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

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

As I said earlier, we are keeping under close review the pause in Syrian asylum applications. We cannot decide asylum applications against a country policy that is no longer relevant because of the rapid change in that country. We will resume those decisions as soon as we can.

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

Reports about the Met police raid and arrests at the Quaker meeting house in Westminster last Thursday have caused great alarm, particularly because Quakers are renowned for their non-violent and pacifist principles. The incident raises serious concerns about the police’s approach to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest. What explanation have the Met police given the Minister for their actions that night?

[Dr Johnson]

As the hon. Gentleman will realise, this is an operational matter for the Metropolitan police, and I am sure that they will provide further commentary at some point.

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 (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.

Knife Crime: Children and Young People

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The epidemic of knife crime is an issue that I have addressed many times in this place, although never in a debate specifically targeting its impact on children and young people. I commend the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing this debate on such a significant matter.

In Britain, we face a hard truth: young people are increasingly involved in violent crime, and the cycle is becoming ever more entrenched. Figures from the Ben Kinsella Trust show that across the country, some 614 young people under the age of 24 have been killed by knife crime in the last 10 years, 17 of them being 16 years old or younger. Children are being exposed to the tragic normalisation of stabbings. We have sleepwalked into a scenario in which many young people feel it is safer and easier to carry a knife to defend themselves. In this context, threats of punishment are unsurprisingly failing to deter violent behaviour. Knife crime should be treated as the societal disease it is, and we cannot afford to just treat the symptoms any more. If this Government are to truly tackle knife crime, they must address its roots—the deep-seated factors that drive young people to such violence in the first place.

To tackle knife crime, we must stop it before it starts. We must use a public health approach that addresses the root causes: fear, trauma, lack of opportunities, and social exclusion. This approach has many tenets—some of which I will outline today—and begins with education. When young people carry knives, it is often out of fear, not necessarily a desire to harm others. A study by the Ben Kinsella Trust revealed that over one in three young people do not feel safe in their own communities. Some 36% do not feel safe walking the streets, and two thirds report anxiety over knife crime in their area. The teenage brain is wired differently from that of adults; we know that a tendency towards impulsive and risky behaviour is much more common during adolescence. Studies show that in many cases, knife crime occurs in the heat of the moment, when an altercation could have been resolved without serious injury if a weapon had not been present. That is exactly why we must address knife crime before it happens—before a knife is pulled from a pocket and the situation escalates beyond control.

Education can play a principal part in challenging the misconception that carrying a knife somehow makes a person safer. We can teach young people the real consequences of carrying such a weapon—how it destroys lives, impacts families, and perpetuates fear among their peers and in communities.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech that I think all of us across the House would agree with. I have spoken a number of times with Harlow police about knives and knife crime, not just in Harlow but across Essex. They do a lot of work with schools. Does he agree that it is important that schools fully engage with the police on these issues, and do not feel that there is stigma in doing so? All schools need to engage with that process.

[Luke Taylor]

I completely agree. I will come on to that later in my speech. I have spoken to the organisers and leaders of the Chris Donovan Trust in my constituency. They spoke about the challenge of getting into some schools to talk about knife crime, because of the perception that talking about it was a problem in itself. That was so frustrating to hear.

We need to have honest, open conversations with young people in schools. Teachers must be equipped with materials to educate the next generation, so that we break the cycle of violence. Even if a child is not at risk of committing a knife-related offence, educational programmes serve a critical role. They can teach children about the consequences of knife crime long before they consider carrying a weapon. That is vital. We need to reach young people and win the war for their hearts and minds before the prevailing climate of fear and the harbingers of toxic mindsets start their offensive. I urge the Government to consider introducing mandatory personal, social, health and economic lessons on the consequences of weapons possession, and to put the principles of restorative practice on the curriculum, in recognition of the great work of groups such as the Chris Donovan Trust in my constituency. We teach children from an early age about the dangers of diseases caused by smoking or alcohol; why, then, are we not having open discussions with them about the health risks associated with carrying a knife? Creating safe spaces for discussion, and building relationships with young people, can ensure intervention before thoughts of crimes arise, and deaths can be prevented.

To fully realise the nourishing, community-focused element of a public health approach, though, we must invest in youth services and community programmes that engage young people. Winning the war for hearts and minds means providing young people with opportunities to build skills, pursue education, and find alternatives to gang culture and criminal activity. However, as was mentioned in many speeches, we have seen a dramatic decline in youth services funding over recent years, with cuts totalling £1.1 billion since 2010. This has left too many young people without the support they need.

Investing in youth services is not just about providing safe spaces; it is about providing young people with alternatives to violence, so that we break the cycle of crime, shift the culture of violence, and empower communities to work together to prevent crime before it escalates. The targeted early help and integrated support team at Sutton borough council in my constituency does exactly this kind of work, offering opportunities to young people who are not often afforded the luxury of such attention elsewhere in their lives. However, these programmes rely heavily on grants from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, the Ministry of Justice, and violence reduction services. Those grants are subject to constant uncertainty, often approved at the last minute and often only allocated for 18-month to two-year periods, preventing proper forward planning. We must do better than that. We need to consistently get serious funding to these initiatives in a timely manner. I echo the calls from the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) about funding for these community schemes.

Lib Dem Members will continue to push the Government to make youth diversion a statutory duty, so that every part of the country has a pre-charge diversion scheme for young people up to the age of 25. That will ensure better outcomes for young people and less strain on police resources, but let us be honest with ourselves: police resources are already strained beyond breaking point in too many places, and education and early intervention alone are not enough to properly implement a public health approach. Visible community policing starts with actual police numbers in our London boroughs. To tackle knife crime, it is important for young people to see bobbies on the beat in London. Their active and engaged presence creates a sense of safety and security. We have to get back to meaningful community policing, returning the police to their proper duty as a positive, engaging arm of the state in people’s lives.

Building trust between young people and the police is also crucial. This trust communicates that there is no need to carry knives for protection, as young people know that the police are there to keep them safe. As I have said before, when 17-year-old Ilyas Habibi was stabbed to death outside Sutton station in my constituency in December 2023, he was just minutes away from a police station. If we cannot expect visible policing in town centres and the areas closest to police stations, how little have we come to expect of community policing? To be clear, that is not a criticism of the police, but a criticism of successive Governments and mayors, who have consistently failed to get the police the resources they need to do their job. In London, far too many police are abstracted away from the communities they are supposed to serve to help plug gaps.

I was deeply concerned to learn of Sadiq Khan’s budgeting decisions, which have led to dedicated police officers in schools in London being removed. Under the “A New Met for London” plan, officers will no longer be stationed in schools as part of the safer schools officers programme. While the plan claims that officers will still work closely with schools, the change reduces the consistent direct contact between officers and young people. That contact is crucial in building relationships with young people to foster trust. There should be plenty of positive interactions and experiences with the police throughout young people’s formative years. That can be achieved through school assemblies or classroom workshops. Young people need to understand that the police are there to keep them safe on the streets and are not the enemy, but when sparse police resources are focused on only the most extreme forms of deterrence, such as live facial recognition and stop and search, and when there is no community focus, it is unsurprising that they do not.

The hallmark of a meaningful public health approach that invests not just money, but serious political capital, is that it brings together all groups in our communities. It creates a coalition of care, breaks down the silos between projects, and builds a team across society committed to doing what it takes to rescue young people. On behalf of countless experts, professionals and parents, and on behalf of young people, I implore the Government to build that team, to create that coalition of care and to finally implement a meaningful public health approach to knife crime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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.

Antisocial Behaviour and Illegal Bikes

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall today. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home and on their own streets, but for far too many in the UK, that is simply not the reality.

It is pertinent to begin by considering just how widespread the problem of crime is in our country, and how universal the concern that police forces are not being given the resources they need to clamp down on it is. Every single day, 6,000 cases are closed by the police across England and Wales with no suspect identified. Only 6% of reported crimes result in a charge. Three in four burglaries and car thefts remain unsolved. This is not just a failure; it is a crisis, and the British people are right to expect us to do something about it.

The previous Conservative Government made a disastrous decision when they slashed the number of police community support officers. We have lost more than 4,500 since 2015. That reckless move created a vacuum where crime could thrive completely unchecked in our communities. In London alone, the number of PCSOs in the Met fell from 4,247 in 2008 to only 1,215 in 2023. That was an astonishing cut in capability, losing almost three in four officers, from an average of around 56 in each London constituency in 2008 to only 16 in 2023.

I stood here a few weeks ago and outlined the need for a public health approach to knife crime—a strategy underpinned by a return to good old-fashioned community policing. The argument I used then—not just more bobbies, but more beats—is equally applicable to tackling antisocial behaviour more widely, including and especially in the case of illegal use of off-road vehicles. The legacy of the previous Government has left outer London boroughs understaffed and vulnerable. The few PCSOs we have left are stretched thin, often pulled away to cover the city centre, leaving our local neighbourhoods defenceless against this kind of criminal activity. Such activity does something more nefarious than just instil a heartbreaking lack of security in communities; it actively undermines the sense not just of safety, but of comfort. We should be able to relax and trust that our neighbourhoods are and will remain good places to live. Perhaps more fundamentally, when someone sees a young person speeding down the street on a modified scooter, loitering around in intimidating groups, snatching phones, waiting for drug dealers, or even harassing passers-by, it cannot surprise us that they lose some fundamental faith in the system and feel that something is rotten in our country. I am sure that many of us in this place have been that person themselves, witnessing first hand in our constituencies vehicle abandonment, drug use or utter disrespect for fellow citizens.

This is not just a problem in rural areas. Off-road vehicles and the wider problem of antisocial behaviour plague us even in communities such as mine in the suburbs of London. In Sutton, I have witnessed the use of Sur-Ron dirt bikes travelling at speed on our largely pedestrianised high street. Policing Sutton high street is already a complex task. Stretching almost 1,500 metres, it is one of the longest high streets around. Some of these bikes are legal, but most are not. All of them are motorised, high-powered and capable of evading police capture, helping them to commit not just disruption but crime.

Sutton’s Liberal Democrat-run council has worked incredibly hard to rejuvenate the high street, and we are making great progress, as part of our vision of a high street fit for the future of Sutton. To finish the job, we need our great local police to get the resource they need to return to proper community policing. Having great shops, cafés and community spaces is fantastic, but all this great work will be undermined if the people in places just like Sutton all around the country are worried about antisocial behaviour.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The hon. Member makes a really interesting point. I was reflecting on my own constituency, where, from leafy Thorpe Thewles to the infinity bridge in the centre of town, we have this issue with off-road bikes as well. Does the hon. Member agree that no community around the country is immune from this scourge?

[Luke Taylor]

I completely agree. It is about the feeling of powerlessness, as a resident—as a citizen—just standing on the high street and seeing these things whizz past, not being able to do anything about it, and knowing that that person could be long gone by the time the police are able to respond.

It is clear, from all the words spoken around this hall today, that the Government must urgently restore proper community policing. To do this, we must get more officers out on the streets, funded partially by scrapping the costly police and crime commissioner experiment and investing the savings directly into frontline policing. We must also, as I have said, reverse the disastrous cuts to PCSOs and to safer neighbourhood team officer numbers.

On the specific point about the illegal use of off-road vehicles, I know that many forces have made some great initial efforts, from increasing patrols in hotspots, to using drones—as we have heard from the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams)—to the use of trackable forensic sprays, but we need more.

I hope the Government will bring forward effective measures on this issue in the Crime and Policing Bill—I look forward to scrutinising it in greater detail on Second Reading next week—but it is also important that everyone in this place urges forces to feel confident in using the powers that are already available to them, despite the flaws with the legislation that have been commented on already.

Hong Kong Democracy Activists

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is an assiduous constituency MP. He has raised the plight of his constituent previously in this House, and I am grateful to him for doing so. On his first point, national security is the first priority of this Government. His second point is probably more a matter for counter-terrorism police and West Yorkshire police, but I have heard what he said, and I will take it away and come back to him with a fuller response.

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

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for securing the urgent question. I am lucky enough to represent, in my constituency, one of the largest Hong Kong communities, and they tell me that the proposed Chinese super-embassy is a chilling prospect for Hongkongers who have moved to our country to escape repression in Hong Kong. As we all understand, the decision is with the Deputy Prime Minister at the moment, but surely the Minister agrees that it is unconscionable that a foreign state should be allowed to massively enhance its operations in this country while it flagrantly conducts extrajudicial acts on the streets of the UK. Does he agree that if permission is given, it would undermine any assurances given that foreign states will be held to account for hostile actions targeting British residents on British soil?

[Dan Jarvis]

Given the hon. Member’s strong constituency interest, I completely understand why he raises those concerns. I hope that he and other hon. Members will understand that, from a national security perspective, we take these matters incredibly seriously.

There is a limit to what I can say about the specifics of this case, but let me put this in a slightly more diplomatic way than I might normally seek to. There seems to be something of a misunderstanding about the circumstances of this case. I give the hon. Member an absolute assurance that we look incredibly carefully at these matters, and some of the suggestions that have been made are not correct. A process is under way, and I am legally bound not to interfere with it. No hon. Member would expect me to do so, but I point him again to the very carefully considered letter written by the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, which includes reference to the full breadth of national security issues to do with this application.

Knife Crime in London

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered knife crime in London.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford.

Violence behaves like a virus. It spreads among a community and wreaks havoc not just on our streets but on our lives. There is a particularly virulent strain in London: knife crime. It was once said by a Prime Minister-in-waiting that real action on this issue means being

“tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.”

Three decades on from those famous words, talking about violent crime as a social issue has fallen out of political fashion, as though sociologists and social workers on the ground are too misguided, too soft and even too woke to address it, but the notion that we have all been too soft on crime has a dangerous implication: that the surging knife crime on London’s streets can be punished away with tougher sentences and stronger deterrents.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

To my mind, the upward trend is worrying. There must be a zero-tolerance policy, so that if someone leaves the house with a knife in their pocket or coat, a custodial sentence is necessary. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that has to be part of the strategy?

[Luke Taylor]

I fully agree. The community-based approaches that I will come to later in my speech recognise that point.

I intend today to state the case that a false premise has been advanced; that successive Governments have failed to invest enough in a whole-of-society approach to reducing knife crime and young people are dying as a result; and that if we are to have any hope of getting a grip on the crisis, we must get serious about a public health approach and the restoration of true, old-fashioned community policing.

The pillars of such an approach are threefold. First, we must reinvigorate visible policing by restoring police budgets and get more beats, not just more bobbies. Secondly, we must rescue the early intervention space, protect it from short-termism and ensure that it has the resource it needs. Thirdly, we must get serious about incorporating a public health approach, with greater cohesion between civil society institutions, and willingness to try community and victim-led solutions such as restorative justice.

Let us start with restoring community policing. The data shows that the number of police community support officers in the Metropolitan police force declined from 4,247 in 2008 to a mere 1,215 in 2023. That failure, which occurred on the watch of consecutive mayors from both main parties, highlights the scale of the crisis.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate on such an important topic. Everyone deserves to feel safe, yet over the last 14 years we have seen police numbers being decimated. In the borough that encompasses my constituency of Ilford South, we used to have five police stations. Now, there is only one, for four constituencies. What we have tried to do is to bring engagement and enforcement hubs into the community. Does the hon. Member agree with me that bringing police into the communities they serve is a vital part of keeping our communities safe and of restoring pride in the police?

[Luke Taylor]

I could not agree more. I was interested to hear the hon. Member’s speech the other day about including council enforcement officers in these hubs, too. Having them present in the community and accessible to residents is incredibly important. I am keen to have a conversation with him about the measures that he has achieved.

To follow exactly the point the hon. Member just made, at the time when we should be getting more police embedded in communities to halt knife crime, we have instead let numbers crater. We know that research consistently shows violent crime dropping significantly in areas where the police are present, visible and proactive.

In December 2023, when, tragically, a knife cut short the life of a young man in my constituency, Ilyas Habibi, who was just 17, he was just minutes away from a local police station. Just as worrying is that the fact that in my constituency and across London, we see safer neighbourhood officers being abstracted from their beats—a quirk of the Met police set-up that results in vital officers who should be on our streets, making our neighbourhoods safer, being pulled away for major police operational events, typically in central London. It is, in effect, robbing outer London to pay inner London and it has to stop. These officers want to be doing great work in the community, but the failure to recruit across the Met is letting them and, by extension, us down.

There can be no doubt that recruiting into the Met is challenging. The Casey report outlined the scale of the failures that have occurred in recent years far better than any of us can—the failures to get a grip on damaging internal cultures, to protect the victims of crime, and overall to carry the confidence of the very communities they serve. I have met Commissioner Rowley and I acknowledge his undertakings to reform the Met. Nobody in this place can pretend that his role is easy; we must recognise that he needs the full backing of Government to reinvigorate the force and repair its image.

As yesterday’s ruling on vetting clearance and dismissals shows, the hurdles in front of these reforms are immense, and the single greatest tool to smash through those hurdles is the powers that the Secretary of State holds. To bolster a new Met for London and drive knife crime down, it should be a priority of this Government to expedite the reforms we all know the Met needs. Without these reforms, how can we expect recruitment to bounce back? I urge the Minister to today outline what steps the Government are taking to get back to proper community policing, to work with the Metropolitan police to reduce abstraction rates, and to support Commissioner Rowley as he embarks on his package of reforms.

We cannot look to policing alone, though. The whole-of-society approach that is so desperately needed will require an “it takes a village” attitude, and requires a Government committed to supporting early intervention initiatives. A key first step is diversionary programmes, which we know can cut out knife crime before it can metastasise across our streets. The targeted early help and integrated support teams at Sutton borough council do excellent work with young people in my constituency. Their approach is targeted; once a potential young offender reprimanded by the police is brought to their attention, they work tirelessly to build positive relationships with the child to stop the otherwise steady and depressing downward spiral into criminality. It is vital to remember that these schemes offer opportunities to young people who are often not afforded the luxury of such attention elsewhere in their lives.

In London, these intervention programmes rely heavily on grants from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, the Ministry of Justice and the violence reduction unit, but youth services across London often face uncertainty about how and when these grants will be allocated. The team we spoke to at Sutton council is still waiting to see if its grant will be approved for March, which is only a few weeks’ time. In addition, these grants are typically only allocated for 18-month to two-year periods, leaving little space for local authorities to plan ahead.

All the evidence shows that young people susceptible to committing this form of violence require sustained relationships with skilled youth workers to help them to choose safer paths. Such a relationship can take months to form, but it acts as a critical antidote to the peer pressure and social circumstances that are otherwise weighing on the child. It is therefore utterly misguided to continue with this short-termism. Skilled youth workers are deterred from engaging in local authority work due to temporary contract conditions and the lingering threat of grant termination, which could see the shattering of crucial relationships between London’s youth workers and young people at risk of committing knife-related offences. I am therefore keen to hear from the Minister whether she will consider ringfencing funding for local authority early intervention services in London. Without multi-year funding to improve planning and put these services on a more stable footing, this vital first step in preventing knife crime will fall by the wayside.

Backing early intervention is just one of the arrows in the quiver of a wider approach that we must shift to. Young people will continue to die if we do not take heed of our Scottish counterparts and finally embrace a public health approach. Famously, Glasgow took thousands of knives off the streets, and rallied organisations at every level to intervene before a crime was committed. That approach breaks down the silo walls between bodies, putting teachers, A&E doctors, social workers, sports clubs and many more stakeholders in partnership with law enforcement.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and he has identified that there is no one solution to this. The Scotland example shows what can be done, but there are some practical measures that can be taken. For example, half of all homicides with sharp instruments are done with kitchen knives, and that simply has not been tackled. It might be tackled, or the problem might at least be alleviated, by encouraging the transition to blunted knives rather than pointed knives. Does he support that?

[Luke Taylor]

Introducing blunted knives is a very good example of thinking differently about this crime. The tabloid approach of looking for popular, big and visible solutions, such as banning zombie knives, while important, often ignores the statistics of how crimes are most often committed. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, so I thank him.

The public health approach sees the problem of knife crime in three dimensions and recognises that violence begets violence like an illness. Returning to my argument that violent crime is like a virus, I remind hon. Members that when a contagious, dangerous virus broke out in this country half a decade ago, we rallied every aspect of civil society to fight it. Public services, the police and the third sector were all brought together to work as partners rather than in silos. Implicitly, we recognise that this is the right way to tackle an emergency that threatens life and limb, so why do we fail so consistently to bring that approach to bear in dealing with knife crime in the capital?

A hallmark of this approach is the creation of violence reduction units and the provision of serious financial support by Government to make them the hubs of proactive action they need to be. In London, we have done the first part by creating a violence reduction unit in 2018, but its potential remains woefully unrealised. The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies told me that it fears that the unit remains limited in its ability to engage with wider civil society and is still entangled in the paradigm of enforcement rather than engagement. Funding for the VRUs, including the one in London, is just too low to make this strategy a reality, so it should surprise none of us that it has not borne fruit.

There is a wider problem in that politicians of all stripes have paid lip service to the idea of a public health approach, but have utterly failed to implement it. The last Conservative Government, keen to be seen to do something, embraced the language of public health and crime reduction, but we have seen none of this effectively put into practice. Instead, they piloted controversial new powers that increased suspicionless stop and search, which evidently did little to stop knife crime, although the findings from the pilots have yet to be brought before Parliament.

It just is not good enough—not for mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters all over London whose lives have been ripped apart by knife crime. They deserve a public health approach. We must join up public bodies, the police and the third sector so that young people are supported before they slip through the cracks. We have to consider the principles of restorative practice, too, because they underlie and echo everything that is good about the public health approach.

Earlier this week, I met with Ray and Vi Donovan, who lost their son in a violent attack in 2001. In his memory, they created and have for many years run the award-winning Chris Donovan Trust, which works with police, public bodies and charities across the board to highlight the value of restorative justice in preventing reoffending. They told me that their work takes the restorative principles not just into prisons but schools. That approach, which is grounded in embedding empathy and victim awareness in young people, is like a light in the dark in London It awakens in young people on the cusp of gang life, and even in young people already drowning silently within it, an awareness that carrying a knife will inevitably one day ruin their life and the lives of others. Restorative practice is too often overlooked, even as part of the wider package of public health reforms to tackle crime, yet it is vital to winning the war for the hearts and minds of young people at risk of picking up a knife.

Will the Minister consider putting victim awareness on the curriculum? I encourage the Government to publish all the findings from the serious violence reduction orders that were trialled by the last Government, as well as detailed conclusions about the impact of suspicionless stop and search trials under the knife crime prevention orders. If these punitive and controversial methods worked, surely this information would have already been shared; none the less, Parliament deserves to see the findings in writing, so that we can hasten the end of this troubled approach and speed up the saving of young lives through a better approach, grounded in public health.

Too many young people are being failed before they even set foot into adulthood, and Londoners have had enough of senseless stabbing after senseless stabbing, but the truth at the heart of this crisis is that people carry knives because they fear becoming a victim themselves. The only way to combat that climate of fear is with a public health approach that actually gets results. I reminded the House earlier this month, and I do so again now, that success in this area is measured in something more important than profit or efficiency; it is measured in lives saved, lives nourished and lives reinvigorated.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister to respond, I remind the Member in charge that he will not have the opportunity to wind up the debate, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.