Peers debate extending assault protections to taxi drivers and other public-facing workers in Crime and Policing Bill
- Perry Richardson
- 8 hours ago
- 3 min read
A House of Lords debate on the Crime and Policing Bill has highlighted concerns that taxi drivers and other transport workers could be left without the same legal protections being proposed for retail staff.
During the debate on 4 March, peers discussed an amendment that sought to extend a new offence of assaulting a retail worker to cover all public-facing workers, including transport staff such as taxi drivers.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston introduced Amendment 359, which proposed creating a broader offence of assaulting a “public-facing worker at work”. The amendment would have widened the scope beyond retail staff to include workers providing services to the public in locations such as public transport, commercial premises and other customer-facing environments.
Speaking during the debate, Stowell argued that violence against workers interacting with the public was rising across multiple sectors and should not be treated differently depending on the job. She told the House that research by the Institute of Customer Service found 42% of customer-facing workers had experienced abuse in the previous six months.
Proposal to widen new assault offence sparks discussion about safety risks faced by taxi drivers and transport staff
Peers repeatedly referenced transport workers when highlighting potential gaps in the proposed legislation. Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Hogan-Howe specifically mentioned taxi drivers among groups that regularly face confrontation from passengers.
He told the House: “People who work in transport, such as taxi drivers… face people who are often affected by drink or drugs, for example, and have to challenge bad behaviour, but they do not receive this protection.”
The discussion comes amid wider industry concerns about violence and abuse faced by drivers operating late-night and passenger-facing services. Taxi drivers regularly deal with intoxicated passengers, fare disputes and enforcement of rules such as refusing service or ending a journey when behaviour becomes threatening.
Labour peer Lord Hendy also supported the amendment, highlighting rising violence against transport workers. He cited British Transport Police data showing a 21% increase in incidents involving violence against staff between April and November 2025 compared with the previous year.
According to survey data referenced in the debate, nearly two-thirds of public transport workers reported experiencing workplace violence in the past year, with many incidents linked to staff enforcing rules such as fares or ticketing.
Lord Hendy warned that restricting new protections to retail workers could create inconsistency in the law. He noted that workers in similar public-facing roles could experience the same incident but receive different legal treatment depending on their occupation.
The Government rejected the proposal, arguing that existing legislation already covers assaults against public-facing workers. Home Office minister Lord Hanson of Flint said offences such as common assault and aggravated assault under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 already apply when victims are providing a service to the public.
Hanson said the specific offence for retail workers was being introduced because shop staff frequently enforce age-restricted sales laws and face rising levels of shop theft. The measure also fulfils a Labour manifesto commitment following long-running campaigns by retail unions and businesses.
“Public-facing workers… are covered under existing legislation,” Hanson said, adding that the 2022 Act allows courts to treat assaults on workers serving the public as an aggravating factor when sentencing.
However, several peers argued that creating a specific offence for one sector could send the wrong signal to workers in other frontline roles.
Baroness Doocey, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, warned that limiting the measure to retail staff risks suggesting that other public-facing workers “somehow count for less”.
For taxi drivers and other transport workers, the debate reflects ongoing concerns about safety and the adequacy of legal protections when dealing with abusive or violent passengers.
The amendment was ultimately defeated after a vote in the Lords, with 132 peers voting against and 129 in favour, meaning the Bill will continue to provide a stand-alone offence specifically for assaults on retail workers rather than all public-facing staff.
The narrow margin of the vote indicates the issue of protections for transport workers, including taxi drivers, is likely to remain a topic of discussion as the legislation continues its passage through Parliament.
