Crime and Policing Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Luke Taylor and Jack Rankin

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Rankin]

Clause 86 will criminalise the act of wearing or otherwise using an item as a face covering that conceals someone’s own identity or that of another person when in an area that the police have designated. A designation can be made only in relation to an area where the police reasonably believe that a protest may take place or is taking place, that the protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences, and that a designation would prevent or control the commission of offences. The offence will carry a maximum penalty of one month’s imprisonment, a £1,000 fine, or both.

Current legislation gives police the power to direct people to remove their face coverings in designated areas, as well as to seize face coverings where they reasonably believe people are wearing them wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing their identity. However, individuals can follow the direction of an officer to remove their face covering but then move to a new area and put the face covering back on. With growing frequency we have seen protesters using a face covering to conceal their identity, clearly with the aim of avoiding a conviction for criminal activity in a designated area.

Whether I or any individual hon. Member agrees with each protest is beside the point. The right to protest has long been at the heart of British democracy, but there are legitimate ways to protest and illegitimate ways to protest. In particular, since the onset of large-scale pro-Palestinian demonstrations, the Metropolitan police have made hundreds of arrests in connection with the protests. Those arrests encompass a range of offences, including breaches of Public Order Act conditions, public nuisance, assault of emergency workers and support for proscribed organisations. Notably, during the protest on 18 January 2025, over 70 individuals were arrested after attempting to breach the agreed protest conditions. The Metropolitan police described it as

“the highest number of arrests we have seen, in response to the most significant escalation in criminality.”

The cost of policing the protests is reaching enormous levels. The Standard reported in May last year that the cost in London had reached over £40 million, an average of £6 million a month between October 2023 and March 2024—eyewatering sums of money that I am sure most people and most Members of this House would prefer the police were using to crack down on shoplifting, mobile phone theft and violent crime.

The police put themselves in harm’s way to protect our precious right to protest and keep protesters safe as far as possible. The recent farmers’ protests against proposed inheritance tax reforms were an excellent example of public protest; as of April 2025 there have been no publicly reported arrests by the Metropolitan police in connection with them. The demonstrations, which commenced in November 2024, have been largely peaceful and co-ordinated with the authorities. For instance, on 1 March 2025, the Metropolitan police imposed conditions under the Public Order Act to prevent tractors from entering central London during the protest, a measure that was communicated in advance and adhered to by the organisers.

However, it is a sad reality that disruptive climate activist protests, antisemitic hate marches and far-right riots are increasingly accompanied by crime. Increasingly, cowards at those protests use face coverings and balaclavas to get away with crimes. Balaclavas intimidate the public, make law enforcement more difficult and embolden the wearer to commit crimes. In my view, face coverings have no place at protests in the overwhelming majority of cases. I strongly believe that those wishing to express a sincere, genuine view in a democracy—one they clearly feel strongly about—should be prepared to put their face to their opinions.

With crowds of the kind we are now used to seeing, particularly in London, the police increasingly have to rely on delivering justice after the fact using CCTV, iPhone or bodycam footage. Face coverings frustrate that process. A balaclava, a covid mask or any other type of face covering should not give people a free pass to commit crime. That is why I tabled amendment 51, which would require those wishing to wear a face covering within a designated protest area to register it with police before the event.

My concern with clause 86 is that those who wish to cause a problem will cover their face and make spurious claims. It is clear to most people with some common sense that, as it is currently drafted, with the defence of health, religious or work grounds able to be used, the clause will not have sufficient teeth. Amendment 51 in my name aims to shift the emphasis and prevent malicious actors from circumnavigating the well-intended clause.

A 2024 YouGov poll showed that 61% of the public would like to see a ban on Facebook groups where there is a clear intent to intimidate or to prevent police from identifying someone committing a crime. The public know that face coverings at protests are simply the tool of criminals. Let us give the police the real powers they need to tackle the issue. If people have genuine health, religious or work grounds for wearing a face covering, then working with the police and giving written notice will not be an issue for the law-abiding majority.

[Luke Taylor]

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?

[Jack Rankin]

I thank the hon. Member for his constructive question. The problem with this defence is that it will obviously be abused. People who are malicious will claim these things after the fact; my amendment is an attempt to change the emphasis slightly. I appreciate that there will be difficulties with enforcement, but the point is that people should have to do this in advance. People who are malicious will not do so, and will not be given permission, so the police can then take action, as opposed to a crime happening, only for the police to go to the CCTV footage of the moment and find that there is nothing to be done.

[Jack Rankin]

I appreciate the operational challenges; I would suggest that this would simply be automated online. My aim is to stop whole groups of protesters wearing masks. My view is that police should reject those applications if they are not legitimate, at which point they can treat it collectively as an offence.

I have a broader question for the Minister. I was thinking about when I would consider it legitimate to wear a mask at a protest. The only instance that I could think of—I am not saying that there are not more—is when, outside the Chinese embassy for example, those protesting what is happening in Hong Kong wish to protect themselves from being targeted by the Chinese state. With my amendment, those individuals should be able to declare that to the relevant police forces ahead of the event. I do wonder how we give proper protection to Hong Kong activists such as Tony Chung and Carmen Lau, who have both had threatening letters sent to their neighbours offering 1 million Hong Kong dollars— 100 grand in our currency—for information about them, or for delivering them to the Chinese embassy. Legitimate protest is in the great spirit of democracy and we need to ensure that we defend people exercising that right properly, particularly in this instance, which would be a legitimate use of face coverings.

[Luke Taylor]

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. 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.

Crime and Policing Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Luke Taylor and Jack Rankin

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Rankin]

I rise to speak to clause 45 and the principle running through the clauses that follow it. Clause 45 introduces a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse by establishing a legal obligation for individuals engaged in regulated activities with children, such as teachers and healthcare professionals, to report known instances of child sexual abuse to the police or local authorities.

Will the Minister consider the British Medical Association’s written evidence, which raised concerns about the scope of this duty? I disagree with the BMA, having read its evidence, but I want to explore it a little, so I hope the Minister might comment on it.

The BMA is worried that the Bill might compel healthcare professionals to disclose patient information to the police, potentially undermining the trust inherent in the doctor-patient relationship. In my view, that perspective seems to neglect the existing legal frameworks that already permit such disclosures in specific circumstances, particularly when public safety is at risk. In fact, the General Medical Council’s guidance allows for breaching confidentiality to prevent serious harm or crime, indicating that the Bill’s provisions are not as unprecedented as the BMA might suggest.

Furthermore, the BMA’s apprehensions do not sufficiently consider the potential benefits of the Bill in facilitating a more integrated approach to preventing serious violence. By enabling appropriate information-sharing between healthcare providers and law enforcement, we can create a more robust system for identifying and mitigating threats to public safety. The BMA’s focus on confidentiality, in my view, should be weighed against the imperatives of protecting individuals and communities from harm.

Most importantly—I was concerned to read this, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments—the BMA says it is concerned that 15-year-olds who are engaged in what it terms “consensual sexual activity” with someone over the age of 18 will be “flooding the system”. My understanding of the law is that 15-year-olds cannot consent to sexual activity with 18-year-olds, and I find it concerning that a professional body is choosing to interpret this country’s laws on sexual consent in this way. Perhaps the Minister might comment on that in her closing remarks. The age at which I understand people can legally consent to sexual activity is 16 in this country. The BMA should know that, understand the law and have a duty to uphold it.

The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse was clear on this recommendation, and the Crime and Policing Bill seeks to enhance public safety through judicious information-sharing. The existing ethical and legal safeguards governing medical confidentiality remain intact, and it is crucial that GPs and medical professionals take seriously their duty towards children, as that is what 15-year-olds are.

The international experience of mandatory reporting laws has already demonstrated the effectiveness of including reasonable suspicion as a trigger for reporting. For instance, the introduction of such laws in Australia led to increased reporting, without a corresponding rise in malicious reports. This suggests that professionals can responsibly handle the duty to report suspicions, contributing to more robust child protection systems.

Amendment 43 could address the under-reporting of child sexual abuse. Research has indicated that child sexual abuse is significantly under-reported, with many victims not disclosing their experience at the time of abuse. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse highlighted that a cultural shift is needed to make discussions about child sexual abuse less taboo. By tabling amendment 43, our intention is to signal our commitment to fostering an environment in which suspicions are taken seriously and professionals are encouraged to report concerns without fear of reprisal.

I commend amendment 43 to the Committee.

[Luke Taylor]

We welcome the clauses in this group, but I have a simple question about clauses 45 and 47. Why does the Bill not go further than the Conservative Government’s Criminal Justice Bill did in 2024? It could include the IICSA recommendation that observing recognised indicators of child sexual abuse be a reason to suspect. Can the Minister give an explanation of why that key finding of the Jay report is not included in the Bill and whether opportunities are being missed to go that little bit further?

I also agree with amendment 43. Obviously, in some recent high-profile cases, the belief that something had been reported by another person was notoriously used to explain why there had not been further reporting. This would provide a backstop to prevent that explanation from being used to absolve an individual of their responsibilities.

Crime and Policing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Luke Taylor and Jack Rankin

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Taylor]

We welcome measures to combat fly-tipping. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset has already mentioned, the problem is particularly concerning for rural landowners and farmers, who often have to deal with the cost of this environmental crime on their land. Amendment 4 intends to give parliamentary oversight and democratic control over the guidance. That is a good thing, which we should all support. However, I understand the concerns about delays. I think there is a balance between accountability, parliamentary approval and delays. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I am glad to see clause 9 because, as several hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have mentioned, fly-tipping is a particular problem in many rural constituencies. In Berkshire, where the majority of my seat lies, there were 7,700 instances of fly-tipping in 2023-24. We are a small county, but that is 20 reports a day. In the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, where most of my constituency is, the figure rose to 1,902 in the past year, which is up 52% on the year before, when we had 1,249. The issue is of greater prevalence than in the past, and I welcome the Government including clauses to try to make a difference.

We have also seen a change in the nature of fly-tipping. Two or three years ago, in Berkshire, most of it was on council land, in car parks or parks, in the hope that the local authority might pick it up, but now we see what might be called smaller-scale highways incidents, with the dumping of waste on public roads, pavements or grass verges. In the past year, 778 of the 900 instances in the royal borough consisted of what were described as a car boot or less. To me, that indicates a prevalence of individuals or waste from small-scale dumpsters, perhaps from small businesses—perhaps we are seeing fewer large-scale illegal waste operations. I put that very much in the bucket of antisocial behaviour.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West and the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said, that is a particular concern to local farmers. I will quote Colin Rayner, a constituent of mine and a farmer. I will first declare an interest, that Colin is a personal friend and the president of Windsor Conservatives, but he is well placed and I pick him for his expertise rather than my relationship with him. To quote the Maidenhead Advertiser, he said that

“the family farms have incidents of fly-tipping every day, from a bag of garden waste to lorry loads of waste…‘We have made our farms into medieval forts to try to reduce large loads of waste been tipped on the farms’.”

He has also spoken to me about the cost to his business of extra security and, indeed, of the cleaning up.

That last point is why I welcome the amendment moved by the Opposition to make the cost sit with the offender and not with the landowner. It is not appropriate that Mr Rayner and his companies pay; the person who is offending should. Also, new clause 24 on driving licences, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, seems to be a way to get at just such small-scale operations. That might be something that is tangible and real to a small business or an individual doing the fly-tipping. I absolutely welcome the amendment and the new clause.

When the guidance comes forward, I encourage the Minister to be as tough as possible—which I think is her intent, but perhaps she will speak to that in her wind-up. We should use the power to search and seize vehicles in the case of persistent offenders. I want to see serious fixed penalty notices for people caught fly-tipping, and I want extra powers of investigation and prosecution. I will welcome the Minister’s comments.