Crime and Policing Bill

Luke Taylor Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

This is a huge Bill with more than 300 pages of measures, but I wish to focus on the extra powers it contains to police protests, and particularly clauses 86 and 95, about which civil liberties organisations such as Liberty, Amnesty International and Big Brother Watch, as well as trade unions, have raised loud alarm bells. I also wish to take the opportunity to recognise more broadly the dangerous direction of travel of the increasing criminalisation of legitimate and peaceful protest in this country which, as many will recognise, is being mirrored around the world.

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

Last month the aggressive policing of the national Palestine protest led to the arrest of an estimated 77 protesters. Even Members of this House were called in for police questioning, as was an 87-year-old Holocaust survivor who was carrying flowers to lay for the dead children of Gaza. We cannot underestimate the chilling impact that that heavy-handed policing of peaceful protests will have on our basic rights and freedoms. From striking workers to the national Palestine demos and farmers’ protests, huge demonstrations and protests are becoming more commonplace across the political spectrum, as people across the country and beyond feel that they are losing their voices in their workplaces and the political sphere. Instead of continuing down that dangerous road, we should be taking the opportunity that the Bill presents to roll back some of those powers, defend our civil liberties, and restore our proud traditions of freedom of speech, expression, and assembly.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Johnson]

No, I am not taking interventions—sorry.

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

Lastly, I want to turn to the provisions in the Bill that will further criminalise Roma and Traveller communities, and the impact that certain clauses will have on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities such as those living on the Tara Park site in my Liverpool Riverside constituency. In particular, I want to raise concerns around clause 3 in part 1 of the Bill, which extends police dispersal powers and, as the Traveller movement has stated, risks leading to even more heavy-handed policing of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. As with the anti-protest provisions in the Bill, we must see such measures in the broader context of the increasing criminalisation of already marginalised communities. As such, I hope the Government will go back to the drawing board and consider using the Bill to repeal section 60C to 60E of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This Bill is the first under Labour of its kind for a generation. Let us use it as an opportunity to protect our most marginalised communities and defend civil liberties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Crime and policing in London is at a crisis point. Figures show that Government funding for the Metropolitan police has fallen by more than £1 billion in real terms since 2010, and those cuts mean that we do not just need more bobbies back; we need more beats. Park police no longer patrol, and now we see the prospect of safer schools officers across London being moved out of schools, where they would be working with young people at risk of gangs or county lines, to back-fill neighbourhood policing teams. Community policing is in tatters, officer numbers are insufficient, and PCSO numbers in London have fallen by more than 3,000 in the last 15 years, from 4,247 in 2008 to just 1,215 in 2023, which means that almost three out of every four officers have been lost in that time.

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

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

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

However, these attacks on tradespeople are more than just theft; they are an assault on their hard work and hard-earned livelihoods. It is time to acknowledge the escalating danger that they face and provide stronger legal safeguards to protect their livelihoods and wellbeing, and I hope the Government will take note of that in Committee.

Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting)

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Would either of the other members of the panel like to say anything on that?

Dan Murphy: I agree with all that. The Police Superintendents Association supports that change.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Q Thank you for joining us today to assist us with scrutiny of the Bill. I want to look at the clauses about concealing identity. Clauses 86 to 88 make it an offence for someone to conceal their identity at certain protests. The challenge on that is that Hongkongers in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam, who are attending protests in central London against Chinese transnational repression, are concerned that their identities will be monitored by the Chinese Communist party and then used to conduct repression on family and friends in Hong Kong and China.

Obviously, protesting—being able to exercise our rights in a democracy to demonstrate our displeasure with something—is incredibly important. What is your understanding of the definition of a protest? In what situations would these measures be imposed on a protest? How would somebody at one of those protests—the Chinese protests are a good example—be treated by officers if a designation was put in place and they were concealing their identities?

Chief Constable De Meyer: It is extremely challenging to give a definitive answer, as the question implies.

On the point about the definition of protest, first, there is of course no single definition of protest. A broad range of activities could qualify as a protest—one person, a gathering, a vigil, a march, the playing of music, chanting or other sorts of activities. It is a very challenging area of law and operational policing.

On the point about concealing identity and the potential threat to safety in respect of transnational repression, I am afraid that, again, my response is going to be not quite as definitive as might be hoped for. We would have to apply the same judgment as we do in other areas of public order operational life, such as in relation to searching. That means if an offence is suspected, it is for the officer to engage with the individuals in question and to carry out a dynamic investigation of what is going on, seeking expert tactical advice where appropriate, or senior authority as well.

It is important to point out that the provision does not say that the power has to be used; it is what may be done, not what must be done. It does very much come down to circumstances and the engagement and judgment of the officer. The advice will be vital. One would expect sensitivities such as this to be addressed through the training of the various public order operatives—the gold commanders, the silver commanders, the bronze commanders and the public order officers themselves. Inevitably, there will be some learning through case law as well.

Tiff Lynch: I agree with the chief constable. I come back to what I said earlier about training and learning the law. Our police officers who are out there during protests work within the confines of the law. They utilise the national decision-making model. It is all about what they see in front of them on the day. We pride ourselves on people being able to protest lawfully, within the confines of the law. How the officers act on the day, depending on what they are presented with, will be determined on the day.

Dan Murphy: It is a long time since I ran a public order operation. To me, as a police officer and a commander—we have talked about neighbourhood policing—it is about talking to people. If you are presented with what you as a commander think is a protest that you can justify, if you have a protest that is not going to cause any particular problems, why would you go down this route, even as a preventive thing? If you have people present who are covering their faces and you think it might raise an issue, you could just send an officer to go and speak to them and say, “Would you mind identifying yourself, so that we know who you are?” You deal with it by talking to people.

[Luke Taylor]

Q Do you think the new powers in the Bill are necessary? Do they allow you to do the things that you wanted to be able to do at previous protests but were not able to?

Chief Constable De Meyer: It is an extremely good point in respect of the judgment that the officer would exercise. There have plainly been circumstances where people have concealed their identity as a means of escaping detection and frustrating the efforts of the authorities to identify those responsible for offences within protests, and their doing so meant that we were not able to prevent further criminal activity. So I think the powers are necessary, but they are to be exercised with caution and good judgment.

[The Chair]

Many Members have caught my eye. I will only be able to get everybody in if Members keep their questions very brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you for that. One of the other things that you touched on—it was referenced by the previous witnesses—is the importance of not just making legislative change, but having a package of support available with the other agencies around it. What can you recommend beyond legislative changes—you mentioned A&E, but I am also thinking about training, guidance and so on—to really make sure that this is a package for spiking offences?

Colin Mackie: We certainly want to get the night-time industry more involved and get stewards more aware, because all too often one of the first things said to someone who has been spiked or their friends is, “They’re drunk. I want them out the club. They’ve had too much to drink.” When we talk to nightclubs, bars and so on, we say to the stewards, “Listen to what their friends are saying. Don’t make the assumption that that person’s drunk just because they look drunk. If their friends are saying, ‘We’ve had one or two drinks,’ take on board what they’re saying. Don’t just think, ‘Oh, no, I’ve got to get this person out of here.’” They have a duty of care to look after people, and we want them to take on that responsibility.

Just at the weekend, I was reading an article on the BBC and it was talking about nightclubs in general and how footfall is falling. One of the examples was that youngsters are stopping going to nightclubs because of the fear of spiking. The industry has to look at the bigger picture and realise that if it puts in lids and deterrents, better security and better CCTV, and, as we hope with this Bill, if we start to see people being prosecuted, the numbers will come back up. People will have the confidence to come out. If they think they are going to a venue where they feel they are going to be safe, they are more likely to come, whereas currently they are walking away and finding something else to do. It is going to affect the night-time industry as well, so it really has to take it more seriously.

[Luke Taylor]

Q Thank you again for coming along and for your campaigning. You must be proud that you have got this leap—this legislation—to try to combat some of the trauma that you experienced.

I have a broader question. Do the measures included in the Bill cover all the issues that you see around the offence? Do you think the Bill is a comprehensive measure to enable action to be taken to combat the horrible offence of spiking?

Colin Mackie: It is moving forward to that level where I think it is good. I would like to see a wee bit more on the sentencing side of it. Just listening to the previous witnesses, I know that there is a backlog through the courts and everything, and I can see that being a problem. If the people who want to report spiking, especially young women, think it is going to last two years, how much of a deterrent is it going to be for them to come forward if they think it is going to drag on? That is one bit: when it comes to the sentencing and how quickly it will be processed, will that put people off reporting it?

[David Burton-Sampson]

Q I echo my colleagues in thanking you for all you do in this vital area. You rightly said that spiking affects everybody; unfortunately, it is something that men and women can be prone to. The Government have a target of halving the level of violence against women and girls, and this measure is hopefully part of that package. How important do you think it will be in halving violence against women and girls?

Colin Mackie: It is certainly very important, because girls are still are the highest target in the group. People want to go out and enjoy themselves, and women should be able to have a night out with friends and be confident that they are safe. If they want to leave that drink for second, they should be able to. They should not have to worry that someone will add something to their drink if they go to dance, go to the toilet or are distracted. This measure is a great way of moving forward, because in the future you want all youngsters to be able to say, “I’m going for a night out, and I want to have a nice, safe night out.” That is the way forward—it has to be the way forward.

Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting)

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q The majority of shop theft cases are heard in the magistrates court. Is it your understanding that they will continue to be heard in the magistrates court?

Graham Wynn: I believe so, yes. I would expect them to continue to be heard there because that is where people can get the swiftest justice. We know the other courts are very full up with cases and there are delays, so that is my understanding.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Q Thank you very much for coming along. You will have to forgive me as I kind of wiggle around here a little bit. Clause 14 is on assault of a retail worker, and goes on to define the place of work of a retail worker. Something that you mentioned, Mr Wynn, got me quite interested in talking about delivery drivers, and the clause does say that “‘premises’ include a…vehicle”, such as a food truck. To take, for example, a washing machine installation engineer working for a Currys, do you think that the Bill protects somebody like that, who is working for a retail firm but is actually in somebody’s home? Is that something that could be covered by the Bill, or that you would look to have covered by a Bill such as this?

Christopher Morris: I would link that question back to the CBOs from a couple of questions ago. I think that there is a clear issue there. Various parts of the home delivery sector require the worker to go into people’s homes. With Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Ocado home delivery, there is an offer to almost put it in the fridge for people, and then you have those typical two-man delivery operations for washing machines or beds.

There is certainly a significant issue on the grocery side, where those delivery drivers are also having to make age verification checks when alcohol or other age-restricted products are being delivered, and are having to say that someone cannot have those. You are almost in the door with those products, and you have to say, “Sorry, if the ID isn’t here, I’ve got to take them away,” which can cause issues with violence, threats and abuse. Then, with the way that the systems operate, there are substitutions as well, and having conversations about those can raise the frustration levels of customers. We would therefore want to see those aspects, where people are going into people’s homes or delivering to people’s homes. It is not necessarily a question of the threshold being covered as well.

Part of the reason to link back to CBOs, and why we would want these things covered here, is that the link to CBOs is really good and can help. As a random example, if a Sainsbury’s delivery driver goes into someone’s home and receives a significant threat, then Sainsbury’s can take the decision to take that address off the customer list, but the other companies would not know. If a CBO is in place, a ban could be put on that address because that threat or instance of violence is so great, and those delivery drivers—who we see as retail workers—would not be required to go to it.

Those are the areas that we are keen to continue to engage with Government on, to make sure that the Bill is as effective as we believe it can be.

Graham Wynn: My understanding—I am happy to be corrected—is that the Bill does not cover delivery drivers or anyone other than people working, basically, in a retail store, and that the reference to a vehicle is not meant to be a delivery driver, a delivery van or anything like that.

We do note that the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021, although it is different, does explicitly extend to delivery drivers. We do think that that would be sensible and useful, and there are concerns about delivery drivers. We understand the difficulty of saying, “Well, where do you draw the line?” You mention people going into people’s homes; well, plumbers do, and other people go into people’s homes, so just where do you draw that line? If you dissipate it too much, it undermines the value of the whole thing. We don’t not support others being protected, but we certainly support the classic delivery driver for home produce from supermarkets being included. That is included in the Scottish Act, so perhaps it can also be included in the Bill—unless the Scottish draftsmen have got it wrong.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

Q When we look at how we are moving forward, it is good to look at where we have come from. I think it was the coalition Government who included section 176 in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which basically provided that low-value shop theft—that is, shop theft with a value of under £200—would be a summary-only offence. We know where that has taken us: we have little, if any, police attendance for those sorts of offences. What impact has that had on you and your members, and does the repealing of that £200 threshold give you better confidence that police will prioritise attendance at those types of theft?

Paul Gerrard: That provision was undoubtedly gamed by individuals engaged in retail crime. They knew what the limit was. I also think it sent a strong message to the police that it was not something they should be focused on. In truth, if you go into a Co-op store and steal £200-worth or £199-worth of product, you have still got a lot of product, and there will be flashpoints around that, be they threats, abuse or violence. It undoubtedly has had an impact, and repealing it will have an impact, combined with the fact that the police now recognise the importance of tackling retail crime—and they do.

One of the data points that we have used consistently is how often the police turn up when we have detained an offender. If someone had 10 or 12 bottles of wine that they were trying to steal, which is less than £200, and we detained that offender, the police were not turning up eight times out of 10. Now the police are turning up six or seven times out of 10. If you combine the police response with a genuine ability for them to understand when they need to engage, that makes a massive difference. Wherever you draw a line, or whatever becomes the norm, individuals involved in this criminality will game it.

I will give you another example. The police are now turning up much more consistently on violence, and therefore we have seen a little dip in violence levels, because some people are understanding that if they engage in violence, they might have a problem. This Bill will make that a real issue. People will game whatever the line is, and taking away that line makes it more effective for the police to do their job.

Christopher Morris: I completely agree with Paul. Our members have seen that the system has been gamed at the £200 threshold. Our members are working in stores, some of which are not necessarily hugely profitable, and they get to the point where they are no longer financially viable as a result of theft that goes out of the door. Another thing that we see is staff being reduced in stores because there is not enough money, so the whole store becomes more vulnerable to attack. As Paul said, taking that route away will help to ensure that stores are safer and that the system is not gamed as much as it currently is.

Graham Wynn: Yes, it has certainly been gamed; last year, in our survey, there were 20 million incidents of shoplifting, or 55,000 a day—the highest ever—and I think that shows that there are people who understand this. We know from what people tell us that there are people who go back to the same store time after time and walk off with £190-worth of goods, because they know that nothing will be picked up.

We do realise, of course, that it is important that retailers report the crime or the incident, and it is important too that they have the evidence that the police can use to prosecute. We had a meeting with the police for members just the other day, and they emphasised that they cannot put resources into turning up to incidents where there is no evidence—no CCTV, perhaps, or where the perpetrator has already left the scene and that sort of thing. So we recognise that it is incumbent, too, on retailers to do their part and on the police to do their part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Baroness Newlove, thank you for your report, issued at the end of last year, “Still living a nightmare”. In it, you particularly talked about people who were suffering from ASB, the support they needed and the review process. You have touched on this a little, but I would welcome your views on the role that the police and crime commissioner will play. What do you think about that? Do you think that that is the right thing to do? Do you welcome it?

Baroness Newlove: Yes, I welcome the PCC being involved. I welcome what has gone on, because that statutory duty is important. There is also a duty to consult the Victims’ Commissioner, which is important as well. In all of those stages, though, instead of adding another layer, I want to make sure that the communication is right, that people are informed about this process. I tried to put in the Victims and Prisoners Act that we would have an independent chair—somebody who is accredited, somebody who knows. It can still feel very much like they are marking their own homework, because you have the local police review and the PCC. It very much feels as though the victim has to wait for them to make the decisions. We have a review process—an appeal process—but it is about how the communication feels to them.

I worry about how long this will take for the victims. That is why I keep asking for support, as I did in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The mental and physical health of victims of antisocial behaviour will really be in a bad way if we do not give them the support they need. That brings me on to having them in the victims’ code. Even if this comes under the criminal threshold—that is the bit that we used to argue about when we were debating the Victims and Prisoners Act—they should get support and not have to wait. I would imagine that they would be able to see what is happening and the decline of it.

As I said previously, we are not learning from Fiona Pilkington, David Askew and my husband’s case. What people go through on a daily basis should not be acceptable. To set a threshold, we should use our common sense.

[Luke Taylor]

Q We have done a lot of work in my constituency on stalking legislation, due to some casework that we received. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust previously identified

“systemic issues with the police response to stalking”,

and I very much agree with that statement. To what extent do you think the measures in this Bill will address that? This is a bit open-ended, so I apologise, but do you think the Bill could go further in that respect, to improve the response of police around the country—my experience is in London—to prevent these hideous crimes from occurring in the first place?

Suky Bhaker: You may be aware that, on behalf of the National Stalking Consortium, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust issued a super-complaint, from which the recommendations came out late last year. The super-complaint committee found significant evidence of police failings in identifying and evidencing stalking. In fact, fewer than 2% of reported cases result in any level of conviction. We also find significant difficulties when it comes to the judiciary and magistrates, and with prosecutors’ understanding of what constitutes stalking, which leads to missed charges and the dismissal of stalking cases.

Clause 71 and the provision of statutory guidance would go some way to providing a single authority on the law and encouraging consistent understanding of stalking across the criminal justice system. At the moment, the guidance is inconsistent—in fact, parts are conflicting. We have guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour with a different emphasis from the guidance on stalking that the Crown Prosecution Service has produced. It is really important that multi-agency statutory guidance is produced. The super-complaint made reference to magistrates and judges not understanding the presentation of the psychological harm that victims experience. Again, we hope the statutory guidance might go some way in addressing that.

There has been significant evidence about the lack of use of stalking protection orders. We hope that the guidance will bring together the Stalking Protection Act 2019 and the guidance issued under it. It is important that any statutory guidance is drawn up in consultation with specialists across the sector. Obviously, training is pivotal to underpin that.

Risk management is central to addressing some of the systemic issues. We know from the victims we support that clause 72 would go some way toward managing risk, and that is critical. At the moment, victims do not have the right to know, particularly if the stalker is a stranger. That information is sometimes possessed by the police or other agencies, and the victims are not able to obtain it. You might be familiar with the case of Nicola Thorp, the broadcaster and actor, who campaigned quite heavily on this issue. Her stalker was a stranger stalker. He made comments such as that he was sitting so close to her on the tube that he could touch her. She did not know who her stalker was, so everybody became her stalker.

Protective orders are not used enough, so it is often left to the victim to protect themselves, and without the identity of the perpetrator, that becomes really difficult. We know that stalkers often contact multiple people around the victim—on average, 21 family members, friends or colleagues. Again, if we do not know who the perpetrator is, how can protections be put in place? Recent research also shows that 90% of all femicides had stalking in their antecedent history. When we are looking at the prevalence in terms of risk, there is really no question but that those safety mechanisms need to be put in place.

In terms of where you could go further, we would certainly support changes to the stalking protection orders enabling the court to issue those on acquittal and conviction, because we see significant challenges to obtaining those orders, as I said. In the year ending March 2023, 531 applications were made for stalking protection orders, against more than 116,000 stalking offences being recorded, so we are seeing less than 1% of all stalking offences attracting stalking protection orders.

[Luke Taylor]

That is an astonishingly low figure.

[The Chair]

Order. Briefly, please, because we will be playing “Beat the clock” if we are not careful.

[Luke Taylor]

Q That leads to a question about how the orders are working at the moment. You welcome extending them. Does that suggest that in the very small number of cases in which they are applied, they are working quite well?

Suky Bhaker: We see pockets of really good practice. We have a number of specialist sites that have developed specialist programmes across the UK, where we have embedded training and where the full extent of the stalking protection order is utilised. What makes stalking protection orders unique is that there are positive obligations attached to them—they do not just prohibit; they can compel a perpetrator to attend something like a programme—but often those elements are not used. We do not see the potential duration of stalking protection orders being utilised; they are often quite short in duration, which means victims have to go back to court to apply again. We see barriers in understanding: although the police might make applications, legal services might fall down in terms of their understanding of the need to push that application forward.

For us, there always needs to be a presumption that a stalking protection order should be in place, and if one is not, the reasons why must be evidenced. We certainly support the extension, but we need to remember that stalking protection orders were brought in as a preventive measure—as an early intervention tool, at the beginning of an investigation, to offer victims protection while the investigation was ongoing. We do not want to leave victims unprotected for that period by just bringing the orders in at the end. There is obviously a value in that, but we want to make sure they are protected for the duration.

[The Chair]

I am afraid that I am going to have to ask for concise answers. It is important that we get the evidence on the record, so at the expense of some brevity, perhaps, if there are matters that in hindsight you wish to put on the record, feel free to write to us. I hope that, in that way, we may be able to have our cake and eat it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Ms Bhaker, you were nodding furiously—do you have anything to add?

Suky Bhaker: I absolutely agree with Baroness Newlove. For us, it is about having that conversation with those tech companies. Their products need to be safe by design, yet all too often they are hitting the market and are misused by perpetrators in ever-innovative ways. We are always behind in that conversation, and we need to be at the forefront. Those specialist services need to be at the table with those tech companies to be ahead of that.

[Luke Taylor]

Q Picking up on a comment you made, Baroness Newlove, around resources and officers—while powers are all well and good, the challenge is having enough numbers to exercise them. Tiff Lynch made a comment about how resources are being used up by duties. How much do you agree that the focus on neighbourhood policing and the powers included in the Bill are only so useful if we have the officers and the numbers to exercise them? Do you see anything in the Bill that gives you confidence that will happen?

Baroness Newlove: I welcome any extra resources and police officers, but it is how they are mobilised. I have concerns that, while we have respect orders and hotspot areas, it feels like I have gone back to 2007 with my late husband. Back then, the hotspots were in the town centres and there were 40-odd police officers, but the communities had very little sighting of police. While it comes from a good place, they will fudge our resourcing around—I am quite honest about that. There were plenty of police officers in 2007. You cannot say that there were not enough police officers, because there were. Also, neighbourhood police officers have got to be seen in their communities, not just in the town centres. That is my concern, and it always has been.

[The Chair]

Suky Bhaker and Baroness Newlove, we are indebted to your expertise. Thank you for joining us.

Examination of Witnesses

Dan Sexton and Sharon Maciver gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Q Thank you for that. You gave some interesting statistics there, so you are obviously already collating data in your local authority area. I assume that most local authority areas are collating data on ASB. I want to be clear: the intention is not to put further burdens on local government; it is to allow that data to be put together so that there is a clear picture of what is happening with ASB around the country. I assume that will not be too much of a burden.

Councillor Conway: I have the data here. I think there is a variety across local authorities. I am also aware that —without stuff that I perhaps cannot say publicly—sometimes you have to draw on other funding to enable systems to happen and to work effectively. We would say that it needs looking at carefully so that we have something that works everywhere, not just in specific areas. The dialogue with local government is essential in that.

[Luke Taylor]

Q It is good to see Neil, my ward councillor and council colleague in Sutton. I want to focus on the seizure of motor vehicles, which relates to an issue we have on our high street in Sutton, but I want to take a slightly different angle and ask whether Neil and Sara think the powers might go too far. Would the ability to seize vehicles without warning, and without an initial pushback on the behaviour, potentially give too much power to the police? Is there a risk of—I will not say “misuse”—over-policing? Do you have thoughts on that? Sutton is a good example but, Neil, your London Assembly seat also covers Croydon, where there might be slightly more rural issues. Sara, do you have any examples from the LGA area that you represent?

Councillor Garratt: You are right to flag that. I spoke earlier about why I think it is potentially of benefit that the police would not have to catch the same person twice. I spoke to a police officer about this, and that is essentially how he described it to me: the way the law stands, you have to catch the same person twice. He gave the example of the Ace Cafe in London, where there is an issue with motorbikes, rather than cars. It is tricky to keep track of precisely who you have recently given a warning. Sometimes the behaviour is so egregious, and well beyond what would require a mere warning, but it does require a warning, and then they ride off and are gone.

You are right to flag up the possibility that the threshold moves such that what might have been a warning turns into a seizure. That is absolutely a concern. In a way, that relates to my point earlier about levels of disruption from protest. Parliament sends words into the world and they take on a life of their own when interpreted by the police or the courts. I would want to see provisions in the Bill to make sure that the power could not be abused. But, fundamentally, as a matter of practical policing, not having to catch the same person, in the same vehicle, in the same kind of act twice would be a benefit of the Bill.

Councillor Conway: We can certainly send in more information to give a range of experience from across the country. Speaking specifically about what I have observed locally, those powers would be very welcome. Often, cars are used for all sorts of things, and completely blight a local street, area, park or whatever. It is important really to have those powers and see how it goes. We are happy to follow up with some more detail.

Councillor Garratt: Councillor Conway’s point about persistence in the same place is very important. Some people do not see this problem from one year to the next; other people see it almost every week.

[Keir Mather (Selby) (Lab)]

Q Thank you both for your evidence. Councillor Garratt, you remarked earlier about public order measures, protests and the concerns you have, quite rightly, about some of the protests we have seen in London. Can you speak to some of the specific provisions in the Bill, particularly those that create new criminal offences of concealing your identity at a protest, of climbing on specified war memorials, and of wearing or displaying articles in support of prescribed organisations? How do you think the practical application of some of these measures in London will help to deal with the public order concerns you mentioned?

Councillor Garratt: I welcome all the provisions you just listed, which are all positive. I think I might have seen them somewhere before, in fact.

When we at the Assembly press the police on how they police protests, there are two sets of problems: one is the issue around powers—what they can or cannot do—which I spoke about earlier. The courts have decided that they cannot remove somebody for simply sitting in a road if it is a protest.

On the other hand, there is a practical problem in the sense that if you have a very large protest—for example, the ones we have seen on Saturday mornings—with a very large group of people and a limited number of police officers, the practical ability to carry out what you might think of as a snatch operation comes down to a risk-based decision that the senior officer on the site has to make. One of the ways in which the new provisions may not necessarily make much difference is if the police judge that it is difficult for them in practice. For example, if you have a crowd of a thousand people all wearing face masks, what exactly is the practical step that the police would be able to take?

I welcome the provisions. It is a good idea to have them for people who climb on wall memorials and wear face masks. In particular, although being unpleasant is not against the law, I am very on board with the provisions for those who appear to be supporting terrorist organisations, or inciting violence against groups of people. The question mark I have in my mind is whether the police have either the resources or, on balance, the willingness to go into a large crowd of people, who probably will not welcome their arrival, to actually enforce those provisions.

Councillor Conway: We think the measures are broadly welcome. We will obviously have to see how they go in practice, but something fundamental is needed, as has been shown over the past year or so, in respect of the way you balance the very legitimate right to protest, which we have to enshrine, and people feeling intimated. There is a wider discussion than just this Bill in terms of how it is possible to disagree agreeably—we had this conversation last week. Some of this, in respect of the face masks and so on, sets a basic code for how you engage in public life and public space.

Crime and Policing Bill (Third sitting)

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

We are saying that they will not get ahead of others. They will join the back of the queue; they will be put down the list. The people who behave, who are responsible, who are fair, and who play by the rules will carry on in their place while others are moved down the list for misbehaving.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

The shadow Minister talks about the victims of antisocial behaviour and the offenders. I completely agree with his desire to provide an incentive for those are offending, but offenders often live with their families and children, who are often equally the victims of the antisocial behaviour. Does he agree that to punish offenders’ children and partners in a way that makes their housing situation more precarious and denies them a good home and an aspirational move to a better area, is an inappropriate punishment for an individual and becomes, effectively, a group punishment?

[Matt Vickers]

In my part of the world, the antisocial behaviour is more often wreaked by young people. Parents should be responsible for those young people, and there should be consequences so that people help their families to fall in line and behave. I think this is the right thing to do. Those on a housing list who play by the rules should carry on, while those who misbehave, who do not play by the rules and cause absolute hell for other people, should be pushed to the bottom of the list. I stand by that.

[Luke Taylor]

I am not sure that the shadow Minister understands the severity of the difficulties that families find themselves in. I have a certain sympathy with wanting to sound like there is a serious consequence for families and individuals who are breaching orders, but this amendment is an extreme measure that would lead to misery for whole families. It seems an overreaction and an extreme punishment for a whole family to suffer in that circumstance.

[Matt Vickers]

There are decisions to make about the extremity of the consequences and sanctions, but there is a choice. Is it about the victims who suffer sleepless nights and all this havoc, whose windows have gone through, who are abused and are petrified to live in their own home, or are we on the side of the families who wreak this behaviour and the young people who terrorise others? There is a choice there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Well, Mr Pritchard, that was a lively exchange. Clearly the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley, has had her three Weetabix this morning.

We all recognise how devastating antisocial behaviour where you live can be, and I fully understand and appreciate the passion the debate on amendment 34 has prompted this morning. As the shadow Minister pointed out, amendment 34 would enable local authorities or housing providers to move a person who receives a respect order to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing. It is for local authorities to decide who should qualify for social housing. It might be helpful for hon. Members to know that many councils already consider antisocial behaviour or other criminal behaviour before allocating a social home. They may either decide that a person with a history of antisocial behaviour does not qualify to go on the housing register, or accept the person on to the register but award them lower priority.

I note what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, said about the effect that this amendment could have on other family members not associated with the antisocial behaviour. We need to consider the potential consequences of removing access to social housing. The respect order is intended to tackle the most harmful adult perpetrators of ASB, but also aims to prevent further ASB from occurring and help people to address the root causes of their behaviour. That is why respect orders may contain positive as well as prohibitive requirements.

[Luke Taylor]

To pick up the point on the root cause of antisocial behaviour, does the right hon. Lady agree that being in unsuitable housing, and then being trapped in unsuitable housing through a measure like this, may well make antisocial behaviour even worse, leading to further reactions and disruption within communities?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point; I am not sure that I will respond to it. However, the point he made earlier about the need to ensure that innocent people are not caught up in this is one that I am willing to accept.

We do not want to create further issues for individuals who have respect orders by removing access to social housing entirely, which may increase the risk of reoffending and reduce the likelihood of rehabilitation. I hope that, as I have explained that there is already the power for local authorities to choose to take into account the antisocial behaviour or criminal records of potential tenants, the shadow Minister will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[David Burton-Sampson]

I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. Over the past couple of weeks, Essex police has focused particularly on using similar techniques to drive down the use of illegal e-scooters.

It is time to get tough. We need to act promptly when we come across these perpetrators and get these vehicles off the road. I am pleased with the change to the law that will be made by clause 8.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

First, I express general support for the clause. I welcome the measures to combat this menace in our communities, which we have heard about in the room here today and also in the Chamber on Second Reading. We have not only the risk of the antisocial behaviour itself, but the enabled crime that it is linked to such as phone snatching and similar offences. Again, it is welcome to try to reduce those incidents where possible.

This weekend, I was in a discussion with a resident who talked about the impact of illegal off-road bikes in Overton Park in my constituency. They talked about their fear that if one of those vehicles hit their child—they are often not even full-sized off-road vehicles, but small, children’s off-road bikes—it could cause serious injury. There is a real fear among residents.

We also have an issue around illegal e-bikes being driven on our high streets, often in zones shared between pedestrians and cycles. Heavier, illegally modified bikes are used often by food delivery companies that absolve themselves of any responsibility because the bikers are all independent contractors or independent riders. The companies take no responsibility and have no interest in cracking down, so enforcement is left to the local police. They have problems spotting whether the vehicles are illegally modified and then there is the issue of police resources. Many of us sound like a broken record on this: the powers are all very well, but the challenge is actually having the resources in our neighbourhood policing units to enforce them.

I have a concern not only linked to the manpower required to police the bikes, but on some of the details and practicalities of the powers, so I would welcome further details from the Minister. Will there be any process of appeal for the individual if the bike or vehicle is taken away in the first instance without a warning? Would it just be down to a single officer who says a particular offence is antisocial? I have had people contact me with concerns because they have been stopped in a vehicle for fast acceleration or for driving in a particular way on a single occasion. They worry that under the powers granted in the Bill their vehicle could be immediately confiscated. They feel that the powers might be misused by individual police officers, so there is a concern over that process, and how the power given to a police officer can be used in a single instance.

Would vehicles be fully traced and tracked to see whether they are stolen? We should ensure that we do not crush or dispose of vehicles that can be returned to their owners. Would the powers be enforced on the owner alone? If a vehicle had been taken without permission or was being used without the knowledge of the owner, would there be a process to ensure that the vehicle was not used again without the understanding of the owner? The removal and disposal would seem to be an overreach in that circumstance.

On the timescale of disposal and how that would be done, I heard the concerns about the immediate re-selling of vehicles back to the wrong ’uns they were taken off in the first place. It is a valid concern. Will that disposal mean cubing it and putting it in the recycling, or does it mean selling it on? What constraints will be put on the police to deal with vehicles that are taken?

My understanding of the current guidance is that warnings are necessary only where repeated tickets are impractical. Can the Minister talk about where the existing description of “where impractical” is insufficient for police officers? In discussions with the police, I imagine that the phrase “where impractical” has been identified as problematic. Can we draw out a bit why it is causing issues?

There is a question around whether the powers would apply to problem areas, particularly in central London where high-powered, very expensive vehicles have been reported as causing noise nuisance and alarm to local residents. We have all read stories of vehicles being imported from the middle east by foreign owners, and these vehicles causing noise nuisance in central London, in the Kensington and Chelsea areas. Would the powers allow those vehicles, which are often very high-value vehicles, to be taken without a warning in the first place? I think there is an appetite from many for that to be the case, but there would be concerns over the sheer value of those vehicles and how the police would deal with that.

I find some of the new clauses interesting and there is actually a lot of sense in many of them. Again, I would be interested to hear the Minister explain why each power they provide for is either undesirable or already covered in the Bill.

[Joe Robertson]

It is good to hear that there is a universal view—at least among those who have spoken—about the intimidating nature of driving motor vehicles in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance. I am pleased that the Bill does not require that to be the intent of the use of the vehicle; if there is flagrant disregard for others, that behaviour is captured here and could and should lead to the seizing of that vehicle. There are clearly issues with existing law that are improved here, not least seizing a vehicle without warning. Plainly, people who use vehicles in this way are likely to be quite clever at avoiding the system taking their vehicle when they are warned that they are being watched and have been seen. Removing the necessity for a warning is welcome.

There are a number of issues that are not dealt with in the Bill. I will not repeat the words of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, but I wish to highlight the inability to seize a vehicle once it has entered the home. Again, the sorts of people who are using vehicles in this way will be quite clever about protecting their property when they see the police coming. Can the Minster help with this idea of the home; if a bike is removed into a garage, for example, can it still be seized? Does it matter if that garage is integral to the home or separate from it? Any loopholes that can be closed for those driving their vehicles in this way to avoid having them seized would be welcome.

The shadow Minister and the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, both referred to the idea of a vehicle being seized and then resold—and possibly sold back to the perpetrator of the antisocial behaviour in the first place. That is plainly ridiculous. Crushing these vehicles, with all the caveats around ensuring that the vehicle belongs to the person who had been using it in that way—that they were not joyriding, leading to somebody else’s property getting crushed—is a sensible way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The shadow Minister and other members of the Committee have set out clearly how concerned we are about the antisocial use of vehicles and the real problems they are causing communities all around the country. I think we can all identify with the menace they cause in our parks, on our pavements and in our streets and neighbourhoods. Certainly, as the nights get lighter, the problem seems to get worse. In Orchard Park in my constituency, we seem to be plagued by mini motos causing noise nuisance and intimidating local people, making the situation really unpleasant for people trying to enjoy the good weather as we move into spring and summer. I fully appreciate all of that, and as the shadow Minister pointed out, there are also real issues about the way vehicles are used for crime—drugs, theft and everything else.

It is absolutely right to say that the police have been as innovative as they can be in the use of drones or off-road bikes. The police may, where appropriate, pursue motorbikes and off-road bikes being ridden in an antisocial manner and may employ tactical options to bring the vehicles to a stop. The College of Policing’s authorised professional practice on roads policing and police pursuits provides guidance for police taking part in such pursuits. However, the APP makes it clear that the pursuit should be necessary, proportionate and balanced against the threat, risk and harm of the pursuit to the person being pursued, the officers involved and others who may be affected.

[Luke Taylor]

Has the Minister considered additional funding and support for the police? The suggestion is that those actions—the pursuit and physical taking of the vehicle—would require more resource and training, and that is a point that I will make repeatedly. Does the Minister agree that that is important and that support will be provided?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

An additional £1.2 billion is going into policing—from today, actually—for this financial year. So there is a clear commitment from the Government to fund police forces. I understand that the police face many challenges, but financial support is certainly going in. The work of the College of Policing in setting out best practice—that authorised professional practice—is really important in giving police officers confidence to take the steps they need to in order to deal with antisocial behaviour.

The other point I wanted to make is that work is being undertaken by the Home Office and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory to progress research and development on a novel technology solution to safely stop e-bikes and enhance the ability of the police to prevent them from being used to commit criminal acts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I completely agree. Many farmers in my patch would say exactly the same. When rubbish is dumped in a park or local authority area, it gets cleaned up, at huge cost to the taxpayer, but when it is dumped beyond the farm gate, or in a field owned by a farmer—or anyone else with any scale of land in a rural area—too often they have to pick up the cost, and all the consequences beyond cost.

Currently, fly-tipping offences typically result in a fine and, in some cases, a criminal record. However, repeat offenders are often penalised in a way that does not sufficiently discourage further violations. The fines can sometimes be seen as a mere cost of doing business, especially by individuals or companies who repeatedly dump waste, often for profit. The Opposition’s new clause 24 proposes adding penalty points to the driving licence of any individual convicted of a fly-tipping offence. It is a significant proposal that aims to deter people from illegally dumping waste by linking that to driving penalties, which would impact an individual’s driving record, and potentially their ability to drive. Our new clause shows that we are serious about tackling the issue of fly-tipping. By linking fly-tipping to driving penalties, the new clause would create an additional layer of consequence for those involved in illegal dumping. People with driving licences may be more cautious if they know that their ability to drive could be impacted.

I note amendment 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, but it is unclear what that amendment would achieve. I am concerned that it would not complement clause 9, and would be counterproductive. The requirement for parliamentary approval of guidance within a month could lead to delays in the implementation of important policies or updates, particularly if there are disagreements or procedural delays in Parliament. I would not want anything to impede, by overreach, our ability to tackle and curtail fly-tipping.

[Luke Taylor]

We welcome measures to combat fly-tipping. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset has already mentioned, the problem is particularly concerning for rural landowners and farmers, who often have to deal with the cost of this environmental crime on their land. Amendment 4 intends to give parliamentary oversight and democratic control over the guidance. That is a good thing, which we should all support. However, I understand the concerns about delays. I think there is a balance between accountability, parliamentary approval and delays. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I am glad to see clause 9 because, as several hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have mentioned, fly-tipping is a particular problem in many rural constituencies. In Berkshire, where the majority of my seat lies, there were 7,700 instances of fly-tipping in 2023-24. We are a small county, but that is 20 reports a day. In the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, where most of my constituency is, the figure rose to 1,902 in the past year, which is up 52% on the year before, when we had 1,249. The issue is of greater prevalence than in the past, and I welcome the Government including clauses to try to make a difference.

We have also seen a change in the nature of fly-tipping. Two or three years ago, in Berkshire, most of it was on council land, in car parks or parks, in the hope that the local authority might pick it up, but now we see what might be called smaller-scale highways incidents, with the dumping of waste on public roads, pavements or grass verges. In the past year, 778 of the 1,902 instances in the royal borough consisted of what were described as a car boot or less. To me, that indicates a prevalence of individuals or waste from small-scale dumpsters, perhaps from small businesses—perhaps we are seeing fewer large-scale illegal waste operations. I put that very much in the bucket of antisocial behaviour.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West and the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said, that is a particular concern to local farmers. I will quote Colin Rayner, a constituent of mine and a farmer. I will first declare an interest, that Colin is a personal friend and the president of Windsor Conservatives, but he is well placed and I pick him for his expertise rather than my relationship with him. To quote the Maidenhead Advertiser, he said that

“the family farms have incidents of fly-tipping every day, from a bag of garden waste to lorry loads of waste…‘We have made our farms into medieval forts to try to reduce large loads of waste been tipped on the farms’.”

He has also spoken to me about the cost to his business of extra security and, indeed, of the cleaning up.

That last point is why I welcome the amendment moved by the Opposition to make the cost sit with the offender and not with the landowner. It is not appropriate that Mr Rayner and his companies pay; the person who is offending should. Also, new clause 24 on driving licences, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, seems to be a way to get at just such small-scale operations. That might be something that is tangible and real to a small business or an individual doing the fly-tipping. I absolutely welcome the amendment and the new clause.

When the guidance comes forward, I encourage the Minister to be as tough as possible—which I think is her intent, but perhaps she will speak to that in her wind-up. We should use the power to search and seize vehicles in the case of persistent offenders. I want to see serious fixed penalty notices for people caught fly-tipping, and I want extra powers of investigation and prosecution. I will welcome the Minister’s comments.

Crime and Policing Bill (Fifth sitting)

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Joe Robertson]

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, from a sedentary position, has endorsed my constituency, which is not only a tourist destination but a place that has a much higher population in summer, and retail workers are at the frontline in towns such as Ryde, Sandown, Shanklin and Ventnor. Although we are a small coastal community—we do not have big towns or a big population centre—retail crime is still a problem. It is a crime that I imagine affects all constituencies in the UK to a greater or lesser extent, and we certainly should not think of it as a city or large town-only issue. In fact, I ponder whether it can be, in some cases, more impactful in smaller communities, where people might be more likely to know each other and there is a sense of intimidation from such behaviour.

Retail crime can also lead to a more destructive environment or a sense of lawlessness if it goes unchecked, as well as all sorts of knock-on effects with antisocial behaviour. We definitely see some of that in my constituency, where certain prolific individuals feel that if the police have not responded the first few times, they are likely not to respond again. Certainly in my anecdotal experience, it is actually a few prolific offenders who are particularly responsible for a large number of these incidents. I urge the Government to take all views of the Committee into account, as we all want to achieve the same objectives.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

As I am interested in moving on, because I was sent by my residents to get on with business, I will not be eking this out because we did not do our homework or table our amendments in time.

I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan about delivery workers and retail workers, in the broader sense of the word. There is an opportunity here to reflect the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021, which covers retail workers when they are in people’s homes. We heard evidence from Christopher Morris and Graham Wynn that there is a really good chance to do that here. I understand the Minister’s explanation that there is a lot in the Bill, and that we need to ensure that it is neat and firm and delivers what it is supposed to deliver, but I again urge us to take this opportunity if we can.

I will now mention something that is very important to my residents, and that we have been looking at—tool theft, and how we can stretch the definition of retail workers and place of work. Again, I understand the Minister’s reluctance. I am sure that it is not because she has any lack of desire to solve issues in that space; the question is just about the Bill’s ability to do so. I understand that, but given the campaigning that a number of her colleagues have done in that space, I think there is a real opportunity here to do what we can to include the protection of hard-working tradespeople, and not only when they are in people’s homes.

The example that I gave in the evidence session was of retail workers delivering a dishwasher and installing it in somebody’s home. The question was whether, in somebody’s home, they would be classed as a retail worker under the measures in the Bill. There is a real opportunity to include those people and, if possible, to extend the provision to tradespeople who are doing work in people’s homes and then have tools and equipment necessary for their jobs subject to theft. They are also, as we are hearing, quite often subject to assault while defending their tools, and there is a real risk that they are criminalised for acting to protect their livelihood, because obviously this is not just theft—I mean “just” in the broadest possible terms. It is not having one’s phone stolen or, as heartbreaking as it is—I have suffered it myself—having one’s bike stolen. This is someone’s livelihood—their ability to support their family; so whatever we can do to extend the scope of the measure to protect those incredibly hard-working tradespeople and workers, we should do.

[Jo Platt]

The hon. Gentleman is making some good points, especially on tool theft. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is leading a campaign on tool theft; it would be great if he got involved.

[Luke Taylor]

Absolutely, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth North on that. I was at the reception that she held on the Terrace last week, and it was good to see the backing of industry for that campaign.

[The Chair]

Order. We need to stick within the scope of the Bill. If we could stay on topic, that would be brilliant.

[Luke Taylor]

I will finish my remarks by again encouraging the Minister to consider what we can do, and to take every opportunity available to include in the Bill the measures that I have mentioned.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I refer Members to my declaration of interests.

I will keep this brief. The abuse of shop workers is simply unacceptable. People who are at work and offering an essential service to the public, and who are normally at the lower end of the salary scale, should not be subjected to such violence and intimidation when simply doing their job. USDAW’s “Freedom From Fear” report shows that in the last 12 months 77% of shop workers were verbally abused, 53% were threatened and 10% were assaulted. I know about this issue from my early career, when I was a store manager for a food store. I was abused on a number of occasions and once had a blade pulled on me when I was attempting to stop a shoplifter. This has been going on for years and it needs to stop.

During the pandemic, as we all know, we started off clapping the doctors and nurses and we eventually spread that out to everybody who was keeping our essential services going, including our shop workers. It is shameful that despite the petition launched in July 2020 and signed by 104,354 people, which the hon. Member for Stockton West pointed to, and the Westminster Hall debate, the former Conservative Government refused to recognise abuse of a shop worker as a separate offence until they were dragged, kicking and screaming, by the industry and the Labour Opposition at the time. It is therefore interesting to hear the Conservatives waxing lyrical about this issue today, despite the fact that we had to pull them to this point. It is equally admirable to see the Government bringing this action forward.

Many shop workers are pleased that the Government’s respect orders will support this new legislation and give them more protection. As a package, this is a positive move forward that will support my former colleagues and all retail workers. I fully support clauses 14 and 15.

Crime and Policing Bill (Eighth sitting)

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I completely agree, and I will take that as my cue to stop talking. My hon. Friend is right that we need action, so I will step down from my soapbox and move to conclude my remarks.

I do not doubt that Opposition Members are committed to doing what is right by victims. However, what is not right by victims is the politicisation and weaponisation of such a heinous issue, as has been done by some Opposition Front Benchers—not those here in the Committee, but some in the shadow Cabinet.

As the Ministers have said today, we should be working together, listening to victims, learning from their experiences, bringing about a culture change so that this can never happen again, and putting in place frameworks, rules, laws and policies to ensure that, if it does, the perpetrators are prosecuted to the fullest extent. I submit that new clauses 47 and 48 should not be moved, so that we can move forward with practical measures that do not duplicate work and get on with the important work of safeguarding and protecting our children.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I will be brief. I very much welcome clause 43.

On new clause 47, the Liberal Democrats welcome anything that will deliver justice to the victims of these horrific crimes and help take meaningful action to stop the crimes from occurring again. The Government should waste no time in launching inquires, where required, and clearly set out when areas beyond those included in the pilots that ask for a local inquiry can get one. However, we must focus on implementing the conclusions of the Jay report. That has to be our priority. The conclusions and recommendations are there, but they were not taken forward under the previous Government. We just need to get those in place. We also need a timetable for when they will be taken forward, so that there is no delay to justice for victims.

I join the hon. Member for Cardiff West in his dismissive and quite angry analysis of new clauses 48 and 49, which are clearly merely race-baiting measures to chase headlines, and encourage Conservative Members not to move them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

I rise to speak to clause 45 and the principle running through the clauses that follow it. Clause 45 introduces a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse by establishing a legal obligation for individuals engaged in regulated activities with children, such as teachers and healthcare professionals, to report known instances of child sexual abuse to the police or local authorities.

Will the Minister consider the British Medical Association’s written evidence, which raised concerns about the scope of this duty? I disagree with the BMA, having read its evidence, but I want to explore it a little, so I hope the Minister might comment on it.

The BMA is worried that the Bill might compel healthcare professionals to disclose patient information to the police, potentially undermining the trust inherent in the doctor-patient relationship. In my view, that perspective seems to neglect the existing legal frameworks that already permit such disclosures in specific circumstances, particularly when public safety is at risk. In fact, the General Medical Council’s guidance allows for breaching confidentiality to prevent serious harm or crime, indicating that the Bill’s provisions are not as unprecedented as the BMA might suggest.

Furthermore, the BMA’s apprehensions do not sufficiently consider the potential benefits of the Bill in facilitating a more integrated approach to preventing serious violence. By enabling appropriate information-sharing between healthcare providers and law enforcement, we can create a more robust system for identifying and mitigating threats to public safety. The BMA’s focus on confidentiality, in my view, should be weighed against the imperatives of protecting individuals and communities from harm.

Most importantly—I was concerned to read this, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments—the BMA says it is concerned that 15-year-olds who are engaged in what it terms “consensual sexual activity” with someone over the age of 18 will be “flooding the system”. My understanding of the law is that 15-year-olds cannot consent to sexual activity with 18-year-olds, and I find it concerning that a professional body is choosing to interpret this country’s laws on sexual consent in this way. Perhaps the Minister might comment on that in her closing remarks. The age at which I understand people can legally consent to sexual activity is 16 in this country. The BMA should know that, understand the law and have a duty to uphold it.

The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse was clear on this recommendation, and the Crime and Policing Bill seeks to enhance public safety through judicious information-sharing. The existing ethical and legal safeguards governing medical confidentiality remain intact, and it is crucial that GPs and medical professionals take seriously their duty towards children, as that is what 15-year-olds are.

The international experience of mandatory reporting laws has already demonstrated the effectiveness of including reasonable suspicion as a trigger for reporting. For instance, the introduction of such laws in Australia led to increased reporting, without a corresponding rise in malicious reports. This suggests that professionals can responsibly handle the duty to report suspicions, contributing to more robust child protection systems.

Amendment 43 could address the under-reporting of child sexual abuse. Research has indicated that child sexual abuse is significantly under-reported, with many victims not disclosing their experience at the time of abuse. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse highlighted that a cultural shift is needed to make discussions about child sexual abuse less taboo. By tabling amendment 43, our intention is to signal our commitment to fostering an environment in which suspicions are taken seriously and professionals are encouraged to report concerns without fear of reprisal.

I commend amendment 43 to the Committee.

[Luke Taylor]

We welcome the clauses in this group, but I have a simple question about clauses 45 and 47. Why does the Bill not go further than the Conservative Government’s Criminal Justice Bill did in 2024? It could include the IICSA recommendation that observing recognised indicators of child sexual abuse be a reason to suspect. Can the Minister give an explanation of why that key finding of the Jay report is not included in the Bill and whether opportunities are being missed to go that little bit further?

I also agree with amendment 43. Obviously, in some recent high-profile cases, the belief that something had been reported by another person was notoriously used to explain why there had not been further reporting. This would provide a backstop to prevent that explanation from being used to absolve an individual of their responsibilities.

[Jess Phillips]

I feel quite proud to commend this clause about mandatory reporting. For much of my professional life and a huge amount of our political lives, we have been trying to get mandatory reporting across the line, so it is a proud moment. Clauses 45 and 47 and schedule 7 introduce the new mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse, building on the recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and I will come on to answer the questions that have been asked of me.

The inquiry gathered evidence from many victims and survivors who made disclosures or presented information to a responsible adult with no action being subsequently taken to inform the relevant authorities. A common reason for those failures was the prioritisation of protecting an individual or institution from reputational damage over the safety and wellbeing of children. Many victims who spoke to the inquiry set out the inadequate and negative responses to their disclosures, which meant that they never wanted to talk about their experiences again. The inquiry’s final report recommended that certain individuals in England should be subject to a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse when they become aware of it. Clauses 45 to 47 give effect to such a duty.

When adults undertaking relevant activity with children have reason to believe that child sexual abuse has occurred, either by being told about it by a child or perpetrator or by witnessing the abuse themselves, the new duty requires that they report it promptly to the police or local authority. Clause 45 applies to the new duty, while clauses 46 and 47 define key practical considerations to whom reports should be made and incidents that qualify as giving a reporter sufficient reason to suspect that abuse has occurred.

I will now turn to the amendments in this group, although I do not think some of them will be pressed. Amendment 43 proposes to remove the qualification that, once relevant information has been passed on to the authorities, further duplicate reports are not required. We do not believe that this amendment is necessary. In designing the duty, we have sought to minimise any disruption to well-established reporting processes. Clause 45(7), which this amendment seeks to remove, ensures that a reporter will not have to make a notification under the duty if they are aware that a report has already been made.

Subsection (7) means that, for example, an inexperienced volunteer or newly qualified professional can refer an incident to their organisation’s designated safeguarding lead for an onward notification to be made to the local authority or the police. The duty will be satisfied when a mandated reporter receives confirmation that the report has been made on their behalf, and it remains on them until that point.

I will answer some of the questions that have been asked, specifically those on guidance for the duty and the people within local authorities whom we are talking about. The Government will set out clear guidance on the operation of the duty, but we will also work with regulators and professional standard-setting bodies to ensure that the new duty is clearly communicated ahead of implementation.

Crime and Policing Bill (Ninth sitting)

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan.

I rise in full support of the Government’s action to tackle internet image abuse through clause 56 and schedule 8. As the Member of Parliament for Gravesham, I have heard how digital abuse and coercion are becoming increasingly common in our schools, in our relationships and even in our homes. This measure is not just a policy update; it is a legal correction, a turning point in how the law confronts modern abuse. It stands in defence of dignity, particularly for women and girls who have borne the brunt of silence, shame and victim-blaming for far too long.

The abuse we are addressing through this Bill is often hidden, carried out online without witnesses but with devastating consequences. Victims are often blamed, disbelieved or told that they brought it on themselves. Clause 56 and schedule 8 will take a powerful step in changing that narrative, and I place on record my strong support for the Government’s proposals. I also want to highlight why these offences are so necessary, how the cultural context has changed, what impact this Bill will have on real people, and why this is a turning point in our fight to end violence against women and girls.

As the Minister described, clause 56 and schedule 8 add the base offence of taking and recording intimate images without consent, regardless of motive, to the offences of doing so with intent to cause alarm, distress or humiliation, and of doing so for the purpose of sexual gratification. These offences are key to reflect the reality of modern abuse. The base offence rightly does not require intent, because the harm is real whether or not it was intended.

Unfortunately, we live in a world in which private moments can be turned into weapons, where trust can be shattered with a click and where a single image taken without consent or shared perniciously can spiral into shame, harassment and lifelong trauma. The Law Commission describes our current legal framework as a “patchwork,” unable to keep up with the evolution of technology or the disturbing ways in which people are exploiting it, and the Law Commission is right. Until now, there has been no clear, single criminal offence of taking or recording intimate images without consent. Offences exist for sharing such images, but even then the law requires intent to cause distress or humiliation to be proven. The result is that many perpetrators escape justice while victims suffer in silence. This Bill changes that.

For the first time, we have a clear set of offences that target the taking of intimate images without consent whatever the intent behind the action, whether it is humiliation, distress or sexual gratification, and the installation of the hidden recording devices that enable abuse. It addresses that breakdown in trust.

The Kaspersky report “The Naked Truth” sets out the scale of the challenge. In a global survey of 9,000 people, 22% of respondents had saved explicit images of themselves on their devices and 25% had shared images with people they were dating—among 16 to 24-year-olds that figure rose to 34%. It is this younger generation who we must protect. Some 46% of people globally are either survivors or know somebody who has been a victim of intimate image abuse. That number rises to 69% for 16 to 25-year-olds. We really must act now to prevent this from continuing.

The need for reform has been recognised for some time, but the legislative space did not allow it to move forward. This Labour Government are now picking up the mantle and delivering on that commitment. Clause 56 and schedule 8 build on the groundwork of the Online Safety Act 2003, which acknowledges image sharing. The Bill addresses the act of recording, closing another legal gap. This Government will not stop there: deepfakes and AI-generated sexually explicit images will also be addressed in clause 135 of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. That shows a serious, layered, long-term response to a serious, layered, long-term problem.

We owe it to the survivors, to the next generation, and to every woman and girl who has ever been told that she should have known better. This Government will not look away; we will act, protect, and make it clear that everyone has the right to their own body, their privacy and their peace of mind.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats are very supportive of clause 56 and schedule 8, which tidy up existing measures, including those previously implemented by the Liberal Democrats. That includes our campaign to ban revenge porn—we note the excellent points made by the Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd, regarding both “revenge” and “porn”—which elevated the taking of intimate images to a criminal offence in 2015, with sentences of up to two years in prison for those convicted.

We also note the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019, so shamefully blocked by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) in 2018, which made upskirting a specific crime. We congratulate the Government on bringing forward measures to combat these upsetting, intrusive and insidious crimes.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan.

Violence against women and girls is not just a societal problem—it is a national emergency. I am proud of the action that this Labour Government are taking in our Crime and Policing Bill to tackle it. Tough new action is needed, and we are bringing it. The Labour Government have set out an unprecedented ambition, as we heard from the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. We will use every lever available to deliver this change.

The commitment goes beyond promises. One of the deliverables is the inclusion of new offences for the taking of intimate images without consent, as we have heard. These steps are crucial in addressing the evolving nature of sexual offences, which have outpaced existing laws. We must address this issue—it demands action and our unwavering commitment. Unlike the last Tory Government, which failed to keep up with developments in technology and sexual offending, we are taking tough action against perpetrators and ensuring that protections are better for victims—that is paramount. The consequences of this abuse can be life-changing and tragic. We must take the steps outlined in clause 56 and schedule 8 to ensure that we do not miss the opportunity to protect people from this rapidly growing harm.

The Women and Equalities Committee, which I sit on, has heard evidence from victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse. They have described the far-reaching and continuing impact that the abuse has had on their lives, confidence and relationships. I have heard from the witnesses how this has affected them. Unless we meet the victims and hear it from the horse’s mouth, the deep impact on them does not become real. Many of them are still suffering today. It has even pushed some to the brink of suicide. TV personality and campaigner Georgia Harrison told our predecessor Committee what happened in her case. She said:

“It impacted me in every way you could imagine. So I always sort of compare it to grief: you have to actually grieve a former version of yourself, you feel like you lose your dignity and a lot of pride, there is so much shame involved in it...It got to the point where I was so emotionally affected by what happened to me that I ended up being physically ill as well, to the point where I was in hospital”.

Crime and Policing Bill (Tenth sitting)

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Stalking is a form of psychological violence that will affect approximately one in five women. It is an insidious crime that can shatter lives. I have heard from victims of stalking who feel trapped and afraid to leave their homes, are constantly looking over their shoulder on the way to work, and have cut ties with loved ones out of fear that they are putting them in danger. Survivors are left with lingering anxiety, trauma and pain years after the harassment ends. In the most extreme cases, stalking can escalate to acts of physical violence. It is a crime that thrives on control, leaving victims in a constant state of fear. I welcome the Government’s strengthening measures to combat the crime.

I made a visit to the S-TAC—the stalking threat assessment centre—in Stratford police station a couple of weeks ago to see the work of the dedicated team there, which brings together the Met police, mental health services, the Probation Service, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and the CPS, all funded by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. The work they are doing to help victims and fight perpetrators is incredibly impressive.

I echo the written submission from Claire Waxman, the London Victims’ Commissioner, who made specific points on these clauses that it is worth exploring. The Liberal Democrats welcome the steps to allow SPOs to be made on conviction or acquittal, but we echo the concern that the police need clear instructions to pursue SPOs at an earlier stage, and not only at the conclusion of court proceedings. When I was at S-TAC, there was a general feeling that police and authorities were unaware of the measures, so more needs to be done to ensure that police are much more aware of the steps that are available and that they apply for the measures earlier.

At S-TAC, I also heard that it can take up to six weeks to obtain the evidence and get a hearing for an SPO to be implemented. That is just too long. Is there an opportunity to introduce an SPN—a stalking protection notice—that could be implemented straightaway? A domestic abuse protection notice can be implemented immediately, and then within three days, where there is a domestic abuse incident or where the offender is known to the victim, an order can be obtained. There is a gap in situations in which no domestic abuse is present, and about three in 10 victims are not known to the perpetrator. Can the Minister confirm how initial delays in obtaining SPOs will be resolved so that they can be brought into force sooner? Is there an opportunity to streamline SPOs and include a notice in the earlier stages of obtaining the order?

I am sure that the Minister has heard me say this before, but I want to mention the possibility of creating a single stand-alone stalking offence. This reflects and echoes the written evidence from Claire Waxman. The police’s understanding of stalking legislation and the offence in general is not good enough. At the same time, the section 4A offence becomes too high a bar to prove; the phrase “alarm or distress” is unhelpful, especially given that victims are often not aware of the offending at the time. I push the Minister to bring forward the measures that Claire Waxman has called for and create a single offence of stalking.

[Jess Phillips]

I will start at the end and work backwards through the questions. It was a delight to hear everybody mention the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which is an amazing organisation that I have had the pleasure to work with for many years. Since becoming a Minister, I have had the especial pleasure of working very closely with the trust on how we come out of the super-complaint with the recommendations and improve the situation all round. I would say exactly the same thing about Claire Waxman, who is both my friend and my colleague.

On the issue of the legislation, part of the super-complaint was about the need to look at the different specific offences. I do not disagree that the bar can be too high or that there can be confusion about the two different offences. The legislation is currently under review, as Claire Waxman and others in the coalition recommended.

The super-complaint showed that when used properly, SPOs are considered an extremely valuable tool in protecting victims of stalking, but it also identified that not enough are being put in place, as other hon. Members have identified, and that there is not effective monitoring of the ones that are.

There is clearly much more to the issue than this legislation. I sat for years considering well-written legislation; I do not have many good things to say about the past 14 years, but the words that got written on goatskin were considerably better than the words that had existed before. But they are pointless if they do not change things on the ground.

It is quite hard for me to sit here and have people talk to me about how traumatic it is to be a victim of stalking—about the things that happen that change people’s lives forever—because my life has changed immeasurably because of the stalking that I currently experience, and that happens to me all the time. When I have tried to get SPOs for other people, one of the main problems I have perceived is delay in the courts, which others have identified. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is in the lucky position of representing one of the rare places in the country where people can get a DAPN or a domestic abuse protection order.

[Luke Taylor]

It is lucky that we have them, but depressing that we have a higher rate of domestic abuse, so it was felt that they were required. We are very pleased to be part of the trial, but we need to be doing more in Sutton and south-west London to address these issues.

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely. The Metropolitan police’s decision to use those three particular boroughs for the domestic abuse protection orders was undoubtedly based on intelligence, and also on what we can best learn. We have seen with the domestic abuse protection orders that someone can get in and out of a courtroom within 24 hours. That has absolutely not been the case with SPOs classically, nor am I going to stand here and pretend that I can make that happen with all orders. What I am saying is that there is a standard, and safety and risk have to be considered.

Looking across the board following the super-complaint, these clauses are a step in the right direction. This is about changing how things happen on the ground and giving people the confidence to access the orders. If someone tries to get an order and cannot, they start to think, “What’s the point?”

On the shadow Minister’s point about breaches, any order—and I know because I have them—is only as good as what happens when it is breached. If nothing happens when somebody breaches an order, the victim does not bother reporting them any more, and they certainly do not bother trying to get another order, on acquittal or not.

[Luke Taylor]

Just to bolster the Minister’s argument, the 2024 London stalking review found that 45% of stalking victims felt compelled to abandon their pursuit of justice.

[Jess Phillips]

Exactly. We rely on our courts to ensure that these decisions are proportionate. In order to get proportionate decisions on breaches, we need to ensure that our criminal justice system is better trained across the board.

From the Home Office’s perspective, I point to the fact that this Government have finally invested in a specific policing unit on violence against women and girls, public protection and safeguarding for the entire country. That has not existed before. I always say, “I want what counter-terrorism has got”. Well, counter-terrorism has it, and the number of victims of violence against women and girls dwarfs by a country mile the number of people affected by terrorism in our country, but there is not standardised training for police to ensure that, where the legislation might be complicated, they can move things forward—even if the legislation were not changed, which we are seeking to do—or training about how quickly police should be applying for things. These are all things that will take time and training, and we cannot just rely on legislation to answer all the questions.

The requirements attached to an SPO must be proportionate, so it is right that a court takes into account the impact on the respondent’s religious beliefs, education and employment, for example. The court is only required to avoid conflicts so far as it is practicable. Again, the courts are well versed in making such balancing judgments. As somebody who has had orders made where the judgment has had to be balanced—for example, where there has been a question whether the respondent has a right to contact me because I am their Member of Parliament—I relied on the court to decide what was practicable in those circumstances. The shadow Minister asked for an example, but it would be dangerous for me as a Minister to give examples that could then be used in a court. Courts deal with balancing the rights of the respondent and the victim. I will not pretend that I think they always get it right, but it is for them to decide how to balance those particular considerations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Sullivan]

I absolutely agree. We must also work with the voluntary sector, including Stamp Out Spiking, and in education and youth services we must shout from the rooftops that this behaviour is not acceptable and is seriously damaging.

Let us be honest: in December 2022 the Conservative Government said that there was

“no gap in the existing law”

and refused to act. It was only after public pressure, and the publication of a damning report under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, that they changed course. It has now fallen to this Government to finish the job, and I am proud that we are doing so. The new offence will be triable either way, with a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, which applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. For the first time, it sends a clear message: if an individual spikes someone and violates their autonomy, safety and night out, the law will hold them to account.

The Bill represents a broader cultural shift—one we have already seen in its response to stalking, intimate image abuse and violence against women and girls. With clause 73 we are putting our foot down and saying, “No more blurred lines, no more excuses and no more evasion. Spiking is illegal, full stop.”

[Luke Taylor]

I was not going to speak, but reflecting on the Conservative amendments, particularly amendment 44, took me back to our evidence session. There was a particularly helpful contribution from Colin Mackie of Spike Aware UK, who talked about his campaign on spiking having picked up on revenge and pranking. He was asked a particularly good question by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East about the words used in the Bill, particularly “annoy”. The ideas of pranking and revenge came out of his evidence, so will the Minister consider accepting amendment 44?

I also want to pick up the wider point about the need to work with all those involved, such as by working with not only nightclubs but bouncers, so that their qualifications require them to reflect on whether someone is out of control and drunk or has actually been spiked. We also need training at A&Es so that evidence can be taken and preserved if spiking is found to be the cause, rather than somebody just having had too much to drink. The clause is a good measure—it reflects the campaigning from Colin Mackie and groups like Spike Aware UK—but we should reflect on the wording and whether it is sensible to include amendment 44.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to Opposition amendments 44 and 45 and to address directly what I consider to be a major loophole in this proposed law, which has really good intent behind it. There are two elements to the spiking loophole. I can envisage a defendant getting away with administering a harmful substance by saying that he or she did not intend to injure, aggrieve or annoy. Furthermore, they may claim that it was intended merely as a prank, but the act was so obviously reckless and stupid that they should nevertheless be captured by the provision.

As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam just mentioned, we heard really good evidence on this issue. I pose the rhetorical question: what is the point of evidence sessions if we do not take on powerful and direct testimony from somebody whose family were affected in the most tragic way? “Pranking” was the word used in that session, and we heard that it is on the rise. Spiking can be done with the worst intent—to cause serious harm—but clearly any law should cover someone who intends a prank with a harmful substance.

The idea behind broadening the offence beyond merely intent—we are no longer necessarily talking about pranking, but about the intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy—to recklessness has plenty of foundation and precedent in law. In fact, we have just debated that point with clause 57, relating to exposure. Under the new law relating to exposure, someone commits an offence if they expose their genitals for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification. There are two reasons why clause 57 will capture someone under criminal law: if the person intends to be seen, or if they are reckless as to whether anyone sees them. When it comes to spiking, the idea should be the same: that a person who administers a harmful substance does so either with intent to injure, aggrieve, annoy or prank, or is reckless as to that being the effect of administering the substance.

Let us be clear: under clause 73, administering a harmful substance on its own is not a criminal offence. It requires something in the mind of a person—currently, only intent. I urge the Government to include reckless behaviour in respect of which, to a reasonable person, it should be obvious that injury, grievance or annoyance would result, even if that was not the intention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 74 creates a new criminal offence targeting individuals who intentionally carry out acts capable of encouraging or assisting another person to seriously self-harm. Crucially, the offence goes beyond previous legislation, such as section 184 of the Online Safety Act 2023, by covering not just verbal or digital communications, but any form of direct or indirect action. That includes, for example, physically providing someone with an object like a blade to use for self-harm.

The new offence is based on a recommendation from the Law Commission, which proposed criminalising the intentional encouragement or assistance of serious self-harm. The proposal was modelled on the existing offence of encouraging or assisting suicide, as set out in the Suicide Act 1961. The Law Commission highlighted the need for any such offence to be carefully and narrowly defined to ensure that vulnerable individuals, particularly those who share self-harm content online, are not unintentionally criminalised.

Subsection (1) sets out the core of the offence. A person commits it if they carry out

“an act capable of encouraging or assisting the serious self-harm of another person”

and they did so with the intent that such harm would be caused. Subsection (2) clarifies that the offender does not need to know who the victim is. The offence still applies if the act is aimed at an unknown or unidentified individual, such as in the case of anonymous online posts targeting vulnerable people. Subsection (3) states that an offence is committed whether or not serious self-harm actually takes place. The focus is on the intent and the potential for harm, not the outcome.

Self-harm is a deeply concerning issue that affects people of all ages, but especially young people and those struggling with mental health challenges. It involves deliberately causing pain or injury to oneself as a way of coping with overwhelming emotional distress, anxiety, trauma or feelings of numbness and hopelessness. The physical risks of self-harm can be severe, ranging from permanent scarring and infections to life-threatening injuries and even accidental death. The psychological toll is often even more damaging. Those who self-harm frequently experience shame, isolation and a deepening of the very mental health struggles that led them to harm themselves in the first place.

It is not just the individuals who suffer. Families, friends, schools and communities are all affected. Loved ones often feel helpless or guilty, and support systems can become strained. In many cases, self-harm can escalate to suicidal ideation or attempts, making early intervention critical. The rise of online content that normalises or encourages self-harm has made the issue even more urgent. Vulnerable individuals can be influenced or manipulated into dangerous behaviours by others, sometimes even strangers, through social media or online forums. The law must recognise and respond to this modern reality to better protect those at risk. Tackling self-harm requires not just healthcare support and early intervention, but strong legal tools to prevent others from encouraging or facilitating this deeply harmful behaviour. Clause 74 takes an important step in that direction.

Clause 75 strengthens the framework around the offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm by closing potential loopholes in enforcement. It ensures that individuals who arrange for others to carry out a harmful act are equally accountable if those acts are carried out, even if indirectly. The provision also captures cases where the intended harm could not physically occur, such as when a person mistakenly believes a harmless item will cause harm, or when the planned outcome does not materialise as expected. That underlines that liability can arise from intention and belief, not just outcome.

Furthermore, the clause draws a clear boundary for internet service providers, confirming that they will not be held criminally responsible solely for providing the platform through which harmful content is transmitted. The provision aligns with broader legislative changes by removing overlapping measures in existing law, ensuring clarity and consistency in how such offences are addressed. I would be grateful if the Minister would outline what further steps might be under consideration to ensure that platforms and tech companies have a legal duty to report and remove harmful content, and that this provision is implemented alongside adequate mental health support.

[Luke Taylor]

I will speak briefly about the concern raised by a self-harm charity that has been in contact with us that it may fall within the scope of encouragement of self-harm, because when sufferers and victims—individuals who are engaging in self-harm—try to access support to reduce their dependence on the habit, they are often advised to moderate and change the behaviour. Does the Minister have any thoughts on the details of how charities involved in this incredibly important work to help people in extremely difficult situations would not, through treatment and other measures to mitigate and moderate particular practices, fall within scope of what is an incredibly well intentioned and important measure to stop the encouragement of them?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for that question. The intention of this offence is not to capture that; it is for those who have a specific intent to cause or assist self-harm. We recognise, obviously, that there are organisations that do that work. They are not intended to be captured under this offence, and we are ensuring that guidance is available.

I want to respond to the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, regarding online safety. He will be aware that Ofcom is in the process of implementing the guidance and codes of practice that will be operational under the Online Safety Act 2023 to ensure that platforms have to act to protect children, specifically, by removing this content where it is at risk of being seen by children. If platforms do not comply with the Act and with Ofcom’s codes of practice and guidance, they could be fined. Those fines are currently being dished out by Ofcom in relation to some of the harmful and illegal practices by social media platforms.

Of course, this issue is also being looked at, in terms of violence being carried out against women and girls, and children, under our broader strategy across Government. The Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley, and I have met the tech Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care to look at all these issues to ensure that we have the most holistic approach to tackling some of the horrific acts and harms that are proliferating and causing damage to women and girls, and children, so that we protect them all.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 74 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75

Encouraging or assisting serious self-harm: supplementary

Amendment made: 17, in clause 75, page 90, line 20, at end insert—

“(6) In Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply), in paragraph 36D (inserted by section 17), after the entry for section 52 (inserted by section 52), insert—

‘section 74 (encouraging or assisting serious self-harm).’.”—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This amendment excepts the offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

Clause 75, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76

Child abduction

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Crime and Policing Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.

Clause 78 rightly introduces new offences aimed at preventing the misuse of electronic devices such as signal jammers, signal amplifiers and devices used to access vehicle wiring systems for committing vehicle-related crimes. The offences include the possession, importation, manufacturing, adaptation, supply or offer to supply such devices when there is reasonable suspicion that they will be used in connection with crimes such as vehicle theft, stealing items from a vehicle or taking a vehicle without authority.

The subsections provide a defence for individuals who can prove that they did not intend or suspect that the device would be used for a relevant offence, and they allow a court to presume possession of a device if it is found on premises occupied or habitually used by the accused, unless the accused can demonstrate that they were unaware of its presence or had no control over it.

Clause 79 clarifies the evidential burden in cases under clause 78, which deals with electronic devices used in vehicles. It explains that where a defendant seeks to rely on such a defence—for example, that they did not intend the device to be used in a crime—they must provide enough evidence to raise the issue, and the prosecution must then disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Clauses 78 and 79 are needed to strengthen the legal response to the growing threat of tech-enabled vehicle theft, which has become increasingly sophisticated with the use of electronic devices such as signal jammers and relay attack tools. Clause 78 creates targeted offences around the possession, manufacture and supply of such devices, recognising the role they play in modern vehicle crime. By focusing on intent and suspicion, the clause allows for earlier intervention and prevention even before a theft occurs.

We support the measures, but what consultation was done with law enforcement, manufacturers and cyber-security experts to develop the provisions? Does the Minister expect this designation to lead to more asset confiscation from organised crime groups involved in vehicle theft?

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, as always.

The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the measures in clauses 78 and 79 to give the police and courts more powers to reduce vehicle theft. It is disheartening to see so much car theft in our cities, particularly London. In south-west London, a regular complaint of residents is that the police are not able to do anything about it. The police themselves are struggling. The technology has become an arms race, and these clauses are needed to keep up with thefts that are becoming so much more technologically advanced.

It is depressing that a litany of old-fashioned manual theft prevention measures are now necessary again—people are having to use steering locks and wheel clamps—because the police cannot keep up with the technology that thieves employ. We are very supportive of these measures to give the police the tools they need to crack down on this incredibly distressing form of theft.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

Signal jammers and other electronic devices are a real problem, and one that many of my residents did not realise exist until they were hit. I will never forget knocking on a door one Saturday morning, when the resident opened and said, “Where’s my car gone?” She said, “I’d locked it. It should be here,” but it turned out, again, that her car had been stolen using such a technique. The immediate inconvenience of a theft is significant, but it is not the only consequence. The victim may have to rearrange plans as they no longer have their car, and there are longer-term issues such as increased insurance premiums because of the theft.

Keyless cars, which once seemed super-convenient, are now seen by many as a significant security flaw. I will never forget watching on CCTV after my neighbour’s car was stolen a few years ago using this exact method. The individual walked up to the car, gained entry and drove off, all in 45 seconds. Essex police has said that its stolen vehicles intelligence unit recovered £13.5 million-worth of stolen vehicles and parts in 2024—this is a real issue. I welcome clauses 78 and 79 and the tough new penalties for those who consider it appropriate to commit this crime, which is so disruptive to people’s lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

Clause 86 will criminalise the act of wearing or otherwise using an item as a face covering that conceals someone’s own identity or that of another person when in an area that the police have designated. A designation can be made only in relation to an area where the police reasonably believe that a protest may take place or is taking place, that the protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences, and that a designation would prevent or control the commission of offences. The offence will carry a maximum penalty of one month’s imprisonment, a £1,000 fine, or both.

Current legislation gives police the power to direct people to remove their face coverings in designated areas, as well as to seize face coverings where they reasonably believe people are wearing them wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing their identity. However, individuals can follow the direction of an officer to remove their face covering but then move to a new area and put the face covering back on. With growing frequency we have seen protesters using a face covering to conceal their identity, clearly with the aim of avoiding a conviction for criminal activity in a designated area.

Whether I or any individual hon. Member agrees with each protest is beside the point. The right to protest has long been at the heart of British democracy, but there are legitimate ways to protest and illegitimate ways to protest. In particular, since the onset of large-scale pro-Palestinian demonstrations, the Metropolitan police have made hundreds of arrests in connection with the protests. Those arrests encompass a range of offences, including breaches of Public Order Act conditions, public nuisance, assault of emergency workers and support for proscribed organisations. Notably, during the protest on 18 January 2025, over 70 individuals were arrested after attempting to breach the agreed protest conditions. The Metropolitan police described it as

“the highest number of arrests we have seen, in response to the most significant escalation in criminality.”

The cost of policing the protests is reaching enormous levels. The Standard reported in May last year that the cost in London had reached over £40 million, an average of £6 million a month between October 2023 and March 2024—eyewatering sums of money that I am sure most people and most Members of this House would prefer the police were using to crack down on shoplifting, mobile phone theft and violent crime.

The police put themselves in harm’s way to protect our precious right to protest and keep protesters safe as far as possible. The recent farmers’ protests against proposed inheritance tax reforms were an excellent example of public protest; as of April 2025 there have been no publicly reported arrests by the Metropolitan police in connection with them. The demonstrations, which commenced in November 2024, have been largely peaceful and co-ordinated with the authorities. For instance, on 1 March 2025, the Metropolitan police imposed conditions under the Public Order Act to prevent tractors from entering central London during the protest, a measure that was communicated in advance and adhered to by the organisers.

However, it is a sad reality that disruptive climate activist protests, antisemitic hate marches and far-right riots are increasingly accompanied by crime. Increasingly, cowards at those protests use face coverings and balaclavas to get away with crimes. Balaclavas intimidate the public, make law enforcement more difficult and embolden the wearer to commit crimes. In my view, face coverings have no place at protests in the overwhelming majority of cases. I strongly believe that those wishing to express a sincere, genuine view in a democracy—one they clearly feel strongly about—should be prepared to put their face to their opinions.

With crowds of the kind we are now used to seeing, particularly in London, the police increasingly have to rely on delivering justice after the fact using CCTV, iPhone or bodycam footage. Face coverings frustrate that process. A balaclava, a covid mask or any other type of face covering should not give people a free pass to commit crime. That is why I tabled amendment 51, which would require those wishing to wear a face covering within a designated protest area to register it with police before the event.

My concern with clause 86 is that those who wish to cause a problem will cover their face and make spurious claims. It is clear to most people with some common sense that, as it is currently drafted, with the defence of health, religious or work grounds able to be used, the clause will not have sufficient teeth. Amendment 51 in my name aims to shift the emphasis and prevent malicious actors from circumnavigating the well-intended clause.

A 2024 YouGov poll showed that 61% of the public would like to see a ban on Facebook groups where there is a clear intent to intimidate or to prevent police from identifying someone committing a crime. The public know that face coverings at protests are simply the tool of criminals. Let us give the police the real powers they need to tackle the issue. If people have genuine health, religious or work grounds for wearing a face covering, then working with the police and giving written notice will not be an issue for the law-abiding majority.

[Luke Taylor]

Can the hon. Gentleman give examples of how this will be enacted? Would the person who has permission to wear a face covering be given notice by the police? Would they be given a permission slip that they will wave above their head when they are taking part in a march, or does he imagine this as a tabard that they wear that allows them to cover their face? Can he give some examples of how he imagines this would be implemented in practical terms?

[Jack Rankin]

I thank the hon. Member for his constructive question. The problem with this defence is that it will obviously be abused. People who are malicious will claim these things after the fact; my amendment is an attempt to change the emphasis slightly. I appreciate that there will be difficulties with enforcement, but the point is that people should have to do this in advance. People who are malicious will not do so, and will not be given permission, so the police can then take action, as opposed to a crime happening, only for the police to go to the CCTV footage of the moment and find that there is nothing to be done.

[Jack Rankin]

I appreciate the operational challenges; I would suggest that this would simply be automated online. My aim is to stop whole groups of protesters wearing masks. My view is that police should reject those applications if they are not legitimate, at which point they can treat it collectively as an offence.

I have a broader question for the Minister. I was thinking about when I would consider it legitimate to wear a mask at a protest. The only instance that I could think of—I am not saying that there are not more—is when, outside the Chinese embassy for example, those protesting what is happening in Hong Kong wish to protect themselves from being targeted by the Chinese state. With my amendment, those individuals should be able to declare that to the relevant police forces ahead of the event. I do wonder how we give proper protection to Hong Kong activists such as Tony Chung and Carmen Lau, who have both had threatening letters sent to their neighbours offering 1 million Hong Kong dollars— 100 grand in our currency—for information about them, or for delivering them to the Chinese embassy. Legitimate protest is in the great spirit of democracy and we need to ensure that we defend people exercising that right properly, particularly in this instance, which would be a legitimate use of face coverings.

[Luke Taylor]

I wish to raise concerns, as I did in my intervention, about the practicalities of the amendment. Although the hon. Member for Windsor did come on to discuss the case of Hong Kong protestors, we have seen an increase in surveillance by the Chinese state and the Hong Kong authorities of overseas protestors, and transnational repression of democracy activists is an increased worry for many of our residents. I worry that the amendment hinders the freedom to protest without worry of identification and family and friends being targeted elsewhere. This is not only about Hong Kong practising transnational repression in our country, but that is a useful example on which to base my objection. Under amendment 51, those seeking to come to a protest and exercise their democratic right would be required to register in advance and have some sort of certificate or permit that would then have to be checked, one by one. I think that puts an additional barrier in the way of exercising our democratic rights. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 93 is hugely important and rightly allows the police to search premises for electronically tracked stolen goods without a warrant, offering a fast and efficient way for the police to recover stolen items before they are further distributed or sold, with the clause defining the authorisation procedures and limitations on the powers.

The clause empowers senior officers at the rank of inspector or above to authorise searches based on reasonable grounds and electronic tracking data. This is particularly useful in cases where obtaining a warrant in time could risk losing crucial evidence or missing the opportunity to seize the stolen goods. It is designed to enable law enforcement to act quickly when there is clear electronic tracking evidence that stolen goods are present on the specified premises. It seems like a common-sense measure that will allow law enforcement to act swiftly in recovering electronically tracked stolen goods, making it a highly effective tool in the fight against crime.

When stolen items are equipped with tracking devices, the ability to bypass the often time-consuming process of obtaining a warrant can be crucial in preventing further harm, such as the sale or distribution of the goods. The clause will ensure that officers can quickly respond to real-time data, reducing the window of opportunity for criminals to move or hide stolen goods.

The clause adopts a narrower approach to these powers than that proposed by the Criminal Justice Bill. I have always been of the view that, wherever possible, we should look to further enable our police officers and law enforcement agencies to tackle crime. Will the Minister comment on the rationale for narrowing the scope of the powers being given to our police by this measure?

[Luke Taylor]

I broadly back the powers in the clause. However, I have been involved in two cases in which an item was tracked but the tracking was not sufficiently accurate to ascertain the address. I was witness to a neighbour banging on the door of another neighbour’s home, demanding that he be let in to retrieve his phone, which he claimed had been tracked to that address. The police had been called, but they were not able to enter. When the resident came home, it was demonstrated that the phone was not at that address; it was actually five doors down. The individual had dropped the phone while walking home, and another resident had picked it up, brought it home and was looking after it until they could take it to a police station.

That individual had been incredibly agitated. Under these measures, if the police were called and the tracking information showed that the phone was at a particular address, the inaccurate data would have allowed the police to enter the property incorrectly. Are there appropriate safeguards in relation to the accuracy of the location information that is used? What measures are in place to compensate people when errors are made?

The second example is that, when my bike was stolen, I followed its tracker and went to the house where it seemed to be located. I called the police, who attended. The bike was not in the house; the tracker was actually in a van that was parked on the street outside. Again, if entry to the property had been obtained under these measures, there would have been damage and an incorrect entry to a resident’s home.

These powers seem like a good idea. The hon. Member for Stockton West called them common sense, but what seems to be common sense usually omits serious thought. Without an additional step of scrutiny, I do not think tracking information is sufficiently accurate to ensure these powers are used appropriately. I therefore invite the Minister to provide a bit more reassurance that thought will be given to accuracy and that mitigations will be in place to compensate residents when the measures are used incorrectly. We must not put residents and citizens at risk of property damage for reasons beyond their control.

[David Burton-Sampson]

As I look around the room, we all have our mobiles glued to our hands. They do everything for us now: payments, emails, leisure and, occasionally, phone calls. These devices are massively important to us. We all know the feeling of leaving home without a mobile device—many of us would have to turn round because we cannot live without it.

There has been a significant rise in snatch-and-grab crimes throughout the country, and I know many constituents, friends and colleagues in this place who have been impacted. Given that these devices can be tracked, it is madness that the police are not currently able to go in and recover them. I take the point raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about the accuracy of tracking. I do not think it is as big an issue as he makes out, but perhaps it is something for the Minister to consider.

The biggest thing is that knowing the police can enter to recover these items will act as a deterrent. We need to drive down this crime. The prevalence of snatch-and-grabs in this country is simply unacceptable, so I welcome clause 93.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I will deal with the questions that have been raised in this short debate. First, the new measure differs from the previous Government’s proposed reform as it provides the police with specific targeted powers to retrieve electronically tagged stolen items that have been tracked to premises using the geolocation data and intelligence, and it will equip the police with tailored powers to act quickly to retrieve items, bringing offenders to justice and providing a swifter resolution for victims. We are also introducing robust safeguards, including the requirement for an officer of at least inspector rank to authorise the use of the powers, so that they are used proportionately and lawfully.

I take very seriously the issue raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about the accuracy of data. With these new powers, as I tried to set out in my opening remarks, the police will need to be satisfied that at least one item of property in question has been electronically tracked to the premises, and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is stolen and on the premises before entry is authorised. We would expect the police to undertake due diligence and, as far as possible, to use additional information or intelligence to ensure that the location is accurate. As I said, any use of the power has to be authorised by at least an inspector.

[Luke Taylor]

I thank the Minister for giving way, because I think this is a helpful query: will there be any differentiation between last known locations and live tracking? Obviously, tracking devices can be removed and batteries can run out. Will a last known location be considered sufficient evidence of an item’s current location, or will a live location be needed to prove that the item is currently in that position?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman raises legitimate questions about how this will work operationally. As I said in my opening remarks, there will be guidance on how this will function.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the possible redress for householders when things perhaps go wrong. There are existing provisions under which individuals may be able to claim compensation where the police have caused damage to property by, for example, forcing entry. Any compensation will obviously depend on the circumstances of each case and will be for the police force to determine, and it is unlikely to be paid if the damage was caused by the police acting lawfully on the evidence and information available to them.

On that basis, I commend these clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 93 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95

Access to driver licensing information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9

CCTV on railway network

“(1) It is a legal requirement for CCTV cameras across the railway network in England and Wales to be capable of enabling immediate access by the British Transport Police and relevant Police Forces.

(2) All footage retained by CCTV cameras on the railway network must remain accessible to the British Transport Police and relevant Police Forces for the entirety of the retention period.

(3) The retention period specified in subsection (2) is 30 calendar days.

(4) Further to subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report, within three months of the passing of this Act, specifying a compatibility standard that will facilitate CCTV access for the British Transport Police and any Police Force in England and Wales.”—(Luke Taylor.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I rise to speak in support of new clause 9, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). We seek a simple but critical improvement to public safety: the interoperability of CCTV systems across our railway network. Currently, rail operators maintain CCTV systems that are not integrated with British Transport police or the local territorial forces in the areas they serve. This technological gap is not just a logistical inconvenience, but an active barrier to justice and public protection.

This issue came to light in a very practical context. My hon. Friend became aware of a spike in bike thefts at St Albans City station. Despite the presence of cameras at the station, the police faced severe limitations on their access to the footage they needed, which delayed investigations and reduced the chance of recovering the stolen property. At the other end of the Thameslink line, at Sutton station, I have had an expensive e-bike stolen and two other bikes dismantled—the theft of a saddle made my ride home from work one night particularly uncomfortable.

This is not just about my cycling challenges, but about broader criminal activity on our railways, including antisocial behaviour, assaults and, most gravely, threats to the safety of women and vulnerable people using our public transport. When someone is attacked or harassed on a platform or in a train carriage, time is of the essence, and having the ability to quickly retrieve and share CCTV footage can make the difference between justice and impunity. New clause 9 would fix this problem by requiring rail operators to ensure that their CCTV systems are compatible with law enforcement systems, enabling faster, more co-ordinated responses when incidents occur. In an age when we expect smart, connected infrastructure, this is a common-sense step that aligns with public expectations and operational necessity. In the age of Great British Railways, it would be an opportunity to streamline and standardise the systems used by our currently fragmented rail system into a single, interoperable system that improves the experience and safety of riders.

I urge the Committee to support the new clause not because it would improve security on paper, but because it would make a tangible difference to the safety and confidence of passengers across the rail network.

[Matt Vickers]

Requiring CCTV on the rail network to meet police access and retention standards could bring important benefits for public safety and criminal justice. Ensuring footage is readily accessible to the police would help to deter crime, enable faster investigations and support prosecutions with reliable evidence.

Victims and witnesses benefit when their accounts can quickly be corroborated, and cases are more likely to be resolved effectively. Standardising CCTV systems across train operators would also reduce inefficiencies, removing delays that can occur due to incompatible formats or outdated technology. In high-risk areas or busy urban transport hubs, this kind of clarity and consistency could make a real difference to public confidence and police capability.

No doubt some will argue that increased surveillance on public transport raises questions about privacy and civil liberties, particularly if passengers feel that they are being constantly monitored. Also, rail operators may face high financial and logistical burdens if they are required to overhaul existing CCTV infrastructure to meet new standards. For smaller operators in particular, the cost of compliance could be significant, potentially impacting service provision or ticket prices.

I would be grateful if the Liberal Democrats told us whether this requirement would apply to all train operating companies, including heritage railways and smaller, regional operators. What specific technical or operational standards would CCTV systems be expected to meet, and how would those be determined or updated over time? Have they reviewed how many operators already meet or fall short of the proposed standards, and what level of upgrade would typically be required? Have they assessed the financial implications for train operators, and would they expect any Government funding or support to assist implementation?

[The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

New clause 9 would introduce a requirement that all CCTV camera images on the railway be made immediately accessible to the British Transport police and the relevant local Home Office police force. I am sympathetic to the cases that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, shared with the Committee. I particularly sympathise with his plight and predicament when his saddle was stolen; having to cycle home without a saddle must have been incredibly painful, so I fully welcome the aims of this new clause. We know that lack of immediate access to railway CCTV camera images has been a significant issue for the British Transport police, as it may reduce their ability to investigate crime as quickly as possible. However, I do not believe that legislation is necessary to address the issue. Let me explain why.

My colleagues at the Department for Transport are looking to implement a system that will provide remote, immediate access for the BTP, Home Office forces and the railway industry where relevant. As I said, that does not need legislation. What is needed is a technological solution and the resources to provide for that. I am sure that the hon. Member will continue to press the case with the Department for Transport, and for updates on the progress of the work, but for now, I invite him to withdraw his new clause.

[Luke Taylor]

In response to the specific comments from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West, this measure relates entirely to existing footage and would allow access to existing footage. I thank the Minister for addressing the points made. At this point, are happy to withdraw the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Domestic abuse aggravated offences

“(1) Any criminal offence committed within England and Wales is domestic abuse aggravated, if—

(a) the offender and the victim are personally connected to each other, and

(b) the offence involves behaviour which constitutes domestic abuse.

(2) In this section—

(a) ‘domestic abuse’ has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and

(b) ‘personally connected’ has the meaning given by section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”—(Luke Taylor.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Luke Taylor]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

As things stand, there is no specific criminal offence of domestic abuse in England and Wales. Instead, such cases are prosecuted under a patchwork of broader offences: common assault, actual bodily harm and coercive control. While those charges may reflect elements of abuse, they too often fail to capture the sustained pattern nature of domestic violence.

The legal ambiguity has far-reaching consequences. Under the Government’s own SDS40—standard determinate sentences 40%—scheme, high-risk offenders, especially those who pose a continued threat to public safety, should be exempt from early release, but owing to the lack of specific domestic abuse offences, perpetrators charged under more general categories, such as common assault, remain eligible for early release. In effect, abusers walk free while their victims live in fear. That is not a technical oversight; it is a systemic failure, and it has rightly been challenged by Women’s Aid, Refuge, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and other voices we cannot afford to ignore.

That is why I welcome both the proposed amendment to the SDS40 scheme and the Domestic Abuse (Aggravated Offences) Bill, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). That Bill would create a defined set of domestic abuse aggravated offences, recognising the context of abuse and making such offences clearly identifiable in the criminal justice system. If adopted, the reform would not only enhance the visibility of domestic abuse, but close the dangerous loopholes in relation to early release. It would bring the law into alignment with the lived experiences of victims and send a clear message: domestic abuse is not a private matter; it is a public crime and will be treated as such.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I personally thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne for his tireless commitment to, and campaigning on, tackling domestic abuse. He is right to highlight the need to identify and track domestic offenders better in our justice system. It is a crucial issue. I welcome this important discussion and the many conversations that I have had with him in my ministerial office about how best to collaborate to achieve this.

New clause 12 seeks to introduce a new label, “domestic abuse aggravated”, which will apply to any offence where the offender and victim are personally connected and both aged 16 or over. Offences ranging from assault to fraud would be designated as domestic abuse aggravated where they met the statutory definition of domestic abuse. We recognise the intent behind the new clause and are deeply sympathetic to it; we agree that better categorisation and management of domestic abuse offenders is crucial. However, there are a number of important considerations that need to be carefully worked through to ensure that any new approach is effective and workable, and that it will actually help victims.

There are significant questions that need to be answered if we are to ensure that any reform strengthens, rather than complicates, our response to domestic abuse. While the new clause introduces a new label, it does not set out a clear mechanism for how the designation would be applied in practice. As proposed, it creates a category of domestic abuse offender by virtue of their offence, but does not set out legal or operational implications for charging or sentencing. Without clarity about its function, there is a risk that the provision will introduce unnecessary complexity in the legal framework, in particular through how it operates alongside the Sentencing Council’s existing guidelines, in which domestic abuse is already recognised as an aggravating factor. Courts therefore already consider imposing tougher sentences when an offence occurs in a domestic setting.

Despite those concerns, the hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, and one that I have discussed at length with the hon. Member for Eastbourne. I assure both hon. Members that work is under way across Government on how we can better identify domestic abuse offenders. This is a complex issue, and it is right that we take the time to ensure that any changes are robust and deliver meaningful improvements, but we are on the case.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne can rest assured that the Government are actively considering the issue. I would be glad to work with him—I extend that invitation to any Member of the House—on identifying the most effective way forward. While we do not believe the new clause is the right solution at this time, we welcome ongoing discussions on how best to improve the categorisation and tracking of domestic abuse offenders within the justice system. For those reasons, I ask that new clause 12 be withdrawn.

[Luke Taylor]

We would like to press the new clause to a vote, please.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

As I hope hon. Members will appreciate, the existing framework and guidelines for theft robustly set out the crucial factors that courts should consider in determining the seriousness of each and every theft offence, including theft of tools from tradesmen and theft of high-value farming equipment.

[Luke Taylor]

The premise of the Minister’s point is effectively that sufficient legislation is already in place to combat these crimes. The response to an freedom of information request that I submitted to the Met police showed that in London, in the last five years, nine in 10 tool thefts went unsolved. The fact that that failure has been allowed to continue under the existing legislation suggests that legislation is not sufficient. I support the proposed new clauses because something needs to change to stop these incredibly damaging crimes, which are affecting not just the livelihoods, but the mental health of our valuable, essential tradespeople and their families.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome that comment from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I and this Government recognise that theft is a crime, and that victims are immensely impacted by it—we heard earlier about the hon. Member’s own circumstances—but the legislation is adequate. As I have already said, we have robust legislation to tackle these crimes. What has been apparent over the last 14 years is a decimation of our public services, including our policing, which has meant that police do not have the resources that they need to investigate these crimes effectively. I am glad to say that this Government are changing that by recruiting and funding more police officers, including for the Met police, to ensure that we have the police to go after these criminals.

[Luke Taylor]

The Minister has set me up nicely with that point, and I will come back to it later. The Met police are going to reduce their staff—including officers and police community support officers—by 1,700 next year. The Government are attempting to present a case that the legislation is sufficient at present, and that they are providing more officers and resources to police forces to combat the increase in these crimes. Whoever’s fault it was—and we all make points about the cause, the cuts, when the cuts started, and what conditions were prior to them—if the Met police will suffer the loss of 1,700 officers next year due to the funding situation, and the legislation is currently letting down tradespeople, I would gently push back that either the measures in the legislation or the resources are insufficient to solve an issue that we all generally agree exists today.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The Policing Minister assures me that that figure for the number of cuts being made by the Met police is not correct. We are happy to debate that. I and this Government are still sufficiently certain that the legislation is robust in this area. We can debate the means that we have to tackle that but, as I have stated, this Government are funding more police resources to ensure that those who commit these crimes are being sought. In an earlier sitting of the Committee, we debated why it is so important to clarify and get right provisions for shop theft, so that the police have adequate equipment and resources to go after the perpetrators. These thefts are illegal but, for whatever reason, the crimes are not being pursued. We are determined to ensure, through our safer streets mission, that that problem is tackled, but the legislation that we have in place is robust.

Regarding the courts and the justice system, the Government do consider that the courts are already considering the impacts of such crimes when sentencing. The addition of the measures in the proposed new clauses would add unnecessary complications to the sentencing framework. Moreover, sentencing in individual cases should as far as possible be at the discretion of our independent judiciary, to ensure that sentences are fair, impartial and proportionate.

Finally, as I have already set out, any changes to the sentencing framework should take into account the sentencing review’s recommendations, which are due to be published shortly.

On new clause 98, I understand the frustration that many individuals feel when they see stolen equipment being sold at car boot sales and other informal markets. I reassure the shadow Minister that the Government take this issue seriously. However, we cannot support the clause in the absence of further policy work and engagement with relevant authorities to explore the best way to ensure that stolen equipment is not sold in informal market settings or at car boot sales.

Overall, I am sympathetic to the spirit of the new clauses, but I do not believe them to be necessary at this time. I reassure the Committee that this Government are fully committed to implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 to tackle the theft and resale of equipment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Yes.

[Luke Taylor]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 13, as well as Conservative new clauses 27, 96 and 98. We had a long discussion on this issue, but it is worth repeating as often as possible that tool theft is a devastating crime that cost tradespeople more than £94 million last year.

Research from NFU Mutual shows that one in three tradespeople now live in constant fear of violent thieves. Some have been attacked with crowbars and other weapons just for trying to protect their tools from being ripped out of their vans. At the February rally in Parliament Square organised by Trades United, I heard from campaigners about tradespeople not letting their vehicles out of their sight, and about thieves cutting off the roofs of their vans to steal tools. It was heartbreaking. We hear about the impact on those tradespeople and their families, including suicides and mental health problems.

Despite the back and forth, I think we should make it absolutely clear that this issue needs to be addressed, and that powers must be given to the police and courts to treat it with the seriousness that it deserves. Tool theft is more than just standard assault or theft; it is an assault on tradespeople’s hard work and their livelihoods. It is time to acknowledge that danger to their entire livelihoods and lifestyles.

[Anna Sabine]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14

Rural Crime Prevention Strategy

“(1) A day after this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must establish a rural crime prevention task force to develop proposals for tackling rural crime.

(2) The task force should be tasked with a remit that includes, but is not confined to, examining—

(a) The particular types of crime that occur in rural areas;

(b) Crime rates in rural communities across England and Wales;

(c) The current levels of police resources and funding in rural communities;

(d) Whether specific training in how to respond to rural crime call-outs should be undertaken by police control room operators;

(e) The operational case, and the funding implications, of appointing rural crime specialists in Police Forces across England and Wales which serve areas that include a significant rural population; and

(f) Whether a National Rural Crime Coordinator should be established.

(3) The task force established under subsection (1) must submit a rural crime prevention strategy to the Secretary of State within six months of its appointment.

(4) The Secretary of State must, within a month of receiving the report made by the task force, lay before both Houses of Parliament a written response to the task force’s recommendations.

(5) The Secretary of State must, within a month of laying their response to the task force’s report, ensure that an amendable motion on the subject of the rural crime task force’s recommendations is laid, and moved, before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Anna Sabine.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a task force to produce a strategy for tackling rural crime, makes provision for specific aspects of the task force’s remit, and requires the Secretary of State to bring forward a substantive motion before both Houses of Parliament on the task force’s recommendations.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Neighbourhood policing is the foundation of public trust in our police forces. When officers are visible, engaged and embedded in the communities they serve, crime is deterred, information flows more freely and residents feel safer and more connected. New clause 15 recognises the role of neighbourhood policing in preventing crime and promoting community confidence. Having officers who know the patch and who are known by local residents is invaluable in early intervention, tackling antisocial behaviour and protecting the vulnerable.

I should be grateful for further comments and clarity on how new clauses 15 and 16 will ensure that forces and directly elected police commissioners will have the flexibility to deploy resources based on local need, rather than being constrained by rigid top-down targets. What criteria or metrics will be used to define whether neighbourhood policing levels are sufficient to ensure effective community engagement and crime prevention, and who decides what is effective? Further to that, what role will local communities have under this proposal in shaping what neighbourhood policing will look like in their area?

[Luke Taylor]

This year, the Met police will cut more than 1,700 officers, PCSOs and staff. I invite the Minister to intervene and correct me on that if necessary, as it would seem to suggest that there was an error in the figure given earlier. A correction cometh not.

That figure will include the loss of the parks police team and of officers placed in schools, who have been so critical in maintaining early intervention in those settings and diverting young people away from a life of crime. They have also improved relationships between young people and the police, ensuring that young people can trust the police when they have information that might lead to crimes being prevented or solved. Those officers are dearly needed today.

The £260 million shortfall below the required budget in London will also create a 10% cut to the forensics teams, which includes the investigation of offences such as tool theft, sexual offences and many other crimes. There will be an 11% cut to historic crime teams and a 25% cut to mounted police, who police festivals, sporting events and the protests we see happening so much more regularly in central London. There will also be a 7% cut to the dog teams that provide support to officers going into dangerous and challenging situations, leaving them unsupported and potentially at risk. There will also be reduced front counter operating hours, and there are even hints about taking firearms off the flying squad.

One might ask, “Why are these cuts relevant to this new clause?” The cuts throughout the Met police will inevitably lead to more abstractions from outer London police forces. In particular, the cuts to mounted police and dog teams will pull officers from outer London, including from Sutton and Cheam, which will leave our high streets less safe, our residents more fearful of being victims of crime and more crimes going unsolved.

That demonstrates the absolute necessity of community policing, as well as the need for guarantees to be put in place so that those cuts do not happen, which will affect my residents and residents across London. New clause 16 would also require an annual report that would give clear and transparent information on officer numbers, PCSO numbers, costs and the real-world impact on crime and public confidence. I urge Members to support this new clause.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I will respond directly to the points that have just been made about the Metropolitan police. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Metropolitan police are the best-funded part of policing in England and Wales. They constitute around 25% of policing, and this year they are receiving up to £3.8 billion to provide policing in London—it is worth reflecting on that. They have also received, as has every other police force, additional money to fund neighbourhood policing. I have had reassurance from the Met that the money will actually go into neighbourhood policing, which I think is worth saying.

While I fully appreciate what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is concerned about for his constituents, it has to be made clear that we have just come out of 14 years, many of which were years of austerity. I do not wish to labour the point, but the hon. Gentleman’s party was involved in the first five years of austerity, when cuts to the public services were most acute and severe. We are now at the end of that period and this Labour Government are trying to put money back into policing. I have been very clear that more money is going into the Metropolitan police and into every other police force, to build up neighbourhood policing in particular. A little bit of humility on the part of the Liberal Democrats might be helpful.

[Luke Taylor]

Again, I invite the Minister to respond to the specific point about the 1,700 fewer officers in London. Whatever the circumstances, people today are concerned about crime, including tool theft and sexual offences. We can argue back and forth about the note from the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which said that there was no money left, about austerity or about how long memories go back. If there are to be cuts to the number officers next year in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam, and across London, let us address the issues at hand about how we mitigate the impact on our residents tomorrow.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point loud and clear. All members of this Committee are concerned about crime and want to ensure that crime goes down, that victims are supported and that the police are properly funded. We can probably all agree on that in this Committee. On the particular point about the Metropolitan police, I dispute the numbers that he has given. He is right that there will be a loss of PCSOs and police officers in ’24-25, but my understanding is that it is around 1,000, not 1,700. Subject to what happens in the spending review, we will have to look at what happens in future years.

The Metropolitan police have not had the necessary funding for years, which is why they are having to make some really tough decisions. Nobody wants to see a reduction in police officer numbers—I certainly do not, as the Policing Minister. The Home Secretary and I are working to do everything that we can to support police forces and not see reductions in PCSOs and police officers.

New clauses 15 and 16 seek to legislate for minimum levels of neighbourhood policing. I certainly agree with what the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said about the need to address the lamentable decline in neighbourhood policing since 2010, which we can all see, but legislating in the way that she proposes is unnecessarily prescriptive and risks imposing a straitjacket on the Home Office, police and crime commissioners and chief officers.

The Government are already delivering on our commitment to restore neighbourhood policing. We have already announced that police forces will be supported to deliver a 13,000 increase in neighbourhood policing by the end of this Parliament. By April ’26, there will be 3,000 more officers and PCSOs working in neighbourhood policing than there are today. This is backed up by an additional £200 million in the current financial year, as part of the total funding for police forces of £17.6 billion, which is an increase of £1.2 billion compared with the ’24-25 police funding settlement.

Additionally, the neighbourhood policing guarantee announced by the Prime Minister on 10 April sets out our wider commitment to the public. As part of that guarantee, every neighbourhood in England and Wales will have dedicated teams spending their time on the beat, with guaranteed police patrols in town centres and other hotspot areas at peak times, such as a Friday and Saturday night. Communities will also have a named, contactable officer to tackle the issues facing their communities. There will be a dedicated antisocial behaviour lead in every force, working with residents and businesses to develop tailored action plans to tackle antisocial behaviour, which we all know has blighted communities.

Those measures will be in place from July this year, in addition to the new neighbourhood officers, whom I have already mentioned, who will all be in their roles by next April. Finally, through the Government’s new police standards and performance improvement unit, we will ensure that police performance is consistently and accurately measured. The work of the unit will reinforce our commitment to transparency through the regular reporting of workforce data and the annual police grant report.

I wholeheartedly support the sentiment behind the new clauses. We absolutely need to bolster neighbourhood policing, reverse the cuts and set clear minimum standards of policing in local communities. Working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the policing inspectorate, the College of Policing and others, we have the levers to do that. Although the new clauses are well intentioned, I do not believe that they are necessary, so I invite the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Luke Taylor]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

There can be no denying that we are entering a new world with the advent of new technologies that fundamentally reshape the relationship between citizens and the state. There is probably no more vivid an example of that than live facial recognition technology, which is rightly causing great concern among people across London and throughout the UK.

I am, for instance, concerned about the installation of permanent cameras in Croydon, just next door to my community in Sutton and Cheam. In Sutton itself, the use of roaming facial recognition cameras has already caused anxiety among local people, not least the thousands of Hongkongers who call Sutton home, many of whom escaped exactly this kind of potentially abusable surveillance from the Chinese Government, only to find it trying to take root in Britain. That anxiety has often been met with the unfair and often disproven riposte that if someone has done something wrong, they have nothing to worry about.

It is undeniable that without proper safeguards, this technology can be a negative force, through either human malpractice or, perhaps just as worryingly, technological shortcomings. Research from the US has shown that the technology can be racially biased, struggling to distinguish between non-white people, because it was trained on white faces. Research from the Alan Turing Institute has shown that a version of the technology developed by Microsoft has a 0% error rate in identifying white men, but a 21% error rate in identifying dark-skinned women. Those would be worrying facts in their own right, but we are talking about liberty and justice—the two cornerstones of our democracy. We must be very careful about adopting technology that undermines that, and any sensible legislator would want safeguards in place.

Anything that further erodes minority communities’ trust in the police must be resisted and avoided. Our neighbours in the EU have done just that, limiting the use of this technology unless it is absolutely necessary for security or rescue, and requiring judicial oversight or an independent administrative authority to facilitate its safe use even in that case. New clause 19 would see us follow our European neighbours in making sure that the technology is deployed only in limited circumstances and with the maximum oversight.

Our proposed measures—including a new oversight body and new powers for the Information Commissioner’s Office to monitor the use of this tech—present a path forward that we urge the Government to take. If we do not, we will continue to languish without a proper legal framework while permanent cameras are installed. For the technology to be embedded before safeguards have been properly considered would be a democratic and civil liberties tragedy and would put us on a path to a creeping digital authoritarianism. To put it another way, it would be unfair even on those who have to use the technology.

Currently, police services across the country seem to set their own rules on usage, without the proper guidance. To protect them from bad intelligence leading to awful miscarriages of justice, they deserve clarity, just as much as the public do, on the right way to make use of this tech. Nobody seriously doubts that this sort of technology and other major advancements in fighting crime will continue to arrive on our shores. The question is how we wield the new powers that they afford us in a judicious manner. That has always been the task for legislators and enforcers. Forgive the trite idiom, but it remains true that with great power comes great responsibility. How we protect privacy and liberty while keeping ourselves safe in the hyper-digital age is a central question of our times.

[Matt Vickers]

When deployed responsibly and with appropriate safeguards, facial recognition technology is an incredibly valuable tool in modern policing and public protection. It is already being used to identify serious offenders wanted for violent crime, terrorism and child exploitation; to locate vulnerable individuals, including missing children at risk; and to enhance safety in high-risk environments such as transport hubs, major events and public demonstrations. It enables rapid real-time identification without the need for physical contact—something that traditional methods, such as fingerprinting and ID checks, cannot provide in fast-moving situations. It can accelerate investigations, reduce resource demand and ultimately make public spaces safer.

The technology is improving in accuracy, especially when governed by transparent oversight, independent auditing and clear operational boundaries. I would be grateful for further comments on whether the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and the Government feel that this proposed regulation of this crucial technology could limit the ability of law enforcement to respond swiftly to emerging threats or intelligence-led operations.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for setting out the case for introducing new safeguards for the use of live facial recognition. I agree there need to be appropriate safeguards, but the issue requires careful consideration and I do not think that it can be shoehorned into this Bill.

I say strongly to the hon. Member that live facial recognition is a valuable policing tool that helps keep communities safe. If I may say so, I think that some of his information is a little out of date. Despite what he implied, the use of facial recognition technology is already subject to safeguards, including, among others, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 2008.

I fully accept, however, that there is a need to consider whether a bespoke legislative framework governing the use of live facial recognition technology for law enforcement purposes is needed. We need to get this right and balance the need to protect communities from crime and disorder while safeguarding individual rights. To that end, I have been listening to stakeholders and have already held a series of meetings about facial recognition, including with policing, regulators, research institutions, civil society groups and industry, to fully understand the concerns and what more can be done to improve the use of the technology.

I will outline our plans for facial recognition in the coming months. In the meantime, I hope that the hon. Member, having had this opportunity to air this important issue, will be content to withdraw his new clause.

[Luke Taylor]

Based on the comments and reassurances, I will be happy to withdraw the new clause. I would be interested in being involved in any discussions and updates as they come forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 22

Duty to follow strategic priorities of police and crime plan

“(1) The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 8(1) (Duty to have regard to police and crime plan), for ‘have regard to’ substitute ‘follow the strategic priorities of’.

(3) In section 8(2) for ‘have regard to’ substitute ‘follow the strategic priorities of’.

(4) In section 8(3) for ‘have regard to’ substitute ‘follow the strategic priorities of’.

(5) In section 8(4) for ‘have regard to’ substitute ‘follow the strategic priorities of’.”—(Matt Vickers.)

This new clause would require Police and Crime Commissioners to follow the strategic priorities of the police and crime plan rather than have regard to it.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 requires police and crime commissioners and others to “have regard to” the police and crime plan. The new clause would replace that language with a firmer obligation to “follow the strategic priorities of” the plan. The change would apply consistently across subsections (1) to (4) of section 8.

The primary rationale for the amendment is to strengthen democratic accountability. PCCs are directly elected by the public to represent local views and set the strategic direction for policing. Their police and crime plans are developed following consultation and are expected to reflect community priorities. However, under the current “have regard to” standard, there is only a weak legal duty to consider the plan, and no binding requirement to act in accordance with it. The new clause would address that gap by ensuring that PCCs and, by extension, police forces must follow the strategic priorities that they have set and communicated to the public.

Crime and Policing Bill

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

In the interests of time, I will skip through the many amendments I want to support, but there are a few that will really make a difference to people in Milton Keynes Central.

First, I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) said on street racing. Unfortunately, we had a Formula 1 driver who said that his success was based on practising on the grid roads of Milton Keynes, which really encouraged loads of people to decide to race there.

In terms of stalking and spiking, the most egregious bit of spiking for me is the premeditation—sourcing the materials, bringing them to the venue then using them on a person. That is not a crime done on the spur of the moment: significant premeditation comes into it.

One of the major issues we have had in Milton Keynes is organised begging outside our shopping centre. It is organised by gangs. People often look like they are homeless, or they are assumed to be homeless by caring residents in Milton Keynes, but in reality they are housed by the council, and they are exploited. They have a rota for which corner or which shop they can each sit in front of during which period of time, and the majority of the proceeds that people donate go to an organised crime network. Those individuals are being exploited in other ways as well. New clause 53 is so important in addressing this issue as the real, true crime that it is—not the crime of the people begging but of those organising the begging.

I also rise in support of new clause 55, which is on special measures for witnesses, particularly around youth justice. That is very important. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), many people who experience sexual abuse do not come forward for years and years, so new clause 59, which would remove limitations, is really important.

Let me address a couple of other things in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) made such an important speech considering domestic abuse, and she explained it very well. New clause 71 is about barred persons not having employment in law enforcement. We must recognise that, following the case of Sarah Everard, confidence in law enforcement is at an all-time low. When people call law enforcement because they have experienced domestic abuse, sexual harassment, rape or stalking, they are at their most vulnerable and they need to know that the people responding to those incidents—no matter which law enforcement service—will treat them according to the law, and not with some of their own natural biases, as we have seen.

That brings me to my final point. In terms of confidence in policing, we need to ensure that all law enforcement is done with clarity of law, not because of particular campaigning, as we have seen with the enforcement of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which we will debate later.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I was incredibly fortunate to sit on the Bill Committee considering this legislation. It is clear that, although opinions differ on details, we all share a common goal of tackling crime in a meaningful way, so that we can make people feel safe in our communities again.

As a community-focused liberal, I have stated many times that keeping people safe and instilling safety in our neighbourhoods are some of the most powerful ways that we can foster strong communities and improve the quality of life and freedom of opportunity that everyone in our country should enjoy. I am grateful to the Government for their willingness to engage with the points that we all made in Committee, particularly to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). Despite several productive conversations, it is frustrating that several important additions to the Bill were rejected by the Government in Committee.

For that reason, I rise to speak in favour of several new clauses before us. Although several of the measures closest to my heart—those regarding community policing, knife crime and stalking—are not before the House today, there are several pressing new clauses that I feel I must speak to. They pertain to what should be fundamental rights in our country: the right to freedom from oppression, and the right of access to proper healthcare for women. I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) on the courage he demonstrated in his speech earlier, and encourage the Government to consider the measures he spoke to if they come back from the Lords, if not to consider them beforehand.

I start by expressing my support for amendment 19, which deals with spiking and was tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). Spiking is a horrendous offence—a deeply violating act of harm and potential exploitation that must be treated with the utmost seriousness. In Committee, we heard evidence from Colin Mackie, who is the chair and co-founder of Spike Aware UK. Colin gave important evidence for the Committee to consider, indicating that spiking offences can often be intended as pranks, rather than intended to cause harm. His son Greg died in a suspected drink-spiking incident in a club, and Colin has since campaigned alongside Greg’s mother Mandy for a change in the law to stop similar incidents from occurring.

I also thank the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) for raising broader concerns about spiking. I agree that further measures need to be introduced, including A&E awareness, so that testing takes place, further evidence can be gathered and a conviction can be secured. Amendment 19 is a sensible and necessary clarification of the law. It makes clear what seems painfully obvious: that what matters in spiking cases is not the nature of the intent, but the recklessness and callousness of the act itself. I encourage Members across the House to support the amendment when we vote.

I am also pleased to support amendment 160, as well as related new clauses 92 and 93, which we will discuss tomorrow. Taken together, these amendments create vital safeguards around the right to protest; they would subject facial recognition technologies to the proper scrutiny of a regulatory framework for the first time, and would enshrine the right to protest. From many people in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam and from campaigning groups such as Liberty, I know that these measures are long overdue, and will provide much-needed clarity to police forces as they use new technologies to fight crime. Police forces themselves are asking for these measures, and I am looking forward to a briefing later this month from the Minister on that subject. In particular, I remind the House that Hongkongers in my community are deeply worried about the impact of unregulated use of facial recognition technology on our streets. They fear that, if compromised, such technology could provide a powerful tool to the Chinese Communist party in its transnational oppression of Hongkongers here on our streets in Britain.

We know that facial recognition technology can be a powerful tool for police forces as they try to keep us safe, but as with any new technology with great capacity to infringe on our liberties in daily life, it must be properly regulated. Liberal Democrats have a proud tradition of standing up for those civil liberties, arguing that we must never throw them away or sleepwalk into surrendering them. Amendment 160, which the Liberal Democrats have tabled, is rightly in that tradition. It would make sure that facial recognition technology cannot be used in real time for biometric identification unless certain conditions are satisfied, such as preventing or investigating serious crimes under the Serious Crime Act 2007 or public safety threats such as terrorist attacks, or searching for missing, vulnerable people. It would also make the use of such technology subject to judicial authorisation, with a judge needing to approve its use and appropriately define its scope, duration and purpose. These regulations would allow for safe use of this important tool, protecting our civil liberties while keeping us safe from crime.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

In the time remaining, I will speak to amendment 9, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and is supported by many Members across the House, including myself. I welcome the Government’s provisions to limit sex offenders’ ability to change their name, and I know that many other Members also welcome them. I pay tribute to tireless campaigners such as Della Wright, who have campaigned for such provisions for many years and who I had the privilege of meeting at an event organised by Emma Jane Taylor, another tireless campaigner and a constituent of mine.

Emma Jane is a survivor, and has spoken very bravely about the lifelong impact of child sexual abuse. Like many survivors, she has channelled her pain into campaigns such as this one and has set up a charity, Project 90-10. That charity is based on research showing that 90% of child sexual abuse is carried out by persons known to the victim.

We are right in the House to focus—as we have in the past—on online abuse and abuse by strangers, but we should not forget that 90% of child sexual abuse is carried out by someone the victim knows. Work by Project 90-10 raises awareness of good safeguarding practices. Emma Jane brought to my attention the loophole that allows sex offenders to change their name and, potentially, continue to offend untraced. Amendment 9 would strengthen the name change provision in the Bill by requiring sex offenders to notify the police of their intention to change their name seven days before submitting an application to do so. Even if the Government do not adopt amendment 9, either here—I know that it will not be voted on—or in the other place, it is important for them to monitor the success of the changes that are in the Bill, and, in particular, the number of sex offenders who do, and do not, come forward to comply with the rules. I hope that the Government will monitor developments closely, and will introduce new legislation if the loophole is not closed, as they intend it to be.

Child sexual abuse is a wicked and despicable crime, and the Government are right to introduce these measures, as well as the others about which Members have spoken so eloquently. I ask the Government to follow up on the Bill’s implementation, and to monitor that extremely closely, as this matter is important to many Members of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I do agree, and it takes me to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley. She talked about how, over many years, women have been denied access to the healthcare, advice, guidance, childcare and other infrastructure that is so critical to a woman’s quality of life. We need to end that, full stop.

That takes me to another point, which relates to new clause 106. I listened to the mover of new clause 106, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and to those on the Opposition Benches making cases in support of it. I am afraid I do not agree. There is nothing in the clinical evidence available to support the new clause. As somebody who ran a domestic abuse and mental health charity for five years before I was elected, I am very painfully aware of the trauma and difficulties that women who have been domestically abused will go through, and I do not want them to feel, on top of that, shame and trauma about trying to access abortion services. It is important that we think about those people.

I forget who it was on the Liberal Democrat Benches, but they made a really important point about poorer people who are unable to access transport links to access clinics. There was a really important point about our infrastructures being broken down, such as bus connectivity. That is the legacy of the past 14 years, but it is a legacy we must none the less contend with or women will be impeded in their access to abortion services as a consequence.

[Luke Taylor]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the advice from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare and the British Medical Association, who all know much more than we do about the issue, to vote firmly against new clause 106, because it makes women more vulnerable?

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with those bodies and I agree with him.

Finally, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) made an argument about a bogeyman of American politics somehow being conjured up by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I represent Bournemouth East. In my constituency, we have BPAS Bournemouth, which was targeted by US Vice-President J.D. Vance when he made his point about buffer zones and abortion access. I have spoken with the people who work at that clinic since that speech was given, and they are scared. They want to support women’s reproductive rights and women’s health and safety, but staff members’ vehicles are being tampered with, and women seeking the clinic’s support are finding their access impeded. They want us to be sensitive in what we say and how we say it, because there are people across our constituencies who are deeply concerned for the welfare of women, and who look to us to send the right signal through how we conduct our politics.

I was a signatory to new clause 1 and new clause 20. I recognise that there will be a vote on new clause 1 first. I will vote in favour of it, and I call on all Members across this House to do the same.

Crime and Policing Bill

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

I have researched the experiences of disabled people in the criminal justice system over the past 14 years, so I know that this opportunity to legislate to strengthen the law on hate crime offences must be seized. Disabled people enrich our society. New clause 122 would foster respect and equality for all by ensuring justice for disabled victims of hate crime.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Let me start by highlighting my support for new clauses 85 and 86, which deal with neighbourhood policing. They would ensure that police forces are required to practise community policing

“at a level necessary to ensure effective community engagement and crime prevention”.

It is a shame that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) is not in his place to intervene for a definition on that. It is about engaging with local communities and ward panels to define the appropriate levels in their areas—which I am sure he would support— rather than taking a top-down view. The new clauses would compel the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the state of community policing.

We have outlined a way of funding that too: 20% of future police grants would be ringfenced for community policing activities, literally making crime pay—in the reverse of the manner in which that phrase is normally used—by allocating funds recovered from the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to community policing. That is important, because commitments to policing numbers mean little without serious action to reverse the scale of forthcoming cuts, such as the cuts of 1,419 officers and staff that we in London are about to experience this year. Indeed, as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner recently told the BBC,

“ambition and money go alongside each other”.

I urge Members across the House to support those new clauses.

I will now turn to my new clauses 95 and 96. It is good to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), in her place to continue a conversation that we have had many times on stalking. Stalking is a heinous crime: it throws lives into chaos, leaves victims in life-changing and near-constant terror, and too often goes unpunished. The current legislation forces too many victims to meet an improbably high bar of evidence, forcing them to jump through hoops to be a perfect victim, just to prove the scale of the threat against them.

I have heard from victims in my Sutton and Cheam constituency who have had their lives completely upended by their stalkers, and who are completely at their wit’s end after facing so many obstacles to getting justice. It is clear that the two relevant sections of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 are the root of those obstacles. The distinction between a lesser section 2A offence and a more severe section 4A offence is failing victims and fails to recognise the total scope of stalking.

Successful prosecutions of section 4A offences are far too hard to achieve. The burden of proof is placed so heavily on the victim.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Even celebrities such as Emma Raducanu, and others in the public eye who have been affected by stalkers, feel unsafe and unprotected by existing legislation. Does the hon. Member agree that is clear additional evidence that the law needs strengthening?

[Luke Taylor]

The hon. Member provides a clear and visible example of how the legislation is not working, if somebody with such a high profile and with additional security protection cannot be protected from stalkers. I thank him for his apt intervention.

The burden of proof means that many victims withdraw from the process completely and give up on gaining justice. My new clauses would compel the Secretary of State to publish a review into the two clauses within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to make time for that review to be properly considered in the House upon its completion. They would also compel the Secretary of State to launch a review into the effectiveness and adequacy of the stalking awareness guidance provided by public bodies in England and Wales, and to make similar provision for proper consideration and debate in this House. I know that aim is supported by the Minister, so I would like to hear how it is being brought forward.

New clause 43, tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), is incredibly important and deserves the support of the House. The new clause automatically commences the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 when the Crime and Policing Bill receives Royal Assent. That he has managed to corral together such luminaries in this House as the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) and for Clacton (Nigel Farage), to support the measure is a triumph in itself.

We spoke about new clause 130 in Committee, and I very much support its measures on tool theft. It would add the theft of tools from tradesmen to the list of aggravating factors in the Sentencing Act 2020, and present a way forward towards more sensible regulations of temporary markets, where too many stolen tools are often sold out of car boots. I recently visited the Kimpton industrial estate in Stonecot in my constituency, where I heard more about the awful impact of that kind of theft from tradespeople, who too often are left with their livelihoods wrecked and very little proper recourse to getting their lives back on track, other than to fork out huge amounts to buy new tools, which in many cases are later stolen again. It is a horrible cycle, which I also heard about at the Stop Tool Theft rally on the streets outside this Chamber earlier this year.

The measures set out in the new clause provide a good path forward but will not solve the issue alone. Without the kind of commitment to restoring community policing that I mentioned in reference to new clauses 85 and 86, police forces will remain too overstretched to mobilise the resources to investigate these crimes in the first place.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talks about community policing and getting police officers back into the community, so does he support my new clause 157, which seeks to streamline the way police case files are prepared and submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service? It is a common-sense approach that would reduce red tape and, most importantly, get police back out supporting victims and building the community trust that they need?

[Luke Taylor]

My hon. Friend’s words have convinced me and hon. Members across the House about her new clause.

The Met police recently responded to a freedom of information request about tool theft, which revealed that nine in 10 tool thefts in the last five years in London went unsolved, which shows the scale of the problem and the importance of supporting new clause 130 today.

I would like quickly to draw attention to some other amendments. New clauses 87 and 88, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove, would hold water company executives to account properly for the first time, and that would mark a huge step forward in tackling the sewage crisis we face in this country. Those individuals should be held liable for their carelessness and fixation with raising bills, while running companies into the ground and ruining our rivers. I wish I had more time to outline my reasons for supporting the clauses, but I refer the House to my many prior contributions on the subject.

New clause 44, tabled by the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), would mark a step forward in providing support to victims of honour-based violence and murder.

New clause 122, tabled by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), would strengthen the law on hate crimes directed at disabled, LGBT+ people, and rightly seeks to protect people who are victims of hate crime because of their association with individuals in those groups, and I wholeheartedly support it.

In contract, new clause 7, tabled by the official Opposition, would weaken hate crime legislation in this country, and I fear it is motivated by a complete lack of respect for the decades of progress we have made in recognising the types of discrimination faced by people the length and breadth of this country. For this Bill to push us forward, and not drag us backwards, that new clause must be rejected.

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

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a proud member of the trade union movement.

No one should go to work with the uncertainty each day that their safety might be put at risk. We as a Government clearly support that for emergency workers, and of course we are legislating for retail workers too. New clause 48, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), addresses delivery workers, and today I stand to speak for my new clause 11, which would do the same for transport workers.

Every day, transport workers face verbal abuse, sexual harassment or physical assault, whether on bus, tram or ferry. Transport workers, alongside their trade union, the RMT, are calling for new measures to protect them at work: first, the introduction of a specific offence of assaulting or abusing a transport worker; and secondly, an extension in the maximum sentence, from six to 12 months—not least if sentences are now to be served in the community.

--- Later in debate ---

Liberal Democrat new clauses 85 and 86 would help to restore community policing—the visible, trusted bobbies on the beat. These new clauses would guarantee minimum levels of neighbourhood policing and require every local authority in England and Wales to have a dedicated team assigned solely to community-based duties.

[Luke Taylor]

Was my hon. Friend as surprised as I was to hear the contribution from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who seemed to ridicule the concept of having a minimum level of policing for communities, which would surely protect them and help to prevent thefts of farm equipment, which was the example he gave in his speech.

[Lisa Smart]

I do not know why anybody would be against a minimum level of neighbourhood policing. It was in this Government’s manifesto that they wanted to see a proper restoration of neighbourhood policing. It is the model that has the most trust and the most support from my community—and, I am pretty sure, everybody’s community—and it seems daft, frankly, to oppose such a measure.