Sentencing Bill

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and I wholeheartedly agree. There are so many tales just like that from all our constituencies, and they indicate just how lenient we have been towards those convicted of dangerous driving, particularly those who have caused a fatality. That is precisely why I tabled new clause 6. I believe that families like the one she mentions deserve justice and the closure of knowing that those people will not go on to reoffend.

Under section 163 of the sentencing code, any court may impose a driving disqualification for any offence committed after 1 January 1998. The minimum period of disqualification for causing death by careless driving is just 12 months. The sentencing guidelines for a driving disqualification following a conviction for causing death by driving illustrate the leniency that our judiciary applies to these cases. There is something badly wrong with our approach to justice when life is considered as cheap as it is in the current guidelines.

The minimum period of disqualification for causing death by dangerous driving is five years. Consider that the threshold for dangerous driving is high, as it covers excessive speeding, drink driving, and dangerous and erratic overtaking manoeuvres—the type of driving that leaves us horrified. Now consider a case in which the outcome of that driving is that someone is killed. The minimum disqualification period is five years—an inconvenience. It speaks to a narrative of, “Whoops, I killed somebody.”

The sentencing guidelines include the option for a lifetime disqualification, but reluctance to impose it is currently priced into the guidelines, which state:

“Lifetime disqualifications will be rare, in particular because of the increased risk of breach and the possibility of hindering rehabilitation prospects. Lifetime disqualifications will generally be inappropriate unless there is psychiatric evidence and/or evidence of many previous convictions indicating that the offender would be a danger to the public indefinitely if allowed to drive.”

Why are we so reticent to permanently remove killer drivers from the road? The guidelines refer to an “increased risk of breach”, but if someone is caught driving while disqualified, having been banned from driving for life after killing someone, perhaps we should send them to prison.

Those who know me will know that I am far from anti-motorist. I am no fan of low-traffic neighbourhoods, blanket 20 mph speed limits or terribly designed cycle lanes, but while I have been a car enthusiast for many years, I am also a cyclist, and these days very much a MAMIL—a middle-aged man in Lycra. I have been knocked off my bike twice by cars that “didn’t see” me. I have been doored, and close-passed at 60 mph. I ride with cameras on my bike so that there is evidence of me being knocked off, and some of the driving I could show would deter Jeremy Vine from ever riding a bike in London again—but I have been lucky.

Mike Gough was not lucky. Mike was known in Huntingdon for his passionate advocacy for road safety. He too was a keen cyclist, and he often cycled on the country roads around the town—the very same roads I was out on this past weekend. In March last year, as he headed back into Huntingdon along the Brampton Road towards George Street, he was struck by a Ford Transit van attempting to pass him. Paramedics attended the scene and attempted to give CPR, but Mike had been crushed and could not be revived. Mike was pronounced dead at the scene. Along the Brampton Road today, a white ghost bike now marks the site, as a tribute to Mike.

The driver received a 12-month sentence—suspended for two years—and a two-year driving ban. As it stands, he will be back on the roads before the next election. Mike’s relatives said that the sentence did not reflect

“the seriousness of what has happened or the catastrophic impact on our lives. Michael was the pinnacle of our family and a huge part of the local community. As a family we will never be the same again and our grief is immeasurable.”

It is with these events in mind that I have tabled new clause 6.

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

The hon. and gallant Member speaks very strongly about this issue. There may be reticence to support his new clause because of the implications for rehabilitation, but he has spoken about the huge impact on families when a life is taken in that way. Can he give some reassurance about the balance between rehabilitating through custodial sentences, for example, and the lifelong impact on families of incidents that happen in a moment?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. My amendment seeks to remove the chance that those people will reoffend further down the track. The custodial element remains unchanged, so there will still be the possibility of rehabilitation through the prison system to reduce the rate of recidivism. The issue here, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) also pointed out, is about giving families closure and the knowledge that those who are guilty of committing these crimes will not be able to go on to reoffend.

New clause 6 proposes a lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous or careless driving and related offences—those I covered at the beginning of my speech. Having spoken to Mike’s widow Hazel and his daughter Kim, I can say that it is sobering to listen to somebody recount the story of the day that they had to attend the scene where their husband or father had just been killed. Selfishly, it is sobering to think about how easily it could have been me. I ride the same roads as Mike did. It was not an error, or avoidable on his part. The driver alone was at fault; it was his casual negligence that caused Mike’s death.

Mike’s daughter Kim recounts:

“On 27 June 2025, the driver, Dennis Roberts, aged 74, pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. He was banned from driving with immediate effect, given a one-year sentence, suspended for two years, a two-year driving ban, 250 hours unpaid work and has to pay court charges of around £200. The sentence is within the guidelines of the law, but does the law fit the crime? He has lived his life like normal for 18 months, while we have lost our dad, husband, friend, grandad, and lived the last 18 months encompassed in a whirlwind of grief. Even after sentencing he continues to live his life, just with a small inconvenience of not being able to drive and giving up a few hours to work unpaid. How is that justice? In two years’ time he will be able to drive again. Would you give someone who used a gun carelessly and someone was killed their gun licence back after two years? I doubt it. They would most likely have a custodial sentence too.”

I would ask all Members in the Chamber to think how they might feel if they were to get a phone call today informing them that their partner, parent or child had been killed in a road traffic accident.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

On a point of order, Ms Ghani. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) just swore at my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin).

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

indicated dissent.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I can see that the hon. Gentleman in question is shaking his head, so I assume that no swearing has actually taken place. Can he confirm that?

[Luke Taylor]

indicated assent.

[The Chairman]

Sarah Pochin, will you please continue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I would like to speak in favour of my new clause 2, as well as new clauses 18 and 22. Fourteen years of Tory austerity have left prisons in crisis. They are severely overcrowded and understaffed. There are significant challenges on the prison estate, including staffing shortages. HMP Liverpool expects to see a massive reduction in staffing due to the impact of the skilled worker visa scheme. Prisons were forced to take emergency release measures to prevent a complete system breakdown.

There is much to appreciate in this Bill, and more to wait for from the Law Commission’s sentencing review, but I echo the concerns raised: without sufficient resourcing and transparent, clear guidance, the ambitions of the Bill risk failing. We know that over half of those serving a sentence of less than 12 months reoffend, and women prisoners disproportionately receive shorter sentences. The link between short sentences and reoffending contributes greatly to the pressures on prison capacity. Mental health treatment, alcohol and drug misuse treatment and other rehabilitative services bring wider social benefits and protect the public far better than the current system by tackling the causes of crime. The organisation JUSTICE has stated that without proper resourcing, staffing and funding, rehabilitative services will remain too overstretched to be effective. In August 2025, a shortfall of 10,000 Probation Service staff was recorded. The Bill’s impact assessment estimates the need for an additional 500 probation staff each year. Will the Minister reassure Members that he understands the scale of the task ahead, and outline his commitment to allocating adequate resources to ensure that our frontline services can deliver the provisions and vision of the Bill?

New clause 22, tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), seeks to provide leave to appeal where there has been change in the law that is material to the conviction, and where the application is served before the conviction is spent. A version of the new clause was first moved by the former MP for Huddersfield, my predecessor as chair of the all-party group for miscarriages of justice. It was written by Charlotte Henry, a formidable campaigner for Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association. I have long campaigned against the abuses of joint enterprise legal doctrine, and I take this opportunity to recognise the fantastic work undertaken by JENGbA over the past 15 years. The Justice Secretary previously provided commitments to JENGbA, and I hope that he will support new clause 22 today.

My new clause 2 seeks to provide oversight mechanisms for electronic monitoring, which the Bill proposes increasing hugely. The plan is to create a prison outside a prison, but although that has potential to ease the overcrowding crisis on the estate, it could give rise to significant risks, without proper oversight and accountability. Tagging plays an important part in our criminal justice system, and if used correctly and ethically, it can help reduce crime and protect the public, while giving victims confidence that justice is being served. However, there are numerous problems, and those must be addressed before any further expansion, particularly the massive profits made by private sector companies.

We must analyse the purposes of tagging, from public protection to being a punishment in itself. The Bill expands powers to ban offenders from specific places or certain activities, even when those have no connection with the offence. That is one glaring example of where tagging technologies risk leading to greater unchecked restrictions on our liberties. Failing private-sector contracts are at the heart of the problem, particularly those with Serco and G4S, now acquired by Allied Universal, which has a murky and well documented history of over-charging and under-delivering, and which has been fined tens of millions of pounds as a result. I agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place, which last year said it was “remarkable” that Serco and G4S had been reappointed to provide tagging services after they had

“been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and subject to fines for misconduct and a deferred prosecution agreement”.

The issue is not only money; we are giving those companies more and more control of sensitive and clearly transformational criminal justice technology. Instead, we should use this decisive moment to bring tagging firmly into the public sector Probation Service, as is common in the rest of Europe, and out of the hands of failing and fraudulent privateers.

The Government have promised the biggest insourcing in a generation, and if they fail to insource these services, they should consider demands by the unions to make the companies that make and provide the tags also fit the tags, pre-release. That is in my new clause 2(2)(c). I remind Members of the appalling case of Gaie Delap, a Just Stop Oil activist in her late 70s, who spent extra weeks in prison because Serco could not find a tag to fit her. The companies making millions from these contracts should be sanctioned, so that they deliver services correctly. They should not be allowed to rely on overstretched prison staff to pick up their work. Will the Minister assure the House on that point? The fragmented privatised system creates huge delays and inefficiencies, and provides financial challenges for the people whom it supervises, who, for example, have to charge tags without having access to electricity, or money to pay for it.

I support new clause 18, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), which calls for an annual report detailing the use of tagging, and including information on the number of tags fitted, the number of malfunctioning devices, the rate of compliance and the cost of administrating the system. That important data must be freely available if the public and unions are to have any confidence in electronic monitoring.

Justice unions and the frontline workers whom they represent are calling for greater oversight, accountability and transparency in monitoring performance, and for any failures to be addressed immediately, not covered up by profit-hungry corporations. I join them in calling on the Government to commit to a full review of the feasibility of all tagging being managed by the Probation Service in the future, in a system run for public good, not private profit. In keeping with our promise to oversee the greatest wave of insourcing for a generation, now is the time for this Labour Government to bring this increasingly vital public service fully into the public sector, where it belongs, so I ask hon. Members to support my amendments.

[Luke Taylor]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) on his clear and comprehensive explanation of the flaws of short sentences. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place, gave us some insight into why we have ended up in such a mess: Government modelling was not able to reconcile the removal of prison places with rules for increased sentences. The result was more demand for prison places. The net figure of 482 prison places gained since 2010, given by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), shows the utterly damning mistakes that were made during the Conservatives’ time in government.

I will speak in favour of new clauses 6 and 39. In Christmas 2021, Lillie Clack’s family were woken by police, informing them that Lillie had been involved in a traffic accident on Christmas morning. It was caused by a driver under the influence, who was speeding at up to 100 mph, and who failed to stop for the police. Following the accident, heroic local residents rushed to the scene with fire extinguishers, but sadly Lillie died in hospital three days later. Lillie’s family have campaigned tirelessly since then for Lillie’s law, which would result in licences being suspended immediately upon a charge, and a lifetime ban from driving when drivers are convicted of causing death by dangerous driving or by careless driving.

I speak in favour of new clause 6, tabled by the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), which would apply the lifetime ban, and in favour of new clause 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), on the suspension of a person’s driving licence while they are on bail for a driving-related offence. Together, those new clauses would deliver the objectives of Lillie’s law and provide both punishment and deterrent for those who step into a car under the influence, or who do not take the care that is required when driving, which is a privilege, and not a right.

I will speak briefly in favour of new clause 30. I encourage hon. Members from across the House to support the long-overdue resentencing of all prisoners currently held under a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. At the end of 2024, more than 2,000 people were held under an IPP, which is an ongoing scandal and a tragedy for those individuals. The Government claim that the jail terms are a grave injustice, but they are failing to move quickly enough. This new clause would force them to act. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) so clearly explained, there is a need for action, so I hope his colleagues can be persuaded to support new clause 30, in the absence of another measure to address the issue, which is badly required.

Finally, I will mention new clause 40, on the provision of training during the period when an individual is on remand. We must enable rehabilitation wherever possible. Even if the new clause is not taken forward today, I join colleagues and the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) in encouraging the Government to look at the current situation.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Justice must be capable of learning from its mistakes. When the law evolves, it must reach back for those left behind. That is the principle behind new clauses 22 and 23, which I tabled.

The new clauses would create a fair route for people still serving sentences under laws that have since been abolished or where the legal basis has materially changed. They would allow courts to review such cases so that punishment reflects the law as it stands today, not as it stood decades ago. At present, there is no clear mechanism for that to happen. Even when Parliament or the courts have recognised that a law was wrong, those affected have no way to benefit. Our system can acknowledge injustice, but it cannot yet fix it. We see that most clearly in the case of Alex Henry, whose sister is my constituent. She has campaigned tirelessly on this issue, and she and Alex’s mum are in the Gallery today.

Some 11 years ago, Alex was convicted of murder after a 40-second altercation. He did not wield the weapon; he threw a phone and one punch, then ran. He was convicted under the now discredited doctrine of joint enterprise, which allowed juries to convict if a defendant merely foresaw what someone else might do. Two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that that interpretation had been wrong for more than 30 years. Foresight is not enough for guilt—intent must be present—yet Alex remains in prison, serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 19 years for a crime that he would not have been convicted of under today’s law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

T4. One of my constituents has been told that their Crown court case will not be heard until 2028, six years after the alleged offence occurred. The delay was due to court closures and a lack of capacity locally. The Government should not need a report to tell them that they need to make more courts available at more times and they need to fund our courts properly. We have had questions about this from around the Chamber already, so I will take a slightly different angle: what does the Minister have to say to my constituent, who has another three years to wait for their case to be resolved—three years of being unable to work and three years of uncertainty hanging over her head?

[Sarah Sackman]

The sorts of delays that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent is experiencing are unacceptable. The consensus is that the delays are unacceptable and that we have to do something big and bold about them. This is a complex system, which is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson, with his expertise, to tell us how best we go about that, but we will have to get behind once-in-a-generation reform. We are gripping the issue now—we are making record investment in criminal legal aid and sitting days—but we will need reform as well.

Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but I am not sure that I agree. In essence, the criminal justice system is there to ensure that there is a level playing field, that everybody is equal under the law and that the rule of law applies. The figures that I have given show that the rule of law is not being consistently applied across the country when it comes to the duty to pay council tax, and quite a lot of enforcement authorities seem to be rather cavalier about enforcement.

I just do not think that allowing remote hearings will suddenly rectify a situation in which council tax arrears in Birmingham and three other authorities amount to well over £1 billion. Indeed, some of the areas where council tax arrears are highest are the areas where we have seen complete failures of administration, Birmingham city council being one such example. As a direct result of Birmingham city council’s failure to operate effectively, the Government had to intervene, put the council into special measures and essentially allow the council to increase council taxes far in excess of the 5% threshold that normally applies. The same is true in Croydon and Thurrock.

If the hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) looks at my list of local authorities and council tax arrears, he will see that failures to deal with council tax arrears are a very good indicator of a local authority’s failure, although I have yet to do the work on linking that proposition with the salaries that the chief executives of those local authorities pay themselves. I do not believe that those large, inflexible authorities will be motivated by the Bill to have remote hearings when they are not even prepared to use the existing structures.

It may well be—this point supports the hon. Gentleman—that small councils like New Forest district council are quick on those who do not pay their council tax or do not pay it promptly. The possibility of having remote hearings instead of those councils having to issue court summonses might save administrative costs and save the burden. However, in my submission, that potential small benefit is more than outweighed by the problems I have been describing. It would have been so easy for the Government to put forward this Bill on the basis that it would not apply to council tax.

Having said that, section 47(7)(a) of the Family Law Act 1996 requires that a person in breach of an occupation order, where that order contains a power of arrest, must be brought before a court within 24 hours of the arrest. That is why the argument is made that courts have to be available over the weekend and so on. As is so often the case when we are faced with legislation like this, it would perhaps be sensible to change that provision, so that the person does not need to be brought before a court within 24 hours of arrest if that period includes a Saturday or Sunday. That would be a much more direct way of dealing with this issue, in my submission.

Again, it is an easy cop-out for the Government to say that because the person has to be brought before a court within 24 hours, we have to go for remote hearings. If we did away with the need to bring the person in within 24 hours if it was the weekend, we would not need this Bill. Section 47(10) of the Family Law Act states that the court can remand a person in breach of a non-molestation order who has been brought before a court pursuant to a warrant for arrest, and the matter is not disposed of forthwith. That is another example of where this situation applies.

Section 9 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 requires that a person arrested following a breach of an antisocial behaviour injunction, where that injunction contains a power of arrest, must be brought before a court within 24 hours of arrest. Why are we not amending section 9 of that Act to ensure that in the circumstances that the arrest takes place over a weekend, the 24 hour timeframe does not apply? Similarly, section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 requires that a person arrested following a breach of a gang-related violence or drug-dealing injunction must be brought before a court within 24 hours of arrest. Again, that could easily be amended to avoid the need for these remote hearings, which is what we are concentrating on in this Bill.

I am a lawyer by background, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I was at university doing my law degree—or my jurisprudence degree, to be precise—I can remember our law class going to the local assizes when a rape trial was taking place. As one might imagine, there was a lot of interest from these embryo lawyers in what was happening. In that rape trial—I remember it to this day—the defending counsel got up and asked, essentially, that the House do sit in private. The High Court judge put his feet up on the bench in front of him and said—really, he was speaking to the law students, who he knew were in the gallery—that, “Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.” That was a message that I learned very early on as a law student, and I still think it applies.

Remote hearings could be justified during the covid crisis—fine—but now they are being used as an excuse. We already have some examples of where they are permitted, but the Bill goes too far in extending that. The hon. Member for Burnley, who introduced the Bill, may feel it is rather sad that it is being picked at by Members of the House—

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

Not Members—just one.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Well, I do not know; I am sure that I speak for many.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is an honour to speak in this important debate on an issue that exemplifies why I chose to get into politics and come to this place: to be part of big decisions, taken in tune with public opinion, listening to evidence, and with the goal of making our residents better off. I have no doubt that all right hon. and hon. Members here today intend to make their residents better off, but in this case, tragically, better off means suffering less and giving them agency in the most painful moment of their lives.

This Bill addresses a situation where the status quo is utterly unacceptable. I hope that we can all agree in this place that we have heard heartbreaking stories from the families of those who have watched a loved one die in pain or of the fear of someone with a terminal diagnosis facing the prospect of an agonising death. The choice we have with this legislation is whether we choose to do something about that status quo or not. Rejecting this Bill, imperfect as it may be, will continue the pain of those who are let down by the current laws. They are guaranteed victims of a system that is letting them down.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Luke Taylor]

I will make some progress, thank you. I start by making the somewhat unusual case that this issue, for which we are gathered here on a Friday, giving up bake sales and constituency surgeries, is not quite the big deal it has been whipped up to be by both proponents and opponents. I do not believe that we are considering a fundamental change in the relationship between doctor and patient, or seeking to change the relationship between the state and the individual. I do not believe that we are stepping on to a slippery slope or unpicking the very purpose of the NHS, as some have suggested. We are here simply to give those who already face terrible decisions—doctors, patients and their families—a real choice of how to face those decisions, and protection in law for choices that are already being made today.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Luke Taylor]

I will make some further progress.

This Bill would simply give the choice to those who will die—and those eligible will die soon—on the manner and timing of their death, and it would protect doctors and families from legal repercussions at such a tragic time. This is not a Bill about the choice between life and death; it is about the choice, should we want it, of how and when we will die. This is the ultimate choice. We speak sometimes of the right to choose, of the right to decide how one might bring life into this world, a debate about which on Tuesday this Chamber showed that there is a huge majority in favour of the right of the individual. We have a chance to neatly bookend the week by establishing the existential right of the individual, when given a terminal diagnosis, to choose how one might exit this earthly realm.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Luke Taylor]

I will make some progress.

Today, due to the extraordinary courage of the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who has given us a once-in-a-generation opportunity for this place to catch up with public opinion, I truly believe that we can take one more step forward towards regaining public trust and confidence in the system. When public polling shows overwhelmingly time and again that the public back the change—between 70% and 75% in the latest polls released—I implore those on the fence to at least listen to public opinion, if not my words.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Luke Taylor]

I will continue.

Nothing I say, however, is intended to simplify the issue, and I acknowledge the fears of many that the palliative care sector is not funded sufficiently for there to be a rational and viable choice between managed care at the end of life and the choice to end one’ own life. I therefore welcome the inclusion of amendment 21, which matches my priority of the improvement of palliative care.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Ahem.

[Luke Taylor]

In conclusion, in the heart-wrenching words of Decca Aitkenhead, who wrote in The Times last week, and which I found particularly moving:

“critics of the bill have begun to frame the debate as if leaving the law as it stands does not hurt anyone. It does.”

She said that opponents

“worry about speculative, hypothetical victims—but the status quo creates indisputable, real life victims”.

[Pippa Heylings]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Luke Taylor]

I will not, sorry—I am close to closing.

She went on to say:

“The bill’s opponents portray it as cruel, heartless and macabre. I wish they could have sat at”

—her friend—

“Charlotte’s bedside, heard her groan, “Let … me … die”, and seen what cruel, heartless and macabre actually looks like.”

This Bill is the right thing to do. It has been scrutinised, amended and debated. This Bill is ready. Please vote in favour today to give our residents a choice.

Humanist Marriage

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Not any more!

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

There are lots of witnesses.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. The Liberal Democrats are proud of our clear and consistent commitment to legal recognition for humanist marriages, which has been official party policy since 2010. It is a position anchored by a strong tenet of our liberalism—the belief that couples should be able to celebrate their marriage in the way they wish. We believe that all types of marriage ceremonies, whether religious, civil or humanist, should be treated equally under the law. It is the right thing to do and the fair thing to do. Frankly, it is deeply sad that it has not yet been done in England and Wales.

As has been mentioned, humanist marriages have been legally recognised in Scotland for 20 years, having been introduced in 2005 by the coalition Government that included the Liberal Democrats. Humanist marriages have been legally recognised in Northern Ireland since 2018, in Jersey since 2019, and in Guernsey since 2021. Today, we are reckoning with an alarming discrepancy across the British Isles in a crucial aspect of our legal system.

Do not get me wrong—I am a localist. I believe firmly in devolution of policy, and I recognise that one thing that makes our country so great is the co-existence of strong and diverse legal traditions and systems. But on the question of what really should be a fundamental right for people to marry whoever they love in the manner of their choosing, it is right that we should look to extend and entrench that right as far and as wide as possible.

All of that is to say nothing of the growing recognition of humanist marriages in other countries with similar legal traditions, a shared Commonwealth history and, in countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, a shared Head of State. Indeed, I have intimate knowledge of the latter. When I lived in Toronto, Ontario in 2013, I married my wife in a beautiful ceremony with our choice of officiant, in the snow, in the bandstand of a park near Niagara Falls. A word of warning, though: the temperature plunged to minus 15° during the ceremony and my eyelashes froze shut.

It was not explicitly a humanist wedding, but nor was it a religious or strictly civic wedding either. We had the freedom to choose where and by whom we were married, without the need for a second, separate official ceremony or registration, which humanists are forced to do here in England. We simply had to procure a marriage licence from the city hall and then wait for the marriage certificate to arrive in the post following the ceremony.

This ceremony is recognised as a marriage here in the UK—at least I hope it is—so my personal experience might speak to a further discrepancy in the law by which I, a British national, have what I believe is a legally recognised non-religious and non-civic marriage, while other British nationals in this Chamber are not afforded that same right and freedom of choice were they to be wed in England and Wales.

As several Members have outlined in today’s debate, humanism is a proud tradition with roots stretching back across the centuries. Today, it is alive and well in Britain, with around 5% of the population identifying as humanists, which is more than 3 million people. For the record, I am one of them. The humanist tradition is clearly well established, and the demand for recognising this kind of marriage is clearly significant.

It is not just humanists who want this kind of marriage to be recognised in law: polling published this week by YouGov and Humanists UK shows that 70% of UK adults are in favour, and that this support is widespread and cross-cutting across a wide range of religious groups and political preferences.

Recognising humanist marriage in law is clearly the right thing to do, and it is time for the law to catch up with public sentiment. The public clearly respect and are permissive of a meaningful, non-religious alternative that aligns with the values of many couples, and that recognises that the current situation—in which couples who have a humanist marriage effectively have to duplicate their enjoyment at a later date, usually in a civil ceremony—is unfair. Recognising that unfairness and treating these marriages equally under the law would be a great step forward for millions of people, and it would provide legal clarity for couples.

The moment is ripe for this kind of change. The past decade and a half have seen meaningful revision of our marriage laws, on which the Liberal Democrats are proud to have led the way. The tireless efforts of Liberal Democrat Ministers such as Baroness Featherstone were instrumental in getting the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act passed. I am so grateful for the hard work of people like Lynne and the countless heroes from the LGBT+ community who made this a reality.

It was the Liberal Democrats in government who led the charge to get the ball rolling on recognising humanist marriages, too. Pressure from the Liberal Democrats resulted in the coalition Government proposing what is now section 14 of the Act: the order-making power that could give legal recognition to humanist marriages at any time. Since then we have had more than a decade of missed opportunity, as Government after Government have dragged their feet on responding to a series of Law Commission reviews. In that time, support for humanist marriages has only grown stronger, and the urgent need for change ever clearer.

This Government, who talked a good game in opposition on finally delivering this change using the section 14 power, have dithered in their first year. I ask the Minister to outline the timetable for moving forward on recognising humanist marriages, to explain the Government’s consider-ations in relation to the Law Commission’s review into the matter, and to tell us why they need more time to consider the change when the issue has been under review for 12 years.

I take advantage of this opportunity to personally call for the right to recognise any marriage conducted by a registered officiant for all other groups, as I enjoyed in my marriage, because there is no reason why a humanist should have rights that any other group is denied. Far from leading to “Las Vegas-style free-for-alls”, as the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) described—somewhat tongue in cheek—I see it as a basic choice in a liberal society. If a couple choose to be married by a man in an Elvis Presley costume, they should have that right.

If the Government wanted, they could start making this change tomorrow. They have inherited a state apparatus that has had that power for more than a decade, as has been clearly expressed today. I hope the Minister agrees about the need to change the law, and I invite her to say to all of us, “I do.”

Crime and Policing Bill (Ninth sitting)

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violence against Women and Girls

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)]

I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for what was a moving, extraordinary and really brave speech—thank you very much indeed.

The Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), rightly said that this is a timely debate. It is timely, but the truth is that violence against women and girls has been a scourge on England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and beyond our islands since time immemorial, and it will take serious, calm and well thought through policies and a collaborative approach to tackle it. That is exactly what the Government are trying to bring.

There should be no illusions about how serious a problem this is. Nor should we pretend, as some on the Conservative Benches have appeared to do in recent weeks, that it is a problem only for one culture or ethnicity. That alone will not remove the threat of sex-based violence. In fact, in most places in the UK, including in my constituency, it would be unlikely to make any difference at all to the threat that women and girls face from violent men.

If we want to be serious about tackling the grooming that leads to such violence, we must recognise the role that social media companies play in monetising hatred, promoting extreme misogyny for profit and making a packet out of legitimising the exploitation of women. The Minister mentioned in her opening remarks the problem of toxic masculinity, which we all know is ubiquitous online. The profiteers of this hatred dress up their indulgence of extremism as free speech advocacy, but they are in fact consciously hoping to create a world in which women—particularly those who stand against the extreme hatred promoted on social media, which is based on sex and ethnicity—are cowed into submission.

In this House, our speech is formally protected, and no billionaire can hope to launch a libel suit to shut us up, but that does not stop them trying to find other means that they hope will silence us—principally the mob. We have all been on the end of it. Every woman in this House knows that anything we say in here that challenges power and privilege can put us at risk in a way that is quantitively and qualitatively different from our male colleagues.

There has been far too much admiration for the tech bros, and too little willingness to challenge abuse. I thank the Prime Minister and the Ministers for their robust words this week, which made me proud to be a Labour MP. I hope that they mark a departure from what we have seen, and that we will see many more such responses in future. We should do more to tackle the abuse that the tech industry has been allowed to get away with for so long.

I associate myself with every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) said about the role that pornography plays, but I would add one piece of evidence that I find shocking. Eight-year-old boys regularly access pornography, and that has a well documented impact on violence against women and girls.

I will take this opportunity to mention another area of tech that I think needs to be addressed: pimping websites, on which women’s bodies are freely advertised for sale to abusers. UK Feminista carried out a survey just before Christmas, and found that 368 women in my constituency of East Kilbride and Strathaven, and the surrounding area, were freely advertised online as for sale. That is legal. I know that many people argue that that is sex work, but as a socialist and a feminist, I remain wholly and utterly opposed to that dangerous idea. It is grotesque abuse and exploitation of vulnerable women, and it indicates to men that women are commodities to be bought and sold. Money should not make acts of physical abuse legal and lawful.

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

At a recent constituency surgery, the lack of care and oversight of dating apps towards their women users was mentioned. Does the hon. Member agree that dating apps, and the operators that profit from them, should be held to account for protecting the women and men who use them, in the same way that social media companies should be held to account?

[Joani Reid]

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment, and I hope that we can work across the House to make that happen.

My plea to Ministers is that they consider introducing legislation to tackle pimping websites, pornography and the abuses of dating apps. Perhaps the Government could take firmer action against online abuse at its source, and spend money on some of the wonderfully thought through measures that the Minister outlined in her speech, the likes of which we have not seen for some time.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) on all the work she has done over the years standing up for women and girls and fighting violence against them.

Violence against women and girls by men is a societal epidemic, and it is right that we in this place and the Government treat it as such. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s pledge to halve violence against women and girls over this Parliament, and we are keen to reform the law as soon as possible, and to accelerate what should be a national mission to stamp out this awful violence.

I particularly welcome the roll-out of the domestic abuse protection notices and orders pilot in Sutton borough, which covers my constituency of Sutton and Cheam. The orders will allow the police to take stronger, more immediate action in domestic abuse cases, and are a significant step forward, providing greater protections for victims and helping to ensure that abusers face the consequences of their actions without delay. In my borough of Sutton last month, we were tragically reminded of how urgent those protections are. The brutal murder of Gemma Devonish was a devastating blow to our community. Her death underscores the dire consequences of not providing all women with the critical support that they need. It is a dark reminder that those protections are not just necessary, but a matter of life and death. As with any kind of epidemic, we must recognise the warning signs, early indicators and normalised precursors that lead to this awful kind of violence.

Stalking is not just a crime against someone’s safety; it is a violent psychological attack on their very sense of self. It chips away at their emotional wellbeing, their sense of security and their right to simply exist without fear. For far too many women and girls, this crime is a daily reality, yet despite previous legislative reforms, the system still is not properly protecting victims of this crime. Data shared with me via a freedom of information request shows that in London, more than one in three stalking cases ends with the victim withdrawing from the process. That is a shockingly high number, and it should concern us all. In some cases, that is because victims disagree with the proposed action, but many have told me that it is also because they feel unable to provide enough evidence, as the burden of proof to achieve a section 4A conviction is set unfathomably high.

When the law places such an onerous burden on victims who are so clearly suffering torment, it is our job in this House to home in on it as a flawed piece of legislation. The current law is inconsistent and confusing, and is failing victims as a result. The current division of stalking offences into sections 2A and 4A just is not working, and the confusion allows perpetrators to buy time and continue tormenting their victims with little consequence. I fear that victims, who are overwhelmingly women and girls, are essentially being told that they need to be the perfect victim to ensure that the police get a conviction. They repeatedly have to expose their pain and humiliation to the system just to secure fundamental protection from the police.

I draw the House’s attention to a report published in September by the chief inspector of constabulary, the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the College of Policing. The report, driven by a super-complaint from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, has forced us to face the uncomfortable truth that many of us already knew: the system is failing women and girls. The report explores creating a single clear offence for stalking, rather than splitting it between sections 2A and 4A. The London Victims’ Commissioner has echoed those calls, and I strongly encourage the Government to do the same. The Minister for Safeguarding has promised a review of the current stalking legislation, so I ask again for the timeline for that review. More importantly, when will we see real changes to the law to protect victims and hold stalkers to account?