Irish Republican Alleged Incitement

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The remarks by members of the band are completely unacceptable, and it is right that they have apologised to the families of Sir David Amess and Jo Cox, but clearly those comments should never have been made in the first place. Incitement to violence against Members of Parliament cuts to the very heart of our democracy. The reality is that two MPs have been murdered in the last decade. It is absolutely right that the authorities are looking into other comments relating to encouraging support for proscribed terror organisations.

I want to look at what more the Government can do. What criteria does the Home Office apply when assessing whether artists or performers are promoting harmful or extremist rhetoric, particularly where there is a clear attempt to provoke public outrage? What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that comments like these may have on community cohesion?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am, for the sensible and reasonable way in which she framed her remarks. She is absolutely right. Incitement to violence is utterly unacceptable in any context, and it is completely unacceptable in the context of Members of this House and other elected politicians. That is why the Prime Minister recently refreshed the mandate of the defending democracy taskforce, and that is why, as chair of that taskforce, I am working closely with law enforcement, all Government Departments, the Electoral Commission and a range of different organisations, including the police, to ensure that right around the country we have the most coherent, joined-up and properly resourced response.

Back at the general election last year, I am sure all of us saw things that we consider completely unacceptable. It is my ambition as the chair, and that of the Government, to ensure that electoral events—I am conscious that we are working through one at the moment—are fought in a way that enables and encourages reasonable and robust debate. It is absolutely right that in the cut and thrust of politics there should be the rough and tumble of debate, but I think instinctively we all know where the line is drawn, and this incident went miles over where the line should be drawn.

We will continue to look carefully at the circumstances of this case. As I said, it is ultimately for the police to make an operational decision about where they want to go with it, but I give the hon. Member an assurance that through the DDTF we take these matters incredibly seriously. I would be happy to work even more closely with her, her colleagues and all Members of the House in that endeavour.

Child Rape Gangs

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

No child should ever endure sexual exploitation or abuse. Such horrific and unacceptable crimes must have no place in our society. Victims and survivors of these crimes must be at the centre of our thoughts whenever we discuss these matters. We owe it to them not just to offer words of support, but to deliver justice and bring offenders to account. That also means taking firm preventive action to protect future generations from such harm. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, led by Professor Alexis Jay, published its recommendations in 2022. Will the Minister please set out a clear timetable for the full implementation of the Jay inquiry’s recommendations? Does the Minister agree that a duty of candour, via a Hillsborough law, would bring transparency and accountability to any future inquiry? Will the Government commit to a timetable for delivering that?

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Lady, and I agree with her that inquiries are only worth anything if we crack on. That is why, when I came to this House before the recess, I said it would go alongside the publishing of an action plan on the recommendations of the Jay report and Jay’s work into grooming gangs. That has all been published as part of a Government plan, but it is only the beginning. Actually, this is going to take years and years. On the duty of candour, it seems appalling that we have to ask people to tell the truth, yet here we are. Of course, that is what we must be striving for, as the hon. Lady says, on behalf of the victims and survivors.

Headingley Incident

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

No one should have to live in fear of such horrific violence. The appalling events in Headingley on Saturday have left a community shocked and two women with really serious injuries. My thoughts and those of all the Liberal Democrats are, of course, with the victims, their families and all those affected by a crime of such awful brutality. This is yet another devastating example of the violence faced by women and girls across the country, which we must all work to end. It is also yet another example of a violent attack in which a crossbow has been used—one of too many in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), among others, has urged the Government to review and strengthen crossbow regulations. I note the Government’s amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, including new clause 70, and the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). Can the Minister confirm when the Government’s formal response to the call for evidence will be published?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for the comments from the hon. Member who leads on this subject for the Liberal Democrats. We all are committed to ensuring that violence against women and girls is halved over the next decade. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is sitting with me, is leading on that. It is an important strand of the safer streets mission.

I am pleased to hear of the support from the Liberal Democrats for our ongoing work on crossbows, particularly through the Crime and Policing Bill. We will bring forward details of the Government’s approach, and the response to the consultation, very shortly. I have taken a particular interest in this issue, and I have met families who have been affected by violent crossbow attacks. I recently met Laura Sugden up in Driffield, who lost her partner, Shane Gilmer. Just this morning, I met Joan Whelan, whose partner, Dave Peck, was killed in 2022 by someone using a crossbow. I am aware of the need for action on this issue.

Foreign Influence Registration Scheme

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Minister, as always, for advance sight of his statement. We on the Lib Dem Benches welcome the further implementation by the Government of the foreign influence registration scheme, but I find myself in the rather unusual position of agreeing with a lot of what the shadow Home Secretary has said—very dangerous territory. Last year, Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee issued the excoriating China report, which said that the Government do not have a clear strategy on China and have not devoted sufficient resources to tackling the threat it poses. I will therefore ask the Minister some new questions that the shadow Home Secretary did not.

Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to generate a human rights and democracy report, to conduct the audit on China that they have promised, and to ensure that China is fully considered in the strategic defence review? As has been mentioned, many are severely concerned by the proposed Chinese mega-embassy, for which the Government have indicated their support. Does the Minister believe that the building of this embassy will encourage the Chinese Communist party to carry on its attempts to subvert our democracy? What conversations has the Minister had with colleagues across Government about blocking this plan and making protecting our democracy a key national security priority?

Can the Minister say more about how the political influence tier will be administered? How do we ensure that every relevant foreign individual signs up to the register? It is right, if there is a top tier of the scheme, that Russia and Iran are on it, but will the Government now go further by proscribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation?

Finally, the Liberal Democrats have long called for reforms to funding to prevent foreign interference and to increase transparency in political donations. What plans do the Government have to close loopholes that allow opaque and potentially corrupt funding of political parties, enabling foreign and dark money to influence British politics?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Lady asked a number of questions, and I will endeavour to respond to all of them, but if I do not, I will certainly come back to her outside of the Chamber. She asked a number of questions about ongoing activity across Government, and she referenced the China audit, as well as the strategic defence review. I know she would acknowledge that those matters are not within the bailiwick of the Home Office, but sit with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence. I can give her a categoric assurance that we address these matters across Government, and we work closely as different Departments. She will know that the Prime Minister made an announcement just recently about the publication of a national security strategy. The Prime Minister has committed to publishing the national security strategy in advance of the NATO summit in June. That document is being worked on across Government, and it will provide, I hope, some of the answers to the questions that the hon. Lady has rightly raised.

The hon. Lady asked about the embassy. I say to her and to all Members across the House that national security has been our core priority throughout that process, which is why the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary jointly submitted written representations to the Planning Inspectorate to reflect those considerations. I hope she will understand that I am limited in what I can say, not least because a final decision on the case will be made in due course by the Deputy Prime Minister, acting in her capacity as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. It will be done in an independent, quasi-judicial role, so I am unable, for legal reasons, to say anything further on that particular matter at this moment.

The hon. Lady helpfully asked about the political influence tier, which will strengthen the resilience of our democratic institutions against covert foreign influence. It will require those in arrangements with foreign powers who conduct, or arrange for others to conduct, political influence activities in the UK to register those activities within 28 days. Most registrations made under the political influence tier will be included on a public register, and I am sure she will recognise the transparency associated with that.

The hon. Lady also asked me about proscribing the IRGC. She will remember, because she responded to it, the statement I made on Iran last month, during which I confirmed that the Government have asked Mr Jonathan Hall to conduct an independent review into the legislative framework around proscription. He is making good progress with that work, and I hope we will be able to update the House further in the near future.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked about funding, and she will have seen the comments from the Electoral Commission in the past day or two. There is separate electoral law specifically relating to funding, but we look carefully at these issues and we are working across Government, not least with the work I lead on through the defending democracy taskforce, working with colleagues in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and in other Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

As the Minister has said, getting more bobbies on the beat in Gloucestershire and across the country is crucial to delivering the frontline policing that our communities deserve, but recent freedom of information figures show that more than 1,500 police officers are stuck on long-term sick leave, including 148 in my own Greater Manchester police force. On the job, officers witness violent and traumatic events that can damage their mental health, but too many report being left without enough support. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that mental health support is good enough in the police? That is one of the ways to get officers fit for a return to work more quickly, to be part of restoring the proper community policing that our communities deserve.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Lady raises a very important point about the wellbeing of police officers and police staff. We have the police covenant, which is very important. I have already had the first meeting about the steps we are taking to improve work around the police covenant, but fundamentally occupational health is a matter for chief constables in their own forces. We are very keen that the work that has gone on to improve those occupational health standards continues and that the wellbeing of police officers is at the front and centre of our work, so that we have a healthy workforce to deliver for us on our safer streets mission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Ukrainians in the UK deserve stability after fleeing war, yet almost half report severe stress and anxiety caused by prolonged uncertainty about their visa status. Some 44% have lost a job opportunity, 26% have been unable to sign new tenancy agreements and 25% have had a student loan rejected, all because of that uncertainty. Does the Minister agree that this is an unacceptable way of treating those to whom we opened our arms, and will she commit to giving Ukrainian refugees the certainty about their visas that they deserve?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

The hon. Lady will be aware that we continue to stand by Ukraine, and to support those whom we have been able to welcome to our country. We have provided certainty under the Ukraine permission extension scheme, which we opened on 4 February. Under that scheme, people can prove that they have ongoing status through section 3C leave during their application process.

Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to be back in the Chamber to hear the shadow Home Secretary’s greatest hits of Conservative failures from the last Parliament, whether it be cuts to neighbourhood policing or the woeful handling of the asylum system under the previous Government, in which he was a Home Office Minister. Of course the Home Office should ensure that all asylum accommodation providers deliver value for money, safety and security, but tinkering with contracts will not change the fact that asylum hotels are a lose-lose. They eat up taxpayer money and leave local councils and communities to sort out the mess.

To pick dates at random, the share of asylum applications that received an initial decision within six months fell from 83% in the second quarter of 2015 to just 6% towards the end of the last Government’s time in office. When does the Minister think that the processing of applications will speed up so that the backlog will come down, communities such as mine will get the use of their hotels back and those granted refugee status can integrate and contribute to our economy?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that the shadow Home Secretary sounds like a broken record; we are well used to him running that argument in this place. I also agree that the key to dealing with hotels is to get the system back up and running from the chaos that it was in. I can tell the hon. Lady that asylum processing at first decision has ramped up considerably and we are getting through the backlog we inherited, but there is also a huge backlog by definition in the appeals system, partly caused by the legacy appeal—the dash to end the legacy system ahead of the fantasy Rwanda scheme beginning—which has led to a big backlog in appeals. We are looking to see what we can do about that, because it is important that we get a fast and fair system from end to end, and that includes appeals.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

My contribution will be brief. I start by thanking the Minister and Lord Anderson in the other place for their hard work with others on bringing the Bill to fruition. I also thank them for the kindness and courtesy they have shown my constituents Figen Murray and her husband Stuart. I echo what the Minister said earlier in paying tribute to them and the whole campaign team who have worked so hard on this. They have asked me to place on the record their view that the other place did a good job in its scrutiny of the Bill; it was cross-party and collaborative, and the considered amendments from the other place will strengthen the Bill. For my part, I am glad that the thresholds were not further watered down, and I understand that it is important to keep them under review. This is a good Bill, and it will be a good law. It will have a deterrent effect and a protective effect, and it will save lives.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to return to the Chamber to consider the Bill. Over recent months, it has been scrutinised in detail at the other end of this building, and I thank colleagues in the House of Lords for their collaborative work. The changes brought forward are sensible and proportionate, and they reflect the broad cross-party consensus behind the aims of this legislation.

A number of the changes were technical in nature but crucial for clarity. They address several concerns that I and others raised on Second Reading about the scope of qualifying events under the Bill. The Lords amended it to make it clear that private events—weddings, office parties or similar—sit outside its scope. That helps to ensure that the law is designed for public-facing venues without overreaching into personal or private spaces.

In addition, several important changes were made to strengthen the safeguards around delegated powers. The amendments consolidate into a single clause the key power of the Secretary of State to amend the public protection procedures that must be in place in each tier. They also require the Secretary of State to meet a high bar of necessity to make changes to qualifying thresholds for protective measures, and to consult relevant parties before exercising these powers. These are welcome changes that introduce further transparency and ensure that the Bill’s implementation is balanced and accountable.

Another key area of discussion throughout the Bill’s passage has been the need for clear and accessible guidance. On Second Reading, I and others cautioned that venue operators would struggle to comply with the law without adequate support. I am therefore pleased that the Minister in the Lords gave a firm commitment, repeated by the Minister today, that guidance will be published well in advance of the changes coming into force, and that there will be a period of engagement to ensure that it is robust and practical. I thank my Liberal Democrat colleague Baroness Suttie for her tireless work on this point and for her amendment, which helped secure this assurance. Her contributions in the Lords have strengthened the Bill considerably.

It is impossible to consider this legislation without remembering why we are here. Martyn’s law was born from an unimaginable tragedy—the terrorist attack at Manchester Arena in 2017. As the MP for Hazel Grove in Greater Manchester, I witnessed at first hand the resilience and the unity that followed the arena attack. I remember joining my community in Romiley Precinct when residents came together in quiet solidarity the evening after. It was an act of remembrance, but also a statement that terrorism will never define us, and that we will not be divided by it.

Among the 22 lives taken that night was Martyn Hett, a 29-year-old from Stockport. His mother Figen Murray has shown extraordinary resolve in the years since the attack. Her campaign for Martyn’s law has been defined by compassion, determination and a belief that no other family should ever experience what hers has had to endure. Today we are seeing the fruits of her dedication. The Bill is a testament to her courage and unrelenting hope that something good could emerge from the darkest of circumstances. Thanks to Figen’s advocacy, this country will be better prepared to keep people safe in our public spaces.

I welcome the Bill and the amendments before us today. Martyn’s law will not bring back those who were taken from us, but it will save lives. In doing so, it will stand as a lasting tribute to Martyn, Figen and the people of Greater Manchester. The Liberal Democrats are proud to support it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First of all, I thank the hon. and gallant Minister. We all look to him for his guidance and support, which is much appreciated by us as individuals on behalf of our constituents. Let me put on record my thanks to all the police forces across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, particularly the Police Service of Northern Ireland for its work to keep us safe. Without them we could not operate here, nor could we have protection for our constituents, who we are duty bound to represent in this House. I will not delay the House too long, but I wish to ask two questions in relation to the Bill, which are both relate specifically to Northern Ireland. I hope that the House will bear with me for a couple of minutes as I illustrate them.

I have spoken on the Bill several times, and I have always sought to ensure parity of conditions throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Lords amendments to clauses 32 to 35 in particular seek to remove the UK-wide imposition of polygraph licence conditions for terrorist offenders. Will the Minister confirm that their removal will not leave the PSNI in Northern Ireland without the means to watch and assess terrorists as closely as can be done on the mainland and that existing legislation referred to in the amendments is capable of securing protection?

Secondly, it is imperative that police forces have access to transfer of prisoners. Lords amendment 76 has been designed to ensure that provisions could continue to apply to restricted transfers between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the purposes of determining release. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are convinced that there can be seamless transfers between all nations in this great United Kingdom when necessary? If the Minister does not have access to those answers immediately, I am happy for him to come back to me on that, if that is helpful. I would appreciate the answers.

Use of Stop and Search

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to be in this debate and to have you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on securing a debate on this important topic.

The hon. Gentleman powerfully laid out some utterly tragic cases, and made the point, rightly, that far too many young people are losing their lives to knife crime. I strongly agree with him on the need to support our police as they tackle and prevent crime, and I particularly agree with his point about the importance of preventing crime. He said there is not one simple answer to how we do that, and I very much agree. However, many of my remarks will mirror those of the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy).

The foundation of the policing model in this country is trust. The police are a vital part of our community, and trust is built and protected by using approaches and tactics that both show results and apply fairly to us all. Any successful policing model must strike the right balance between individual freedoms and keeping our communities safe, and any discussion of stop-and-search tactics is really a discussion of where we think that balance sits.

For too many, stop and search is not a policing tactic that builds trust. Trust is undoubtedly the foundation of any effective policing model, and without it, communities can disengage, co-operation can dwindle and crime prevention can suffer. Today, too many communities who should feel protected by the police are instead made to feel like targets. According to Home Office stats, which the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill mentioned, in the UK black people are around four times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. When it comes to suspicionless stop and search under section 60, the figure is even higher.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for an end to the disproportionate use of stop and search, and that includes abolishing suspicionless stop-and-search powers. The evidence is clear: the surge in the use of section 60 stop and search between 2016 and 2020 coincided with a drastic decline in arrest rates. Polling from the Criminal Justice Alliance found that three quarters of black, Asian and minority ethnic young people believe that their communities are unfairly targeted by stop and search.

We want all members of our community to engage with policing efforts to keep our neighbourhoods safe, but that is made difficult if people do not trust the police to act fairly. We must not forget that these are not just statistics; we are talking about the everyday lives of people in our local communities. We need a police force that serves and protects, not one that alienates and discriminates. That is why the Lib Dems are fighting to ensure that stop and search is always used fairly, proportionately and only when there is a genuine suspicion of wrongdoing. That is how trust is built.

However, this debate is not just about what we must stop; it is also about what we must start and what we must do more of. The new Labour Government have a unique chance to consider exactly that. As I outlined on Monday in the Second Reading debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, we will support the Government in any efforts they make to return to proper, visible neighbourhood policing.

Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home and walking down their own streets, yet under the previous Conservative Government that was far from the reality. Our police forces remain overstretched, under resourced and unable to focus on the crimes that affect people the most. The record speaks for itself: every day 6,000 cases or so are closed without a suspect being identified, and only 6% of reported crimes result in a suspect being charged. In a move that defies logic, the last Government slashed the number of police community support officers by more than 4,500 since 2015. Those PCSOs were the backbone of community policing. They were familiar, trusted faces in our neighbourhoods—building relationships, offering support and preventing crime.

This new Government have an opportunity to do much more than tinker around the edges of policing, and we will push them to commit to restoring proper community policing, which is a model that has been abandoned for too long. The use of stop and search disproportionately can divide our police from our communities, whereas proper neighbourhood policing builds the trust and co-operation that our police force so desperately needs. Our communities deserve better, and the Lib Dems will continue to fight for a fairer, more effective approach to policing—one that prioritises neighbourhood policing and community trust. That is how we make our communities safer and build trust: by building a policing system that works for everyone.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lisa Smart Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

There are elements of this Bill that we Liberal Democrats welcome; there are also some that we would not spend this much parliamentary time on, and some that we raise a weary Liberal eyebrow at, while we dust off the well-worn reasons why civil liberties really do matter to all of us. The biggest disappointment for us is the missed opportunities—the topics not covered and the chances not taken. We welcome the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill as it works its way through Committee and beyond. We will push the Government to go further in some areas; in others, we will suggest that they take themselves off for a little lie down in a quiet room, as they seem to have got themselves a little overwrought.

The key thing that Lib Dems will be pushing for is a serious commitment to restoring proper community policing, because without that, we simply will not deliver the frontline policing that my constituency and communities across the country need and deserve. We all agree that everyone should feel safe in their own home and their neighbourhood, but after years of Conservative mismanagement, that is not the reality in too many of our communities. The previous Government gutted neighbourhood policing by slashing over 4,500 police community support officers since 2015. It should come as no surprise that 6,000 cases are closed every day without a suspect even being identified, or that just 6% of reported crimes result in a charge.

[Dan Aldridge]

It is really important that we reflect on the impact of that under-investment in neighbourhood policing, and specifically on the cultural feeling of insecurity, and people’s feeling that crime will not be responded to. That has pervaded every society. I hear that on the doorsteps every time I go out. It will take a long time for us to get back from that.

[Lisa Smart]

I completely agree with the hon. Member that while crime stats are important, the way people feel about crime also is hugely important for all our communities. The issues are felt acutely in constituencies like mine. In Hazel Grove, in towns and villages such as Marple and Romiley, shop workers report that they face a real surge in shop theft. Many tell me that they have no expectation that the police will respond. Even charity shops have been burgled. These organisations just cannot afford to absorb the losses.

Another persistent concern raised by my constituents is the blight of illegal off-road bikes. I know that problem is felt in all our constituencies. From Offerton to High Lane, residents feel intimidated by this antisocial and often dangerous behaviour. Local officers tell me that although they do not lack the power to act, they lack the tools, resources and capacity to enforce existing laws, so we will scrutinise the Government’s proposals on this, especially as they relate to under-18s. The new Government must return to the neighbourhood policing model, with bobbies on the beat who are visible, trusted and properly resourced. Any element of the Bill that does that will receive Lib Dem support.

What else do we support in this Bill? Part 4 deals with the criminal exploitation of children and others, and it is welcome. Part 5 seeks to update the law on sexual offences. These parts will of course need close scrutiny to make them as effective as they can be, but they have Lib Dem support.

If this were a Lib Dem Bill, we would not be talking quite as much about criminalising those who climb on specific war memorials, and we would protect the important right to protest, rather than making it harder for this right to be exercised. We are surprised and more than a little bit disappointed that there is no mention in the Bill of bringing in domestic abuse aggravated offences. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for the work he has done in this area. We all agree that domestic abuse devastates lives, and that the criminal justice system must properly recognise its severity. Too many abusers escape appropriate justice because domestic abuse is prosecuted under general offences such as common assault or grievous bodily harm, which fails to capture the full nature of the crime. We urge the Government to back this change and ensure that victims and survivors receive the protections that they need and deserve. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have more to say on the matter in due course.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I want to be clear about what the hon. Member said a moment ago. Is she saying that climbing on and desecrating our war memorials is acceptable behaviour, and that she would be happy for that to carry on? That seems to be what she is saying. I am sure that is not the case, but I would love to hear her clarification.

[Lisa Smart]

It is always a genuine pleasure to be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for rising to his feet. What I said was that if this was a Lib Dem Bill—I look forward to one coming forward in the fullness of time—we would not spend as much time talking about this as a criminal act. There are many priorities for the Government, and I will talk about a number of measures that we were disappointed not to see included in this 340-page Bill, at the expense of the issue he raises.

For example, we have waited with bated breath for the new Government to crack down on water companies that pollute our rivers with impunity. Nowhere is that issue clearer than in my community; sewage has been dumped in our rivers, and part of the Chadkirk country estate, a beloved green space in my constituency, was turned into a sewage swamp after heavy rainfall in the new year. The field beside Otterspool Road, which the council planned to transform into a well-kept community meadow, was flooded with raw sewage. Current laws allow the water companies to get away with that. Liberal Democrats will continue to push to make sewage dumping a specific criminal offence, so that water company executives can be held accountable for the damage they do to our communities.

The Government’s failure to reference rural crime even once in the Bill is unacceptable. I heard the Home Secretary’s response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who is no longer in his place, and it is indeed welcome that a rural crime strategy is on the way, but we Lib Dems will push for a commitment to this issue in the Bill. Rural crime is not an inconvenience; it is a growing crisis. The National Farmers Union reported that the cost of rural crime soared to over £52 million in 2023, with organised gangs targeting farm machinery, vehicles and GPS equipment, yet fewer than 1% of police officers are in dedicated rural crime teams. I heard that for myself when I met a dozen local farmers at Far Benfield farm in Cowlishaw Brow last week. I clearly heard about the impact that organised fly-tipping and organised equipment theft has on farming families.

Finally, there is a gap in the Bill where a discussion of regulating or legislating for live facial recognition should be. The Liberal Democrats have been clear that the technology is a threat to privacy, is discriminatory and does not make our streets safer. The previous Government pushed ahead with its use, despite serious concerns from human rights organisations, legal experts and even their own independent biometrics commissioner. The police should focus on evidence-based crime prevention, not rolling out flawed and biased surveillance technology. Any use of it by the police must be transparent, unbiased and regulated. We can see police forces coming up with their own rules within which to operate. It is long past time for the Government to set the framework.

[Chris Philp]

The system being used is not biased. It has been tested by the National Physical Laboratory, and the bias problems that existed seven or eight years ago have been resolved. The hon. Lady says that the technology is unregulated; it is not. A Supreme Court case set out the parameters, and they are now enshrined in authorised professional practice, which is national College of Policing guidance.

[Lisa Smart]

I do not recall hearing a question from the shadow Home Secretary, but I am sure that he would welcome the matter being further clarified in the legislation. He said at the Dispatch Box that live facial recognition is not mentioned in the Bill. I agree. I am sure that we would both welcome scrutinising it, perhaps from different starting points, but ending up with a situation in which our police forces were confident that they knew exactly what the rules were, and exactly how to make best use of any new technology coming through.

The Government and this Bill have the potential to deliver real change, but only if the Government listen. That means a return to proper neighbourhood policing, to giving rural police the resources that they desperately need, and to protecting civil liberties. It is time for the Government to show that they are serious about preventing crime and enabling our police to act when crime has been committed. All our communities across the whole country deserve nothing less.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Rural Crime

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

As a fellow north-western MP, let me say that it really is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey.

For too long, our rural communities have been subjected to too much rural crime, but time and again previous Governments have failed to take those crimes seriously enough, and have left police forces understaffed, under-resourced and thus ill prepared. The new Government have the opportunity to take real action to address rural crime, and the Liberal Democrats will continue to fight to ensure that it is tackled properly, starting with a real strategy and real resources for our police. We look forward to scrutinising the Government’s plans for crime and policing as the current legislation makes progress.

In 2023, the NFU reported that the cost of rural crime rose to £52.8 million—up nearly 22% since 2020. Farmers and rural business owners are left to pick up the pieces and face huge financial losses. Rural crime does not just hit wallets but takes a toll on people’s wellbeing. The NFU survey also found that 86% of farmers say that rural crime is negatively affecting their mental health, so we need more from the Government.

I am lucky enough to represent the wonderful constituency of Hazel Grove, where we have urban, suburban and some semi-rural communities. Although there are trends and similar issues that affect the whole community—off-road bikes are just as annoying in Marple as they are in Woodley—certain crimes disproportionately affect the more rural areas of my patch. In High Lane, constituents have raised with me concerns about the impact that low-population density can have on criminals’ ability to commit crime. It makes sense if we think about it. It is easier to steal a quad bike or livestock if the barn they are kept in is several miles from the nearest neighbour.

The Minister and I have spoken before about the importance of neighbourhood policing—I think she and I agree on that—but I have spoken with local police officers from my patch who tell me they just do not have the resources or the tools to catch offenders, so too many of our communities are left to deal with the consequences. That is why we are pushing for a dedicated rural crime strategy, which is sorely needed.

As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) mentioned, we are not just talking about petty theft. Much of rural crime is driven by organised criminal gangs. According to the National Rural Crime Network, there are at least 22 active gangs stealing farm machinery, vehicles and GPS equipment and selling them on the black market, which contributed to a loss of over £4 million in 2023 alone. The gangs exploit the fact that police forces are stretched thinly, and often work across county and police force borders to evade capture. Criminals know that rural policing is underfunded and overstretched, so they take full advantage.

Freedom of information requests show that less than 1% of police officers in England and Wales are dedicated to specialist rural crime teams. Many police forces lack the basic tools they need, such as mobile ANPR cameras and rural drone kits, as others have mentioned. How can we expect our dedicated police to fight rural crime without the right resources?

The Countryside Alliance reports that nearly half of rural residents—49%—feel that the police do not take rural crime seriously enough, and two thirds think that reporting it is a waste of time. That is something I hear from my own constituents. Ian from Mellor reported repeated instances of people riding those irritating, illegal off-road bikes, terrorising his street. When his wife calls the police, she waits 20-plus minutes on hold each time, month after month, and nothing is seen to be done.

The Lib Dems will fight to keep rural communities safe and continue to give rural crime the attention that it deserves. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) on securing this important debate. He spoke with eloquence and clarity about the issues and some of the things that we Lib Dems would like to see happen to tackle these issues. I am particularly keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on my hon. Friend’s Rural Crime (Strategy) Bill.

There have been other strong contributions from Members today. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) made a really interesting point about the language we use when we talk about fly-tipping. I agree with him that the language we use can diminish the issue—there is a similar issue around shoplifting. It can almost sound like a little bit of fun rather than a really serious problem. Some really good work has been done on calling it “shop theft” rather than shoplifting. The hon. Gentleman also made interesting points about investigation and enforcement.

The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) commented on Chequers being a low-crime area. If I were a mischievous person, Ms McVey, I might make a comment about some of the people who have stayed over at Chequers in the past, but I am not a mischievous person so that point can be left to somebody else.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) made important points about police numbers and the importance of a co-ordinated and targeted approach. I thoroughly endorse her comments.

I was glad that the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) mentioned some of the hidden crimes, such as the sexual exploitation and domestic violence that occurs in rural communities. That was a really important point to make at that point in the debate.

The hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore)—and the villages, of course—talked about our brilliant rural communities taking matters into their own hands when they have to clean up after inconsiderate illegal fly-tipping.

The Lib Dems’ comprehensive plan to tackle rural crime includes establishing a permanent national rural crime co-ordinator to work across police forces and share best practice. We would embed a properly funded, dedicated rural crime team in every police force, which would include a single point of contact for local communities. At the very least, I urge the Government to provide specific rural crime training for police and 999 control room staff—including in metropolitan forces like my local Greater Manchester police—to increase access to the technology needed to detect and deter rural crime, and to streamline communications between rural crime offices and the communities they serve, including via WhatsApp for a quick intelligence-sharing reporting tool. That is what a real rural crime strategy would look like: real action, real funding and real support for our rural communities.