylum to those who are convicted of a registered sexual offence, so it is not recognising that they have an asylum claim. That is the issue we are legislating for at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman and I understand that there are certain countries in the world to which it is difficult to return individuals—I fully appreciate that—but we are setting out in legislation a clear note that asylum will not be granted to those who are convicted of registered sexual offences.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), is trying to out-populist the populists, and there are dangers involved in that. Does the Minister agree that it is common sense for individuals convicted of sexual crimes to be barred from receiving protection in the UK? If so, why does she think the Conservatives and Reform voted against that?
Dame Diana Johnson
Again, that is a matter for each individual Opposition Member to explain to their constituents. I know that this is an issue that people care about. Opposition Members will have to explain their decision to their constituents, including in Croydon.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We have a responsibility to deal in the truth and to counter plainly false narratives. The Minister talked about the fact that this protest crossed over into mindless thuggery. Every one of us should stand up here and say that to our constituents or to anyone who gets in touch. People are spreading rumours that have no basis in the truth, including in my constituency, where last year a rumour went around about asylum seekers in hotels. It had absolutely no basis in the truth, but could have caused some sort of mob, like in Epping. This is dog-whistle politics. What is the Minister doing to tell people that, just as not everybody in any community in our country is a rapist, not everybody in migrant hotels is a rapist? We should do what we can to ensure that people are protected and decisions are made as quickly as possible.
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Lady raises an important point. Over the past few years, the online space in particular has been used for misinformation and downright lies. It is important that we all recognise that we should look carefully at social media sites. We should use critical thinking, as we teach our children in school. We should always ask why that piece of information has been put out and whether it is from a reliable source, and look for reliable media sources if we are seeking information about what is happening—that is important. We in this House have perhaps not been as quick as we should be to recognise how social media has moved things on in society in a way that we need to deal with. There is an enormous amount of work in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Home Office to consider what more we can do in relation to social media and the online space.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), has spoken passionately about crimes in this country—including, I dare say, some by a number of individuals who entered the country on his Government’s watch when he was a Home Office Minister. As other Members have said, when Opposition parties take that position while voting against tagging asylum seekers who are perceived to be a threat, and against barring from the country those who have been convicted of sexual crimes, it damages not only confidence in our communities but the life chances of asylum seekers who have committed no crimes and have a legitimate claim to be here. Does the Minister agree?
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes. My hon. Friend puts it very well. Within this, there are people fleeing persecution in other parts of the world. This country, as we all know and have heard many times in the House, recognises our role in the world to offer a safe haven to such people. I fully endorse what he says.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Over the past year, how many gangs have actually been smashed?
Dame Diana Johnson
As I understand it—obviously, I am the Policing Minister, but I will get the Minister with responsibility for immigration to write to the right hon. Gentleman about this—the National Crime Agency has over 80 ongoing investigations into networks, and 100 new NCA officers have been recruited and funded by the Border Security Command, taking the total number of officers focused solely on this issue to 500.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When violent disorder erupted on the streets of my constituency last summer, the police put themselves between two groups of people who had been wound up and were looking to see how much damage they could do to each other. Chief Constable Chris Noble, alongside Chief Inspectors David Barrow and Laura Davies, ensured that communities came together after the event to realise that neighbours can live in peace. My constituents expect everybody who has committed sexual offences or other crimes to be prosecuted, but what work is the Minister doing across Government to ensure that, once such events have taken place, communities can come together again and live in peace? Nobody wants to walk around on eggshells, fearful of their neighbours.
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. After the disorder last summer we did see communities spontaneously coming together and wanting to say that what had happened in their local area was done not by the majority but by a very small number of people. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been working with local authorities on rebuilding community cohesion—which for many years under the last Administration was not seen as important at all—because it is so important that all parts of our society feel safe and valued. Through community cohesion, we stop those who wish to divide and pit people against each other, and recognise the valuable role that all parts of society and our communities play.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Illegal migrants crossing the channel are 24 times more likely to end up in British jails than British-born citizens, yet this Government allow thousands of unvetted males to enter this country who will commit horrific crimes like rape and murder, and there are some potential terrorists among them too. Does the Minister agree that it is time to forget the silly legislation that Labour MPs are bleating on about and to detain these people and deport them? We do not want to see any of these silly tags put on their ankles; just detain and deport them straight away.
Dame Diana Johnson
I sat on the Select Committee on Home Affairs with the hon. Gentleman for a number of years and I think he attended the visit to Manston when we were both on the Committee. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps he did not, but it might have helped if he had. At Manston, information and biometrics are taken from people who come across in small boats; they are checked against records. I wish he would have a look at what actually happens. I think the statistic he mentioned comes from a newspaper; I do not think it has actually been verified, although I am willing to have a look at it, but I think it was in The Sun if I recall correctly.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Members will be aware of the public streaming of violence and criminal activity towards property and police officers. This is the second year that this has happened over the summer period. Will the Minister confirm that she is engaging with other Departments on how we can review streaming activity so that it does not promote violence and criminality and replication in other locations around our country?
Dame Diana Johnson
That is a very important point and there are ongoing conversations with the Home Office and other Government Departments to ensure that it is addressed. That has been a problem particularly in the terrorist field, and action has been taken speedily to get such postings down.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I have been fobbed off with ridiculous non-answers to my written questions on this subject and an insulting letter from the Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), so I do not want to be promised yet another evasive letter that ignores the question. Will the Minister tell me what the legal reasons are that the Immigration Minister cited as justification for the Government and Serco refusing to tell MPs and local people when they move migrants into our constituencies and where?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is a relatively new Member of this House, but I have been in the House a while and certainly that did not happen under the previous Administration. There are always opportunities to improve and local Members of Parliament, local councils and the police are all engaged when people are moved into certain areas of the country. I know that happens, although I am sure it could be better, but I am happy to raise this again with the Immigration Minister because I have not had sight of the letter that she sent to the hon. Gentleman.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The press regularly runs stories where economic migrants are quoted describing what they believe are the benefits available to them in the UK and the work opportunities that our relatively under-regulated labour markets offer. Does the Minister agree it is time that we considered Labour’s ID cards plan, scrapped by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, and its ability to reduce the UK’s pull factors for new migrants?
Dame Diana Johnson
The Government have been taking action over the past 12 months to deal with the issue of illegal working. There have been 10,031 illegal working visits, leading to 7,130 arrests—a rise of 48% and 51% respectively compared with the year before. That marks the first 12-month period in which more than 10,000 visits have taken place to start to tackle illegal working in this country.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
My constituency has a proud history of being a welcoming community. We have had an asylum hotel for two years with no problems; the families are well integrated in the local community with many children in the local schools. Late last week, however, we were told that people would be asked to move from that hotel with no notice from today, despite the fact that the hotel will still be used for asylum seekers. They do not know where they will need to move to. I have raised the issue with the Home Office and had no response, so can the Minister urgently look into it today? Does she agree that every MP with an asylum hotel in their constituency should have a dedicated Home Office contact so that we can work together to promote peace and harmonious community relations, and against disinformation and violence?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am happy to pass on that issue to the Immigration Minister.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
We have heard Conservative and Reform MPs decry legislation that they say is stopping the problem being fixed. They talk the talk, but they do not actually vote for legislation. The shadow Home Secretary, with an angry face, was going on about what is happening in hotels, but it was his Government’s policy that set up hotels as hostels for asylum seekers. This Government have said that they will end the policy. Can the Minister set out the Government’s sensible approach—not gimmicks—to end the use of hotels as hostels?
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. It might help the shadow Home Secretary if I say that the number of hotels has gone down under this Labour Government. [Interruption.] Despite what the shadow Home Secretary says, the number of hotels has gone down since the Government came into power.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Violent disorder is always wrong, but we need to recognise that it is a symptom of people’s outrage at the current situation, and of their fear of crime—particularly sexual crime—in their community. The Minister should focus not on the tone of questions in the House and what has happened in the past, but on what she will do to solve the problem. In that respect, I agree with what the Father of the House said about requiring a credible deterrent, so does the Minister regret cancelling the Rwanda scheme?
Dame Diana Johnson
I totally disagree with what the hon. Lady said. Violent disorder is not a symptom—it is criminal. It is thuggery; it is attacks on our brave police officers. There is no reason or excuse for what happened last summer or for any violent disorder that may happen in future. It is criminal, it should be prosecuted, and people should face the full consequences of the law.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the police for how they have dealt with the violent disorder that we have seen from a minority of people in recent days. I would much rather that the police were investigating the crimes that are allegedly behind the incidents. I also thank the Minister for showing zero tolerance to the minority of people in our asylum system who break the law—it is right that we do that. She mentions that the number of asylum hotels has come down. Has the bill also come down?
Dame Diana Johnson
The number of hotels has come down. The aim is to reduce the overall bill by £1 billion, but the number of hotels has come down since we came into power.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
One year on, it is quite clear that the Labour Government have not got a grip on illegal migration and criminality. There is no plan and no cap, and it would appear today that there is not even an answer or any knowledge as to whether any gangs have been smashed. When will the Minister put in place an effective deterrent that protects not just our borders, but our citizens?
Dame Diana Johnson
The right hon. Lady says that there is no plan. First, we are working with source and transit companies to stop dangerous journeys before they begin. Secondly, we are stepping up law enforcement, with new powers, more National Crime Agency officers and specialist units in France to disrupt smuggling gangs. Thirdly, we are strengthening border security, with more patrols, drones and legal challenges to stop overcrowded boats. Fourthly, we have secured a new returns agreement with France—something that the shadow Home Secretary could not achieve—so that people arriving illegally by small boat can be sent back, while also accepting a matching number of eligible applicants through a safe route. Finally, we are cracking down on illegal working and reforming the asylum system to close loopholes exploited by gangs and ensure fair, controlled migration. That looks like a plan to me—that is a plan.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
There have been numerous reports over the weekend about an alleged incident at the Metropole hotel, the asylum hotel in my constituency. The Minister will know that I have raised concerns about the hotel numerous times with the Home Office. Will she ensure that this incident is investigated swiftly and that I as the MP and the community get a report urgently?
Dame Diana Johnson
Absolutely—I am very happy to give that assurance. I know that my hon. Friend has been raising these issues for some time, so I am happy to do that.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
While migrant hotels cost the British taxpayer billions, migrants are now being moved into houses in multiple occupation, taking houses from local people and causing misery for neighbours. Can the right hon. Lady tell the House how many migrants have been moved into HMOs? What is the cost to the British taxpayer?
Dame Diana Johnson
What I can tell the hon. Lady is that we inherited a huge backlog of claims for asylum. One of the important parts of dealing with the backlog is processing those claims and determining whether people have an asylum claim that can be successful; if it is not, they should then be returned. That is the whole purpose of closing the hotels, as we will speed up the processing of the applications.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Last month, the Immigration Minister could not tell me in a written answer how many illegal asylum seekers have a criminal record. We have an asylum hotel in Cheshunt in my constituency, and my constituents are understandably concerned about criminal activity and antisocial behaviour. They do not think that the Government are listening to them. When will the Minister come to this House, meet her manifesto commitment and close the asylum hotel in my constituency?
Dame Diana Johnson
As I have said a number of times, this Government are committed to closing all hotels by the end of this Parliament. Fewer hotels are open now than when we came into power last July.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The vast majority of British citizens are law-abiding, and they are concerned about the impact of mass migration on their communities. A deterrent would go some way towards restoring trust that the British people may have in the asylum system. When will the Government implement a deterrent to send those entering the country illegally to a safe third country?
Dame Diana Johnson
As I have just set out in great detail, we have a plan. Let me say respectfully to the hon. Gentleman that the plan that the previous Government had resulted in four volunteers, I think, going to Rwanda. A general election was called; the then Prime Minister decided to call a general election. Why did he not let the scheme operate if it was such a success? That is the real question. Why did they go to the country if they were just about to have an enormous success with Rwanda?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The House will be aware of the serious street disturbances in my constituency last month following the alleged rape of a young 14-year-old girl. Last week, Ballymena magistrates court was informed that the chief suspect has fled back to Romania. Does the Minister agree that extradition that works is an imperative, and that extradition that works expeditiously is an even greater imperative?
Dame Diana Johnson
Clearly that is a live matter before the courts, but I want people to be held to account for their actions. If that involves extradition, that is the right thing to do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, I thank the Minister for her answers. However, all too often we seem to be hearing about criminal activity by immigrants and asylum seekers across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and more needs to be done to address it. On behalf of my constituents, who ask me this question all the time—every weekend, to be precise—what steps will the Minister take to ensure that we have a zero-tolerance policy for migrants awaiting an asylum decision, so that if they are detained for any kind of criminal activity during that time, they will be sent back to their country of origin as a matter of urgency?
Dame Diana Johnson
As I said at the outset, whoever perpetrates a crime will be held to account, and there will be consequences. I hope I have been clear that that includes people who are making asylum applications, as well as the wider general public. People have to be held to account.
Oral Answers to Questions
Diana Johnson Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of experience in health matters. There are regular discussions between ministerial colleagues about how we can best join up public services. We know that joined-up working results in better outcomes at a local level. Collaboration and engagement between neighbourhood policing and neighbourhood health teams already exists to tackle mental health issues, and drug and alcohol addiction. I hope that this Government’s investment in neighbourhood policing will enable more of that work to continue.
Rachael Maskell
Evidence shows that integrating policing and health is vital in delivering better outcomes in areas like mental health, substance misuse and youth violence—areas that we need to address in my city of York. With both police and health realigning into neighbourhood teams, will the Home Secretary ensure that there is reach across the services, with a named lead police officer, to develop prevention and early intervention strategies, diverting those at risk through harm reduction approaches, including treatment and support?
Dame Diana Johnson
With the recently launched 10-year health plan, we are moving away from those siloed services towards a more joined-up approach, including the preventive model of care. That aligns very much with policing and keeping people safe, and supporting wellbeing. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the national neighbourhood health implementation programme and to ensure that policing is part of the conversation from the outset. By working more closely with health and care partners, we can reduce inappropriate demand on policing. Officers should not be left to pick up the pieces when other support services are better placed to help. This is about getting it right—and getting that tailored support—first time.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I thank the Policing Minister for visiting Northallerton this year and hearing directly from my farming constituents about the impact of livestock and equipment crime on their lives and health. I am grateful to North Yorkshire police for all their hard work, and for the recent funding uplift for the national rural crime unit, but does the Minister agree with me on the importance of implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 and, more broadly, ensuring that rural areas get the attention they deserve?
Dame Diana Johnson
It was a pleasure to meet the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents; I think that was way back in February—it was a very cold day in North Yorkshire. I fully recognise what he says about the mental health and wellbeing impact of some of the crime challenges facing rural communities. That is why the neighbourhood policing guarantee is so important for areas like the one that he represents. As I have said a number of times in this House, we support the implementation of the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act, and we plan to bring forward regulations shortly.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
The Government are determined to crack down on antisocial behaviour, and tackling it is a central theme of our safer streets summer initiative, which is currently under way in over 500 towns. Our Crime and Policing Bill will provide policing with a suite of new powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, including respect orders to get persistent offenders out of town centres, and stronger powers to seize dangerous and deafening off-road bikes. I again remind the House that the Conservatives voted against those measures recently.
Richard Baker
With increasing incidents of antisocial behaviour and falling police numbers in Scotland, will the Minister assure me that she will share learning from the safer streets initiative with SNP Ministers, as it is rolled out, to encourage them to raise their game on this issue? Will she also join me and Police Scotland in Fife in praising Kingdom Off Road motorcycle club in my constituency, which is such a success in running activities that divert young people from antisocial behaviour?
Dame Diana Johnson
We will of course learn lessons over the summer from our initiative and our blitz on town centres, and I am willing to share that with SNP Ministers, which I think would be very helpful in the light of what my hon. Friend said about the problems people are facing in Scotland. I of course welcome and commend the work with young people that is going on in his constituency.
Mark Ferguson
We have exciting plans for Gateshead town centre, but we have more work to do on antisocial behaviour. Northumbria police’s Operation Shield has brought down antisocial behaviour significantly, but more powers and more officers are needed. What are the Government doing to ensure that the police have both the powers and the resources to tackle persistent antisocial behaviour?
Dame Diana Johnson
First, I am very pleased to hear about the work of Northumbria police with Operation Shield, which I think is to be commended. We want to work collectively with forces to focus on town centres nationwide, while recognising that some town centres and areas of the country have more significant problems to address. We want to build on existing data, good practice and evidence to develop a model that can then be rolled out up and down the country.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Glastonbury town centre has seen increasing rates of antisocial behaviour, shoplifting and crime. A local charity shop manager told me that residents and customers are too scared to walk down the high street, which obviously has a negative impact on the local economy. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how effective community policing can be the solution to the persistent issues that Glastonbury is facing?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am, of course, very happy to meet the hon. Lady. That is why neighbourhood policing is important, and why the Government made a commitment to put 13,000 additional police personnel back into our town centres and communities over the course of this Parliament, to provide the reassurance that communities have not had for far too long, with the decimation of neighbourhood policing over previous years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her answer. I know she is very aware of what we are doing in Northern Ireland, where community police officers are an important part of our policing. The relationships they build up over a period of 12 months, 18 months or two years mean that they become a part of the community. We should share good ideas—we have good ideas, as has the Minister. Will she take the opportunity to discuss those ideas with the policing Minister and the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland, because I believe that what we do can help here as well?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very pleased to hear about the good ideas being rolled out in Northern Ireland. I hope very much to be able to visit in the near future, so that I am able to see for myself that community policing in Northern Ireland.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
My hon. Friend will know that the Government have set an unprecedented mission to halve knife crime in a decade. We are determined to tackle the scourge of serious violence on our streets. This month, we are running a major new surrender scheme for lethal weapons, including ninja swords, in hotspots across the country, alongside introducing the new provisions in our Crime and Policing Bill to crack down on the illegal sale of knives online. Those measures will help to reduce the availability of dangerous knives on our streets and ensure that those who perpetrate these offences face the full force of the law.
Joani Reid
Six weeks ago, Kayden Moy, a 16-year-old boy from East Kilbride in my constituency, was stabbed to death, leaving his family bereft and a community—my community—in grief. Since Kayden’s tragic death, I have received multiple videos and images of local youths posing while wielding machetes in their own homes, but the police claim that they are powerless to take any action whatever. Does the Minister agree that much more needs to be done to stop the very real glamourisation of knife crime online, and to prevent social media from being a breeding ground for youth violence?
Dame Diana Johnson
May I first express my condolences to Kayden’s family and friends? That is just appalling to hear. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the role that social media can play in glamourising these types of weapons. That is why it is so important that we have measures in the Crime and Policing Bill and the Online Safety Act 2023 to start to tackle that. As I say, it is absolutely appalling.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
This month, we have supported police and the retail industry to launch the new retail crime strategy, and the Home Secretary launched a safer streets blitz in town centres, with targeted action to tackle retail crime. Under the previous Government, shop theft soared to record levels and assaults against retail workers spiralled out of control. That is why, in addition to investing in neighbourhood policing, we are introducing in our Crime and Policing Bill a new stand-alone offence of assaulting a shop worker, because everybody has a right to feel safe on the job.
Alex Baker
Staff at Tesco in Aldershot tell me that the store is facing rising levels of shoplifting, with people walking out of the store with full trolleys. It is often the same individuals, who are emboldened because they do not fear the consequences. Hampshire police are doing their best, but they cannot attend every incident, and store staff feel threatened and powerless. This is a nationwide problem. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to tackle the wave of retail crime and to protect shop workers on the frontline?
Dame Diana Johnson
It is totally unacceptable that shop theft and violence and abuse towards retail workers have continued to rise, particularly over the last two years of the previous Government, when they went up by 60%. We are asking retail workers to perform a significant act of public service as they enforce restrictions on the sale of items including cigarettes, alcohol and knives. As I have set out, the bespoke offence in the Crime and Policing Bill will help to shine a spotlight on the problem and ensure that we bring perpetrators to book. The Bill will also ensure that the sanction of a criminal behaviour order can be attached to a conviction for assaulting a retail worker, which will help to protect retail workers.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Whether at Asda in Basildon or Waitrose in Billericay, there have been real issues with shop thefts, particularly by organised gangs, which often come from outside the local area. They come in, ransack stores and then drive away. What is the Minister doing to address the issues that go beyond local theft and are actually a nationwide gang issue?
Dame Diana Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. We will continue to crack down on the organised gangs that target retailers. As we have set out, we will provide £5 million over the next three years to continue to fund a specialist analysis team within Opal, the national police intelligence unit for serious organised acquisitive crime, to share information and make sure that retailers are part of the conversation. We are doing everything we can to tackle organised gangs.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
Our Crime and Policing Bill, which Opposition Members voted against on Third Reading, is giving the police greater powers to clamp down on off-road bikes and other nuisance vehicles that cause chaos in our communities. Once the changes come into force, officers will no longer be required to issue a warning before they seize a bike that is being used antisocially. On 28 May, we published a consultation to explore changes to the circumstances in which the police can seize and destroy these vehicles, and we will not hesitate to go further if needed.
Nick Smith
I thank the Minister for that answer. Gwent police are taking on dangerous, illegal off-road bikes, but a related problem is electric bikes, which are sometimes chipped to go faster and have become a new danger. Will the Minister please look into this? The bikes can be switched up from being a means to get from A to B into being a real menace.
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes, I am very happy to look into that issue and to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it. He may want to know that the 60 additional officers that are going to be available in his police force area by the end of this year will help to tackle some of the antisocial behaviour involving e-bikes and other vehicles.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
As the Home Secretary just pointed out, we have provided an additional £200 million this year to support new neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs for all our communities. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman if he would like to discuss policing further, but this Government are committed to making sure that the police have the resources they need.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
The chair of the Met Police Federation, Rick Prior, and the chair of the West Midlands Police Federation, Rich Cooke, have both been removed by the unelected chief executive of the Police Federation after speaking up for the officers they were elected to represent. Is the Home Secretary as concerned as I am that the only staff association that police officers are legally allowed to join is no longer fit for purpose?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue; I know he has experience as a police officer. I regularly meet the Police Federation and its officers and chief executive. I will raise his concerns directly with them.
Phone Theft
Diana Johnson Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing the debate and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing her experiences, particularly the “Starsky and Hutch” approach that she took to trying to recover her mobile phone when it was stolen 10 years ago.
I am grateful to all Members of the House who have made contributions. In the limited time that we have had available, we have had an important discussion, spanning many different areas, both geographically and topically. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) spoke about the experience in West Yorkshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) talked about the interchange at Stratford station and, along with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), talked about the problems with e-bikes as enablers of mobile phone theft.
I want to be very clear: this Government are absolutely determined to address the menace of mobile phone theft. I say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), that the unfortunate truth is that by the time this Government took office, this type of criminality had become so common that it was essentially a feature of daily life in some areas, and the statistics bear that out. She talked about the policing of speech and locking criminals up, but she needs to reflect on the record of the Conservative Government. They introduced the non-crime hate incident guidance under the previous Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who is now the shadow Home Secretary, and failed the prison system by not building enough prison places. This Government are having to deal with that.
Dame Diana Johnson
No, time is very short. The hon. Gentleman’s record when he was a special advisor in the Home Office really is nothing to be proud of.
I will talk about the statistics. Street theft increased by more than 40% in the last year of the previous Government, driven largely by soaring rates of snatch theft involving mobile phones. While we are starting to see some promising reductions, including a decrease in the number of mobile phone thefts by force or threat of force in the capital, levels of mobile phone theft sadly remain intolerably high, which is totally unacceptable.
We recognise that the impact of this criminality goes beyond the loss of a mobile phone, costly and stressful though that undoubtedly is. It undermines people’s sense of personal safety and security in the most insidious way. It snatches parts of people’s life, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East said, including bank details, personal records and precious memories stored on phones. Decent, law-abiding people deserve much, much better, which is why the Prime Minister has placed safer streets at the heart of his plan for change. Through that mission, we are taking decisive action to restore law and order to our town centres and high streets, and the scourge of mobile phone theft is very much in our sights.
It may be helpful if I set out for the House some of the key steps we are taking to combat this crime. It has been clear throughout the debate that we accept that if we are to drive the real change we need to see, we need to work effectively with tech companies, the police and others in civil society, both to prevent thefts from happening and to better detect the perpetrators when thefts occur. In that spirit, the Home Secretary chaired a very productive summit in February, bringing together representatives from the police, including the Metropolitan police, the National Crime Agency, the Mayor of London, local government leaders, leading technology companies and other sectors to push for much stronger collaboration in this space.
I have been working closely with stakeholders from industry and law enforcement on this important topic, so I was pleased to see the summit result in clear commitments from attendees to working in partnership, and to significantly boosting the sharing of data and intelligence on mobile phone theft, so that we can build a comprehensive picture of the problem and better understand the role of organised criminal networks. Ultimately, our aim is to disrupt, design out and disincentivise mobile phone theft. Officials are working closely with law enforcement partners, tech companies and other industry representatives to deliver practical and effective measures, so that we can crack down on these crimes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East talked particularly about mobile phone theft in London, which is a particular hotspot. That is why the Metropolitan police are an important partner in the collective effort to tackle this form of crime. We welcome the two recent periods of intensification of activity by the Metropolitan police, which together resulted in more than 500 arrests linked to mobile phone theft. We will hold a second summit in the next few weeks to reflect on the progress made, and to galvanise cross-sector agreement on the ambitious outcomes that we all want. There remains a long road ahead, but I am really hopeful that the tech companies and the wider stakeholders will come to the table with bold proposals. To be very clear, the Government will not hesitate to take more decisive action if the summit does not result in clear commitments to tackle this issue, including considering further legislation and regulation to radically reduce this—and related—criminality.
I draw Members’ attention to the fact that the Crime and Policing Bill introduces a new power to help police recover stolen mobile phones more quickly. It allows officers to enter and search premises to which a stolen device has been electronically tracked in situations in which it is not practicable to obtain a warrant. This will allow the police to act swiftly, and will increase the likelihood that criminals will be caught and punished.
We welcome the innovative steps already taken by tech companies to tackle mobile phone theft. It is crucial that we now deepen collaboration between those companies and law enforcement. That is how we will ensure that anti-theft features cannot be bypassed by criminals, and that the technology supports police investigations and the recovery of stolen phones. While anti-theft features are vital to ensure the safety of mobile phones, we acknowledge that some technology can be misused by bad actors, particularly in cases of domestic abuse. That is why we are working with tech companies to ensure that new solutions are safe and proportionate, and do not inadvertently put victims at risk. This is about making stolen phones worthless without creating new vulnerabilities.
During this debate, several proposals have been put forward for how we might strengthen our collective response to mobile phone theft. I have heard them all, and I am grateful for all of them. While we will of course keep our approach under review, we are focused on delivering our plan to reduce mobile phone theft in partnership with law enforcement, technology companies and service providers. The Government are working with those tech companies to ensure that people’s phones are protected. Through working groups established by the Home Office and attended by technology companies and policing partners, we aim to ensure that everything possible is done to disincentivise phone theft by making stolen phones effectively worthless to criminals.
I conclude by again offering my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East for securing this debate, and to all the Members who have contributed. I hope that, in the limited time available, I have addressed some of the points discussed this afternoon. In essence, this issue is as much about people as it is about policies and powers. We must always remember that behind the statistics are thousands and thousands of real victims who have suffered the shock and distress—as well as the inconvenience and disruption—of having their device snatched. Our high streets and town centres are filled with people going about their everyday lives. As they make their way from place to place, there should be no question but that they are safe, and that their belongings are secure. The notion that they might be pounced upon by thieves at any moment is simply unacceptable, and this Government will not tolerate it. Our message is clear: Britain’s streets belong to the law-abiding majority, not to thieves and muggers, and we will do whatever it takes to protect the public from those callous and harmful crimes.
Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill
Diana Johnson ExcerptsWednesday 25th June 2025
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill 2024-26 View all Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am broadly in favour of the Bill, but I have a few questions that I hope the Minister can answer.
The Home Affairs Committee report of 2023 made a number of recommendations, including the rescheduling of psilocybin and other similar substances under the MDA 1971. I hope the Minister can confirm that, if it is passed, the Bill could be used to speed up the ability to move some controlled substances down the scheduling list and others up the scheduling list. Can she also confirm that passing this legislation will not further intensify the failed war on drugs model, as we hopefully seek to move towards an evidence-based harm reduction drug policy in this country?
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester on his success in taking the Bill to this stage and on his eloquent speech today. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill has the Government’s support.
I am grateful for the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset made an important contribution informed by his professional background in pharmacy. He knows the importance of the Bill and how it will deliver on speeding up the process for dealing with illicit drugs.
The hon. Member for West Dorset said that he has been a Member for just one year, and that he is finding new arcane practices all the time. Having spent 20 years in this place, I feel his pain. He will find many arcane practices during his parliamentary career. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North has been a doughty campaigner on the issue of drugs for some time. I hope I will be able to respond in detail to the particular issues she raised.
I know the Bill appears technical, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, its impact could be great in controlling new dangerous substances in the UK. As we all know, drugs can have a devastating impact on the lives of families and communities. In the UK, we must continue to ensure that we invest in preventing drug misuse, helping people through treatment and recovery, and protecting the public from these harmful substances through legislation. We must continue to be alert to the potential for dangerous substances, especially synthetic drugs, and it is critical that we have the appropriate tools to make any necessary legislative change at the earliest opportunity. The Bill will enable the Government to make timely changes to respond to emerging drug threats.
There were 3,618 deaths related to drug misuse registered in England and Wales in 2023. That is the highest number since records began, in 1993, and 16% higher than in 2022. Furthermore, in 2023, nearly half of all drug-related poisonings involved opiates, and potent synthetic variants of these are emerging at a concerning rate. When the Bill was introduced, at least 284 deaths had been linked to nitazenes, a potent type of synthetic opioid, across the UK. Sadly, that number now stands at over 450.
We are working very quickly to face the ongoing threat of synthetic opioids in the UK. Last year, 20 substances were controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 15 of which were synthetic opioids, with 14 being nitazenes. This year, we went a step further by introducing a generic definition of nitazenes in the 1971 Act, meaning that new variants of these substances that meet the definition are automatically controlled. While it is right that these changes receive an appropriate degree of scrutiny, the rate at which new variants of substances such as nitazenes are emerging demonstrates that pace is of the essence. Until such changes come into force, our law enforcement agencies do not have the ability to pursue the toughest penalties for criminals who are knowingly supplying these dangerous substances to vulnerable users, many of whom do not know what they are taking.
The Bill seeks to amend the delegated power contained in section 2 of the 1971 Act so that the form of amending statutory instruments will be regulations made by the Secretary of State, rather than an Order in Council. This will ultimately support our aim to ensure that substances are more rapidly made subject to controls under the 1971 Act.
Charlotte Nichols
On a point of clarification, as part of this process will there be reviews of the evidence for keeping drugs within those schedules? We know, for example, that cocaine is class A, and cocaine deaths increased by 30% last year. We all want to reduce drug harms, so at what rate will this be reviewed if the Bill is passed?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend will know that we keep drug policy under review. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs offers advice to the Government. That process is ongoing, but the Bill is specific and technical in its purpose.
As it stands, the process for controlling, removing or amending the control of drugs needs to go through the draft affirmative procedure. Following debates in both Houses of Parliament, the statutory instrument is then made by the King at a Privy Council meeting and comes into force on a specified date, generally 28 days later. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, the Privy Council meets only once a month, which can delay the statutory instrument coming into force by an extra four to six weeks. As a result, any new substance listed in the statutory instrument will not be subject to the provisions of the 1971 Act until the Privy Council meets and the order can be made.
In the interim, if the substances are captured by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, there will be no possession offence other than in a custodial setting or with intent to supply. It is also possible that, under the 2016 Act, there will be lower penalties for the supply, import or export of that substance.
On that basis, the Government support the Bill and wish it a smooth passage.
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
Diana Johnson ExcerptsWednesday 25th June 2025
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill 2024-26 View all Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Just before I call the Minister, I want to let Members know that the correct version of the Bill is available online, if anybody wants to double-check it.
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Vickers, on this lovely June day. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing forward this Bill. I was also interested to note the involvement of Lord Brennan; in the previous Parliament, he nearly got such a Bill on to the statue book, and I hope he will play a part in the other place, if the Bill concludes its passage through the Commons today.
I am very grateful to the other Members who have participated in this discussion, many of whom declared their allegiance to various football clubs, some more dubious than others. Clearly, a wide range of clubs is represented and supported here today, and Members are very clear that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. There has been a high degree of consensus, and I am very pleased to say, right at the outset, that the Government support the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley has set out, the Bill would create a new offence of unauthorised entry or attempted unauthorised entry to elite football matches that are covered by existing football-specific public order legislation in England and Wales. I want to reflect on the fact that we are very lucky to be in the capable hands of a former Crown prosecutor in navigating this new offence through Parliament.
I also heard questions from Members about whether the Bill should have a wider application, and I will of course reflect on the comments that have been made. On the issue of the dispersal of large crowds gathering outside football matches, that is obviously an operational matter for the place and I have seen at first hand the planning that goes into dealing with those kinds of issues, but I will certainly raise the concerns of the hon. Member for Harrow East with the police when I next speak to them, particularly the Metropolitan Police.
Amanda Martin
The hon. Member for Harrow East made a really good point; there have been some developments on that issue through things such as fan zones. Fans can buy a ticket for such a zone, which is an area outside the stadium, and that allows for dispersal. It also allows fans to watch the game, particularly if they are going to Wembley. Portsmouth went a number of times and could not have all the ticket allocation, so fans could instead buy a ticket for a fan zone outside. The hon. Member is right that it is down to both club logistics and the police, but there are really good ways of letting people who do not have a ticket come and watch the game, such as in an area slightly outside the stadium.
Dame Diana Johnson
There is obviously a great deal of knowledge on this Committee about how these things operate. As someone who is not necessarily a huge football fan, I am certainly learning a lot today about some of the measures that are being put in place to help fans enjoy the event in a safe way.
Bob Blackman
I thank the Minister for that reply to my point. The Bill quite rightly seeks to penalise those who try to gain admission to football grounds without tickets. However, it is silent on anyone who facilitates that entry, such as an individual who works for a club or stadium, or who is somehow in charge of a gate. I do not think it is reasonable for a private Member’s Bill to look at that issue, but could the Minister consider what else the Government need to do to ensure that those people are also penalised?
The Chair
Order. Just before the Minister comes back in, I want to advise Members that the new, amended copy of the Bill is now available, if anybody wants to have a closer look.
Dame Diana Johnson
Before I deal with that point, I have some information that might help the Committee. The police have dispersal powers under section 34 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which can be used as appropriate. That is the operational side that I was referring to. The Bill, when enacted, would stop ticketless fans from testing the stadium security, and the police have powers and public order offences that can be used if there are threatening and abusive words or disorderly behaviour. In other words, there are powers already available to the police to deal with the dispersal of fans if there is a large group. The hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned those who may be employed by the stadium who facilitate and allow such behaviour. I will reflect on that important point. There are probably offences being committed there, which I may return to in a moment.
Licences and Licensing
Diana Johnson Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I beg to move,
That the draft Licensing Act 2003 (UEFA Women’s European Football Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 15 May, be approved.
This summer, the UEFA women’s European football championship, commonly referred to as the Women’s Euro 2025, will be hosted in Switzerland. I am pleased to report that both the England and Wales women’s national teams have qualified to participate in that prestigious tournament. The draft contingent order before the House today proposes a temporary extension of licensing hours across England and Wales, should either England or Wales—or both—progress to the semi-finals or the final of the competition. Specifically, if either team reaches these stages—I have to say, from my limited following of football, that it seems the women’s teams have a reputation for doing far better than our male teams—the order would extend licensing hours from 11 pm to 1 am on the evenings of the semi-finals, which are scheduled for 22 and 23 July, and the final, which is due to take place on 27 July.
As Members will be aware, section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 empowers the Secretary of State to make such an order in recognition of events of “exceptional national significance.” The decision to lay this draft order follows a public consultation conducted by the Home Office earlier this year. A significant majority—87% of respondents —supported the proposed extension of licensing hours for the semi-final and 84% for the final, should the home nations qualify. Respondents also agreed with the proposed duration of the extension—until 1 am—and supported its application to both England and Wales. There was also consensus that the extension should apply only to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. The order will therefore allow licensed premises to remain open until 1 am without the need to submit a temporary event notice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As a Northern Ireland MP, I wish to convey my best to the English and the Welsh ladies’ teams. Although the order will not apply to Northern Ireland, that will not stop us cheering on the English and the Welsh teams on a different timescale in our pubs, our restaurants and our cafés.
Dame Diana Johnson
It is always good to see solidarity between the four nations. I thank the hon. Member for displaying his usual courtesy in expressing his good wishes to the two women’s teams.
I was just about to explain that the reason we are taking this order forward is to reduce the administrative burden on both businesses and local authorities, saving time and resources for all involved.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
As a Leeds United supporter, I felt the need to ask what a semi-final or a final was, but—[Laughter.] I welcome the order. Does my right hon. Friend recognise the benefits that the increased opening hours will bring to the pub and entertainment industry, and hopefully—if we get that far—the impact that will have on the communities that support them?
Dame Diana Johnson
I was just about to say that businesses in the hospitality sector, particularly pubs and bars, stand to benefit from this modest extension, which would allow them to accommodate increased demand during these high-profile fixtures. I fully accept that the hospitality sector has had a difficult time over the past few years, and that this is a helpful measure.
It is right to acknowledge that police representatives have expressed some concerns regarding the potential for increased crime and disorder. While operational decisions on deployment and resourcing are a matter for individual forces, I am confident that appropriate measures will be taken to mitigate any risks, as has happened in similar cases.
Notably, there have been no significant incidents of large-scale disorder linked to previous licensing extensions, which is testament to the professionalism of our police service, to which we owe our thanks. I also emphasise that this is a limited and proportionate two-hour extension. It applies solely to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises after 11 pm and does not extend to off licences, supermarkets or other premises licensed only for off-sales.
To clarify one final point, if neither England nor Wales reach the semi-finals, the proposed extension will not apply on 22 or 23 July. Similarly, if one or both teams reach the semi-finals but do not progress to the final, normal licensing hours will apply on 27 July.
I also make Members aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) is sponsoring a private Member’s Bill, supported by the Government, which seeks to make such orders subject to the negative resolution procedure in future. That means that less time will be spent, particularly on the Floor of the House, having to agree such measures. The Bill has completed its Committee stage in the House but will not be enacted in time to apply to this summer’s tournament, hence the need for this order to be brought before the House today. Should this order receive the support of the House, as I hope and expect it will, it will reinforce the argument that debating such measures may not represent the most effective use of parliamentary time.
In conclusion, this order has been brought forward in recognition of the significant public interest in the forthcoming tournament and, in particular, the hopes and expectations surrounding the England and Wales teams. On that note, I take the opportunity to wish the players of both teams the very best of luck. I am sure they will do themselves, their fans and their nations proud, and I commend the order to the House.
Crime and Policing Bill
Diana Johnson ExcerptsWednesday 18th June 2025
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 18 June 2025 - (18 Jun 2025)
Matt Vickers
One of the things we were doing was putting record funding into policing and putting a record number of police on the streets. The one thing we were not doing was taxing our police forces off the streets. We were making huge progress.
I would also like to mention Sergeant Dave Catlow of the Metropolitan police, who joined us last week. He is doing great work on this issue.
New clause 130 proposes three key changes. First, fines for perpetrators would equate to the cost of replacing equipment, repairing the damage caused and the loss of work. Secondly, theft of tools would be treated as an aggravated offence, meaning tougher sentences for the crooks who steal tradesmen’s vital equipment. Finally, councils would be required to put in place an enforcement plan to crack down on the sale of stolen tools at car boot sales.
I will also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for her campaigning on this issue. I know how much she, too, wants to see action on tool theft. As the Minister knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) brought the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 through the House. It could make a real difference on this issue. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will table a statutory instrument to put it into action?
I turn to non-crime hate incidents. New clause 7 would change legislation and guidance to remove the recording and retention of non-crime hate incidents. The use of non-crime hate incidents has spiralled out of all control and well beyond its originally intended purpose. The deal should be simple: if the law is broken, justice must be served. But non-crime hate incidents are a different beast—you did not break the law; you just said something daft and ended up logged on police records like a criminal. We need our police on the streets, not policing hurty words on Twitter. We have all seen the utterly barmy story of a nine-year-old who insulted another pupil in the playground. Is that unkind? Yes, of course it is. But instead of a quiet word with a teacher or a call to the parents, the police were brought in. I appeal to Members across the House—would they want that happening to their child, or would they rather give them a proper telling-off at home?
This also has a bigger effect. Our police officers are being tied up documenting playground spats and Twitter comments, treating childish jibes like national security threats, while real crimes such as burglary, robbery and even violent offences are being pushed to the back of the queue. In fact, research from Policy Exchange has found that, nationally, over 60,000 police hours are being spent on non-crime hate incidents. Our police need to get back to keeping our streets safe, not policing silly words or childish playground issues.
Before concluding my remarks, I would like to draw the House’s attention to some of the Opposition’s other amendment that could protect our communities and keep our streets safe. We would have been voting today on new clause 144 to secure that national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs—a scandal that is our country’s shame. Child sexual exploitation ruins lives; preying on the most vulnerable in our communities, exploiting them for horrific sexual acts and often coercing them into a life of crime. A national inquiry is what the victims wanted, so I am glad that the Prime Minister has finally U-turned, given into the pressure and joined what he described as the far-right bandwagon of people who wanted a national inquiry.
As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, we must not have another whitewash. The national inquiry must ask the hard questions and leave no stone unturned. Criminal investigations must run in parallel to the inquiry. It must look at the whole system—Whitehall, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and local authorities—and wherever there is wrongdoing, there should be prosecutions. Foreign perpetrators must be immediately deported, and the inquiry must be fully independent, with statutory powers covering all relevant towns. Local councils simply cannot be left to investigate themselves.
New clause 125 aims to reinstate people’s confidence in policing. We have recently seen the perverse anti-racism commitment issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It calls for arrest rates to be artificially engineered to be the same across racial groups. Advice to treat black and white suspects differently is morally indefensible. It is, by definition, two-tier policing. It undermines trust and confidence in our police. This new clause would give the Home Secretary the power to amend or require the withdrawal of any code of practice intended to direct policing practices.
New clause 139 makes provisions in relation to off-road bikes. I know many Members across the House know the havoc being caused by them in local communities. The issue has been raised by Members on both sides of the House numerous times in Westminster Hall and in this place, and the tweak in approach that features in this Bill will simply not be enough. Using alternative legislation, the police are already able to seize off-road bikes without notice. The new clause would remove the prohibition on the police entering a private dwelling to confiscate an off-road bike and ensure that police destroyed seized bikes rather than selling them back into the market. I urge the Minister—in fact, I beg her—to look again comprehensively at how we tackle the scourge of off-road bikes.
I would also like to draw the House’s attention to new clause 131, which would introduce mandatory deportation for foreign nationals found in possession of child sexual abuse images. These sick paedophiles have no place in our country and they, along with all foreign offenders, should be deported.
To conclude, the British people want our police to be able to focus on putting real criminals behind bars—the thieves who nick our hard-working tradesmen’s tools—not spending time policing playground squabbles and treating them like crimes. Our Opposition new clauses are common-sense changes that I hope the whole House will get behind, protecting victims and restoring policing to what it is meant to be: tackling crime on our streets.
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members, including the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), and the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) who have taken part in the debate, and in particular those who have brought forward new clauses. There are well over 100 new clauses in this group, so I am sure the House will appreciate that, sadly, I will not be able to cover them all. I will do my best in the time remaining to respond to as many as I can.
Amanda Martin
I thank the Minister for acknowledging how tool theft affects people’s lives. Does she agree that this is not just about police on our streets and arrests, but about sentencing, and will she work with me, across Departments, to ensure that the aggravated circumstances powers that the courts already have reflect the real cost of such crime?
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes, I am very happy to do that. I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking this campaign forward and on being such a worthy advocate for it. We take the issue very seriously and we are fully committed to implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023. We are finalising our plans for commencement and we will update the House in due course.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am going to keep going, because I am conscious that I do not have much time.
To reiterate to the shadow Minister what I said in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been clear that a consistent and common-sense approach must be taken with non-crime hate incidents. Accordingly, it has been agreed with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing that they will conduct a review of this area. I say to the shadow Minister that it was the shadow Home Secretary, when he was the Policing Minister, who introduced the current code of practice and police guidance on non-crime hate incidents. He said:
“The Government fully recognises the importance of ensuring that vulnerable individuals, groups and communities continue to be protected by the police; indeed, this is the purpose of non-crime hate incident recording. We are confident that the code does precisely this.”
It seems odd that he said that the approach was right at that stage, but now he wants to scrap it.
On new clause 144, I was disappointed that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) seemed to have missed the announcement made by the Home Secretary on Monday, which answered a number of her questions. The shadow Minister did not seem to be aware of the announcement either. Using existing legislation in the Inquiries Act 2005, the independent commission will be set up under a national inquiry with full powers to compel individuals to testify, with the aim of holding institutions to account for current and historic failures in their response to group-based child sexual exploitation. The Home Secretary was clear that she is accepting all the recommendations from Baroness Casey.
Dame Diana Johnson
No, I am going to carry on.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) mentioned new clauses 87 and 88. This Government have been clear that water companies must accelerate action to reduce pollution to the environment. The Water (Special Measures) Act, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, significantly strengthens the power of the regulators and delivers on the Government’s commitment to put failing water companies under special measures. Among other measures, the Act introduced automatic penalties on polluters and banned bonuses for water company executives if they fail to meet adequate standards.
Dame Diana Johnson
No.
On new clauses 85 and 86 about neighbourhood policing, it is clear that this Government are starting to implement our neighbourhood policing guarantee.
On new clause 13, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), the Government recognise the serious consequences that can result from joint enterprise convictions. However, joint enterprise ensures that those who act together in committing a crime are all held responsible. We saw that in the cases of Ben Kinsella and Garry Newlove, as well as many others. We are aware of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend and we will continue to look at that.
I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for not being able to get through all 100 amendments that were tabled. I also need to leave time for the person whose new clause leads the group to respond.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
New clause 2, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Abolition of non-crime hate incidents
“(1) Non-crime hate incidents as a special category of incident to be recognised by police authorities are abolished. Reporting, recording and investigation of such incidents should occur only in the limited circumstances provided for in this section.
(2) For the purposes of Article 6(1) of the UK GDPR, section 35 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“the Act”) and Article 8 of the Law Enforcement Directive, the processing of relevant data by a police authority is unlawful.
(3) In this section, “relevant data” means personal data relating to the conduct or alleged of a data subject which is unlikely to constitute criminal conduct and which has been perceived by another person to be motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards one or more persons who have or who are or have been perceived to have one or more relevant characteristics and with that hostility or prejudice arising due to that or the perception of those protected characteristics.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the following are relevant characteristics—
(a) race,
(b) religion,
(c) sexual orientation,
(d) disability,
(e) transgender identity.
(5) Subsection (2) does not apply in respect of the processing of relevant data—
(a) pursuant to an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution,
(b) for the purposes of the internal administrative functions of the police authority.
(6) Subsection (2) does not apply in respect of the retention of a record (a “non-crime perception record”) of relevant data where a police officer (the “certifying officer”) of the rank of inspector or above certifies that in their opinion the retention of the non-crime perception record is likely materially to assist in the detection or prevention of criminal conduct which may occur in the future.
(7) Where a certifying officer certifies the retention of a non-crime perception record pursuant to subsection (6)—
(a) the certifying officer must include in the record a description of the future criminal conduct they have in mind and the reasons they believe that the retention of the record may assist in its detection or prevention,
(b) the relevant data which may be retained as part of the record may be no more than the certifying officer believes is likely materially to assist in the detection or prevention of criminal conduct,
(c) a copy of the record must be expeditiously provided to the data subject unless an officer of the of the rank of superintendent or above certifies that—
(i) the provision of the record to the data subject may interfere in the detection or prevention of criminal conduct, or
(ii) the officer is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to provide a copy of the record to the data subject.
(8) If the data subject objects to the retention of the non-crime perception record, subsection (6) does not apply unless a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above certifies that in their opinion the retention of the non-crime perception record is likely materially to assist in the detection or prevention of criminal conduct which may occur in the future.
(9) No police authority or police officer can be held under any circumstances to be under any duty to undertake the retention of any relevant data.
(10) After subsection 113B(3) of the Police Act 1997 insert—
“(3A) An enhanced criminal record certificate must not give the details of a relevant matter to the extent that doing so would result in the disclosure of relevant data as defined in section (The retention by the police of non-crime perception records) of the Crime and Policing Act 2025.”
(11) For subsection 39A(3) of the Police Act 1996 substitute—
“(3) No part of any Code of Practice issued by the College of Policing may be in a form which could be issued by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 60 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.”
(12) Section 60 the 2022 Act is to be amended as follows—
(a) the cross heading to be changed to “Non-crime perception records”,
(b) the section heading to be changed to “Code of practice relating to non-crime perception records”,
(c) in subsection (1) leave out from “by” to the end of the subsection and insert “of relevant data”,
(d) omit subsection (2),
(e) in subsection (3)(a), leave out “personal data relating to a hate incident” and insert “relevant data”,
(f) in subsections (3)(b), (c), (d) and (e), for “such personal data” substitute “relevant data”,
(g) in subsection (4)(a), for “personal data” substitute “relevant data”,
(h) in subsection (4)(b), leave out “personal data relating to the alleged perpetrator of a hate incident” and insert “relevant data relating to the alleged perpetrator”,
(i) in subsection (7), at end, insert “relevant data” has the meaning given by section (The retention by the police of non-crime perception records) of the Crime and Policing Act 2025”.
(13) Any code of practice previously issued under section 60 of the 2022 Act is deemed to be withdrawn.
(14) Within three months of the commencement of each calendar year, each police authority which is retaining non-crime perception records must—
(a) undertake a review of the relevant data by an independent person to ensure that any retention of such records is in compliance with the provisions of this section.
(b) publish a report in respect of the review prepared by the independent person including setting—
(i) the total number of non-crime perception records retained by the police authority;
(ii) the total number of data subject to which those records relate; and
(iii) the equivalent numbers of those records added in the previous year.
(15) In this section—
(a) “a police authority” means—
(i) a person specified or described in paragraphs 5 to 17 of Schedule 7 of the Act,
(ii) a person acting under the authority of such a person,
(b) the terms “data subject”, “processing” and “the UK GDPR” have the same meanings as under section 3 of the Act,
(c) “the Law Enforcement Directive” means the Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament,
(d) “the 2022 Act” means the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.”—(Matt Vickers.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Crime and Policing Bill
Diana Johnson ExcerptsTuesday 17th June 2025
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 June 2025 - (17 Jun 2025)
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 53—Arranging or facilitating begging for gain.
Government new clause 54—Proving an offence under section 38.
Government new clause 55—Special measures for witnesses.
Government new clause 56—Causing internal concealment of item for criminal purpose.
Government new clause 57—Secretary of State guidance.
Government new clause 58—Department of Justice guidance.
Government new clause 59—Removal of limitation period in child sexual abuse cases.
Government new clause 60—Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards emergency workers.
Government new clause 61—Threatening or abusive behaviour likely to harass, alarm or distress emergency workers.
Government new clause 62—Interpretation of sections (Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards emergency workers) and (Threatening or abusive behaviour likely to harass, alarm or distress emergency workers).
Government new clause 63—Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices.
Government new clause 64—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): supplementary.
Government new clause 65—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): interpretation.
Government new clause 66—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): confidential information.
Government new clause 67—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): code of practice.
Government new clause 68—Extraction of online information: ports and border security.
Government new clause 69—Extraction of online information following agreement etc.
Government new clause 70—Lawful interception of communications.
Government new clause 71—Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred persons.
Government new clause 72—Meaning of “law enforcement employer”.
Government new clause 73—Application of section (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred person) to Secretary of State.
Government new clause 74—Application of section (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred person) to specified law enforcement employer.
Government new clause 75—Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists.
Government new clause 76—Application of section (Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists) to specified law enforcement employer.
Government new clause 77—Interpretation of sections (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred persons) to (Application of section (Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists) to specified law enforcement employer).
Government new clause 78—Special police forces: barred persons lists and advisory lists.
Government new clause 79—Consequential amendments.
Government new clause 80—Power to give directions to critical police undertakings.
Government new clause 81—Ports and border security: retention and copying of articles.
Government new clause 82—Extradition: cases where a person has been convicted.
Government new schedule 1—Amendments to Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
Government new schedule 2—Confiscation orders: Scotland.
Government new schedule 3—Special police forces: barred persons lists and advisory lists.
Amendment 157, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “The Anti-social” and insert—
“Subject to a review of existing anti-social behaviour powers under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2014 being conducted and completed by the Secretary of State within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Anti-social”.
Amendment 167, page 1, line 13, leave out “18” and insert “16”.
This amendment would lower the age to 16 at which a court can impose a respect order on a person to prevent them from engaging in anti-social behaviour.
Amendment 168, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(9A) If a court makes a respect order against a person (P) more than once, then P is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”
This amendment means that if a person gets more than one Respect Order, they are liable for a fine.
Amendment 169, page 2, line 30, leave out from “behaviour” to end of line 31 and insert
“has the same meaning as under section 2 of this Act.”
This amendment would give “anti-social behaviour” in clause 1 the same definition as in section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
Amendment 170, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
“D1 Power to move person down list for social housing
(1) A respect order may have the effect of moving any application the respondent may have for social housing to the end of the waiting list.”
This amendment would mean that a person who receives a respect order would move to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing, if applicable.
Amendment 171, page 8, line 2, at end insert—
“(4A) A person who commits further offences under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates' court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).””
This amendment sets out the penalties for repeated breaches of a respect order with a prison sentence of up to 5 years.
Amendment 158, in clause 2, page 9, line 35, at end insert—
“(4) Prior to issuing any guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must conduct a full consultation exercise.”
Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 17, line 23, insert—
“(3) To facilitate the ability of the Police, under the provisions of section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, as amended by subsection (1), to seize e-scooters or e-bikes that have been used in a manner which has caused alarm, distress or annoyance, the Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue a consultation on a registration scheme for the sale of electric bikes and electric scooters.
(4) The consultation must consider the merits of—
(a) requiring sellers to record the details of buyers, and
(b) verifying that buyers have purchased insurance.”
Amendment 172, in clause 9, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
“(c) section 33B (Section 33 offences: clean-up costs).”
Amendment 173, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
“(1A) Guidance issued about the enforcement of section 33 offences must ensure that, where a person is convicted of a relevant offence, they are liable for the costs incurred through loss or damage resulting from the offence.”
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State’s guidance on fly-tipping makes the person responsible for fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, liable for the costs of cleaning up.
Amendment 174, page 18, line 3, at end insert—
“(4A) The consultation undertaken by the Secretary of State must include an examination of establishing a penalty point fine to those found convicted of an offence under sections 33 or 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult on establishing a system for those who fly tip or leave litter to receive penalty points on their driving licence.
Amendment 175, in clause 25, page 30, line 24, leave out “4” and insert “14”.
This amendment would increase the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four to 14 years. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation recommended an increase in his review following the Southport attack.
Government amendments 24 to 33.
Amendment 176, in clause 35, page 50, line 38, at end insert—
“(4) If the offender has previous convictions for an offence under section 14 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (assault of a retail worker) or for shoplifting under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, the court must make a community order against the offender. The community order must include a tag, a ban, or a curfew.”
This amendment clause would require the courts to make a community order against repeat offenders of retail crime in order to restrict the offender’s liberty.
Government amendment 34.
Amendment 4, in clause 38, page 51, line 29, leave out “criminal conduct” and insert “conduct for criminal purposes”.
This amendment would expand the remit of the offence created under clause 38 to include exploiting a child into conduct for criminal purposes.
Amendment 7, page 51, line 31, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would remove the requirement that for an offence of child criminal exploitation to be committed, the perpetrator did not reasonably believe that the child was aged 18 or over.
Government amendment 35.
Amendment 5, in clause 38, page 51, line 37, leave out “criminal conduct” and insert “conduct for criminal purposes”.
This amendment would expand the remit of the offence created under clause 38 to include exploiting a child into conduct for criminal purposes. It is consequential on Amendment 4.
Amendment 6, page 52, line 2, leave out “or” and insert—
“(b) activity that is undertaken in order to facilitate or enable an offence under the law of England and Wales, or.”
This amendment would expand the remit of the offence created under clause 38 to include exploiting a child into conduct for criminal purposes.
Government amendments 36 to 49.
Amendment 8, in clause 53, page 61, line 5, after “(A)” insert ““aged 18 or over”.
This amendment would ensure children cannot commit an offence of cuckooing.
Government amendments 50 to 66.
Government motion to transfer subsection (4) of clause 59.
Government amendments 68 and 69.
Amendment 177, in clause 64, page 73, line 24, at end insert—
“4A) For the purpose of this section—
“Child” means a person under the age of 18.
“Grooming” means meeting or communicating (in person or online) with a child and or their network (on one or more occasion) with a view to intentionally arrange or facilitate child sexual abuse (in person or online) for an act including themselves or others.”
This amendment would introduce a legal definition of grooming.
Amendment 178, page 74, line 31, at end insert—
“70B Group-based sexual grooming of a child
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a court is considering the seriousness of a specified child sex offences,
(b) the offence is aggravated by group-based grooming, and
(c) the offender was aged 18 or over when the offence was committed.
(2) The court—
(a) must treat the fact that the offence is aggravated by group-based grooming as an aggravated factor, and
(b) must state in court that the offence is so aggravated.
(3) An offence is “aggravated by group-based grooming” if—
(a) the offence was facilitated by, or involved, the offender, who was involved in group-based grooming, or
(b) the offence was facilitated by, or involved, a person other than the offender grooming a person under the age of 18 and the offender knew, or could have reasonably been expected to know that said person was participating, or facilitating group-based grooming, or
(c) the offender intentionally arranges or facilitates something that the offender intends to do, intends another person to do, or believes that another person will do, in order to participate in group-based grooming.
(4) In this section “specified child sex offence” means—
(a) an offence within any of subsections (5) to (7), or
(b) an inchoate offence in relation to any such offence.
(5) An offence is within this subsection if it is—
(a) an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (taking etc indecent photograph of child),
(b) an offence under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent photograph of child),
(c) an offence under any of sections 5 to 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape and other offences against children under 13),
(d) an offence under any sections 9 to 12 of that Act (other child 25 sex offences),
(e) an offence under section 14 of that Act (arranging or facilitating commission of child sex offence),
(f) an offence under any of sections 16 to 19 of that Act (abuse of position of trust),
(g) an offence under section 25 or 26 of that Act (familial child sex offences), or
(h) an offence under any of sections 47 to 50 of that Act (sexual exploitation of children).
(6) An offence is within this subsection if it is—
(a) an offence under any of sections 1 to 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape, assault and causing sexual activity without consent),
(b) an offence under any of sections 30 to 41 of that Act (sexual offences relating to persons with mental disorder),
(c) an offence under any of sections 61 to 63 of that Act (preparatory offences), or
(d) an offence under any of sections 66 to 67A of that Act (exposure and voyeurism), and the victim or intended victim was under the age of 18.
(7) An offence is within this subsection if it is an offence under section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual activity in a public lavatory) and a person involved in the activity in question was under the age of 18.
(8) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “group-based grooming” is defined as a group of at least three adults whose purpose or intention is to commit a sexual offence against the same victim or group of victims who are under 18, or could reasonably be expected to be under 18.”
This amendment would introduce a specific aggravating factor in sentencing for those who participate in, or facilitate, group-based sexual offending.
Amendment 159, in clause 65, page 74, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) An officer may seek independent judicial authorisation to engage in conduct which is for the purpose of obtaining data from the person.
(2A) Authorised conduct may consist of an officer—
(a) scanning the information stored on the device using technology approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of ascertaining whether information stored on an electronic device includes child sexual abuse images,
(b) requiring the person to permit the scan, and
(c) requiring the person to take such steps as appear necessary to allow the scan to be performed.”
This amendment subjects any searches of electronic devices to prior authorisation by a judge.
Amendment 179, in clause 66, page 75, line 16, leave out subsection (7).
This amendment would keep an individual under the duty to report child abuse despite the belief that someone else may have reported the abuse to the relevant authority.
Amendment 3, page 75, line 31, at end insert—
“(2) the duty under subsection (1) applies to—
(a) any person undertaking work for the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, or any other Christian denomination on either a paid or voluntary basis,
(b) any clergy of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, or any other Christian denomination, notwithstanding any canonical law regarding the seal of confession, and
(c) any person undertaking work on either a paid or voluntary basis, or holding a leadership position, within the Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or Sikh faiths, or any other religion, faith or belief system.”
This amendment would ensure that the duty to report suspected child sex abuse covered everyone working for the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church whether paid or on a voluntary basis, including clergy, as well as all other faith groups. Reports received by clergy through confession would not be exempt from the duty to report.
Amendment 10, page 76, line 28, at end insert—
“(10) A person who fails to fulfil the duty under subsection (1) commits an offence.
(11) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse that a failure to report a suspected child sex offence should be a criminal offence.
Amendment 22, page 77, line 13, at end insert
“or
(c) an activity involving a “position of trust” as defined in sections 21, 22 and 22A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that any person working in a position of trust as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, should be designated a mandatory reporter.
Amendment 11, in clause 68, page 78, line 19, at end insert—
“(7) The sixth case is where P witnesses a child displaying sexualised, sexually harmful or other behaviour, physical signs of abuse or consequences of sexual abuse, such as pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease, to an extent that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed.
(8) The seventh case is where P witnesses a person (A) behaving in the presence of a child in a way that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that A may have committed a child sex offence.
(9) A failure to comply with the duty under subsection (1) is not an offence where the reason to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed arises from subsection (7) or subsection (8).”
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that there should be a duty to report where a person recognises the indicators of child sexual abuse. Failure to report in these instances would not attract a criminal sanction.
Government amendment 70.
Amendment 9, in clause 80, page 84, line 22, at end insert—
“(b) if the name change is by deed poll, 7 days prior to submitting an application for change of name (whichever is earlier), or”.
This amendment would require relevant sex offenders to notify the police of an intention to change a name 7 days before making an application to do so by deed poll.
Amendment 180, page 85, line 26, at end insert—
“(11) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.”
This amendment imposes a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they change their name.
Amendment 181, in clause 81, page 86, line 41, at end insert—
“(10) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.”
This amendment imposes a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they are absent from their sole or main residence.
Amendment 182, in clause 82, page 88, line 25, at end insert—
“(9) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine at Level 5 of the standard scale.”
This amendment imposes an unlimited fine if a relevant registered sex offender does not notify police if they are entering a premises where children are presented.
Government amendments 71 to 73.
Amendment 19, in clause 94, page 115, line 25, at end insert
“, or
(c) the person does so being reckless as to whether another person will be injured, aggrieved or annoyed.”
This amendment would expand the offence for administering harmful substances, including by spiking, to include those who do so being reckless.
Amendment 20, in clause 95, page 116, line 37, at end insert—
“(6A) In determining a sentence for an offence committed under this section, the Court is to treat encouragement or assistance of self-harm, when preceded by a history of abuse perpetrated against the victim/other person by D, as an aggravating factor.
(6B) The criminal liability for D, when the other person mentioned in subsection 1(a) or 1(b) commits suicide, and where D has subjected that person to physical, psychiatric or psychological harm, is the offence of murder.”
This amendment treats encouragement or assistance of serious self-harm when preceded by a history of abuse as an aggravating factor in sentencing with explicit recognition of murder as the criminal liability for perpetrators who cause serious physical, psychiatric, or psychological harm that directly results in, or significantly contributes to, suicide.
Government amendments 74 to 76.
Amendment 14, in clause 102, page 124, line 16, leave out from subsection (1) to “where” in line 29 and insert—
“(1) A person who possesses a SIM farm without good reason or lawful authority commits an offence. For the meaning of ‘SIM farm’, see section 104.
(2) In subsection (1) the reference to a good reason for possessing a SIM farm includes in particular possessing it for a purpose connected with—
(a) providing broadcasting services,
(b) operating or maintaining a public transport service,
(c) operating or maintaining an electronic communications network (as defined by section 32 of the Communications Act 2003),
(d) tracking freight or monitoring it in any other way, or
(e) providing or supporting an internet access service or the conveyance of signals (as defined by section 32 of the Communications Act 2003).
This subsection does not limit subsection (1).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1),”.
This amendment would mean that a person would only commit an offence if they possessed a SIM farm without a good reason, such as for broadcasting purposes, or lawful authority.
Amendment 15, in clause 103, page 124, line 37, leave out from subsection (1) to “prove” on page 125, line 2, and insert—
“(1) A person who supplies a SIM farm to another person commits an offence unless subsection (2) applies.
(2) It is not an offence for a person to supply a SIM farm under this section provided the person (‘the supplier’) can”.
This amendment would mean that a person would only commit an offence if they supplied a SIM farm without taking reasonable steps to confirm that the person receiving the SIM farm would have a good reason, including for broadcasting purposes, or lawful authority to possess the SIM farm.
Amendment 16, in clause 104, page 125, line 34, after “interchangeably,” insert “and designed primarily” and line 39, at end insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), a device is not a SIM farm if it uses five or more SIM cards simultaneously or interchangeably for the purposes of provided data only services or internet access services or conveyance services.”
This amendment would amend the meaning of “SIM farm” to cover only devices that are primarily used for calls and text messages and would exclude devices primarily used for data connectivity such as Bonded Cellular Devices used by broadcasters.
Amendment 164, page 128, line 5, leave out clause 108.
Amendment 184, in clause 108, page 128, line 10, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
“(2) No offence is committed under this section where a person wears or otherwise uses the item for—”
This amendment would ensure that Clause 108 does not apply to people wearing the hijab, niqab or wearing a mask for health reasons.
Amendment 185, page 128, line 25, at end insert—
“(6) Within a year of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must review the equality impact of the provisions of this section, and lay a report of the review before both Houses of Parliament within a month of its publication.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the equality impact of the provisions of Clause 108.
Amendment 165, page 128, line 26, leave out clause 109.
Amendment 166, page 129, line 28, leave out clause 110.
Government amendments 77 to 86.
Amendment 161, page 131, line 29, leave out clause 114.
This amendment would delete Clause 114 which would place restrictions on the right to protest near places of worship.
Amendment 160, in clause 115, page 133, line 12, at end insert—
“(4) Prior to imposing conditions under either Section 12 or 14, the senior officer of the Police Force in question must confirm that live facial recognition will not be in use, unless a new code of practice for the use of live facial recognition surveillance in public spaces in England and Wales had previously been presented to, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.”
Amendment 21, in clause 120, page 140, line 37, at end insert—
“(8) The authorised persons listed in Clause 71A may not use the information referenced in subsection (1) for the purposes of biometric searches using facial recognition technology”
Government amendment 87.
Amendment 162, page 148, line 1, leave out clause 126.
Amendment 163, in clause 126, page 148, line 13, at end insert—
“(3) Within a year of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must review the human rights and equality impact of the provisions of this section, and lay the report of the review before both Houses of Parliament within a month of its publication.”
Government amendments 88 to 91.
Amendment 183, in clause 141, page 168, line 5, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
“(7A) A youth diversion order must specify the period for which it has effect, up to a maximum of 12 months.
(7B) An assessment must be taken of the respondent before the conclusion of a youth diversion order to determine if they continue to hold extremist views or pose a terror threat.
(7C) An assessment must be made by a qualified expert in extremism and counterterrorism.
(7D) Assessments taken by the respondent’s youth offending team must be reviewed by an external expert with no pre-existing relationship to the respondent.
(7E) If the respondent is assessed as holding extremist views or as a terror threat the youth offending team or a chief officer of police must apply to an appropriate court for the youth offending order to be extended up to a maximum of 12 months.
(7F) All provisions, prohibitions and requirements of a youth diversion order remain in effect until the respondent has been assessed as holding no extremist views or posing a terror threat.”
This amendment would give the police the ability to apply for youth diversion orders in cases of youth extremism and terror risks. The diversion orders would conclude automatically after a maximum of twelve months without an assessment as to whether the individual remained a terror risk or extremist.
Government amendments 92 to 101, and 134 to 151.
Amendment 23, in schedule 9, page 229, line 15, at end insert—
“(11) Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (time limit for summary offences) does not apply to an offence under subsection (1).”
This amendment allows the offence of taking or recording intimate photograph or film to be tried by a Magistrates’ Court at any time by disapplying the six-month time limit in s.127 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.
Government amendments 152 to 156 and 102 to 133.
Dame Diana Johnson
Before I speak to the key Government amendments tabled on Report, I quickly remind the House why the Government have brought forward this Bill. It is a vital part of our safer streets mission, and contains a host of measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, retail and knife crime, and the epidemic of violence against women and girls, and to restore confidence and trust in policing.
It is worth reminding the House that on the previous Government’s watch, shoplifting soared to record-high levels; there was a 70% increase in their last two years in office alone. Street theft was rapidly rising; it was up by almost 60% in just the last two years. Antisocial behaviour was rampant in our towns and cities, with 1 million incidents last year. In the year to June 2024, the crime survey of England and Wales estimated that 25% of people perceived antisocial behaviour to be a fairly or very big problem in their area. That is the highest level since at least March 2013, over a decade ago. Violence and abuse against shop workers was at epidemic levels. The British Retail Consortium said that incidents of violence and abuse against shop workers stood at more than 2,000 a day in ’23-24—up by almost 50% on the previous year, and nearly treble the pre-pandemic figures from 2019 to 2020.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I have been down to the local Co-op in Chesterfield and met one of the shop workers, who faced a terrible attack. Luckily, the people were jailed, but in so many cases there is a sense that shoplifters are able to walk out the door without anything being done. The traumatic effect that this has on shop workers has to be seen to be believed. Would the Minister say that the message the Bill sends to anyone who wants to walk out of a store after doing these things is that the police will come after them, and they will end up going to jail?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend puts that very well. Attacks on retail workers are totally unacceptable. The Co-op and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers have done important work to highlight this issue and ensure that measures on it will be enacted through the Bill.
The previous Conservative Government wrote off a number of the crime types I have just talked about as low-level crime, and allowed them to spiral out of control. At the same time, they decimated local neighbourhood policing teams, causing untold damage to our communities, as we all know.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
On neighbourhood policing, I welcome the fact that we have some extra capacity coming into the west midlands, but I have not yet had clarification on whether the money that is coming to the west midlands will cover all the extra national insurance costs. The Labour police and crime commissioner is already saying that his budgets are underfunded under the Labour Government.
Dame Diana Johnson
The right hon. Lady and I have had this discussion before, and I have made it very clear that the national insurance increases have been funded through the money that is available to police forces this year. That is in stark contrast to the situation under the previous Government, who did not make a proper allocation for the police pay award for last year. This Government had to supplement it when we came into power in July.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister join me in celebrating the five new neighbourhood police officers we have in Harlow? I cannot take all the credit for them, because I only taught one of them maths.
Dame Diana Johnson
Absolutely. I think we will have 3,000 additional neighbourhood police officers by the end of March next year, as part of our commitment to putting in place 13,000 neighbourhood police officers by the end of this Parliament.
It has been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that it commands broad support across the House. I hope that over the next two days, right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House can come together and recognise the shared goals that the Bill fulfils. The Government are tireless in our drive to make our streets safer.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The right hon. Lady is setting out very clearly what the Bill is intended to be, and has rightly pointed to the cross-party support for the main thrust of it. Does she agree that that unanimity of purpose is put in grave jeopardy by the Christmas tree-ing of significant amendments relating to abortion? I know that she had a personal interest in this issue in opposition. These very dramatic changes to abortion law require a much fuller debate in this place than can be had on an amendment to a Bill that has the purpose that the right hon. Lady has set out. The Government never intended the Bill to be a Christmas tree Bill, but it has become one. The House runs the risk of fracturing its unanimity of purpose if those amendments are pressed to a vote and become part of the legislation.
Dame Diana Johnson
I do not want to try Mr Speaker’s patience, but time has been allocated for that debate this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of this House, and he will know that crime Bills often become Christmas tree Bills due to their very nature, as Members wish to table amendments on all sorts of areas of the criminal law. We have the Bill that is before us, and the amendments that have been tabled.
The Government and, I hope, other parties in this House are committed to making our streets safer. Where there are gaps in the law, we will not hesitate to address them, and the Government amendments that have been tabled are very much directed to our achieving that end. I will start by going through them. New clause 54 will aid legal certainty and the consistent application of the new offence of child criminal exploitation. The new clause makes clearer to the courts that the offence is focused on the criminal intentions of the adult only, rather than those of the child. It puts beyond doubt that the offence captures circumstances in which the child is used as an entirely innocent agent and cannot satisfy all the elements of the intended criminal conduct themselves. The new clause also puts beyond doubt that the offence is capable of capturing earlier-stage grooming; as such, it addresses the concerns raised in amendments 4 to 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). It will also cover perpetrators who arrange for another person to exploit a child on their behalf. At the request of the Scottish Government and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, we are also extending the offence of child criminal exploitation to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
New clause 56 criminalises the highly exploitative and harmful practice of coerced internal concealment. It is commonly associated with county lines drug dealing, and involves a child or adult being intentionally caused to conceal drugs or other objects—such as weapons or SIM cards—inside their body to facilitate criminality. The new clause creates two new offences. The first targets perpetrators who intentionally cause a child to conceal a specified item inside their body. The second applies in cases where an adult victim is caused to internally conceal a specified item through compulsion, coercion or deception, or through controlling or manipulative behaviour, and where the perpetrator intends, knows or reasonably suspects that the item has been or may be used in connection with criminal conduct. These new offences will carry a maximum penalty of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Bill applies to England and Wales, but it is important for knowledge and information to be shared with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, for example, so that they are aware of what is happening here—and people may move from England or Wales to Northern Ireland or Scotland. We should ensure that information can be exchanged between police forces and other authorities here and those in the devolved Administrations: if we want security and safety for all our people, that really needs to happen.
Dame Diana Johnson
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of sharing information, good practice and policy development, and I hope that that will go from strength to strength under this Government.
Let me now say something about abusive behaviour towards emergency workers. As we all know, they put themselves in harm’s way to protect us every day, and they deserve robust protection in return. That includes protection from racial and religious abuse, which is not only deeply harmful but undermines the values of decency, respect and public service. Unlike most people, emergency workers cannot walk away from abuse. When they enter private homes they do so not by choice, but because it is their duty to do so. Whether they are responding to a 999 call, providing urgent medical care or attending an incident involving risk to life or property, they are legally and professionally required to remain and act. They cannot remove themselves from the situation simply because they are being abused. The law must recognise that and ensure that they are properly protected in every setting, including private dwellings.
At present, there is a clear and pressing gap in the law. Although existing legislation provides important protections against racially and religiously aggravated offences in public places, they do not extend to abuse that occurs inside private homes. Policing stakeholders have highlighted that gap, and have emphasised the need for stronger safeguards for emergency workers. New clauses 60 to 62 therefore introduce specific offences relating to the use of racially or religiously threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards emergency workers acting in the course of their duties. Crucially, that includes incidents that take place within a private dwelling.
This is a focused and proportionate measure. It does not interfere with freedom of expression; rather, it reinforces the principle that emergency workers should be able to carry out their critical roles without being subjected to hate or hostility because of their race or religion. I hope that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) will agree that these Government new clauses achieve the underlying purpose of her new clause 120.
Clause 112 strengthens the protection afforded to nationally significant war memorials by providing for a new offence of climbing on specified war memorials without lawful excuse. We believe that the same protection should now be extended to other nationally significant memorials, starting with the statue of Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square. The Churchill statue, which is a prominent national symbol of Britain’s wartime leadership, has repeatedly been targeted and climbed on during protests in recent years. Including it within the new offence ensures the consistent protection of one of the foremost culturally significant monuments linked to national remembrance. Amendments 77 to 84 therefore expand the scope of the new offence to include other memorials of national significance, as well as adding the statue of Sir Winston Churchill to the list of specified memorials set out in schedule 12.
New clauses 63 to 70 and 81 and new schedule 1 deal with remotely stored electronic data, clarifying powers for law enforcement agencies to access information stored online and extract evidence or intelligence for criminal investigations, to protect the public from the risk of terrorism and safeguard our national security. The powers will apply when law enforcement agencies have lawfully seized an electronic device, as part of national security examination at UK borders or when a person provides his or her agreement. New clause 70 also amends the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to permit the interception of access-related communications, such as two-factor authentication codes. Those reforms are necessary to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have clear powers to access vital evidence and intelligence when investigating serious offences, including child sexual abuse, fraud, terrorism and threats to national security, at a time when more and more information is stored remotely in the cloud rather than on people’s electronic devices.
Let me now turn to new clauses 72 to 79 and new schedule 3. A crucial aspect of our safer streets mission is to rebuild public confidence in policing. Among other things, that means ensuring that only those who are fit to serve can hold the office of constable or otherwise work in our law enforcement agencies. As well as strengthening the vetting regime for police officers, the new clauses and the new schedule require the National Crime Agency, the British Transport police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the Ministry of Defence police to establish barred persons lists and advisory lists, similar to those created in 2017 for territorial police forces in England and Wales The chief officers of these forces, and others, will be under a legal duty to consult the lists before employing or appointing an individual to prevent those dismissed from policing from rejoining another force in the future.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced a new police efficiency and collaboration programme to cut waste and bureaucracy. It is important that undertakings providing services to the police are delivering the most benefit, and unlocking the efficiency savings needed by forces to achieve better outcomes for the public. Announcing the Government’s intention to consult on establishing a new national centre of policing, the Home Secretary said that she envisaged the body’s being responsible for existing shared services, national IT capabilities, and force-hosted national capabilities. It is right that the Home Secretary has the powers to ensure that those capabilities are fully aligned with the priorities of the police efficiency and collaboration programme, and that they are adequately prepared for transition into the new body with no disruption to service delivery. New clause 80 ensures that the Home Secretary has the power to direct undertakings providing critical services and capabilities to policing to take appropriate action to strengthen their service delivery to better deliver our efficiencies programme, and, ahead of any future legislation to establish the national centre for policing, to remove any barriers to the transition of services into the new centre.
We tabled new clauses 52 and 53 against the backdrop of the Government’s commitment to bring into force the repeal of the outdated Vagrancy Act 1824, which criminalises begging and many forms of rough sleeping. It is generally the case that when begging reaches the threshold of antisocial behaviour there are already sufficient powers available to the police and others to address that, but we have identified two gaps in the law that will arise from the repeal of the 1824 Act, which the new clauses would address. New clause 52 makes it a criminal offence for any person to arrange or facilitate another person’s begging for gain. Organised begging, which is often facilitated by criminal gangs, exploits vulnerable individuals and can undermine the public’s sense of safety. This provision makes it unlawful for anyone to organise others to beg—for example, by driving people to places for them to beg. That will allow the police to crack down on the organised crime gangs that use this exploitative technique to obtain cash for illicit activity.
Chris Vince
The Minister is being very generous in taking interventions. Having worked for a homelessness charity, I have seen this issue at first hand. Does she agree that when there is an organisation behind the begging, the person forced to beg is actually being exploited, so these laws will help to tackle a form of exploitation?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend makes that point very well. These individuals are exploited by serious and organised criminal gangs, and we are going to clamp down on those gangs’ activity.
New clause 53 re-enacts the offence of being on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose. It will make it an offence for a person to trespass on any premises—that covers any building, part of a building or enclosed area—with the intention of committing an offence. Without this replacement offence, the police would be able to rely only on the trespassing provisions in the Theft Act 1968, which covers trespassing only in relation to burglary. It is important that the police have the powers to tackle all cases of trespassing with intent to commit an offence, and new clause 53 will ensure that.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister both on the Bill as it stands and on today’s amendments. Near my constituency, there has been a troubling spate of recent incidents in which younger people, in some cases encouraged by older men, are filming themselves catapulting and injuring wildlife, and placing that footage on TikTok. The footage is deeply unpleasant, and I do not recommend anybody looks at it. Would the Minister agree that that behaviour goes well beyond antisocial behaviour, and may at some point require a ban perhaps on the sale of catapults, but certainly on their use for that purpose?
Dame Diana Johnson
Sadly, that is not the first time I have heard about such appalling behaviour of attacking and injuring animals using catapults. I will certainly be raising that with my counterparts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to see what more we can do. I am aware that this issue needs to be looked at, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it.
Amendments 24 to 33 will require operators of collection points for items such as knives and crossbows to carry out the same enhanced age verification checks before handing over knives to the buyer, or in the case of crossbows and crossbow parts, to the buyer or even the hirer of the item. Clause 30 imposes similar requirements on couriers.
Clause 128 introduces costs and expenses protections for law enforcement agencies in civil recovery proceedings, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, in the High Court or the Court of Session in Scotland. As currently drafted, it is not clear how the cost protection measure applies to pre-existing cases, particularly where cases have started before the provision comes into force but costs are incurred after the provision comes into force. As a result, it may be difficult and costly to determine which costs are covered. Amendment 89 provides that cost protections apply to any case where proceedings start after the measure comes into force.
Schedule 15 to the Bill introduces reforms to the confiscation regime in England and Wales in respect of the proceeds of crime. Among other things, the reforms make provision for the provisional discharge of confiscation orders made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, allowing outstanding confiscation orders to be placed in abeyance when there is no realistic prospect of recovery in the immediate term and all enforcement steps have been exhausted. Amendments to schedule 15 extend the provisional discharge measures to confiscation orders made under legislation predating the 2002 Act.
Chapter 1 of part 14 provides for youth diversion orders, which are a new counter-terrorism risk management tool for young people who, on the balance of probabilities, the court assesses to have committed a terrorism offence or an offence with a terrorism connection, or to have engaged in conduct likely to facilitate a terrorism offence, and where the court considers it necessary to make the order for the purposes of protecting the public from terrorism or serious harm.
The amendments to clause 139 make a change to the scope of YDOs to ensure that applications can be made for individuals up to and including 21-year-olds. Currently, a court may make a YDO in respect of a person aged 10 to 21, but exclusive of 21-year-olds. Following further engagement with operational partners on the types of cases that could benefit from a YDO, we have concluded that this change would increase the operational utility of the YDO and ensure that it can be considered as an intervention in a wider variety of cases involving young people.
Clause 141(2) enables a YDO to include prohibitions or requirements relating to the respondent’s possession or use of electronic devices. The amendments to this clause set out a non-exhaustive list of some of the most common or intrusive requirements that may be imposed to support the police’s ability to monitor compliance with restrictions on electronic devices, providing a clearer statutory footing for imposing such requirements. For example, it would allow the court to impose a requirement on someone subject to a YDO to enable the police to access their device for the purposes of checking compliance with restrictions such as accessing specific websites or applications. It would allow the police to identify harmful online activity at an earlier stage and intervene before it escalates. As with other YDO measures, the court would need to assess that any monitoring requirements are necessary and proportionate for the purposes of protecting the public from a risk of terrorism or serious harm.
Technical amendments are also required to clauses 142 and 150 relating respectively to the definition of “police detention” for Scotland and Northern Ireland and to the appeals process in Northern Ireland. The amendments will adapt the relevant provisions for the purposes of the law in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The amendments to clause 151 provide that, where a person ceases to have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with notification requirements but continues to fail to comply, they commit an offence.
The other Government amendments in this group, which make necessary refinements to existing provisions in the Bill, were detailed in the letter that I sent last week to the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), a copy of which has been placed in the Library. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will therefore seek to respond to the non-Government amendments in this group when winding up. For now, I commend the Government amendments to the House.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to Members for setting out the case for their amendments, and I will seek to respond to as many Members as possible in the remaining time available.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), tabled amendments 167 to 183, which echo many of the amendments considered in Committee. I do not propose to repeat the considered responses that my ministerial colleagues and I provided at that stage, but I will deal with a couple of the amendments to which the shadow Minister referred today.
Amendment 175 deals with the possession of weapons with intent to use unlawful violence. It seeks to increase the maximum sentence for possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon with the intention to use unlawful violence from four years to 14. Increasing the maximum penalty for that offence in isolation, without looking at other possession offences, would result in inconsistency in the law in this area. We have set the maximum penalty for the “possession with intent” offence at four years’ imprisonment to be consistent with the maximum penalties for all other knife-related possession offences. We will conduct a review of the maximum penalties for knife-related offences, and establish whether they are still appropriate.
The shadow Minister said that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation had recommended that the sentence for the new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to cause violence should be increased substantially. In his recent report, the independent reviewer recommended the creation of a new offence for cases where an individual prepares to kill more than two people. He said:
“If this offence is created, then there is no need to reconsider the maximum sentence for the proposed offence of possessing an article with violent intent under the Crime and Policing Bill.”
As I have said, the Government are considering creating such an offence, so increasing the maximum sentence for the new offence of possessing an article with violent intent is unnecessary. We will debate the matter further tomorrow, when we consider the shadow Minister’s new clause 143.
The shadow Minister also tabled, and referred to, amendments 172 and 173, which would make those responsible for fly-tipping
“liable for the costs of cleaning up.”
When local authorities prosecute fly-tippers, on conviction, a cost order can already be made by the court, so that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. While sentencing is a matter for the courts, guidance on presenting court cases produced by the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, which the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chairs, explains that prosecutors should consider applying for compensation for the removal of waste, and we will consider building on that advice in the statutory guidance issued under clause 9. Amendment 174 concerns points on driving licences as a penalty for fly-tipping. Again, sentencing is a matter for the courts, but I will ask my counterparts at DEFRA, who are responsible for policy on fly-tipping, to consider the benefits of enabling the endorsement of penalty points for fly-tippers.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) spoke to amendment 160 on the use of live facial recognition in the policing of protests. Live facial recognition is a valuable policing tool that helps to keep people safe. Its use is already governed by the Human Rights Act 1998 and data protection laws. I do, however, recognise the need to assess whether a bespoke legislation framework is needed, and we will set out our plans on this later in the year.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
On facial recognition, does the Minister agree that my amendment 21 would stop the police accessing everybody’s driving licences to use them for complete surveillance, which is not the intention of the Bill?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I probably will not have time to go into detail, but the amendment is not required because what my hon. Friend describes is not what the Bill is intended to do. I am very happy to speak to her outside the Chamber about that, but I reassure her that that is not its intention.
On amendment 157, the Home Office regularly engages with frontline delivery partners and practitioners to understand how the antisocial behaviour powers are being used, and their effectiveness in preventing and tackling ASB. That is why the Bill includes measures to strengthen the powers available to police and local authorities. New requirements in the Bill for local agencies to provide information about ASB to the Government will further enhance our understanding of how the ASB powers are used to tackle antisocial behaviour.
On amendment 158, I want to make it clear that housing injunctions and youth injunctions are not novel. They are already provided for in legislation in the form of the civil injunction, which is being split into three separate orders: the respect order, the youth injunction and the housing injunction. The youth and housing injunctions retain elements of the existing civil injunction that are not covered by the new respect orders—namely, elements relating to offenders under 18 and housing-related nuisance ASB. I also assure the House that any revisions to the ASB statutory guidance are extensively consulted on with relevant stakeholders, including frontline practitioners.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, also spoke to amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), which would apply the duty to report child sexual abuse to anyone working or volunteering in any capacity for religious, belief or faith groups. I know that she has had an opportunity to discuss that amendment in recent days with the Minister who has responsibility for safeguarding.
Turning to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), I thought it was very helpful and useful for the House to hear his experience and knowledge of the issues involving Jehovah’s Witness groups, and he brought to life what it means when such reports are made.
On amendment 10, the Government do not consider that it would be proportionate to provide for a criminal sanction that may inadvertently create a chilling effect on those who wish to volunteer with children or enter certain professions. We are creating a specific offence of preventing or deterring a person from complying with the duty to report, and anyone who seeks deliberately to prevent someone from fulfilling their mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse will face the full force of the law.
Dame Diana Johnson
I will continue, because I need to cover other amendments that have been tabled.
On amendment 11, assessing the signs and indications of abuse can be complex and subjective, particularly for the very large number of non-experts that this duty will apply to, many of whom are engaging with children infrequently or irregularly. We have therefore chosen to focus the duty on scenarios in which a reporter has been given an unambiguous reason to believe that they are in receipt of an allegation of child sexual abuse.
Amendment 22 seeks to add a reference to the legislative definition of “positions of trust” in schedule 7. However, a person occupies a position of trust only in relation to specific sexual offences committed against a specific child, and the term’s value as a definition for a reporter of abuse is therefore limited. The amendment also has the potential to create confusing duplication, given the significant overlap between regulated activity with children and positions of trust. The list of activities in schedule 7 has been drawn up to set out activities involving positions of trust that may not be adequately covered by the definition of regulated activity. The Government will of course keep this list under review, and amend it if necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) spoke to amendment 20, which relates to the new broader offence of encouraging or assisting self-harm in clause 95. She made a very passionate speech on this issue, and I know that she, too, has met the Minister to discuss it in recent days. On sentencing, the courts must already consider the circumstances of each case, including aggravating and mitigating factors, and follow relevant guidelines set by the independent Sentencing Council. Where a defendant has previous convictions, this is already recognised as a statutory aggravating factor in sentencing.
On whether a charge of murder should be brought in the circumstances set out in the amendment, I have to say to my hon. Friend that the amendment is wholly inconsistent with the criminal offence of murder, which has different elements that must be met before a person can be convicted. That said, it is important to recognise that where the encouragement or assistance results in suicide, the separate offence of encouraging or assisting suicide applies; manslaughter may be charged if there is a direct link between the abuse and the suicide.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke to amendment 161, which aims to delete clause 114. The clause will allow the police to impose conditions on a protest near a place of worship if the police have a reasonable belief that the protest may deter individuals from accessing the place of worship for religious activities, even if that effect is not intended. That gives the police total clarity on how and when they can protect places of worship, while respecting the right to peaceful protest.
A number of hon. and right hon. Members spoke about spiking, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) and for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), as well as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who tabled amendment 19. Before I say anything else, I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned on this issue for many years, including families and campaign groups. Richard Graham, a former Member of this House, was a pioneer of the case for bringing forward a spiking amendment.
As discussed in Committee, the offence as drafted already captures a wide range of criminal behaviours, which cover both spiking and non-spiking incidents; for example, it covers the victim being pepper sprayed. As for the reference to a specific intent to “injure, aggrieve or annoy”, that wording is of long standing and has been widely interpreted by the courts. Every case will be judged on the facts. For instance, if someone administers a harmful substance as a prank, they would likely be found to have intended to “annoy” or “aggrieve”. The broadness of the new offence, and the increase in the maximum penalty as compared to the penalty for the existing offence under section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, is, in the Government’s view, sufficient. Introducing recklessness as an alternative to intent risks over-complicating the law and is unnecessary for securing appropriate convictions.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East spent a lot of time looking at this issue, so I want to address it. The spiking clause in the Bill is modelled on the offence under the 1861 Act, which does not have a recklessness test. In the 2004 case of Gantz, an intention to “loosen up” the victim—he referred to that intention in the example he gave today—was covered; it may be helpful for him to reflect on that. We also understand that as recently as last month, a person was convicted of spiking another person “as a joke”. We therefore deem that the inclusion of “recklessness” is unnecessary to ensure the appropriate convictions that we are looking for with this new offence. However, we are very happy to continue to have conversations about this to ensure that we get the law absolutely right.
Many other speeches were made today that I would like to comment on, but I am running swiftly out of time. In my earlier comments, I referred to amendments 4 to 8 from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). I fully understand why amendment 2 was tabled by the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), but those who cycle have a duty to do so safely and in accordance with the highway code, and they are wholly responsible and liable for their actions.
In conclusion, I hope that in the light of the responses I have given to the amendments today, Members will not press them. I commend new clause 52 to the House.