Luke Taylor MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Jun 2025 · Draft Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that there is, if not a red flag, potentially a question about why only one ambulance service made a specific request to retain the powers, while others did not respond, or potentially do not have the correct procedures in place to deal with requests of this type and manage the data? That would be a concern for me. Are those that specifically requested to be removed not utilising a power that may well improve their operations, and their ability to serve their residents?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Draft Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  As always, Dr Murrison, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. We are very supportive of the approach taken in the regulations, but will the Minister briefly explain what roles or tasks the ambulance services that are retaining the powers are undertaking that those that have confirmed that they do not require them are not? Why would some be performing those tasks and others not? I think that would help to explain why this change—and this specificity—is required.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Chinese Embassy Development · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for submitting this urgent question. The potential approval of the Chinese super-embassy sends precisely the wrong signal at a moment when we should be pushing the Chinese Government hard on human rights abuses and their repression of the people of Hong Kong, both in that city and right here on our streets. Notwithstanding the risk of interception of sensitive comms at the site, Hongkongers and Uyghurs are deeply worried about what it might mean for China’s expanding surveillance capacity here in the UK. In March, alongside other Opposition Members, I spoke at the protest in front of the proposed site. I say the same thing to the Minister as I said that day: the Government must block it. Taking into account the scale of opposition, both domestically and by our allies, will the Minister confirm that representations made in this place will be considered as part of the planning approval process? If I may, I will also ask: considering that the original timetable for the China audit to be published has now passed, will the Minister tell the House when they expect finally to present it?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  The British public are not fools—they know when the emperor has no clothes and, indeed, when a regulator has no teeth. Ofwat has failed, just as Thames Water has failed. Will the Government now act on the Independent Water Commission’s findings, published today, scrap Ofwat and replace it with a regulator that can end this crisis, which has been decades in the making?

• 21 May 2025 · Chronic Urinary Tract Infections · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered chronic urinary tract infections. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak about a horrific condition that has been ignored for much too long. For thousands of Britons chronic urinary tract infections turn ordinary lives into living nightmares. The pain and permanence of the illness has left thousands suffering on a daily basis. Having heard many of their stories it is clear to me that what they are living through is nothing short of torture. This speech is not just about a medical condition; it is about a scandal that highlights the systemic failure to take women’s pain seriously in this country. Over the last few months a brave community of patients have shared their stories with me—stories of trauma, suffering and desperation. I have been utterly heartbroken by what I have been told. The cruelty of the condition is matched only by the cold indifference that its sufferers have faced from our healthcare system. It is a national disgrace that thousands of chronic UTI sufferers have been so profoundly let down by modern medicine.

• 21 May 2025 · Chronic Urinary Tract Infections · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for her contribution to the debate on the broader health inequalities for women, and I wish her the best of luck in securing the debate that she seeks. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He talked particularly about the strain on NHS resources that is caused by the lack of attention on this condition, which further compounds the challenges and backlogs in the system. I thank the hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) for his account of the impact of this condition on his constituent, who had to give up her job; that shows the terrible impact it has on people’s lives. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for talking about the challenges around the antibiotic regime, including antibiotic resistance, and the complexity of that issue. I thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) for her contribution. Her focus on the treatment of children was particularly instructive, because, as we have heard, the challenge is stopping a UTI becoming a recurrent UTI, which then becomes a chronic UTI. That is a real focus on that in the treatment of children. There is also a focus on Pharmacy First to help by stopping UTIs in children from becoming an issue in the first place. That was a particularly insightful point. I also thank her for bringing her knowledge as a doctor to the debate. I thank the Minister for confirming that she will meet me and campaigners to further discuss the issues. However, I do not think that she gave a specific answer on how NICE and SIGN guidance would be updated to incorporate guidance on UTIs, but we can discuss that later, and I apologise if I missed it. However, I will really focus on the contribution from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). She spoke heartbreakingly about her experience of this condition and about how it has driven her into politics. I look forward to working with her to try and raise awareness of this issue and keep it current, and to try to understand how we can help her and the incredibly brave campaigners who brought the condition to my attention, so that we can really see some action on all the various streams of work that we can propose in this place. Once again, I thank the Minister for being here to listen to the stories of sufferers and for responding to my points. I thank all hon. Members who took part in this debate, particularly pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South for her bravery. I also thank campaigners, including Phoebe, who is in the Public Gallery today. Their strength and resilience have given us a chance in this place to try to take clear action to give them their hope back. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered chronic urinary tract infections.

• 21 May 2025 · Chronic Urinary Tract Infections · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for raising those related issues, which are so important to consider. I will come on to talk about the wider challenge of women’s health being treated without the importance that it requires. I understand that she is attempting to secure a debate on a similar subject, so I wish her the best of luck in that endeavour. Many of us have already heard of this illness and have heard people’s stories. I first learned about it from my constituent Phoebe, who has lived with a chronic UTI since she was three years old. Now in her mid-20s, she has become a tireless advocate for others suffering in silence. She shows remarkable perseverance and strength, even when the pain she lives with is beyond anything I can describe. Phoebe is here with us today, along with a number of other sufferers. It is my absolute privilege to stand in this place and speak for them and every other individual enduring such an awful condition. Will the Minister meet me, Phoebe and representatives of other campaign groups to hear how they have been let down by the system? A chronic UTI is not just a diagnosis; it is at present a life sentence of torture that eats away at every part of a person’s existence. The condition first develops when bacteria from an acute UTI become permanently embedded in the lining of the bladder. Left untreated, the infection becomes entrenched, wreaking long-term havoc on the rest of the body. I want to be absolutely clear: a chronic UTI should not be confused with the recurrent version of the condition. A patient diagnosed with a recurrent UTI might experience one or two infections over a six-month period. Although it is still serious, patients suffering from a recurrent UTI experience distinct intervals of relief from their symptoms. Chronic UTI sufferers live in constant and excruciating pain, with the infection never relenting. They are in agony every single day and every single night. Many sufferers have lived with the condition for decades, with the illness at present incurable. Chronic urinary tract infections can affect anyone at any age, but they disproportionately affect women. At the UK’s only NHS specialist clinic, which I will come on to later, 95% of patients are women; only 5% are men. Individuals living with a chronic UTI are often forced to urinate more than 20 times an hour. I have been told that each time they use the toilet, it feels like they are passing razor blades through their urethra. Their urine is bloody. Their bladders are so tender they struggle to walk, and their bodies are consumed by fever. In many cases, the prolonged infection spreads from the bladder to the kidneys and the bloodstream, causing sepsis, with complications for other organs. I have been told harrowing accounts of the agony caused by this illness. The pain has been likened to corrosive acid burning through the abdomen, glass shards lodged in the bladder and the feeling of mice eating away at the sufferer’s insides. Some liken it to scorching knives slashing forever at their stomach, or a hot cauldron constantly bubbling in their groin. The most common comparison I hear is that people’s bodies are perpetually on fire. To reiterate, the torment never stops—for the majority of patients, it is 24/7. These symptoms destroy lives overnight. The illness renders individuals severely disabled, often forced to live a life of bedbound isolation. The pain is so overwhelming that patients can lose their ability to sleep and become trapped in a cycle of exhaustion. Household chores become impossible, and individuals can lose the ability to care for their children. Sufferers often lose their dream careers, as they cannot function with their symptoms in the workplace. They are unable to work or afford costly bills for private medicine. Young adults living with the condition often have to forgo university studies, with the severity of their agony making their education unbearable. Romantic relationships break down, with at least one case of a marriage of over 40 years ending due to the illness. Sexual intercourse is virtually impossible due to the immense pain. Many people with the condition fear they will never be able to start a family. Patients face an utter loss of independence and, unsurprisingly, depression and suicidal ideation are daily struggles for the chronic UTI patient community. This brings me on to my second ask for the Minister: every healthcare professional in the UK must be properly briefed to recognise and treat a chronic UTI. Since 2022, the NHS website has formally recognised the existence of chronic UTIs, yet I have heard that many GPs and urologists still deny the existence of the illness. Patients suffering from chronic UTIs are left to fight for recognition and are misdiagnosed with conditions such as internal cystitis or recurrent UTIs.

• 21 May 2025 · Chronic Urinary Tract Infections · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right. Many of our modern medicine practices are designed around avoiding the build-up of antibiotic resistance. The intention is to allow high-dose, effective antibiotics to be available when required, yet so many sufferers tell us that when they go to the doctor because they require those antibiotics, they are denied them. If this is not a case where those effective antibiotics must be used, even though resistance must be avoided, there cannot be a better example of the mismatch between intention and practice. I will come on to that in more detail, but I thank the hon. Member for making that point. The misdiagnosis of chronic UTIs does not lead to effective treatment and compounds sufferers’ agonising pain with awful frustration. At their most vulnerable and weak, they are being forced to prove that what is happening to them is real. That is Kafkaesque, and it is totally wrong. The key problem appears to be that specific National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not exist for chronic UTIs in England, and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network guidelines do not exist for the condition in Scotland. NICE guidelines for acute and recurrent UTIs exist, but as I have outlined, they are not fit for purpose for this chronic condition. How can GPs and urologists provide and recommend proper care, as the first point of contact with the patient, when there are no clear clinical guidelines? Without guidelines, many medical professionals are practically blind to the condition. They cannot prescribe the right antibiotics to relive patients’ pain because chronic UTIs are not even on their radar. Chronic UTI specialists do exist, and they recognise the condition and can help treat symptoms, but without proper guidance GPs and urologists, unintentionally or not, block patients from reaching them and refuse their requests for referral. Many chronic UTI sufferers have post-traumatic stress disorder from their interactions with medical professionals, never mind the suffering from the condition itself. I have heard stories of patients being essentially gaslit by medical professionals, told that the concern is all in their heads, denied antibiotics and given antidepressants instead. It seems that some GPs and urologists have dismissed the illness as a women’s problem and have told patients just to deal with the pain. That is not medicine; it is misogyny. I urge the Minister to push for the creation by NICE and SIGN of guidelines on chronic UTIs that are distinct from those on recurrent UTIs. That is long overdue and will hopefully bring to an end those kinds of interactions between suffering patients and GPs, but that alone will not be enough. There have to be better treatment offers for chronic UTI patients further down the pipeline. Right now, there is just one NHS specialist clinic in the entire country: the lower urinary tract symptoms clinic at Whittington hospital in London—one clinic for a nationwide illness. It offers fantastic support for patients, but waiting times are too long. We all know that waiting lists are far too high across the NHS— I commend the Government for their approach to bringing waiting lists down generally—but for chronic UTI sufferers forced to compete for the time of a solitary clinic, the effect is even more pronounced. Sufferers wait months, even years, for help if they are lucky enough to secure a referral in the first place. Even once patients get to the clinic, relief is still not guaranteed. The LUTS clinic offers long-term, high-dose antibiotics that can treat the symptoms, but they bring only partial relief, leaving many dragging themselves through life exhausted, drowsy and still in pain. That is not really living; it is enduring. Worse, the antibiotics do not work for everyone: about 30% of patients cannot tolerate them at all. Imagine the despair of being in that 30%. The situation would be scandalous enough if it were simply the case that, in desperation, many chronic UTI patients turned to private healthcare, spending thousands of pounds that they do not have just to access the bare minimum of care, but it is more awful than that. Some are forced to go to even more extreme lengths and choose risky, experimental procedures just to lessen their suffering. They fly abroad and pay unlicensed doctors more than £30,000 to have their bladders surgically removed. Let me say that again: people are choosing to have their organs ripped out in foreign countries because mainstream healthcare in the UK offers them nothing. For some, those risky surgeries offer relief, but for many the infection is already in their kidneys, and they return from the operation bladderless and with multiple complications. Some suffers, with few options left, make a choice that should haunt us in this House. Rather than live another day like that, they take the most extreme choice of all: to take their own life. That is not how people should be living in modern Britian, and that is why we should spare no expense in researching better treatments and, of course—as so many dream—a cure. I argue that the Government have an obligation, no matter the prevailing economic circumstances, to expedite the day that that becomes a reality. Promising medical trials already under way in the UK show real potential to transform how we treat chronic UTIs. Those treatments are ready to progress to human trials; the only thing standing in the way is funding. I urge the Minister to look into the roadblocks to getting more funding to the trials, and to come forward at the earliest opportunity with a plan to put conditions that are under-diagnosed and under-prioritised, such as chronic UTIs, at the front of their research agenda for this country’s biomedical research industry. I would be happy to put the Minister in touch with some of those working at the cutting edge of treatment in this field. I have told the story of chronic UTI sufferers and their longing for relief—a relief the Government can help them seek if they back their cause—but I remind the House that the condition exists in a much wider context: health issues that mainly impact women are consistently neglected and routinely dismissed. We know that women wait longer in accident and emergency departments. We also know that just 5% of global health research goes towards conditions that exclusively or disproportionately affect women. Even though 15% to 20% consult doctors for chronic pain, it was only this year that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists introduced an optional training module on chronic pain for trainee doctors. Inquiries such as Paterson and Cumberlege laid bare the systemic failures in how women’s health is treated in this country, but implementation and cultural change have lagged far behind the words. I have wondered many things since I first heard stories of chronic UTI sufferers, but nothing has unsettled me more than the lingering thought that if more men were affected by the disease, we would have had better treatments decades ago. That is an oft-used cliché but it comes up time and again. The Minister has heard today about the scale of unimaginable pain that those with chronic UTIs experience. She has heard about the broken diagnostic system that stops too many sufferers getting the help they need. She has heard about the roadblocks to developing better treatments that are standing in the way of relief. I simply reiterate my asks. Will she and her officials meet me and these brave sufferers to hear more about the specific actions that the Government need to take to clear the roadblocks? Will they commit to pushing for the NICE guidelines to be brought up to date to reflect the latest understanding of this disease? Will they outline what steps they are taking to combat the wider problem of the neglect of women’s health issues? Chronic UTI sufferers deserve so much more.

• 20 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I admire the Prime Minister’s faith that this deal may well end the tired arguments of the past, but judging on today’s display, I think we need to end the Conservatives—the tired party of the past to my right—before that is the case. A generation of young people have missed out on the opportunities offered by the Erasmus scheme due to the disastrous Brexit deal negotiated by the Conservatives. We are encouraged by the words in the deal about the Erasmus scheme, but what is the timescale for offering that opportunity to our young people once again?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 15 May 2025 · Youth Services · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) on securing this debate, because youth services are critical infrastructure in our communities. They are not luxuries, or a nice-to-have; they are a vital lifeline, offering young people safety, support and opportunity at the time they need it most. There can be no doubt that we are, perhaps more than ever before, engaged in a battle for the hearts and minds of young people. There have been debates and panics in this place and throughout the nation for generations concerning the challenges facing young people, but what is different in this moment is the sheer scale of the collapse in physical community spaces and, as we are here to focus on, youth services. Many great points have been raised already, but I will focus on the most egregious consequence of not protecting and enhancing youth services: knife crime. In the fight against knife crime in London, these services are vital, because knife crime is not only a criminal justice issue but a public health issue. Like any other public health crisis, the solution lies in early intervention, community-based support and sustained investment. That starts with our youth services. In the past 15 years, youth services across England have been cut by more than 70%. That is more than half of youth centres gone, thousands of trained youth workers lost, and communities left to pick up the pieces. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that when a youth centre closes, young people aged 10 to 17 become 14% more likely to commit a crime. In areas already battling poverty, inequality and deprivation, a youth centre can mean the difference between safety and tragedy. In London we saw more than 16,000 incidents of knife crime last year. That is thousands of families affected and lives changed forever. We know that young people susceptible to committing this form of violence require sustained relationships with services that can help them choose safer paths and that can offer children that vital third space when schools are struggling to maintain a learning environment and home is a worryingly hostile place. They are services that protect young people’s mental health in such troubling environments, and it is fitting that we are having this debate in Mental Health Awareness Week. Perpetuating the situation by failing to boost local council finances, whereby many councils have no choice but to cut youth services, is worse than short- termism; it is a failure to allow councils and other key stakeholders in the community to do what they want to do: invest in young people’s futures and keep them away from crime. In Sutton and Cheam I have heard that many skilled youth workers are deterred from working in these declining services, and not just because they are not equipped to do their jobs properly, but because the financial pressures mean short-termism in grants from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and a reliance on temporary contracts. We all know that local authorities are under immense pressure. Many are on the brink and, without proper funding from central Government, they simply cannot deliver what our communities need, so that must come first. But we Liberal Democrats are calling for more. First, we are calling for a statutory duty on all local authorities to provide youth services and pre-charge diversion schemes for young people up to the age of 25. Right now, access to youth diversion—the very intervention that steers young people away from offending—is a postcode lottery. That is utterly unacceptable. By making it a statutory duty, we would ensure that every young person in every community can access support before it is too late, not just after a crime has been committed. We also want to see a national youth strategy that is co-produced with young people themselves, not cooked up in Whitehall without their voices. If we are serious about solving the knife crime crisis, we must treat young people not as risks to be managed, but as partners in prevention, with huge potential to be realised. The public health approach demands early intervention, but early intervention cannot happen if youth services are simply not there any more.

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent .

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member talks about us being a sovereign nation and being able to choose our trade deals. I assume we will get a vote in this place on the shape of a future trade deal with the United States, so that we are able to examine it, vote and exercise our parliamentary sovereignty.

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman not see the fragility of a European defence that is dependent on key items of American hardware, which he correctly identifies that we do not have, and which it will take decades for us to replicate, operate, integrate with our systems and train people on? Does he not see the fragility of our defence if President Trump or another incoming US leader says, “Actually, you’re on your own. We don’t care about the defence of Ukraine”?

• 12 May 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On a slightly more constructive point, does the Minister agree that calls for the process to allow asylum seekers to work after they have been in the country for three months would allow them to integrate more closely with their communities and to earn money to support themselves? A measure to change the arrangement from 12 months to three months would make a massive difference to asylum seekers, reduce the bill for hotels and allow people to contribute to the communities they want to be a part of.

• 12 May 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has given three fantastic reasons that my hon. Friend has given for lifting the ban, but such a move is also popular with the public: 80% of people polled backed the right for asylum seekers to work. Moreover, 45% of asylum seekers would be classified as critical workers. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are, in fact, four fantastic reasons why the Government should lift the ban?

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. There can be no denying that we are entering a new world with the advent of new technologies that fundamentally reshape the relationship between citizens and the state. There is probably no more vivid an example of that than live facial recognition technology, which is rightly causing great concern among people across London and throughout the UK. I am, for instance, concerned about the installation of permanent cameras in Croydon, just next door to my community in Sutton and Cheam. In Sutton itself, the use of roaming facial recognition cameras has already caused anxiety among local people, not least the thousands of Hongkongers who call Sutton home, many of whom escaped exactly this kind of potentially abusable surveillance from the Chinese Government, only to find it trying to take root in Britain. That anxiety has often been met with the unfair and often disproven riposte that if someone has done something wrong, they have nothing to worry about. It is undeniable that without proper safeguards, this technology can be a negative force, through either human malpractice or, perhaps just as worryingly, technological shortcomings. Research from the US has shown that the technology can be racially biased, struggling to distinguish between non-white people, because it was trained on white faces. Research from the Alan Turing Institute has shown that a version of the technology developed by Microsoft has a 0% error rate in identifying white men, but a 21% error rate in identifying dark-skinned women. Those would be worrying facts in their own right, but we are talking about liberty and justice—the two cornerstones of our democracy. We must be very careful about adopting technology that undermines that, and any sensible legislator would want safeguards in place. Anything that further erodes minority communities’ trust in the police must be resisted and avoided. Our neighbours in the EU have done just that, limiting the use of this technology unless it is absolutely necessary for security or rescue, and requiring judicial oversight or an independent administrative authority to facilitate its safe use even in that case. New clause 19 would see us follow our European neighbours in making sure that the technology is deployed only in limited circumstances and with the maximum oversight. Our proposed measures—including a new oversight body and new powers for the Information Commissioner’s Office to monitor the use of this tech—present a path forward that we urge the Government to take. If we do not, we will continue to languish without a proper legal framework while permanent cameras are installed. For the technology to be embedded before safeguards have been properly considered would be a democratic and civil liberties tragedy and would put us on a path to a creeping digital authoritarianism. To put it another way, it would be unfair even on those who have to use the technology. Currently, police services across the country seem to set their own rules on usage, without the proper guidance. To protect them from bad intelligence leading to awful miscarriages of justice, they deserve clarity, just as much as the public do, on the right way to make use of this tech. Nobody seriously doubts that this sort of technology and other major advancements in fighting crime will continue to arrive on our shores. The question is how we wield the new powers that they afford us in a judicious manner. That has always been the task for legislators and enforcers. Forgive the trite idiom, but it remains true that with great power comes great responsibility. How we protect privacy and liberty while keeping ourselves safe in the hyper-digital age is a central question of our times.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. As things stand, there is no specific criminal offence of domestic abuse in England and Wales. Instead, such cases are prosecuted under a patchwork of broader offences: common assault, actual bodily harm and coercive control. While those charges may reflect elements of abuse, they too often fail to capture the sustained pattern nature of domestic violence. The legal ambiguity has far-reaching consequences. Under the Government’s own SDS40—standard determinate sentences 40%—scheme, high-risk offenders, especially those who pose a continued threat to public safety, should be exempt from early release, but owing to the lack of specific domestic abuse offences, perpetrators charged under more general categories, such as common assault, remain eligible for early release. In effect, abusers walk free while their victims live in fear. That is not a technical oversight; it is a systemic failure, and it has rightly been challenged by Women’s Aid, Refuge, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and other voices we cannot afford to ignore. That is why I welcome both the proposed amendment to the SDS40 scheme and the Domestic Abuse (Aggravated Offences) Bill, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). That Bill would create a defined set of domestic abuse aggravated offences, recognising the context of abuse and making such offences clearly identifiable in the criminal justice system. If adopted, the reform would not only enhance the visibility of domestic abuse, but close the dangerous loopholes in relation to early release. It would bring the law into alignment with the lived experiences of victims and send a clear message: domestic abuse is not a private matter; it is a public crime and will be treated as such.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of new clause 13, as well as Conservative new clauses 27, 96 and 98. We had a long discussion on this issue, but it is worth repeating as often as possible that tool theft is a devastating crime that cost tradespeople more than £94 million last year. Research from NFU Mutual shows that one in three tradespeople now live in constant fear of violent thieves. Some have been attacked with crowbars and other weapons just for trying to protect their tools from being ripped out of their vans. At the February rally in Parliament Square organised by Trades United, I heard from campaigners about tradespeople not letting their vehicles out of their sight, and about thieves cutting off the roofs of their vans to steal tools. It was heartbreaking. We hear about the impact on those tradespeople and their families, including suicides and mental health problems. Despite the back and forth, I think we should make it absolutely clear that this issue needs to be addressed, and that powers must be given to the police and courts to treat it with the seriousness that it deserves. Tool theft is more than just standard assault or theft; it is an assault on tradespeople’s hard work and their livelihoods. It is time to acknowledge that danger to their entire livelihoods and lifestyles.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This year, the Met police will cut more than 1,700 officers, PCSOs and staff. I invite the Minister to intervene and correct me on that if necessary, as it would seem to suggest that there was an error in the figure given earlier. A correction cometh not. That figure will include the loss of the parks police team and of officers placed in schools, who have been so critical in maintaining early intervention in those settings and diverting young people away from a life of crime. They have also improved relationships between young people and the police, ensuring that young people can trust the police when they have information that might lead to crimes being prevented or solved. Those officers are dearly needed today. The £260 million shortfall below the required budget in London will also create a 10% cut to the forensics teams, which includes the investigation of offences such as tool theft, sexual offences and many other crimes. There will be an 11% cut to historic crime teams and a 25% cut to mounted police, who police festivals, sporting events and the protests we see happening so much more regularly in central London. There will also be a 7% cut to the dog teams that provide support to officers going into dangerous and challenging situations, leaving them unsupported and potentially at risk. There will also be reduced front counter operating hours, and there are even hints about taking firearms off the flying squad. One might ask, “Why are these cuts relevant to this new clause?” The cuts throughout the Met police will inevitably lead to more abstractions from outer London police forces. In particular, the cuts to mounted police and dog teams will pull officers from outer London, including from Sutton and Cheam, which will leave our high streets less safe, our residents more fearful of being victims of crime and more crimes going unsolved. That demonstrates the absolute necessity of community policing, as well as the need for guarantees to be put in place so that those cuts do not happen, which will affect my residents and residents across London. New clause 16 would also require an annual report that would give clear and transparent information on officer numbers, PCSO numbers, costs and the real-world impact on crime and public confidence. I urge Members to support this new clause.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We would like to press the new clause to a vote, please. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In response to the specific comments from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West, this measure relates entirely to existing footage and would allow access to existing footage. I thank the Minister for addressing the points made. At this point, are happy to withdraw the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 12 Domestic abuse aggravated offences “(1) Any criminal offence committed within England and Wales is domestic abuse aggravated, if— (a) the offender and the victim are personally connected to each other, and (b) the offence involves behaviour which constitutes domestic abuse. (2) In this section— (a) ‘domestic abuse’ has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and (b) ‘personally connected’ has the meaning given by section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”— (Luke Taylor.) Brought up, and read the First time .