Matt Vickers MP: speeches

Speeches

• 31 Mar 2025 · Defending Democracy Taskforce · Hansard source

  More

  I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) was unable to get a meaningful answer, but with Islamist extremism behind three quarters of MI5’s caseload, it is essential to shield our democracy from its pressure. The Minister has repeatedly reiterated the Government’s non-engagement policy with the Muslim Council of Britain, despite a Government Minister attending its annual dinner. More recently, there have been concerns about attendees at Government events who have publicly expressed some frightening views. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government remain committed to a non-engagement policy with those who seek to promote extreme views that undermine our democracy? Where Government Ministers go against that, how does the defending democracy taskforce respond?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Shoplifting · Hansard source

  More

  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) has outlined, this weekend we heard the shocking reports that the parents of a nine-year-old girl were arrested by six Hertfordshire police officers and placed in a cell for 11 hours because they complained about their daughter’s primary school on WhatsApp. At the same time, 270,000 shoplifting cases have been closed without a suspect being identified. Does the Minister agree that the police should be able to get on with the job of tackling crime on our streets? Can she comment on whether they were getting their priorities right in that case?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q This is a huge, broad Bill that brings forward lots of measures and powers. Hopefully, it is welcomed by the great men and women you represent. Having looked at the Bill, is there anything that you find concerning? Is there anything that it is possible to improve? More broadly, are there any measures that you would like to see added to it? Chief Constable De Meyer: The NPCC does not see any measures that have been omitted, save perhaps for the provision on begging, which was in an initial draft, but we understand there were concerns in respect of how that might be enforced. Overall, the NPCC is extremely supportive of the Bill. It seems to us that it brings a lot of laws up to date and frames the law in a way that is much more consistent with the way that a lot of crimes are now committed. It generally enables much earlier intervention and prevention on the back of the new or adapted offences that are created.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I realise I have been on my retail hobby horse. More broadly, do you have any other concerns about the Bill? Are there any measures you would like to see featured that are not featured? Oliver Sells : Could I touch on a subject that troubles me? It is implicit in the Bill, and it is not necessarily a popular view. The trend towards sentencing inflation has created a growing prison population of particularly young serial offenders who are serving longer and longer sentences. That is causing difficulties with the cost of the prison population and with what to do with people we cannot send to prison. The courts struggle the whole time not to send people to prison unless it is absolutely necessary. The idea that we could, for instance, abolish short sentences—there is a proposal for their removal—seems to me to be very double-edged indeed. We need to be very careful. The courts, including the magistrates court, must have the powers to move swiftly. This is one of the problems in our system, particularly in respect of the kind of crime we are talking about. When I started out at the Bar, cases were dealt with overnight, and the next day were done and dusted in the magistrates court. It was effective and speedy. Speedy justice is much more effective than slow justice. We have created a situation and a structure, over many years now, where there is almost an acceptance of delay in the system, and I do not accept that at all. If you go to a magistrates court, you will see so many cases adjourned because it is not ready. They are piffling reasons, on the whole—complete nonsense, in my view. When a case is prepared overnight, it should be in the court within a matter of days and dealt with straight away. I do not think we have really understood that in the Bill. It is not quite there yet, in my view. Sir Robert Buckland : With its wide scope, the Bill is an opportunity for the Government to act on, for example, the recommendations of Jonathan Fisher KC on the overdue reform of disclosure. The disclosure rules were created back in 1996 and are no longer fit for proper purpose. Anything the Bill can do to help to future-proof the use of assistive technologies would be a great opportunity for Ministers and officials. I am convinced that the use of assistive technology—I use the word “assistive” because it is technology not to replace the judge or the jury but to assist them in their deliberations, as well as assisting disclosure officers and the police in their investigations—is absolutely right.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q We know that a small number of people are responsible for a huge volume of the crimes we are discussing. Do you believe there are sufficient powers to deal with hyper-prolific offenders and to imprison them? Do you think we should be doing anything in that space? I would also be interested in the views of the other two panel members on the 18, 16—whatever it might be—question. Tiff Lynch: In relation to the powers, this is something that I find myself repeating not in this forum but in other interviews: you can bring in many laws and powers, but we need to have the infrastructure and the resources to use them. We have officers out there with casefiles that are getting longer and longer. There is only so much that can be highlighted as a priority, because if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. Yes, we support the laws. It is for Government to make the laws and for us to carry them out. We will do so, but it is about managing expectations not just from policing but from society.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you have any other comments on entry without a warrant being narrower in this Bill? Dan Murphy: I think there is a role for the Government and Parliament to communicate that it is a power that has been given to policing. It is not something that policing is searching for and trying to use. The public need to understand that it has been given to us for a reason, and we are using it. Tiff Lynch: I would go one step further in relation to the public having knowledge of the powers. That also gives our police officers confidence that the Government are behind them when they are enforcing these laws, and the knowledge that they are supported in what they are doing. Chief Constable De Meyer: We know that the ability to track mobile devices is not sufficiently accurate at the moment for it to be relied upon without some form of corroboration. Therefore, one understands why things are more tightly framed. Where there is good intelligence for its use, this ability to enter swiftly to search for stolen goods without the need to get a warrant will mean that we are able to recover stolen property more swiftly, and that investigations are less likely to be frustrated. To ensure legitimacy in the eyes of the public, that obviously needs to be carried out carefully, but overall it will make it less likely that property, whether electronic property or property linked to rural crime, can be swiftly disposed of. Our current inability to deal expeditiously with those sorts of crimes can adversely impact public confidence. Overall, it is a very positive operational thing.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Entry without a warrant is drawn more narrowly in this Bill than it was in the Criminal Justice Bill. Do you think it gives you the tools you need to do the job? Are there any concerns about that? Dan Murphy: I think it gives you the tools to do the job, but whenever you enter private homes, you only have to look at the case law on warrants, where we have full powers, to see that they are challenged regularly. We need to make sure we are trained and get it right. As this is a new bit of legislation, I am sure there will be challenges either way as and when it is used.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Amendments were tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill that would have seen it mandate a ban, a tag or a curfew for anybody responsible for three incidents of shoplifting or assault on a retail worker. What are your thoughts on that, as something that has been taken out of this Bill? Sir Robert Buckland: Again, it is a missed opportunity. I think that, accompanying that type of behaviour, is a natural community concern about the prevalence of people who are—well, they are worse than nuisances—real menaces to the wellbeing of the local community. An attack on a shop, in my view, is an attack on the wellbeing of the whole local community. Given how important the local shop is as a lifeline for many people, including older and vulnerable customers, any attack on it that means that its services are lost, even temporarily, is a very serious attack on the community. Therefore, using this opportunity to increase the suite of preventive measures available would seem a very sensible thing to do, and I hope the Government will consider accepting any amendments that will no doubt be tabled with that aim in mind.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q As you will have seen, we get lots of people in here who are very familiar with this place, and then every now and again we get people who are brave, committed and dedicated to making a change and making the world a better place. Thank you for coming and for all your campaigning on this issue. All power to your elbow. How important are the measures in the Bill, and why? Is there anything that you think the Government should be doing beyond what is in the Bill? Colin Mackie: I think this is majorly important. It is a giant step forward. Up until now, spiking has been a very grey area. It is charged as assault, theft, poisoning or whatever; it has been such a grey area that it has been hard to process it. That has the knock-on effect of putting victims off coming forward, because they do not know where they are going to go or what is going to be talked about, and they are unsure. Perpetrators of spiking feel, “Well, nothing’s really happening over this. I don’t hear of anybody getting charged for it, and it’s only a bit of fun; we don’t think we’re going to do any harm,” so they carry on doing it. Having a stand-alone offence is beneficial for the victims, and I also think it is beneficial for the police. I feel that once a law is in place, you are going to get a co-ordinated response from police. Currently, victims in Newcastle are treated differently from victims in Newquay, and it is the same across the whole country. That is one of the major problems that victims tell us about all the time: some forces are great, while others are not so good. I have had one victim tell me that the police said they did not have the manpower or the time to go in and check the CCTV at the club where they were spiked. Another victim told me that uniformed officers turned up and were not sure how to deal with it, but half an hour later, the CID were there and straight into the club. We cannot have that inconsistency; we need to move forward with that. You were asking earlier, “What can we do to help?” In bringing in the Bill, we have to involve A&E, because A&E has a big part to play in this as well. All too often, as you know, it is the job of the police to gather the evidence, but a spiking victim is likely to appear at a hospital—at A&E—unconscious or confused and not sure what is going on. They are not going to think about asking for a police officer to attend—they are not in a state to do that—so unless they have a family member or a friend there, that is not going to happen. By the time they get maybe two days down the line and think, “Yeah, this is what’s happened to me; I want to report this,” there is a good chance that a lot of the evidence has gone. We need that in the Bill as well: for A&E to play a bigger part by gathering evidence and holding it for the police. Then, if the victim wants to take it forward, it is there.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Could we do anything else to tackle the problem of hyper-prolific offenders—this small group of people who are responsible for a huge volume of offences? Sir Robert Buckland: That is a very difficult issue that I looked at carefully when I was in the Government. One of the challenges, of course, is that the offences might be prolific but the sentences they carry often do not even cross the custody threshold. There are two ways of looking at this. First, the community-based intensive intervention solution seems to be working, particularly in the case of young offenders, and we should look at expanding it to apply to adult offenders as well. There would, of course, be a huge concomitant cost, particularly for the probation service and all the agencies tasked with the intensive supervision of, perhaps, a drug or alcohol addiction. That is the sort of work that will take them off the streets and get them cleaned up, without sending them to a meaningless short-term sentence. At the other end, there are people committing hundreds of offences, for whom the law cannot as yet provide a cumulative answer. It is difficult for me to suggest on the hoof how we would encompass a sentencing option that allows a roll-up, so that there was a longer term of imprisonment for someone prolific. The danger is that there is always a cliff edge: if someone has committed 24 rather than 25 offences, why should there be such a differential? The long-term answer lies in prevention. I strongly endorse the intensive community-based approach, which is not currently available to the courts.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In terms of hyper-prolific offenders, obviously a lot of time is being taken by a small number of people. Is there anything we can do in that space to make the job easier? Dan Murphy: If you have someone who is a prolific offender, and the police are constantly dealing with them and there are constant victims, the best place for that person is in prison. Getting them into prison is sometimes not easy, but I think that is the answer.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Could you comment briefly on begging, which we saw brought forward before? What would you like to see if we do include anything to that end? Chief Constable De Meyer: The point in respect of begging is that, although we were generally supportive of the inclusion of nuisance begging in the provisions, it would require a certain amount of judgment in how to enforce that. That was the only point that NPCC colleagues noted was in the original provisions but is not here. Other than that, they are extremely supportive. Tiff Lynch: In relation to the overarching Bill, we concur with Chief Constable De Meyer. We are supportive of new legislation that brings us up to societal issues. I do not want to sound like a broken record throughout all the questions, but our main concerns are the infrastructure that sits behind the legislation; the demand that is placed upon the officers we represent, who will be out there on the streets enacting this legislation; resourcing; and the learning, training and development of the officers who will be required to carry it out. Dan Murphy: The Police Superintendents Association also supports the Bill and the provisions within it. With any legislation, there will obviously need to be clarity through the courts, training or the guidance that comes with the Bill. I have read with interest the debates for and against some of the clauses. On the power of entry, electronic devices and public order, some of the definitions are not defined within the legislation. There is a specific concern that I have read—it might not be a concern—about mandatory reporting in clauses 45 to 54 and whether the covert nature of policing would be dealt with through an exception or some kind of exemption with regard to that route.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Is there anything in the Bill that gives you cause for concern? We would obviously be interested in Robert’s views on that £200 threshold as well. Are there any measures that you would like to have seen in the Bill that you have not seen in it? Sir Robert Buckland: There are a couple of things, Mr Vickers. First of all, just to build on Mr Sells’s point on clause 16, I understand the huge concern about shoplifting and the perception among many shop proprietors in our towns and cities that, in some ways, it was almost becoming decriminalised and that action has to be taken. But the danger in changing primary legislation in this way is that we send mixed messages, and that the Government are sending mixed messages about what its policy intentions are. Sir Brian Leveson is conducting an independent review into criminal procedure. We do not know yet what the first part of that review will produce, but I would be very surprised if there was not at least some nod to the need to keep cases out of the Crown court, bearing in mind the very dramatic and increasing backlog that we have. I think that anything that ran contrary to that view risks the Government looking as if it is really a house divided against itself. It seems to me that there was a simpler way of doing this. When the law was changed back in 2014, there was an accompanying policy guideline document that allowed for the police to conduct their own prosecutions for shoplifting items with a value of under £200, if the offender had not done it before, if there were not other offences linked with it, if there was not a combined amount that took it over £200 and if there was a guilty plea. What seems to have happened in the ensuing years is that that has built and developed, frankly, into a culture that has moved away from the use of prosecuting as a tool in its entirety. I think that that is wrong, but I do think that it is within the gift of Ministers in the Home Office and of officials in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to say, “That guidance is superseded. We hope, want and expect all offences to be prosecuted.” That would then allow offences of under £200 to be prosecuted in the magistrates court. There is nothing in the current legislation that prevents any of that, by the way, and I think it would send a very clear message to the police that they are expected to do far more when it comes to the protection of retail premises. On clause 14, which covers assault on retail workers, I was a little surprised to see that there had been a departure from what was a rather interesting amendment tabled in the previous Session to the 2023-24 Criminal Justice Bill by, I think, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris); in fact, I think it was supported by you and others. It sought to amend the law to increase protections for shop workers, but with an important expansion: the offence would be not just an assault, but a threatening or abuse offence as well, which would encompass some of the public order concerns that many of us have about shop premises, corner shops and sole proprietor retail outlets. Yet, we have gone back here to a straight assault clause, which in my mind does not seem to add anything to the criminal code at all. We have existing laws of assault, which was often the argument of Ministers, including me, when we debated these issues in the past. Again, it seems to me that the opportunity to widen the offence to cover different types of abuse against important retail workers is being missed at the moment. If I was advising the Government, which of course I am not, I would ask them to look again at the clause and to consider expanding it to make it much more meaningful for the people I think all of us want to protect.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We would welcome anything you write to us.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You did a very good job of illustrating the need for the ability to enter a house without a warrant. That proposal has been drafted in this Bill more narrowly than in the previous Bill. Do you think it will still meet that need? Dr Newport: I certainly support it. The previous wording was encouraging, and it is good to see this happening now, although I would prefer it to go much further. There is an epidemic of phone theft and snatch thefts in general. We now have better and better technology, and of course it will only get better, faster and cheaper. Given that, we should be able to actually use that information. The longer we wait for this and the more difficult we make it, the more detailed these pipelines will become. My sister-in-law’s phone was stolen—it was actually two weeks after I launched the campaign, and only a week after the bike theft video that I did outside the Met—and within a week it was in China. These are very established networks. There is obviously a massive industry that has been allowed to take hold, so we need to give the police the best powers while keeping this in line with people’s expectations for their own home life and so on. I supported the previous wording, and I would like the Government to go as far as they can on this.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You said you had concerns, in particular about antisocial behaviour. Will you give us a bit more on that? Baroness Newlove: Antisocial behaviour, as everybody knows, is an issue I really champion. I have an issue with the ASB case review. I welcome what is in there, but it is the small print. I know you are going to create a police body review for the ASB case review, but there needs to be more support as people go through the process. Communication is a huge issue for victims. While I say I welcome this body doing it, I still think they need what we call a single point of contact, a SPOC—which sounds like something from “Star Trek”, so I call it an advocate—or a victims’ advocate to support them right through. While they are waiting for all these procedures to go through, they still have the impact of the antisocial behaviour. An advocate would ensure that they get one-to-one contact, which helps them to understand the process. Also, I welcome having that response, and that if they do not like the response or the way the process has gone, they can appeal it, but in all that, they need support right the way through.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q 42 I have a lot of history with this Bill and familiar faces to me. I am delighted to see the assault on a retail worker offence, but what more do you think we can do to protect retail workers? Do you have any thoughts on the Food and Drink Wholesale UK suggestion that we should have included a similar offence for wholesale workers? Christopher Morris: USDAW has membership in the wholesale sector—we have recognition agreements with Booker and Makro, and Bestway—and I think there is scope for that. People have to be registered to attend wholesale, so they have a card and the wholesaler knows who they are; so initially you might think that would restrict the likelihood of threats, abuse and violence against wholesale workers, but quite commonly we find that there are still issues there. People are still abusive towards those workers, who still have to check ID and things, and enforce certain parts of the law. While those workers have those sorts of responsibilities, we think that there is a case for them to be covered by the provisions, for extending the scope of the provision to include wholesale as well as retail. Paul Gerrard: We are very supportive of the Bill, as you as you would expect. Retail crime has risen significantly over the past few years. At the Co-op Group, we have seen a 44% rise in all forms of retail crime, a 43% rise in threats and abuse, and a 24% rise in violence. I think the offence is welcome because we have seen it working in Scotland. In Scotland, when the police attend, you get a 60% charge rate, whereas in England and Wales there is currently a 10% charge rate, so we know it works. First, speaking as a former law enforcement officer, the statute is really important, but it has got to be implemented and it has got to be used. I very much welcome the work that Amanda Blakeman, the chief constable in North Wales, has done, because we had some improved police response. Secondly—this is probably not about the Bill, but it is about the broader issue of tackling retail crime—70% of retail crime and much of the violence is committed by a relatively small number of prolific offenders. When you look those prolific offenders, there are very often vulnerabilities in there—it could be substance abuse, it could be gangs and so on. If this clause becomes law and those individuals get in front of the courts, what the courts do needs to be the thing that stops the behaviour. Sometimes, that will be a custodial sentence. I was talking to a colleague whose leg was broken when they were in the wrong place when a thief was leaving a store, and another colleague just last Saturday who had seven stitches on their head because they would not give someone change that they were not entitled to for an ice-cream. We need to make sure that the criminal justice system takes the right action to stop the behaviour. Yes, it could be a custodial sentence, but it could be rehabilitation orders, restorative justice, community orders—whatever stops the behaviour. That is the key for me. This piece of legislation is great because it will get them into the criminal justice system more quickly and easily, but we must make sure that we take the right action at that point. Graham Wynn: Paul is one of my members, so to some extent I defer to him, but yes, we are totally supportive of the retail elements of the Bill and we look forward to its being enacted. You ask about expanding it to include wholesale. Obviously, I am here to promote the interests of retailers, not to support others who need protection also having some sort of protection. Wholesale, as Chris has said, is a similar situation in many ways; but the one unique thing about retailers is that they have to enforce age-restricted sales, and in some respects they are enforcing the law themselves, so they are in a slightly different position from many others. The violent offences often occur in the context of refusing a sale or asking for ID and someone not having it. Two more things. First, if you want to extend the Bill, we would like it extended to drivers, making sure that people who deliver to people’s homes from supermarkets and other places are also protected: there is quite a strong desire for that. Secondly, it is important that the statistics are gathered for retail crime. One of the things this offence does is to ensure that we have better statistics at the official level. It is important that we do not extend it so far or in such a way that we do not still get the statistics for the retail element. That is one of the key plusses, if you like, of the offence, because statistics can be debated, to put it that way, between official ones and the ones we gather.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The financial penalties for fly-tipping have gone up, and changes to guidance are now coming in. Is there anything else you think we could be doing in that space? Previously, it was suggested that those responsible for fly-tipping should incur points on their driving licences. Is there anything else you think we can do in that space, and what do you think of that proposal? Sam Durham: We have worked quite closely with the police and the Government on hare coursing legislation, which allows the seizure of items that are used. In hare coursing incidents, the dogs are valuable assets, as are the vehicles. Certainly, those kinds of measures could act as a further deterrent, but from a landowner’s point of view, it is that key issue of which authority’s responsibility it is. I think it is clear that it should be the local authority. Police have found they are having to address it, and I know police and crime commissioners see it as a priority, but that does cause confusion on the ground for the landowner about who deals with it and what happens when you have an incident. Once the tipped rubbish is there, it is the landowner’s responsibility to clear it up.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I realise that different areas are affected very differently by the antisocial use of off-road bikes and e-bikes. My area is absolutely battered by the issue. The Bill makes changes to the Police Reform Act 2002, introducing the ability to seize a bike without notice, and there are obviously other powers, but what more could be done in that space, specifically on the ability to go into a private dwelling to seize one? When these bikes have been seized by the police, they are sometimes sold online to the people who were making use of them in the first place. Is anything else we could do to tackle that problem? Matthew Barber: It is certainly an issue in Thames Valley. The proposed change in legislation is welcome, both for cars, where we see antisocial behaviour with four-wheel vehicles, and for bikes. The change to remove the warning is particularly useful for bikes, because we are talking about vehicles that are not always registered, so identifying the owner of the vehicle to follow up on a warning is incredibly difficult. It is much easier with a four-wheel vehicle, but even in those circumstances the public generally expect the police to be taking action, and a warning that lasts for only a 12-month period is inadequate. I would be very supportive of the disposal of those vehicles—generally by crushing—following seizure. For people to have their vehicles removed and crushed if they are using them in an antisocial fashion seems to be an effective deterrent. Emily Spurrell: I echo what Matthew said. One of the challenges that we have, depending on the vehicle, is when police officers are in pursuit of or trying to stop a vehicle. Particularly with off-road scramble bikes, which have proper engines, that can be a real challenge, in terms of what powers the police have and how comfortable they are to try to follow without creating further risk to the public or the individuals on the bike. That is a constant challenge. I am not sure what the obvious answer is, but it is something that police forces have to contend with. The other bit, on e-bikes in particular—again, I do not know what the answer is—is whether more engagement could happen with the companies. In Merseyside, organised criminal gangs use them because they are quieter than scramble bikes and so easier to navigate around. They are able to adapt the speedometer, or the mechanism, which means they are going faster than they are designed to go. That is obviously incredibly dangerous for them as well as for the public around them. Anything that can be done to make that more difficult, and keep them to what they were designed for, would help. Roger Hirst: I would differentiate between e-scooters and e-bikes. From the evidence that we have in Essex, e-bikes seem to be like any other powered two-wheeler. I would simply recommend that they are treated like any other powered two-wheeler: they should be registered with registration numbers; there should be an obligation to wear a crash helmet; and they could be used on the roads in the same way as any other powered two-wheeler. There is a big difference, though—certainly for us—with e-scooters. Two young people on one e-scooter were very sadly killed last month in Basildon—a nine-year-old and a 15-year-old. It very sadly ended their lives and ruined their family’s lives and the lives of the people who hit them. It is very hard for us to see in Essex how e-scooters are compatible with our road system. I have to say that, having been to Bristol, I was very impressed with how they work in the old docklands there, but we do not have anywhere like that in Essex. That was not the first fatality that we have had. E-scooters are very risky vehicles. It is very hard to see how they will ever be able to be used on either the road system or the footpath system. From my perspective, either they should be restricted to very small areas where they can be used safely, or we do not need them, because, in terms of the deaths per kilometre travelled, they are very dangerous indeed.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Are there any gaps that you can see in the legislation, or anything that needs tightening up to hit that need and that objective? Dan Sexton: There are many, many things that we could do to improve online safety, and many things that could be done to improve the safer use of AI tools. However, in the context of this Bill and the criminalisation of things, we think that it has done a good job of blocking these particular loopholes. I think the other stuff is better suited to things like a future iteration of the Online Safety Act and AI safety Bills. So we are very much content with these clauses. Sharon Maciver: In terms of inclusion and what we would want to see in the Bill, we would like to see greater protections for children. We feel that in order to have an end-to-end response to tackling the criminal exploitation, we need to have not only measures that sanction exploiters, but measures that protect children, recognising that children who are criminally exploited will be victims of abuse while also being in conflict with the law. In terms of building trust in the system, as I reference in terms of children’s trust, there is also a requirement for agencies working in this space to feel confident that the system can respond to the issue. Often we see children, as I have described, being significantly harmed. Also as a result of exploitation they cause significant harm to others, and that is a really complex dilemma for agencies to try to manage. So we feel that having increased protection orders that specifically address the duality of a child being a victim as well as in conflict with the law would be helpful, as well as ensuring that children have access to a statutory defence. We also believe that a definition of criminal exploitation would be helpful in understanding the scale and extent of the problem and how many victims there are across the UK. Of course, the new offence will ensure that data is captured on the number of perpetrators. Equally, we would want to make sure that we understand how many victims there are, and ensure that the response we have is that agencies feel confident in what that system does for children.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q On resource, there is a small number of people who commit a huge volume of crime —often low-level stuff. Could we do anything more to tackle the problem of those hyper-prolific offenders? Emily Spurrell: A big part of it for me is understanding what is driving their offending. We see the greatest success when you invest in diversion and intervention. We know there are prolific offenders, particularly in relation to retail crime, where they are struggling with drug addiction or alcohol addiction, there might be mental health issues going on, and there might be poverty, in some cases. I think we need to get much better and invest much more heavily—lots of us as PCCs do already, but we need to do much more in this space, and we could if we had the resource—in diverting people away and putting them on to the right intervention to stop the things that are driving their offending in the first place. Matthew Barber: I broadly agree. There is a huge amount, particularly around drug treatment and diversion, that needs to be done for some of those prolific offenders. We also need to recognise that there are those who operate in the organised crime space who are not necessarily the victims of drug abuse themselves, but the spreaders of that drug abuse, and we need to look at the sentencing and other preventive orders that can be put in place. At a lower level we have the criminal behaviour orders, which I am pleased to see included in the retail element of the Bill, but for a number of other prolific offenders, who will seek to commit a wide variety of crimes, we need to look at sentencing and at some of the provisions in the Bill that I do think will help to bring those individuals to justice where at the moment they may well evade justice. For example, procuring, handling and trading in some of the electronic equipment used in the pursuit of theft of vehicles is not an offence at the moment. That change in legislation will help to tackle some of the organised crime element. Roger Hirst: I think similarly. One of the provisions that is very much to be welcomed is the doing away with the £200 minimum on shoplifting. So often these are prolific offenders, but each offence is treated by the court system as a single offence—effectively a de minimis offence—when, in actual fact, if you are doing that number of relatively small shoplifts in one day, you can be making quite a lot of money out of it. That improvement is definitely positive. That does mean that we have to appeal to you—perhaps not in relation to the Bill, but overall—to ensure that the criminal justice system is properly funded. There is undoubtedly an additional burden on the criminal justice system that will come out of the Bill. It is all well and good for us to ask for more resources for policing, and for PFCCs and PCCs, but it is really important that the criminal justice system gets to grips with its backlog. In Essex, we are currently having cases listed for 2028. That is an extremely painful situation, and it can be the case for very serious crimes. That needs to be worked through, please.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q On retail crime, I was delighted to see the assault on retail workers offence in the Bill. Previously, the Criminal Justice Bill included a mandatory requirement for a ban, tag or curfew after three incidents of shoplifting or assaults on retail workers. What is the rationale behind ditching that? We have all heard about the horrors that some retail workers face, and a ban, tag or curfew would allow a bit of respite by getting those people out of stores and letting people get on with their jobs. Dame Diana Johnson: It is fair to say that the power is already available to courts, when they convict on shop theft—and hopefully soon on assaults on shop workers—to use the full range of sanctions, which includes tagging, community service and a whole range of things. With the offence of assault on a retail worker, we are making a specific presumption that a criminal behaviour order should be attached to it. We are not, in any way, saying that it may not be appropriate to use a tag. I have also been told that a lot of prolific shoplifters—the people who are committing these offences—have chaotic lifestyles, and tags are not always going to be the most effective way of dealing with them. That is something to be mindful of when you are saying, “That has to be part of the punishment.” That is why the court should use its discretion to apply whatever sanction is most appropriate for that individual.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have one last question on that. As we have mentioned, there are several powers in several pieces of legislation that allow police to do it, sometimes with notice and sometimes without, often based on whether or not they have insurance and where the bikes can be seized from. Am I right in thinking that there are no numbers held nationally on which of those powers have been used to seize bikes and by which police forces? I am not aware of that, and therefore I cannot decide how effective the measure would be. Dame Diana Johnson: One of the frustrations I have found since becoming the Minister for Policing is that data is not held centrally. We have problems with data because of the changes that were introduced during the coalition years to devolve everything down to the 43 police forces, which often measure things in slightly different ways. One of the measures we will introduce will try to provide clear data to the Home Office, so that we can see what is going on with such matters, which are of real concern to communities. We want to make sure we have accurate data, and you are probably right that we do not have that now. Police forces are probably using different ways of categorising antisocial behaviour involving vehicles, so I take your point on that. There is work to do.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q There are measures in the Bill around the seizure of vehicles that are used antisocially. Do you have any views on that, or is there anything else you think should be done in that space? Sam Durham: Again, that works as a good deterrent in some rural criminality, so we would support those kinds of issues. We do look at food security issues as well, including the illegal import of meat. I know our president is keen to investigate whether there is the potential to seize and crush those vehicles as a deterrent measure.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You beat me to it—I was about to talk about fly-tipping as there have been huge costs to local authorities across the country. What do you think of the Bill’s proposals? How could we go further and improve on it? At one point, there was a suggestion that you might give people penalty points on their driving licence if they use vehicles to dump things. What is your view on all of that? What do you think of the measures and how can we make the Bill stronger? Councillor Conway: We at the LGA think that we really need to sit down and go through all of that thoroughly. It would be very welcome to have that conversation. We also want to have in place the long-term funding and the ability to work together, because some of this sits with the Environment Agency as well. We need to do that properly together and understand more about it. Solutions to fly-tipping need to be delivered locally, and local government is key to that, so we would welcome a detailed conversation on that issue. Councillor Garratt: You asked me specifically about fly-tipping. I think you would probably get almost universal agreement that fly-tipping is too much of a problem and more needs to be done about it. On my reading of the Bill, all that seems to be proposed is that, essentially, the Secretary of State would write to councils and remind them of their powers. If I went back to my local council officers and asked them what they thought about that, they would probably think it is quite patronising. They would probably say that a better remedy would be more resources or possibly more powers, but they probably know what powers they have. That is my experience of senior council officers.