Antisocial Behaviour and Illegal Bikes

Luke Myer Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Absolutely. Bringing together all the key partners is vital if we are to tackle this—I will say something about that in a moment.

The main focus of the debate has been the antisocial use of off-road bikes and other vehicles. In her opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury catalogued the very real impact this has on the people in her constituency—I think she must have set a record for the number of constituents and places in her constituency she mentioned. We heard some shocking examples, and I share her deep concerns about all of them.

It is unacceptable for law-abiding citizens to be left feeling unsafe and intimidated by the actions of a selfish, reckless few. The near-misses; the noise; the damage to parks and green spaces—it is simply not acceptable. People have the right to feel safe in their neighbourhoods, town centres and public spaces.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury set out, the police are operationally independent and Government cannot instruct them on what to do, or instruct the local authority to take action on particular cases. However, I want to reassure her and all hon. Members that we are very much alive to the menace and harm that antisocial behaviour, particularly through the use of vehicles, is causing to communities. We take it extremely seriously. As a constituency MP, I know very well this is a real problem in my patch, too.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Every single week, I hear about this issue from constituents in Park End, Easterside and across south Middlesbrough. Will the Minister assure my constituents that passing the Crime and Policing Bill will ensure that these bikes are seized and crushed, and that our streets are made safe again?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Absolutely. I will come to that in just a moment.

It is really important to recognise the role that the police have to play in this. It is reassuring to hear in this debate about the proactive steps that many police forces are taking to get to grips with this issue. I pay particular tribute to the work going on in the west midlands, where police teams are leading the effort that we have heard about. It is really important to recognise that there is good work going on, but we need to give the police the powers they need to tackle this effectively.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury described the holistic approach being adopted in the west midlands, combining technology, enforcement and engagement. I hope that that translates into tangible improvements for the local community; but we know that this is not a problem in just one constituency or one area of the country. We have heard contributions from so many Members this afternoon, and, as was referenced, the fact that this issue has been debated on numerous occasions in Parliament in recent years speaks to the continued toll that it is having in different parts of the country.

I have a real issue with the fact that the previous Government dismissed this type of antisocial behaviour as low level, as was referenced in the examples mentioned in the debate. It has a genuinely detrimental effect on people and places. It is a blight on our society and, under this Government, it will be treated as such. We want to make it easier for the police to act when these incidents occur and to enable them to dispose of the vehicles that they seize from offenders quickly.

Strong measures to deal with the menace of off-road bikes are included in the Crime and Policing Bill, which, as Members are aware, was introduced to the House a few weeks ago. When this Bill comes into law, police forces will have greater powers to immediately seize off-road bikes and other vehicles that are being used in an antisocial manner without first having to give a warning. Removing the requirement to give a warning will make the powers in section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 easier to apply, allowing police to put an immediate stop to the offending and send a message to antisocial drivers that their behaviour will not be tolerated.

We are also considering how we can make changes to secondary legislation to allow the police to quickly dispose of seized off-road bikes. That will help to reduce reoffending. I am also aware of the concerns around criminality facilitated by e-bikes and e-scooters, which were expressed by many Members. We are progressing research and development on a novel technological solution to stop e-scooters and e-bikes safely and to enhance the police’s ability to prevent them from being used to commit criminal acts.

As well as working closely with the police on these issues, we are strengthening collaboration across Government. On Monday, I had a constructive and helpful meeting with my colleague from the Department of Transport, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). We agreed that the antisocial behaviour associated with off-road bikes and other vehicles is unacceptable, and we share a vision of working together to tackle this criminality and improve road safety. That is an overview of some of the steps that we are taking, but I emphasise that we are determined to deliver real change on this issue, and we will be working with partners across Government, policing and beyond to make that happen.

I want to mention a couple of other issues in the remaining seconds of this debate. We have talked a lot about neighbourhood policing. Putting those 13,000 police officers, PCSOs and specials back into our high streets and communities is going to be really important in providing that reassurance to communities and tackling the antisocial behaviour that we have been hearing about in this debate.

I say gently to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), that £1.1 billion extra is going into policing, over and above what was put in under his Government in the last police settlement. That money is available, but police forces are finding this challenging, because they have had 14 years of Conservative Government and 20,000 police officers have been got rid of. I also say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), that his party was part of that coalition Government that got rid of the 20,000 police officers.

Church of England: Safeguarding

Luke Myer Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I declare my role as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee.

I am grateful that we have been granted this opportunity to discuss a serious matter of importance to our constituents, to the Church of England, and most importantly to the victims and survivors of abuse. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who are here on behalf of their constituents.

As a Member of Parliament and a Christian who believes in the Church and the positive, powerful role it plays in our communities, I believe that the stories of survivors and their calls for change must be heard, both here today and by the General Synod of the Church of England. For those in the Chamber, in the Gallery and at home, it is important to note that this debate may include difficult matters. I trust that it will be a measured debate. This is a sensitive topic, and I know that Members on both sides will want to advance the interests of those who have suffered abuse within the Church.

My constituent Dame Jasvinder Sanghera will be known to Members across the House for her campaigning on abuse of many kinds. She served as the survivor advocate on the Church of England’s independent safeguarding board. In this role, she worked closely with survivors, some of whom join us today. My team and I have worked with her since my election last year. Along with her colleague Steve Reeves, she has advocated for survivors by escalating their cases for review, challenging processes and pushing for justice. I commend her and her work.

In preparation for this debate, I met members of the group of survivors involved with the independent safeguarding board sample cases—they call themselves the ISB 11. I have heard stories that I will never forget. What struck me most is that they see themselves as survivors not only of the initial abuse they received but of the Church’s safeguarding process—one that has forced these brave and courageous people, who have stood up to power, to re-live, lengthen and even amplify the abuse they have received.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the way he is setting out this debate. Does he agree that independent safeguarding is paramount? As he said, survivors of abuse have had to re-live it over and over. This is an establishment where they should have felt safest.

[Luke Myer]

I could not agree more; that is the crux of my speech. It is essential that the victims and survivors are heard. I am grateful to the Minister and the Second Church Estates Commissioner, both of whom are leaders on these matters, for being here to hear the stories and to respond.

The stories include that of Mr X, who was the first and only survivor to have an ISB case review published. Throughout his life, Mr X has sought justice after he was abused by three individuals in the Church. He ended up having his business and livelihood destroyed by civil litigation and he is yet to see justice. Another survivor told me of an ongoing, decades-long fight for justice. West Midlands police commented on the case:

“it doesn’t normally take 20 years for a complaint to be investigated”.

Another survivor, a woman who wishes to remain anonymous, told me that she now has a heart monitor because of her severe panic attacks. She told me:

“The priest that abused me still lives in my area. The community has ostracised me and I am now housebound, I want the truth to come out. Jas and Steve have supported me the best they can, at one point we talked every week. If they had not been there I think I would have taken my life.”

Another survivor told me that he feels that previous recommendations have fallen on deaf ears, with steps to protect perpetrators rather than to support victims. Perhaps most harrowingly of all, one of the ISB 11, who is just over 18 years old, having initially suffered abuse at the age of eight, is still fighting for justice. At such a young age, he has already been waiting over half his life to see justice. I have no doubt that many Members across this House will have heard similar stories.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate and for setting out what has happened in such measured terms. Mr X is a constituent of mine. I spoke to him this afternoon, and he described to me the catalogue of betrayals that he has been subject to from the age of 12 until now at the age of 56, initially through the abuse and then through subsequent failings by the Church of England. I thank my constituent for retelling his story to me; it is the 28th time that he has had to re-tell the story to a stranger. I thank him for sticking his neck out to try to get change. He told me that he has lost the ability to walk away from this. Does the hon. Member agree that it is only through meaningful accountability from the Church of England that he will get justice?

[Luke Myer]

I absolutely agree. Hearing Mr X’s case and reading the report that was published showed the stark experiences that he went through. He is one of the ISB 11, but there are many others. They all must seek justice.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman, who I spoke to beforehand, for securing the debate. I, like others, seek some level of legal process, whatever that may be. Does he agree that the Church of England and all charitable bodies must be subject to the law of the land in exactly the same manner, whether religious or non-religious? Those working with vulnerable adults or children should have training and background searches, whether they are in a church hall or a local community hall. Safeguarding has to be of the same standard across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Justice is what we are after.

[Luke Myer]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. His point reminds me of a line from the second report by Alexis Jay; I spoke to her at the weekend and she reiterated this to me. It says that that the

“Church safeguarding service falls below the standards for consistency expected and set in secular organisations”,

whether those be local authorities or anything else.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. He is right that many constituencies have been affected. Members will have constituents who have suffered abuse in a place where they should have felt very safe. It is the same for the constituent who contacted me: he participated in football activities and experienced abuse as a young child that has affected the whole of his life. His mental health has been shredded.

There has been a lack of accountability, a lack of seriousness and slow pace from the Church of England when it comes to taking such cases seriously and giving people the justice they feel is necessary. The Church just does not seem to be catching up with the expectations of modern society and the safeguarding that happens in every other institution and organisation that works with young people and vulnerable people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Church really has to pull its socks up and get its act together if it is to restore the faith that this country should have in this most honoured of institutions?

[Luke Myer]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who is a real champion for her constituent and all her constituents. Sadly, the case that she has outlined is all too familiar and like many other cases across the country.

We owe it to the survivors and others who have endured physical, emotional and spiritual abuse to highlight the serious shortcomings in the Church’s safeguarding structures. Too often, while instances of abuse may have lasted moments, the Church’s processes for investigating and reviewing these cases have been painfully slow, frustrated and needlessly complex. It cannot be right that the systems intended to support survivors often further traumatised them.

I, too, have been told stories of those who tragically have taken their own lives in the view that their perpetrators will never face justice. Survivors tell me of feeling trapped in a seemingly endless cycle of uncertainty and distress. One told me that they will not feel fully comfortable while this issue is

“kept within the walls of the Church.”

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s efforts in getting the debate held. I have previously raised in the House the possibility of holding the Church of England accountable to the public through being subject to the strictures of the Freedom of Information Act. I was advised that that was unsuitable because it is technically not a public body, and yet it is an institution and part of the fabric of this country.

It is unconscionable for people who use and revere this institution to find that they are not safe in it, that instead it protects its own—it protects perpetrators—and that the people right at the top use the excuse of legal constructions or institutional formations to justify not pursuing these situations. Does my hon. Friend agree that as legislators we must argue for greater transparency in the Church of England, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said about other public bodies?

[Luke Myer]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the hon. Member gets back to his feet, I should say that, although I can see that this is a serious and important debate, interventions must be short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Myer]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), who has had a long career holding powerful people to account in many different ways. As she outlined, this is a case of an institution for which it is difficult to get accountability and transparency. I am glad that we have this forum to discuss these issues, but Parliament itself is quite limited in how it can hold the Church to account.

I sit on the Ecclesiastical Committee, which has to wait for Measures to come forward from the Synod to be approved. There is some discussion as to whether that Committee ought to have greater powers to hold the Church to account, but the broader point is the same as the one I made earlier, which is that the Church falls below the standards required of other organisations.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate and for the way in which he is doing so. Does he agree that the technical nuances that caused the Church of England to go for option 3 rather than option 4 could be overcome by formulating a process of accountability around the safeguarding structures within the Church of England, to ensure that any provider of such services had a strong line of communication in order to hear what is needed in places such as York, where we have a cathedral, which I understand is where some of the challenges are coming from?

[Luke Myer]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Various issues were raised at Synod, and one of them was around the Charity Commission. I have discussed this precise issue with Professor Jay, and it is her view that there is nothing in this that cannot be resolved. I understand that the Charity Commission is taking a direct interest in safeguarding at the moment, and I hope that an arrangement can be made on that, but the point that my hon. Friend makes is right. There are too many blockers, culturally and in terms of technical details, but what the Church needs to do is move forward with pace and make sure that victims and survivors see justice.

It is our responsibility in this House to do all we can to urge the Church to act so that these failures are addressed, survivors’ voices are heard and meaningful, sensible and effective reforms are implemented. We touched on one of the main reforms earlier, and I will come to that in a moment, but before I do, let me be clear that I have the utmost respect for local clergy up and down the country who are doing so much work within our communities. I also respect the laity and all the volunteers who are doing good work to keep people safe, including the church wardens and the local parish safeguarding officers. They too are let down by systemic failure and many of them are crying out for change. In fact, it is my understanding that the sample carried out by the Church’s response group to the Jay report finds that not only survivors, but the majority of local clergy support the recommendations.

I also wish to recognise the work of many members of the General Synod, and in particular Clive Billenness, a lay member of the Synod who represented the Diocese in Europe and was a powerful ally of victims and survivors. He sadly passed away just last month, and I know that survivors truly valued his efforts and contribution to their cause. I also recognise the work of my own constituent, Father Adam Gaunt of Loftus, who has helped me to understand the structures of Synod and is working on the abuse redress scheme as well.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Speaking as a member of the Church of England and someone who has served on parochial church councils and as a church warden, I recognise how important it is that we move forward. He mentioned moving forward a moment ago, but in order to do that, is it not necessary for the leadership of the Church to take a lead on this? I say this with the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) listening to the debate. Surely the sooner we have a new Archbishop of Canterbury who can lead the Church and hopefully provide dynamic leadership for that institution, the better. Only then can the Church of England move forward.

[Luke Myer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The Church has been making various decisions on this, but it has not been moving forward with the required pace. My intention in bringing forward this debate is to shine a light on that and urge it to act with pace. I thank him for making that point.

I have listed various individuals and groups within the Church, and my intention in this debate is not to diminish or tarnish any of their contributions but to highlight how processes have not functioned and how survivors have been let down, and what we can do as a House to encourage the Church to implement better structures.

The journey of safeguarding reform in the Church is long and complex. It runs from the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 through the past cases reviews in the 2000s, the Chichester visitation in 2012, the establishment of the national safeguarding panel and national safeguarding team in 2014 and 2015, the Stobart review in 2018, the Social Care Institute for Excellence report in 2019, the Chichester/Peter Ball investigation in 2019, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse—IICSA—by Professor Jay, the Elliott report in 2020, the Wilkinson report in 2023 and the further Alexis Jay report in 2024 to the recent Makin report, among others.

We have had plenty of reports, but while some improvements have been made, there remains “systemic underlying vulnerabilities” arising from the Church’s safeguarding structure. Survivors have told me that there are complex, hard-to-navigate structures and slow, institutionally defensive responses. Around 2020, calls for an independent structure to oversee safeguarding practices emerged.

The Archbishops’ Council debated what that should look like—whether to create a fully independent body or to establish a board for the oversight of safeguarding, which would develop further independence. That board became the ISB, which was established in 2021. There were problems that affected the ISB, as the Wilkinson review explored, but its work was important. It built trust with victims and survivors. In fact, Mr X told me that he was

“initially sceptical of the ISB when it was set up”

but said that it went on to

“provide a ray of hope for the survivor community”.

By 2022, the ISB had started reviewing cases and making recommendations, with the first published in November that year, but, as Wilkinson found, there was a “lack of trust” between the ISB and the Church’s safeguarding structures concerning

“how the recommendations should be implemented.”

As issues escalated, ultimately, in June 2023 the board members were sacked and the board disbanded.

Wilkinson found that

“no risk assessment beyond informal conversations was carried out by or on behalf of the Archbishops’ Council members about the effect of”

this decision

“on victims and survivors who were engaged with them, particularly those involved in case reviews”.

She went on to say that it

“showed lamentably little trauma-informed regard for the vulnerability of the individuals with whom the ISB were working”.

I have heard from some of the 11 survivors, who suffered mental distress after the decision. Three landed in emergency mental services, and two developed serious suicidal thoughts. Mr X called it an “obliteration of hope.” The treatment of survivors here is itself a serious safeguarding failure. It is clear that the secretary-general of the Archbishops’ Council has questions to answer.

Around the time of the dissolution of the ISB, Professor Jay was invited to provide recommendations on the way forward. Her report said that “the only way” in which safeguarding can be improved is by making it

“truly independent of the Church.”

The central problem is that the complexity of the Church means that rather than one approach, there are 42 different dioceses, each with different safeguarding systems. Safeguarding practitioners have said that this limits effective safeguarding. Professor Jay noted in her report:

“Church safeguarding service falls below the standards for consistency expected and set in secular organisations.”

Lesley-Anne Ryder, the independent co-chair for the response group to Jay, said to Synod that

“this level of complexity is incomprehensible. It is counter productive”.

She said that it is

“One of the ways in which you are losing the trust…of the nation”.

The complexity creates a patchwork of different approaches. Some dioceses do implement robust safeguarding practices, and some have independent sexual violence advisers. The diocese of Newcastle has four permanent staff members with key safeguarding roles, including a caseworker and a training lead.

I pay tribute to the Bishop of Newcastle, whose leadership on the issue has been commendable. I met her last year to discuss these matters, and she has much support in the country and, I am sure, the House. Other dioceses, however, lack such comprehensive systems, often relying on bringing in external consultants. It is simply not acceptable that the experience of survivors should vary depending on where they live. There must be a unified and consistent system that is evenly resourced with the same quality of support, respecting the independent expertise of safeguarding professionals.

Professor Jay recommended the

“creation of two separate charities, one for independent operational safeguarding and one for independent scrutiny of safeguarding.”

It is that issue that went before the General Synod last month. While Synod voted in favour of setting up an external scrutiny body, it only backed the principle of an independent operations body. That is deeply disappointing—a two-stage approach for an issue of such urgency, when survivors have already waited decades, moving from one system to another with no sign of any meaningful resolution. One survivor told me that he first reported his abuse over 40 years ago. Any further delay in delivering justice for survivors is simply unacceptable.

I do not wish to be misunderstood. The agreement of the Synod to

“affirm its commitment to greater independence”

going forward is an important step, but the decision on operations did not follow the recommendation from Professor Jay and many other specialists and professionals, or the preference of many survivors. I believe that more delay will simply confirm the survivors’ view that the Church is kicking the can down the road. Having spoken to Synod members, I do not think that that is the intention, but the reality is that, as things stand, this patchwork of procedures remains, and the Church effectively continues marking its own homework. That is clearly not acceptable.

We will hear from the Minister shortly. It is a welcome step that, earlier this year, the Government agreed to implement Professor Jay’s IICSA recommendations on safeguarding and abuse. That makes it all the more pressing that Professor Jay’s recommendations for the Church be implemented, too. As Mr X said to me:

“This is a critical point for the Church.”

Scripture teaches us to

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.”

The Church ought to be a place of refuge, of grace, of trust. Yet, for far too many, it has been a place of harm. We have seen apologies, report and reviews, yet survivors still tell us that they are unheard, ignored and left to fight alone for basic justice. That must change. The Church’s safeguarding structures must be independent, transparent and accountable. Its days of marking its own homework must end. Survivors must be not just consulted but placed at the heart of reform. Let us be absolutely clear: protecting the reputation of an institution must never, ever come before protecting the safety of a person.

The test of faith is not in the easy moments but in the hard truths, and the hard truth is this: trust in the Church will only be restored when every survivor who steps forward is met with compassion, justice and meaningful action.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Marsha De Cordova.

Prevent: Learning Review

Luke Myer Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his points and for his reflections on Sir David. He makes an important point about the mechanism the Government will use moving forward. Clearly, the public inquiry will provide a very important forum to ensure that the lessons that have been identified, and further lessons that will no doubt be identified, are properly actioned and implemented. In advance of that, as I think he will be aware, we have commissioned Lord Anderson to look at these matters. I think he will acknowledge, as other Members will, that Lord Anderson is precisely the right person: independent of Government, with previous experience as an independent reviewer of terrorism legislation; a recognised legal mind, with credibility and authority in this field; and a Member of the other place. We want to work collaboratively with him to ensure that we satisfy ourselves, and therefore Members across the House and people right around the country, that the mechanisms in place are fit for purpose. That is a significant priority for the Government and I can give the hon. Member an assurance that we will not rest until the processes in place are fit for purpose.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the comments from both sides of the House about Sir David Amess. One challenge in addressing Islamist extremism is the proliferation of hate preachers around the world, both online and in person. I am very concerned about the prospect of the preacher Mohamed Hoblos visiting Middlesbrough later this month. Will the Minister set out the steps he will be taking with regard to that specific case and the broader actions he will take to address hate preachers around the world?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. He will understand that I am somewhat limited in what I can say, but I can tell him that the United Kingdom has a range of disruptive immigration measures at our disposal to refuse entry and cancel permission if it is assessed that a foreign national’s presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. I can give him an assurance today that we will look carefully at the circumstances that he has helpfully raised.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Luke Myer Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I hope these measures command cross-party support because, ultimately, we need stronger action from the police and local authorities, from across Government and from across communities to do the things that, for more than 10 years, we have been told need to change, and yet for too long simply have not changed. That is why we urgently need this action to keep children safe.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement on the action she will take to implement Professor Alexis Jay’s recommendations. Professor Jay made another set of recommendations on which my constituent has been campaigning—those on safeguarding in the Church of England. Professor Jay called for an independent process for the oversight and operation of safeguarding in the Church. The Synod is discussing this next month, but does the Home Secretary agree that measures must be brought forward to be approved by the House without delay?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that there were many further inquiries as part of the overarching national inquiry into child abuse, including on Church and faith organisations. Some of the recommendations were for those organisations to take forward. They need to ensure that they do, that they are responding and that they have strong enough child protection arrangements in place. We will be monitoring and looking at the recommendations of all those reports.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Luke Myer Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I pay tribute to Figen Murray and her campaign team. That she has somehow been able to channel personal grief into a fierce determination to change the law is beyond inspiring. We should be clear that we would not be here tonight without her campaigning efforts. The whole House owes her a debt of gratitude.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today. As ever, I will endeavour to respond to the points that have been raised. I am particularly grateful for the constructive approach that has been taken to considering the Bill, today and at previous stages. I place on the record my thanks to the Opposition for the constructive way in which they have approached the Bill throughout its passage. It is time that this cross-party commitment to improving the safety and security of venues is delivered without further delay, and I am proud that we are moving one step closer tonight.

As hon. Members have heard during the passage of the Bill, the threat picture is complex, evolving and enduring. Since 2017, agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 43 late-stage plots, and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks. In October, we heard from the director general of MI5 that the country is subject to the most interconnected threat environment that we have ever seen. Sadly, terrorists can seek to target a variety of locations. The examples of terrorist attacks that have been raised during the passage of the Bill are a sombre reminder of that. I pay tribute again to all victims and survivors of past attacks, as well as their loved ones, and all those affected. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to supporting anyone affected by a terrorist attack.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister and, indeed, the Opposition on the Bill. Of course, all hon. Members hope that future attacks will be prevented by the Bill, but, as has been mentioned, it is also about planning to ensure increased survivability for those impacted by an attack. With that comes the need to ensure that the support we provide to victims is fit for purpose. What efforts will the Minister make to improve support for victims of terrorism?

Police Reform

Luke Myer Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Lady is exactly right. We need to make sure that when crime happens, it is reported. That is absolutely vital. As I said in my opening remarks, for too long people have felt that it is not worth reporting a crime because no one will come and nothing will be done. Our neighbourhood policing guarantee is not just about urban areas; it also covers rural areas, and we want rural communities to have the support that they need from police, PCSOs and specials. I am also responsible for rural crime, and I know that there is a range of issues that we need to look at again, including the theft of agricultural machinery; that is an area that I am particularly focused on.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Just last night, Guisborough Town FC in my constituency suffered a break-in and burglary. I am grateful to Cleveland police for responding, and for meeting me this morning to update me on the situation, but there simply are not enough of them on the streets. Can the Minister give me an assurance that this Government will prioritise frontline, visible, neighbourhood community policing once again?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Yes, I can. I pay tribute to Cleveland police, which has made great progress in recent times.

Small Boat Crossings

Luke Myer Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

A border security Bill will be introduced. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will want to serve on the Committee, so that he can be certain that the points he just made are accurately reflected by the Government in that Bill.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

One of the most colossal failures under the previous Government was the chaos in the channel and the associated backlog in the system, yet the Conservatives seem to have come here today to tell the British people that they had it all under control. Can the Minister reassure my constituents of the serious steps she is taking to disrupt the gangs, speed up returns and end this chaos.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Yes, my hon. Friend’s constituents can be assured that a great deal of work is going on and more resources are being applied. A lot more intelligence is being gathered, much of which cannot be discussed publicly. We are on it.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Luke Myer Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I rise to welcome the Bill and the cross-party support for it that we have seen in this debate. Seven years ago, I was in the education sector and I worked with a group of trainee paramedics. Those trainee paramedics were deployed on that night in Manchester to the scene of the bombing. They were students, and they ran into the danger and into scenes that are scarcely seen outside battlefields. The support they needed is the reason I support the Bill. I think it is right thing to do. I commend the campaigning by Martyn’s family and by all others who have campaigned for justice for victims of terror. This is the right Bill, because its provisions are common sense. The tiered approach is the right one to ensure that an undue burden is not placed on small businesses and that the legal duty on providers is a reasonable measure.

There was another group of students from that university who, sadly, were affected by terror that same year, just weeks before. They were referred to earlier by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). One is a friend of mine, Travis Frain, who I know Members across the House will be familiar with. He has been campaigning passionately for victims of terror for years, since his experience in that incident. He carried out a survey of over 300 victims of terror, and found that 76% of victims were either unable to access psychological treatment, or rated it to be poor or abysmal. That is unacceptable. That is why Travis has been calling for guarantees on minimum standards for access to psychological treatment and physiotherapy, as well as legal and financial assistance for victims of terror. He has also been calling, as the right hon. Lady referred to, for the publication of the review that was carried internally within the Home Office, so that campaigners can campaign on those recommendations and ensure they are put into action.

We know further actions are needed, but the Bill is an important first step to move towards justice for the victims. It is a fitting tribute to the victims, the families and all those who ran towards the danger.