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 (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 900 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.