Luke Taylor
MP for Sutton and Cheam · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“I visited Croydon Crown court a few weeks ago with the Bar Council and listened to some of its members. It was clearer than ever that the demands of jury trials are not what is leaving victims waiting years for justice.”
“The Iranian regime is abhorrent. It has oppressed its people for decades, murdering protesters and activists, and it is no friend of ours. Its attacks on civilian shipping risk a global crisis, yet Donald Trump’s escalation and the US’s poorly targeted attacks have put civilians and our friends in the Gulf at huge risk, with the risk of a…”
“May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who last week took the decision to take her Department and herself off Twitter—or X, or whatever it is called these days?”
“The report finds structural issues within police forces, with fragmented and inconsistent systems that do not make the most of our police talent. If an officer sees cronyism, nepotism and abuse of power around them, they will not have their future career at the top of their mind or trying to break through that system.”
“Q10. On Monday, with colleagues, I wrote to the Health Minister following the news that women’s health and maternity services may be relocated away from St Helier hospital due to building safety concerns.”
“Will the Prime Minister arrange for the Health Secretary to visit St Helier hospital with me to see its condition and hopefully agree to bring forward the build of the new Sutton specialist emergency care hospital—build it today, not in 2034—to ensure safe and modern healthcare and maternity facilities for my constituents?”
The complete record
Every one of 604 lines we hold for Luke Taylor, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 13.
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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”?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“I urge the Committee to support the new clause not because it would improve security on paper, but because it would make a tangible difference to the safety and confidence of passengers across the rail network.”
“When someone is attacked or harassed on a platform or in a train carriage, time is of the essence, and having the ability to quickly retrieve and share CCTV footage can make the difference between justice and impunity. New clause 9 would fix this problem by requiring rail operators to ensure that their CCTV systems are compatible with law enforcement systems, enabling faster, more co-ordinated responses when incidents occur. In an age when we expect smart, connected infrastructure, this is a common-sense step that aligns with public expectations and operational necessity. In the age of Great British Railways, it would be an opportunity to streamline and standardise the systems used by our currently fragmented rail system into a single, interoperable system that improves the experience and safety of riders.”
“Despite the presence of cameras at the station, the police faced severe limitations on their access to the footage they needed, which delayed investigations and reduced the chance of recovering the stolen property. At the other end of the Thameslink line, at Sutton station, I have had an expensive e-bike stolen and two other bikes dismantled—the theft of a saddle made my ride home from work one night particularly uncomfortable. This is not just about my cycling challenges, but about broader criminal activity on our railways, including antisocial behaviour, assaults and, most gravely, threats to the safety of women and vulnerable people using our public transport.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I rise to speak in support of new clause 9, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). We seek a simple but critical improvement to public safety: the interoperability of CCTV systems across our railway network. Currently, rail operators maintain CCTV systems that are not integrated with British Transport police or the local territorial forces in the areas they serve. This technological gap is not just a logistical inconvenience, but an active barrier to justice and public protection. This issue came to light in a very practical context. My hon. Friend became aware of a spike in bike thefts at St Albans City station.”
“(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 .”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“(5) In section 8(4) for ‘have regard to’ substitute ‘follow the strategic priorities of’.”— (Matt Vickers.) This new clause would require Police and Crime Commissioners to follow the strategic priorities of the police and crime plan rather than have regard to it. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“Based on the comments and reassurances, I will be happy to withdraw the new clause. I would be interested in being involved in any discussions and updates as they come forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 22 Duty to follow strategic priorities of police and crime plan “(1) The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows. (2) In section 8(1) (Duty to have regard to police and crime plan), for ‘have regard to’ substitute ‘follow the strategic priorities of’. (3) In section 8(2) for ‘have regard to’ substitute ‘follow the strategic priorities of’. (4) In section 8(3) for ‘have regard to’ substitute ‘follow the strategic priorities of’.”
“We are very supportive of these measures to give the police the tools they need to crack down on this incredibly distressing form of theft.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, as always. The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the measures in clauses 78 and 79 to give the police and courts more powers to reduce vehicle theft. It is disheartening to see so much car theft in our cities, particularly London. In south-west London, a regular complaint of residents is that the police are not able to do anything about it. The police themselves are struggling. The technology has become an arms race, and these clauses are needed to keep up with thefts that are becoming so much more technologically advanced. It is depressing that a litany of old-fashioned manual theft prevention measures are now necessary again—people are having to use steering locks and wheel clamps—because the police cannot keep up with the technology that thieves employ.”
“Can the hon. Gentleman give examples of how this will be enacted? Would the person who has permission to wear a face covering be given notice by the police? Would they be given a permission slip that they will wave above their head when they are taking part in a march, or does he imagine this as a tabard that they wear that allows them to cover their face? Can he give some examples of how he imagines this would be implemented in practical terms?”
“Under amendment 51, those seeking to come to a protest and exercise their democratic right would be required to register in advance and have some sort of certificate or permit that would then have to be checked, one by one. I think that puts an additional barrier in the way of exercising our democratic rights. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.”
“I wish to raise concerns, as I did in my intervention, about the practicalities of the amendment. Although the hon. Member for Windsor did come on to discuss the case of Hong Kong protestors, we have seen an increase in surveillance by the Chinese state and the Hong Kong authorities of overseas protestors, and transnational repression of democracy activists is an increased worry for many of our residents. I worry that the amendment hinders the freedom to protest without worry of identification and family and friends being targeted elsewhere. This is not only about Hong Kong practising transnational repression in our country, but that is a useful example on which to base my objection.”
“Member for Stockton West called them common sense, but what seems to be common sense usually omits serious thought. Without an additional step of scrutiny, I do not think tracking information is sufficiently accurate to ensure these powers are used appropriately. I therefore invite the Minister to provide a bit more reassurance that thought will be given to accuracy and that mitigations will be in place to compensate residents when the measures are used incorrectly. We must not put residents and citizens at risk of property damage for reasons beyond their control.”
“Under these measures, if the police were called and the tracking information showed that the phone was at a particular address, the inaccurate data would have allowed the police to enter the property incorrectly. Are there appropriate safeguards in relation to the accuracy of the location information that is used? What measures are in place to compensate people when errors are made? The second example is that, when my bike was stolen, I followed its tracker and went to the house where it seemed to be located. I called the police, who attended. The bike was not in the house; the tracker was actually in a van that was parked on the street outside. Again, if entry to the property had been obtained under these measures, there would have been damage and an incorrect entry to a resident’s home. These powers seem like a good idea. The hon.”
“I broadly back the powers in the clause. However, I have been involved in two cases in which an item was tracked but the tracking was not sufficiently accurate to ascertain the address. I was witness to a neighbour banging on the door of another neighbour’s home, demanding that he be let in to retrieve his phone, which he claimed had been tracked to that address. The police had been called, but they were not able to enter. When the resident came home, it was demonstrated that the phone was not at that address; it was actually five doors down. The individual had dropped the phone while walking home, and another resident had picked it up, brought it home and was looking after it until they could take it to a police station. That individual had been incredibly agitated.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way, because I think this is a helpful query: will there be any differentiation between last known locations and live tracking? Obviously, tracking devices can be removed and batteries can run out. Will a last known location be considered sufficient evidence of an item’s current location, or will a live location be needed to prove that the item is currently in that position?”
“As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on British Hindus, and with a constituency that contains a considerable Indian and Pakistani community, I was especially shocked and saddened by the news of the horrific murder of 26 people last Tuesday, and I have received many emails from constituents raising their own concerns. Of particular concern are reports of the targeting of Hindus and Christians: such race-based terror is unacceptable anywhere in the world. What steps are the Government taking to encourage both India and Pakistan to investigate these terrible crimes, and to ensure that lines of communication are kept open to avoid a further escalation of the conflict?”
“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.”
“At the same time, the section 4A offence becomes too high a bar to prove; the phrase “alarm or distress” is unhelpful, especially given that victims are often not aware of the offending at the time. I push the Minister to bring forward the measures that Claire Waxman has called for and create a single offence of stalking.”
“There is a gap in situations in which no domestic abuse is present, and about three in 10 victims are not known to the perpetrator. Can the Minister confirm how initial delays in obtaining SPOs will be resolved so that they can be brought into force sooner? Is there an opportunity to streamline SPOs and include a notice in the earlier stages of obtaining the order? I am sure that the Minister has heard me say this before, but I want to mention the possibility of creating a single stand-alone stalking offence. This reflects and echoes the written evidence from Claire Waxman. The police’s understanding of stalking legislation and the offence in general is not good enough.”