Crime and Policing Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The Policing Minister is happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the detail. It is imperative that all institutions and organisations across communities take responsibility for tackling these appalling and damaging crimes.

We are also introducing measures around national security, including a new youth diversion order to help manage the increasing number of young people being investigated or arrested for terrorism-related activity. Counter-terror police have said that their case load of young people has trebled in just three years, and more action is needed.

There are further measures, which I am sure we will discuss later in this debate and in Committee, to strengthen standards in policing and ensure that chief officers and local policing boards have the right to appeal the result of misconduct boards to police appeals tribunals, to make sure that those who are not fit to serve can be removed from policing and that the standards of police officers, who do an incredible job across the country, can be maintained.

On accountability, we will bring forward amendments to establish a presumption that firearms officers who are charged with offences relating to, and committed during, their duties will have their anonymity preserved during the court process so that we can maintain their confidence, as well as the confidence of communities, in the work that they do.

Safety from harm is not a privilege; it is a fundamental right that should be afforded to everyone, no matter their circumstances. No one should be left to live in fear because of crime and antisocial behaviour in their community. Under this Government, safer streets is a mission for us all, to draw our communities together. We are putting police back on the beat, introducing respect orders and taking action on off-road bikes, shoplifting, street theft, stalking, spiking, grooming and child abuse, knife sales, terrorism and serious crime. We are taking stronger action against criminals, delivering stronger support for victims, restoring respect for the rule of law and restoring police to our streets. Ultimately, we are building a better, fairer Britain that is founded on safety and security for all. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I inform the House that because many people wish to contribute, Back Benchers will have a time limit of five minutes to begin with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

Thank you for giving way. We as a Government are taking very seriously the culture of child grooming and gangs. In your previous role as Minister for crime and policing—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. You said “your”—I was not the Minister. A short and sharp intervention, please.

[Amanda Martin]

In the right hon. Member’s previous role he attended 352 meetings. Could he please explain why not one of those was on child grooming?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

There is a five-minute time limit. I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I cannot possibly do justice to the Bill’s many needed and well-crafted measures in the few minutes I have, so I will just talk about its effect on the justice system and raise a couple of specific concerns.

The Bill introduces a number of new criminal offences—I have counted 27—and makes changes to existing offences. The Bill is being considered at a time when there is significant uncertainty about how the criminal justice system will operate in the future. There are two reasons for that. First, the criminal justice system is in a bad way. Last summer, prisons reached bursting point, and emergency measures were needed to ensure that convicted offenders could be sent to prison, rather than released. Secondly, in December, it was announced that the Crown court backlog had reached a record level of 73,105 cases, despite the previous Government setting a target of reducing it to 53,000 cases by now.

In response to both those crises, the Government have commissioned wide-ranging reviews: one on the criminal courts, chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, and one on sentencing, chaired by David Gauke. Both reviews are likely to have a significant effect on the justice measures in the Bill. The new criminal offences in the Bill will come into effect at a time when the criminal justice system is in flux. Parliament will be asked to consider whatever proposals the Government decide to take forward from the reviews. We are legislating to create a number of new offences, but it is difficult for anyone to know what their effect will be. Those are both problems left for the Government by the previous Government, but those difficult matters need to be addressed, as both issues are going on at the same time.

I turn briefly to knife crime, which I mentioned in my intervention. Between April 2023 and March 2024, 262 people were killed by sharp instruments. Home Office statistics can identify the type of sharp instrument in 169 of those cases; in 165 of them, it was a knife. Where the type of knife was identified, 109 were kitchen knives. In other words, two thirds of the identified knives used to kill people in that year were kitchen knives. There is a growing campaign to phase out kitchen knives with pointed tips as an everyday household item, and to introduce kitchen knives with rounded tips. Pointed knives are much more likely to pierce vital organs and sever arteries, and those injuries are far more likely to be fatal. Of course, there are millions of pointed knives in drawers all over the country.

The safer knives group, of which I am a member, supports a pilot scheme in which pointed kitchen knives would be converted into safer, rounded-tip knives. The Government could encourage manufacturers to replace pointed knives with rounded knives and discourage the sale of pointed knives by creating a price differential. They could also support the launch of a knife modification scheme to change pointed knives to rounded knives and collect more data on the types of knives used in any knife-related crime. That is now happening for homicides, but we ought to extend it. I am pleased to say that not all of that requires legislation—we do not need to add to the weight of the Bill—but those are all matters that need consideration. I am grateful for the indication that the Home Secretary gave earlier.

Finally, I will speak about something that should be in the Bill but is not: the law as it applies to Gypsy and Traveller communities, who face many inequalities and prejudice. They were seemingly sanctioned by the previous Government by the inclusion of part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which gave the police extra powers to ban Gypsies and Travellers from an area for 12 months, along with powers to arrest and fine them, and even seize their homes. A High Court ruling in 2024 determined that those powers were incompatible with the European convention on human rights. The Bill is the first vehicle that could rectify that injustice. Will the Minister, in winding up, indicate whether the Government will attend to that? They clearly have to, because of the determination of the High Court, so the sooner that is done, the better. The future of a very vulnerable community that is very much discriminated against depends on this. I hope the Government will, as they are doing in so many other ways, correct the faults of their predecessor.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Lisa Smart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The time limit on speeches is five minutes.

Crime and Policing Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I rise to speak against new clauses 1 and 20, and in support of new clause 106, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). First, it is important for me to say that I fully support women’s reproductive rights. I think that we generally get the balance right here in the UK, and protecting that is a hill I would die on. However, I am disturbed by new clauses 1 and 20, which would decriminalise abortion up to birth. If they become law, fully developed babies up to term could be aborted by a woman with no consequences.

The reason we criminalise late-term abortion is not about punishment; it is about protection. By providing a deterrent to such actions, we protect women. We protect them from trying to perform an abortion at home that is unsafe for them, and from coercive partners and family members who may push them to end late-term pregnancies. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who has tabled new clause 1. We share many of the same objectives on other topics, but in this case I think she is trying to solve a very real issue—the increased number of prosecutions—with the wrong solution.

These amendments are driven by the case of Carla Foster, among others. Carla Foster is a mum who was prosecuted under UK law for carrying out an illegal abortion in May 2020, during the covid pandemic. She carried out the abortion at 32 to 34 weeks of pregnancy after receiving the relevant drugs through the pills-by-post scheme introduced during lockdown. This is a terrible case that harshly demonstrates the flaws with the current process, but the issue here is not the criminalisation of abortion after 24 weeks; it is the fact that Carla Foster was given the pills without checking how far along she was in the first place. She was failed by people here in Parliament who voted to allow those pills to be sent out by mail during lockdown without an in-person consultation. That was an irresponsible decision; and one that might have been forgiven in the light of a global pandemic if it had remained temporary. However, in March 2022 the scheme was made permanent.

If we want to protect women from knowingly or unknowingly acquiring abortion pills after 24 weeks of pregnancy and inducing an abortion at home, we must put an end to the situation in which those pills can be acquired without a face-to-face consultation at which gestational age verification by medical professionals can take place. These drugs are dangerous if not used in the right way, as we saw when Stuart Worby spiked a pregnant woman’s drink with them, resulting in the miscarriage of her 15-week-old baby. Make no mistake: the pills-by-post scheme enabled that evil man and his female accomplice to commit that crime.

It is also important to note that prior to the pills-by-post scheme, only three women had been convicted for an illegal abortion over the past 160 years, demonstrating the effectiveness of the safeguard. However, since that scheme was introduced—according to Jonathan Lord, who was medical director of Marie Stopes at the time—four women have appeared in court on similar charges within an eight-month period. Criminalisation of abortion after 24 weeks is not the problem; the pills-by-post scheme is.

If new clause 1 passes while the pills-by-post scheme remains in place, here is what will happen. More women will attempt late-term abortions at home using abortion pills acquired over the phone, and some of those women will be harmed. Many of them will not have realised that they are actually going to deliver something that looks like a baby, not just some blood clots—that is going to cause huge trauma for them. Many of those women genuinely will not have realised how far along they are, due to implantation bleeding being mistaken for their last period, and on top of all of this, some of the babies will be alive on delivery.

We in this place need to get away from this terrible habit of only considering issues through a middle-class lens. What about women who are being sexually exploited and trafficked? What about teenage girls who do not want their parents to find out that they are pregnant?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call David Smith.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I rise to oppose new clauses 1 and 20 and to support new clause 106. All the new clauses concern the issue of abortion.

Through the process of decriminalisation, new clauses 1 and 20 will introduce the possibility of de facto abortion up to birth for any reason in this country, for the first time in history. Let me be clear: this means that it will no longer be illegal for a woman to abort a full-term, healthy baby. That would be a profound change in the settled position on abortion in this country for the past 58 years—an extreme move that polling has shown that the vast majority of the country does not want. Indeed, recent polling shows that only 3% of the public support the idea of abortion up to birth. New clause 106 would diminish the risk of women being criminalised for abortions beyond the current legal limit through the reinstitution of in-person appointments. That is popular; recent polling shows that two thirds of women back a return to in-person appointments for abortions.

I do not want to be standing here talking about abortion. It is not something that I came into Parliament to do. I am also very conscious that, as a man, I should be very careful about commenting on the experience of women. However, I feel that new clauses 1 and 20 give me no choice but to speak against them, despite my huge respect for the mover of new clause 1 in particular.

What are we trying to achieve here? If the aim is to decriminalise women in difficult situations, I have huge sympathy for that. For eight years I was the chief executive of a homelessness charity that housed and supported women in desperate situations, many of whom were traumatised, dependent on substances, with fluctuating mental ill health conditions and extensive experience of the criminal justice system. A common theme among them was that they had been abused and harmed from a very early age, consistently into their adulthood. The women we served and supported still had agency. They still had free will. If their circumstances were desperate at times, they nevertheless often confounded those circumstances to rise above them. However, they also made decisions that they regretted. They made decisions, at times, that those around them—and even they themselves, later—were appalled by.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The speaking limit is further reduced to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

I am afraid there is simply not enough time.

That failure is now being used to justify the loosening of abortion laws still further due to a recent uptick in cases of women being investigated. I have looked carefully at the arguments being pushed for decriminalisation, and with those from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), I see that the bogeyman of the US right is back. Apparently, unless we agree to these amendments, evangelical religious groups paid for by US cash are going to start rolling back women’s reproductive rights in this country. This is utter nonsense. We are in the UK, and we have a very different and a more balanced national conversation. This is not pro or anti life. It is not extremist to want protections for viable babies, and it is not anti-women to say that coercion or dangerous self-medication should not be outside the reach of the law.

We also see the argument made that this is solely a woman’s health issue and nobody but she should have a say over what happens to her body, but that is to ignore a very inconvenient truth that has always stalked the abortion debate: this is not about one body; there are two bodies involved. Like it or not, this House has a duty to consider the rights of a woman against the safety and morality of aborting the unborn viable child without consequence. It is not extreme or anti-women to say that a baby matters too. I accept that new clause 1 does not decriminalise a doctor or third party carrying out an abortion outside existing time limits, but let us step back and ask why we have criminal law at all. It is not simply to punish, but to deter.

The former Justice Minister Laura Farris has expressed concerns that the challenge of prosecution for infanticide will become greater. She has also raised similar concerns about prosecuting coercive partners if the termination is no longer a criminal offence.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Tom Hayes]

I want to start by aligning myself with, and commending the speeches of, my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). I am proud to stand alongside my colleagues and was proud to listen to what they had to say today. And because of what they had to say today, I have less to say, which will allow more people to speak.

I have been sent here by my constituents to defend and further their right to safe and illegal abortion. My inbox has been inundated with messages from constituents who are concerned, and who want to be able to have safe and legal abortions. They want to be removed from the criminal justice system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said, because we have situations where clinically vulnerable women, who have gone through some of the worst experiences that anybody can go through, will in some cases be arrested straight from the hospital ward, hurried to cells and made to feel unmitigated levels of shame and guilt, on top of the physical and mental traumas they have already experienced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with those bodies and I agree with him.

Finally, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) made an argument about a bogeyman of American politics somehow being conjured up by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I represent Bournemouth East. In my constituency, we have BPAS Bournemouth, which was targeted by US Vice-President J.D. Vance when he made his point about buffer zones and abortion access. I have spoken with the people who work at that clinic since that speech was given, and they are scared. They want to support women’s reproductive rights and women’s health and safety, but staff members’ vehicles are being tampered with, and women seeking the clinic’s support are finding their access impeded. They want us to be sensitive in what we say and how we say it, because there are people across our constituencies who are deeply concerned for the welfare of women, and who look to us to send the right signal through how we conduct our politics.

I was a signatory to new clause 1 and new clause 20. I recognise that there will be a vote on new clause 1 first. I will vote in favour of it, and I call on all Members across this House to do the same.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We have run out of time, so I will call the Front-Bench speakers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart]

As is usual on matters of conscience, these votes will not be whipped by my party today, as I believe is the case across the House. That said, my party passed relevant policy at our party conference, and I will lay out that policy before talking a little about my predecessor’s work on the 1967 Act. Then I will explain, in a personal capacity, why I will support some, but not all, of the amendments before us.

The Liberal Democrats believe that women have the right to make independent decisions about their reproductive health without interference from the state, and that access to reproductive healthcare is a human right. The current law impacts the most vulnerable women. Under that legislation, some can be dragged from hospital beds to prison cells and endure needlessly long periods of investigation and prosecution. The provisions that allow for this were introduced before women were even allowed to vote, so it is not surprising that many see the need for them to be updated.

In the past five years, there have been both debates about whether the police have the resources that they need to keep our community safe, and a surge of police investigations into women suspected of obtaining medication or instruments to end their pregnancy outside the law. That surely cannot be the best use of police time. Lib Dem policy is to ensure proper funding for impartial advice services, so that people can receive comprehensive, unbiased information without being pressured. Access to abortion should never be made more stressful, so we would maintain safe zones around clinics to protect those seeking care.

My predecessor as Liberal MP for Hazel Grove, the late Dr Michael Winstanley, later Lord Winstanley, was key in shaping the Abortion Act 1967. He was on a cross-party group of around a dozen MPs who sought to refine the language and the strategy of that vital legislation. Dr Winstanley continues to be mentioned on the doorstep in my constituency, and he is known, among other things, for bringing calm, professional insight to the debate. He drew on his background as a general practitioner and on his medical knowledge and experience to ground the discussion in medical evidence, and was especially vocal in highlighting the dangerous and often desperate conditions faced by women when abortion was severely restricted. He made the case that legal, regulated abortion was not only safer but more humane.

At the end of this debate, I will join the World Health Organisation, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, midwives, nurses, psychiatrists, general practitioners and the End Violence Against Women Coalition in supporting new clause 1. To be clear, this new clause would not change how abortion is provided or the legal time limit on it, and it would apply only to women acting in relation to their own pregnancy. Healthcare professionals acting outside the law, and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy, would still be criminalised, as they are now.

[Lisa Smart]

I am under strict encouragement from Madam Deputy Speaker to be speedy, so I will not give way.

I very much support the spirit of new clause 20, but I cannot support new clause 106. I acknowledge that those who tabled it want women to be able to access the best healthcare available, but it would be a step backwards to make it harder for women to access the treatment that they need, whether that is women in a coercive relationship, or those who live in a rural area with limited transport options, and who find it hard to access in-person medical appointments. Telemedicine enables timely, accessible abortion care. We rightly speak repeatedly in this House of the strain on our NHS’s space, staff and capacity, so it feels entirely retrograde to roll this service back and insert clinically unnecessary barriers, and I cannot support doing so.

The amendments and new clauses before us are subject to free votes, so Members can rightly choose for themselves. I very much hope that we choose to move forwards, not back.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Mayhew, to be clear, nothing has happened that is out of order. Your point is more one of frustration than process and procedure, and it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Crime and Policing Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of Liberal Democrat new clauses 83, 84, 85 and 86, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). I also commend my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on his new clause 43.

Representing one of the most rural constituencies in the UK, I know just how deeply rural crime affects my constituents’ lives and livelihoods. I am not talking about the occasional petty theft from a property; the problem we face is calculated organised crime, and it is devastating North Cornwall’s farmers, small businesses and entire communities in our rural areas. Take the farmer in St Kew who lost more than £3,000-worth of tools and equipment in a single night, or the farming couple in Blisland who had two of their quad bikes stolen, worth £15,000. In that case, the police did not even arrive until three days later. To this day, the couple have heard nothing more. That is not to blame our hard-working local constables, who are stretched to breaking point.

It is no wonder that 86% of countryside residents say that rural crime is harming their mental wellbeing, and these are not isolated incidents. They are all part of a growing pattern that successive Governments have allowed to thrive under their watch. New clause 83 would finally extend the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 to cover GPS units, which are some of the most commonly stolen pieces of farm tech. Separately, new clause 84 would establish a dedicated rural crime taskforce, on which the Liberal Democrats have long campaigned. It is working in Scotland and a handful of regional police forces, so it is time that the Government developed and rolled out a properly funded and equipped taskforce nationwide.

I am pleased that, after years of pressure from me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, the Government have finally announced that they will be committing to a full rural crime strategy. I hope that the Minister can today update the House on its timing. Strategy alone, however, will not stop thefts; it must come with proper enforcement. That is why new clause 85 and new clause 86 matter. They would guarantee minimal levels of neighbourhood policing and ensure that every local authority area has officers exclusively dedicated to community-based work.

In Cornwall, the police are doing all they can, but when the force gets less money per head than almost anywhere else in England, it is not enough. Officers are overstretched and underfunded. We need boots on the ground, with officers who understand the rural landscapes they are serving. That is why I urge the House to back these amendments, for the tradesmen who have lost their tools, for the farmers who have lost their machinery and vehicles, and for every rural community that has lost faith that justice will ever be done.

Separately, new clauses 87 and 88 would make it a criminal offence for water companies to breach pollution performance commitments and would finally hold senior executives personally liable for their failures. In North Cornwall, my constituents are living with the consequences of systematic pollution for profit. In 2024, South West Water issued more than 3,000 sewage alerts in its region, including 540 during the official bathing season and a staggering 2,600 outside of it. This is a routine and preventable environmental harm. South West Water pledged to significantly reduce its sewage discharges, but freedom of information requests show that it increased its discharges by a shocking five times last year versus the previous year, and the human cost is real.

In Widemouth Bay, my three-year-old constituent Finley became severely ill with diarrhoea and vomiting after playing on the beach. A friend’s child who was there that same day suffered similar symptoms, and I was contacted at one of my surgeries a few weeks ago by a teenage girl who required hospital admission after surfing in Harlyn bay. In St Eval, I dealt with residents reporting brown water coming from their taps. As a result of cracks at Bears Down reservoir due to South West Water’s lack of maintenance, many had no water for days, and the compensation from South West Water was £50 a household.

The leadership behind these constant and shocking failures continues to be rewarded. Susan Davy, the chief executive of Pennon Group, which owns South West Water, was paid a total of £860,000 in 2024. That was a small increase of £300,000 from the year before. Our beaches, rivers and families are being failed and let down, especially by the last Conservative Government and now by this Government. That is why these new clauses offer a clear message—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Rachel Taylor.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

On 30 April 1999, three nail bombs went off in London, killing four and injuring 140. One of them exploded at Brick Lane, the hub of London’s Bengali community; one exploded in Soho, at the Admiral Duncan pub, the heart of London’s gay district; and one exploded in Brixton, in an attack on south London’s black community. The sick terrorist who committed those evil acts was motivated by hatred. He hated Bengalis and black people because of their race. He hated LGBT people because of who they love and how they live their lives. He hated those groups because they were different from him. He hated them because of who they are.

I raise that appalling incident to remind the House that hatred comes in many forms, but whoever in our society it is against, we must all stand equally strongly against it. We must have hate crime laws that show that whether the hatred is for someone’s race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, Britain is a country that will not tolerate it; that all hatred is equal; and that all those who commit vile acts of hatred will face the same grave consequences.

I regret to say that that is not currently the case. Today the law recognises five categories of hate crime—race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability—but only two, race and religion, are treated as aggravated offences subject to stronger sentencing powers; the other three are not. That discrepancy cannot be right. We cannot say, as a society, that some forms of hatred are more evil than others.

I was at university when section 28 was introduced—I remember it vividly. It was more than a law; it was an attack on the right of people like me to live openly. It stigmatised lesbians, gays and bisexual people; and it pushed us out of public life. I went into politics to fight that cruel law and everything it represented.

Hate corrodes our entire society. It does not just harm the individuals who are targeted; it creates fear—fear to go outside, fear to speak up, fear to be seen. It silences people. It makes us all afraid. Research by Stonewall found that less than half of LGBT+ people felt safe holding their partner’s hand in public. That is the impact that the fear of hatred has on people. It makes them afraid even to show the world that they exist.

Unfortunately, far too many recorded crimes never result in charges. Of 11,000 disability hate crimes recorded by police, 320 led to prosecutions. Of 22,000 homophobic hate crimes, 3,118 led to prosecutions. Of 4,000 hate crimes against transgender people, only 137 led to prosecutions. Behind those statistics are real people, whose scars may heal on the outside but who may never recover from the fear and trauma that they have suffered.

In 2024, a teenage far-right extremist was jailed for targeting and attacking a transgender woman. Along with another young man, he kicked her to the ground in a park in Swansea and hurled transphobic abuse at her. In 2022, Cassie, a PhD student and wheelchair user, was waiting outside a shop when two drunk men grabbed her wheelchair, pushed her down the road and made sexual comments. She had to escape by rolling into traffic.

We must fight back against this hatred. We must show that we are not content to stick with the status quo. The victims of these attacks deserve to live in a society that says that we take this hatred seriously and will not stand for it. Victims must be at the heart of our criminal justice system, and we must ensure that laws protect them. That is why my new clause 122 is so important.

LGBT and disabled people tell me that they do not feel as safe as they used to. We are seeing rising transphobia everywhere. Pride flags are being taken down at county halls, and some politicians are openly questioning whether disabilities are even real. I am proud that Labour, in our manifesto, committed to equalising our hate crime laws by making hate crimes against LGBT people and disabled people aggravated offences. I am proud to be bringing forward that change through new clause 122. I hope that I can persuade all my parliamentary colleagues to support the new clause today, and to take this important step forward for equal rights.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for standing shoulder to shoulder with me throughout this process, and I urge the House to support the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I think the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) just ran out of time. I remember that I too raised Banaz’s case as a Back Bencher.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of six of the new clauses that go to the heart of our responsibilities as legislators—safeguarding children, restoring public confidence in the law and defending free expression—although due to the lack of time, I will not be able to go into them all in detail.

New clause 45, standing in my name, seeks to ensure that where an individual under the age of 18 has been cautioned or convicted of a child sex offence, the police must notify any organisation that that child is involved in, where they are with other children, or an organisation that that person is seeking to join. This new clause stems from a real case in my own constituency and would close a dangerous and demonstrably harmful safeguarding loophole, which I have already discussed privately with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). I hope that the Government will look at this as they take this legislation through the other place.

New clause 46, also standing my name, addresses another gap in legislation: a person’s ability to buy a car without providing any form of verifiable ID, or indeed proving that they can actually drive. This is in memory of Andrew Rowlands, with the support of his family, and it would make it harder for criminals and reckless drivers to use untraceable vehicles with impunity and kill people, as happened in Andrew’s case.

New clause 108, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), seeks to reaffirm the right to speak freely about religion or belief, including criticism, satire and dissent, by restoring clarity to our public order laws. I know he will be speaking to it later, and I wholly support it. It is closely aligned to new clause 7, which is being put forward by the Opposition Front Bench today. We need to start addressing some of these non-crime hate incidents, which I think are becoming a pernicious attack upon freedom in our society.

More broadly, it was great to hear the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) speak about pornography and some of the amendments she has put forward. I support new clause 103. In fact, I have been doing some work recently with the British Board of Film Classification because there are clearly major issues between what is allowed to be broadcast and age rated within traditional broadcast settings and what is available online. There is a growing body of evidence linking violent and abusive pornography with increased rates of sexual aggression, especially towards women and girls. I fully support the new clause and hope that the Government pay attention to what the hon. Member proposed.

I support new clause 150 relating to cousin marriage. I am glad that the Opposition Front Bench has put it forward, and I spoke at length about the matter earlier in Westminster Hall. This is not a knee-jerk reaction; it represents the next logical step in a serious and ongoing effort to protect the vulnerable and promote social cohesion. I have already introduced a private Member’s Bill in this Session on the marriage element, following the successful challenge banning virginity testing and hymenoplasty in the last Session, because when it comes to protecting women and men from outdated, coercive and harmful practices, this House must not look the other way.

This is not about race or religion; it is about freedom, societal cohesion and health. It is about freedom because consent is meaningless when extended families can pressure young men and women into cousin marriages that they do not want. We must stand up for those without a voice and give them the legal backing to say no. It is about cohesion because multigenerational cousin marriage often fosters huge issues around social segregation, locking individuals into closed systems of authority. When countries like Norway and Denmark have acted decisively, there is no excuse for this country to lag behind others with progressive credentials. It is about health because there is a real risk. The Born in Bradford study, which has been going on for many years, has found the real societal implications, and we still do not know the full side effects of multigenerational first cousin marriages.

We rightly prohibit relationships where power distorts consent—between teachers and pupils, doctors and patients, and within close family settings. The same logic clearly applies here as well. This new clause is rooted in compassion, not condemnation. It speaks to freedom, especially for women, and the courage to legislate where silence simply causes harm.

Each of these amendments addresses a different risk—child safety, public accountability and freedom of expression—but they are united in the common principle that the law should protect the vulnerable, demand responsibility, and preserve the freedoms on which a healthy and confident society depends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The speaking limit is now reduced to four minutes.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I will not be able to speak to all the amendments that Members have worked so hard on and that I have supported so many times by putting my name to them, but the Members know that I support them. New clauses 21, 25, 13, 18, 10, 43 and, in particular, new clause 122 are all important proposals that the Government should listen to. I do not support new clause 7 from the official Opposition, and I cannot support new clauses 2 and 3, as I do not believe there is any evidence that those measures would help make sex workers safer. We have to respect evidence and listen to sex workers and their voices on these issues.

Principally, I rise today to speak to my new clauses 26, 27, 109, 30 and 49, and new clause 50 from the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). First, new clause 26 would require the Home Office to publish quarterly data on antisocial behaviour orders, including the number of times that stop-and-search powers were used prior to such orders being issued and the protected characteristics of individuals who receive those orders. That is important scrutiny to make sure the powers are being exercised fairly.

New clause 27 would enable regulations to vary the ability of police forces to use stop-and-search powers. Specifically, it would require the Government to suspend the use of those powers by any police force subject to Engage status under His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. If a force has reached the point of requiring formal monitoring due to systemic issues, it is right that the most intrusive and abused police powers are subject to heightened scrutiny or even suspension.

New clause 30 would prohibit the deployment and use of certain forms of “predictive” policing technologies, particularly those that rely on automated decision-making, profiling and artificial intelligence, to assess the likelihood that individuals or groups will commit criminal offences. My hon. Friends will recognise that danger. Such technologies, however cleverly sold, will always need to be built on existing, flawed police data, or data from other flawed and biased public and private sources. That means that communities that have historically been over-policed will be more likely to be identified as being “at risk” of future criminal behaviour. As I have always said in the context of facial recognition, questions of accuracy and bias are not the only reason to be against these technologies. At their heart they infringe human rights, including the right to privacy and the right to be presumed innocent.