debates/debates2025-03-10c conversation_24
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-03-10)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-03-10c conversation_24

Christopher Vince:Wednesday is Young Carers Action Day. Will the Minister join me in thanking young carers for all that they do, and commit herself to ensuring that there is greater awareness of them in schools? I must say that schools in my constituency do very well in that regard. \p Janet Daby: My hon. Friend is right to mention young carers. The Government are committed to increasing their visibility and ensuring that they have the support that they need, at home and in education. We champion initiatives such as Young Carers Action Day and the young carers covenant, which further highlights the needs of young carers and the support available to them. \p Luke Taylor: What resources are being provided to schools to support restorative justice initiatives in relation to knife crime, especially victim-led approaches such as workshops or peer mentoring to engage young people in conversations about its prevention? \p Catherine McKinnell: We hear about far too many cases of young people being affected by knife crime, and I will take away the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. We are undertaking a curriculum and assessment review, looking closely at relationships, sex and health education, and considering how we can empower young people to be discerning and respect one another and create a society based on values and tolerance. \p Ian Lavery: In each of the past two years, 40,000 teachers have left the profession owing to burnout and excessive workloads. What concrete  steps will the Government take to address that, and how can we reverse the exodus from this fantastic profession? \p Catherine McKinnell: Under the Tories teachers were overstretched and undervalued, so Labour is resetting the relationship with the profession. We are properly remunerating teachers by accepting the 5.5% pay rise that the last Government sat on. We are also keen to cut unnecessary burdens on teachers, harnessing artificial intelligence and supporting children with their mental health. The child poverty taskforce is determined to alleviate the burdens that originate outside the school gates. \p Jim Shannon: What steps are being taken to support voluntary organisations across the United Kingdom, such as AWARE in Northern Ireland, that offer education programmes to target depression and related mood conditions as part of mental health education in schools? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the important contribution that voluntary and third sector organisations can make. Here in England, through the consultation about relationships, sex and health education, we are looking at what more we can do to ensure that all young people get the support that they need, including in the areas that he has identified. \p Chris Hinchliff: School staff in North East Hertfordshire work tirelessly in dilapidated facilities to support students with special educational needs while parents face absurdly long journeys to reach specialist schools, and in the meantime the old Roysia school site in Royston lies vacant. Will the  Minister meet me to discuss the school estate in my constituency, and how we can use the Roysia site to meet local special educational needs? \p Catherine McKinnell: We are very open to ideas for how we can best use the school estate to meet the needs of young people, including those with SEND. We are determined to deliver a wide range of reforms, and I—or, indeed, the early years Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan)—would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how we can best use the resource in his constituency for the benefit of all the children who need it. \p Ian Sollom: Last week the Department announced that colleges would receive only two thirds of the funding that they were promised for the 35,000 additional 16 to 18-year-old students enrolled last autumn, a decision that could lead to thousands of prospective students being turned away this September. That follows a cut in the adult skills funding. Can the Secretary of State explain how cutting promised funds will help to address skills shortages in the economy and help to deliver the Government’s growth mission? \p Bridget Phillipson: I absolutely agree that skills are critical to driving growth. That is why we are now spending over £400 million more on 16-to-19 education—£100 million more than was announced at the Budget—including £87 million in in-year growth funding, to ensure that places are available where needed. Through the reforms that we are driving with Skills England, we will make sure that where there was once a fragmented skills system, we have a coherent system that supports all our young people and adult learners, too. \p Hamish Falconer: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Syria.

Events in Syria over the past few days are deeply concerning. We are working as quickly as possible to establish from reliable sources of information what exactly happened and who was responsible, but reports that a large number of civilians have been killed in coastal areas in ongoing violence are horrific. As the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement yesterday, the interim authorities in Damascus must ensure the protection of all Syrians and set out a clear path to transitional justice.

This is a critical moment for Syria, and for the interim authorities to demonstrate their intent to promote stability and to govern in the interests of all Syrians. Since the fall of Assad on 8 December, our priority has been to support a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition that leads to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government. We have been clear that anyone seeking a role in governing Syria should demonstrate a commitment to the protection of human rights, unfettered access for humanitarian aid and the safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles, and combat terrorism and extremism. This is the only way forward towards a more stable, free and prosperous future for Syria and for Syrians, who suffered for so long under the brutal Assad regime. We have consistently emphasised this message in all our diplomatic engagement with the interim authorities, and in concert with our international partners. We will continue to focus our diplomacy to this end.

The UK is engaging privately and regularly with the interim authorities at every level, including through Ministers and our Syria envoy. We are supporting them to take steps that will deliver a more stable, free and prosperous future for the Syrian people. We welcomed the announcement by interim Syrian President al-Sharaa on forming an inclusive transitional Government, leading to free and fair elections. We welcomed the national dialogue conference held on 25 February. But the violence over the weekend demonstrates that more needs to be done to bring Syria’s different groups together, and we urge the interim authorities to urgently establish a clear process and timeline for the next phase of the transition. Representative figures from across Syria need to be appointed to the transitional Government and the recently announced legislative council.

Our overarching objective is a stable Syria. In addition to supporting an inclusive political process, we are focused on preventing escalation of conflict in northern Syria, on tackling security threats, including the threat from terrorism, and on the destruction of chemical weapons. We are also supporting economic recovery by lifting some sanctions and scaling up humanitarian assistance.

The UK, like our partners, imposed sanctions on Assad’s regime to hold him and his associates accountable for their oppression of Syria’s people. In recent weeks, the Government have made changes to those sanctions: we issued a general licence to support transactions for humanitarian activities in Syria, and last week we revoked  the asset freezes of 24 entities, including the Central Bank of Syria, which had been imposed to prevent Assad from using financial assets in conducting his vile oppression. We keep all our sanctions regimes under close review, and we target them at those who bear responsibility for repression and human rights abuses. It is also important that we take steps to support the economic development that Syria’s people desperately need.

The humanitarian situation in Syria remains dire, with over 16 million people currently in need of humanitarian assistance. We will continue to support those in need across Syria, where it is safe to do so. Through non-governmental organisations and UN organisations, we are providing food, healthcare, protection and other lifesaving assistance, in addition to agriculture, livelihoods and education programmes. Since December, the UK has announced over £62 million in additional humanitarian assistance to support vulnerable Syrians inside Syria and across the region.

In conclusion, this is a critical, fragile moment for Syria. The country faces significant challenges as it transitions after almost 14 years of conflict. Stability in Syria is firmly in our interests. The UK remains committed to the people of Syria, and we will continue to stand with them in building a more stable, free and prosperous future. I commend this statement to the House. \p Priti Patel: I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

This is the first statement on Syria offered by the Government this year, and frankly, it could not have come soon enough. It is deeply alarming that, in recent days, we have been witness to some of the deadliest violence in Syria since the beginning of this dreadful conflict. The Opposition have been raising questions, written and oral, about the Government’s approach to Syria throughout the year, so it is with some disappointment that we have had to wait this long—and, to be quite frank, for these events—for a Minister to give an update.

Reports that hundreds of civilians have been killed in clashes, including Alawite civilians, is troubling. The Syrian people have suffered 14 years of conflict and decades of oppression. The country is now at a fork in the road, but these terrible events are a stark reminder that a better future for the people of Syria—for all groups and all minorities—is far from guaranteed. We should be clear that those who have ratcheted up the appalling situation in recent days should pull back from the brink, not jeopardise that better future.

The Labour Government have decided to establish contact with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and the interim Administration in Syria, so can the Minister confirm whether the Foreign Office has raised this escalation in violence with interlocutors, and if so, whether the Government have clearly conveyed a set of expectations for how the temperature should be taken down and stability restored? Can he also confirm whether there has been any direct engagement between Ministers and HTS leaders at any point, and what is his assessment of HTS’s response to this violence and the threat posed by remnants of the disgraceful Assad regime?

We note that the Government have announced they are lifting 24 sanctions on entities linked to the deposed Assad regime. Does the violence of recent days change  the Government’s assessment of the merits of lifting such sanctions? Before the Minister lifted those particular sanctions, did he consult US and European allies as well as partners in the region? Were the sanctions lifted at the request of HTS, and are there plans to lift further sanctions? Can the Minister also be clear with the House about precisely what conditions, criteria and evidence are being used to drive these decisions?

On the Minister’s visit to Turkey last week, he said the UK is committed to working in partnership with Turkey

“to support Syria’s transition to an inclusive and peaceful country”,

but what exactly does that mean in practice, and what does he see as Turkey’s role? On security issues specifically, can he confirm that there remains no change to the Conservative Government’s very firm position on foreign fighters—that they must not come back to the UK? What is his assessment of the Syrian state’s ability to counter any ISIS cells in the east of the country, and has he seen any progress on securing borders in the region and the prevention of smuggling people, drugs and weapons?

The Government are right that Assad’s chemical weapons stockpiles need to be secured and destroyed, and that needs to be verified by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. However, is the Minister confident these weapons will indeed be destroyed? We acknowledge that the Government have put more funding into the OPCW’s Syria missions following the fall of Assad’s regime, but we still need Syria to meet its obligations under the chemical weapons convention in full. We need concrete actions as well as words.

Turning to the humanitarian situation, where does the Minister judge the need is most acute, and how is he mobilising UK aid to ensure that it is safely distributed and is genuinely reaching those innocent civilians in need? With the reduction of official development assistance to 0.3%, can the Minister confirm that Syria will continue to be a priority and that funds will be made available, given the security and strategic issues?

Finally, on the transition to representative and inclusive governance, we note the launching of the non-binding national dialogue conference by the interim Government of Syria, but does the Minister believe that this process will yield the kind of results we all want for the people of Syria, and has he discussed this through the channels he has established with the interim Government? \p Hamish Falconer: I will try to answer as many of the shadow Foreign Secretary’s questions as I can. As she knows, we have had senior-level contact with the new HTS leadership. Our Foreign Secretary met the interim Foreign Minister on the margins of the Paris meeting. We have not yet sent Ministers to Damascus, as many of our partners will. We keep these issues under close review.

On whether we are consulting the Europeans on sanctions and other things, the Europeans have taken steps on sanctions slightly in advance of us. I cannot remember the precise date, but they relaxed their sanctions before we did. I can confirm to the shadow Foreign Secretary that we keep all decisions on sanctions under very close review.

The 24 entities for which sanctions were lifted on Friday are very much focused on the economic function of Syria. As the shadow Foreign Secretary knows well, Syria is in the midst of a very significant economic crisis—the Syrian pound has lost 99% of its value—and we want to protect the Syrian people from the consequences of that crisis. The relaxation of sanctions is very much focused on allowing normal Syrians and humanitarian actors to get on with their lives, but we will keep all further sanctions under close review.

The shadow Foreign Secretary asks about HTS’s progress on borders and countering terrorism and drugs. She is exactly right to say that we must judge HTS on its actions, not its words. HTS has made some very welcome commitments on a range of questions. For example, we have seen a welcome commitment from the new interim authorities to work with the OPCW. The interim Foreign Minister has engaged with the OPCW, which has now visited Damascus. That is to be welcomed, but the shadow Foreign Secretary is right that actions, not words, will be how we judge our Syria policy. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. \p Emily Thornberry: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I echo his horror at the killing of civilians in Syria this weekend. I agree that this is a critical and fragile moment for the country.

In a letter to me last week, the Foreign Secretary made it clear that the Government’s policy is to push for an inclusive political process and accountability in Syria. This is, of course, exactly what is needed to deal with the tensions formed by decades of civil war and brutal dictatorship, but what are the Government actually doing to make sure this happens? We hear about aid and the loosening of sanctions. Is this the full extent of their plan? If there is more, can it be implemented properly when we do not have an embassy in Syria and when our special representative has visited Damascus only twice this year? \p Hamish Falconer: My right hon. Friend raises some important points, including about what the transitional Government will look like. And the answer is that all of Syria’s diverse communities need to feel that they have a presence in the new Government of Syria. Of course, many Alawites, many Druze, many Kurds and many Christians across Syria feel very nervous at the moment, and we call on the interim Administration to do all they can through their actions, not words, to reassure those communities that they are welcome in the new Syria.

As the shadow Foreign Secretary noted, I discussed this with my Turkish counterpart last week. I can confirm that we have delivered these messages clearly and consistently to the interim authorities, that we have raised the most recent violence with them, and that we are seeking urgent clarification on the confusing events at the coast, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) says, are absolutely horrifying.

On the question of a future British presence in Syria, I will return to the House when I am in a position to give a fuller update. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Monica Harding: The reports from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that at least 1,000 Alawites have been killed over the past few days are deeply concerning. This escalation in violence undermines Syria’s fragile transition from dictatorial rule under Assad, and it harms efforts to encourage religious and sectarian tolerance.

At this stage, it is critical that we understand whether the violence represents spontaneous clashes between different sects or is the product of state-directed policy. This must inform the Government’s position on whether to lift sanctions to support Syria’s development and reintegration into the global community.

I note that the interim Syrian Government have announced the establishment of an independent committee to investigate the violent clashes, but this must be followed up with concrete steps to protect Syrians of all ethnic and religious groups and ensure they are represented in the new Administration, as well as action to bring justice to those who have perpetrated violence in this conflict.

The international community must also work with partners in the region to support Syria’s transition away from dictatorial rule, including by emphasising the importance of embedding religious and sectarian tolerance, as well as the rights of women, in the new Syrian regime. Will the Minister update the House on what he is doing to engage with partners in the region, including the Syrian Government, to promote respect and support for religious and sectarian tolerance in Syria?

It is important, too, that this Government recognise that neighbouring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon have generously welcomed Syrian refugees, but they face immense challenges in providing food, shelter and essential services. Can the Minister outline how the cuts to international aid will impact our ability to support Syria’s economic development, including the cuts to bilateral aid to neighbouring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, where many Syrians have sought refuge? \p Hamish Falconer: The Liberal Democrat spokesperson poses many of the most vital questions. We need to very carefully the determine the nature of the violence on the coast in order to make a full assessment of the most appropriate response. We consult closely with all Syria’s neighbours—Jordan, Turkey and many others—and have raised with them the importance of Syria making this transition, which is vital for Syrians, the region and some of the global issues the shadow Foreign Secretary outlined, whether counter-terrorism or drug supply.

On aid, I can confirm that we will continue to play our full part in Syria. On Monday, there will be an international pledging conference on Syria in Brussels, and I expect we will be able to make further announcements in advance of that. \p Blair McDougall: The interim Government in Syria have suggested that operations in the coastal areas are complete and that things have now calmed down, but human rights groups suggest that the violence is ongoing. Is the Government’s assessment that this was a spike in violence or a continuing escalation in the security situation in Syria? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend rightly points to some of the confusion around events at the coast. We are monitoring the situation very closely and will update once we have more clarity. We are calling on the interim authorities to ensure that the violence stops now. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: The Christian community in Syria is one of the oldest in the world. Up to the civil war, it was about 10% of the population; now, it is down to 2%. Aid to the Church in Need has described Friday as a “black and painful day” for Christians in the Latakia area, with Christians being murdered in their cars and in their homes. Will the Minister—representing, as he does, a Christian country—call out the new Sunni Muslim Government of Syria and say that they have an absolute duty of care to all minorities: Christians, Druze, Alawites or others? \p Hamish Falconer: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, and my constituency neighbour, that we do, of course, call on the interim Administration to ensure the full representation of every one of the minorities in Syria—Christians, Druze, Kurds, Alawites and many others. \p David Taylor: I thank the Minister for his statement and thank the Government for the support they have given to the people of Syria. The terrible events of this weekend bring home the vital importance of an inclusive process for all people in Syria. I am aware of the Minister’s response to a previous question about our diplomatic presence in Syria, but are the Government also looking at ways we can increase our engagement with civil society in Syria? It is not just the Administration with which it is important to engage, but civil society. Civil society groups want to carry out a number of peaceful initiatives to build a more inclusive society, but they are struggling to get governmental and non-governmental funding and to have the right conversations. Is that something the UK Government could look at, as we build a more peaceful and inclusive society in Syria? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend has worked on these issues for many years, and he is right about the vital role of civil society. I was pleased to meet Syrian civil society organisations with him, and indeed separately. I am pleased to confirm to the House that we have been talking to a range of Syrians in Syria, including Alawites, after the events of the weekend. \p Andrew Mitchell: The Minister is to be commended for bringing this statement to the House. He will be aware that Britain has been heavily involved, since we helped to set up the Zaatari camp, in supporting the 5 million people in the surrounding countries who we know wish to go home as soon as the situation allows. My plea to him is to ensure that, given all the other preoccupying crises around the world, the full force of the Foreign Office, with its long history of engagement in Syria, does not get distracted elsewhere but is brought to bear at this time. \p Hamish Falconer: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s many years of work on Syria as the Secretary of State for International Development and in many other capacities.  I confirm that I and we will remain focused on events in Syria, which are of vital importance to the region and to the UK. We will continue to give them the focus that they deserve. \p James Naish: I wholeheartedly welcome the UK Government’s efforts to support the Syrian people on their country’s fragile path to building democracy following the overthrow of the brutal Assad regime. Given the rapidly evolving situation, are the Government considering further boosting their foreign aid support and spend in Syria during this fragile period? \p Hamish Falconer: As I said in the statement, we have provided £62 million since the fall of Assad, and we will keep such questions under review. There is a pledging conference on Monday where we will be talking to our partners; as my hon. Friend knows, not all the aid will come from the UK, so co-ordination with our partners is a vital component. I expect to be able to say more in the coming days. \p Brian Mathew: I have a Syrian family living in my constituency. The wife is from a small village in Tartus and her husband is from Salamiyah, a town in Hama. Both of their families are still there. They are both part of a religious minority, the Ismaili community, and come from a very diverse area that has Alawite, Muslim and Christian villages. The mountainous areas around Tartus are currently being ravaged by extremist Muslim groups, killing whole families. The area near the husband’s family is preparing for an imminent attack. My constituents are terrified for the safety of their families. They are pleading for an urgent intervention from the international community to stop the killings and to protect civilians. \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that moving account. The family in his constituency are representative of Syria, which is a place of many different minorities and communities with a long history of working together. I confirm that I am working with international partners, including the United Nations, to do everything we can to ensure that the violence on the coast stops. \p Stella Creasy: The Minister paints an extremely concerning picture of what is happening in Syria. On 9 December, the Government announced a temporary pause in accepting asylum applications from people from Syria, because of our hopes for the country’s future. In the light of what he is telling us, what conversations has he had with his colleagues in Government about what should inform that assessment moving forward and what it means for people in our country? \p Hamish Falconer: The events over the weekend are still unfolding. I am not really in a position to provide any further commentary on what they might mean in relation to other parts of Government, but I will return to the House when I am. \p David Mundell: Russia has obviously been significantly involved in Syria previously. As part of the Minister’s investigations and getting an overview of what has  happened, will he look specifically at whether Russia played any role in these events, particularly through social media? \p Hamish Falconer: I will. \p Tulip Siddiq: I thank the Minister for his statement and echo his sentiments and worries about the escalating violence in the region. He will be aware of the chronic underfunding of health facilities there, particularly maternity services and newborn care facilities. There are worrying reports of pregnant women losing their lives as they are shuttled between hospitals because of inadequate medical supplies. What conversations is he having with the interim Government about the health provision in the region, particularly women’s health provision? \p Hamish Falconer: We have had initial conversations with the interim Administration about some more practical questions around social services. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with further details. \p Brendan O'Hara: The Foreign Secretary is on record as saying that an inclusive political process that protects Syria’s religious and ethnic minorities was his top priority, but these attacks on civilian and minority groups have never ceased, and they were increasingly frequent before this recent atrocity. How is that strategy of protecting religious and ethnic minorities being implemented on the ground? What protective measures have been put in place in the past three months to defend those minority groups from further violent attacks? How is that being assessed and monitored so that prevention can be put in place before they happen again? \p Hamish Falconer: It is important to highlight that the violence over the weekend is not what we have seen since the fall of Assad. This is a particularly acute spike in violence. The hon. Member is right that we must do everything that we can to prevent the kind of violence that we saw over the weekend, and to understand its causes, the perpetrators and whether it has fully ceased. When I am in a position to make that assessment, I will be happy to return to the House. \p Bambos Charalambous: The Minister mentioned the attacks on Alawite and other minority communities, where civilians were attacked, killed and injured. Will he condemn the attacks? What support will he give those minority communities who feel incredibly under threat? \p Hamish Falconer: I condemn the attacks. It will be absolutely disastrous for the future of Syria and its people if sectarian violence spreads among communities in Syria. It is in everyone’s interests—Syrian, British and regional—that Syria is stable and a chance to recover after all the years of Assad’s oppression. I condemn them both because they are egregious human rights violations and because they threaten the future of Syria. \p Alec Shelbrooke: I congratulate the Minister particularly on his last answer. Unfortunately, world events and crises tend not to go consecutively. We have all the issues in Ukraine; I understand that this weekend the Prime Minister once again will meet the coalition of the willing on Ukraine.  Can we ensure that the vacuum in parts of Syria is not filled with third-party actors who do not have our interests or those of Europe at heart? I urge the Minister to speak to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about ensuring that we do not allow that to happen, for the security of the continent. \p Hamish Falconer: As has been said, clearly there have been malign third-party actors in Syria for some time. Russia and Iran have played a deeply malign role in Syria in all the years of the Assad regime, and we are glad that their influence is reduced. We will do all that we can to ensure that Syrians can stand on their own two feet without third-party influence, and that there is a stable and inclusive Government to take the next steps for Syria. That is a challenge for all the reasons that we have discussed. \p David Smith: Given the horrifying events in Syria over the weekend, does my hon. Friend agree that the time for warm words from the Syrian Government on protecting minorities has passed, and that actions to safeguard religious minorities such as Alawites and Christians are required? If so, what more can the United Kingdom do to prompt those actions? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is right that actions, not words, must be the yardstick by which we judge the interim authorities, including the interim President. Following the violence, they have made some important commitments about holding the perpetrators to justice, being clear that this is not state-ordered. We need now to see the consequences of those words in those coastal communities in Syria. We will be watching very carefully. \p Richard Foord: The Foreign Secretary wrote to the Foreign Affairs Committee last week about the importance of ensuring accountability for crimes committed under the Assad regime. Today’s statement in the wake of the violence over the weekend calls on the interim authorities in Syria to set out a path to transitional justice. Has the UK’s position on accountability for war crimes under Assad changed in the wake of that sectarian violence? \p Hamish Falconer: No, it has not. We announced a further £240,000 to ensure that vital evidence in relation to the Assad regime can be secured and preserved so that there can be accountability. Our attitude towards the Assad regime has not shifted in the light of the events over the weekend. \p Alex Sobel: We are obviously all aghast at the deaths and terrible violence against minority communities in the western coastal region of Syria, but in the past few weeks we have also seen attacks on Tishrin dam and neighbouring areas by Turkish forces, including the bombing of areas where there are civilians. What discussions has the Minister had with our Turkish NATO allies about ceasing the violence in northern Syria, considering in particular that the PKK over the border in Turkey has declared a ceasefire? \p Hamish Falconer: I discussed these issues with my Turkish counterpart in Ankara last week. It is a shared position of the British and Turkish Governments that we want a peaceful resolution to the tensions in northern Syria  leading to an inclusive Government—including all the communities. The developments in Turkey are clearly welcome, including the statement from Mr Öcalan that the PKK will lay down its arms. We do not want to see Turkey threatened by foreign terrorist fighters from anywhere, including Syria, but, as my hon. Friend said, it is also vital that the violence in northern Syria stops. \p Julian Lewis: The collapse of Assad was always going to be a setback for Russia, but it was also always going to be a boost for the Islamist opposition. Even if there is only a 5% chance of forming an inclusive, democratic, stable Syria, the Government are clearly right to try to promote that, but they should also recognise that the real threats to us are chemical weapons falling into Islamist hands and the Syrian Democratic Forces no longer being able to keep under control those Islamists who are currently confined in camps. What happens when they are released? \p Hamish Falconer: The right hon. Gentleman is right about the vital importance of safely destroying the chemical weapons programme in Syria; I am glad that some progress has been made in that regard. We have increased our funding and co-operation with the OPCW and have been encouraging of those efforts in Syria to start the safe and full destruction of the chemical weapons programme. We remain clear-eyed about the continuing threats from ISIS in north and east Syria and we are conscious of the risk from those camps, as raised by the shadow Foreign Secretary. We remain closely engaged with all our partners on those questions. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Minister for his ongoing leadership on this issue. Our hearts go out to the victims of the terrible attacks and their families. Does he agree that when we talk about a pathway to a stable and inclusive Syria, it is important that we and our allies all speak with one voice? \p Hamish Falconer: I do agree. We have engaged closely with our partners and we have travelled extensively to the region. It is vital that the international community, both in the region and beyond, speaks with one voice to give the best possible chance for the inclusive Government that we all want to see in Syria. \p Ellie Chowns: I thank the Minister for his statement and share his deep concern about the violence over the weekend. He mentioned the more than 16 million Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance and the pledging conference next week. Will he explain how the UK can support a safe, secure, sustainable transition in Syria given the recently announced devastating cuts to UK aid? What is his assessment of the security implications of those cuts in Syria and more broadly? \p Hamish Falconer: I do not want to sound unduly cheery given the stage of economic crisis in Syria, but in many respects access to Syria for humanitarian aid has got easier since the fall of Assad, so our aid programmes are able to make a difference. We have £62 million—that is not a small number—making a real difference to saving lives. We will be able to say a little more about how much further we can go on providing aid into the future at the Brussels conference, where it will be really important that we talk with our partners, too. \p Andrew Murrison: The transitional Government have obliquely referred to what they call foreign parties in the coastal regions of Syria, but given Iran and Russia’s long-standing alliance with Assad and the Alawites, it is not difficult to understand who is being referred to. Given the current uncertainty, will the Government be very circumspect about who they share intelligence, information and data regarding the region with, given where it may well end up? \p Hamish Falconer: I will not comment unduly on intelligence matters in this Chamber but, as I have said, we will look very carefully at the involvement of third parties in Syria in recent days. \p Gavin Williamson: Syria has been, and will continue to be, an incubator of terrorist threats, not just to the region but more widely. What work are the Government doing with allies to contain and degrade that threat? \p Hamish Falconer: The terrorist threat that emerges from Syria is very high on the agenda of this Government. We have been talking with our partners in the region, with our American colleagues and with many others about what we can do to ensure that, in this period of transition and uncertainty, ISIS is not able to take advantage. \p Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for coming to the House and making what is a very important statement today. Is he able to make any comment on the continuing presence of foreign troops in Syria? Russian, Turkish, American and Israeli forces are presently occupying at least the demilitarised zone just beyond the Golan heights. What pressure is being applied for the withdrawal of those forces and the cessation of their military activities within Syria, to give Syria an opportunity to bring this appalling period to a conclusion, hopefully with peace and justice in the future? \p Hamish Falconer: The right hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable on these issues and, as he says, there is a range of different military forces in Syria, under different auspices. When there is a new, full Syrian Government, it will be for them to decide which forces should be in their country. Let me be clear about the British position. We have been of the view for a long time that the Russian and Iranian presence is malign. It will be for the new authorities to work out whether they are prepared to accept a continued Russian presence, given all the damage that that Russian presence has done to the Syrians. In relation to the Israeli presence in the country, to which he alludes, we have had assurances from the Israelis that that presence will be temporary, and we expect them to stick to that. \p Will Forster: Like the Minister, I was appalled by the events in Syria this weekend. The killings show that the international community needs to be more involved in Syria. Please will the Government consider pushing for a United Nations assistance mission to support a transitional Government, so that all Syrians can be protected? \p Hamish Falconer: I have been in contact with Geir Pedersen, the senior UN envoy in Syria, and there are ongoing discussions about what further support the United Nations might be able to provide to Syria. We will keep the House updated as they develop. \p Graham Leadbitter: On 11 December, the Home Secretary gave a statement to the House on border security and collaboration, following the meeting of the Calais Group just after the collapse of the Assad regime. I made the point during that statement that it was critical that there should be safe routes to asylum for the most vulnerable, and the events of the past few days illustrate exactly why that needs to be the case. Are there safe routes to asylum for people? If there are not, will the Minister undertake to raise this directly with his colleagues in the Home Department? \p Hamish Falconer: As I said in answer to a previous question, we will make a close assessment of the developments in the coastal areas. At the moment the violence appears to be isolated to that area, but we will keep it under close review. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for the statement. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I express my concern about the slaughter of Christians, Druze and Alawites in Syria. Before the civil war in 2011, Syria was home to approximately 1.5 million Christians. By 2022, tragically, that number had dwindled to around 300,000. Today, there are even fewer under the new regime. Given these horrifying developments, will the Minister review the planned £50 million of aid prepared for Syria in the light of the refusal of the interim Syrian Government to address the ethnic cleansing of Christians? Will the Government ensure that aid is delivered on the ground through reputable charitable groups, rather than those turning a blind eye to Christian persecution? \p Hamish Falconer: As I said before, we condemn any sectarian attacks and any actions to stoke intercommunal tensions within Syria. Syria has long benefited from its many minorities and its great diversity, and that is what we want to see in its future. We have given £62 million since the fall of Assad. We monitor that closely to ensure that it goes, as the hon. Gentleman says, through reliable channels with proper controls to ensure that there is no misuse. \p Shockat Adam: An Arab proverb goes, “Better a hundred days of tyranny than one day of anarchy.” We saw the result of that anarchy over the weekend with potentially over 1,500 civilians killed. Would the Government support a well-resourced, integrated United Nations group with a beefed-up mandate, and potentially a new Syrian envoy familiar with the country and who speaks Arabic, to help resolve the issue? \p Hamish Falconer: As I said in response to a previous question, we are in discussions about what a UN role could be in a future Syria. I will not comment too much on what personnel might staff it. \p Jim Allister: Was the delisting of 24 institutions from sanctions on Friday the product of engagement with the interim Government? If so, in the light of the gruesome mass murders of Saturday, was that decision premature? \p Hamish Falconer: It is true that the interim Administration are asking for sanctions relaxation, but I want to draw the House’s attention to the economic situation in Syria:  99% of the value of the Syrian pound has disappeared, and 90% of the population live below the poverty line. This is an acute emergency, and we want to see, now Assad is gone, Syria as a stable country that can stand on its own two feet. Those 24 bodies are involved in the basic functioning of Syria’s economy. We will keep all our sanctions under review, as Members would expect, and once we have a clearer picture of the events over the weekend, I will return to the House. \p Christopher Vince: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In business questions on Thursday, I spoke about Tom Farr, the former leader of Harlow council, who passed away last week.—[Official Report, 6 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 456.] I have subsequently been contacted by a number of Tom’s friends and have been asked to correct the record. Tom was not a secondary school teacher, but a social worker who worked with young people with disabilities. I would like to get that on the record. \p Lindsay Hoyle: That has been corrected well. \p Paul Holmes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on how I may get a response to correspondence I have sent to Departments on behalf of my constituents, in particular His Majesty’s Treasury. I was going to raise a case that had not been answered since August 2024, but coincidentally I received a response this morning. But I would like to raise a case on behalf of a small business that I wrote to the Treasury about in December. There has been no answer since December. I chased the Department on 12 February and was told that a response would be with me when they could possibly get it to me. I have still not had a response. The issues I have raised with the Treasury are important ones for a small business in my constituency that is being affected by this Government’s adverse policies. How do I get an answer for my constituents from the Treasury, and how should I take this forward? \p Lindsay Hoyle: First, I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of the point of order. The Chair is not responsible for ministerial correspondence, but the hon. Member has certainly put his comments on the record. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted them.

I will be quite honest: as the Speaker of the House, I am very disappointed when Departments do not answer all Members, whichever side of the House they are from. Departments are doing the casework on behalf of Members. The least we can expect is a reply on time. If there is no further action, the hon. Member should come back. I will certainly be speaking with the Leader of the House and the Whips of the party to ensure that those replies come on time. It is totally unacceptable. \p UNKNOWN: Second Reading

[Relevant documents: Fourth Report of the Women and Equalities Committee, Tackling non-consensual intimate image abuse, HC 336; correspondence from the Minister of State for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention to the Home Affairs Committee, on the Crime and Policing Bill, reported to the House on 27 February 2025.] \p Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Crime and Policing Bill will make our streets safer, put neighbourhood policing back at the heart of communities after years of neglect, give law enforcement the powers it needs to protect the public and tackle the most serious violence, help communities to take back their town centres from thieves and thugs, and support the Government’s safer streets mission—a mission for the whole country—to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls in a decade and to rebuild confidence in policing and the criminal justice system by tackling the local crimes that most undermine our communities.

Across our countries, we have strong communities, a British tradition of respect for the rule of law and for each other, and a British policing tradition that goes back to Peel of policing by consent, with the police embedded in communities and residents pulling together to prevent and tackle crime. Yet, in recent years those traditions have become badly frayed. Too many town centres, neighbourhoods and public spaces are plagued by antisocial behaviour, and shoplifting and street theft have soared, while neighbourhood police have been heavily cut back. Too many families are forced to endure the agony of an empty chair at the dinner table night after night, having lost a loved one to knife crime, but it is easier than ever for children to get hold of lethal weapons online. There are barely any penalties for gangs who recruit children into crime—they get away with it.

Too many women and girls still face stalking, spiking, violence and abuse, and feel unsafe on the streets and in their homes, even now, nearly 50 years on from the first Reclaim the Night marches in Leeds. Too many children still experience sexual abuse and exploitation—including by grooming networks on the streets and online—and online abuse is getting worse and worse, yet the child protection reforms that we and others called for 10 years ago are still not in place. Trust in the police is undermined by vetting failures and abuses of power, but the action promised several years ago to raise standards is still not in place.

Across the country, too many of us just hear the same thing: people do not see the police on the streets any more, they worry that respect for law and order has disappeared, and they fear that if something goes wrong, no one will come and nothing will be done. That is why it is time for change and for the measures that we are setting out in the Bill. Safety and security are the bedrock of opportunity and the underpinning of every strong community. The safer streets mission is at the heart of our plan for change, because everyone has the right to live in freedom from fear. \p Wendy Morton: The right hon. Lady makes an important point about neighbourhood policing. Does she agree that local police stations should be integral to this plan? \p Yvette Cooper: Local police stations are a matter for local forces, but they can be a central part of neighbourhood policing, which, sadly, has been heavily cut back in recent years. In fact, in many areas of the country, neighbourhood policing has been cut by a third or nearly half. At the heart of the Government’s plan is rebuilding neighbourhood policing.

We plan to put 13,000 more neighbourhood police and police community support officers back on the beat over the course of this Parliament, kick-started with £200 million of funding in the next financial year. We will reverse the damage done by the Conservative Government through years of cuts to community police. There are half as many PCSOs as there were 14 years ago, and many thousands fewer neighbourhood police officers. Some 54% of people say that they never see an officer on the beat—that figure has doubled since 2010, as too many neighbourhood police have just disappeared. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: rose— \p Christopher Vince: rose— \p Yvette Cooper: I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). \p Christopher Vince: A report by Harlow council in 2023 stated that fewer than half of residents in Harlow felt safe going outside after dark. Does my right hon. Friend see the neighbourhood policing guarantee as part of the way of solving that problem? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right: neighbourhood policing is crucial, but neighbourhood policing teams have been decimated, and even those that remained were often abstracted or merged with other teams. That has been deeply damaging. It is crucial to get those neighbourhood police back on the streets, back into our town centres, and back into our communities. I give way to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who I hope will apologise for the scale of cuts that his party’s Government brought in. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: The right hon. Lady mentioned 13,000 neighbourhood police, but 3,000 of those will be new warranted officers; I believe that 3,000 will be operational police officers brought back from other places. When will police forces find out what their share of those police officers will be? How will the 3,000 officers currently in other roles be reassigned, given that operational matters are the responsibility of chief constables, not the Home Secretary? \p Yvette Cooper: We have started with £200 million of funding for the next financial year to kick-start the drive to put 13,000 more neighbourhood police and police community support officers back on the beat. Already, police forces have been working with the Home Office on plans for recruiting new police officers and new PCSOs, and for redeploying existing police officers and backfilling by recruiting other officers to take their posts. We will set out in due course plans for the next financial year and that £200 million.

The cuts to neighbourhood policing over the past decade were even worse than we had thought. The previous Conservative Government were so indifferent to neighbourhood policing that they did not even keep a proper count of who was doing that work. Too often, they treated neighbourhood police officers just the same as 999 response officers or local detective teams, and Home Office guidance allowed forces to report some of their response officers as neighbourhood police. The last Government did not have proper checks in place, and as a result, hundreds, even thousands, of officers and PCSOs were miscounted. Later this month, the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council will have to publish revised force-by-force figures, so that communities can see properly what is happening in their area. This Government take seriously neighbourhood policing, which must be community-led policing in our towns and on our streets. \p Paul Holmes: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way; it is courteous of her. On miscounting numbers, can I drill down on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty)? Of the 13,000 new neighbourhood officers that the Home Secretary claims she is recruiting, 3,000 will be diverted from the existing workforce, so they are not new, are they? Will she also confirm that her police funding settlement will lead to 1,873 officers being withdrawn? \p Yvette Cooper: Sadly, I did not hear an apology for the previous Conservative Government’s massive cuts to neighbourhood policing, which meant that many towns and cities right across the country saw neighbourhood police numbers slashed in half. Communities were badly let down. I am sure that the next Conservative Member to intervene will begin their question with a huge apology for the damage that their party and Government did. \p Paul Holmes: rose— \p Yvette Cooper: I am really pleased that the hon. Member is ready to give an apology for the deeply damaging legacy of his party in government. \p Paul Holmes: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way, but I think she should apologise for not answering the question. There were record levels of policing under the last Government; 20,000 extra police officers were recruited. I ask her again: she said that she is recruiting 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, but will she confirm that 3,000 of those will be diverted officers? They are not new, are they? \p Yvette Cooper: Still no apology for the deep damage the Conservatives have done. Let us be clear: they halved the number of PCSOs, and they cut the number of neighbourhood police officers, probably by more than 10,000, but we cannot be precise about that, because their measuring of neighbourhood police officers was so ropey and all over the place that we cannot be certain what the cuts were precisely.

This Government are committed to increasing neighbourhood policing and PCSOs by 13,000. In the first year, the neighbourhood policing increase will be funded by £200 million. That funding is already delivering plans from police forces across the country, which we  will set out in due course, to increase the recruitment of new police officers and PCSOs, and redeploy some police officers, whose posts will then be backfilled through the recruitment of other new police officers and staff—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should hugely welcome these measures, because they mean that we will get police back on the streets, and into our communities and neighbourhoods, for the first time in years. \p Anna Dixon: Antisocial behaviour is breaking communities in places like Windhill, Baildon, Cottingley and Denholme. It is a direct result of the cuts made to neighbourhood policing by the Conservative party. When I speak to local residents, they express concerns about the misuse of fireworks, drug dealing, fly-tipping and the dangerous use of e-bikes and scooters. Will the Secretary of State reassure me and my residents that as part of the safer streets mission, the new neighbourhood police will tackle antisocial behaviour in communities like mine, as a matter of urgency? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is exactly right that we need the police back on the streets. Let us be honest: everyone can see this in their community. People know. Conservative Members may think that everything was hunky-dory at the end of their 14 years in government, but communities across the country can see the reality. As part of our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we need to get more boots on the beat, and we need more town centre patrols by officers who know the community and are trusted by them to go after local perpetrators and prevent persistent crime. These are not outlandish demands—they are just the basics. We need a return to the Peel principles that lie at the heart of British policing, including the principle that the police are the public and the public are the police. We need trusted officers in the community, working to keep people safe.

The Bill gives neighbourhood police more powers to tackle the local crimes that undermine and damage communities: antisocial behaviour, street theft, shoplifting, harassment in our town centres. In too many areas, those powers were too often weakened. Travelling around the country, I and many others will have heard the same story too many times—shop owners who say that thieves have become increasingly brazen; crime driven by organised gangs; elderly shoppers who say that they do not go into town any more because they do not feel safe; people who have had their phones stolen in the street, with all the details of their life ripped away from them; and residents driven mad by the soaring number of roaring off-road bikes and scooters driven in an antisocial and intimidating way.

In the two years before the election, shop theft went up by more than 60%. Snatch theft, mainly the theft of mobile phones, went up by more than 50% in two years. Thousands of such crimes were reported every single day, yet the police have been left with too few powers to act. Too often, because of changes made by the Conservative Government 10 years ago, they have been left with weakened powers to tackle those antisocial behaviours and crimes. \p Jo White: I welcome the introduction of a new offence of assaulting a shop worker. I have been in shops in Worksop where I have seen shop workers who are absolutely fearful of what will happen next,  and I have seen food stolen before my eyes. Does the Secretary of State agree that local shops must become no-go areas for lawbreakers? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill introduces stronger action on retail crime. I thank the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the Co-op, the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores and more for their determined campaigning over many years to protect shop workers. They are the staff who kept their shops open and kept our local communities going through the pandemic, but in recent years they have had to face a truly disgraceful escalation in threats, abuse and violence. Our party has campaigned on this measure for very many years. Through the Bill, we will introduce a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker, sending the message loud and clear that these disgraceful crimes must not be tolerated, because everyone has a right to feel safe at work. \p Luke Evans: The Home Secretary has talked about neighbourhoods and communities, but I have not heard her talk about the rural communities that I represent, and the rural crime force. What will the Bill deliver for them? I am very lucky to be in Leicestershire, where we have a rural crime team, which saw crime drop by 24% in its last report, but machinery being taken has a massive impact. Can she talk me through any measures that are being brought forward that will benefit my community? \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member is exactly right to draw attention to that. Our rural communities see different kinds and patterns of crime, but it is very often driven by organised gangs who think that rural communities will be a soft touch. We have sometimes seen that with GPS machinery for factories; we believe that stronger action is needed there. The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention is working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on a new rural crime strategy. I know that she would be happy to follow up on any specific issues that the hon. Gentleman wants to raise.

Too often, crimes are dismissed as low level, even though they leave residents in a living nightmare and corrode community life, so here are the things that this Labour Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will change. We are introducing new respect orders that the police and courts can use to ban repeat offenders from town centres, or to put new requirements on repeat perpetrators in order to prevent them causing havoc in the community—for example, requirements to take up drug or alcohol treatment.

Currently, the police cannot immediately seize bikes or vehicles that are being used in a dangerous, intimidating or antisocial way. They give a warning and have to hope that they catch the same person again, but that means that there can be two, three, four or endless strikes against the person, and the bike will still be on the road. Frankly, one strike should be enough. Under the Bill, if the police find somebody using a bike or a vehicle in a dangerous or antisocial way, they can seize it straightaway and get that dangerous, damaging bike off the road.

We will give the police stronger powers to tackle the rising amount of snatch theft. We will all know constituents, friends or family members who have had their phone  stolen, and who could track it, maybe through Find My iPhone or a similar service, but when they told the police where their phone was, nothing was done. We will give the police new powers, so that where they have electronic evidence from tracking technology on the location of stolen goods, they can enter and search premises without waiting for warrants to be put in place. Ministers are also working with tech companies and the police to pursue stronger action on designing out and disincentivising phone theft, so that we can go after the criminal gangs making people’s lives a misery by stealing phones on the street.

We will take stronger action on shoplifting. Some 10 years ago, the Conservative Government introduced a new £200 rule, categorising shop theft below that amount as low value. That sent the signal, which has shaped the police response ever since, that such crime should not be taken seriously. It became a Tory shoplifters’ charter—a signal to thieves and gangs across the country that they could operate with impunity, wandering from shop to shop and stealing away because nothing would be done. That kind of crime spreads. It creates a sense of lawlessness, and huge anger and frustration among the law-abiding majority, who see criminals getting away with it and respect for the law hollowed out. This Government will finally end the damaging £200 rule. \p Amanda Martin: Does the Secretary of State agree that this is not just about the shoplifting, but about the fear it creates in our communities, including among our shopworkers? Our local corner shops and accessible shops are there for elderly people who cannot always get out to the big supermarkets or other people who have difficulty doing so, and shoplifting has put them in fear as well. \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. This is about the fact of the crime—the disrespect—but also the sense of fear that it can create and the huge frustration among shopworkers about the crimes that they see.

I am glad to see some signs of a change in heart on the Conservative Benches, with Conservative Members recognising how damaging their approach to town centre crime has been. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), has written on Facebook that the police

“must have ZERO TOLERANCE to shoplifting and phone theft in Croydon…otherwise it will escalate. Stealing, even less than £200, is illegal…The police must focus ruthlessly on catching criminals and always pursue every line of inquiry.”

Who would have thought it? If that is what the right hon. Gentleman now believes, why on earth did he not take the opportunity during the two years that he was the policing Minister to scrap the £200 threshold, which sent all the wrong signals to the police?

We do know one part of the shadow Home Secretary’s remedy for the disappearance of neighbourhood police and the soaring levels of town centre crime. He has said that

“The wider public do have the power of citizen’s arrest and, where it’s safe to do so, I would encourage that to be used…including potentially a physical challenge”,

otherwise it “will just escalate.” Putting aside the intriguing suggestion that the shadow Home Secretary wanders around with handcuffs in his pocket, I wonder whether he has misunderstood the Peel principle that the police  are the public and the public are the police. What that principle means is neighbourhood police in the community, not leaving the community to pick up arms because the neighbourhood police have gone. As for Reform Members, it looks as if they are too busy dealing with their own internal antisocial behaviour to even show up. This Government will be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, something that has not happened for far too long.

Alongside the action on community crimes, the Bill introduces much stronger measures on some of the most serious crimes of all, including the knife crime that is destroying young lives—teenagers and young people who do not get to achieve their ambitions or fulfil their dreams, with parents and families left bereft. \p Warinder Juss: rose— \p Matt Rodda: rose— \p Yvette Cooper: I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), and then I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda). \p Warinder Juss: Last year, only four in 10 knife possessions resulted in any formal criminal justice outcome. Does the Home Secretary agree that by increasing police powers to seize, retain and destroy knives that may be legally owned but may be used in committing a crime, we will reduce the number of people carrying knives? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We need to prevent people—especially young people—getting access to those dangerous weapons in the first place, but also to make sure that there are proper interventions, including referrals to youth offending teams. We must not have a system that simply shrugs its shoulders when young people are caught carrying knives.

Knife-enabled offences recorded by the police rose by 9% in the two years up to last summer. Many people in this House will know the story of Ronan Kanda, who was just 16 when he was stabbed to death with a ninja sword just yards from his home. He was killed by two other teenagers who had bought, not just that sword, but more than 20 other lethal weapons online with no questions asked and no proper checks. It is because of the tireless campaigning of Ronan’s mum Pooja that we have already launched plans to ban ninja swords, following this summer’s implementation of the zombie knife ban, and commissioned Commander Stephen Clayman to do an end-to-end review of knife sales. That review was published a few weeks ago, and it is driving some of the new measures we are introducing as part of this Bill. \p Matt Rodda: rose— \p Ben Obese-Jecty: rose— \p Yvette Cooper: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central, and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Huntingdon, but let me just make a couple of other points first. The Bill increases the maximum penalties for offences relating to the sale and possession of offensive weapons from six months to two years’ imprisonment. Following the Clayman review, we will also bring forward amendments to the Bill in this House to introduce stricter age verification checks,  with a stringent two-step age verification system for online knife sales, so that customers have to submit photo ID at the point of purchase and again on delivery. It will be a legal requirement to hand a package containing a knife to the buyer alone. \p Matt Rodda: I thank the Home Secretary wholeheartedly for her work on this important matter. In my constituency, 13-year-old Olly Stephens was attacked and brutally murdered by two other boys. They had seen hundreds of images of knives online on 11 different social media platforms. I warmly welcome in particular the consultation that she has announced to look into the potential penalties for tech executives who fail to act responsibly in this important area. \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and he has raised the terrible case of the killing of Olly Stephens with me before. I know how incredibly devastating that has been for the whole community. He is right that the online system has made it far too easy for young people to get hold of lethal weapons. There is also the content that too many of our young people are seeing online. That is why the measures as part of the Online Safety Act 2023 to strengthen the requirements on tech companies around material visible to children will be important, too. Those are expected in the summer.

My hon. Friend is also right that we will bring forward amendments during the Bill’s passage to give effect to our manifesto commitment to introduce personal liability measures for senior managers of online platforms that fail to take action on illegal content concerning knives and offensive weapons. We will introduce a requirement for sellers to notify bulk or suspicious sales of knives to the police. We have seen cases where young people were able effectively to become arms traders, buying huge numbers of illegal weapons that should not have been sold to them and then distributing them in the community. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: Knife crime is a grave issue, and I welcome any measures that can help to reduce it. I have a debate next Thursday on knife crime, and I hope to see good representation from all parts of the House in debating how we can reduce the number of children and young people involved in knife crime, whether as victim or perpetrator. The question I would like to ask is about knife sales online. Some 52% of fatal stabbings involve a kitchen knife, and only 3.6% involve a zombie knife. I appreciate that measures are in place to reduce the ability of people to obtain kitchen knives online, but everybody has a drawer full of knives at home. How can we take measures to reduce that? \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member makes an important point. We know there is an issue with young people being able to get some of these lethal weapons. It becomes part of what they want to do, and part of the search for status is to carry particular kinds of weapons, but he is right that people can get access to dangerous knives in different ways. We need stronger prevention across the board. That is why the Young Futures programme we are working on is particularly important. \p Catherine Atkinson: The Government’s commitment to introducing a Young Futures programme to prevent young people from being drawn into crime is welcome, especially as youth services and  hubs were hollowed out under the Conservatives. Does the Home Secretary agree that prevention must be at the centre of the mission to tackle knife crime in our communities and our country? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. To tackle this devastating crime, we must address prevention, whether online or in the community, and access to weapons. There is also the response when young people are found carrying knives, and the wider punishment and response as part of the youth justice system. There are the interventions to turn things around, too. We must also tackle the criminal gangs drawing young people into crime and violence in the first place. That includes drawing them into county lines, drug running and the kind of criminal activity that leads to violence, to the carrying of knives and to dangerous crimes at a later stage. For the first time, under the Bill, there will be a specific offence of child criminal exploitation, because gangs should never be able to get away with exploiting young people in that way. \p Andrew Slaughter: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) mentioned kitchen knives, which are the main weapons that are used. Will the Home Secretary look into the issue of pointed kitchen knives, which cause so many deaths? Existing knives can be blunted or rounded at the ends if there are incentives for that to be done, and manufacturers can be persuaded to sell knives with rounded ends, as some already do. \p Yvette Cooper: That is an interesting point. It has been raised with us by the coalition against knife crime that we have formed, bringing together campaigning families and campaigning networks and organisations, and as a result it is being examined further.

A range of measures in the Bill, along with amendments that will be tabled, make up Ronan’s law. Pooja, Ronan’s mother, has said:

“I wish this was done years ago, and my son would be with me today.”

We are taking action in memory of Ronan, but also as a tribute to Pooja and all Ronan’s family who have campaigned so hard to keep other children safe.

The Bill also introduces stronger measures to tackle violence against women and girls, and the abuse and exploitation of children. According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, one in four women have experienced domestic abuse, one in four have suffered sexual assault, and one in five have been stalked. Those are the most traumatic and appalling crimes, and it is high time we treated this as the national emergency that it so clearly is. Decade after decade, we have uttered warm words in the House, but too little has changed. It is imperative that we take action, not just through the Bill but across the board. This is part of our ambition to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, an integral part of the safer streets mission, because no one should live in fear. \p Jim Shannon: Those of us who represent Northern Ireland constituencies are very pleased to know about the 51 clauses that will affect Northern  Ireland through a legislative consent motion. It is important to recognise the benefits that that will have not just here, but in Northern Ireland. However, there are one or two others that we might like to see in the future. Has the Home Secretary had an opportunity to speak to the policing and justice Minister in Northern Ireland about that? \p Yvette Cooper: We have had discussions with Northern Ireland Ministers, and I am happy for them to continue.

I am very conscious of the time, and I know that many Members wish to speak, so I want to make some progress now. Through the Bill we will protect people better by making stalking protection orders more widely available and introducing a new criminal offence of administering a harmful substance, for instance by spiking. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has long campaigned for our measures to strengthen the management of offenders in the community and introduce enhanced notification requirements for registered sex offenders, as well as a bar on their changing their names when there is a risk of sexual harm.

We are also taking stronger measures to protect our children, which is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of all. The Bill will create a new duty to report child sexual abuse, backed up by criminal sanctions for those who seek to cover up abuse by preventing or deterring someone from carrying out the duty. That was recommended by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and the Prime Minister and I both called for it more than a decade ago. The Bill will make grooming an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offenders, because these are the most vile and damaging of crimes, and will introduce new criminal offences to combat the use of artificial intelligence technology in the making or sharing of child sexual abuse material, and stronger action against those who organise grooming online, where the scale of abuse and crime is increasing steeply. \p Tessa Munt: I thank the Secretary of State greatly for giving way. I recognise what clauses 45 to 54 say about the mandatory duty in England to report child sexual abuse, and I wonder if I might draw her attention to the fact that there are exceptions dating back to 1603, under canon law, for confessions relating to treason. There is also precedent in section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000, relating to terrorism, which covers faith leaders. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we might help the various churches, faith leaders and volunteers in England to make sure that they mandatorily report when they come across this stuff in confession? \p 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. \p 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. \p Chris Philp: Let me start by paying tribute to the brave police officers up and down the country who, on a daily basis, put themselves in the line of danger to protect us and our constituencies. Every morning when an officer puts on their uniform, they do not know what they might encounter during their working day—they do not know whether they might be attacked—yet they take that risk to protect us. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing our thanks and gratitude to those brave men and women for the work that they do on our behalf every single day.

When I was the Policing Minister a year or two ago, I was moved at the national police memorial service—I think it was held in Cardiff that year—marking the memory of the officers who had lost their lives in the line of duty. I remember meeting their families, whose lives had been devastated by losing a wife or husband, son or daughter, father or mother. I am sure that all of us have come across such cases in our constituencies. I am thinking particularly of Sergeant Matt Ratana, who lost his life in the Croydon custody centre a few years ago—I attended his memorial service—and all of us will be thinking of PC Keith Palmer, who lost his life not far from here, protecting us in Parliament. We owe them all a debt of gratitude.

I would like to start by addressing one or two of the broader points the Home Secretary raised in her speech before turning to the substance of the Bill. The first point is about the question of police officer numbers, which she spoke about quite extensively. I noticed that she picked out one particular subset of police officer numbers, and I wondered why she kept doing so. I think I know why: it is because the total of police officers last March—on 31 March—stood at a record ever number. There were 149,679 police officers, which is more than we have ever had at any point in our country’s history. \p Navendu Mishra: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Jonathan Brash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Chris Philp: What an appealing choice! I give way to the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). \p Navendu Mishra: The shadow Home Secretary is making an important point, but does he accept that, between 2010 and 2024, the population of the UK increased and so did the complexity of crime? I often meet police officers in my constituency and across Greater Manchester who are stressed out and working very long hours, often covering for other officers. Does he accept that the argument he is making is slightly flawed because the population has increased, the complexity of crime has increased and the amount of time officers spend on tackling crime has changed? \p Chris Philp: As I said, there was a record ever number of police officers, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to measure police officer numbers against demand, one of the relevant metrics to consider— \p Neil Coyle: Can I have another go? \p Chris Philp: I am just going to answer the question, if I may.

One of the relevant metrics to consider is the overall volume of crime that the police have to investigate. That might be the number that one looks at in deciding whether police numbers need to go up. \p Jonathan Brash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Chris Philp: I am just going to actually make the point first, if I may.

According to the crime survey for England and Wales, which the Office for National Statistics says is the only statistically meaningful measure of crime, between 2010 and 2024—just to pick a couple of arbitrary dates at random—overall crime fell from 9.5 million to 4.7 million incidents, or a reduction of 51%. So over that period, we saw a 51% reduction in overall crime, but an increase in the number of police officers to that record number. Those are the facts. \p Emily Darlington: Does the shadow Home Secretary recognise that the number of reported crimes involving sexual violence went up by 300% under his Government? When he talks  about police numbers, would he also like to mention how many police officers left because of conditions in their police force and because of mental health and physical health issues? \p Chris Philp: Attrition in the police forces is something we need to take very seriously. I am trying to recall the numbers, but from memory, each year approximately 3% to 4% of police officers leave owing to retirement, and a further approximately 3% to 3.5% leave before their retirement age. A 3% non-retirement rate of leaving is of course much lower than in most professions, but I am sure we would all like it to be lower. The last Government started doing work on mental health support for police officers, which I am sure the current Government will continue.

Let me say a word about the future, because having hit record ever police officer numbers, I am rather anxious to make sure— \p Jonathan Brash: rose— \p Neil Coyle: rose— \p Gareth Snell: rose— \p Chris Philp: I am going to make some progress, but then I will give way.

I am rather anxious to make sure that those record ever numbers are maintained. The funding settlement for the police, announced by the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister a few weeks ago, increased by £1.089 billion, and they made a big play of that figure. However, when we go through the funding pressures that police forces across England and Wales face and add them all up, including the £230 million extra that police forces will have to pay in national insurance, the funding pressures add up not to £1.089 billion, but to £1.205 billion. The funding pressures in the coming financial year, which starts in just a few weeks’ time, are about £116 million more than the funding increase. There is a gap, and the consequence is that the 43 police forces across England and Wales may have to cut 1,800 officers to make up that funding shortfall. \p Jonathan Brash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Chris Philp: The hon. Gentleman is showing extreme enthusiasm, which I feel should be rewarded. \p Jonathan Brash: I thank the shadow Home Secretary for giving way. He makes play of the numbers from 2010 and 2024. As a former councillor, I can tell him that the ward I represented in 2010 had a full-time police officer and two full-time PCSOs. When his Government left office in June 2024, the ward had one part-time PCSO and was a third larger. Would he care to apologise to the people of Hartlepool for that disgraceful record? \p Chris Philp: I will not apologise for delivering record police numbers. If the hon. Gentleman’s local force is not deploying those officers in the best way, he should take that up with his local police and crime commissioner. In the light of the number of Members who want to speak, I ought to get on to the Bill.

When I first picked up this Bill, I must confess to experiencing a frisson of excitement. The Home Secretary had been in opposition for 14 years—not quite long enough, but still 14 years—and I thought that, during those 14 years, she must have come up with lots of good new ideas. I picked up the Bill, excited to find out what new things it might contain. But as I turned the pages to scrutinise its contents, a strange feeling of familiarity came over me—almost a sense of déjà vu. I had seen quite a few of its measures somewhere before, mostly in the last Government’s Criminal Justice Bill.

The Government’s press release, which they modestly issued on First Reading a couple of weeks ago, highlighted 35 headline measures. I checked to see how many had been copied and pasted from the previous Government, and the answer was about 23 of them. Two thirds of this Bill has apparently been copied and pasted from the previous Government. Now, I know the Home Secretary works closely with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and views her as something of a role model, but emulating her copy-and-pasting is probably not the best thing to do.

These new measures—the spiking offence, the intimate image offence, the duty to report, the new criminal offence of possessing a bladed article with intent, and the new maximum penalty for selling dangerous weapons to under-18s—are all good measures introduced by the last Government. Of course, they would have been legislated for by now if not for the unfortunate early general election—[Interruption.] Yes, it was unfortunate. I congratulate the Home Secretary on using the ctrl-C and ctrl-V functions on her Home Office computer to emulate so many of the previous Bill’s measures. \p Neil Coyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it increasingly sounds like he is saying that—on police powers, on the measures in this Bill, on police officer numbers and on resources—the voters got it wrong? That sounds incredibly insulting to the public. Frankly, an apology would be better. Is he aware that, in Southwark, we had fewer officers at the time of the last election, which he says came too soon? It did not come soon enough for my electors, who still have fewer police officers in 2025 than they had in 2010. \p Chris Philp: The Metropolitan police, as a whole, does in fact have record officer numbers, but it could have had about an extra 1,500 officers had its police and crime commissioner, Sadiq Khan, bothered to recruit them. In fact, Sadiq Khan was the only police and crime commissioner in the country to miss his recruitment target. \p Rebecca Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the record of Conservative police and crime commissioners is unlike that of some police and crime commissioners representing other parties in this House? In Devon and Cornwall, Alison Hernandez has overseen the reopening of 14 police front desks. Perhaps police and crime commissioners representing other parties might like to take lessons from that. \p Chris Philp: My hon. Friend is quite right. Conservative police and crime commissioners do tend to have much better track records on keeping police stations open and delivering lower crime figures.

I want to ask the Home Secretary some questions, and maybe the Policing Minister will respond to them at the end of the debate. Some measures that were in the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill have disappeared from this Government’s Bill, and I would be genuinely interested to hear the Government’s thinking on them.

One area that is conspicuously missing from this Bill is the measures on nuisance begging. The previous Government intended to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824 using a statutory instrument once new replacement measures—contained in the old Bill—were on the statute books. I see that the new Bill, tabled by this Government, does not contain those nuisance begging measures.

Could the Policing Minister, either by intervening now, or in her winding-up speech, tell the House what the Government’s plans are around repealing the 1824 Act—or not—and around nuisance begging? Of course, were they to repeal that Act using a statutory instrument without introducing any new measures, there would be a lacuna in the criminal law. I am sure the whole House would appreciate an update.

Secondly, the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill contained a measure to compel perpetrators who had just been convicted of a criminal offence to appear in the dock for sentencing, with a power to use reasonable force to do so. There had been some distressing cases in which someone who had been convicted then refused to appear in the dock to face justice. That measure, as far as I can see, is not in the new Bill, and I would appreciate knowing the Government’s thinking on that.

The third omission I have noticed so far relates to the new offence of assaulting an emergency worker—also announced by the previous Government, I might add. The criminal behaviour order for people who assault a shop worker is welcome, but the previous Bill, as announced, contained a measure that said if someone repeatedly assaulted a retail worker—I think it was three times or more—they would be subject to electronic monitoring: a tag. I do not see that particular provision in this Bill. Again, I would be interested in the Policing Minister’s views on that.

I turn now to a matter that the Home Secretary made a great deal of in her speech, which is the change made in 2014 around shop theft involving goods worth £200 or less. Listening to the Home Secretary and Government communications around this matter, one might think it had ceased to be a criminal offence in 2014. That is, of course, not the case. Shoplifting goods of any value, including under £200, was and always has been a criminal offence, subject to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. \p Dan Aldridge: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Chris Philp: I am just going to develop a point, and then I will be happy to take interventions—particularly from the Home Secretary.

In 2014, it was changed from being an either-way offence to a summary-only offence. Either-way means the offence can be tried in the magistrates court or the Crown court; summary-only means magistrates court only. It was still a criminal offence, and people could still be convicted and sentenced to up to a year in prison for committing it—it certainly was not decriminalised.  In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment says that about 90% of the charges for shoplifting involved goods under £200 and were tried in a magistrates court. If it was ineffective, why did 90% of charges relate to goods under £200?

The Home Secretary claims that this alteration will herald some sort of extraordinary change in the way shoplifting is treated, but I would respectfully refer her to page 28 of her economic note 1007, which I am sure Members present have all read—silence. Paragraph 144 says that the central scenario in the Government’s impact assessment assumes that the number of charges, with this change, will remain constant. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, there will be no change in the number of charges as a result of this alteration. The Home Secretary points to this matter as some kind of silver bullet, but I am afraid to say that her own impact assessment says something very different indeed.

The measure has potentially adverse consequences too. This is a serious point, and I genuinely ask the Home Secretary to think about it carefully. When the offence is made either-way, rather than summary only, lots of people who are charged will elect to have a Crown court jury trial instead of a magistrates court trial. A magistrates court trial, for a not guilty plea, is generally heard in six to eight weeks—it is relatively quick—but a Crown court jury trial could take a year and a half to be heard.

The first adverse consequence that I would caution about is that, instead—[Interruption.] I am making a serious point, so it would be good for hon. Members to think about it. Instead of those cases being heard in the magistrates court in six to eight weeks, there could be a delay of one and a half years. I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention, but that is what could happen if the change is made.

The second adverse consequence is that if lots of shoplifting cases that are currently heard in the magistrates court end up in the Crown court before a jury, valuable and scarce Crown court jury trial time that should be used for serious cases such as rape, murder and grievous bodily harm will be taken up with shoplifting. I understand that the Home Secretary wants to send a signal—I really do—but I ask the Government to reflect carefully on the potential unintended consequences. That is a serious point, and I ask the Government to consider it. The change may end up having the opposite effect from what they intend.

The Home Secretary raised one or two other things that I would like to talk about, the first of which is knife crime. There are some measures in the Bill that are designed to address knife crime. We will support those measures; I am sure that all hon. Members want to fight the scourge of knife crime, which is responsible for about a third of all homicides. Almost all hon. Members will have encountered a constituency case; I will never forget attending the funeral of 15-year-old Elianne Andam in Croydon. She was murdered at 8.30 am on the morning of 27 September 2023 on Wellesley Road in central Croydon by a 17-year-old perpetrator with a knife. I will never forget seeing the grief that her parents and her little brother Kobi suffered. I am sure that we would all want to fight knife crime for that reason.

In addition to the measures in the Bill, which we will support, I would be grateful if the Policing Minister could confirm that the patrolling of hotspots, started  under the last Government, will continue in areas where knife crime is a problem, and that the funding will continue. That could make an important difference.

It is also important that stop-and-search powers are used. In my view, taking knives off the street is the most important thing. In London, in the past, stop and search took about 400 knives a month off the streets—knives that could have been used to kill someone like Elianne. I am concerned that stop-and-search numbers are down due to misplaced concerns about community tension. I encourage the Government to get police forces to use stop and search more, and to amend legislation, including PACE—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—code A, to make the use of stop and search easier.

I spoke to a police officer in Croydon last Sunday, and he said that he felt that the police were worried about misconduct proceedings if they used the power of stop and search. I would like to make it easier for police officers to use those powers to protect the public. I would like to hear the Government’s views on that, but we are minded to table amendments in this area to give the police more confidence to use stop-and-search powers to save the lives of people like Elianne.

When I was Policing Minister about a year ago, I provided some funding to invest in exploring new technology to scan for knives at a distance of perhaps 10 metres—not very far. That would mean that people walking down the street in areas where knife crime is a problem could be scanned and, if they had a knife concealed on their person, it would be identified. About a year ago, that technology was emerging and I put the money behind it to develop it to the point where it could be deployed. I was told by the company doing that, and by Home Office officials, that by about spring 2025, a version of that technology would be available that could be used experimentally on the street.

I would be grateful to know, perhaps in an intervention from the Policing Minister now, whether that work has been carried forward and whether that scanning technology is ready to deploy. It could, I think, help to take knives off our streets and save lives. I would be happy to take an intervention now. \p Diana R. Johnson: indicated dissent. \p Chris Philp: The Minister will come back to it later. \p Julian Lewis: It seems to me that the Government’s good work in this Bill in criminalising the possession of knives with intent will be undermined if the police have to wait for someone to take out the knife and commit an attack before they can discover whether they have a knife. Surely, if there is a separate offence arising from mere possession, as my right hon. Friend says, it is particularly important to enable the police to discover that someone possesses that knife before they have had a chance to do harm with it. \p Chris Philp: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are to prosecute these offences, put more potential perpetrators in prison and, critically, protect the public,  we need to detect more of the knives that are routinely carried on our cities’ streets. That means more stop and search and the use of knife-scanning technology of the kind I just described to identify those knives before they are used. My right hon. Friend put it very powerfully.

The Opposition may also be minded to table amendments on the setting up of a statutory national inquiry into rape gangs. For some reason the Government have only set up local inquiries in five areas. Some local authorities are refusing to hold inquiries, which is scandalous. About 50 towns are affected, so inquiries into just five of them is not good enough. Moreover, those local inquiries do not have the statutory powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to compel witnesses to give evidence. The chairs of the Manchester local inquiry resigned last year because, even then, public authorities were covering this up. We need a national statutory inquiry, and we intend to amend the Bill to achieve that if the Government will not agree to one. Local councils and councillors, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service were all involved to a greater or lesser extent in ignoring or even covering up these terrible offences. We need to get to the truth. \p 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— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. You said “your”—I was not the Minister. A short and sharp intervention, please. \p 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? \p Chris Philp: The hon. Lady will know that child grooming falls under the portfolio of the Safeguarding Minister who, during the Conservatives’ time in office, had dozens of meetings on that topic. I had multiple meetings on Operation Soteria, which is designed to combat rape and serious sexual assault.

I think that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are keen to move on to Back-Bench speeches, since there is so much interest in this Bill. \p Richard Holden: There are a lot of really good things in this Bill that my right hon. Friend has not mentioned, particularly around tackling violence against women and girls, with the legislation on stalking. Some of that work was carried out cross-party over the past few years, such as on increasing the age of consent for marriage from 16 to 18, and tackling forced marriage issues, hymenoplasty and virginity testing, which I helped put through in the last Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should try to convince the Government to introduce legislation around first cousin marriage—a very serious issue—and include in this legislation some of the sexual offences that relate to that? \p Chris Philp: I support my hon. Friend’s proposals around first cousin marriage. The health implications are deeply alarming. We could take that forward in the Bill and put it to a vote of the House.

Lastly, will the Policing Minister provide an update on the use of technology to combat crime, particularly the use of retrospective and live facial recognition, which enables the police to catch criminals who would otherwise not be caught? She knows that I support that strongly, and I would gladly support her if she wants to continue that work. \p Neil Coyle: Will the right hon. Member give way? \p Chris Philp: I have to finish now.

I am glad to see so many familiar clauses in the Bill. The Opposition broadly support the intent of the Bill, but what really matters is delivery—making sure that those record police numbers mean that we catch criminals and increase the conviction rate. Those police numbers and the results that they deliver are the yardstick by which the Government will be measured. I look forward to scrutinising the Bill as it passes through the House, and to tabling constructive amendments during its various stages. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: There is a five-minute time limit. I call the Chair of the Justice Committee. \p Andrew Slaughter: 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. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Lisa Smart. \p Lisa Smart: There are elements of this Bill that we Liberal Democrats welcome; there are also some that we would not spend this much parliamentary time on, and some that we raise a weary Liberal eyebrow at, while we dust off the well-worn reasons why civil liberties really do matter to all of us. The biggest disappointment for us is the missed opportunities—the topics not covered and the chances not taken. We welcome the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill as it works its way through Committee and beyond. We will push the Government to go further in some areas; in others, we will suggest that they take themselves off for a little lie down in a quiet room, as they seem to have got themselves a little overwrought.

The key thing that Lib Dems will be pushing for is a serious commitment to restoring proper community policing, because without that, we simply will not deliver  the frontline policing that my constituency and communities across the country need and deserve. We all agree that everyone should feel safe in their own home and their neighbourhood, but after years of Conservative mismanagement, that is not the reality in too many of our communities. The previous Government gutted neighbourhood policing by slashing over 4,500 police community support officers since 2015. It should come as no surprise that 6,000 cases are closed every day without a suspect even being identified, or that just 6% of reported crimes result in a charge. \p Dan Aldridge: It is really important that we reflect on the impact of that under-investment in neighbourhood policing, and specifically on the cultural feeling of insecurity, and people’s feeling that crime will not be responded to. That has pervaded every society. I hear that on the doorsteps every time I go out. It will take a long time for us to get back from that. \p Lisa Smart: I completely agree with the hon. Member that while crime stats are important, the way people feel about crime also is hugely important for all our communities. The issues are felt acutely in constituencies like mine. In Hazel Grove, in towns and villages such as Marple and Romiley, shop workers report that they face a real surge in shop theft. Many tell me that they have no expectation that the police will respond. Even charity shops have been burgled. These organisations just cannot afford to absorb the losses.

Another persistent concern raised by my constituents is the blight of illegal off-road bikes. I know that problem is felt in all our constituencies. From Offerton to High Lane, residents feel intimidated by this antisocial and often dangerous behaviour. Local officers tell me that although they do not lack the power to act, they lack the tools, resources and capacity to enforce existing laws, so we will scrutinise the Government’s proposals on this, especially as they relate to under-18s. The new Government must return to the neighbourhood policing model, with bobbies on the beat who are visible, trusted and properly resourced. Any element of the Bill that does that will receive Lib Dem support.

What else do we support in this Bill? Part 4 deals with the criminal exploitation of children and others, and it is welcome. Part 5 seeks to update the law on sexual offences. These parts will of course need close scrutiny to make them as effective as they can be, but they have Lib Dem support.

If this were a Lib Dem Bill, we would not be talking quite as much about criminalising those who climb on specific war memorials, and we would protect the important right to protest, rather than making it harder for this right to be exercised. We are surprised and more than a little bit disappointed that there is no mention in the Bill of bringing in domestic abuse aggravated offences. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for the work he has done in this area. We all agree that domestic abuse devastates lives, and that the criminal justice system must properly recognise its severity. Too many abusers escape appropriate justice because domestic abuse is prosecuted under general offences such as common assault or grievous bodily harm, which fails to capture the full nature of the crime.  We urge the Government to back this change and ensure that victims and survivors receive the protections that they need and deserve. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have more to say on the matter in due course. \p Gregory Stafford: I want to be clear about what the hon. Member said a moment ago. Is she saying that climbing on and desecrating our war memorials is acceptable behaviour, and that she would be happy for that to carry on? That seems to be what she is saying. I am sure that is not the case, but I would love to hear her clarification. \p Lisa Smart: It is always a genuine pleasure to be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for rising to his feet. What I said was that if this was a Lib Dem Bill—I look forward to one coming forward in the fullness of time—we would not spend as much time talking about this as a criminal act. There are many priorities for the Government, and I will talk about a number of measures that we were disappointed not to see included in this 340-page Bill, at the expense of the issue he raises.

For example, we have waited with bated breath for the new Government to crack down on water companies that pollute our rivers with impunity. Nowhere is that issue clearer than in my community; sewage has been dumped in our rivers, and part of the Chadkirk country estate, a beloved green space in my constituency, was turned into a sewage swamp after heavy rainfall in the new year. The field beside Otterspool Road, which the council planned to transform into a well-kept community meadow, was flooded with raw sewage. Current laws allow the water companies to get away with that. Liberal Democrats will continue to push to make sewage dumping a specific criminal offence, so that water company executives can be held accountable for the damage they do to our communities.

The Government’s failure to reference rural crime even once in the Bill is unacceptable. I heard the Home Secretary’s response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who is no longer in his place, and it is indeed welcome that a rural crime strategy is on the way, but we Lib Dems will push for a commitment to this issue in the Bill. Rural crime is not an inconvenience; it is a growing crisis. The National Farmers Union reported that the cost of rural crime soared to over £52 million in 2023, with organised gangs targeting farm machinery, vehicles and GPS equipment, yet fewer than 1% of police officers are in dedicated rural crime teams. I heard that for myself when I met a dozen local farmers at Far Benfield farm in Cowlishaw Brow last week. I clearly heard about the impact that organised fly-tipping and organised equipment theft has on farming families.

Finally, there is a gap in the Bill where a discussion of regulating or legislating for live facial recognition should be. The Liberal Democrats have been clear that the technology is a threat to privacy, is discriminatory and does not make our streets safer. The previous Government pushed ahead with its use, despite serious concerns from human rights organisations, legal experts and even their own independent biometrics commissioner. The police should focus on evidence-based crime prevention, not rolling out flawed and biased surveillance technology. Any use of it by the police must be transparent, unbiased  and regulated. We can see police forces coming up with their own rules within which to operate. It is long past time for the Government to set the framework. \p Chris Philp: The system being used is not biased. It has been tested by the National Physical Laboratory, and the bias problems that existed seven or eight years ago have been resolved. The hon. Lady says that the technology is unregulated; it is not. A Supreme Court case set out the parameters, and they are now enshrined in authorised professional practice, which is national College of Policing guidance. \p Lisa Smart: I do not recall hearing a question from the shadow Home Secretary, but I am sure that he would welcome the matter being further clarified in the legislation. He said at the Dispatch Box that live facial recognition is not mentioned in the Bill. I agree. I am sure that we would both welcome scrutinising it, perhaps from different starting points, but ending up with a situation in which our police forces were confident that they knew exactly what the rules were, and exactly how to make best use of any new technology coming through.

The Government and this Bill have the potential to deliver real change, but only if the Government listen. That means a return to proper neighbourhood policing, to giving rural police the resources that they desperately need, and to protecting civil liberties. It is time for the Government to show that they are serious about preventing crime and enabling our police to act when crime has been committed. All our communities across the whole country deserve nothing less. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: The time limit on speeches is five minutes. \p Shaun Davies: There are many areas in which the British people have had to put up with decline and decay over the past 14 years, but the breakdown of law and order might be the most profound. Victims have felt unprotected, criminals have gone unpunished and crimes have simply gone unchecked. Meanwhile, the law-abiding majority has looked on in horror and police officers have felt frustrated without the tools to act. I am delighted to support the Bill, which will start to turn the tide on 14 years of neglect.

I welcome the Government’s plans to introduce 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers and put a named officer in every community; to introduce respect orders and real punishments for the so-called low-level crime, such as antisocial behaviour and off-road bike crime, that has plagued our communities because of the Tory amnesty; and to protect retail workers, including by scrapping the Tory shoplifter’s charter, which decriminalised theft below £200. I remember speaking to shop workers in my constituency during the general election campaign. They talked about yobs walking into shops, nicking items off the shelves and walking straight out, because they knew that the police would take no action.

I welcome the Government’s plans to create a new duty to report child sexual abuse, and increase sentencing for the monsters who organise child grooming; to crack down on knife crime and the sale of weapons to under-18s;  to give police the power to seize and destroy bladed articles; and so much more—all within months of the Home Secretary taking office.

I urge the Government to go further, however, by strengthening neighbourhood policing, which is at the heart of their mission to take back our streets. The increased powers for police officers to tackle antisocial behaviour are among the most important measures in the Bill, but we must not stop there. PCSOs and local authority enforcement officers do vital work to support the police and be friendly faces in our communities. They, too, should be given powers to deal with low-level antisocial behaviour and the yobs on our streets.

We can also make our streets safer by introducing stand-alone deportation orders for foreign national offenders who endanger public safety. The Government have deported more than 3,000 criminals since taking office, but often after several thousands of pounds have been spent in the criminal justice system.

I also welcome clause 105, which requires registered sex offenders to notify the authorities if they change their name. That is, again, about helping the public to feel safe and secure, as they will know that someone convicted of sex offences is not hiding among them, and victims will know that perpetrators are not repeating their crimes somewhere and going undetected because of that ridiculous legal loophole.

When we were elected, we promised our constituents that we would help them to take back control of their streets. The first priority of any Government is to keep their citizens safe—at home, at the border and around the world—and it has been a source of national shame that we have not done that for the past 14 years. There is a lot of work to do to restore public trust, but through the Bill we will make vital first steps towards protecting victims, punishing criminals and preventing crime.

Let me finish on this note. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), said that the general election was unnecessary or regrettable, but my Telford constituents voted for change, and I urge the Government to get on with it. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I will be as brief as possible because I know that others want to get in.

Let me start with a general point. I have sat here long enough—not today, of course, but over the years—to know that every Government come in with a criminal justice Bill, then another a year later, and then another, before the next Government come in and start with a criminal justice Bill. I will not get into a political knockabout on that, but, as Members who have been here long enough will know, the reality is that there is always a reason why we need another criminal justice Bill, and so it goes on. To be a little more rational about it, if passing laws did the job of ending crime, we would have managed it long ago. This is about how we deal with the things that get behind the crime.

The Centre for Social Justice recently published a good report called the “Lost Boys”. It is about the generation, particularly post-covid, of young boys who have become dysfunctional with serious mental health problems, and who often end up on the street being sucked into gangs. The attitude and behaviour of those  boys gives rise to the violence and subsequent murders that take place on the street. Putting a knife into someone’s hand does not make them a murderer; putting a knife into the hands of someone who has already been broken in the wrong attitude—that is where murder and violence come from. I recommend that Ministers read that report, because it makes staggering reading for us all.

Those young boys are becoming men. They will live in and out of prisons, and violence, drug taking and drug abuse will be a part of their lives, as will abuse towards women. It is boys and men who are responsible for the crime. Young women and girls are a tiny proportion of the criminals—the problem lies with men and boys. That is critical. If we want to get ahead of this problem and solve knife crime, we must understand that crime is committed in the heads and brains of those young boys, who are subsequently men, and the knife is only the final act. I say to those who recommend the rounding of blades, well perhaps, but a young guy will just go and grind that rounded blade into a sharp point and get on with it if that is what they want to do. Nothing will get in the way of that. I simply make that observation.

It is right that the Government are tackling assault on retail workers. I have struggled endlessly to get the police on to the streets and to arrest people who are shoplifting. People are not shoplifting for a sandwich; they are stripping stores of thousands of pounds’ worth of goods. It is a serious offence of antisocial behaviour, and anything more that the police can do to crack down on that is important, because it is the first crime that most of our constituents notice, and indeed fear. Shoplifters threaten people in the shops and those serving them, and it is important that we get on top of the issue.

I tabled an amendment to the previous criminal justice Bill on cycling and dangerous cycling. Has that gone? I have also spoken to the Department for Transport, and we need to sort out e-bikes and those dangerous fast bikes and cyclists on the road who commit offences. \p Julian Lewis: It would also help if it were made mandatory for all cyclists to have a bell, so that they could at least warn pedestrians of their approach. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I take my right hon. Friend’s point into consideration. The point I was making is that we have had deaths on the street yet cyclists could not be prosecuted for having killed someone, because we are still using a piece of legislation from the mid-19th century to address offensive and wild carriage driving. That is not acceptable and it hardly ever convicts anybody, so I encourage the Government to look again at dangerous cycling, because people genuinely abuse the Road Traffic Act 1988 and nothing ever seems to be done to them. That is particularly true for e-bikes, which are very dangerous when used on pathways. Even if people are not committing a criminal offence, they are causing major danger. Antisocial behaviour is a big thing which our constituents notice; they feel threatened by people who ride those bikes on the pavements. It may seem a small thing, but it is not.

I will end by congratulating the Government on introducing the offence of cuckooing. The Home Secretary will know that I tabled an amendment to the previous criminal justice Bill, and I am pleased that the Government  have picked that up and put it into this Bill. There are big issues regarding people who feel threatened by brutal individuals who take over their houses and commit criminal offences from there. In the end, some of those threatened people get arrested themselves, having had no control over that house. Many of them have mental health problems; many are stuck in backrooms and abuse themselves. Having such an offence allows the police—I have said this all along—to move into the house if they have a suspicion that such things are taking place and deal with the issue straightaway. I congratulate the Government on that. The previous Government accepted my amendment. Hopefully, we can all join forces.

I have one question for the Minister responding to the debate. Offenders often use coercion, grooming and manipulation. The Bill refers to an absence of consent. Does she think that an absence of consent alone will be good enough to convict people who have carried out coercion, grooming and manipulation? That is the point I am slightly concerned about. I raise it with the Minister and I hope she can respond at the end of the debate. At the end of it all, a criminal justice Bill is a good thing. \p Kim Johnson: This is a huge Bill with more than 300 pages of measures, but I wish to focus on the extra powers it contains to police protests, and particularly clauses 86 and 95, about which civil liberties organisations such as Liberty, Amnesty International and Big Brother Watch, as well as trade unions, have raised loud alarm bells. I also wish to take the opportunity to recognise more broadly the dangerous direction of travel of the increasing criminalisation of legitimate and peaceful protest in this country which, as many will recognise, is being mirrored around the world.

In recent years we have seen the introduction of a vast swathe of anti-protest measures, including new police powers that have been used increasingly to clamp down on freedom of assembly and expression. Those powers are being extended yet again in the Bill. The Tories’ controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the Public Order Act 2023 and the “serious disruption” regulations all brought in wide-ranging new powers. Those include allowing the police to impose “conditions” on any protest that is deemed to be disruptive or to cause “serious annoyance” to the local community, and sentences of up to 10 years in prison for damaging memorials such as statues. Those of us who fought those measures tooth and nail have now seen our fears realised, with clampdowns on the right to protest peacefully.

Last month the aggressive policing of the national Palestine protest led to the arrest of an estimated 77 protesters. Even Members of this House were called in for police questioning, as was an 87-year-old Holocaust survivor who was carrying flowers to lay for the dead children of Gaza. We cannot underestimate the chilling impact that that heavy-handed policing of peaceful protests will have on our basic rights and freedoms. From striking workers to the national Palestine demos and farmers’ protests, huge demonstrations and protests are becoming more commonplace across the political spectrum, as people across the country and beyond feel that they are losing their voices in their workplaces and the political sphere. Instead of continuing down that dangerous road, we should be taking the opportunity  that the Bill presents to roll back some of those powers, defend our civil liberties, and restore our proud traditions of freedom of speech, expression, and assembly. \p Luke Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Kim Johnson: No, I am not taking interventions—sorry.

In this country we have a proud tradition of standing up for what we believe in, but that has increasingly come under threat, and measures in the Bill continue on that trajectory. I hope that the Minister and Government will take those points on board and consider amendments in Committee to roll back some of the draconian anti-protest legislation and restore our civil liberties—moves on which I am sure we can find common ground across the House.

Lastly, I want to turn to the provisions in the Bill that will further criminalise Roma and Traveller communities, and the impact that certain clauses will have on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities such as those living on the Tara Park site in my Liverpool Riverside constituency. In particular, I want to raise concerns around clause 3 in part 1 of the Bill, which extends police dispersal powers and, as the Traveller movement has stated, risks leading to even more heavy-handed policing of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. As with the anti-protest provisions in the Bill, we must see such measures in the broader context of the increasing criminalisation of already marginalised communities. As such, I hope the Government will go back to the drawing board and consider using the Bill to repeal section 60C to 60E of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This Bill is the first under Labour of its kind for a generation. Let us use it as an opportunity to protect our most marginalised communities and defend civil liberties. \p Rebecca Paul: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to thank Surrey police for all they do to keep us safe in Reigate and Banstead. I welcome much of what is in the Bill and I will not repeat what has already been said. Instead, I will focus my remarks on what I believe is required to tackle the scourge of commercial sexual exploitation in this country.

It is easy for people to think that sexual exploitation does not affect them and that it does not happen in their neighbourhood, but it is more common than many realise. It is happening behind closed doors on very normal, everyday streets. Sexual exploitation, often of young women, is an awful crime that destroys lives before they have barely had a chance to begin. Exploited repeatedly, day in, day out, those young people are treated as merchandise, with the sole purpose of turning a profit for pimps and traffickers. It is incumbent upon us to break the business model, starting by outlawing the advertising of individuals for prostitution. Classified ad sites, like Vivastreet, are rife with it. They are the Etsy of sexual exploitation, fuelling sex trafficking by providing a convenient centralised platform for sex buyers to access what they want in their local area. Buying sexual services can be as easy as ordering a pizza.

Although prostitution is legal, pimping, which is the provision of a prostitute to perform a sex act with a customer for gain, is not. There are often tell-tale signs on the adverts, like the same phone number being used for multiple ads, that the women are not acting freely and willingly, and that they are under the control of a pimp, who is profiting from their exploitation. Such sites have had years to get to grips with it, but still not enough is being done to weed out those adverts.

However, we must take some responsibility too. Hon. Members will no doubt be staggered to hear that such advertising of prostitution is entirely legal, because legislation has not kept pace with technology. Advertising prostitution in a phone box is illegal under section 46 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, yet when the same advert is online, it is not illegal. That is utterly absurd. In 2023, the Home Affairs Committee cited evidence in its report on human trafficking that 75% of victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation are advertised online. The cross-party group concluded:

"Websites advertising prostitution significantly facilitate trafficking for sexual exploitation.”

I strongly urge Ministers to take this opportunity to close that loophole.

There is a similar issue with the regulation of online pornography compared with offline pornography. Our current laws have not been updated quickly enough to recognise the huge shift online and the need to apply the same standards across the board. A survey by the Children’s Commissioner in November 2022 found that one in 10 children had seen pornography by the age of nine, with half having seen it before they turned 13. The impact of that travesty can be clearly seen, with 47% of young people between the ages of 16 and 21 stating that girls “expect” sex to involve aggression.

Huge damage is being done to young women and men by this damaging content, which normalises and sexualises the choking and strangling of women during sex—illegal in offline pornography but not online pornography. Although not illegal per se, degrading acts, like spitting on women, are commonplace in online porn, so is it any wonder that we are seeing such disdain for and poor treatment of girls in our society? If we are serious about tackling the issue and halving violence against women and girls, we must crack down on online porn and ensure it is regulated to the same standards as that which is offline.

The independent pornography review, led by Baroness Bertin, recommended that there be parity of regulation between online and offline pornography, which I very much welcome. The main statutory regulator of offline pornography is the British Board of Film Classification. It is responsible for classifying pornographic content before it can be published and ensuring it does not contain illegal content. Any such offline illegal content cannot be sold or supplied in the UK, and the same rule should apply online. That simple change could be transformational if effectively executed and properly enforced, although I recognise the technical and practical challenge of trying to regulate the worldwide web.

I thank the Secretary of State for listening to my two asks. I look forward to hearing from her whether she is receptive to accepting amendments to ban online prostitution adverts, and to bringing the regulation of online pornography in line with that for offline pornography. \p Jonathan Hinder: When I was serving as a police officer, the demands on policing were changing rapidly, and they continue to do so. During my time in the police service, we saw big increases in the reporting of domestic violence and sexual offences. Neighbourhood policing was decimated as the police scrambled to keep up with the huge increase in the reporting of these high-harm, previously hidden offences that are now, thankfully, no longer tolerated in our society.

However, at just that time, the Conservatives were busy slashing police budgets. The policing workforce shrank by 20,000 officers across the country, a statistic that hon. Members will be very familiar with. Less talked about, but just as important, was the fact that our already ancient technology systems fell further behind the criminals we seek to catch. The police national computer, the database that holds arrest and conviction data for offenders across this country, celebrated its 50th birthday last year. The call handling system used by my old force, the country’s biggest, was 40 years old last year. I welcome this Government’s focus on policing, which is vital in creating a fairer country where everyone feels safe and secure in their local community. The Bill signals our commitment to rebuild neighbourhood policing, and to modernise our police service in order to provide the tools required to keep up with changing crime patterns.

I welcome the modernisation of our criminal law in the Bill. The legislation finally takes stalking seriously, makes it easier to tackle spiking and provides common sense powers to go after the thieves using tracking data. I also welcome the focus on shoplifting and antisocial behaviour in our town centres, with the introduction of new respect orders for persistent offenders, as promised in our election manifesto. Every frontline police officer knows that a huge proportion of crime is committed by a tiny proportion of the population. Through a relentless focus on those individuals, we can make small towns, like those I represent in Nelson, Colne, Clitheroe and Barnoldswick, safe and welcoming for the law-abiding public once again.

I hope the Bill is the start of a debate about what we want our police to do and where our services are best placed to act. We need our officers to have the backing of this place to tackle both the high-harm offences, such as serious violence, domestic violence and sexual offences, but also the common, lower level crimes that blight our communities. If everything is a priority, then nothing is; if we can be clear-eyed about where the police should focus their time and efforts, then we can set them up to succeed and we can rebuild the public’s confidence that the police can keep them safe. \p Josh Babarinde: I will use my time to talk about domestic abuse. My mum and I know all too well what domestic abuse looks like, but I am sorry to say that the law does not go far enough to recognise that crime. Currently, there is no specific offence of domestic abuse in the law, which leaves many survivors without the respect and protection that they deserve. Instead, many domestic abusers are convicted of offences such as actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, assault or battery that do not reflect the full gravity of the crime. Someone could be convicted of ABH for  domestic abuse, but they could also be convicted of ABH for a brawl in a pub with a stranger they had not met before.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 went some way towards recognising domestic abuse in the law. It defined it formally and created a number of offences, such as coercive and controlling behaviour, but it did not provide a specific offence of domestic abuse, leading to all sorts of problems. For example, the Government’s early release scheme, which they had to implement in light of the state that the last Government left our prisons in, let out as many as 3,000 people early. The Government made a commitment to try to exclude domestic abusers from being released early, but it was not possible to comprehensively do that, in the words of the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), because people can be excluded from early release only on the basis of the offence that they committed and nothing else. Well, there is no offence of domestic abuse in the law, so many domestic abusers—people who were convicted of ABH, say—were released early.

One survivor affected by that situation is Elizabeth Hudson. Her abuser, her ex-husband, held a knife to her throat, among many other terrible incidents at home. He was convicted of actual bodily harm, and he qualified for early release under the standard determinate sentences 40% scheme. Were we to create a specific offence of domestic abuse, we could exclude those people from such a scheme. Specifically, if we created an offence of domestic abuse-aggravated GBH, ABH, assault, battery, criminal damage or whatever it may be, in exactly the same way that we have racially and religiously aggravated hate crimes, we would be able to protect survivors.

Another advantage of being able to recognise domestic abuse in that way—which this legislation, in all its 106,220 words, does not yet do—is that we could properly cohort those individuals. I asked the Ministry of Justice how many domestic abusers are in prison at the moment and what their reoffending rate is. That is very simple and basic. The response was:

“It is not possible to robustly calculate the number of domestic abusers in prison or their reoffending rate. This is because these crimes are recorded under the specific offences for which they are prosecuted”—

that is, there is no specific offence of domestic abuse to convict those people of. In the light of those challenges, the likes of Refuge, ManKind, Women’s Aid and many more organisations—whether it is lawyers, academics or survivors themselves—are backing my proposals to create a set of domestic abuse-aggravated offences in the law.

I also extend my thanks to those Members on the Government Benches who have privately written to me to express their support for the proposals that I am championing and for proposals that I hope the Government will accept in their Crime and Policing Bill throughout its passage. We need to ensure that we properly respect and protect survivors in Eastbourne and beyond, and I hope that Members across this House will work with me to help to make that a reality—my door is always open. \p Lee Barron: Our communities deserve to feel safe on our streets, in our homes and in our shops. While I am referring to  shops, it is only right to place on record the tireless campaigning that USDAW has done to get a specific offence for an assault on shop workers. That just shows the best of our movement.

The profile, perception and presence of the police need to be restored. We need police on our streets; they need to have the powers to do their jobs, and people need to feel safe again. Our police station in Corby was closed down in 2017. The perception was that the police were gone and that their presence was disappearing, because all people did was drive through what used to be their police station and the profile that went with that. Where something was formally opened, all of a sudden it was shut. Our dedicated response unit was moved out at the same time, and all we had left was a police hub on the upper floor of a public building that was sometimes open only two days a week. We had people on bail being told to take selfies and send them to a number to demonstrate and prove they met the conditions of their bail. That is not good enough for the people of Corby and East Northants.

Many people have lost faith. Why? Because for more than a decade, they have been let down. They call 999 and no one shows up. They report a crime and nothing happens. They see criminals getting away with it again and again. Here is the truth: when policing is cut, crime goes up, and everybody pays the price. Thousands of officers were ripped off our streets, police stations were closed down, PCSOs were cut and entire towns were left without proper policing. That is not good enough for the people of Corby and East Northants. People feel like the system has given up and do not feel safe in their communities.

The Bill toughens up policing so that crime has real consequences again. It gives the police stronger powers to tackle antisocial behaviour by introducing respect orders and strengthening existing powers, as well as removing the need for the police to issue a warning before seizing vehicles being used antisocially. The Bill is a key part of delivering the Government’s safer streets mission. Alongside it, the Government will recruit 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers, ensuring that every community has one. The 2025-26 final police funding settlement also provides up to £19.6 billion for policing in England and Wales, including £193 million for Northamptonshire forces—an increase of more than £11 million.

As I said, this is about profile, perception and presence. That is why I am not only urging Members to back the Bill, but leading the campaign to bring a police station and dedicated response unit back to Corby. The Government have ensured that the money is there to use, and there is consensus in the constituency on the need. We have businesses lined up to support us and massive support from people in the constituency, who have signed a petition for the return of their dedicated response unit and police station. With this Government and this Bill, and the funding that they have provided, now is the time for us to deliver. \p Jim Allister: There is much that is good and necessary in the Bill, and I welcome the fact that 51 of its 137 clauses will apply to Northern Ireland. I have some disappointment about some of the  clauses from which Northern Ireland is excluded—in particular clause 90, which relates to the desecration of war memorials. We have had a spate of such incidents in Northern Ireland; therefore, I am disappointed that that clause does not apply to it.

In relation to the all-important matter of child sexual abuse, part 5 of the Bill applies to Northern Ireland, with the exception of clause 36. I ask the Minister to look at why that is, because to apply the rest without clause 36 is quite incongruous. In clause 37 and so on, we will rightly make it illegal to have a paedophile manual to describe how to make child sexual abuse images, yet clause 36, which makes it an offence to possess a child sexual abuse image generator, does not apply to Northern Ireland. How can that be right? There is a logic that is absent there: clause 36 must apply if the rest of the part is to apply. I trust that that is an oversight that will be rectified.

In clause 123, we have hidden away something of particular interest to many in Northern Ireland: for the first time, it will be an offence to put something on a lamp post or to have a banner that glorifies a proscribed organisation. That is a good and necessary thing. I welcome the fact that that is the intent. The explanatory notes tell us that that is exactly the purpose of the clause: it would, for example,

“enable the seizure of a flag or poster which arouses reasonable suspicion the individual who displayed it was a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation”.

That is good, but it focuses attention on the failure of the Bill to deal with the inadequacy of the offence of glorification of terrorism, which is too limp and largely unused.

We will arrive at a situation in which somebody cannot legally put something on a lamp post or put up a banner that says, to use the republican mantra, “Up the Ra”, which means, “Up the IRA”—that organisation that murdered thousands of our citizens—and that is good, but under the glorification of terrorism legislation, they can say it.

That hideous, horrible republican mantra, “Up the Ra”, which is a chorus from a republican song that glorifies terrorism with lyrics like, “The Brits will never leave until they’re blown away. Ooh ah up the Ra! SAM missiles in the sky,” is glorification of terrorism—of course it is. Yet under our legislation, it is not defined as glorification of terrorism, because a person has to be advocating that which they would emulate and encouraging others to engage in terrorism. Some might think that is the case. If we took the offence described in clause 123 and made it apply to “that which promotes the interests of a proscribed organisation”, we would have done the right thing, but that language needs to be transferred across to the glorification of terrorism legislation. Why should it be right for it to be illegal to have a banner that says “Up the Ra” but legal to address thousands of kids and sing “Up the Ra”, as happens every August in Northern Ireland? That disparity needs to be reconciled and dealt with. \p Lauren Sullivan: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on this incredibly important Bill. Like many of my constituents, I welcome the measures the Government are taking to tackle serious crime and antisocial behaviour in order  to make our streets safer. I pay tribute to the police—another public service that has been undervalued and underfunded for well over a decade. They put their lives on the line to keep us safe and uphold the law. Many measures in the Bill will directly impact them and my constituents, many of whom have become known to me through casework.

When I have knocked on doors in my constituency, residents have told me about the nuisance of off-road bikes that have blighted our streets and, often, our green public spaces—our parks—and intimidated the public. Often, those bikes and their owners were known to the police, but they lacked the powers to do anything other than give the owners a simple warning. I am pleased that the Bill would enable the seizure of vehicles that are being used antisocially.

The other issue that I heard about most often on the doorstep was fly-tipping—the disrespectful fly-tipping that is engaged in by so many organised criminals. A few years ago, Gravesham borough council started a fly-tipping enforcement team. It investigated many people and took many to court. Three years on, 386 community protection warnings have been issued, we have put people in prison, and 50 fly-tipping fines have been issued. That is incredible; it is what should be happening across the country, and I am grateful that the Bill looks to strengthen antisocial behaviour powers to deal with fly-tipping. That is incredibly welcome.

As a new MP, I hold many surgeries—as do many Members present—and I have been shocked by the terrible experiences that some of my constituents have had to face. I pay tribute to them for having the courage to come forward and tell their stories. I have heard from women dealing with stalking by an ex-partner who have changed their life routine for fear of attack and, as such, I welcome the Bill’s strengthening of stalking protection orders. I have heard from a retired paramedic, Peter Sheehan, who was violently assaulted after simply asking people in his woodland to stop their dogs tearing up the forest floor—it was a simple ask. After three years of legal issues, the man who seriously assaulted Peter was given a two-year suspended sentence and fined £750. The impact on Peter, who already suffers post-traumatic stress disorder from his work as a paramedic, was significant, and that money still has not been received.

We must let people who have experienced crime see the justice they deserve. Their trust in the criminal justice system must be restored, and they must know that if they call the police, they will come. There are consequences for crime, and this Bill is the first step towards backing people, not criminals. \p Wendy Morton: There is much in this Bill that I welcome, because of course it was announced by the last Government. However, this Government need to go further, and we will push them to do so.

A major part of the Bill is its increased focus on neighbourhood policing, which is commendable. I have always advocated in this Chamber for greater levels of neighbourhood policing on our streets and more visible policing in our communities. I pay tribute to my own neighbourhood policing team in Aldridge-Brownhills, who serve my local community day in, day out. They  are truly locally based officers who care about our local community, and I thank them for all they do on our behalf.

Sadly, my neighbourhood policing team will soon find itself without a permanent, dedicated home, because the Labour police and crime commissioner has decided to sell off the family silver right across the west midlands. As well as selling off the police station in Aldridge in my patch, he is selling our next nearest police station in Sutton Coldfield. He has already sacrificed the next nearest one in Kingstanding—that building is going to become a Domino’s Pizza takeaway. The Government want more police officers. That is great, but in the west midlands, their own police and crime commissioner does not want to house them. It is unacceptable that police stations across the west midlands are slowly being phased out, diminishing the role of neighbourhood policing, all at a time when more power is being sucked towards central Birmingham and the PCC headquarters at Lloyd House. \p Alex Ballinger: Will the right hon. Lady give way? \p Wendy Morton: I will not, because of time.

That headquarters has benefited from a staggering £33 million-worth of upgraded decoration as a result of local communities losing their local police stations—including the former Brownhills police station—in phase 1 of the closure programme. Surely, that is not right.

I draw the Minister’s attention to several written parliamentary questions to which I do not believe I have received a full answer—in particular, my question concerning the funding of the proposed 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers. While those new officers are welcome, as I have stated, the Government have not yet fully said how they will be funded after the first year, so I would be grateful for clarity on that. It is imperative that there is certainty that those are fully funded new officers who will be added to base budgets for future years, not a one-off Government expenditure, after which the local taxpayer will pick up the tab through an increase in the precept.

The Government face similar questions regarding their decision to fund national insurance increases. Once again, they have been circumspect in their responses to my questions in Westminster Hall and to written parliamentary questions. It is very important that the Minister comes clean today and clarifies that the grant given to police authorities to cover the Chancellor’s job tax is not just a one-off, but will be added to those authorities’ base budgets. As the Minister is very aware, if that is not the case, this will be yet another stealth tax by the back door by this Government, punishing our constituents.

There is so much in the Bill that I would like to talk about, but before I conclude I will touch briefly on knife crime. I welcome the Government’s commitment to halving knife crime, which comes on the back of a series of measures passed by the last Conservative Government. Sadly, in 2017, my constituent James Brindley lost his life to knife crime in Aldridge. Since then, his parents have dedicated their lives to helping eradicate the scourge of knife crime. They have established the James Brindley Foundation to help educate young people across the borough of Walsall to turn their backs on carrying  a knife. Back in August 2022, I was really proud to be present at the unveiling of one of a number of knife bins across the borough, funded through that foundation with help from local businesses and sponsors. James’s parents have a simple ask, and I will be a bit cheeky and press the Minister on it today: will she work with her colleagues in the Department for Education to see whether knife crime prevention could be considered for inclusion in the national curriculum?

My constituents demand safety, which is why the last Conservative Government fully funded 20,000 new police officers. We welcome the 13,000 new police officers, but my constituents want them to be fully funded and housed in the neighbourhood. The Bill fails to give all the guarantees that I am looking for. On that basis, I hope the Minister can provide me with some clarity when she sums up the debate. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. We have a very oversubscribed debate, so it is unlikely that everybody will get to speak. I am bringing in a four-minute time limit with immediate effect, just to try to get more people in. \p David Taylor: Much within the Bill will bring significant positive changes to communities like mine in Hemel Hempstead, where crime and, in particular, antisocial behaviour continue to be a major issue. Under consecutive Conservative Governments, criminals got an easy ride. The Conservatives left a great mess, and this Bill helps to fix that.

I could speak at great length on many parts of the Bill, but I will focus on two that are almost always at the top of my postbag in Hemel Hempstead: antisocial behaviour and the current epidemic of shoplifting. I recently met a couple called Gary and Margaret—not their real names—whose case shocked me. For two years, Gary and Margaret have been harassed, including verbal abuse, trespassing and the damaging of their property, by an offender who lives on their street. The family feel unsafe and isolated, with the harassment worsening the mental health of their eight-year-old son, who suffers from severe anxiety and is too scared to play outside. They inform me that they have been in constant communication with the council and the police, but have faced rejection from the local council’s antisocial behaviour department, which stated that they would not intervene due to the low-level nature of the antisocial behaviour.

It is not just antisocial behaviour affecting people in Hemel Hempstead; we also face an epidemic of violence against retail staff, as other Members have mentioned. I met employees from the Co-op in Queens Square in Adeyfield, and I have also met people from the post office in the same square. I was grateful to those from the Co-op for the time they took to show me their store, including their CCTV room, but I was shocked by what I saw there: an entire table of CD after CD, each containing evidence of shoplifting in the store, with many people brazenly walking out of the shop, not even attempting to conceal their theft. What is more disturbing is what one of the store employees told me. A shoplifter had been caught, and the store had managed to get the police and the criminal justice system to take the case to court. That brave employee had been to court to  testify against the shoplifter. Unfortunately, the case was thrown out and the perpetrator let off and able to walk free. Even more shockingly, the employee had to sit on the same bus home as the person she had just given evidence against.

Thankfully, provisions in the Bill will make a difference for that employee, for Gary and for others who have been the victims of crime and antisocial behaviour. First, clause 1 and respect orders will give the police and local authorities what they need. I have in the past asked for Hemel Hempstead to be considered for a respect order pilot, and I hope the Minister will forgive me for making another pitch for that today.

It disgusts me that hard-working people in Hemel Hempstead pay for their shopping while others can simply storm out without paying. It disgusts me that people in my constituency have to put up with antisocial behaviour on an almost daily basis, while the perpetrators walk away with impunity. I have been out with the police for ride-alongs, the purpose of which is to see at first hand the challenges that the police are facing. I have had meetings with Police Federation reps, so I am well aware of the extra equipment and support that they need. I will continue to do everything I can to support those brave police officers facing antisocial behaviour, and I am strongly in favour of this Bill, which I believe will give the police extra powers to do more to crack down on these yobs.

There is much more I would like to say, but much like our police force under George Osborne and Theresa May, I have had to subject my speech to brutal cuts, so I will finish there. \p Nick Timothy: There is much in the Bill with which my party agrees. In fact, many of its provisions were written by my party in government, so it was strange to hear the more partisan remarks from the Home Secretary earlier in the debate. After decades in which crime was falling, that happy trend has sadly begun to reverse. The Home Secretary noted that overall crime increased by 12% in the last year, but she did not admit that it is still far lower than when Labour was last in office. However, there is obviously much to be done.

The sentencing guidelines published last week explicitly instruct judges that a pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary if the perpetrator of a crime is from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, faith minority community or is female, transgender, a drug addict or a victim of modern slavery, trafficking, or exploitation. The guidelines are clear that minorities should receive lesser punishments than white people, especially white men. The provisions about slavery, trafficking and exploitation are an invitation for lawyers to help illegal immigrants to escape the reach of the law.

That is not the first official direction to tell judges to put identity politics before the once sacred principle of equality before the law. Last July, the Judicial College’s “Equal Treatment Bench Book” said that

“in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”

Putting that principle into practice, the bench book warns, for example, that the

“family impact of custodial sentences was particularly acute for black mothers, as far more black…families…are headed by a lone parent”.

Similar attitudes exist in policing. The “Police Race Action Plan”, published by the College of Policing, promised to stop the over-policing of black communities and complained that such communities are over-policed, but under-protected. The action plan noted that black people are more likely than white people to be murdered and to be victims of knife crime, but it failed to add that black people are more likely to commit these crimes, too. \p Judith Cummins: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about the Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill and its contents. \p Nick Timothy: Indeed. I find it baffling that we are debating the future of the criminal justice system and not talking about the erosion of the principle of equality before the law. Disparities in policing and criminal justice do exist— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman again that, in order to speak in this debate, he needs to stay in scope of the content of the Bill in front of us. \p Nick Timothy: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going to turn to some specific measures in relation to police reform and the Bill. According to the Government’s impact assessment, the Bill will

“provide an additional 13 to 55 prison places”,

yet the Government expect to see 5,000 additional crimes recorded by the police annually, resulting in 400 prosecutions and 300 convictions per year. Those numbers do not add up, unless the Government intend to continue their policy of releasing prisoners early.

Passing legislation is not a substitute for genuine and sophisticated police and criminal justice reform, and I will make some suggestions to the Government. First, we should abolish the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which represents centralised unaccountable power, and transfer its functions to more accountable entities. The College of Policing should be directed by the Home Secretary to ensure that forces focus more clearly on crime fighting. We need to reduce the size of the Met in London, with its national responsibilities transferred to the National Crime Agency. The Government need to give police chiefs the ability to clear out failing officers and recruit talent from all walks of life.

In the Met, there should be fewer deputy assistant commissioners and fewer commanders. Training needs to be professionalised and better recorded, and workforce planning needs to be improved. There should be better use of productivity-improving technology and streamlined processes from arrest to prosecution. We need to reform the police grant to make sure that forces focus on strategic threats. New technologies mean that fraud, identity theft and cyber-crimes will present a huge challenge. We can no longer expect police forces to recruit generalist officers, hoping that they can all offer the perfect blend of leadership, empathy, strength and investigatory skill. Instead, we need greater specialisation.

As I said, it seems crazy that we are debating this Bill without debating whether we remain equal before the law. There is much to be welcomed in the Bill, but I hope we will see far greater energy in the undeniably tough job of police reform. \p Sarah Smith: Crime in Hyndburn and Haslingden is currently out of control. Robbery has skyrocketed in my constituency by 75% in the past year, which is far worse than the already shocking 17% increase that we have seen across Lancashire. Shoplifting has soared by 70%, which, again, is significantly worse than the 23% rise across the county. Those numbers are not just statistics; they represent victims—business owners whose livelihoods are threatened, families who feel unsafe and communities torn apart by lawlessness. Indeed, just last week local businesses in Accrington saw around 10 break-ins. Almost half of my constituents—44%—will experience violent crime.[Official Report, 25 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 4WC.] (Correction) That is unacceptable, and I am speaking here today because I refuse to accept it any longer. Just over the weekend, an awful video has sadly been circulating on social media of yet another terrible incident of violent crime in Hyndburn.

This Government’s Crime and Policing Bill is the biggest crackdown on crime in decades. We are taking back our town centres from thugs and thieves and restoring respect for law and order, giving our communities and police the tools they need to fight back. For too long the crimes that have made Accrington’s town centre almost lawless, the so-called low-level offences, have been ignored. When shoplifting, antisocial behaviour and street crime go unpunished, our high streets suffer, our economy declines, and our community starts to lose hope. Accrington was once a thriving hub. It has been neglected for too long, but these new powers for the police are key to turning that around.

The Bill delivers real action. The police will no longer need a warrant to search premises when stolen goods are tracked electronically, and there will be no more safe havens for criminals. Respect orders will clamp down on public drinking and drug taking, ensuring that our streets are no longer places of disorder. Officers will have the power to seize nuisance vehicles—such as the off-road bikes I saw on Friday tearing up our parks in Rishton—on the spot. Crucially, the days of treating thefts under £200 with effective immunity are over. Stealing is stealing, and criminals will be held to account. It is also welcome that the Government listened to the campaign organised by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and other shop workers for the introduction of a new offence of assaulting a shop worker in this vital Bill.

The Labour Government are not just tough on crime; they are investing in solutions. I welcome the provision of 13,000 new police officers to ensure that every community has its named police officer. This is part of the Government’s £200 million investment, which will deliver a 6.6% funding uplift in Lancashire. Enough is enough: the people of Hyndburn and Haslingden deserve safe streets, a thriving town centre, and the right to live without fear. The Bill delivers that, and I am proud to support it. \p Luke Taylor: Crime and policing in London is at a crisis point. Figures show that Government funding for the Metropolitan police has fallen by more than £1 billion in real terms since 2010, and those cuts mean that we do not just need more bobbies back; we need more beats. Park police no longer patrol, and now we see the prospect of safer   schools officers across London being moved out of schools, where they would be working with young people at risk of gangs or county lines, to back-fill neighbourhood policing teams. Community policing is in tatters, officer numbers are insufficient, and PCSO numbers in London have fallen by more than 3,000 in the last 15 years, from 4,247 in 2008 to just 1,215 in 2023, which means that almost three out of every four officers have been lost in that time.

While we Liberal Democrats broadly welcome many aspects of the Bill, we are fundamentally concerned about the likelihood that without enough officers on the ground, community policing will continue to suffer. Over the years, successive Labour and Conservative Governments have introduced their own versions of a crime and policing Bill, but London nevertheless recorded more than 15,000 knife crime incidents, nearly half a million thefts and more than 24,000 cases of sexual violence last year. It is simply common sense that if we want to get a grip on these awful incidents, which undermine the very fabric of a trusting society, we must restore community policing.

For Londoners, that means sorting out recruitment in the Met across the whole of London. It means ending the practice of abstracting police officers from outer boroughs to assist inner ones, and instead focusing on recruiting more officers to be visible, engaged, and dedicated to protecting the communities that they serve. I cannot see the many welcome parts of this Bill being implemented effectively in my constituency and across London if that is not the case. The Bill, in its current form, should go further and faster in restoring proper community policing, reforming stalking laws to support victims, and implementing a meaningful public health approach to knife crime. I have spoken about both those issues a number of times in the House, and have received very positive responses from the Minister.

I am encouraged to see that assaults against retail workers are to be treated as the grave crimes that they are, but these provisions should go further to protect tradespeople from harm wherever they work. Tool theft is a devastating crime that cost tradespeople millions last year. Research from NFU Mutual shows that one in three tradespeople now live in constant fear of violent thieves. Some have been brutally attacked with crowbars and other weapons, just for trying to protect their tools from being ripped out of their vans. At a “Stop Tool Theft” rally in Parliament Square last month, organised by Trades United, I spoke to many tradespeople who had suffered thefts and attacks, and heard that they would not now let their vehicles out of their sight for fear of becoming victims. There have been discussions of better measures on the part of vehicle manufacturers to reduce the number of thefts, such as better locks and keyless systems security, but the descriptions of people literally cutting off the tops of vans to steal the tools inside demonstrate that such measures can only go so far to stop the thefts.

However, these attacks on tradespeople are more than just theft; they are an assault on their hard work and hard-earned livelihoods. It is time to acknowledge the escalating danger that they face and provide stronger legal safeguards to protect their livelihoods and wellbeing, and I hope the Government will take note of that in Committee. \p Tonia Antoniazzi: This Labour Government have made the unprecedented commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. I know that my colleagues on the Front Bench take it extremely seriously, and I agree with them that it will require a transformative approach. I welcome the measures in the Bill to tackle intimate image abuse, stalking, spiking and the sexual exploitation of children, which mark the beginning of the Government’s work to make good their ambition by giving victims the protections that they deserve and need.

In that spirit, I believe that the Bill presents an opportunity for the House to tackle commercial sexual exploitation—a key form and engine of violence against women and girls—in giving victims of the sex trade the measures and protections that they need, and I intend to table the appropriate amendments to reflect that. The majority of people exploited through the sex trade are women and girls, while the overwhelming majority of people who pay to exploit them sexually are men. Extensive evidence shows that most women exploited through this insidious trade were highly vulnerable before their involvement and suffer acute harms as a result, including a disproportionate risk of violence. I know that my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister, who chaired the Home Affairs Committee in the last Parliament, has done some excellent work in this area.

Sadly, the demand for sexual exploitation is not being deterred, and victims themselves face the threat of criminal sanctions. The Bill gives us an opportunity to change that: to end impunity for punters who pay to abuse women, to take concrete action against pimping websites, and to remove the threat of criminal sanctions from victims to offer those vulnerable women the support that they need. The Bill does much for victims of crime and abuse, and it is evidence of the Government treating violence against women and girls as the emergency that it is. I believe that by strengthening the response to commercial sexual exploitation we can make significant headway in halving that violence.

Speaking of highly vulnerable women—whose plight drives much of the work that I do—I want to say something about abortion. The law underpinning abortion dates back to 1861, before women even had the right to vote. Under that cruel and outdated law, about 100 women have been investigated by the police in the past five years alone, and another woman is set to go on trial in April. The women caught up in this law are very vulnerable and often desperate, but they are subject to the same laws that apply to violent partners who use physical abuse, coercion or poisoning to end a pregnancy without consent. The law should be a tool to protect those women, not to punish them for the effects of the abuse that they have suffered.

Westminster voted to repeal the laws criminalising women in Northern Ireland in 2019, but they remain in place in England and Wales. There should be parity in the law across the UK so that my constituents have the same rights as my colleagues’ constituents in Northern Ireland. Abortion remains a free vote issue, and I recognise that any changes in the law in this area must be led by Back Benchers. My right hon. Friend the Minister was committed to this change before the election last year, and Members on both sides of the House supported her   amendment to remove these women from the criminal law. I hope that the Bill will give us an opportunity to revisit this issue in the same collegiate way. \p Gideon Amos: I welcome many of the measures in the Bill, particularly those concerning knife crime and the protection of shop workers who all too often bear the brunt of antisocial behaviour. However, one of the biggest deterrents for criminals is the certainty of being caught, and reductions in police numbers nationally are as wrong as they are locally. In Avon and Somerset, the former Conservative police and crime commissioner cut PCSOs by a further 80 last year—a massive 28% reduction—and closed our Taunton police station.[Official Report, 17 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 2WC.] (Correction)

I welcome clause 4’s provisions on public space protection orders, which I will come on to. I welcome the commitment to deliver 13,000 extra officers of various kinds, but worrying for me is the fact that my constituents have come to see me about their relatives who are serving police officers. Civilians have been replaced by officers in uniform doing the same civilian jobs, just so that it can be claimed that police numbers have increased. I hope the Minister will make sure that that does not continue to occur with the new recruitment, which is very welcome. Unless officers are seen in our communities and on the streets, they will not deter or catch the criminals we need them to catch.

Last autumn, I was contacted by businesses in Castle Green in Taunton, which are at their wit’s end because of the antisocial behaviour in the historic centre of our county town. I contacted the chief constable straightaway. I am really grateful to Avon and Somerset officers for the efforts they have put in, as I am to the chamber of commerce in Taunton, which has raised the general issue of town centre crime and convened the safe streets forum that I attended last week, but it is clear that we need to deter antisocial behaviour and crime where it is taking place. That is proven by the fact that Lib Dem-run Taunton town council has just appointed a street marshal, who is on duty in our town centre. I spent the afternoon with Nick last Friday. He is doing an excellent job and covering a huge range of work, from people climbing all over the rooftops to retrieving thousands of pounds’ worth of stock by simply asking the person responsible to hand it over. He must have been quite persuasive in asking the individual to do that.

I congratulate Nick, our street marshal, but when I returned to Castle Green with him, it was clear that the antisocial behaviour problems there have become intractable. I therefore suggest that we need to work with Somerset council to get a public space protection order, and I hope the Government will support its enforcement. Too many of our great community events are marred by the antisocial few, and we need to tackle that. We need the public space of Castle Green, with its superb independent market, our famous Castle Hotel, the scheduled ancient monument, which is the castle itself, and the Museum of Somerset where soon people will be able to see the Chew valley hoard of silver coins from the Norman conquest. I cannot use those coins to pay for the enforcement of the public space protection order, but I hope it will have Government support so that we can  ensure that key public spaces are not subject to conquest by those who would disobey the law, wreak havoc among local people, damage livelihoods and tarnish the generally superb reputation of our county town. \p Chris McDonald: I promised my constituents more police officers in Stockton, Billingham and Norton, and we are delivering on that. I promised a crackdown on antisocial behaviour on the high streets, and we are delivering on that. I promised a named police officer in every neighbourhood, and we are delivering on that. This is a serious Government rolling up their sleeves and getting on with delivering on the issues that matter most to the people to Teesside.

I have visited corner shops picking up the pieces after being attacked by balaclava-clad thugs. I have spoken to unions and retail workers about the devastating impact of shoplifting, theft and assaults on shop workers. Our high streets should be thriving, but too often they are overshadowed by antisocial behaviour that keeps families away. Crime erodes confidence in our communities, leaving people feeling unsafe in their neighbourhoods and making it harder for businesses to thrive, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the illegal use of off-road bikes. For too long, these bikes have been a menace as they maraud through estates, intimidate residents and are used by criminals to evade police. People have had enough.

I promised to come down hard on crime, increase police numbers, and make our high streets and communities safe, and that is exactly what we are doing. With £2.4 million invested in neighbourhood policing, Cleveland police, under our Labour police and crime commissioner Matt Storey, are delivering on that promise with 40 new officers on our streets, increasing the visible police presence in our communities. They are using new tactics to stop crime in its tracks, deploying police drones to track off-road bikes in real time. If criminals think they can evade justice, they are wrong. Their bikes will be tracked, seized and taken off our streets. \p Luke Myer: My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech about the challenges we face on Teesside. Just today, I heard from James in Easterside, who said that in two hours there was not 15 minutes when an illegal off-road bike, quad or e-scooter did not pass. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to seize such bikes, crush them and make our streets safe again? \p Chris McDonald: I am sure that James in Easterside will be pleased to learn that Cleveland police have seized 359 vehicles linked to crime and dangerous driving since January alone, which is already making a big difference. Crime across Cleveland is now at its lowest level in five years following a more than 9% reduction, which means nearly 6,000 fewer victims of crime. This is what a proactive police and crime commissioner, a Labour Member of Parliament and a Labour Government working together looks like. We are putting police back at the heart of our communities, and ensuring that they have the necessary powers and the backing of a justice system that actually works.

We are introducing respect orders to tackle the worst antisocial behaviour offenders, and stamping out issues such as public drinking and drug use to ensure that our  town centres are free from harm and nuisance. New offences, such as child criminal exploitation and cuckooing, will crack down on drug dealing. We will protect our high streets by ending the effective immunity for anyone caught shoplifting goods worth below £200 and introducing a new criminal offence to better protect retail workers from assault.

Stockton, Billingham and Norton deserve safer streets, and we are delivering. It should be clear to my residents that this Government and I, as their MP, are on the side of law and order. Although we are seeing green shoots of progress, there is still much more to do to reclaim our streets and town centres. The job is not done yet, but we are making real progress. Together, we will take back our streets and ensure that our towns are places of pride. \p Monica Harding: Today’s legislation contains welcome provisions to address some of the behaviours that plague my constituents, which were allowed to flourish under the previous Conservative Government. My constituents will welcome a serious and renewed focus on combating shoplifting and antisocial behaviour, because the Conservatives decimated our police community support officers—in Surrey, they fell by 29% between 2015 and 2022—and eroded the close relationship between the police and the communities they serve. Ultimately, the provisions in this Bill that are intended to make places such as Esher and Walton safer must be backed by a genuine and sustained commitment to community policing, and by giving officers the time and resources to build trust and understanding with those they protect.

In the past 12 months, arrests made by Surrey police for shop thefts have more than doubled. This is not merely a case of officers solving a higher percentage of crimes; in fact, the number of thefts detected by the police has also more than doubled. Surging levels of shoplifting are utterly corrosive for high streets in places such as Esher and Walton. They impose costs on retailers and may undercut residents’ faith in law enforcement and the ability of politicians to get things done, so I hope the Government will pursue this issue with urgency.

The same is true when antisocial behaviour is not dealt with. I have received far too many emails and letters from constituents struggling with the conduct of neighbours. In such cases, the actions of a few can impose severe strains on so many. As one constituent wrote to me, there is an issue of fairness: ordinary people come for a quiet life, have work to do and have been left exhausted by noise, disruptions and even threatening behaviour coming from a small group. I recognise that this Bill accordingly highlights housing providers as relevant agencies with a role to play in tackling antisocial behaviour. However, when people feel threatened, there is no substitute for recognisable neighbourhood police with deep links to the community. Given the criminal sanctions attached to breaches of a respect order, can the Minister assure the House that community police will receive funding in line with the vital role they have to play in ensuring that the Government’s new orders do not become meaningless?

Finally, I will address the protection of police officers. The police deserve protection from abuse. The Public Order Act 1986 was enhanced in 1998 to allow racially  and religiously motivated abusive language or behaviour that is directed at emergency workers to be treated as an aggravating factor. However, there is a loophole in the legislation such that if this particular form of abuse occurs when both parties are in the perpetrator’s private dwellings, it is not treated as an aggravating factor. That is wrong. It leaves the mistaken impression that there are some circumstances in which the racial abuse of emergency workers is acceptable, and it fails to deter such behaviour. Will the Minister therefore commit to re-examining that issue and exploring the possibility of finally removing the anomaly? \p Matt Bishop: I have shared before with the House that I used to be a police officer, and I worked for three forces across England and Wales. That has given me a strong understanding of the challenges faced by both officers and the public in tackling crime. It is partly due to this experience that I fully support the Bill and the Government’s commitment to making our communities safer.

In my constituency of the Forest of Dean, crime and antisocial behaviour have a direct impact on families, businesses and communities. It is crucial that our police forces have the right powers, support and resources to tackle these issues effectively. The Bill empowers our officers, giving them the tools and the confidence that they need to make swift decisions and restore public trust. Those are things I wish I had had more of when I was serving. The Bill also addresses persistent antisocial behaviour with the introduction of the respect order, which will help restore order and send a strong message to offenders. It strengthens measures against theft, allowing police to enter properties without a warrant to search for stolen goods that have trackers on them.

Another key aspect of the Bill is its focus on domestic abuse. In Gloucestershire as a whole, a third of all arrests made in January related to domestic abuse, and I think we would all agree that this is unacceptable. The Bill includes crucial provisions to support victims and improve the management of such offenders, which is vital for both victims and law enforcement.

Another important factor for me is that the Bill focuses on tackling child sexual abuse. By introducing the mandatory duty to report, it will ensure that no case is overlooked. Having worked in the police but also in schools, I have seen at first hand how important it is to act quickly when it comes to protecting children from sexual exploitation. Another mantra of mine, which I hope is reflected in the Bill, is that prevention is always better than detection. That applies to any crime, but it is especially true of this hideous one of child sexual exploitation. The duty to report will help ensure that children are less vulnerable.

Finally, I urge all Members to support the Bill. It will not only empower our police, but support victims, take strong action against those who endanger our constituents’ safety and that of our children, and drive real change in our streets. \p Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.

On the whole, the Bill is to be welcomed. A number of the provisions are already in place in Northern Ireland, such as the offensive weapons penalty, and there are others that the Northern Ireland Executive is in the process of introducing. In my intervention on the Home Secretary, I welcomed the 51 clauses that require a consent motion, because they are the sort of provisions that we want in Northern Ireland as well. On the things that are outstanding, the Home Secretary kindly said that she would, through the Minister and the Assembly, take them further, so that is also good news.

There are other measures that I agree with and some that I believe do not go far enough, such as the provisions on policing and investigation. I think of the absolutely heartbreaking interview with David Amess’s daughter about the refusal to carry out a public inquiry into her father’s murder by an ISIS supporter. David Amess was my friend, as he was to many in this House, and we are the poorer for his passing. With all due respect, I believe that the decision not to carry out an inquiry is the wrong decision. I hope this Bill, and perhaps the clauses on investigation in part 13, may lead to further powers being available for families to seek an inquiry into why the police have ceased their investigations. David Amess’s family deserve that inquiry and this House deserves that inquiry, but I will leave it at that.

I welcome the shoplifting provisions, and I very much welcome those on knife crime, which has been a scourge across this great nation, and the Government have accepted the need for such legislation. I wish the tightening of the provisions on child sexual exploitation was not necessary, but it certainly is. Between 2022 and 2023, recorded crimes relating to child pornography were up by 40.6%, which is a shocking figure. As a father and a grandfather, such statistics upset me, but as a parliamentarian, such statistics galvanise me to ensure that we shut down this horrific industry, including by jailing all those involved in sharing videos or producing them. None of those crimes are victimless, and we must take strides to address that. Consequently, I welcome those provisions.

No Bill can ever be perfect, and there are amendments to be made, but it is clear that our system currently allows too many criminals to slip through loopholes, and the police need greater powers of investigation and of drug testing as well. Security must, however, be balanced with—and the Bill should not impinge on—the existing rights of British citizens. The right to protest is a vital mechanism for freedom of speech, but it must be safe protest. I speak as someone who has protested for nearly all my life, and we have lived in a nation and a country where protesting became the name of the game. I have to say that those were always peaceful protests—I underline that very quickly—but a balance must be struck. I look forward to the Minister outlining how we can protect our freedoms in this Bill, such as the right to have a religious belief and to express it in a balanced way, and not be persecuted or discriminated against for that reason.

We also need protection for our service personnel, including by providing support in relation to the vexatious allegations that we are seeing in Northern Ireland. We will not recruit police services or armed forces personnel if they know they will be abandoned and hung out to  dry at the first hint of an allegation. The Bill must strengthen that protection. That is one of the things I look forward to trying to do.

There is much in the Bill that we should welcome, and the Home Secretary and the Government are definitely on the right road. We will also see a difference in Northern Ireland, and the Bill is good news for everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. \p Sam Carling: I enormously welcome this Bill, in which there is so much that will make a real, positive difference for my constituents in North West Cambridgeshire. Due to time constraints, I will have to skip through a lot of the praise I had for the Bill and move straight to an area where I would like to have a conversation and a dialogue with the Minister about what we can do, and that is the area of mandatory reporting.

I enormously welcome the fact that this Bill will finally introduce a statutory duty to report the possible sexual abuse of children when those who have responsibility for children are made aware of it. It has been a long road. In March 2018, the previous Conservative Government said the case for mandatory reporting had “not currently been made” and that they would not introduce the policy. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, chaired by Alexis Jay, showed how misjudged that position was. \p Luke Myer: I thank my hon. Friend for supporting me in my debate last week on Professor Jay’s recommendations for the Church of England. Does he agree with me that, alongside the Government implementing those recommendations, it is critical that faith organisations implement them as well? \p Sam Carling: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank him for that intervention. As a society, we must move towards ensuring that children are protected.

When it comes to the detail, I am not fully sure that the Bill, as currently drafted, delivers on the Government’s pledge to implement the IICSA recommendations. That is mainly because, on my reading, it does not create criminal sanctions for non-compliance, which was a key part of the 13th IICSA recommendation. The only consequences spelled out in the Bill for failure to report are that someone could be referred to as their professional regulator, where relevant, or to the Disclosure and Barring Service, which, to quote the Bill’s explanatory notes, will

“consider their suitability to continue working in regulated activity with children.”

That is all really positive, but we have to go a little bit further. As currently drafted, is the Bill enough to tackle the chronic under-reporting of sexual abuse identified by the Jay inquiry?

The new offence of stopping someone else from reporting child sexual abuse is very welcome. For example, it should stop managers pressuring people who work under them not to report such abuse, but I do not think that it will cover such cases in religious groups. As an example, I would like to talk about the religious organisation in which I was raised, the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Most people know very little about them, but they are a very  insular religious community with a deep distrust, in many cases, of secular authorities, much of which comes from the fundamental nature of some of their beliefs. Witnesses have a mindset in which the first port of call for any issues with another member of the faith is their local congregation’s body of religious elders, who are men—always men—appointed from within their ranks. The organisation denies that it stops these elders from referring allegations of sexual abuse to the police, but numbers speak louder than words.

Almost 10 years ago, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were one of the case studies examined by an Australian royal commission on institutional responses to child sexual abuse. The commission found that, in Australia alone, allegations had been documented by religious elders against 1,006 individuals, and not a single one was reported to the police. In the UK, elders sometimes say that it is a victim’s absolute right to go to the police, which is often the organisation’s response to such criticism. But behind the scenes, they heavily discourage it, telling victims that publicity would bring reproach on God’s name.

This secretive attitude is best exemplified by a recent speech by a member of the religion’s governing body: “Suppose that someone is convicted and put in jail, or someone is found guilty by men, as Jesus was. It does not mean that he is guilty in the sight of God.” I should flag that he was not specifically referring to child sexual abuse, but that attitude is pervasive. I describe this example to highlight just how critical it is that the duty to report is backed up by criminal consequences for ignoring it, because some of these organisations will do anything to avoid compliance.

Is the Minister willing to meet me to discuss this issue in more depth, and how we can address it? I would also appreciate it if she could comment on the scope of the individuals that the Bill places under a duty to report. I am not convinced at the moment that many religious leaders—who often hold very significant power and influence, as I have outlined—will be included. This goes back to the IICSA report, which recommended that the duty to report should fall on anyone who works in regulated activities, but also on anyone in a position of trust over a child, as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On my reading, the Bill does the former but not the latter, as currently drafted, and addressing this by using both criteria could significantly strengthen the legislation.

I welcome this Bill, which contains very powerful provisions to progress measures outlined in the manifesto on which Labour Members stood to make our streets safer and tackle crime. I look forward to voting for it this evening. \p Tristan Osborne: I rise to support this Bill, which will provide the necessary tools to restore public confidence in law and order. As a former warranted police officer, council portfolio-holder for enforcement and chair of Medway community safety partnership, I have been working with and within my community to challenge many of the issues that this Bill will counter. I thank Kent police and Kent county council staff for all the work they do every weekend, every day and every hour to help and support our residents.

However, this Bill does not come without context. For over a decade, the previous Government chipped away at our criminal justice system. They cut police funding. We all remember the Police Federation’s “Cuts Have Consequences” campaign, and the previous Government slashed officer numbers before recruiting more officers to lower levels per capita. They slashed PCSO numbers and weakened council enforcement teams. Court delays skyrocketed. Probation was privatised, then nationalised and then privatised again. Legal aid was gutted. Prisons were left full. These reckless acts have fuelled antisocial behaviour and shattered public confidence in law enforcement. \p Josh MacAlister: Does my hon. Friend share my shock that Cumbria police did not hand out a single penalty notice for disorder in 2023? That is down from 1,000 issued in 2010. Does he also share my enthusiasm for this Bill’s measures to introduce respect orders? \p Tristan Osborne: I could not concur more. Police funding and police officer numbers have resulted in fewer fines being issued for many types of crime. In fact, the Bill will give the police more powers to challenge nuisance biking and other offences. The Bill is an absolutely necessary first step. \p Clive Jones: On Saturday, I visited quite a few retailers in Wokingham. There was no police presence at all in the town, despite crime occurring hourly in our shops. Someone is always shoplifting. Thames Valley police has only 198 police officers per 100,000 people, which is well below the national average of 245. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that is not enough? \p Tristan Osborne: I agree that insufficient police numbers in recent years resulted in a shoplifters’ charter under the last Government, when people were allowed to shoplift up to a set amount.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for her Westminster Hall debate last week, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for his ten-minute rule Bill on nuisance biking. The number of reckless bikers and boy racers who tear through our streets and churn up our parks has significantly increased in previous years. Under the previous Government, the weak section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 effectively allowed these bikers to get away with a slap on the wrist.

I welcome the measures in this Bill that will allow these vehicles to be seized, which will send a message that those who are caught with these vehicles will lose that asset immediately. Kent police called for these powers when I went on an operation in November and witnessed the cat-and-mouse tactics of perpetrators and the resources needed to impose these extremely weak penalties.

Knife crime has surged since 2010 and disproportionately affects younger people. The Bill gives the police new stop-and-search powers in high-crime areas, allowing law enforcement to be much more proactive in intercepting potential threats. I welcome this measure, specifically in areas of high knife crime in the urban centres of Chatham and Aylesford.

The digital age has produced new avenues for crime. As many colleagues have mentioned, that includes child sexual exploitation, as well as exploitation and violence against women. The Bill will introduce more powers to challenge stalkers and strengthen protections against child sexual exploitation. I am a former teacher, and I had to look at safeguarding cases involving online activity on a weekly basis. Without these additional powers, it will be increasingly difficult to catch the malign influences that are harming our young people.

I believe that the Bill will also enhance police transparency and accountability. It improves police training, focusing on de-escalation techniques and mental health awareness. It equips officers with the skills necessary to handle a wide range of situations with sensitivity and professionalism. We know police officers do this every day, but we also know that the diversity of challenges they face requires new training.

As colleagues have said so eloquently, domestic violence is often a hidden crime that leaves victims feeling trapped and powerless to escape. The Bill strengthens the legal framework for protecting victims by introducing new provisions for protective orders, including the ability to ban a perpetrator from returning to a victim’s home even before their trial. It also mandates better support for victims, offering increased access to legal and social services.

This Bill is not just about laws; it is about lives, safer streets, protecting communities, and justice that truly serves the people. It represents a forward-thinking, balanced approach to law and order and public safety. It provides our police with the powers they need to combat crime, supports our justice system to deliver fair and effective sentences, promotes greater community engagement and, most importantly, ensures that victims of crime and our communities receive the care and protection they deserve. \p Callum Anderson: I am pleased to support the Bill, which will be welcomed in urban and rural communities across Buckingham and Bletchley. Given the time constraints, I will focus my remarks on part 3, on the protection of retail workers.

I have a particular interest in Britain’s 3.5 million retail workers, not least because my mum is one of them, having worked on the shop floor at Morrisons for over 20 years. During that time, she has seen it all—the good, the bad and the ugly. In my conversations with her, particularly over the last decade, two themes have become much more prevalent, and they have already been raised by Members on both sides of the House.

The first theme is the increasingly casual and habitual nature of shoplifting and other retail crime. Data from the British Retail Consortium suggests that this is already costing businesses across the country more than £2 billion a year. In the Thames Valley police area, retail crime rose by over a third between April 2023 and February 2024. This year alone, the Co-op store in Winslow has faced two violent raids aiming to remove its cash machine. This is not just petty crime; too often, it is organised. It is this kind of emboldened criminality that must be stopped. Such activity is not just a blot on a company’s balance sheet; it punishes good-faith customers and demoralises the workers, who take pride in the work  that they do. That is why I welcome the repeal of section 176 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, to finally call time on Britain’s open invitation to criminals to steal goods worth £200 or less.

Secondly, I want to touch on the growing occurrence of abuse and the threat of violence faced by too many shop workers in their workplace. In a 2024 survey of USDAW members, more than two thirds of retail workers revealed they had been verbally abused, almost half had been threatened, and one in five had been physically assaulted while doing their job. That is clearly totally intolerable. Nobody in this country should go to work fearing for their own physical safety. I believe that we in this House, with our security guards and our armed police, have a particular duty to ensure that those who work in our shops feel just as safe as we do. \p Clive Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Callum Anderson: I will not, just because there is so little time and too many people want to speak.

That is why the Bill’s introduction of the new offence of assaulting a retail worker is so important. It is also why I welcome the new respect orders, which will give the courts the power to ban repeat offenders from retail premises. Ultimately, this is a Bill that delivers for retail workers and ensures they are given the respect and dignity they deserve. That is why I will be supporting it tonight. \p Sarah Hall: I begin by declaring an interest: I am proud to be married to a serving Cheshire police officer.

In the year ending September 2024, there were 1 million incidents of antisocial behaviour, 490,000 shop theft offences and more than 55,000 knife or sharp instrument offences. Those are not just numbers; they are real people, real businesses and real communities who were let down by the previous Government.

In my constituency, Cheshire police officers continue to go above and beyond. Day in, day out, they put themselves on the line to protect us, despite rising demand and the failure of the previous Government to support them. I thank them for their dedication, service and unwavering commitment to keeping my constituency, towns and villages safe.

Cheshire police has led the way in tackling some of the key issues that we are discussing today. In February, the force received praise following an inspection by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which commended it

“on its excellent performance in keeping people safe, reducing crime and giving victims an effective service.”

I am in no doubt that that success is down to the leadership of Chief Constable Mark Roberts and the hard work of Cheshire police officers, staff and volunteers.

I welcome the tough new actions against perpetrators of stalking. The Bill takes a range of new measures to strengthen enforcement and better protect victims, such as making it easier for courts to issue stalking protection orders, introducing a new offence of spiking, and improving information sharing with victims. I pay tribute to Cheshire police’s Detective Sergeant David Thomason for his many years of work in this area, including the creation of Cheshire’s anti-stalking unit, which sees police, mental  health professionals, outreach workers and victim advocates working together to protect victims of stalking and give them enhanced support, as well as to tackle the behaviour of stalkers and the root causes of their offending. DS Thomason has long been a leading advocate in this area, and I am delighted to see the Government give stalking the attention it rightly deserves.

The theme of this year’s National Stalking Awareness Week is “Health response: spotting stalking”. Like other forms of violence against women and girls, stalking is a public health issue and requires a whole-system approach. Through training, guidance and improved referral pathways, the goal is to support the healthcare sector and ensure that no victims of stalking fall through the gaps. Will the Minister say what action is being taken to ensure collaborative working with healthcare colleagues and the delivery of a whole-system approach?

As a member of USDAW and a Labour and Co-operative MP, I also welcome the new offence of assaulting a retail worker, which will give workers in shops up and down the country the protection they need. This is an area I have long campaigned in. I have spoken to many retail workers in my constituency, including at the local Co-op store in Latchford, where I heard about the devastating impact that assault and abuse have had on their lives. For too long, retail staff have been working in fear of the next incident of abuse, threat or violence, and the Bill provides a great opportunity to make a real difference to the retail industry and to workers’ lives.

This Labour Government are delivering where the Conservatives failed. This is a Bill that takes crime seriously. It is a Bill to rebuild public confidence, make our streets safer and give our police the power, support and resources they need to protect our communities. \p Linsey Farnsworth: The 317 pages of the Bill make satisfying reading for this former Crown prosecutor—satisfying because I know it is packed full of measures that will make the streets safer for my constituents. Amber Valley is a brilliant place to live, but sadly it is not without incidents of antisocial behaviour. That is an important issue to my constituents, which is why I will focus what little time I have this evening on part 1 of the Bill.

I have heard the concerns of residents in our towns and villages about cars and off-road bikes being driven in an antisocial manner. I have listened to the frustrations of police officers, who explain to me how they are hamstrung, unable to do anything but issue warnings. The Labour-controlled borough council has made good use of the public spaces protection orders available to it, including by issuing fines for car cruising across Amber Valley and dispersing troublemakers in Heanor marketplace. The Bill will mean that troublemakers can be dispersed for longer and that the police will finally have the power to immediately seize and crush their cars and bikes, giving residents confidence that the police will, at long last, have the tools they need to crack down on such antisocial behaviour.

Antisocial behaviour comes in many forms and is often a legacy of Tory austerity. Youth provision has been drastically cut back by Conservative-controlled Derbyshire county council. Youth services are a crucial  pillar in Amber Valley, linking young people with the wider community and the neighbourhood police, as I saw recently at the Railway Carriage in Ironville. This environment helps to steer young people away from choosing crime. This Labour Government understand that we need to give our young people chances, which is why, alongside the Bill, we are working at pace towards our opportunity mission, providing more apprenticeships and skilled jobs for our young people.

We know that antisocial behaviour is often committed by a small number of repeat offenders, young and older alike. The Bill will make it possible for individuals who persistently commit antisocial behaviour to be made subject to a respect order without waiting for them to be convicted of a criminal offence, thus speeding up the response, not least because it will avoid the huge backlogs in the Crown courts that we inherited from the Tories.

We must not forget that people who repeatedly act in an antisocial manner often have underlying issues or trauma driving their behaviour. Whether with alcohol awareness classes for those who persistently drink and are aggressive in our parks, or drug treatment orders for those who steal to fund their habit, these tough new orders will tackle the root causes of such behaviour. The 13,000 additional police officers and respect orders are central to our safer streets mission, but the orders will work only if the resources are available to support offenders to deal with their issues and change their behaviour, and I urge the Government to ensure that such provision is in place.

Antisocial behaviour is often described as low-level crime, but it does not feel low level to the people who have to endure it. The people of Amber Valley can be confident that this Government have acted on their concerns and that the antisocial behaviour will be stopped. I wholeheartedly support the Bill. \p Leigh Ingham: I speak in full support of the Bill, which is a crucial piece of legislation that will help to deliver on the Government’s safer streets mission. I was incredibly proud to stand on a platform of securing the safety of my constituents. It is the first responsibility of any Government to keep their communities safe, whether nationally or internationally. Our communities deserve safety, security and respect.

Too often, antisocial behaviour, violent crime and lawlessness undermine the very fabric of our society. I have seen that recently in Wildwood and Highfields and Western Downs in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, where confidence in public services has been eroded by antisocial behaviour. The Bill takes decisive action to restore public confidence in policing and protect those most vulnerable to crime.

The Bill strengthens police powers to tackle persistent offenders, introducing respect orders to hold perpetrators accountable and removing the bureaucratic barriers that delay much-needed enforcement. Whether it is vandalism or the reckless use of vehicles, our response must be swift and effective.

Furthermore, we cannot discuss crime prevention without addressing our duty to young people. Too many of our youth are drawn into criminal activity, whether through exploitation, gang violence or knife crime. Blame is often put in the wrong place; we need to tackle the adults who exploit those young people. The Bill introduces  tougher measures to combat child criminal exploitation, ensuring that those who manipulate and abuse young people face the full force of the law.

At the same time, we must invest in preventive measures —education, youth services and intervention programmes that divert young people away from crime and towards opportunity. In my professional career, I worked with children and young people, and I know how amazing they are when they are given a chance. The Government will make sure that no children are left behind.

Another key pillar of the Bill is community policing. Our police officers do an extraordinary job under immense pressure, yet public confidence has eroded. The Bill equips our police with the tools they need—greater powers to tackle serious crime, retail theft and violent offenders—while ensuring robust accountability. By supporting our frontline officers, we send a clear message that law and order remain at the heart of our national priorities.

I was particularly pleased to see the named police officer guarantee, as my constituents in rural villages and settlements often tell me that they struggle to feel connected to the police, with long waits for their calls and a lack of oversight or regular patrols in their area. That is why I recently asked the Home Office in oral questions whether rural communities such as Tyrley in my constituency would receive the named police officer guarantee; I was delighted that the Policing Minister confirmed that they would. The Government are committed to delivering the safety for rural communities that we so desperately need.

The Bill protects victims, punishes criminals and strengthens the foundations of a safer society. It ensures that our high streets, our towns and villages, and our homes are protected from those who seek to harm or exploit. I urge hon. Members to support it in delivering justice, security and respect for all. \p Ruth Jones: I speak in support of the Bill, not just because it is the biggest package of measures on crime and policing for decades, with 50 new laws to cut crime and make our streets safer, but because those new measures will tackle antisocial behaviour, shop theft and street crime head on by giving the police and our communities new powers to take back town and city centres, such as Newport, from thugs and thieves. Those are great reasons to welcome the Bill, but I also welcome it because it contains some of my own work.

Last year, I introduced my first private Member’s Bill to the House: the Community and Suspended Sentences (Notification of Details) Bill, which sought to amend the 2020 sentencing code to create a duty on offenders to notify the responsible officer of any change of name or contact details if they are sentenced to a community order, a suspended sentence order, a youth rehabilitation order or a referral order. Too often, at the moment, such offenders are able to change their names and slip under the radar to avoid scrutiny, and potentially go on to reoffend. Chapter 4 of part 5 of the Bill means that my private Member’s Bill has been noted and incorporated into the legislation. I am pleased that the Government are committed to utilising good ideas from all areas, including the Back Benches.

I do not wish to praise only the elements of the Bill that I contributed to, because it will seek to address some other serious issues. I particularly welcome the introduction of respect orders to stamp out issues such as public drinking and drug use. That will be particularly welcome in Cross Keys in my constituency, where residents’ lives are blighted by such antisocial behaviour outside their homes and along the canal—a natural beauty spot that is also suffering from individuals drinking and taking drugs during the day in full view of passersby.

Another issue that affects my constituents is off-road biking, which is dangerous and causes a great deal of damage to our beautiful countryside. I welcome the police’s new powers as a result of the Bill to seize vehicles and to stop off-road biking and the dangerous use of e-scooters on pavements. Removing the need for police to issue a warning before seizing off road bikes and e-scooters is particularly welcome, and great news for the people of Argoed and those living near Mynydd Maen in my constituency.

I must also mention the need to protect shop workers, because shop staff are a particularly targeted and vulnerable group. In introducing the new offence of assaulting a retail worker, the Government are showing that they are serious about tackling issues in communities to take back our shops and streets by confronting violence and antisocial behaviour head on.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on safeguarding in faith communities, I am also pleased to see a new duty in England for adults working in relevant activities to report instances of child sexual abuse, as already mentioned. The Government are working hard to implement the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, after years of inaction by the previous Government.

Finally, I am also pleased to see the new offence for spiking, which is predominantly an offence committed by men against women. Violence against women and girls is endemic in our society, and we need to take it seriously and tackle it directly. I am sad to say that that has not always been the case. There have been some solid campaigns, such as StopTopps, but placing the emphasis on the potential victim cannot solve the issue. The Bill makes a difference, and I thank the Front-Bench team for their diligence in bringing it forward. I could go on, but I am mindful of time and the need to get other speakers in, so I close by welcoming the Bill and urging all those involved to get it through the necessary stages and on to the statute book as quickly as possible. \p David Baines: On Friday, I attended an event organised by Age UK Mid Mersey at the Mansion House in Windle in my constituency, taking questions from service users and volunteers. It was no surprise to me that crime and policing, and specifically the threat of antisocial behaviour, was raised by those present. Older people told me that they were scared to leave their home, especially after dark. For their sake, and for all those in our communities, we need to take our streets back. The Bill is a step towards doing that.

Many of the Bill’s welcome measures are aimed at tackling what, for too long and by too many, has been thought of as low-level crime. Antisocial behaviour,  whether public drinking, drug use, vandalism or off-road bikes tearing up sports pitches and parks, is completely unacceptable. It blights our communities and can ruin lives. People in St Helens North have great pride in where they live, but that has been tested too often by a mindless minority.

In recent weeks in Blackbrook, I have heard reports of some young people targeting buses and shops with objects, even causing some buses to be diverted. They are a minority, and I know most young people will be just as appalled by that sort of behaviour as most people of any age, but it is totally unacceptable. The introduction of respect orders will help to address some of that by targeting repeat offenders and ensuring that they face real consequences. Most of all, restoring neighbourhood policing will send a message that we will not stand for it.

Another crime that for too long has been seen as low level and has been effectively decriminalised is shoplifting. My mum was a shop worker, working in what was then the Co-op on West End Road in Blackbrook. She regularly encountered shoplifting—and, I am sad to say, much worse. She was assaulted at work, as were many other women she worked with. When it comes to violence against shop workers, we need the police and businesses to take every possible step to protect workers and customers, and to punish those responsible. I strongly welcome the proposals in the Bill.

People in St Helens North deserve and demand to feel safe. The Bill contains many steps in the right direction to ensure that crime does not dictate the way that we live our lives, and that those responsible face the consequences of their irresponsible actions. Our police must have the resources and the powers to tackle antisocial behaviour and violent crime—both prevention and punishment. It is about protecting our communities and ensuring that they are places to live, work and raise a family in peace. That is all most of us want, and we need to deliver it. \p David Smith: I rise to support the Bill, much of which is fulfilling Labour’s mission to make our streets safer by dealing with what sometimes is called low-level criminality but, in reality, are crimes that make people feel unsafe in their own community. Whether shoplifting, public drug and alcohol abuse, online harms or antisocial behaviour, law breaking must always be dealt with and never ignored.

I warmly acknowledge, in particular, the proposed changes to the law on retail crime. Sadly, law breaking is commonplace in retail. Many years ago, when I was a student working at a clothing shop in the centre of Glasgow, my colleagues and I had to deal with threats, intimidation and even the prospect of being stabbed with needles. I have seen at first hand how that kind of intimidation can affect people in their working environment. I went to the Co-op in Morpeth in my constituency recently, where I heard from USDAW colleagues and Co-op staff that the situation facing retail workers has only become worse, with workers at times facing industrial levels of shoplifting and threats of physical harm. That is why I welcome the removal of the Tories’ de facto £200 floor on shoplifting prosecution, as well as the new offence of assaulting a retail worker. As hon. Members have said, no one should have to fear for their safety in order to make a living.

However, I would welcome assurances from the Minister about some of the processes outlined for the new respect orders. The Bill defines antisocial behaviour as

“conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person”.

I ran a homelessness charity, and I can envisage a possible scenario in which a tenant with the potential to be troublesome is issued with a respect order that would bar them from entering the tower block in which they live. Let us imagine that they do not have alternative accommodation, so they enter the flat anyway. Upon doing so, they could be arrested, charged, put on trial and issued with a prison term. This hypothetical tenant may not be a saint, but it would be a surreal outcome in which a criminal is made out of someone who is simply trying to go home. I would appreciate some alleviation of my concerns on this matter.

Sticking with antisocial behaviour, I also know from my time working in homelessness that, alongside law and order, we need other tools to help those with multiple and complex needs. A Northumbria University research report that I commissioned in 2022 demonstrated that 94% of those facing homelessness have experienced serious trauma during their lives. That trauma underlies the often chaotic and unpleasant behaviours that we see in our towns and cities. Some of those who are causing misery to others are themselves deeply traumatised by the abuse, violence and neglect that they have experienced or continue to experience.

We should remember that being homeless itself is a trauma. We can most successfully address that behaviour by taking a trauma-informed approach and by offering appropriate support services. It is not about being soft—crime is crime—but if we genuinely want to stop the cycle of offending, we need multiple options at our disposal, including supportive options. When we witness antisocial behaviour, we should of course firmly say, “You must not do that or there will be consequences.” But we should also ask, “What happened to you that led you to this point in your life?”

Even as we pursue a much-needed focus on antisocial behaviour and crime, I would welcome clarification that traumatised people who are often stuck in a loop of failed systems will receive the support that they need. The Bill will do a lot of good, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to put my concerns to rest. \p Lizzi Collinge: The measures in this Bill are very much needed by my constituents. One of the first pieces of casework I dealt with as an MP was of young children riding recklessly around on small motorbikes with no helmets. My constituent Helen was at her wits’ end with the dreadful noise and the fear that one of the children or a passing pedestrian might get hurt. I recently asked for an update, and her husband Malcolm told me that although there has been some relief recently, they are concerned that the lighter nights will bring more problems. What frustrates them is the wait for a police response.

Recently in Morecambe we had a gang of lads causing havoc on the Branksome estate. Following reports of them threatening people and causing damage, the police gave chase and seized one of the bikes. Earlier that day, a town centre playground was taken over by people on bikes, with reports that they were being “purposefully  menacing” and that their bikes had damaged the grassy area near the playground. It was simply luck that no one was hurt.

In Morecambe, local organisations are coming together to tackle the menace of antisocial behaviour. The Safe Morecambe initiative—which brings together Morecambe police, the Morecambe business improvement district, the city council, the town council and other key stakeholders—was formed last November. Its members collaborate to ensure a safe and welcoming environment for residents, businesses and visitors. I met one of them, Tim Barbary, to discuss the coalition, and I will continue to support them, including by supporting the continuation of Operation Centurion, for which I am glad to say that funding has continued.

Our high street in Morecambe has also been badly affected by theft. The Conservatives wrote off a lot of this as low-level, but it is not. Certain parts of Morecambe and some rural areas have suffered terribly with fly-tipping. I am glad to see all these issues covered in the Bill, and that the Labour Government are focused on the issues that matter to my constituents. The Bill will make it easier to seize bikes and scooters that are being used antisocially. It will enable stronger action on all types of antisocial behaviour. It will provide for statutory guidance on fly-tipping and an extra 13,000 police officers on the ground.

Finally, I would like to flag the decimation of youth services under the last Conservative Government, which has meant that so many young people, especially those struggling without strong family role models, have been left not only to be sucked into the grip of antisocial behaviour but in many cases to be groomed into far more serious criminality. I have already expressed interest in my constituency becoming a pilot area for the national youth strategy programme, as I believe that good youth services not only ensure that young people are able to reach their potential, but have a wider knock-on effect on our constituencies.

All in all, I am very pleased that this Labour Government are taking the concerns of my constituents in Morecambe and Lunesdale seriously, taking strong action to tackle the blight of the misuse of bikes and scooters, taking theft on our high streets seriously again, getting tough on fly-tippers and clamping down on the wider antisocial behaviour that we see in our constituencies. \p Pam Cox: I am pleased to speak in support of the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill, the most comprehensive package of such measures that we have seen for decades. As a member of the Justice Committee, I know that it will play a crucial part in tackling the serious violence and high-harm offences that have plagued our communities for far too long.

I will focus my contribution on knife crime. In my own constituency we have seen at first hand the impact of knife crime on our streets and the fear that local people feel as a result. However, we are also witnessing some remarkable local initiatives that are making a real difference in our fight against it. Last year, the Knife Angel, a 27-foot-tall sculpture made from over 100,000 seized knives, visited Colchester. It was a powerful  symbol of our city’s commitment to tackling knife crime. Standing underneath our iconic Jumbo water tower, the Knife Angel serves as a poignant reminder of the lives lost and the urgent need for action. It brought our community together, fostering the shared determination to address this issue head on. I pay tribute to the Daily Gazette in Colchester for its campaign that ran alongside that striking exhibit.

I also pay tribute to the work of Essex police in tackling knife crime. Its violence and vulnerability unit brings together partners from across the county. It uses data evaluation, targeted interventions and communication campaigns to support young people to stay safe and to keep them away from the exploitation and vulnerabilities that can draw them into crime, as we have heard so many Members talk about today.

Finally, let me highlight the incredible work of a man named Peter Dutch and the ALB—the anti loo roll brigade—in Colchester. On another occasion I will happily explain the story behind that name. It has been pivotal in recent months in diverting young people away from trouble and is building local alliances to provide counselling, youth projects and other positive alternatives to crime. These local initiatives in Colchester exemplify the kind of community-driven efforts that are essential for tackling knife crime. The Bill will provide the necessary national tools that we also need to amplify those efforts and make our streets safer. I urge Members across the House—there are not so many on the Opposition Benches right now—to join me in supporting the Bill. \p Lee Pitcher: Ensuring the safety and security of our communities is one of the most fundamental duties of government. When that duty is neglected, the consequences are real, widespread and deeply felt by everyone—especially the most vulnerable in our society. In recent years, that neglect has reached the point where local authorities such as Doncaster city council have had to step in to take up the slack. I recognise the work it has done, which has included funding additional police and expanding CCTV networks to support the police in their work.

From walkarounds with the police, councillors and businesses in areas such as Thorne, I know the impact that rampant crime is having on our high streets and town centres. Shop owners and workers feel under constant fear of attack. That is wrong. That is not good enough for the people of Thorne, not good enough for the people of Doncaster East and definitely not good enough for the people of the Isle of Axholme. I am proud to be part of a Government who will clean up our streets and rid them from the thieves and the thugs.

I am glad to see that, with the Bill, the Government are taking antisocial behaviour seriously. It is too easy to write off ASB as nuisance or annoyance, but it is very much more than that. Continual antisocial behaviour can go on for months or even years, making people’s lives miserable. It was described to me at a recent surgery as a “living torture”. The introduction of respect orders is a welcome addition to the tools available to authorities to tackle persistent antisocial behaviour and take strong preventive action. I particularly welcome the provisions in the Bill that will allow for the instant seizure of motorbikes without the need for previous warnings.

Like many of my hon. Friends, I represent a rural area. I know from speaking to farmers in the Isle of Axholme how unsafe they can feel when they know that help is a long way off. I have heard from farmers in Hatfield about the attacks on animals that they have suffered from recently. The new powers in the Bill to track stolen farm equipment will help both to deter criminals and to stop them in their tracks before they can profit from their crimes. I ask the Government to keep in mind as the Bill progresses through Parliament how those ambitions will be successful in a rural context.

Finally, I turn to fly-tipping. Every part of my constituency suffers from fly-tipping, which is often done by organised professional groups making money by passing themselves off as legitimate waste removal companies. They will stop fly-tipping only when it stops being profitable for them. A boost to the use of powers to seize vehicles linked to fly-tipping and to issue fixed penalty notices for fly-tippers is a good step in the right direction and certainly very welcome. At home, at work and at leisure, my constituents in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme should feel safe and be safe 24/7. For that reason, I hope that every hon. Member in the House will join me in voting for the Bill tonight. \p Emily Darlington: I pay tribute to all the amazing speeches we have heard from Labour Members. It can be seen from how many of us are still here, hours into the debate—in contrast to the Opposition—how seriously the Government and the Labour party take law and order. I absolutely agree with all those speeches, but because of time I will focus on violence against women and girls.

Women in Milton Keynes are scared of going out, scared of going to the police and scared of going home, which is still the most dangerous place for a woman. Violence against women and girls slowly became consequence-free under the previous Government. Under the Conservatives, only 2% to 4% of reported rapes ever made it to trial. Convictions for domestic abuse halved under the Conservatives, and femicides, of which there have been 95, including two in my own constituency over Christmas, have continued to happen and not been taken seriously enough.

I am really proud of the Bill’s and the Government’s commitment to protect women and girls and halve violence against women and girls. I pay tribute to the Milton Keynes portion of Thames Valley police, who have been central to ensuring that Milton Keynes becomes the first white ribbon city, despite the Conservative police and crime commissioner,

I want to talk about stalking and how important our measures are on that. If I had had time, I would have shared my own story of how I was stalked. My stalking happened in person, but more and more of it is happening online. I am interested in hearing from the Minister about how the Bill will help to tackle that.

Spiking unfortunately continues to rise. Just two weeks ago, a young woman in my constituency approached me after being spiked at a Slug and Lettuce on her 20th birthday —she ended up in hospital. We have talked a lot about measures to protect women from being spiked, but what are we doing to tackle the availability of the drugs used in spiking?

Finally, I want to talk about being online. Hon. Members on the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee will have heard the weak and disappointing answers from representatives of the major social media firms which are using the umbrella of “freedom of speech” to allow threats to women in online spaces to continue. They are also using that to spread pretty radical pornography. I want to understand how the Bill will fit with the cross-Government plans to tackle violence against women and girls.

In my last few seconds, I will highlight two laws that are still on the statute book that I would like the Bill to repeal: the Abortion Act 1861, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi); and the Vagrancy Act 1824. Both of them target the most vulnerable in our society and should be repealed. \p Danny Beales: Crime and antisocial behaviour affect the whole community in which they take place. They erode social cohesion, trust and pride in a place, driving people away from our town centres and making them feel insecure in their own streets and workplaces and even in their own homes. I am therefore pleased to speak in support of the Crime and Policing Bill, which is the largest package of measures on crime and policing for decades.

Crime and antisocial behaviour increased under the previous Government, despite what the shadow Home Secretary said. The reality is known by my constituents. In the year ending September 2024, the Home Office recorded the highest ever increase in shoplifting offences. USDAW found that one in five shop workers had been physically assaulted in a year. Instances of theft from a person increased by 22%. In my community of Uxbridge and South Ruislip, I have heard from many constituents who are worried about rising levels of crime—knife crime, shoplifting, burglary, phone theft and car theft, to name but a few. On Sunday alone, 21 constituents wrote to me to share their concerns about burglary in South Ruislip. The news is deeply distressing to my constituents, many of whom feel unsafe in their own homes and believe that the police do not have the resources needed to protect them. That simply cannot go on.

Increases in antisocial behaviour are a symptom of a society in distress. Far too often it was dismissed by the last Government as low-level crime—they were unwilling and unable to act. I welcome the measures in the Bill to introduce respect orders on the worst offenders, banning persistent offenders from our town centres. That is welcome news for many of my constituents who have contacted me about such activities in Uxbridge town centre and Yiewsley high street.

Critically, the Bill will also keep my constituents safe and protect them from armed burglary. It will create a new power for the police to seize, retain and destroy bladed articles and create a new criminal offence of possessing a bladed article with the intent to cause harm. It will also ban the possession and distribution of electronic devices, which are far too often used in vehicle theft, and create a new targeted power for the police to enter premises and search and seize electronically tracked stolen goods, from mobile phones to stolen vehicles, ending the terrible situation that my constituents have  reported where they can track their stolen phone or electronic item but the police are unable to go in and get it. I hope, too, that we will look at international vehicle crime and tougher measures at our ports, to stop the rapid removal from the country of stolen vehicles.

As well as tough laws, the police must also have the resources they need to apply them and a return to proactive neighbourhood policing. Although the uplift in police funding, including to London police forces, in the last year, is incredibly welcome, significant pressures on London policing remain, so I hope we can continue in this Parliament to increase the resources of the Metropolitan police. Unfortunately, my predecessor, while Mayor of London, closed a number of police stations and police counters. I welcome the present Mayor of London’s commitment to keep Uxbridge police station open, and I hope we can work together to reopen the front counter and the custody suite.

I strongly support this Bill and the new measures and increased police powers, along with the uplift in funding already agreed by this new Government. These measures will help to restore trust in the police and improve the safety of my constituents, and I wholeheartedly support them. \p Mary Foy: This Bill presents an opportunity to confront the challenges facing our communities, protect the most vulnerable and ensure that justice serves everyone. I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling violence against women and girls, to tackling antisocial behaviour and to halving knife crime. This is a positive step forward, strengthening protections for the public and addressing some of the damaging policies of the previous Government. I must therefore turn my attention to the impact of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

In its rush to extend police powers, this legislation has had a devastating effect on Gypsy and Traveller communities. The Act introduced a new criminal offence related to trespass, and granted sweeping powers to ban those communities from areas for up to 12 months, as well as powers to fine, arrest, imprison and seize the homes of Gypsies and Travellers. Under these provisions, sanctions can be enforced based on damage, disruption or distress, often rooted in subjective perceptions of harm. This means that entire communities could face eviction or banishment from areas, with little regard for the cultural context or the lack of alternative places to settle.

These measures are a grave injustice and an affront to the rights and dignity of those who follow centuries-old ways of life. It is concerning that, in the supposed pursuit of law and order, the previous Government overlooked fundamental human rights protections. I must stress that the impact of these measures is not theoretical; it is real and it is being lived. It is affecting families, children and entire communities. Human rights bodies have raised their concerns. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in its formal recommendation, has called for the repeal of the provisions in question and, importantly, the High Court, in its ruling in 2024, found that certain provisions  in the Act were incompatible with the European convention on human rights. This Parliament has a duty to address these human rights violations and to correct the injustices done.

The Crime and Policing Bill offers us the opportunity to right the wrongs of the past, to restore fairness and to ensure that we have laws that respect the rights of all people, regardless of their heritage or way of life. This Bill could be the means by which we address the discrimination faced by Gypsies and Travellers. We need bold action to ensure that their traditions are protected. All people and all communities have the right to fair treatment. If we really want to stand for justice and human dignity, that must apply to all, so as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, I urge the Government to undo the harm of the previous legislation. Let us stand for equality under the law and protection for all who live in the United Kingdom. \p Tracy Gilbert: I declare an interest as a member and former employee of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I welcome the Bill brought forward by the Government. I want to discuss three broad areas: antisocial behaviour; retail crime; and measures to end commercial sexual exploitation.

Antisocial behaviour has been an increasing concern for my constituents in Edinburgh North and Leith. Over the past few months, they have relayed to me their concerns over a group of young people who have been dubbed the “baby gang”. Their name might not seem threatening, but their actions are. The actions of the “baby gang” have alarmed my constituents and made them afraid. The tragedy is that many of the gang members are only in their mid-teens. During the general election campaign, constituents told me repeatedly how they were fed up with off-road bikes being used in parks and on pavements. That is why I am so pleased to see that the Bill will include provisions to tackle not only antisocial behaviour but the use of off-road motorbikes used in this manner. These issues are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so I hope that the Scottish Government —although they are not represented here tonight—will look closely at these measures.

On retail crime, I congratulate the Government on the measures in the Bill to tackle the unacceptable attacks and assaults on shop workers. The provisions in part 3 of the Bill replicate legislation that has already been brought forward by a Member of the Scottish Parliament, my colleague Daniel Johnson MSP, when he secured the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021. We are beginning to see the positive impact of the legislation and the effects it has had in shops and supermarkets across Scotland, which is evidenced in the data. In USDAW’s latest Freedom from Fear research, 77% of shop workers across the UK reported abuse, 53% reported being threatened and 10% reported being assaulted. The data from Scotland is lower, demonstrating that within only a few years the introduction of a specific crime is helping to create a safer working environment for shop workers. I am proud that this Bill will extend this protection, because protection at work should not be limited by postcodes.

The Bill has no specific measures to reduce prostitution or sex trafficking. In 2023, the Home Affairs Committee found that legislation was needed in this area, as a report from the inquiry on human trafficking found that the collaboration between the National Crime Agency and the Home Office on pimping websites had produced no evidence of improvement. I believe that the Bill should go further in tackling this exploitation. It could afford the Government the opportunity to take the actions required to reduce demand and to tackle pimping websites. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister whether the Government would look favourably on amendments that seek to make profiting from the prostitution of another person a criminal offence. This Bill will go a long way in reducing crime, and I hope that when we next consider it in this place, it will contain measures that reduce the commercial exploitation of women. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: Antisocial behaviour ruins lives. On Friday, I held an event at the Field Lane estate in Calder Valley, the first in a series of events across my constituency to listen to members of the community about antisocial behaviour, and their stories were heartbreaking. Families are being terrorised by problem residents, children are scared to go to school and residents fear for their property and personal safety. All the while, people have no trust that making reports to the police will bring an end to the fear their families are facing. Sadly, this lack of trust became all too common a feature in communities under the last Government. They know that, no matter how many reports they make or how much evidence they have, the police will either not turn up or turn up late and then not take people seriously, after the last Government hollowed out our policing services. \p Phil Brickell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital for Members from the previous Government to be here to listen to the testimonies of our constituents about how the last Government failed them on so many facets of tackling crime? \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: I absolutely agree that the last Government failed people on tackling crime, particularly due to its hollowing out of the police. Indeed, in West Yorkshire alone, within just six years of the Conservatives taking office, over 1,200 police officers had been let go, and 1,000 of those were in frontline roles, leaving their numbers even more depleted than the Opposition Benches. When the numbers rose back again, it was just not the same because the previous Government failed to recognise that police are more than just a number on a spreadsheet. They got rid of 1,200 officers who knew their communities, who added local intelligence and understanding of the local nuances, and who had experience supporting those neighbourhoods. We lost the heart of neighbourhood-based policing—the best tool to combat antisocial behaviour—and one of the best reassurances that evidence can have. The lack of local knowledge is why we have seen over 3,000 reports of antisocial behaviour in Calder Valley in three years, ruining lives. The lack of trust in police is why I know that so many more incidents simply go unreported.

After 14 years of the last Conservative Government allowing antisocial behaviour and other crime to grow unchecked, I am proud that this Labour Government are restoring respect for law and order, standing with  and bringing communities and police closer together, with named officers in every community, backed by £2 million of funding to kickstart recruitment for the new neighbourhood police officers. The Government will end the impunity that criminals feel they can operate under by giving officers stronger powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, violent crime and persistent offenders who make people’s lives a misery. Against a backdrop of the lack of trust in our police service that was allowed to fester over 14 years, this Bill is an important step in the process of rebuilding trust and confidence and why, on behalf of my constituents from Calder Valley, who have suffered because of antisocial behaviour, I am backing the Bill to take action today. \p Josh Simons: In Ashton, Orrell, Platt Bridge, Hindley and Hindley Green, one issue dominates life for so many: antisocial behaviour. For months, I have been promising my constituents the measures in the Bill, and I thank the Home Office team for the hard work required to bring it to the House so quickly. To my mind, the Bill is one of the strongest examples of this Labour Government delivering for working people on the issues they care about.

The Bill takes tough action against serious crime—drugs, knife crime and terrorism—but I want to talk about a different, more everyday type of crime. These are the crimes that make life demoralising and sometimes frightening for many people, and that shape how people feel about their town centre, community and security. It is the fly-tipping in Bickershaw that makes parents stop their kids playing outside. It is teenagers throwing mud at cars in Hindley, and groups intimidating people by the shops in Winstanley.

Some of the toughest calls I have received in this job have been people ringing to tell me that thugs have destroyed a local sports club: Ashton Town—an arson attack—Hindley FC, and Wigan Cosmos, as well as St Jude’s pitches being destroyed in minutes by vandals on dirt bikes. Those clubs are great community assets where kids that I represent learn to become Wigan Warriors, or the elderly play walking football—places where people feel pride in their communities. I have supported fundraisers to help those clubs, working with local councillors and Warriors players to help St Jude’s build a fence to keep the bikes out, but local residents should not have to reach into their already stretched pockets. Our streets should not feel so unsafe that people resort to self-protection. We are one of the world’s largest economies and greatest democracies. That is why I welcome the measures in the Bill, such as new powers to seize bikes that wake people up at night, as they did to me this Saturday. Every time one of those bikes tears past me in the town centre, I hold on to my kids that bit tighter.

The Bill matters because it is about standing up for the good, hard-working people who love their towns and want to feel pride in them again. It is about what it means to feel respect for those who we stand by and live near, and it shows that the Labour Government will not tolerate those who make others’ lives a misery.

The respect orders, for example, are wisely named, because vandalism, thuggery and mindless destruction are about a lack of respect for our public spaces and for each other. The Bill empowers groups in society—police,  councils, housing associations—with restoring that respect, asking them to say, “Enough is enough” and to take control of their communities.

I want to make a wider point about respect in our society. Often when I am travelling on the bus or train, someone is playing videos loudly on their phone without headphones. That is not illegal, but it is off-putting, because it forces whatever that person is doing on to everyone else, as if they somehow own our shared public space. It demonstrates a lack of respect for our public realm and for those around us.

In the end, the strength of our communities and our country depends on the respect, and even the love, we have for one other. That is what resilience is in a community. Over the last 14 years, the Conservative Government have allowed that respect to erode. Too many no longer trust that the law will be upheld and applied equally and fairly to everyone, and that erodes people’s trust in one another. That is why antisocial behaviour is significant: it is about treating one another with a lack of respect, as if we do not care about the things we have in common. Only by rebuilding and reinvesting in our public realm, and restoring the strength and integrity of institutions such as the police, will we rebuild that respect and trust.

The Bill takes a vital step. It shows that we stand with law-abiding, hard-working people. It sends a strong message to those who fail to recognise their responsibility. Respect must return to our streets, and this Bill will start to make that happen. \p Jessica Toale: I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the whole ministerial team for bringing forward the Bill and making significant progress on our mission to make our streets safer.

I want to cover three areas in which we promised change and we are delivering. The first is antisocial behaviour. We have heard much about it from across the House today, but it continues to blight my town centre. I hear time and again from constituents in Bournemouth West about how unsafe they feel, and antisocial behaviour is reportedly turning potential retailers away from the town centre. It is not just a question of low-level inconvenience; it is a matter of people’s everyday quality of life and the economic health of our towns. The rise in street crime and shoplifting, and the persistent nuisance, has made many people feel that they cannot enjoy the place they live in the way they used to.

I have spoken to retail workers and bosses from the Co-op and other retailers, who have had to deal over and over again with the same people coming into their stores, sweeping stock from the shelves and putting their staff at risk. The Conservatives should be ashamed of that record. After 14 years, our communities have been left vulnerable, and an epidemic of crime and antisocial behaviour has been ignored for far too long. We are taking action where the last Government failed to by removing the £200 shoplifting threshold, introducing 13,000 neighbourhood police officers and increasing police funding—including 6.5% more for Dorset police—and introducing respect orders, which will give police  and local authorities new powers to tackle the worst offenders and prevent them from entering our towns and district centres.

Like many others, I also welcome the steps in the Bill to immediately seize those awful off-road bikes and dangerous scooters that cause such a nuisance, in particular up Kinson Road and Leybourne Avenue in my constituency. Students at Bishop Aldhelm’s primary school told me this morning that those nuisance bikes are destroying our woodlands and protected heathland.

Secondly, the Bill addresses serious crime and violence, such as knife crime. We see knife crime far too often in Bournemouth. Less than two weeks ago, there was a brutal double stabbing, and it was one in a long line of horrific attacks, including three fatalities in the past two years. I welcome the work this Government are doing to prevent such attacks with the creation of new offences, but despite the collaborative work of the police, the council and local charities, I also want to see a violence reduction unit in my local area.

The Bill is not just about punishing offenders; it also provides much-needed support for those who want to turn their lives around. Some amazing work is happening in my constituency, particularly through Changes Are Made, which provides positive outlets for young people. I encourage the Home Secretary to look for opportunities to support activities like those and to collaborate with effective charities through the Young Futures programme.

Finally, it is about time that we strengthened laws to protect women and girls. Just last week, I held an event to better understand women’s perception of their own safety in the town centre and to highlight the ways in which policing, the council, businesses and design can contribute to it. I welcome the creation of new spiking and stalking offences. It is shameful that previous Governments failed to make those changes.

I am proud of the Bill and the direction that the Labour Government are taking. We are not just talking about crime, but taking decisive action to reduce it. Although it may be unrealistic to expect Conservative Members to take responsibility and apologise for their failures—they would have to be in the Chamber to do that—perhaps they could join my constituents, who want to see cross-party support for these long-overdue changes, in welcoming the Bill. \p Connor Naismith: I begin my remarks by reflecting on the non-attendance throughout the debate of Reform MPs. It appears that they spend more time these days litigating against each other than they do legislating in this place.

When I knock on doors in Crewe and Nantwich or sit in my constituency surgery, I too often meet people who live in perpetual fear in their own community. The thing that those people have in common is that they want to see neighbourhood policing restored, and I am proud that this Government are committed to doing that. Anybody with a set of eyes could see that neighbourhood policing was decimated under the previous Government, despite what the shadow Home Secretary said earlier. \p Clive Jones: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Connor Naismith: I will not, because I am conscious that others wish to get in.

My constituents also tell me that they want to feel as if the police are equipped with the powers that they need to grip the problems that leave people fearful on the streets or, worse, in their homes. Rising antisocial behaviour has been a scourge on our streets, affecting my constituents’ businesses, their livelihoods and even their health.

A young woman contacted me recently about the young males who make her and her children’s lives a misery by bomb-knocking and kicking her door in the evenings, and shouting “bitch” as they pass her home. My constituent Steve told me at my constituency surgery over the weekend that his family’s life is being made a living hell by a small number of social housing tenants, and the housing provider has so far failed to take any action to address that. That is why I fully support the introduction of respect orders, which will allow a number of agencies, including housing providers, to place restrictions on that kind of behaviour.

I declare an interest: I started my working life as a shop worker, first in Woolworths—yes, I am old enough—and then in betting shops, a part of the retail sector that has, unfortunately, never been a stranger to violence and intimidation for workers. However, as I found out when I met James, the manager of my local Co-operative store in Crewe, brazen crime and the intimidation of shop workers have become commonplace, even in our local convenience stores.

I believe that the Bill will make a lasting difference to the lives of my constituents. Business owners, workers and decent law-abiding people just want to live in a community where they feel safe. These powers are ambitious, and we must ensure that they deliver real, lasting change for the people who need it most. \p Adam Thompson: I am proud to speak in firm support of the Bill. Many of my constituents feel that crime, especially day-to-day antisocial behaviour, has grown exponentially over recent years. It impacts every part of my constituency, from the town centres in Ilkeston and Long Eaton, to villages such as Draycott and suburban estates such as Cotmanhay. The Bill is about making people feel safe, so that Erewash residents from Sawley to Shipley View can live their lives free from the fear of crime.

As our local police forces were gutted by austerity under the previous Government, so-called low-level offences such as antisocial behaviour, shoplifting and even burglary were increasingly ignored and functionally decriminalised by the Conservative party. Shoplifting was functionally decriminalised under the negligence of the previous Government, who set guidelines stating that it should not be dealt with if goods worth less than £200 were stolen. Although major supermarkets and surviving high street chains might be able to stomach that volume, our small businesses cannot. How were those businesses meant to grow, how were investments meant to be made, how were town centres meant to thrive and how were people meant to feel safe when criminals and thieves were given impunity by the previous Government’s shoplifters’ charter? The Bill repeals that thieves’ charter, which will surely come as a relief to business owners and the hard-working, law-abiding majority of constituents in Erewash and across the country.

Knife crime has more than doubled in Derbyshire in the past decade. The recent horrific stabbing and subsequent death of a teenager in my constituency has rightly given rise to a lot of anger in my community—some of which ended up being directed at me, as people asked bluntly, “What are you going to do about this?” That is why I will be very proud to vote for the Bill, which creates a new offence of possession of a bladed item with intent to cause harm. It will give our police the new and stronger powers that they need to seize, keep and destroy knives confiscated from private properties.

Finally, on violence against women and girls, 13,000 stalking and harassment offences were recorded in Derbyshire in 2024—the highest figure in the east midlands —along with more than 3,400 sexual offences. In that time, one of my great friends and constituents reported to police that she had been followed and had sexual abuse shouted at her. That abuse happened in broad daylight and in public, on West Park in Long Eaton. The Government’s mission is to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. If we are to do that, our police will need the measures in the Bill.

If we have now entered the decade of national renewal that the Government promised, yes we need to get the economy growing again, yes we need to get Britain building again, and yes we need to get the NHS back on its feet, but we must also ensure that crime is punished and that the police are given the powers that they need to properly enforce against offenders. We must take back our streets and excise the rot. If we restore social order and respect for our communities, we can fix broken Britain. \p Alison Hume: I warmly welcome the clauses in this landmark Bill that will give greater protection to victims of stalking—including guidance for police about disclosing the identity of online stalkers to victims—and clarify what constitutes stalking so that the police have no excuse not to pursue incidents.

Some 91% of victims surveyed by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust had suffered from mental health problems as a result of being stalked. Being stalked is also an indicator of being at high risk of domestic homicide. It is vital that victims feel safe to report what they are suffering, which is why I welcome the opening of the purpose-built Acer House centre for victims of rape and sexual assault in York and North Yorkshire. It has been designed in consultation with victims to provide a safe and supportive environment in which evidence can be collected, and people can receive immediate health care and a medical examination if needed.

According to Women’s Aid, stalking by ex-partners accounts for the largest group of stalking victims, with the vast majority of victims being women. As with domestic abuse in general, rates of prosecution and conviction are shockingly low. In the year to March 2024, North Yorkshire police recorded 1,045 stalking offences, but only 75 resulted in a charge or summons. In just over half the original cases, the victim chose not to pursue the case. Work by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust helps to explain why, and argues that victims have been let down at every stage by the police, the CPS, and the courts. The trust’s super-complaint against the police in 2022 found that they were not even identifying stalking cases, and even when they were, they often did not properly investigate. The trust  recommended that stalking protection orders should be applied for and put in place at as early a stage as possible.

After years of failure under the Tories, this Bill cannot come soon enough for victims of stalking. New domestic abuse protection orders have been piloted, which victims can apply for themselves. Stalking victims also feel that their lives are controlled by someone else, so giving them the chance to apply for a stalking protection order would hand power back to them. I am so pleased that the Government are considering wider changes to stalking protection orders, and I invite the Minister to comment on whether they will look at allowing victims to apply for them. To conclude, on behalf of my constituents in Scarborough and Whitby I am proud to support the Bill. \p Sureena Brackenridge: I firmly support the Bill—the most substantial of this Parliament so far. It will make streets in Wolverhampton North East and across the country safer, and it is frankly shocking that many of the proposed laws are not already in place. Just a glance on social media will show doorbell footage of where our streets have become a hunting ground for criminals. It is incredible that today criminals can carry sophisticated car theft devices such as signal jammers, keyless repeaters and signal amplifiers, but unless they are caught using those tools in the act, they cannot be arrested. That ends with the Bill, because simply possessing such tools will be a criminal offence. This is long overdue. More than 700,000 vehicles were broken into last year, with 40% of cases involving those high-tech devices.

The Bill will introduce around 50 new laws, finally cracking down on crime and antisocial behaviour. Some of the changes prompt a question about why such laws were not already in place. Violent attacks on shop workers will now be a stand-alone offence, and shoplifting will no longer be dismissed as a low-value crime, with a £200 loophole fuelling an epidemic of theft. New powers will ensure that repeat offenders are banned from retail areas more quickly, and that they will stay away. Illegal off-road bikes? Immediate seizure. No more warnings, no more second chances. If someone rides illegally, they will lose their bike, and instead of that bike being auctioned off and falling back into the hands of yobs, it will be crushed.

Just last Friday I went out on a walkabout with the neighbourhood police in Wednesfield high street. Wednesfield is a safe area, with lower crime than other high streets in Wolverhampton and Willenhall, but I was appalled to hear from shop workers about the brazen thefts that they endure. I spoke to a young lady who had just turned 19 and is petrified every time shop theft happens—and in her shop it happens every day. Theft has become so normalised that staff are struggling to report every incident because they simply cannot keep up. USDAW, the retail workers union, has been calling for stronger protection for years. It welcomes the Bill, stating:

“Tougher laws are needed to protect shop workers, and we welcome this legislation as a vital step in tackling retail violence.”

West Midlands police now has 540 fewer officers than it did in 2010. \p Alex Ballinger: My hon. Friend and neighbour from the west midlands talks about there being 540 fewer officers in our area between 2010 and 2024, and I was also concerned to see that the highest level of knife crime in the country was reached in our part of the west midlands. Does she agree that since the Labour party has been elected, we have started to bring knife crime down, and does she welcome the fact that we are now on a trajectory to improve that situation? \p Sureena Brackenridge: I certainly do support that. The west midlands is no longer the knife-crime capital of the world thanks to the effective work of the police, in partnership with local authorities, the combined authority, our violence reduction units, a lot of dedicated volunteers and our fantastic schools.

When it comes to reversing the decimation of neighbourhood policing, I am delighted that Wednesfield and Heath Town have recently received an extra police officer and PCSO, and Willenhall has received a new PCSO, but that is just the beginning. Labour is turning this situation around and we will rebuild neighbouring policing, because that is how to prevent crime before it happens: good, old-fashioned community intelligence and presence.

The Bill will make my constituents safer, and ensure that they feel safer. To the criminals who are getting away with stealing cars, intimidating shop staff, tearing up our green spaces with illegal bikes and terrorising our communities: enough is enough. I wholeheartedly support the Bill. \p Jonathan Brash: Perhaps the most pernicious effect of 14 years of Conservative Government is how they systematically undermined security in every part of our society, whether it was national security through the hollowing out of our armed forces, financial security with our economy crashed and wages stagnating, or security in our communities. Town centres are plagued by antisocial behaviour, off-road bikes terrorise estates and shoplifting is out of control. This Bill seeks to deal with those issues.

The consequence of that insecurity can be devastating. It breeds fear, anxiety and division, and it opens up a political space into which populists, with no real answers, can enter to further their own selfish ambitions. Speaking of populists with no answers, Reform Members have not spent a second in the Chamber during today’s debate about antisocial behaviour in our communities.

For far too long, the entrance to Hartlepool’s shopping centre on York Road, known locally as “the ramp”, has been plagued by individuals who seek to intimidate and disrupt the daily lives of decent, hard-working people. I am fed up of hearing families and pensioners tell me that they are too scared to walk through our town centre. Whatever the personal challenges of that small minority of disruptive individuals, they have no right to make the people of Hartlepool feel unsafe in their community.

As chair of the Safer Hartlepool Partnership, I have proposed a comprehensive action plan for the police and council to implement, including a range of targeted interventions designed to tackle the issue head-on, which the Bill enhances and extends. One key measure is the  use of public space protection orders that allow us to prohibit certain behaviours in and around a particular geographic area. The Bill reinforces that tool by increasing the maximum fine for violating such an order from £100 to £500, ensuring stronger deterrents against antisocial behaviour.

I am also pushing for the greater use of enforcement powers, including dispersal orders, which the Bill extends from 48 hours to 72 hours, and community safety accreditation schemes, which grant police enforcement powers to council, shopping centre and other security teams, helping to free up police resources that, again, the Bill extends and strengthens.

The introduction of respect orders, which are new civil behavioural orders that allow courts to ban adult offenders from engaging in specific antisocial activities, will be a huge tool in Hartlepool. Breaching a respect order will be a criminal offence, enabling police to swiftly intervene and prevent further disruption. Importantly, those orders can also include positive requirements, compelling offenders to address the root causes of their behaviour, an approach that will be particularly useful in the communities that I represent where drug-related issues are often at the heart of the problem.

I welcome the Bill’s measures about off-road bikes, which terrorise many communities in Hartlepool. I have already spoken to the Minister about further powers that I would like to see included in the Bill to enhance it. The Bill also tackles wider issues, such as closure orders, shoplifting, fly-tipping and child protection. Those are not easy problems to fix, but with this Bill, we now have the toughest set of enforcement powers ever introduced by a Government. It is our duty to ensure that we use them. \p Deirdre Costigan: The legacy of the Conservative Government’s 14 years in power is one of failure to keep us safe, and it is felt every day in my constituency of Ealing Southall. On Guru Nanak Road, King Street and Western Road in Southall, drug dealing is a common sight and makes the area feel unsafe for everyone. The police do not have enough resources, so the Singh Sabha gurdwara has had to employ its own patrols, at a cost of thousands of pounds, to keep its worshippers safe.

Hanwell clock tower has become a magnet for street drinkers. The police try to move them on, but they just do not have the powers under the weak laws left by the Conservatives. In west Ealing, drug dealers openly ply their trade, even sitting in residents’ front porches when they are out, while the police cannot do much about it. Across London, it is not safe to take a phone call on the street, as people are liable to have their phone snatched. On top of that, fly-tipping increased by one third under the previous Government, making local neighbourhoods feel neglected and unloved—of course the drug dealers, phone thieves and street drinkers moved in.

Under the last Labour Government, there were six police and community support officers for every single ward in Ealing Southall, but the Conservatives cut £1 billion from policing in London, so we are lucky to have a couple of local officers per ward. They are not dedicated to the area, like they used to be—they get pulled to Brent, Harrow or central London. Under the previous Labour Government, the police also had stronger powers; the Conservatives actually reduced police powers.  Labour has already started the work to bring back neighbourhood policing and to recruit 13,000 new officers, with £320 million of extra funding for police in London. We will ensure that police officers get back out on the streets, instead of doing admin work like they were doing under the previous Government.

This Bill will give those new officers the tough powers they need to tackle antisocial behaviour and crime, with 50 new laws to make our streets safer. Our new respect orders will mean that the police can stop street drinkers from congregating at Hanwell clock tower and stop drug dealers from coming into west Ealing and Southall. If people break respect orders, the police will now be able to arrest them immediately and take them to court, where they can face up to two years in prison. The police will be able to drug test more people on arrest, and respect orders will require that drinkers and drug users access rehab services to break the cycle of dependency.

The Bill will also give police the power to search a property without a warrant where they have evidence that there is a stolen electronic device inside. I had my own phone stolen a while back; I could see on the internet that it was in east London, but the police could not do anything about it. This law will now mean that police can use “find my phone” apps to go after phone thieves and get stolen property back.

I am delighted that as part of this Bill, the Secretary of State will issue statutory guidance to local councils to help to ensure a more consistent approach to fly-tipping. Ealing Council is the No. 1 borough in the country when it comes to issuing fixed-penalty notices against fly-tippers, but it needs help to do more. Under the Conservatives, fly-tipping was allowed to spiral and was seen as a low-level crime, but it blights communities. I know that this Labour Government are looking at further steps we can take to punish fly-tippers and to reduce waste in the first place.

After 14 years of the Conservatives leaving local people in Ealing Southall to put up with open drug taking, street drinking and snatch thefts, Labour is giving the police back the power and the resources to take the tough action needed to make our streets safe again. \p Steve Yemm: This Bill will be very much welcomed back in my constituency, with this Government introducing 50 new laws that will help to cut crime and make my area’s streets safer. They include measures to tackle antisocial behaviour and stop theft, particularly in shops, and to tackle street crime head on, giving the police in our communities new powers to take back town centres from thugs and thieves and tackling knife crime, violence against women and girls, cyber-crime, child sexual abuse and terrorism.

That said, I am particularly pleased to see that this Bill deals with one particular issue. Illegal off-road bikes and e-scooters are a significant concern to many people in Mansfield. Antisocial behaviour connected to their inappropriate use was raised with me time and time again on the doorstep during the election campaign, and it is now raised in my casework inbox. I will share one such example, from a constituent who recently contacted me about this issue:

“Only yesterday whilst out with my husband doing ‘grandparent school duties’ we were yet again placed in a serious and dangerous situation. Several youths appeared out of nowhere wearing balaclavas  weaving around our vehicle before racing off in different directions. The silence of them means you have no awareness of them before they appear in front of your car”.

Many constituents report similar concerns, and are exasperated that nothing can be done to deal with the issue. Enough is enough, and I am delighted to announce after discussions I have had with local officers in Mansfield that the police are launching a crackdown over the coming weeks to tackle antisocial behaviour in my constituency related to off-road bikes and e-scooters.

As part of this crackdown, officers are appealing to the public to come forward via a new dedicated police email address—set up with my office and by the 101 phone line— to report any illegal bike-related antisocial behaviour. Using that information, officers will take significant enforcement action to target those who are terrorising our communities in Mansfield. I will be working closely with the police during that campaign, and will be holding a public meeting with them on 21 March to explain how it will work. I would be delighted to update the Home Secretary on its progress. More information will be released by my office in the coming days, but this crackdown will rely on my constituents acting as the eyes and ears on the ground. Without their reports, the project will not be a success, so I urge local people in Mansfield to get involved.

To conclude, my message to those causing misery in Mansfield is this: “We see you. The police are coming for you, and our communities will not let you get away with it any longer.” \p Baggy Shanker: I encourage all hon. Members to visit us in Derby and in Derby city centre. They will find a city that is firmly on the up, with a bright future ahead. Our city centre regeneration projects are full steam ahead. We are creating fantastic cultural and community hubs in Derby, whether that is our multimillion-pound revamp of our market hall, the completion of the Becketwell Live arena or the University of Derby’s new business school, all of which are set to open their doors in the coming months. I want everyone in our community to be able to take a walk around our city and feel proud and safe.

However, although we are rightly excited about the future that Derby holds, we have to acknowledge the problems that the city centre faces. Our pride is tested when we see fly-tipping on the side of the road. It is tested again when we are worried about walking on the pavement because e-scooters are being used antisocially, and it is tested further for shop workers who are worried about going to work because the previous day they were threatened during a shoplifting incident. Lots of fantastic work is under way on these issues at a local level, such as the work of our police and crime commissioner, Nicolle Ndiweni-Roberts, and of Derbyshire constabulary. They are clamping down on illegal e-scooters, seizing and disposing of more than 200 since last November alone. However, I and my constituents know that more needs to be done so that they can feel proud and safe in the city we call home.

For that reason, I welcome the measures introduced in today’s Bill, which will go further to protect city centres such as Derby and their residents from antisocial  behaviour and crime. Whether they are employees at our central Co-op in Osmaston or at the Asda superstore in Sinfin, it is right that this Bill will introduce specific measures to protect them from retail crime. Shockingly, 18% of shop workers were assaulted in 2023. Nobody should fear going into work, which is why I am pleased that this Bill will make assaulting a shop worker a stand-alone offence. \p Ben Coleman: May I associate myself with my hon. Friend’s remarks? Does he find it as absurd as I do that under the Conservatives there was effective immunity from shoplifting goods under £200? That meant that shoplifting rose by 60%. Does he therefore welcome the fact that that effective immunity is ending, and that we are introducing a new criminal offence that will protect shop workers from being attacked and assaulted, including those in my constituency who have complained about that? \p Baggy Shanker: I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. It is important that the £200 limit is being scrapped. I have spoken to many shop workers across Derby who have said that, literally on a daily basis, people are walking into the shops, loading their bags and walking straight out, almost apologetically.

This Bill also introduces tougher action on knife crime, more power to support councils to tackle fly-tipping and measures to let police seize vehicles such as e-scooters much faster if they are being used for antisocial purposes. The Bill will tackle violence against women and girls by introducing a specific new offence for spiking.

I want every single person in Derby—I am sure everybody in this House wants this for every single person across the country—to feel safe and to enjoy our city and the places where they live. This Bill represents a huge step forward in achieving that, and that is why I fully support it. \p Peter Swallow: After 14 years of Conservative Government, antisocial behaviour has become far too common. Last year, 36% of people reported experiencing antisocial behaviour. Police powers to tackle criminal behaviour have been consistently weakened. Our communities have been left exposed, and we have heard many powerful examples of that from Members across the House today. That is why the measures in this Bill are so badly needed.

Shoplifting, casual drug taking, reckless driving and neighbourhood intimidation may not seem overly significant on their own, but when committed persistently, these low-level acts of antisocial behaviour make our communities that bit less safe, one crime at a time. Speaking to residents on the doorsteps in Jennett’s Park in Great Hollands recently, I heard how a spate of car thefts was making people lose sleep at night. Bracknell Forest is an incredible place to live, with a comparatively low crime rate, but whether it is drug taking in our underpasses, motorised bikes being driven around our footpaths or shoplifting targeting our shops, our community is feeling the effects of the Tories’ weak response to crime and antisocial behaviour.

Last year, shoplifting in Bracknell and Wokingham went up by 46%. That is not just in the town centre, but across Bracknell Forest, including in Sandhurst, where one local convenience store has been repeatedly targeted  and their staff threatened. I have seen it myself, sitting in a café of a local supermarket with the manager and watching as a shoplifter walked out of the shop. They were known to the staff, but there was little they could do to stop the frequent thefts.

I thank Thames Valley police for the work they are doing to tackle this endemic shoplifting, and I am pleased to say that the precipitous rise is now slowing down. However, the police need the right powers in place if they are to get to grips with the problem. That is why it is so welcome that the Crime and Policing Bill will introduce tough new respect orders to ban repeat offenders from antisocial hotspots. We are introducing a new criminal offence to protect retail workers from abuse, thanks to the fantastic campaigning by the Co-op party and USDAW. This Bill will scrap the Tory shoplifters’ charter, which meant that, under the previous Government, anyone caught shoplifting goods below £200 could escape prosecution.

Many of my constituents are also concerned by the increasing numbers of casual drug users on our streets. In September, a mother wrote to me with concerns about brazen drug dealing going on near the town centre and the impact that has on vulnerable groups in the area. I have also heard concerns from local parents that drug dealers are targeting young people as they leave school. That is why it is so important that the Crime and Policing Bill will introduce new police powers to make drug-testing suspects on arrest easier, and respect orders to allow police to crack down on those repeat offenders frequenting the same spots. These new powers are an important step in delivering Labour’s safer streets mission. \p Sam Rushworth: My hon. Friend is doing a great job in explaining some of the new powers that the Bill will give our police. Police officers in my area to whom I have spoken find it absurd that it has taken until now to do so. Does my hon. Friend agree that these measures are such common sense that no reasonable party in the House should vote against them? \p Peter Swallow: Absolutely—and it would be great to see more Opposition Members here to support the measures. The powers introduced by the Bill are indeed welcome, but under the last Government we saw a reduction in the use of powers that already existed. In 2010, Thames Valley police issued more than 6,000 antisocial behaviour notices—penalty notices for disorder—but in 2023 they issued only 412, which is a 93% decrease.

As I have said, these new powers are an important step in the delivery of Labour’s safer streets mission, but as well as giving police the right powers to crack down on antisocial behaviour—as my hon. Friend mentioned—we need to give them the right resources. That is why it is so important that this Government have increased police funding by more than £1 billion, and the budget of Thames Valley police has been increased by 6.6%. Our safer streets mission will see 13,000 additional police officers on Britain’s streets, along with a named, contactable officer in each community. That will help people to feel safe in their communities again. The Tories introduced chaos on our streets and in our communities, and Labour will do the hard work that is needed to bring back order and security. \p Amanda Martin: As the daughter and niece of retired police officers and with a cousin, Alex, currently serving for the same constabulary, I want to start by saying a huge thank you to Hampshire police.

It is a privilege to speak in this debate on a Bill that seeks to strengthen law enforcement and restore public confidence in policing. It is about the real experience of our constituents who have suffered as a result of crime and antisocial behaviour, and feel that the system is failing them. For example, in the first nine days of the financial year, the store manager of a Tesco Express in my constituency logged 22 incidents of shoplifting, trespass, verbal abuse and threats of violence. The Bill will ensure that the police have a mandate to act swiftly, especially in instances of repeat and organised retail crime, regardless of the value of the stolen goods.

Another constituent’s car has been vandalised twice, and one incident was so severe that the car was written off. Vandalism is not a minor inconvenience; it is costly and distressing, and leaves people feeling unsafe in their own communities. Car theft also continues to plague my constituents. One resident’s car has been stolen four times, and the daughter of another has had her moped stolen twice, even having to recover it herself on one occasion. That is not to mention the number of “tradies” who are subject to tool theft. The Bill will empower police forces to take property crimes more seriously, make it easier to track and recover stolen vehicles, and more importantly, ensure that victims of theft receive timely police responses.

The Scottish estate in Cosham, the London Road in Northend, Allaway Avenue in Paulsgrove and Tangiers Road in Baffins are just four of the many places where e-scooters, bikes and cars race deafeningly and dangerously in my constituency. I am pleased that the Bill removes the need of the police to issue a warning before seizing vehicles being used antisocially. This is the start of a real crackdown on vehicles being used to intimidate pedestrians and increasingly commit crime.

Antisocial behaviour is destroying the quality of life for so many people. One of my constituents, an 80-year-old woman, has suffered relentless harassment from a neighbour. Her garden has been vandalised, furniture has been thrown, and she has been physically intimidated. The Bill gives the police stronger powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, and strengthens the use of existing antisocial behaviour powers.

The shadow of knife crime hangs over my constituency. In the past two months alone, and even today, there have been two stabbings and an attempted murder involving two teenagers. Parents are writing to me, terrified for their children’s safety and demanding action. Some have even raised concerns about the advertising of chefs’ knives on television. I welcome the fact that this Bill provides the police with the powers they need to take knives off our streets, enforce tougher penalties for possession and intervene early to prevent young people from being drawn into violent crime, because knife crime kills.

Finally, a father has reached out to me to say he is deeply concerned about the safety of women and girls in Portsmouth. His 15-year-old daughter, who loves running, has been catcalled and harassed multiple times, and she has not reported it because she believes it would  waste police time. As we know, low-level crime against women can be a gateway to more serious crimes, and I welcome the fact that this Bill brings in new protections for women.

This is not a Portsmouth-specific issue, and it is not a Labour issue, which is why it is shocking to see the lack of Opposition Members in this place today. All our constituents deserve to live in safe communities, and they deserve their MPs to make changes and put those changes into action. \p Phil Brickell: It is a pleasure to speak in support of this vital Bill, which will see the Labour Government deliver on the promise made at the last election to return our town centres to our constituents and make our streets safe. This Bill addresses pressing issues that have long plagued our society, and its provisions are both timely and necessary, particularly on the sexual abuse of children, knife crime and economic crime.

First, on child sexual abuse, the NSPCC has found that over 100 child sexual abuse image crimes are recorded by the police every day. That is a horrifying statistic, and it should focus the minds of all of us in this place, which is why supporting victims and survivors is rightly the cornerstone of this Bill. I very much welcome the steps taken to ensure that our criminal justice system, which was neglected for far too long under previous Conservative Governments, is better equipped to handle such cases effectively.

Secondly, the Bill’s measures on knife crime, which has devastated families and communities across the country, will also safeguard our children. \p Natasha Irons: I am one of the MPs for Croydon, a place that continues to pay the price for the previous Government’s inaction on knife crime and youth violence. Does my hon. Friend agree that when it comes to youth violence, we have to focus on prevention, and does he welcome the introduction of the Young Futures programme so that we can prevent young people from getting drawn into crime in the first place? \p Phil Brickell: I absolutely agree that prevention is fundamental, especially when it comes to youth crime.

The senseless killing of seven-year-old Emily Jones in Queen’s park, Bolton, in 2020 was horrifying. Knife crime incidents have been on the rise in towns such as Bolton for a number of years, so we owe it to Emily and her family, and to all those who have been affected by knife crime, to take bold action and to take it now. To this end, I am pleased to see that the Bill introduces tougher sentencing for repeat offenders and strengthens the police’s powers to seize dangerous weapons before they are used to cause harm.

Thirdly, a number of the crimes that I have detailed are enabled by economic crimes, such as money laundering and fraud. Indeed, we heard earlier from the shadow Home Secretary about crime statistics. What I would say to those on the Opposition Benches is that we have seen a fraud epidemic over the last few years, and cases were allowed to spiral out of control under previous Conservative Administrations. Frankly, they were ignored by the shadow Home Secretary when he was a Minister.  Indeed, April 2022 to March 2023 saw 3.5 million cases of fraud in this country—40% of all crime, according to the ONS.

By removing the ability of criminals to launder their ill-gotten gains in the clean economy, we can remove the primary incentive for the behaviour that drives so much of the criminal activity that we have been debating tonight. Indeed, having spent almost 15 years tackling economic crime, I particularly welcome the new provision in the Bill to cap court costs for enforcement agencies, which the Conservative party never addressed. Too often, our law enforcement bodies face intolerable financial risks when pursuing the recovery of ill-gotten gains from deep-pocketed crooks with expensive lawyers. One minor mistake by the National Crime Agency or the Serious Fraud Office can wipe out a whole year’s budget.

That has had a chilling effect on the risk appetite of agencies to tackle those suspected of serious and organised crime, which drives so much of the criminality that we are debating tonight. By introducing cost protection in clause 103, the Government are rightly levelling the playing field for enforcement agencies and those who are charged. This will send a powerful message about the rule of law in this country, which is that no matter how rich or well connected someone is, if they are engaged in criminal behaviour, justice will be done.

We are in a very challenging place when it comes to the public finances, and the tax burden bequeathed by the Conservative party to my constituents is already far too high, which brings me to a specific proposal that I would urge the Minister to consider as the Bill progresses through this place. Economic crime costs us around £300 billion every year, yet less than 1% of police resources are dedicated to tackling it, so why not make the criminals pay? A cross-governmental economic crime fighting fund would use the reinvested proceeds of regulatory and criminal fines, asset recoveries and deferred prosecution agreements to provide sustainable funding and increased firepower for our enforcement agencies’ capabilities. I hope the Minister will respond to this ask for a sustainable and innovative solution in her wind-up.

The Bill provides a much-needed shake-up for crime and policing in this country. It will return our streets and town centres to our constituents and deliver justice where too often it was denied. \p Damien Egan: I am very happy to be able to speak and to add my support to this Bill, and I appreciate the depth and ambition of the measures that have been brought forward.

When I meet my local police officers in Bristol and South Gloucestershire, I see a committed group of men and women completely dedicated to public service, but I also see that morale is low. Police numbers in Avon and Somerset have fallen, with the number of PCSOs dropping from 424 in 2010 to 255 today. After 14 years of cuts, officers question if they are appreciated. For our police, I hope that this Bill is seen as a demonstration of the confidence that we have in them and the respect we have for the difficult job they do.

I welcome the steps taken to let police get on with their jobs, including searching premises where phones are geolocated, confiscating illegal road bikes and introducing respect orders, as well as lifting the £200 cap on when  officers will investigate shoplifting. There are also the new protections for shop workers such as the women I have met working in Boots in Kingswood and the PDSA—People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals—charity shop in Kingswood, which are just two of the shops blighted day in and day out by shoplifters.

On a different aspect of the Bill, we have seen the struggles and confusion in relation to policing public order at protests. Protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, but we have seen examples of protests that have become hateful, have incited violence and have become violent. Fines for climbing on war memorials and banning face coverings will help maintain public order, and I hope the police know that they have our support to act when they see wrongdoing. As the Bill progresses, I would ask Ministers to consider how robust the exemptions are for face coverings, as they may be open to misuse. For example, the health exemptions could have very broad interpretations.

On knife crime, officers in my patch certainly welcome the changes, but they are concerned about how unscrupulous knife manufacturers could adapt to selling knives that, while technically legal, still glamorise violence. In the past year, I have got to know a woman called Hayley Ryall, the mother of Mikey Roynon from Kingswood, who was tragically killed at a birthday party when he was stabbed by three young men in June 2023. Mikey was a beautiful young man, and he was just 16 when he was killed. With the ongoing trials of serious violence reduction orders in Thames Valley, the West Midlands, Merseyside and Sussex coming to their conclusion this year, Hayley has asked me when a decision will be made on the wider roll-out of serious violence reduction orders and when that will take place.

All these measures will only have the full effect if we have the officers on our streets to police them. Avon and Somerset recently received a £27 million uplift in funding, and I look forward to seeing this money used for more recruitment and to support our existing officers. There is much to fix—we all know that—and these measures go a good way to putting the balance of power back towards law and order. \p Sean Woodcock: I rise to support the Bill and to commend the Government for bringing forward such a robust response to the scourge of retail crime that affects communities across our country, including my constituents in Banbury, Chipping Norton, Charlbury and the villages of north and west Oxfordshire.

In my constituency, shoplifting offences increased by 25% between March 2022 and March 2024. This is a deeply concerning trend, not only for shopkeepers but for the local communities they serve. Shoplifting costs the average UK convenience store £6,259 a year. These costs are often passed on through the prices that customers pay, or are reflected in the serious questions that those shops face about their viability. The importance of our local shops’ financial viability is particularly pronounced in rural areas such as Hook Norton, Enstone and Bloxham in my constituency, where they are not just businesses but essential services that form part of the fabric of the community.

This Bill sends a clear and powerful message that rising rates of shoplifting will not be tolerated under this Government. The removal of the effective immunity  for shop thefts under £200 will help to deter petty thieves and repeat offenders who have exploited that loophole. By closing the gap, the Bill ensures that every crime, no matter how small and seemingly petty, will be taken seriously.

The measures outlined in the Bill are precisely what shopkeepers in my constituency have been calling for. Not only does the Bill clamp down on shoplifting, but it introduces a new offence of assaulting a retail worker. This provision stands firmly by those who serve our communities day in and day out. Shop workers deserve to feel safe in their workplace, and this new offence rightly acknowledges the seriousness of the threats and violence they face on a daily basis.

This comprehensive and well-considered Bill delivers on this Government’s promise to make our streets safer and to protect the people who keep our communities running. I commend the Home Secretary, the ministerial team and the Government for their decisive action, which will benefit rural communities, as well as communities the length and breadth of the country. I urge all hon. Members to support it. \p Calvin Bailey: It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill, which responds to the concerns of many in Leyton and Wanstead.

In October, my Adjournment debate highlighted the terrible impacts of antisocial behaviour in Leytonstone, including in the Avenue Road estate, Selby Road and the surrounding area. Despite good engagement from the police and council leaders, residents still face hotspots of drug injecting, vandalism and abuse in public spaces. This creates fear and makes families feel that their streets no longer belong to them. The response of the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention was encouraging, committing to the respect orders now in this Bill, and I thank her for her visit to Leyton and Wanstead last November.

This Bill addresses key issues. The new legislation on cuckooing in chapter 2 of part 4 will tackle homes used for drug taking, which are particularly seen in areas such as Leytonstone. Respect orders will enhance local initiatives such as mandatory drug programmes, Project Adder and addressing public drinking in areas such as Jubilee Road.

Part 3 delivers on our pledge to introduce a special offence for assaults on shop workers, and it strengthens penalties for shoplifting. Persistent, violent shoplifting has taken hold. A staff member at Church Lane Sainsbury’s in Leytonstone said, “Each and every day it’s going mad. Shoplifters roam the streets from six in the morning every day. We are losing more than £500. Our safety is on the line.” In South Woodford, the Co-op has repeatedly been attacked. When a constituent stepped in to help, they were threatened with a glass bottle. The nearby Boots has faced repeated thefts, with some shoplifters returning four or five times a day.

Constituents describe the fear of retail staff and sadness that children might grow up seeing this situation as normal. It is not normal. We must ensure that our children do not grow up thinking that the high street is a criminals’ playground. We must ensure that no shop worker faces daily threats. We must acknowledge the role that USDAW has played in addressing these issues.  I ask the Minister to provide a view on how the law may be extended to protect transport workers, as proposed by the Transport Salaried Staffs Association in its recent report, which highlights the extent of the violence its members face.

I welcome the measures enabling police to target locations storing stolen goods, which often double as hubs for drug dealing. The Bill will enable more effective, co-ordinated police responses, but we must go further. The return of 13,500 police officers is vital, as are our named neighbourhood police officers, but we must also reduce the high abstraction rates that remove those officers from our streets. That is what the people of Leyton and Wanstead deserve, and I hope the Government will go further in this regard. I am proud to support the Bill today. \p Jonathan Pearce: In High Peak, our five major towns—Buxton, Glossop, New Mills, Chapel-en-le-Frith and Whaley Bridge—have all been affected in different ways by the crimes the Bill seeks to address. Our town centres are the hearts of our community. At their best, they bring people together and create a sense of pride and belonging. When antisocial behaviour, theft and shoplifting are allowed to take root, it affects not just the victims, but the whole community. Sadly, the previous Government all too often wrote those crimes off as low level and left our communities feeling powerless. This Bill is for all the people I have met on the doorstep and who have come to my surgeries in High Peak—people who wanted a Government on their side, who would take these crimes seriously.

This Bill is for the retail workers and business owners who have to deal with shoplifting day in, day out. The previous Government effectively decriminalised shoplifting of goods worth less than £200, but this Bill will end the Tory shoplifters’ charter and go further by introducing a new criminal offence to better protect retail workers from assault.

This Bill is for all those who want our streets to be safer and pride to be restored to our communities. At the end of February, Derbyshire police had to put in place a dispersal order for two whole days in Glossop in order to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Bill will extend those powers to 72 hours. Through the new respect orders, it sends a clear message to persistent troublemakers: “We see you, we will disrupt you, and we will make your life as difficult as you have made the lives of others.” \p Ben Coleman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is good news that at last we have a Government who are doing something about the scourge of off-road bikes and dangerous e-scooters on the pavements and in our parks by giving the police new powers to seize those vehicles immediately, instead of letting the problem continue? Although this should have happened much sooner, it will make the lives of my residents in Chelsea and Fulham, and people across the country, happier and safer. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. By way of being helpful, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that when they make interventions, they should address them to the Chair, and not to other Members, so there can be no confusion in the debate. \p Jonathan Pearce: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I thoroughly agree that the new powers will be hugely helpful, both in his constituency and in my own.

This Bill is for our children and the most vulnerable in our communities. The hottest circle of hell is reserved for anyone who exploits and abuses a child. The independent inquiry into child sex abuse, which was set up by the Conservatives in 2015, took seven years to complete and cost £200 million, made 20 recommendations. Shamefully, the previous Government did not implement a single one. This Bill will right that wrong. We will introduce statutory reporting for instances of child sex abuse, grooming behaviour will be an aggravating factor, and there will be new powers to search for instances of child sex abuse on digital devices of individuals arriving in the UK.

We will go further by going after the gangs that seek to exploit children for criminal purposes. It is estimated that 14,000 children are at risk or involved in criminal exploitation, and sadly, some of those victims are in High Peak. From police and schools, I have heard heartbreaking stories of children being forced into drug dealing, of homes being taken over by drug dealers, and of young lives ruined. The weak laws that the previous Government left us meant that authorities were powerless to act in many cases. Our new laws will make it a criminal offence for adults to use children to commit criminal offences such as drug running, organised robbery and the new offence of cuckooing. The vile gangs that exploit children in High Peak for criminal gain are the lowest of the low, and I will be supporting Derbyshire police to use the full extent of the new laws to drive them out of our communities.

This Bill is for women and girls. For International Women’s Day, I held a joint event with Crossroads Derbyshire, an incredible charity that works to support domestic abuse survivors. Crossroads has a new stalking advocacy service, funded by the Labour police and crime commissioner’s office. The Bill will strengthen the police’s response to stalking and give victims the right to know the identity of online stalkers. Let the message go out from here today to stalkers: “There will be no hiding place for you on our streets or online.”

This Bill is for everyone who believes in the rule of law and that there should be zero tolerance for those who threaten our security and safety. It is for those who want to take back control of our streets and communities. \p Alex Ballinger: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate as the son of a local bobby—my mum worked for 20 years in the local police, serving her community, and I could not be more proud of her. My father, too, was a local bobby, as was his father before him, so my family have something of a reputation.

I am, of course, delighted to see the Government’s recommitment to neighbourhood policing after 14 years of neglect. My mum often spoke about the importance of a neighbourhood police officer understanding her community, who the troublemakers are, how to calm tensions and how to make people feel safe. For people across my constituency, feeling safe is what they care about most. They do not feel safe when they see rising  rates of knife crime among our young people, or antisocial behaviour on our high streets. They worry that they never see the police on the streets any more.

How we got into this situation is no mystery. Cuts to neighbourhood policing by the last Government left a huge gap in our communities. Before the recent uplift, the west midlands had 700 fewer police officers than it did under the last Labour Government in 2010. People in Halesowen want to feel safe in their homes, on their streets and in their public spaces. They want to trust that the police have the resources, funding and support necessary to do their job.

Two of my constituents, Mr and Mrs Lobodzic, have been in touch to tell me about the impact that antisocial behaviour has had on their lives. Residents of Cradley Heath, they have been subject to harassment, intimidation and unchecked antisocial behaviour, and they have felt unsafe in their own home. The lack of accountability for those responsible has left them feeling hopeless and abandoned. The Bill takes the essential steps needed to address antisocial behaviour such as that experienced by my constituents.

The new respect order can be imposed on individuals who have engaged in, or threatened to engage in, antisocial behaviour. Importantly, breaching a respect order now constitutes a criminal offence. For my constituents in Halesowen, that will provide much-needed reassurance that their concerns are being taken seriously, and that those who disrupt the peace will face real consequences. Deputy Chief Constable Andy Prophet, who leads on antisocial behaviour for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, said:

“Respect orders will give the police and councils the ability to crack down on those who persistently make our streets and public spaces feel unsafe.”

Although those measures are promising, it is important that they go hand in hand with another critical demand from my constituents: the visible presence of police officers. People want to see their local officers regularly patrolling their streets, just as my mum used to do. That is why I am pleased to see, alongside the Bill, the introduction of the neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will ensure the deployment of an additional 13,000 police officers, PCSOs and special constables into neighbourhood policing roles. By reinforcing community policing, we will not only deter and prevent crime, but strengthen the response to emergencies and enhance trust between the police and the public.

In Halesowen we are fortunate to have dedicated and exemplary police officers such as Sergeant Nichola Chester, and PCSOs such as Nathan Fung, as members of our excellent but stretched neighbourhood team. It is vital that their efforts are bolstered with the resources and manpower that they need to maintain safety and security. The Bill is a critical step towards achieving that goal.

The people of Halesowen deserve to live without fear, to walk our streets with confidence and to know that their Government are steadfast in their commitment to their safety. The Bill, with its focus on tackling antisocial behaviour and reinvigorating neighbourhood policing, represents a decisive step in the right direction, and I am pleased to support it. \p Jas Athwal: I rise to support the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill. The last time I addressed the House on policing I shared the fact that the borough of Redbridge, which I led, once had five police stations, but after a decade of Conservative cuts only one remains standing. That is not just a fact but a direct reflection of how the Conservative party deprioritised policing and failed to protect our residents, friends and neighbours. When we deprioritise policing, we do more than weaken law enforcement; we allow crime to spiral out of control, we expose our communities to harm and we erode the very fabric of our society.

The Bill is a crucial step in reversing 14 years of neglect and ensuring tougher consequences for criminal behaviour. It tackles a wide range of issues, from knife crime to terrorism, but I want to focus on a matter that affects our daily lives: antisocial behaviour. For too long it has been treated as low-level or even trivial crime, but in Ilford South and across the UK it is anything but trivial. It erodes community trust and often paves the way for more serious criminal activity. We see antisocial behaviour on the ground, in the nitrous oxide canisters littering our streets. We see it in our local shops, where retail workers face shoplifters daily. We see it on our streets, where young girls, often in school uniform, endure harassment from men much older than them.

Antisocial behaviour is not just an inconvenience but a warning sign. Last year, two teenagers stabbed staff members at Goodmayes station. They were also charged with a prior robbery incident at a nearby Tesco. That is what happens when we turn a blind eye to so-called low-level crime: it escalates, posing an even bigger threat to our communities. That is why I welcome the Bill. It makes a clear statement that antisocial behaviour will no longer be tolerated.

I am particularly pleased to see the scrapping of the effective immunity for shoplifting of goods under £200, and stronger protections for retail workers against assault. When workers in our shops, supermarkets and local businesses cannot feel safe, and we cannot feel safe doing our weekly shopping, the system has failed. By ending the decriminalisation of so-called low-level theft, we are ensuring that our local town centres are protected to thrive. Safety is about not just theft of property but the right to go about our daily lives and walk our streets without fear or intimidation.

When I was leader of Redbridge council, we took decisive action to make our streets safe for women and girls. We were the first council to use public spaces protection orders to punish those catcalling and harassing women and girls. I am pleased to see the strengthening of those protection orders in the Bill, and the introduction of respect orders, which will ensure that communities across the country have the power to tackle nuisance, harassment and intimidation on our streets.

We all deserve to feel safe in our homes, on our streets, in our shops and in our schools. The Bill begins to turn our promise into reality. \p Lillian Jones: In common with hon. Members from across the House, this debate is of paramount importance to the people in my constituency. The Labour Government have inherited  a shameful legacy from the Conservative party, which had 14 years to address criminality and antisocial behaviour but instead left our communities feeling unsafe.

The situation in Scotland has frightening similarities, with the SNP Government failing communities across Scotland. Since the SNP introduced its under-22 bus pass initiative, many of my constituents have told me that they are now afraid to visit Kilmarnock bus station or even use local bus services. This is not about demonising young people—far from it, as they are more likely to be victims of crime and antisocial behaviour than the perpetrators of it—but it is wrong to ignore the significant minority who make life a misery for others. Scotland badly needs Labour’s respect orders to effectively tackle the minorities’ behaviour that has been intimidating our communities for far too long.

Labour’s respect orders will deliver stronger powers for our police in Scotland, helping them to keep our communities safe, but, yet again, Scotland is being let down by the SNP and its inaction. Similarly, the bus pass scheme, which should be something to be celebrated, has created a situation where people of all ages are now thinking twice about using their local bus services. As my friend the Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar said,

“under-22s that are found to have repeatedly acted violently on buses”

should have their free bus passes taken off them. That should be obvious—rights should come with responsibilities —and it is shameful that there is currently no mechanism to withdraw a free bus pass from someone who has been abusing one. That needs to change.

It is totally unacceptable to see chronic antisocial behaviour continue with no effective action from the SNP. The Crime and Policing Bill demonstrates that Labour is on the side of law-abiding people, and I will be proud to vote for the Bill at the conclusion of the debate. \p Caroline Nokes: That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. \p Matt Vickers: I take this opportunity to thank our brave, hard-working police officers, PCSOs, police staff and volunteers for the huge sacrifices they make to keep our streets safe. I thank all hon. Members across the House for their considered and concise contributions.

The Bill covers a wide array of offences, and we all welcome that. Tackling criminality means equipping the police and enforcement agencies with the powers that they need to lock up dangerous perpetrators to make our streets safer. The Bill contains meaningful and impactful provisions, particularly in relation to knife crime, car theft, retail crime, the sharing of intimate images, child sexual abuse, drug testing and cuckooing among many others.

It is generous of the Government to hold the previous Conservative Government’s work in such high esteem: in fact, about two thirds of the measures in the Bill are copied straight from the previous Government. As was said—I think on several occasions—it is a copy-and-paste job that even the Chancellor would blush over. I thank  my right hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), alongside many other past and current Members of the House, for their significant work in ensuring that those offences are included in the scope of the Bill. That work will ultimately have a positive impact on the lives of all our constituents. Time does not allow me to talk through all the measures in the Bill [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I know that hon. Members are disappointed, but I will focus on a few important provisions.

First, let me turn to retail crime. As hon. Members across this House may know, having served as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the future of retail and as a former Woolies worker—no one ever questions whether I am old enough—I have been very involved in the campaign to protect our retail workers. I have joined the likes of the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), Paul Gerrard from the Co-op, Helen Dickinson and the team at the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores, USDAW, numerous retailers and others who have worked to deliver more protection for our retail workers.

Back in 2021—during my slightly rebellious phase—I tabled an amendment that helped us to make an assault on a person providing a service to the public a statutory aggravating offence. More recently in April 2024, alongside a suite of measures designed to tackle retail crime, we saw the last Government agree to the creation of a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker. I am glad that that will be taken up by the incumbent Government and hope that it will have a real impact and improve the lives of these important key workers in high streets and stores across the country.

I have two concerns, however, about the Bill regarding retail crime. First, the previous Government’s plans had proposed to make it mandatory for the courts to impose at least a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement or an electronic monitoring requirement on repeat offenders convicted of shoplifting or the new offence of assaulting a retail worker and sentenced to a community order or a suspended sentence. That had been welcomed by retailers, but the Bill does not include any provisions to this effect. I urge the Government to look again at this, to ensure that we are doing all we can to protect retail workers and avoid what appears to be the watering down of potential protections.

Secondly, on the plans to remove the £200 threshold for shoplifting, while the rhetoric sounds positive, it is untrue to say that theft under £200 was ever decriminalised. In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment tells us that 90% of charges for shoplifting relate to property worth less than £200. There is a fear that measures will lead to further delays to justice being done while not leading to tougher or longer sentences. Victims of retail crime deserve swift justice, not year-long delays while perpetrators continue to offend.

I turn now to further legislative steps that I hope Members across the House will find difficult to oppose. One hugely important measure is the introduction of a statutory aggravating factor, requiring sentencing courts to treat grooming behaviour as an aggravating factor when considering the seriousness of child sexual offences. The Opposition believe that the Government should go further and establish a national statutory inquiry, but it  is right that they have brought forward this measure from the Criminal Justice Bill. It recognises the severity of the offence and ensures that third parties involved in the heinous practices of these rape gangs face justice and punishment. We must take every step possible to protect the most vulnerable and ensure that stronger laws are in place so that the terrible crimes of the past cannot be repeated.

Another key measure in the Bill, contained in clauses 96 to 100, expands the ability to conduct drug tests upon arrest. The expansion of the drug testing on arrival programme, introduced by the previous Conservative Government, has already demonstrated the sheer number of individuals found to be under the influence of substances when arrested. Between March 2022 and September 2024, police forces reported a total of 154,295 tests to the Home Office. Of these, 86,207, or 56%, were positive for cocaine, opiates or both. It is therefore right that we expand the drug testing programme to cover as wide a range of class B and C drugs as possible, allowing the police to access the information they need to manage offenders appropriately within the criminal justice system.

I also welcome the efforts to tackle off-road bikes. Having seen their impact on my constituents, I hope that during the passage of the Bill we might consider going even further, maybe even considering suggestions made by Government Back Benchers. We must use this opportunity to ensure that the police have the powers they need, and to examine where further powers are required to ensure that the law truly serves the victims of crime and provides a level of openness and transparency for our police forces so that people can have confidence in our justice system.

Additionally, we should all want to see the police doing what they do best: on the beat, preventing and investigating crime. Their time should not be wasted on matters that the public do not consider a priority. Time and again, we see reports of police officers being sent to respond to incidents that are not criminal in nature while serious offences on our streets go unchallenged. The measures in this Bill to tackle antisocial behaviour signal an understanding that removing crime from our streets must be a priority. However, we must consider whether more can be done legislatively to ensure that police time is used effectively.

I must stress that all the well-meaning measures contained in the Bill are meaningless without a well-funded police force. Forces are—[Interruption.] Forces—some led by Labour police and crime commissioners—are raising legitimate concerns about the level of funding they will receive from the Government. Any reduction in police numbers undermines every element of this Bill, weakening the police’s ability to tackle crime across the country. The head of the Metropolitan police has raised his concerns about potential job losses in our capital city—a city where 30% of England and Wales’s knife crime occurs.

I should note at this point that it is very welcome to see the Government reintroducing many of the measures on tackling knife crime put forward in the Criminal Justice Bill by the previous Conservative Government, including a power to retain and destroy bladed articles on private property and to increase the maximum penalty for the sale of dangerous weapons to under-18s. Given that the financial pressures faced by police forces amount to an estimated £118 million shortfall, there is a real  concern that the Government’s actions will contribute to a decline in police numbers. The Government’s police funding increase masks the Chancellor’s national insurance hike on our police forces and their failure to build police pay awards into the baseline.

Moving forward, we will have ample opportunities as a House to scrutinise the legislation and consider potential improvements. Reading the impact assessments and economic notes accompanying the Bill reveals uncertainty about the effects of its various measures. Notably, there is a lack of clarity regarding the number of individuals expected to be imprisoned for certain offences, with significant variation in the estimates provided. The Government must back our police over the criminals and demonstrate the political will to do so. They must provide police with the resources and robust powers they need to keep officers on the beat, deliver swift justice for victims and, in turn, make our streets safer. This Bill is a step forward. Across the House, we all need to support our police officers to tackle the heinous crimes— \p Neil Coyle: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Matt Vickers: Go for it. \p Hon. Members:: Hooray! \p Neil Coyle: Thank you. On swift justice, will the Opposition Front Bench bring forward amendments regarding the shadow Home Secretary’s position on citizen’s arrest? How many amendments can we expect to see about how the police should respond to citizen’s arrests? \p Matt Vickers: What the shadow Home Secretary was doing in office was putting more police on the country’s streets than ever before—149,679 police officers. We hope the Government will maintain that as we move forward, but there are lots of question marks around that.

We all need to support our police officers to tackle the heinous crimes that we have heard about in the debate. I hope the Government remain open to considering measures proposed by Opposition and Government Members who are committed to robustly tackling the very behaviours that this legislation seeks to prevent. \p Diana R. Johnson: It is an honour and privilege to wind up the debate on what is, as the Home Secretary set out in her opening speech, a critically important Bill. It is critically important for all sorts of reasons, many of which have been highlighted during the debate. It has been a wide-ranging discussion, which is unsurprising given the Bill’s scope and breadth.

There have been many excellent and powerful contributions, particularly from the Government Benches, with over 57 Back-Bench speakers. There is a thread that binds all the Bill’s measures together: this Government’s unwavering commitment to the security of our country and the safety of our communities and people we all represent. We are on the side of the law-abiding majority, who have had enough after 14 years of Conservative Governments.

This Bill will support and progress our safer streets mission, which is integral to the Government’s plan for change. We are determined to rebuild neighbourhood policing, restore confidence in the criminal justice system and reduce the harm caused by crime. We have already taken action to strengthen the response to threats, including knife crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls, but to deliver the change that the British people want and deserve, we must go further, and this Bill will allow us to do that.

It is evident from the debate that there is broad cross-party support for many of the Bill’s measures. It has been helpful to have the insights and experience of hon. Members who have previously served as police officers—my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) and for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop)—as well as the wise words from a former Crown prosecutor who now sits on the Government Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth).

Many of my hon. Friends welcomed the commitment to neighbourhood policing, the focus on antisocial behaviour, the introduction of respect orders and the new powers for vehicles being used for antisocial behaviour. In fact, there is a very long list of those Members: my hon. Friends the Members for Telford (Shaun Davies), for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith), for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Makerfield (Josh Simons), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert), for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Mansfield (Steve Yemm). They all spoke with great passion about their constituencies and the effect that antisocial behaviour has had on their communities.

Similarly, many hon. Friends spoke about retail crime and the ending of the shoplifters’ charter, and welcomed the new offence that will better protect retail workers. We heard about that from my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson), for St Helens North (David Baines), for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) and for High Peak (Jon Pearce).

Members spoke eloquently in support of the new offences to tackle child criminal exploitation, stalking, cuckooing, spiking and knife crime, including my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington South (Sarah Hall), for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey).

I also pay tribute to the Members who have campaigned on these issues for some time, including the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones). The measures for which they have been campaigning are in the Bill. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who we recognise is a doughty campaigner, that we are certainly considering dangerous cycling in detail.

In the limited time available to me, I will focus on a few of the points raised throughout the debate, but there will clearly be opportunities during line-by-line scrutiny in Committee to debate all the matters raised this evening fully and properly. I will start with the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who asked a number of questions—some of which were not a surprise, given his focus on technology in particular. In his speech, he seemed to be suffering from amnesia about what has happened to policing and crime over the past 14 years. It is worth gently reminding him that, in the period from April to June last year, when his Government were still in post and, in fact, he was Policing Minister, police numbers were going down. I just thought that I would gently remind him of that, because he obviously needs a bit of help to recall what was happening on his watch. Of course, neighbourhood policing was decimated under the previous Government.

Let me get to some of the specific questions that the shadow Home Secretary wanted me to answer. We all agree that rough sleeping and nuisance begging are complex issues. We are working closely with the Deputy Prime Minister and her Department to ensure that such individuals, who are often vulnerable, are appropriately supported—that is set against our commitment to stand by the police and effectively tackle crime and antisocial behaviour. As it stands, the Vagrancy Act 1824 remains in force, and we know that police forces in many areas also use the ASB powers to tackle the antisocial behaviour associated with begging and rough sleeping.

The shadow Home Secretary also asked about the provisions to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings. As announced in the King’s Speech in 2024, those measures will be introduced in the forthcoming victims, courts and public protection Bill. \p Chris Philp: Will the Minister give way? \p Diana R. Johnson: I would really like to get on actually. The shadow Home Secretary had quite a lot of time at the beginning of the debate, and I would like to respond to the Back Benchers who have spent many hours in the Chamber in order to make their points. However, in response to a question that he asked about knife scanning technology, the Home Office is still working with industry partners to develop systems that are specifically designed to detect at a distance knives concealed on a person. That work is part of the Innovation competitions that were launched last year, and phase one is expected to be delivered by the end of May, resulting in the first prototype systems.

Facial recognition was mentioned by the shadow Home Secretary and a number of hon. Members, and such technology is an important tool to help the police to identify offenders more quickly and accurately. It is  showing significant potential to increase police productivity and effectiveness, and it could substantially contribute to our safer streets mission. We need to support the police by ensuring that they have clarity, especially where there is a balance to strike between ensuring public safety and safeguarding the rights of individuals. I will be considering the options for that, alongside broader police reforms that will be in the White Paper later in the spring.

Public order, particularly the issue of protest, was raised by a number of hon. Members including my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Bristol North East (Damien Egan), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, and we are fully committed to protecting and preserving that right. However, it is vital that we strike the right balance between the right to protest and the rights of the wider community. I am sure we will debate that issue more fully in Committee. We will also be carrying out expedited post-legislative scrutiny of the Public Order Act 2023, beginning in May. That process will look at how the legislation has operated since coming into force, and we will consider carefully the outputs of that review.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) asked me to confirm that any amendments to the Bill on the subject of abortion will be subject to a free vote. All women have access to safe legal abortions on the NHS up to 24 weeks, including taking early medical abortion pills at home where eligible. We recognise that this is an extremely sensitive issue, and there are strongly held views on all sides of the discussion. My hon. Friend will understand that whipping on the Government Benches is a matter for the Government Chief Whip.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) spoke knowledgably about the issue of mandatory reporting. He referred particularly to religious groups and spoke about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and he asked for a meeting to discuss the matter further. The purpose of mandatory reporting is obviously to improve the protection of children, and our aim is to create a culture of support, knowledge and openness when dealing with child sexual abuse. That is why we consider it more appropriate for those who fail to discharge their duty to face referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service, and professional regulators where applicable. Those bodies can prevent individuals from working with children, potentially losing their livelihood, which is a serious consequence. The strongest possible sanctions will apply to individuals where deliberate actions have been taken to obstruct a report being made under the duty. Anyone who seeks to prevent a reporter from carrying out their duty to report will face the prospect of up to seven years’ imprisonment.

My hon. Friends the Members for Gower and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert), and the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) asked whether the Bill could be used to reform our prostitution laws. I assure hon. Members that the Government are committed to tackling the harms and exploitation that can be associated with prostitution, and ensuring that women who want to leave prostitution are given every opportunity to find routes out. The Government are closely monitoring new approaches that are being developed in Northern Ireland and parts of mainland Europe, working closely  with the voluntary and community sector, and the police, to ensure that the safeguarding of women remains at the heart of our approach.

The repeal of part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 was also raised regarding unauthorised encampments, including by my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Liverpool Riverside. I thank my hon. Friends for raising that issue. The Government are considering the High Court’s decision and will respond in due course.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) raised questions about the application of certain provisions in the Bill to Northern Ireland. I assure him and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who raised similar questions, that we are continuing to discuss with the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland whether further provisions in the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland.

Questions about domestic abuse were raised by the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). As was discussed in the debate, domestic abuse covers a wide range of behaviours and is already considered by the courts as a factor that increases the seriousness of offending, which may lead to an increase in the length of a sentence. I am sure that the Minister for Safeguarding would be happy to talk to the hon. Member for Eastbourne about his specific concerns about the current legislation.

In conclusion, this is a wide-ranging and ambitious Bill. It has the straightforward purpose of making our country safer. It will achieve that by restoring neighbourhood policing, by giving law enforcement stronger powers to combat threats that ruin lives and livelihoods, and by rebuilding public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is clear that people around the country want change. They want to feel protected by a visible, responsive police service; they want to know that when our laws our broken, justice will be sought and served; and they want to have a sense of security and confidence, so that they can go about their lives freely and without fear. That is why we have put the safer streets mission at the heart of our plan for change, and it is why we have brought forward this Bill, which I wholeheartedly commend to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Crime and Policing Bill: \p UNKNOWN: (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee. \p UNKNOWN: (2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 13 May 2025.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets. \p UNKNOWN: (4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading. \p UNKNOWN: (7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That Ms Julie Minns and Gordon McKee be discharged from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and Andrew Pakes and Gareth Snell be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.) \p Yuan Yang: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Reading and supporters of Reading football club. Over 600 people have signed the paper petition and over 10,000 have signed an online version, showing the strength of feeling from local fan groups who wish to keep our club alive.

Reading is not the only club to have suffered from ownership problems. In fact, too many clubs across the country have done so, showing the importance of learning from our experiences at Reading. The petitioners therefore request

“that the House of Commons urge the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and the Business and Trade Select Committee to launch an inquiry into the ownership and governance affairs of Reading Football Club since 29 May 2012 on grounds of public interest, with a particular focus on the governance of Reading Football Club since May 2017. And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of the residents of Reading and supporters of Reading Football Club,

Declares that:

(i) Since 29 May 2012, ownership of Reading Football Club (“RFC”) and its material assets has passed through a number of different owners, following a period of sustained success under the custodianship of Sir John Madejski.

(ii) The ownership changes culminated in the ultimate beneficial owners of RFC becoming Mr Dai Yongge and Ms Dai Xiu Li in May 2017. The Dais have overseen a deterioration in all material affairs of RFC, prejudicing the sustainability of RFC.

(iii) The Dais expressed openness to selling RFC in September 2023 but no sale, or commitment to such a sale, has yet taken place, despite numerous well-publicised expressions of interest.

(iv) The circumstances surrounding RFC’s deterioration, and the lengthy, unsuccessful sale process conducted by the Dais are unclear, with limited information made available to stakeholders in RFC and misinformation rife.

(v) Under the Football Governance Bill, an “Independent Football Regulator” (“IFR”) will assume responsibility for regulation of professional football in England, including in relation to financial sustainability and fan engagement matters.

(vi) An inquiry into the circumstances referenced in paragraph (iv) above would likely identify areas for consideration by the IFR which ought to be taken into account in designing the framework under which the IFR will operate. It will also help identify which stakeholders, past and present, are ultimately responsible for the deterioration of RFC, provide supporters of RFC and other stakeholders with a much-needed explanation for the same, and contribute towards a successful outcome to RFC’s current sustainability crisis. An inquiry can also help us know how to avoid this ever happening again to any other club.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and the Business and Trade Select Committee to launch an inquiry into the ownership and governance affairs of Reading Football Club since 29 May 2012 on grounds of public interest, with a particular focus on the governance of Reading Football Club since May 2017.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003051] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Taiwo Owatemi.) \p Helena Dollimore: I have called this debate about Owens in Hastings, the short-lived family fun factory whose boarded-up front is a familiar and depressing sight to anyone who has walked through our town centre. We are certainly not the only town to have experienced boarded-up shopfronts, which have become all too common on high streets around the country.

The reason I am here speaking about this at 10 pm is that Owens has come to symbolise for our community much more than a mere eyesore. Under the Conservative Government’s levelling-up plans, Owens received £150,000 of taxpayers’ money. At the grand opening of Owens, it was revealed that the owner behind it was Lubov Chernukhin, a millionaire who has donated more than £2.4 million to the Conservative party. Did Ms Chernukhin, a millionaire owner, really need a top-up from the taxpayer to fund such a venture? Was that truly the best use of the money given to Hastings to improve our town? None of that makes any sense to my constituents.

It gets worse. Owens closed shortly after opening, and the deserted, boarded-up building now dominates our town centre in Hastings. The staff were laid off with no notice, and many people who supplied the business and helped with the building work have said that they have not been paid for their work. The closure of Owens, which is now covered in wooden boarding, leaves a stain on our community.

Owens has now been closed for 18 months. What has Ms Chernukhin been doing in that time? The answer is: donating vast sums of money to the Conservative party. It is a shame that no Conservative Members are here to hear this, because they might like to hear that the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who sits on the Conservative Front Bench, recently accepted a £70,000 donation from Ms Chernukhin, who is clearly not struggling for money these days. In just the time since Owens has been closed, she has donated more than £150,000 to the Conservative party.

Ms Chernukhin should donate the money she received from the taxpayer back to the people of Hastings—used well, it could go a very long way to fixing our broken paving stones and bus shelters. Lubov Chernukhin: we want our money back. Until that money is repaid in full to our community, the Conservative party should not take a penny in donations from her. Again, it is a shame that no Conservative Members are here, but I will be writing to the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), urging her not to take any more donations until that is done. When she became the Conservative leader, she said very clearly that her party would apologise for the mistakes that it had made; perhaps apologising to the people of my constituency is a good place to start. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. One of the things I see, which she perhaps sees as well—it is the thrust of where she is going—is that the town deal funding the Government offered gave great opportunities  to councils. I know that they did the same in my council area, where we developed an evening dining culture and a coffee culture, but it took the council being the body ensuring that the money was spent where it should be spent. Does the hon. Lady see the good things that can come out of the town deal funding? Does she agree that we should all look at and focus on the good things? \p Helena Dollimore: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his passion about his area and about improving it. It is so true that where money is spent properly, in conjunction and collaboration with the priorities of local people, we see people really feeling a difference in their community. That is why when I speak to my constituents, it is so frustrating for them. We all know that we could have spent £150,000 so much better, which is where that frustration comes from. We are left with a boarded-up, huge building in the centre of town that we have to walk past, and we are reminded of that failure every time.

The Guardian has also reported that Lubov Chernukhin’s involvement in Owens was at least part funded by a £1.5 million loan from a British Virgin Islands company, Sunny Gulch Village Ltd. That company was previously owned by her husband, Vladimir Chernukhin, a former deputy Finance Minister in Putin’s Russia and former chairman of a Russian bank. In a 2018 court case, Lubov herself confirmed that Mr Chernukhin had maintained “excellent” relationships with

“prominent members of the Russian establishment”.

Is that really the company that the Conservative party wants to keep, and is that really a suitable donor?

There are also serious questions to answer about what due diligence was done under the last Government before taxpayers’ money was handed out in this way. The money was part of the town deal fund under the last Government. The plans for spending that money were meant to have been scrutinised by a board that was representative of the local community, but when I have spoken to local businessmen and women who sat on that board, they have told me that they were given very little information about the projects and pressured into signing them off. One asked repeatedly to see the full business cases, but was told that they could not because of commercial sensitivities. Why did the previous Government design such a process for spending taxpayers’ money with so little transparency for us, the taxpayer?

Local businesses also cannot understand why the decision was taken to subsidise a commercial venture when they themselves have had to work so hard to get their businesses off the ground, with no help from the taxpayer. Genecon, a consultancy, was paid by the town deal board to examine the business case for each project, but no research, analysis or figures have ever been shared. Did Genecon ever do that due diligence? All projects were signed off by the then levelling up Department; what checks and due diligence were done by officials and Ministers on those projects to ensure that our taxpayers’ money was being spent wisely? It seems that in the case of so many levelling-up projects, proper processes were not followed. Anyone who speaks to any charity applying today for public money will be told about all the paperwork those charities rightly have to go through. Why was the bar set so low for a venture such as Owens?

Moving forward, it is vital that the same mistakes are not made. Under this Labour Government, we have a brilliant opportunity to breathe life back into our high streets, sort out our empty units and get our local economy moving. I am really grateful to the Minister for the Labour Government’s confirmation that Hastings will be one of the 75 towns awarded £20 million in funding toward those aims over the next decade. The Government have rightly said that that money should be spent on the priorities of our community, whether that is broken pavements, broken bus shelters, or opening up important community venues such as St Mary in the Castle. I will be publicly asking my constituents how they think that money should be spent, and putting on pressure for us to spend it properly. The Labour Government are also giving our communities important new powers, such as high street rental auctions. These will give local leaders the power to take action on properties that have been left vacant for over a year, granting local businesses and community groups the right to rent empty commercial lots at market price.

Lastly, I put on record my thanks to the journalists involved in exposing this scandal. It is only because of the work of journalists at local publications such as the Hastings Independent Press, as well as at The Guardian, that we know what has gone on. Never again should taxpayers’ money be wasted in this way. For that reason, I am also referring the case of Owens to the National Audit Office, and I ask it to investigate. The lessons from Owens must be learned. \p Jim McMahon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this evening’s important debate, and I thank her for speaking so powerfully on behalf of her constituents. She is a passionate champion for Hastings, and is leading the charge to ensure that not a single penny of Government investment in that town is wasted. We have a number of things in common; we are both Labour and Co-operative Members of this House, but we were also both in Hastings and Rye on 8 September 2022 when the late Queen passed away. Apart from the profound sense of how important and significant that day was, what was very clear from speaking to those who are now my hon. Friend’s constituents was the high regard she was held in. I am glad that that was reflected in the result of the election.

Before I turn to the main subject of the debate, I will speak about the funding that the Government are putting into my hon. Friend’s constituency. Last week, my Department announced up to £20 million of funding and support for Hastings through our new plan for neighbourhoods. It will help build a thriving Hastings, strengthen the local community and allow residents to take their own decisions on things that affect them. We are also giving Hastings £15 million for our community regeneration partnerships, which will help provide more affordable housing in the town and fund improvements at the Hollington youth hub. Those investments come on top of the £24.3 million town deal for Hastings.

Our town deals are based on local partnerships and local decision making, and they are led by local town boards. I know my hon. Friend is a member of hers, and  I know that she champions her area extremely well. I am pleased to see that the town deal in Hastings is well into delivery and is beginning to deliver results on the ground, although I hear her concerns about Owens entertainment centre, which I will turn to in more detail.

When my hon. Friend raised this issue in the House last year, I was disappointed to learn about the closure of Owens and any money wasted under the previous Government. Although the decision to invest in the project was taken by Hastings borough council and the town board, it goes without saying that it is deeply disappointing when projects fall through. I understand that the project at the former Debenhams site was due to bring the building back into use and create more leisure facilities and, importantly, local jobs. Following the closure and the company responsible going into administration in October 2024, the owner has retaken possession of the building and the space has been re-advertised for lease.

I hear the concerns of my hon. Friend and her constituents loud and clear regarding her constituents rightfully getting their money back. Although the funding comes from the UK Government, the responsibility for local town board management sits with the town board and formally with Hastings borough council as the accountable body for the town deal. I understand that Hastings borough council issued legal letters last year regarding potential action to recover the £150,000 from the towns fund that was allocated to CFEC Ltd, which ran Owens entertainment centre during this time.

I will be direct, as my hon. Friend was direct, and say that there are plenty of unanswered questions. What we do know is that the Conservatives, when they were in government, received £2 million in donations from its owner. We also know that under their watch, this now-closed amusement centre received more than £150,000 of taxpayers’ money. The simple question we do not yet know the answer to is: why? Why might this millionaire Tory donor have needed a top-up from the taxpayer to open a bowling alley? There are concession owners in the dark, ticket holders confused and, importantly, 31 staff members without a job. I am sure they would like to know the answer to that question, too. I am also sure they would like to know whether the Conservatives, given what has now come to light, have any intentions, for the benefit of the local community, of returning all or part of the donations that they received?

Following the news that CFEC Ltd had gone into administration in October ‘24, a claim was lodged with the administrators to recover the £150,000. My officials will continue to stay up to date on the situation through our town deal monitoring and regular conversations with the council.

On town deals more widely, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris) was pleased to offer an extra year for delivery recently, taking the end of the fund to March 2027. We all want to see quick results, but colleagues in this House and in councils have reiterated how challenging it has been for projects, especially with cost inflation. This Government have listened, which is why there is now an extra year of funding to get those projects over the line. My officials are working with areas where the extra year is taken up to ensure that delivery stays on track.

Let us now look at the broader picture. The last Government tied places up in knots with their short-term initiatives and funding pots, all with very different rules and timetables. Far from driving growth, that bogs places down in bureaucracy, complexity and uncertainty. Moving ahead, we will set out a refreshed approach to local growth funding in the multi-year spending review in the spring—an approach that simplifies funding, with less red tape and more local choice. This Government’s defining  mission is growth, and we are determined that nowhere will be left behind. Together, we will work in partnership with people on the ground and with local authorities in Hastings and in every corner of the country.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.