Domestic Abuse Survivors: Government Support

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for domestic abuse survivors.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Twigg. I thank all Members for attending the debate and standing up for survivors of domestic abuse in their constituencies. I also thank the excellent women’s rights campaigners, some of whom have joined us today. Without their relentless research, activism and day-to-day support for victims, we would be unable to fully represent domestic abuse survivors.

I must open today’s debate with a sad reality: according to Refuge, an estimated 2.2 million women and 1.5 million men have experienced domestic abuse in this country in the last year alone, and according to a 2025 report by the Office for National Statistics, this issue is far from niche. Refuge also found that, on average, one woman is killed by an abusive partner or ex-partner every five days in England and Wales. The fact that we use words like “on average”, “approximately”, and “estimated” on such a serious topic beckons us to acknowledge that those numbers still suffer from severe under-reporting, highlighting just how much more work we have to do.

In the light of International Women’s Day having just passed, and with the Government’s long-awaited violence against women and girls strategy still fresh in our minds, I want to take this opportunity to assess how Government support for domestic abuse survivors holds up in practice.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate; he was absolutely right to do so. I am also very happy to see the Minister in her place and I look forward to hearing her response. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about children in emergency refuge accommodation? I bring that to his attention simply because, in Northern Ireland, some 45% of children in emergency refuge are aged nought to five, which has a difficult impact on those formative years. More support is needed to provide a firm foundation for children during those most vulnerable years—it is not just the ladies; it is the children as well.

[Ben Maguire]

I thank the hon. Member for that excellent point—I will come on to accommodation issues and the impact on children.

I recognise that really important steps have been taken in recent months, on which I congratulate the Government. For instance, many people will agree that the removal of the presumption of contact puts children’s voices and experience back at the heart of contact decisions, which is a genuine step forward for their safety. The 2025 statutory reforms to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 updated the terminology to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021—replacing “domestic violence” with “domestic abuse”, and “financial abuse” with “economic abuse”—and recognised that abuse against an individual may consist of behaviour directed at another individual, such as their children.

However, from speaking to my North Cornwall constituents and the charity sector, I realised that the VAWG strategy does not yet place arguably the most crucial protection for victims at the centre of its aims. Of course, societal change is urgently needed to prevent so-called normal people becoming perpetrators of abuse, but what about those victims who are caught up in the cycle of abuse now? How can we help them and free them from harm?

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Abusive ex-partners can exploit loopholes in the Child Maintenance Service to get control and avoid paying. A constituent of mine is owed over £15,000 and has been left in financial hardship with disabled children. Does my hon. Friend agree that Government guidance on child maintenance payments to survivors of domestic abuse must be written into law, including a means of getting payments from those using the process as coercive control?

[Ben Maguire]

I completely agree; I have actually had some similar casework. I will come back to that point.

In a deeply troubling case brought to me by a wonderful Cornish advice clinic, a female client, who I will call Louise for this debate, was refused legal aid on the basis that she supposedly had too much disposable income and assets, despite the reality that, at the time, she was sofa surfing, effectively homeless and earning only minimum wage. Although she may have passed the merits test, she failed the means test, because she was not paying rent and was not on benefits, so the system deemed her ineligible for legal support.

After Louise fled her partner, who had reportedly abused her, both parties applied for residential custody of their child. Although the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service recommended that the child live with their mother, the judge awarded custody to the ex-partner, arguing that the mother had not followed the correct legal route when she fled from home. She is now permitted to see her child only by travelling hundreds of miles back to the area from which she fled, and the ex-partner refuses phone contact altogether. She is terrified of returning to a family court and knows from experience how one-sided the system can be, especially as her ex-partner has the money and the legal representation, while she would be forced to represent herself. How many women consider the reality that Louise currently faces and, as a result, end up staying with their abuser?

The legal aid Minister assured me that an eligibility waiver is available for victims of domestic abuse who are applying for urgent protections, such as non-molestation orders, yet a survey commissioned by the charity Surviving Economic Abuse found that more survivors had to represent themselves in legal proceedings than were able to access legal aid. The Ministry of Justice’s own harm report found:

“The most important and frequently mentioned form of structural disadvantage was lack of access to legal representation.”

Most cases I have reviewed end with a victim—whose abuse has not yet reached so-called dangerous levels—applying for a child protection order, anti-stalking order or non-molestation order, which means they do not qualify to skip the legal aid means test. On the contrary, victims will be assessed on their income through a test that has not been uprated with inflation since 2009.

An applicant is not eligible for legal aid if their monthly disposable income exceeds £733. That threshold is clearly blind to reality. So far, the Government have chosen to ignore rising food and energy costs, as well as the huge debts that can be caused by an abuser. Even if someone has £750 left at the end of the month including those costs, which is farcical, the fact that solicitors can cost anything from £120 an hour to £400 or £500 an hour speaks volumes about the poorly executed calculations that are applied to the legal aid means test threshold.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for my Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill, which he has backed from the start. He is making a very powerful point about the role that businesses can play in supporting victims and survivors of domestic abuse, who are the reason why we are all here and who we care so much about. Does he agree that we should be doing more to encourage businesses to support women fleeing from domestic abuse, such as through the roundtable that I hosted recently with Women’s Aid, Airbnb and AXA? Does he also agree that the response from Travelodge this week has been simply shameful and that, quite frankly, it has failed to tackle violence against women and girls in one of its properties?

[Ben Maguire]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being such a champion on this issue, and I completely agree with his condemnation of Travelodge’s frankly despicable response. His point regarding Airbnb is interesting, and I have been making the same point recently, because it crosses over with the Travelodge issue.

I am sure that many Members have heard from survivors in their constituencies who tell them they have spent all their savings on legal fees or they have accrued tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt. We know that survivors often face crippling financial barriers when trying to protect themselves and, in many cases, their children. Would the Minister tell me why the review period for the threshold has not yet been changed and why the gap between those who are eligible for legal aid and those who can afford to pay for legal services has not received closer scrutiny during the means test review?

The previous Government completed their review in 2022 and then proposed new criteria in 2023. Implementation was later delayed and, as far as I am aware, the current Government have not yet indicated that they intend to progress the work. I would therefore appreciate an update from the Minister on the status of the legal aid means test review.

I welcome the Government’s steps to include economic abuse in the Domestic Abuse Act, but claiming that if a victim can prove they are economically abused, they will become exempt from the means test is a bit like asking victims who are under a severe threat to their health—in the most vulnerable state of their life—to sift through a haystack to find a purposefully and impossibly well-hidden needle. The £100,000 capital exemption recently introduced for the means test has been powerfully rejected by Women’s Aid and domestic abuse charities, which say that it does not go nearly far enough.

Sitting on a £1 million property that is co-owned with their perpetrator, who—guess what?—will not sell, excludes someone from any legal support. Such trapped capital should not be included in the financial eligibility calculation. I would go as far as stating that such inaccessible capital should be exempt from the means test, particularly as many victims are too afraid to leave their homes with their children as they are not certain that the family courts will bring them a positive outcome, as I have highlighted in Louise’s case.

According to the Surviving Economic Abuse 2026 report, almost 1 million women in the UK who experienced economic abuse last year said that the abuse prevented them from leaving their dangerous abuser. In the worst-case scenario, that decision, which is forced on them via our systematic failure to understand the reality of domestic abuse for victims, can be fatal. Another recent study covering a 12-year period, which included 400 homicide reviews, found that one person died every 19 days in cases that involved economic abuse. In other words, every three weeks a victim dies because an abuser uses economic abuse as a tool of control.

Refuge recently evidenced how 75 women were killed as a result of domestic homicide in the year ending 2025. Those numbers should spark outrage across our society. This final act of violence could have been prevented had there been proper legal resources in place for victims, or proper housing support that meant victims could be safe. Too many victims are forced to return to their perpetrators because they do not receive the levels of legal support needed to continue with the legal process. That means that many are unable to obtain things such as protective orders against their perpetrator, or obtain safe child contact arrangements.

Victims could even end up homeless. Those brave victim survivors who do leave their homes and apply for urgent homelessness protection can receive immediate legal support, but they end up having to go through the legal aid means test. If they are seen to have an income above the threshold, they have to support their own legal representation, when it is actually their abuser who has forced them out. Victims therefore become stuck between staying in their family home and enduring their suffering, or ending up potentially homeless—due to, again, this destructive means test.

A Cornish women’s protection centre recently reached out to me, detailing the following case that it was dealing with—for which I have again changed the name. Katy’s ex-partner abused and controlled her, both during and after their relationship ended. The ex-partner controlled contact with their children and locked Katy out of their property, resulting in her sleeping on the streets. During the family court process, which lasted 18 months, Katy had no legal aid or legal advice, and minimal support throughout the court proceedings, representing herself at the family court.

Eventually, the judge granted a non-molestation order, an occupation order, a prohibited steps order, and a full care order for the children. However, after achieving that without any access to legal advice, Katy and her children have still not been given access to their home and remain homeless. Reporting by Women’s Aid reinforces this reality. Survivors frequently cannot secure a legal aid solicitor due to the combined effects of eligibility barriers and a national shortage of legal aid providers. That leaves many women unable to challenge refusals, missing deadlines and remaining in unsafe or unsuitable accommodation because they cannot navigate the process alone.

All of that continues despite official homelessness data showing that large numbers of households become homeless or are threatened with homelessness due to domestic abuse, which means they should be treated as vulnerable and properly protected, not forced through a rigid financial test that was never designed for people fleeing violence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

Just to be clear, there are no legal ramifications of the homelessness test in part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act. There is a homelessness duty; in the vast majority of cases, people do not have to undertake legal action in order for the homelessness duty to apply to them.

[Ben Maguire]

I thank the Minister. Perhaps she can follow up on that point in her speech.

I ask the Government urgently to reform evidence requirements for economic abuse in favour of more accessible evidential criteria. The lack of clarity regarding acceptable forms of evidence causes already limited legal aid solicitors to pre-emptively refuse to take on survivors’ cases. Having discussed and highlighted countless reasons to reform the legal aid means test for victims of domestic abuse, I must ask why legal aid is barely mentioned in the VAWG strategy, despite it being such a vital tool for victims to seek justice and crucial support.

The Justice Secretary in the previous Government, Alex Chalk, is acknowledged by many in the women’s rights sector to have been open to committing to reform the legal aid barriers that victims face. I am sure, and hopeful, that the Government will be open to working with all of us to fix the legal aid means test, which, as I hope I have set out clearly, is the biggest obstacle to so many victims. I recently launched a petition to reform the means test, and I hope to widen the campaign further.

How much more loss—how many more needless deaths—do we as a country need to endure? How many more debates are needed in this place for the Government to consider the issue properly? Until they commit to removing the legal aid means test for all domestic abuse victims and survivors, including those who are not currently accessing universal credit or fleeing the abuser, I hope to see urgent implementation of the delayed legal aid reforms, as pushed for by the VAWG sector. Those include the mandatory disregarding of inaccessible capital for victims of domestic abuse; the raising of the income threshold, which needs to include an annual review of the means test; and reformed evidence requirements when trying to prove economic abuse.

I will end my speech there, in the hope that, by the time of the next Westminster Hall debate on domestic abuse, we will have seen tangible progress to show survivors that we stand with them, we fight with them and we will do everything we possibly can to change the system for them.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

I find myself in the difficult position that the debate was tabled for response by the Home Office, but almost its entire thrust is legal aid, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. I will do my very best to answer the points made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), but this is one of the main cultural changes that I wish to achieve with regard to violence against women and girls across the Government and across the country. Not a single one of the matters relating to violence against women and girls that he carefully alluded to—issues faced by victims of domestic abuse such as housing and homelessness, the family court, and issues to do with benefits and child maintenance—is the responsibility of the Home Office, and yet whenever there is an issue related to domestic abuse, people look to the Home Office. It is a cultural and an institutional failing that has led to a lack of advancement in this space. I will answer the hon. Member’s questions as best I can, but he will get a much more thorough response on the specificity of legal aid from the Ministers who are responsible for legal aid.

[Ben Maguire]

I acknowledge and appreciate the Minister’s point about this not being the responsibility of the Home Office. I will say, though, that I excitedly awaited the VAWG strategy to see a cross-departmental approach to this vital issue—not action by one Department or another, but a whole-of-Government approach. I hope that she might agree with me on that point.

[Jess Phillips]

I hope that the hon. Member appreciates that that is exactly what this is. I only make the point because there is so often a risk in this place, and in the Government, of one person who cares a huge amount about something becoming the responsible party for it, always.

I will move on to the hon. Gentleman’s broader points. As he stated, the Ministry of Justice is conducting a review of the domestic abuse evidence requirements that need to be satisfied in order to access legal aid for private family matters, to ensure that those requirements are not a barrier to accessing legal aid for victims of domestic abuse.

I intervened on the hon. Member on his point about homelessness. I speak as somebody who, this week alone, has handled more than 10 cases of homelessness relating to domestic abuse. Not a single one of those interacted with the legal aid system, because, thanks to part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act, which I fought very heavily for, there is a duty on every tier 1 and unitary local authority area, with funding provided by the Government, to provide accommodation and house people. I would not want the message to go out from here that people will end up on the streets.

Of course, there need to be massive improvements in the manner in which refuge accommodation is commissioned. That is committed to in the violence against women and girls strategy. We also need to be clear what we mean by the term “refuge”, because one man’s—well, one woman’s—refuge accommodation may not be another’s. As we heard from our friend from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the housing of children in refuge accommodation is patchy across the entire country. Looking at how we commission that homelessness service is a huge and fundamental part of this.

Animals in Science Regulation Unit: Annual Report 2024

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this really important debate today. I congratulate all the speakers who have participated. I thought they all made powerful and useful contributions to the debate.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East powerfully highlighted some of the horrific and unacceptable treatment of animals in research. The Liberal Democrats are champions of animal rights, and I am proud to speak on behalf of the hundreds of animal rights campaigners from my constituency today. I must add a special mention of my constituent from Bude, Steph Jones-Giles, who is a true animal rights champion and has spoken to me about this on many occasions. I see Isobel Martin from Animal Free Research UK in the Gallery; she is also an excellent advocate on this issue.

Fundamentally, Liberal Democrats believe that this country should expect only the absolute highest standards of animal welfare in the scientific experimentation and cosmetic industries. We want to get this country back on track as a world leader in this area and take concrete steps to raise animal welfare standards and get the balance right. The latest annual report by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, the subject of our debate, shows a number of welcome steps and intentions facing the right direction of travel. It rightly places a strong focus on avoiding the use of animals in scientific testing wherever possible.

I am proud that we Liberal Democrats are at the forefront of raising these issues. Lord Clement-Jones, a colleague from the other place, is applying the right pressure to ensure that regulation in this area remains precise and adequate, with encouragement to properly prevent and punish any non-compliance that causes undue harm to animals, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members today. However, it is alarming to read, in the latest report, of the 146 cases of non-compliance in 2024. As many Members have pointed out, those are only the cases that have been reported. Although marking a drop in cases compared to the previous year, those were largely failures to provide proper care such as food and water to the animals being tested on, as we have heard, and to adhere to the strict licence conditions.

Those countless cases of malpractice involved more than 22,000 individual animals, with most being mice. It is a truly shameful statistic. In October 2024, the Regulation Unit made some welcome reforms by increasing their team of full-time inspectors and establishing a new governance board for the unit for greater oversight, which has made a welcome and positive impact.

On a wider point, I am proud to have voted against the draconian measures that were put before the House just over two weeks ago, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues. We stood firm against expansion of the Public Order Act 2023, which bans legitimate and peaceful animal rights protests and criminalises those activists demanding better welfare for animals involved in testing. I reiterate that once more: I am talking about peaceful campaigners who are raising genuine ethical concerns being treated like terrorists under the guise of threats to our national security. Time and time again in years gone by, the Conservative party undermined our right to peaceful protest by introducing sweeping, overreaching powers that go far beyond what is needed to maintain public safety. The police already had strong powers to deal with dangerous or obstructive behaviour before the current Government and their Conservative predecessors imposed those totally unnecessary extra measures.

I will briefly refer to some hon. Members’ speeches. The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) highlighted the starvation and injury of primates and, again, the possible under-reporting of non-compliance in the self-reporting system we find ourselves with, which means we may have only scratched the surface of illegal animal abuse. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) highlighted the 5 million animals that are to be used in experiments in the coming years, and made a powerful case for Herbie’s law. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) has been a long-standing champion on this issue; I think I am already a member of her APPG but, if I am not, I will make sure to join. The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) mentioned how experiments have been made on more than 2,500 dogs and 1,000 primates, and, again, highlighted the cases that have not been reported.

Liberal Democrats are unapologetic in wanting to see minimal use of animals in scientific testing and the phasing out of testing altogether wherever possible and as soon as possible. We urgently call on the Government to provide greater funding into viable alternatives. In her response, will the Minister commit to a full, new animal health and welfare Bill that looks at the wider issue of animal welfare and delivers a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard animal wellbeing in this sector? As part of their ongoing reset talks with the European Union, will the Government sign a veterinary and phytosanitary agreement as soon as possible to ensure closer alignment on standards and quality with the trading block? Finally, will the Government commit to solidifying minimum standards for all imported food, so that our own animal standards are met by every other nation looking to do business? That would prevent our British farmers being undercut by poorer-quality foreign imports that do not have the same standards.

Police Reform

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the news that police and crime commissioners are being scrapped. We have been calling for it for years, and I personally called for this in one of my first contributions in this House, after the PCC election turnout in Cornwall was abysmally low, at just 18%. The model was a failed Tory experiment that has cost taxpayers dearly.

The Minister is right to point out the countless flaws in the overly politicised PCC model, which has diverted much-needed funding away from frontline and community policing. PCCs cost the public millions in council tax every year, yet the impact on their local communities has been negligible. However, transferring the role to mayors is not the answer; it would give even more power to single individuals with dubious democratic mandates and little scrutiny or accountability. The Government must learn the lessons of this expensive and failed experiment.

Instead, the Government should see through their plans for these “temporary” local police and crime boards, but give them the powers on a permanent basis. They should ensure that the money saved from PCCs goes where it is needed most: getting more officers out on our streets and repairing the damage done by years of Conservative mismanagement and underfunding. That is particularly urgent in the light of the slow progress the Home Office has made on its promise to deliver 13,000 new neighbourhood officers; only 200 were added last year, while the number of officers in frontline roles went down.

Will the Minister commit to investing the money saved from these unnecessary PCCs straight into frontline policing and towards proper, effective community policing? Could she outline the safeguards that will be put in place to hold mayors to account with their new-found policing responsibilities? Finally, could she elaborate on her estimated £100 million in savings from scrapping PCCs—has that figure been independently verified, and can she confirm that the funds will be not just transferred to mayors’ budgets but spent on frontline policing?

[Sarah Jones]

May I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his robust attack on a policy that his own party introduced as part of the coalition Government in 2010?

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that the impact of our police and crime commissioners has been negligible. I do not think that is true. In many cases, they have done a good job in quite difficult circumstances. The innovation we have seen from our PCCs and the partnerships that they have sought to build have been good. It is not the individuals and teams that we are criticising today; it is the structure.

The hon. Gentleman asked about funding. The PCC election savings sadly will not be coming to the Home Office; they will obviously, and rightly, go to the Treasury. The savings that we are making, through police and crime commissioner functions and the efficiencies we want to drive, are significant—at least £20 million—and we want to reinvest that back into policing, as I think everybody would want us to do.

The hon. Gentleman talked about making sure that the right safeguards and the right model are in place. Police and crime commissioners will continue for the next two years in the areas where we do not already have mayoral processes in place, so we have a good amount of time to work with colleagues on how the new structures will work. That said, there is already a process under way of moving police and crime commissioner functions into the mayoral structures; that is already happening.

At the moment, there are 37 police and crime commissioners. Six force areas will move to the mayoral model in 2027, and there will be more in 2028, depending on how the Bill progresses. The idea is that we see this progress, apart from, as I said, in Wales, which has a different system and does not have the mayoral model.

Police: Professional Standards

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister to her place. I requested this debate following some shocking constituency cases that I have dealt with since my election to this place last summer. I am sure that I am not the only Member to have serious concerns about the police complaints and professional standards process.

It is important that I make it clear from the outset that this is not a criticism of the hard-working police officers who do a fantastic job with limited resources. I must take this opportunity to pay tribute to my excellent local sector inspectors Adam Stonehill and Gregory Hodgkiss for their dedication and hard work. However, I must always give voice to my constituents when they feel that a justice has occurred and there is a clear need for wholesale institutional change. Systemic issues in the professional standards department at Devon and Cornwall police have shattered my constituents’ trust in the police.

While knocking on doors during the general election last summer, I met one such constituent. Lisa Rufus had completely lost faith in the police and felt that she would never see justice for her son, Kye, who was involved in a motorcycle accident involving a collision with a car back in 2019. He suffered life-changing injuries. Kye was found by the police to be entirely at fault, and he was therefore not entitled to any compensation from his insurance company for his resulting 24-hour care needs.

Kye’s mother Lisa raised a series of serious issues about the way the investigation was conducted. Crucially, the investigating officer had decided not to close the road in accordance with usual procedure when a fatality is likely, and, quite incredibly, a forensic collisions investigator was not called to the scene by the investigating officer, even though the explicit guidance in the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice is that the roles of forensic collision investigator and lead investigator are completely separate, and an individual should not perform both roles, as occurred in this case.

Other concerns about the case included the fact that Kye’s bike was later removed and destroyed without Lisa or any of her family being informed. The police initially told Lisa that there was no body-worn camera footage from the scene, yet it later emerged that there was—but only after Kye had been taken to hospital. The initial police report described how Kye must have slid across the road uphill, yet his clothes showed little sign of tearing or scuffing. A report from paramedics and a car mechanic mentioned serious damage to the car, but that was not detailed anywhere in the police report.

Lisa made a complaint to the professional standards department at Devon and Cornwall police and received a detailed response eight months later, on 12 February 2021. It took oral evidence from police officers who had attended the scene that day. Lisa’s complaint that an investigation of poor standard reached its conclusion at too early a stage was upheld by the investigating officer, as was her complaint that Kye’s motorbike was scrapped without her or her family’s knowledge, and that no photographs of it were taken beforehand.

In that report, one police constable explained how they felt reluctant to share photos of the scene with Lisa and her family because she did not feel it was a true representation of the scene. She said,

“I felt these photographs would raise more questions for the family and would not instil confidence in the investigation”.”

Another PC stated that he was

“astonished by the poor quality of the evidence package.”

The investigation report was then reviewed by a chief inspector who, quite incredibly, overruled all the report’s findings, and stated that the service provided by Devon and Cornwall police was “acceptable” and that there was

“no further action to be taken.”

No reasons or rationale were given for this decision.

Lisa then complained to the police and crime commissioner’s office, who again found that the service she had received was unacceptable and requested that reasons be given for this dramatic change. The chief inspector then followed up on 23 September 2021, detailing his reasons for reversing the decisions made in the original report and reiterating that the service was acceptable, though he did admit that there were

“investigative issues which could have been done better”—

this despite reversing the decision to uphold Lisa’s original complaint that a poor standard of investigation had occurred.

On the complaint that Kye’s motorbike was destroyed without informing the family, the chief inspector explained that there is no “written record of this” ever taking place that, but from the information available, it appears every effort was made to inform Lisa of the intention to scrap the motorbike. He goes on to conclude that, given the conflicting accounts, no definitive resolution can be determined—and yet he reversed the decision to uphold that complaint to “not upheld”.

I wrote to the professional standards department back on 5 November 2024, highlighting my serious concerns about this entire process that had arisen from the responses Lisa had received to her complaints. I finally received a response almost one year later, on 10 September, just a few days ago. This letter said that the chief inspector had been mistaken in setting out a second right to review and pointed Lisa to her right to seek a judicial review through the High Court if she was not satisfied with the responses she had received. I ask the Minister, is that really the only recourse for our constituents in this kind of situation?

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. A neurodivergent woman who was raped by her partner raised a complaint with the professional standards department last year due to the lack of any updates on her case, which, quite rightly, increased her anxiety that the perpetrator may retaliate for reporting him. When I requested an update from the police, they advised me that a complaint was already pending in the system so they could not access or update us on the case. Quite incredibly, the PC suggested that if she remained unsatisfied, she could “make a complaint”.

Another constituent, a teenage girl who is also neurodivergent, was raped by her partner on a night out. The crime was reported nearly two years ago, and the family had the impression that the case was already with the Crown Prosecution Service. They were recently told that the suspect was being re-interviewed. If they make a complaint, can they have any confidence that they will get a satisfactory response?

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Professional standards set the tone and the culture for the whole organisation. I pay tribute to Roy Linden, who is the commander of South Devon police, the old F division. There is a significant challenge relating to the lack of knowledge within the police. There are lots of new officers, and if we do not have the professional standards holding people to account, police often fall short of the standards that many of us would expect of them.

[Ben Maguire]

I completely agree that it is essential we have police officers with the experience, skills and knowledge, to ensure that people have proper trust and confidence in our police and confidence that complaints will be dealt with properly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

I was holding my breath on this one. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He has given three examples of things that have happened. Does he agree that in a world of grey, it is imperative that the conduct and professionalism of our police forces is black and white and that officers understand that once they put the application form in, their conduct must be of the highest standards, and this will be enforced at the highest level?

[Ben Maguire]

I completely agree we must hold our police officer to the highest standards, particularly when it comes to complaints. If those standards do not meet the threshold that we all rightly expect, we need to have a robust complaints system, in which we can have proper trust and confidence.

I will quickly mention one more constituent case—that of another teenage girl, who was sexually assaulted by a close neighbour and has had to move away from the family home while the investigation continues for months and months, without any updates at all from the police. I am afraid that the list goes on.

I am sure that other Members will agree that one of the greatest privileges of being a Member in this place is meeting some really inspiring constituents. The bravery of those young girls, and Lisa’s relentless campaigning on behalf of her son, have inspired me. I am proud to bring their cases before this House.

To conclude, I ask the Minister to please clarify some of the following questions. What can my constituents do when they have legitimate concerns that have not been properly addressed by the complaints process? Clearly, a judicial review is completely out of reach for most of our constituents.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate speech on behalf of his constituents on this difficult issue. As other Members have, I pay tribute to my police force, Surrey police. They do great work, but sadly things sometimes do go wrong. I have had to deal with a number of cases in my constituency office where the process has not worked in the way we would all like it to. People have gone to the police with complaints, only to find themselves in distress and unable to trust the outcomes because, in effect, the local force—although also in another case with the Met—has marked its own homework. The complaint has stayed with that force, which does not fill people with the confidence they need for their case. Does my hon. Friend agree that serious consideration is needed? If we want people to trust our fantastic police forces up and down the country, we need to look seriously at the current situation so that we can move to one where other forces review some of the most serious complaints.

[Ben Maguire]

I hope that the Minister heard that suggestion of complaints about one police force potentially being reviewed by another. That seems like a sensible suggestion that, importantly, would give a much-needed sense of independence in our complaints system.

Will the Minister consider introducing a statutory time limit for a response to such complaints, given the long delays faced by my constituents and by myself, when I have inquired on behalf of my constituents—almost a year, in the case I mentioned? The guidance of the Independent Office for Police Conduct is to give complainants 28-day, regular updates on their complaint. That guidance clearly was not followed in any of the cases I mentioned. What can our constituents do to ensure that those 28-day updates happen? Also, what is the current backlog of complaints? Will it be brought back to an acceptable level? How many extra staff have been recruited or are in the process of being recruited to bring it down? Importantly, have frontline officers been drafted away from their duties on the frontline to help reduce the backlog?

Finally, as I said at the start, confidence and trust in our police force are so important. Many people know of the soap opera at Devon and Cornwall police. We have had three chief constables under police and crime commissioner Alison Hernandez. We eagerly await the Government’s rural crime strategy—something that my private Member’s Bill, the Rural Crime (Strategy) Bill, also called for earlier this year. I urge the Minister to act quickly to restore that trust and confidence in the professional standards of our police.

Omar al-Bayoumi: Arrest and Extradition

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his update, and I echo his tribute to the victims of the appalling 9/11 attack. However, after recent revelations about Omar al-Bayoumi, his alleged involvement with the Saudi intelligence services and his links to the 9/11 hijackers, a number of pressing questions remain unanswered. First, why were British investigators not given access to all the evidence that the FBI held, including the Capitol Hill video and the aircraft sketch? Who in the UK Government was briefed about al-Bayoumi’s arrest at the time? Why is there no clear record of ministerial oversight? Did the Saudi authorities make representations to the UK Government regarding al-Bayoumi’s detention? If so, did this ultimately influence the decision to release him? Finally, and most importantly, what safeguards are now in place to make sure that crucial evidence from foreign intelligence agencies cannot be withheld from British counter-terrorism investigations?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least because he rightly raises the important point that we should always seek to remember and reflect on the sacrifice and the loss of the victims and survivors of terrorism. He is right: the victims and survivors of the horrific terrorist attacks that have scarred communities here and around the world must be remembered. This Government take that incredibly seriously, and in that spirit we have recently consulted on the creation of a national day for victims and survivors of terrorism. It is vital that the day reflects the voices and experience of those who have been directly impacted by terrorism offences.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of detailed questions, but I will not be able to respond in detail to all of them, for reasons that I have already outlined. I can say that we will look closely at the matters that have been raised. I hope he sees that there are reasons why we cannot get into the detail of this today, but I give him and the House and assurance that we will look closely at this.

Licences and Licensing

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

England’s Lionesses have a brilliant track record, and not just on the pitch; they have continued to win hearts, change attitudes and redefine what women’s sport looks like in this country. From their historic Euro 2022 win to reaching the world cup final last year, they have sparked a cultural shift that has touched every community, including mine in North Cornwall.

In towns and villages across Cornwall, we find women lacing up their boots, taking to the pitch and building the next chapter of the game. Teams such as Bodmin Women, Bude Town Ladies, Kilkhampton Ladies and countless others are part of a growing movement to put women’s sport on an equal footing with men’s. I cannot stress how vital our national team and local grassroots sides are to inspiring young girls to dream big. When girls in places such as Bude or Padstow see the Lionesses celebrated on the same scale as the men’s team, it sends a clear message: this game is for you, too, and you belong here.

That is why this licensing change really matters. It might seem technical, but it carries symbolic weight. It will also have a really positive impact on our hospitality industry, at a time when it is struggling with increased national insurance and business property relief changes. It tells the country that women’s football deserves the same celebration, the same energy and the same place in our national life as the men’s game.

Visibility alone is not enough, however. At school level, where a lot of the passions start and a lifelong love of the beautiful game is ignited, only around two thirds of girls are getting the chance to play football during physical education lessons. That is unacceptable. We Liberal Democrats believe that every young person should get at least two hours of quality physical education a week, backed by proper facilities and the right funding.

We also need to ensure that grassroots clubs, such as those in North Cornwall and across the country, have the coaching, resources and safe spaces they need to thrive. I have seen the appetite in our local communities at first hand; we just need to match it with the support. The Karen Carney review in 2023 offered a road map for long-term progress, but progress must also mean equity and treating women’s sport not just as an add-on, but as an essential part of this country’s culture.

Collectively, I am sure that all Members of this House will join me in getting behind the teams in our villages, towns, cities and schools, encouraging the future of women’s football to be written on school fields and local pitches by the next generation. I take this opportunity to wish both Wales and England the very best of luck for the tournament.

Question put and agreed to.

Crime and Policing Bill

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

I thank the Minister for recently confirming to me that delivery e-bikes will be covered by the new provisions, and for taking into account the concerns of my community. I hope she will look kindly on our request for support in sustainably funding the fight against economic crime.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Rachel Taylor.

Hong Kong Democracy Activists

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I know about the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry; in fact, I believe that I am due to give evidence to it. I can absolutely give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will look carefully at the findings of that important piece of work. I have written to the Committee Chair about it, and I look forward to meeting the Committee and giving evidence. I look forward to progressing the work through the defending democracy taskforce, so that we can say more about the work against transnational repression that the Government intend to do.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I recently met Jimmy Lai’s son Sebastien and his legal team, and I was horrified to hear that his UK legal team from Doughty Street Chambers recently faced a concerted and co-ordinated campaign against them, including intimidation, surveillance, hacking of bank accounts and rape threats aimed at their children. It appears that the Chinese state is now undermining our legal system.

The Minister has repeated at the Dispatch Box that the Government will take all steps to prevent persecution of Hong Kong nationals in the UK. Will he support the call from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for high-profile visits by UK and Chinese officials in our respective countries to be paused until the security situation is resolved?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the case of Jimmy Lai. I too have met Sebastien Lai. Jimmy Lai’s case is a priority for the Government, and we have made that clear in our engagements with China. We call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and immediately release Jimmy Lai. The Prime Minister raised his case with President Xi at the G20 summit in November; the Foreign Secretary raised it with China’s Foreign Minister in October; and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), raised it with Hong Kong officials during her visit to Hong Kong in November.

Rural Crime

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered rural crime.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey, and a privilege to open this important debate on rural crime. It is fantastic to see many hon. Members, from both sides of the House, joining the debate, and I thank them all for their attendance.

I grew up in the rural constituency of North Cornwall—which I now proudly serve as its Member of Parliament—and my family and friends, like many others, are acutely aware of the dangers that rural crime can bring and the drastic effects it can have on our small, tight-knit communities. For too long, rural crime has been overlooked and not made a priority by successive Governments, but for those living and working in our rural communities, its impact can be absolutely devastating. Let me be crystal clear: rural crime is rarely random or opportunistic, and successive Governments have not given it the attention it deserves.

The evidence overwhelmingly shows that rural crime is now dominated by organised criminal gangs that operate with sophistication across police forces and systematically target farmers, tradesmen and rural businesses. I am not talking just about the occasional theft of a piece of farm equipment; this is large-scale, co-ordinated and organised criminal activity, with criminal networks exploiting gaps in policing resources.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

Sadly, in the last week my constituency has suffered a spate of rural break-ins on the edge of Exmoor, and a quad bike and a chainsaw were also stolen from sheds in West Anstey earlier this month, in a pattern that we are very familiar with. Just this past week, South Molton and Umberleigh joined a string of other Devon villages where thieves believed to be targeting cigarettes struck local shops and service stations overnight. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when we talk about rural crime, we are really talking about the perception among criminals that rural areas are soft targets for obtaining goods that can be easily fenced elsewhere?

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be brief.

[Ben Maguire]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to that type of rural crime. We have become far too much of a soft touch for these organised criminal gangs.

If we want to tackle crime in this country, we must finally start taking rural crime seriously. The latest figures from NFU Mutual put the total cost of rural crime in 2023 at £52.8 million—an increase of 4.3% on the year before. But those figures only reflect insured losses, and the true cost is likely far higher, as many people do not have trust or confidence that crimes will be properly investigated when reported.

The explosion in thefts of high-value equipment is particularly worrying. GPS theft surged by 137% last year, costing £4.2 million, and farmers cannot simply replace the equipment overnight. Thefts of quad bikes and all-terrain vehicles, which are critical equipment for farmers and rural workers, rose by 9% to £3.2 million. Livestock theft remained at an alarming £2.7 million, with evidence of animals being butchered in the fields and then stolen, causing immense distress to farmers.

Farmers—who faced botched Brexit trade deals thanks to the Conservatives, and who now face a family farm tax because of this Labour Government’s changes to agricultural property relief—are suffering from the scourge of rural organised crime, which is often theft to order. The toll on farmers’ mental health and wellbeing is enormous, and my inbox has been inundated with cases from North Cornwall. One farmer saw his £17,000 all- terrain vehicle stolen in the dead of night, and that was not the first time thieves had targeted his property. Another farmer, in the village of St Kew, lost more than £3,000 in the blink of an eye when thieves broke in and stole vehicles, tools and equipment that he relied on for his livelihood. Finally, one farming couple in Blisland had two quad bikes taken from their locked garage, costing £15,000 to replace. With this particular theft, police travelled all the way from Totnes—a three-hour round trip—showing up three days after the event. They put a few signs around the property, and the farmers have not heard from them since. Those stories make it unsurprising that 86% of countryside residents have said rural crime is negatively impacting their mental wellbeing, as highlighted by various surveys conducted by the NFU.

Yet, one of the most under-reported aspects of rural crime is the mass theft of power tools and machinery from tradesmen and small businesses—a crime that exceeds farm machinery theft in total volume. The figures are staggering. Of the over 3,600 stolen tools recovered by the national rural crime unit, only 77 were successfully returned to their owners. That is just 2%, which is an abysmal rate of return, with a huge impact on the livelihoods of these tradesmen. These thefts can devastate builders, carpenters, plumbers and others who rely on expensive, specialised equipment to earn a living. When tools are stolen, jobs are lost, deadlines are missed and insurance costs soar. Yet, some manufacturers outright refuse to co-operate with crime prevention efforts, as there is currently no legal requirement for forensic markings or GPS tracking on these high-value power tools to help with their recovery.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that a private Member’s Bill I brought forward in the last Parliament—it is now the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023—would enable us to place that requirement on power tool manufacturers to fit forensic marking; it just requires secondary legislation. The Bill was discussed at all stages of debate during its passage through the House of Commons and the House of Lords, so will the hon. Gentleman support my calls from back then, and on the new Government now, to look at bringing in that secondary legislation to make the Act apply equally to power tools?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Maguire]

Along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I certainly do support that change, and I will discuss it slightly later in my speech.

The trust that our rural communities have in police forces to solve these crimes is shockingly low, with two thirds of respondents to one survey saying that reporting rural crime is a total “waste of time” as they know it will go unsolved. The Government could reopen some of the smaller police stations in rural areas, such as that in Launceston in my constituency, so that these crimes can be reported and dealt with by the front desks, which would certainly be a start in regaining the public’s trust and confidence,

As the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) just mentioned, Parliament passed the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act in July 2023, with the aim of deterring thefts of farm vehicles by requiring immobilisers and registration databases. The Act was a clear step forward, but unfortunately it did not do quite enough to tackle the true scale of the problem, as it does not cover GPS units, power tools or smaller, high-value pieces of equipment, which are among the most frequently stolen items. Will the Government consider the merits of extending that legislation to ensure that all GPS systems, power tools, and pieces of high-value rural equipment are required to have forensic markings and registration databases?

[Greg Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Ben Maguire]

I am going to carry on for a moment.

Without proper enforcement and action, we are leaving the van door wide open for thieves. While rural crime grows, police forces remain underfunded, overstretched and lacking the specialist knowledge needed to combat these offences. In many cases, local police do not have the resources, staff or capability to track and recover farm equipment and power tools at the rate at which they are stolen. These crimes are committed across wide areas and are often too small to warrant the attention of large-scale organisations such as the National Crime Agency but too big for individual forces to deal with on their own.

That is where the national rural crime unit comes in. The unit is a vital national co-ordination centre, and does excellent work in the recovery of stolen property, sharing intelligence across forces and disrupting these organised criminal gangs. Shockingly, the national rural crime unit is set to lose its single national crime co-ordinator this year due to a lack of funding. That role has been essential in tackling cross-border rural crime, linking intelligence between forces and co-ordinating national efforts to combat criminal gangs. However, without continued funding, that vital work will collapse.

Furthermore, the NRCU is entirely industry-funded, yet as it stands the Government take 50% of all cash assets seized from criminal gangs, which cannot be returned to the victims. That 50% could instead go directly back into fighting the criminal gangs, and supporting the work of organisations such as the NRCU. I ask the Minister to commit to providing long-term funding for the NRCU to allow it to continue its critical work and deliver greater co-ordination between local forces to tackle rural crime. As it stands, the Government are relying on the insurance industry to fund rural crime policing, and my constituents and I view that as unacceptable.

County line drug gangs have increasingly infiltrated Cornwall and other rural areas across the country, exploiting vulnerable individuals, including children, to traffic and sell drugs across the region. In Bodmin, for instance, gangs took over the homes of vulnerable residents—a practice known commonly as cuckooing—to establish bases for their illicit operations. These gangs operate across vast rural areas and often in sparsely populated towns and villages, and proper resourcing is required to ensure that they are properly policed.

The costs of rural crime extend beyond humans, often harming our natural environment and the animals that live in it. Illegal snaring, hare coursing, poaching and other criminal activity have decimated and traumatised wildlife populations in North Cornwall and across the country. That is not to mention the huge problem of fly-tipping, which comes up time and again from my constituents, with rubbish being illegally dumped in our towns and across our countryside. To combat that issue specifically, the Government could consider a single reporting mechanism for fly-tipping, so that landowners and farmers need report an incident only once and will have the confidence that it will be followed up on.

Despite facing unique challenges, rural police forces such as Devon and Cornwall police continue to receive some of the lowest funding per head in England. In Cornwall alone, the population swells by over 3 million during the summer months, placing enormous strain on an already overstretched police force. Meanwhile, the police and crime commissioner for the region costs around £1.5 million a year, factoring in expenses and office costs. That money could instead go directly into funding into rural crime teams—officers on the beat, instead of office administrators.

Furthermore, more than a third of officers in Devon and Cornwall have less than three years of service, due to difficulties in retention and recruitment caused by chronic underfunding over many years. Despite those clear pressures, the Government have failed to reform the funding model to reflect real-world policing demand in our rural communities. Policing should not be a postcode lottery, where the most in need are often the least supported.

On all these issues, we still seem to have no clear Government strategy to tackle rural crime. We do not appear to have national co-ordination, proper funding structures or a commitment to equipping rural police teams with the resources they so crucially need. The Government could look to organisations such as the Scottish Partnership Against Rural Crime, which has had an official rural crime strategy in place since 2019. That strategy focuses on gathering intelligence and raising people’s confidence in reporting crimes to the local authorities. As a result, the cost of rural crime in Scotland reduced by £2 million, from £5.6 million to £3.6 million in just one year.

The rural crime team established within the Lancashire police force is also proving to be an excellent example of a specialised rural crime unit. One resident served by their work said that the police

“just showing their faces around here has had a massive impact on rural crime for us”

and that it had even led to a “massive decrease” in fly-tipping. That is why, on 14 January, I introduced the Rural Crime (Strategy) Bill, which would require the Home Secretary to establish an independent taskforce to develop and implement a comprehensive rural crime strategy. The taskforce must bring together stakeholders from across industry, police and rural communities to advise the Government, ultimately leading to a strategy that could take vital steps such as ensuring that properly funded dedicated rural crime teams or specialists are embedded in police forces—currently, less than 1% of police officers are assigned to rural crime—providing training for police and 999 control room staff on how to tackle rural crime, and improving intelligence sharing among the different forces.

Rural crime is a serious, organised and devastating issue for our countryside communities. It is time for a cohesive national strategy that puts an end to the chaos of underfunded police forces and unco-ordinated responses and that gives teeth to legislation to tackle these problems. Organised crime is thriving, and the Government need to act now, starting with bringing forward a comprehensive rural crime strategy, because our rural communities deserve so much better.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Maguire]

It has been a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate; it is great to see such cross-party support and that all Members take rural crime especially seriously.

It was excellent to hear from the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), who made an eloquent case regarding the severity of fly-tipping and how it blights so many rural communities. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) on his Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act, and I was delighted to hear the Minister confirm that the Government will take it forward, which is an important step.

It was excellent to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer), who highlighted the violent crime that happens in our rural communities. Just because some of these crimes happen in quaint and beautiful rural settings, that does not make them any less serious. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) made a series of excellent points, including about the need for increased technology, such as drones and AI.

I am pleased that the Minister is taking all those matters extremely seriously. I look forward to working on a cross-party basis with her and, given some of his excellent points, with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). This is such an important issue that it takes Members from across the House to tackle it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered rural crime.

Employer National Insurance Contributions: Police Forces

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on securing this important debate. Like the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), I thank my local police force for all the excellent work it does and its collaboration with me.

For years, thanks to the previous Conservative Government, policing in this country has been underfunded, undermined and increasingly overstretched. The new Labour Government claim that they are putting more money into frontline policing, but the reality on the ground appears completely different. Across the country, forces are battling severe funding pressures. In Devon and Cornwall, the police have been relying on second home council tax increases to plug their financial gaps. The right hon. Member for Tatton pointed out that the increased cost for the Devon and Cornwall force is about £6.3 million. With the rise in employer national insurance contributions, there is a real risk that forces will face yet more impossible choices come April and will have to cut officer numbers or pass the bill on to local taxpayers.

The £230 million allocated in the police grant report is supposed to cover the national insurance rise, but when the broader Budget is examined, the reality is clear. Although the headline figure is £986 million, if we factor in the reliance on council tax precepts, the Government’s so-called increase in police funding is only about £426 million of new cash. That is simply not enough to ensure safe and effective policing across the country. Forces are already stretched to breaking point, and officers are unable to focus on the crimes that matter the most to our communities. According to Home Office figures, 6,000 cases are closed daily without a suspect being identified, and three in every four burglaries and car thefts go unsolved. Yet instead of fixing the underlying problems, the Government are adding new financial burdens on forces, which will inevitably mean fewer officers on our streets.

In rural constituencies such as mine, rural crime is up 4.3% year on year, and criminal gangs are targeting farmyards and villages. The theft of agricultural equipment, including GPS systems, has spiked by 137%, yet just 0.1% of police officers are dedicated to tackling rural crime. For my constituents and those of other hon. Members, that is nothing but shameful. The rise in national insurance will only make the problem worse, forcing already strained rural policing teams to spread their resources even thinner.

The police grant report does not directly mention rural crime once. I fear that tells my constituents and those of other hon. Members representing rural areas everything they need to know about where the Government’s priorities lie.

We need to think bigger. If the Government truly want to invest in frontline policing, they should scrap the failing police and crime commissioner system, which drains millions that could be spent on actual frontline policing. Our Devon and Cornwall PCC is already on her third chief constable and her second deputy police and crime commissioner. We need to fund officers, not office administrators.

Let us not forget the wider impact of the national insurance increase on our public services. The Liberal Democrats opposed the hike from the beginning, calling for GPs, firefighters, hospices, care providers and NHS dentists to be exempt from the rise. Petroc doctors’ surgery in St Columb Major in my North Cornwall constituency told me last Friday that it faces a bill of £180,000 in national insurance rises and increased wages. It is completely counterproductive to increase funding for vital services such as healthcare on the one hand while taxing them more on the other.

The exact same principles apply to the police. If the Government refuse to cancel this damaging rise, at the very least they should exempt policing from the additional costs. For years, forces across the country have struggled to deliver the neighbourhood policing that our communities expect and deserve. The national insurance increase threatens to take yet more money away from those who need it most and will reduce the number of frontline officers and bobbies on the beat.

I conclude by asking the Minister whether the Government will commit to properly funding frontline policing without relying on council tax increases. Will they support my call for a dedicated rural crime taskforce, so that rural communities such as mine are not left behind? If they insist on pushing through this flawed national insurance rise, will they at least protect essential services such as policing from its worst impacts. If we are really serious about making our streets safer, we need more officers on the streets, not the higher costs that risk endangering us all.