🛡️ Crime and Policing Bill

• The Crime and Policing Bill aims to enhance safety on the streets by focusing on neighborhood policing, providing law enforcement with necessary powers, and addressing serious violence and antisocial behavior.

• The bill plans to recruit 13,000 additional neighborhood police officers and Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) to rebuild community policing, which has been significantly reduced in recent years.

• New measures will tackle antisocial behavior, such as public drinking, drug use, and the misuse of off-road bikes, with police given immediate powers to seize such vehicles.

• Shoplifting will be addressed by removing the £200 value threshold that previously allowed it to be treated as a minor offense, and a new specific offense will be created for assaulting retail workers.

• The bill proposes stronger actions against knife crime, including increased penalties for the possession and sale of offensive weapons, with a focus on preventing young people from accessing these.

• It introduces new offenses related to violence against women and girls, including stalking, spiking, and child sexual exploitation, aiming to enhance victim protections.

• The legislation also addresses child criminal exploitation and introduces a new duty to report child sexual abuse, emphasizing prevention and support for at-risk youth.

• Concerns were raised about the effectiveness of some measures without sufficient police numbers and resources, as well as the need for better community engagement.

• Some MPs emphasized the importance of addressing underlying issues like trauma and lack of youth services to reduce crime effectively.

• The bill also aims to tackle fly-tipping and rural crime through stronger enforcement powers and cross-departmental strategies.

• It includes measures to protect police officers from abuse and to increase transparency and accountability within police forces.

• Critics mentioned the potential unintended consequences of certain proposals, such as delays in court proceedings, and called for amendments in areas like the regulation of online content and domestic abuse offenses.

• The debate highlighted the need for a comprehensive approach to crime, combining law enforcement with social investment to rebuild trust and safety in communities.

The session exhibits a moderate level of disagreement, primarily centered around policy critiques and differing perspectives on the effectiveness and implementation of proposed measures. The disagreements are primarily evident in the exchanges between the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, and the shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp, as well as various other Members of Parliament raising concerns and questions about specific aspects of the Bill. Here is a detailed explanation of the disagreements observed:

1. Police Numbers and Funding:
   • Yvette Cooper repeatedly criticized the previous Conservative Government for cutting neighbourhood policing, which is evident in her statement, “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.”
   • Chris Philp countered this by emphasizing the increase in total police officer numbers under the Conservatives, stating, “There were 149,679 police officers, which is more than we have ever had at any point in our country’s history.”
   • Additional disagreement arises around the funding of police and the potential for future cuts due to funding gaps, as highlighted by Chris Philp, “The funding pressures in the coming financial year… are about £116 million more than the funding increase. 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.”
2. Effectiveness of Proposed Legislation:
   • Chris Philp questioned the originality and impact of the Bill, suggesting that many of its provisions were copied from previous bills and doubted the impact of new measures such as changes to shoplifting laws. He stated, “The Government’s own impact assessment 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.”
   • Yvette Cooper defended the Bill’s changes, particularly the removal of the £200 threshold for shop theft, indicating it was a crucial step towards addressing crime, “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.”
3. Specific Policy Measures and Omissions:
   • Various MPs raised specific concerns about missing elements in the Bill. For example, Chris Philp asked about measures related to nuisance begging and offender appearance in court, which were in previous bills but not in the current one, “One area that is conspicuously missing from this Bill is the measures on nuisance begging.”
   • Lisa Smart from the Liberal Democrats voiced a concern about the Bill’s focus on certain crimes while neglecting others, such as rural crime and civil liberties issues, “The Government’s failure to reference rural crime even once in the Bill is unacceptable… The Liberal Democrats have been clear that the technology is a threat to privacy, is discriminatory and does not make our streets safer.”
4. Philosophical and Ideological Differences:
   • Nick Timothy articulated broader concerns about the criminal justice system’s direction, suggesting systemic issues not addressed by 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… Passing legislation is not a substitute for genuine and sophisticated police and criminal justice reform.”
   • This contrasts with the Government’s narrative of comprehensive and immediate action to address crime and antisocial behavior.

In summary, while the session does show disagreement, particularly over the effectiveness and completeness of the Bill, as well as funding and numbers of police officers, these disagreements are generally civil and focus on substantive issues rather than personal attacks, resulting in a rating of 3 for the level of disagreement observed.