Crime and Policing Bill

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I rise to speak to amendment 160, which stands in my name, and briefly in favour of amendments 157 and 158, also in my name.

I wish to start by thanking all those who have campaigned over many years for some of the sensible changes to the Bill that we are discussing today. I also want to put on record my thanks to our fantastic police forces, including Greater Manchester Police, and also to my hon. Friends the Members for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for their assiduous work on the Bill Committee.

Liberal Democrat amendment 160 would ensure that the police cannot use live facial recognition technology when imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions under sections 12 or 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, unless a new and specific code of practice governing its use in public spaces has first been approved by both Houses.

Regulations around the use of live facial recognition have been discussed many times in this House, and support for strengthening the current situation, bringing clarity and certainty to police forces, has gained support from all parts of the House, both in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall. I hope this amendment does the same today.

The Liberal Democrats oppose the police’s use of facial recognition surveillance. It breaches the right to privacy and is far too often biased, particularly given its propensity to wrongly identify people of colour and women. In our manifesto last year, we committed immediately to halting the use of live facial recognition surveillance by the police and private companies.

When data or technology, such as artificial intelligence, are used by the police, they must be regulated to ensure that they are unbiased. They must be used in a way that is transparent and accurate and that respects the privacy of innocent people. Policing should not intrude on this right for people who are not suspected of any crime.

On the question of bias, much of the recent debate has centred around the National Physical Laboratory’s 2023 study into the equitability of facial recognition technology in law enforcement. This report is frequently cited by proponents of facial recognition, including the shadow Home Secretary, both at the Dispatch Box, when the Bill came before the House on Second Reading, and during a well-attended Westminster Hall debate last November as evidence that bias in the technology is on the decline.

However, we should not overlook one of that study’s most critical findings. In live facial recognition—where a real-time camera feed is compared against a predetermined watchlist—the likelihood of false positives is not fixed. Instead, it depends heavily on the specific parameters of how that technology is deployed, particularly on the face-match threshold. That threshold, in turn, is influenced by both the size and composition of the watchlist, as well as the volume and nature of the people moving through the surveillance zone.

The study recommends that, where operationally feasible, the police use a face-match threshold of 0.6 in order to reduce the risk of bias. However—and this is crucial—without clear regulation, police forces are under no obligation to adopt this or any specific standard. In other words, the presence of the technology alone does not ensure fairness. Without oversight, significant room remains for bias to persist in how facial recognition is applied. This leads to increased instances of the wrong people being stopped and searched—an area of policing that already disproportionately impacts black communities.

New technologies in policing may well present good opportunities to improve public safety, and police should take advantage of them to prevent and solve crime. However, given that new technologies can raise significant concerns related to civil liberties and discrimination, we must ensure that any new powers involving them are scrutinised by both Houses.

Liberal Democrat amendment 160 would ensure that the police cannot use live facial recognition technology when imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions under sections 12 or 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, unless a new and specific code of practice governing its use in public spaces has first been approved by both Houses. This will ensure democratic oversight of any changes to further legislation that may impact public privacy and civil liberties. I hope that the amendment will have support from across the House.

I have just a few words to say on amendments 157 and 158, which would enable a review of antisocial behaviour powers. Antisocial behaviour, as Members have already mentioned this afternoon, blights communities, erodes trust, frays the social fabric and disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. Many colleagues have raised issues within their own communities, some of which I see in my constituency. We have off-road bikes in Heaviley, Marple, Offerton and High Lane. They are a persistent blight on my community. They intimidate people, endanger public safety and are just really annoying. But we must respond with laws that are not just tough, but fair and proportionate. That is why I urge all colleagues to support amendments 157 and 158, which would ensure that antisocial behaviour laws are reviewed before being changed, and that any new guidance is created with public input.

I also welcome amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), which aims to ensure that the duty to report suspected child abuse covers faith groups. I encourage the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) to seek her out as he will find a doughty ally in his attempts to improve the Bill as it impacts on faith groups.

As I said on Second Reading, there are measures in the Bill that the Liberal Democrats support. Were our amendments to be accepted, the Bill would go even further towards keeping our communities safe in a way that is proportionate and that balances the civil liberties implications of giving the police more powers. I hope that the House will support our amendments.

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

I rise to support the Bill and to speak to amendment 20, which stands in my name and is supported by more than 50 Members from across the House. The measures in the Bill represent the most significant package of crime prevention and policing reforms in a generation. From strengthening action against shoplifting, knife crime and antisocial behaviour to introducing new powers to confront child sexual abuse, this legislation gives our police the tools they need to take back our high streets and town centres. I am proud to support the Bill, and I am proud that this Labour Government are showing leadership by putting victims first, supporting our police and turning the tide on crime after 14 years of Conservative neglect.

It is in that same spirit of placing victims at the heart of our justice system that I have tabled amendment 20. It addresses an urgent and under-recognised issue: the devastating link between domestic abuse and suicide and the failure of our legal system to properly reflect it. My amendment is supported by Southall Black Sisters—a pioneering black feminist organisation founded in 1979, dedicated to empowering black, minoritised and migrant women and girls, particularly those fleeing violence. For over four decades, Southall Black Sisters has been a trailblazer in advocating for the rights and safety of some of society’s most marginalised women and girls and in addressing barriers rooted in racism, sexism and socioeconomic inequalities. Their mission is to dismantle the structural injustices harming black, minoritised and migrant women and girls, while fostering global solidarity for a future rooted in equity, justice and empowerment. I sincerely thank the dedicated staff at Southall Black Sisters for their help with my amendment.

Too often those who drive their victims to suicide through sustained coercion, violence or psychological abuse walk away without consequence. While the Bill introduces welcome offences on serious self-harm, it still falls short of recognising the full impact faced by victims of domestic abuse, particularly when the abuse ends in suicide.

The statistics should stop us in our tracks. According to the Vulnerability Knowledge and Practice Programme, suspected suicides linked to domestic abuse now outnumber domestic homicides. It is estimated that three women die by suicide every week as a result of abuse, yet since 2017 there has been just one conviction where a victim’s suicide was legally recognised as the outcome of domestic abuse—just one. That is not justice; it is a failure to see these women, recognise what they have endured and hold their abusers to account.

Coercive control and psychological torment may leave no bruises, but the impact is every bit as lethal. When domestic abuse ends in suicide, it must be recognised for what it is: a crime. The injustice of this issue falls heaviest on those already most marginalised. Black, minoritised and migrant women face the highest barriers to safety—barriers rooted in racism, immigration insecurity, stigma and a lack of culturally competent services. Too often they are misjudged, criminalised or simply ignored. The justice system, and indeed society, must stop asking, “Why didn’t she leave?”, and start asking, “Why wasn’t he stopped?” That is the change that amendment 20 calls for. It shines a light on these deaths and makes it clear that when abuse leads to suicide, the law must see it, hear it and respond.

I am pleased that, through this Bill, the Government are taking forward meaningful changes to deliver on Labour’s mission to halve violence against women and girls. I do not intend to press my amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Government will bring forward changes that recognise the link between abuse and suicide and ensure that our laws reflect that reality. In France, for example, the law was changed in 2020 to recognise suicide or attempted suicide as an outcome of domestic abuse. A perpetrator may now face up to 10 years in prison and a substantial fine if abuse is found to have significantly contributed to the victim’s death. That is the level of seriousness that the issue should demand.

I am grateful to the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for meeting me to discuss the issues that my amendment raises, and I welcome her invitation to submit evidence to the forthcoming Law Commission review. I also welcome the Minister’s recognition that current homicide laws do not adequately reflect these cases. I fully support the Bill’s mission to protect victims and restore trust in our justice system, but that justice must be complete. The women driven to take their own lives because of abuse must no longer be invisible to the law.

In short, amendment 20 would criminalise abusers who drive victims to self-harm or suicide by introducing a new offence of encouraging serious self-harm or suicide following a sustained pattern of abuse. The Bill introduces new offences for encouraging or assisting self-harm but falls short of covering cases where victims die by suicide following sustained patterns of coercive control and abuse. Recognising this form of abuse in law is critical. The amended Bill would reflect the severe psychological impact of coercive control, enhance deterrence and increase survivor and public confidence in the criminal justice system. It would also compel judges, juries, coroners and the police to properly investigate and respond to such cases, treating them with the seriousness that they deserve. Ultimately, it would ensure that victims are not failed by a legal framework that continues to overlook the long-term and often fatal results of domestic abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We have run out of time, so I will call the Front-Bench speakers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart]

As is usual on matters of conscience, these votes will not be whipped by my party today, as I believe is the case across the House. That said, my party passed relevant policy at our party conference, and I will lay out that policy before talking a little about my predecessor’s work on the 1967 Act. Then I will explain, in a personal capacity, why I will support some, but not all, of the amendments before us.

The Liberal Democrats believe that women have the right to make independent decisions about their reproductive health without interference from the state, and that access to reproductive healthcare is a human right. The current law impacts the most vulnerable women. Under that legislation, some can be dragged from hospital beds to prison cells and endure needlessly long periods of investigation and prosecution. The provisions that allow for this were introduced before women were even allowed to vote, so it is not surprising that many see the need for them to be updated.

In the past five years, there have been both debates about whether the police have the resources that they need to keep our community safe, and a surge of police investigations into women suspected of obtaining medication or instruments to end their pregnancy outside the law. That surely cannot be the best use of police time. Lib Dem policy is to ensure proper funding for impartial advice services, so that people can receive comprehensive, unbiased information without being pressured. Access to abortion should never be made more stressful, so we would maintain safe zones around clinics to protect those seeking care.

My predecessor as Liberal MP for Hazel Grove, the late Dr Michael Winstanley, later Lord Winstanley, was key in shaping the Abortion Act 1967. He was on a cross-party group of around a dozen MPs who sought to refine the language and the strategy of that vital legislation. Dr Winstanley continues to be mentioned on the doorstep in my constituency, and he is known, among other things, for bringing calm, professional insight to the debate. He drew on his background as a general practitioner and on his medical knowledge and experience to ground the discussion in medical evidence, and was especially vocal in highlighting the dangerous and often desperate conditions faced by women when abortion was severely restricted. He made the case that legal, regulated abortion was not only safer but more humane.

At the end of this debate, I will join the World Health Organisation, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, midwives, nurses, psychiatrists, general practitioners and the End Violence Against Women Coalition in supporting new clause 1. To be clear, this new clause would not change how abortion is provided or the legal time limit on it, and it would apply only to women acting in relation to their own pregnancy. Healthcare professionals acting outside the law, and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy, would still be criminalised, as they are now.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lisa Smart]

I am under strict encouragement from Madam Deputy Speaker to be speedy, so I will not give way.

I very much support the spirit of new clause 20, but I cannot support new clause 106. I acknowledge that those who tabled it want women to be able to access the best healthcare available, but it would be a step backwards to make it harder for women to access the treatment that they need, whether that is women in a coercive relationship, or those who live in a rural area with limited transport options, and who find it hard to access in-person medical appointments. Telemedicine enables timely, accessible abortion care. We rightly speak repeatedly in this House of the strain on our NHS’s space, staff and capacity, so it feels entirely retrograde to roll this service back and insert clinically unnecessary barriers, and I cannot support doing so.

The amendments and new clauses before us are subject to free votes, so Members can rightly choose for themselves. I very much hope that we choose to move forwards, not back.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.