Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Police Presence on High Streets
(2 days, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered police presence on high streets.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, for a debate on such an important issue. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this debate, and I thank the Members from all parties who supported my application.
My constituency, which covers Erdington, Kingstanding, Castle Vale and south Oscott, routinely suffers from one of the highest crime rates in Birmingham, but let me be clear: crime is not inevitable. It is the result of choices to cut policing and to neglect communities—choices made in the corridors of power. The previous Government made the choice to slash 21,000 officers, the choice to hollow out neighbourhood policing, and the choice to tell communities, “You’re on your own.” When crime tears through families and destroys lives, it is not just the victims who are affected but the entire community.
Our high streets are not immune; they become battle- grounds where livelihoods are stolen. We owe it to every parent, every shop worker and every pensioner who just wants to walk their high street without fear to end this blight. When I was elected in March 2022, Erdington High Street was a symbol of neglect—a place where crime had festered, where shopkeepers feared for their stock, and where families no longer felt safe to walk. The statistics were stark: antisocial behaviour, drug dealing and violent crime had cost our economy an estimated £7 million annually. Our high streets are the beating heart of our communities, yet for too long they have been treated as an afterthought, so I made it my mission—a promise to my community—that we would take back Erdington High Street from the crime and antisocial behaviour that had plagued it for too long.
Here is the truth: change is possible. It does not come easily, but it comes when good people stand up and fight for their community. As a nurse, I learned that prevention is always better than cure, and as an MP I have seen the cost of ignoring that lesson. We took action, working with residents, community groups and traders, and launched a relentless campaign to take the challenges of Erdington High Street head on. We organised, mobilised and made our voices impossible to ignore. In meeting after meeting, we stood shoulder to shoulder with local businesses, community groups and fed-up residents who delivered one clear message to those in power: Erdington deserves better.
And do you know what? They heard us. Working with West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner Simon Foster and Chief Constable Craig Guildford, we secured £880,000 from the proceeds of crime fund, and in January this year Operation Fearless was launched under the incredible leadership of Detective Superintendent Jim Munro and Inspector Shameem Ahmed. The results speak for themselves: over 140 arrests, including drug dealers, violent offenders and those carrying zombie knives, and even a live firearm; 124 stop and searches in two months, with 45 positive outcomes, getting weapons off the streets; a 25-year-old jailed for four years for class A drug supply—proof that justice works when we fund it. Operation Fearless was not just about enforcement; it was about partnerships.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The hon. Member is making an important point about funding. The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland wrote to the Prime Minister last August asking for more funding, because His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services had recognised that our police service was 400 neighbourhood police officers short. Does she agree that such issues should not be shrugged off as operational matters but are the result of political decisions over the years that have resulted in less funding for our police service?
Paulette Hamilton
The hon. Member makes an absolutely brilliant point and hits the nail on the head. Funding is key and if it is not given, we cannot get the same results. We cannot get the same results if we do not have the resources to achieve them.
We worked with Birmingham city council, the Erdington business improvement district, trading standards and local businesses to remove graffiti, clean shutters and restore pride to our high street. I extend especial thanks to Caroline Anson Earp, the community safety partnership manager, for her incredible work on our high street. Today, traders report fewer thefts, shoppers feel safer and the buzz of community life has returned. Traders who once feared for their safety say that the difference is night and day.
As Operation Fearless takes its proven model to the next struggling community, a new era begins for Erdington High Street. Thanks to our new dedicated high street team, six officers and a sergeant maintain visible patrols. We are not just preserving progress; we are securing lasting change.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Did Operation Fearless include the use of live facial recognition, which the Metropolitan police used in Southwark recently to catch a previously convicted sex offender who was in breach of a court order and wandering around Denmark Hill with a six-year-old? He is now safely back in jail. Does she, like me, welcome the extension of the use of live facial recognition?
Paulette Hamilton
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I absolutely agree with the use of facial recognition where we can get it. In Erdington, we did not have facial recognition, but I do think that it is a good thing.
We cannot stop here; although Labour’s pledge of 13,000 more police officers is welcome, we must go further. Every high street deserves a named and contactable police officer, so that communities know who is fighting for them. We need to be bolder to establish partnerships with councils, communities, schools, youth services and those who serve them, because policing alone will not fix systemic failure.
I also pay tribute to our retail workers, such as the heroes of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers’ Freedom From Fear campaign, who fought abuse for 20 years. These workers, who are often women and often young, should not have had to endure threats just for doing their job. Operation Fearless has shown that with the right resources, we can protect them.
The lesson of Operation Fearless is clear: when we invest, listen and act, change happens. But this is not just Erdington’s fight. From Bristol to Bolton, high streets are crying out for the same type of hope. Erdington’s story proves that change is possible. Let us be clear that this issue is not just about one high street. It is about every community fighting for safety and pride; it is about recognising that policing must be visible, proactive and rooted in partnership; and it is about whether we believe every community deserves safety, dignity and a future. I believe they do.
To the Minister I say, let us build on the success of actions like Operation Fearless. Let us make sure the 13,000 new officers actually reach the frontline and that every high street has a named, contactable officer. Let us fund real partnerships, not just patrols. Let us stand firmly with retail workers and let us never forget that safe high streets are the foundation of strong communities.
I end with the words of a shopkeeper in Erdington:
“For the first time in years, I feel hopeful.”
That hope, that belief in better, is what we must deliver for every high street in Britain.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I will start by imposing an informal limit of four minutes on speeches. There are plenty of you here who can fill the time, so we are keen for you to get on with it. I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is a privilege to be here with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) on securing the debate. Some people might look at this debate and think that this is not really the most important thing in life, but our constituents want to be able to go down their shopping streets without the fear of any threats. They want to shop calmly without seeing the shelves stripped of goods, being threatened and watching shop- keepers pinned against walls. What they want is policing, which is their right.
With the time limit there will not be enough time to cover everything. Police numbers are always the issue, but we should look at what took place in New York at one particular point. The key rule is not just more police, but more effective police. It is the effectiveness that I want to dwell on. Even when we have the police numbers, effectiveness is often not the priority. I have had a series of issues over the high streets in my constituency. One is in the Broadway in Woodford and the other one is in Station Road. A key element in a lot of these shopping areas is the position of the larger shops such as Boots, the Co-op or Tesco—the shops that bring people on to local shopping streets to get things. But then people go off to the smaller shops, so it is important for trade to get the balance right.
The problem is that there are gangs now on the street sending people in—they walk in; they do not run. I have seen them strip between £3,000, £5,000 and £10,000 of goods off the shelves in Boots, or the Co-op. They go into all the big shops and they are photographed, but we discovered the other day that the shops had given up on sending that data to the police. As a result, the police said they did not think that this was a priority area because they did not get a full record of the crime. If the shops do not go to the police, the police do not record the crime and do not put police on the street. Without police on the street, crime increases and the likelihood of it being reported gets less and less. That is not down to the small shops, because they are the ones that bear the brunt of the violence. It is the big shops and the chains.
We held a meeting the other day with three or four of the big shops in Station Road. When I say “big”, they are small, local versions of Amazon and other shops, such as Boots and so on. We discovered that not one of them was bothering to record any of the crime or to get it to the police. When we spoke to the police, they said, “We have had no record of this.” That is not to say they do not know that crime is taking place—they do—but the reality is they work on the statistics. We asked the shops, “Why are you not reporting the crime?”, and a manager said, “We are not rewarded for it by the big shops. The truth at the end of it all is that we do not see any return.”
We have now instigated a system where we have set up a WhatsApp group for shopkeepers on the street so they can report the crime in the small shops. They say they will report the crime, provided the police actually react to it, come on to the street and make arrests. There is a third element to this. The police often get disenchanted about it, because when they arrest these people and take them away, they get released pretty quickly as there is no space for their case—they are often back on the streets the same day as they were arrested. The issue is more effective policing. We asked them to go on to the street in civilian clothes, because the offenders just move around when the police are there in uniform. The police did that and they made a series of arrests, which sent a shockwave through the gangs.
The point that I will end with is that there is a huge amount to be done, but antisocial behaviour—of which shoplifting is a critical component—is arguably the most dangerous element on our streets. As the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington said, if we lose control of that, drug dealing and gangs take over. Shoplifting should be the priority. Make our streets safe and there is fair chance we will be able to catch the big criminals later on.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I will be putting in a formal four-minute limit, which means that Members will be cut off after four minutes. Can Members try to get their speeches in within that time, so we can ensure everyone gets to speak?
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing this important debate. I remember campaigning alongside her in her by-election, and this issue being raised by constituents, who, in her, are now fortunate to have such a steadfast advocate.
Over the past decade, too many of our town centres and high streets have been gripped by antisocial behaviour, theft and shoplifting. It was often dismissed by the previous Government as merely low-level crime, but there is nothing low-level about the impact these crimes have on the communities left to deal with the consequences, often alone. My constituency of Cannock Chase is home to people who care deeply about their community, but too many of them now tell me they feel unsafe on our high streets. When people no longer feel safe where they live, work or shop, we risk losing more than just footfall: we risk losing our sense of identity altogether.
People are not asking for the world; they are asking for the basics: to feel safe walking home, to be secure at work, and to let their children go out with their friends without fear. A recurring issue is shoplifting, especially in Cannock town centre. In the two years prior to the general election, shoplifting rose by more than 60%, leaving retail workers feeling frightened and unprotected. Cannock’s shoplifting rate currently stands at nearly three times the national average. Shopkeepers and store managers have told my team that they feel intimidated when large groups of young people gather and go into shops all at once. Some talked about how helpless they felt in the face of shoplifting, which has got to the point where it is actually endangering the future of their business.
The British Retail Consortium’s 2023-24 annual crime survey laid bare the scale of the crisis. Retail workers endured 124 incidents of violence or abuse every single day, yet only 32% of those incidents were reported, and only 10% led to police attendance. That is simply unacceptable. I welcome the measures in the new Crime and Policing Bill, including the long overdue creation of a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker. I particularly pay tribute to USDAW and the Co-operative party, of which I am a member, for their long years of unwavering campaigning for this vital change to the law.
In Hednesford, two young men recently stopped me to raise their concerns about gangs loitering in town centres and parks. They told me how intimidating it felt to walk past all of these groups. Between September 2023 and 2024, there were 587 recorded incidents of antisocial behaviour across my constituency. These are not just statistics—they are the lived experiences of people who have been driven away from our high streets. We will never be able to rebuild our communities when people feel that way.
Recognising the scale of the problem, a new public spaces protection order has come into force, and I commend the Government for taking steps through the Crime and Policing Bill, including targeted provisions to restore safety and confidence in our communities. But let me be clear: these are more than just headlines. In February, a group of teenagers were robbed in Cannock town centre. One of them—a 15-year-old boy—had his phone, watch, bank card and coat taken. Three of his friends also had their phones stolen. No young person should have to go through that.
Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of welcoming pupils from Kingsmead school into Parliament. They did not just bring enthusiasm—sadly, they also brought concerns. Many of them shared their worries about a rise in phone thefts by people riding e-scooters. This is not unique to Cannock; it is happening in town centres across the country. Elderly residents have told me how frightening it is to be approached by fast-moving, illegally ridden scooters, especially when they cannot move out of the way in time. Crimes like this may seem minor on paper, but their cumulative effect is devastating. They create an atmosphere where people feel unsafe, uncared for and overlooked.
Cuts to neighbourhood policing have taken a heavy toll. Trust in the police has plummeted. We hear time and again that when something goes wrong, people feel that nobody will come. I welcome the steps the Government are taking, and I will continue pushing for safer high streets for my constituents, because they have the right to feel secure where they live, work and shop. Our message is clear: we need visible policing and real opportunity for young people, to draw them into jobs, not gangs. This is not just about being tough on crime; it is about being strong on community, on prevention and on justice.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss.
I have never seen so many police officers in Huntingdon high street as were on patrol the afternoon that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary came to my constituency to announce the neighbourhood policing plan. Due to the police allocation formula, Cambridgeshire’s entire allocation of the 13,000 officers is just 30 new warranted officers over the remaining four years of this Parliament. Across eight constituencies, that is fewer than four officers each—one officer per constituency per year.
Presumably, the starting state for the 13,000 is the number of police officers in 2023, when the pledge was made. That was 141,760. In the year to March 2023, we recruited 16,300 officers; in the year to March 2024, we recruited 9,479 officers, a fluctuation of nearly 7,000. What are the intra-year recruitment figures, and how will recruitment targets fluctuate with natural churn?
In March, the Home Secretary stated to me that the redeployment of 3,000 officers from other duties would involve
“redeploying existing police officers and backfilling by recruiting other officers to take their posts.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 678.]
The Home Secretary does not have operational control of police officers, so when will she outline how that will work in practice? Which police forces will be forced to redeploy officers, and how many will each need to redeploy? What other services will suffer while new officers are recruited to take the place of more experienced officers?
In April, the Metropolitan police announced swingeing cuts as a result of pressures from the Chancellor’s Budget. The Royal Parks police is being disbanded, as are officers in schools; the dogs unit is being slashed by 7% and the mounted branch by 25%; the MO7 taskforce, which tackles moped and e-bike robbers as well as gang-related crime, is being reduced by 55%; and cold case investigations are to be cut by 11%. The Met is also cutting 20% of the flying squad and potentially removing its firearms capability.
Even after a £1 billion cash injection by the Mayor of London, the Met still has a £260 million shortfall and will cut 1,700 officers, staff and police community support officers. In December, Sir Mark Rowley suggested that it might have to cut 2,300 officers. The Mayor claims that his cash injection has saved 935 of those roles, so presumably the remaining 1,350-odd are frontline officers.
Last Friday, six police chiefs went over the head of the Home Secretary and appealed directly to the Prime Minister. They stated:
“A settlement that fails to address our inflation and pay pressures flat would entail stark choices about which crimes we no longer prioritise. The policing and NCA workforce would also shrink each year.”
Neil Coyle
I will start with a cheeky one: does the hon. Gentleman welcome the recruitment of PC Coyle to Durham constabulary? One of the new recruits under this Government is a family member—my brother— of whom I am very proud. Does he also welcome the combined £300 million of support from central Government and the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to the Met to try to address some of the challenges he is outlining?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I absolutely welcome that additional funding, but the point that I would most like to make— I have made it previously—is that the police allocation formula, which determines how much funding each of our police forces receives, is grossly unfair. Constituencies like mine in Cambridgeshire do not receive a fair allocation of the overall pot. I will press the Policing Minister: as she well knows, because we have had a lot of conversations about this, I encourage her to revise that next year.
Neil Coyle
This Government inherited that formula from the Conservative Government. Does the hon. Gentleman think it is a bit naive to suggest that there is a fair balance in policing responsibilities when the capital’s police force runs counter-terrorism operations for the whole country?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I believe that it is remunerated budgetarily in order to cover that.
Ben Obese-Jecty
But, I agree, not enough, and the police allocation formula would do well to look at policing as a whole so that every constituency gets its fair share of police funding. As we all know, the population has grown, and the police allocation formula is from 2014. I met the last Government when I was still a candidate to ask them to review the formula, and I press the new Government to do the same.
Ben Obese-Jecty
They did as much work on it as the hon. Gentleman’s Government have.
That reduction in police strength comes before we consider the fact that the numbers that the Home Secretary based her calculations on were completely wrong in the first place, as the Government announced, very quietly, on 19 March. Of the 43 forces in England and Wales, 29 advised that their published combined neighbourhood officer and PCSO numbers should be revised down. That resulted in an overall downwards revision of 2,611 compared with the figures published last year. In total, that, plus the 1,350 from the Met and the 7,000 annual fluctuation, means that the 13,000 figure looks a lot more like 24,000. Can the Minister outline why the baseline figure of 13,000 has not been revised since it was first announced in February 2023—even to account for the shortfall caused by miscounting?
The general public deserve to have police that are resourced to protect the communities they serve. My constituents deserve to have their fair share of police officers, not a token amount based on a police allocation formula that is years out of date.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing a debate on something that is clearly so important to so many of our constituents. Like other Members here, among the top issues in my inbox, and that were raised with me during my campaign, are how safe people feel on our high streets and the impact that crime has on our community. In Kettering, our high streets are the beating hearts of our neighbourhoods, where people should feel safe walking to school, going to work, doing their weekly shopping and investing in our local economy. However, for too long our town centres have been blighted by crime such as antisocial behaviour and shoplifting, leaving members of the public feeling intimidated and unsafe in town centres, local parks and neighbourhoods.
My constituents have contacted me to say that they have seen people trashing shops, stealing and being abusive to staff on our high streets. They worry that when crimes like that are reported, too often there is no follow-up, no investigation and no deterrent. Unfortunately, the previous Government considered that low-level behaviour and cut neighbourhood policing. We felt that in Kettering, as what was once a police station in the heart of our high street turned into a derelict building.
Police forces across the country have faced financial and operational challenges in recent years. I want to take a moment to pay tribute to the hard work of local police officers in Kettering. I know that officers are working hard on Operation Napery and hope to see the positive outcomes of that work.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Shipley Market Square in my constituency is having a major facelift, but to attract shoppers back into the town centre we know that we need to make it safe. I commend my local officers, Inspector Tany Ditta and his team, for the amazing work they do. Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising that the Labour Government’s commitment to increase neighbourhood policing will allow more patrols on streets in Shipley and in places that she represents?
Rosie Wrighting
Yes, absolutely. I will say more about that in my speech.
We cannot have a conversation about policing on our high streets without talking about retail crime. In March, when Geek Retreat in Kettering was targeted, a brick was thrown through the window and eggs were smashed on the shop front. Retailers up and down the high street spoke of similar experiences of shoplifting and antisocial behaviour and the lengths to which they have to go to mitigate it. One shop reallocated shifts to prevent more vulnerable members of staff being intimidated at closing time.
It is unacceptable that over 2,000 incidents of violence or abuse towards retail workers are reported every single day. As someone who started their career in retail working on a shop floor in Kettering, I know the impact of intimidation and what it can do to someone who is just trying to do their job.
Retailers have spent a record £1.8 billion on crime prevention measures in just one year in the UK. Local businesses in Kettering, which are the backbone of our economy, should not have to invest in private security, additional shutters or panic buttons just to stay afloat. We need to create high streets where people, their families and their businesses can thrive. I know that my constituents will be glad to hear the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to our high streets today.
I stood on a manifesto that included a five-point plan for high streets, pledging to tackle antisocial behaviour with 13,000 more neighbourhood police and PCSOs by 2029. Those manifesto pledges have become the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill, which introduces the biggest package of measures on crime and policing in decades, with 50 new laws, including giving police and others stronger powers by introducing respect orders to stamp out antisocial behaviour.
This debate is about not just crime statistics or police funding, but how we can protect what we value most in our communities: the right of everyone in Kettering and all our constituencies to feel safe where they live and work.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) on securing the debate and on her excellent speech. I once lived in Erdington, and her constituents have a wonderful advocate in her. I hope I can call her a friend.
As all hon. Members agree, a visible police presence is essential to tackling crime on our streets and high streets. That is why I took the Mayor of London to court and stopped him from closing my local police station in the heart of Wimbledon, and why my constituents are still concerned about its long-term future. After a recent stabbing near a Co-op in Wimbledon, I received a letter from Jack, a pupil at Holy Trinity primary, who wrote:
“The relationship between local police officers and the community they serve is built on proximity and familiarity, and losing this presence could erode the sense of security we currently enjoy.”
When a young person feels the need to write to their MP about such matters, we should all take notice.
Years of cuts have eroded the link between the police and the public. Despite an increase in Government funding in the current police grant, it still falls short of the minimum that chief constables said they needed. For example, the Met, which serves Wimbledon, faces a £130 million shortfall. Just this week, Sir Mark Rowley and other police chiefs wrote to the Prime Minister to warn that, without proper funding, there will be “far-reaching consequences”. In short, these funding shortfalls risk undermining public confidence and the police’s ability to deter everyday crime.
Admittedly, the Home Secretary tried to reassure the Home Affairs Committee, on which I sit, two days ago that neighbourhood policing in London was safe, but sadly we have heard such reassurances before. It has now emerged that neighbourhood policing figures were artificially inflated under the Tories, with the Home Office now admitting that it over-reported numbers. In fact, England and Wales have more than 6,000 fewer neighbourhood officers than the Home Office previously claimed. Our communities were told they were better protected, but they knew that they were not. Nowhere is that more visible than on our high streets. In Wimbledon, there is now no dedicated town centre team, only a neighbourhood team stretched across a larger area. Without visible and trusted neighbourhood policing, crime flourishes and communities are left exposed.
We know that the demands of a busy town centre, retail crime, antisocial behaviour and the night-time economy exceed those of a residential neighbourhood, yet under the Met’s new ward shake up, there is still no confirmed timescale for when police teams will be redeployed, and there is no guarantee that high streets like Wimbledon’s will have dedicated officers. That is why the Liberal Democrat councillors in my area are campaigning for a dedicated town centre policing team in Wimbledon and a local policing hub in Old Malden, along with initiatives such as a town centre pop-up on Friday and Saturday nights and a night-time safety street stall. Those practical steps would restore safety, visibility and trust, but so far nothing has been done by the Labour-run Merton council to address Wimbledon’s policing needs.
I hope that Jack’s words ring loudly in the ears of the Government. If a child is asking who will protect them on their local high street and we cannot give them a clear answer, the system is broken and we must fix it together.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing this important debate.
Our high streets are key hubs in our communities, and it matters that people feel safe there, but unfortunately, during 14 years of Conservative austerity, we saw catastrophic cuts to the police service and the demise of neighbourhood policing. As that police presence on our high streets dwindled, we saw a significant increase in crime and a skyrocketing of antisocial behaviour statistics. To name just a few examples, that includes street drinking and drug use, retail theft and the abuse of shop workers.
Almost 444,000 shoplifting offences were recorded by the police in England and Wales in 2023-24, which is a record high, and the number of shop workers facing abuse and violence is ever increasing. As others have referenced, USDAW’s most recent survey of its members in 2024 indicated that violence against shop workers nearly doubled from the previous year, with 10% of respondents stating that they had been assaulted, 77% stating that they had experienced verbal abuse and 53% stating that they had been threatened by a customer.
I spoke to managers and workers from the Co-op in Caddington in my constituency, who told me about their experience of being subject to awful violence. I fully support USDAW’s Freedom From Fear campaign for shop workers, because everyone has the right to feel safe at work. That is why, among 50 new measures in our flagship Crime and Policing Bill, I am proud that we will protect our high streets and the people who work and shop there by ending the effective immunity for anyone caught shoplifting goods below £200, and by introducing a new criminal offence to better protect retail workers from assault.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Does the hon. Lady recognise that if we make that a criminal offence, those cases will go to the Crown courts, which are all completely blocked? That allows people more time and is more likely to incentivise them to plead not guilty, because they know that buys them time. With shoplifting, we want to get them in quickly and ensure that they are prosecuted immediately, which I worry will not be the case unless we find another way—perhaps upping the magistrates courts.
Rachel Hopkins
The right hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. The measure will act as a deterrent, but I am sure the Minister has heard his well-made point.
Our safer streets mission is at the heart of this Government, and our neighbourhood policing guarantee will ensure that each neighbourhood has a named, contactable officer, which will help to restore trust. It will also include guaranteed police patrols in town centres and hotspots at peak times, as well as a dedicated antisocial behaviour lead in every force.
Great work is already being done in my constituency of Luton South and South Bedfordshire to restore faith in neighbourhood policing and increase the presence on our high streets through the Luton town centre taskforce, whereby Bedfordshire police works in collaboration with the Labour-led Luton borough council, the Luton BID, Luton Point and the Culture Trust, holding frequent patrols in an effort to make our town centre a safe and welcoming place for all. In the last two weeks alone, those efforts have been extremely successful, with the arrest of five suspected drug dealers in and around the town centre and over £4,000 in cash seized, as well as class A and class B drugs and knives. I take this opportunity to thank all those working on the frontline.
Town centre patrols will be ramped up further over the summer months, with Bedfordshire police expanding its team to combat drug offences, serious violence, thefts, begging, street drinking, noise nuisance, male violence against women and girls and exploitation via its Operation Foresight. I pay tribute to the work of our Labour police and crime commissioner in Bedfordshire, John Tizard. With his police and crime strategy for 2025-28, he committed to reinvigorating and strengthening local policing and police presence, with a particular emphasis on officers being visible and accessible to the public specifically in hotspot areas and on town centre patrols.
Like other hon. Members, I cannot talk about police presence without talking about police funding, and I am very grateful to the Minister for our previous conversations. All our efforts to make streets safer cannot be achieved without more funding for our police forces to ensure that they have the necessary resources. I campaigned for many years on that issue, and the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) also spoke about funding earlier. I am pleased that this Labour Government have demonstrated a commitment to safer streets and more police in our communities as part of our core funding settlement. Bedfordshire police has been awarded £67.8 million, an increase of 6.6%, as well as £1.8 million in the neighbourhood policing guarantee funding for 2025-26.
Ben Obese-Jecty
As a Bedfordshire MP, does the hon. Lady agree that the south-east allowance that both Bedfordshire police and Hertfordshire police receive should be extended to Cambridgeshire police as part of the tri-force area, so that all three branches are paid equally for their work in that area, given that my officers serve in Bedfordshire as well?
Rachel Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, and I will take the opportunity to reference the tri-force initiative that was brought about by a previous Labour police and crime commissioner, Olly Martins. I know that his initiative to get the three forces working together, particularly on specialist crime, has been instrumental in the point that I am about to move on to.
Our Labour Government have provided an additional £7.3 million in special grant funding. That will ensure continued support for key frontline operations, including Operation Costello, which aims to tackle serious and organised crime, and Boson, which targets guns, gun crime and youth violence in hotspot areas, including in Cambridgeshire through the tri-force initiative.
For too long, people have felt unsafe on their high streets. I support our Labour Government’s determination to tackle these issues head on, so that people in Luton South and South Bedfordshire and across the country see law and order restored and feel all the better for it.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I will have to reduce the time limit to three minutes. If people want to intervene, I ask them to be very brief so that we can get everyone in.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing this important debate. She is a doughty champion for her constituents, who are lucky to have her. Whoever we are in this room, as MPs, we have probably at some point had an email from constituents asking about increased police presence on our high streets.
I am very lucky. I have Kilburn High Road in my constituency, which I share half and half with my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould). Ms Furniss, if you have not been to Kilburn High Road, you are missing out. It is affectionately called County Kilburn because of the thriving Irish community; we have a thriving Somali community on the other side as well. We serve Afghan food from Ariana and we have the award winning Kiln theatre. We have community festivals at Kilburn Grange Park, which hon. Members are also very welcome to attend.
But last month, we had six stabbings on Kilburn High Road and the community is shaken. I spoke to one of my residents, who says she never wanted to see what she saw—her neighbour being stabbed outside his corner shop, just because he tried to confront a shoplifter who was stealing food from the shop that he owns. One of the businessmen who I spoke to said, “It doesn’t feel like Kilburn any more.” A young mother who I spoke to said, “After 4 pm, I am scared to walk across and fetch my child from nursery because of the recent stabbings.”
The truth is that stabbings are not just a physical thing. They undermine community spirit and community resilience, and have a huge impact on the mental health of our community. Yesterday, my hon. Friend for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale and I went to the One Kilburn meeting. The community has come together under the leadership of Ajay, Stephane, Alan and Josie to reassure the community that we are here for them. There is an increase in community police officers on the high street—they do a fantastic job—but that cannot be a temporary measure. We have to make the community in Kilburn feel safe all the time.
I welcome the Government’s neighbourhood policing guarantee, because it could not come sooner for our constituents. I say to the Minister, who I know is excellent at her job, that we have to have a guarantee that the scheme’s funding will be protected not just for all hon. Members in this room, but for all my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate, especially on Kilburn High Road.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing the debate.
It is a great honour for me to represent Bexleyheath and Crayford in Parliament. I was a councillor in the last Labour cabinet in Bexley, 20 years ago, when Ken Livingstone and Tony Blair launched neighbourhood policing in our borough. We saw the great impact that had on communities on the ground in the area I represent.
It is also a great honour for me because my first job during my 11 years in frontline retail was in the Marks and Spencer branch in Bexleyheath in my constituency. In my latter days in Marks and Sparks as a store manager, believe me, I saw and experienced many of the things that we have heard about today at first hand, including wrestling shoplifters to the ground.
When cuts to public services are made, as they were under the Tory Government when I first started at M&S in the early ’90s, and when there is rising poverty, that is when shoplifting and those frontline issues increase. It is an absolute mission of this Labour Government to restore neighbourhood policing, and we have been elected on a manifesto commitment to do so.
My constituency has two main town centres in Bexleyheath and Crayford, and a smaller neighbourhood centre in Northumberland Heath. In Crayford and Northumberland Heath, we now rely on smaller ward teams, of course, due to the cuts of the previous Mayor of London, who reduced the size of our teams. In Bexleyheath, I am lucky still to have a town centre team because of the size of shops, the night-time economy and the four secondary schools located in the town centre. I was pleased that we secured two more PCSOs for that team last November.
Our teams have had a number of recent successes. Live facial recognition saw three arrests in Bexleyheath town centre last week. Also last week, our team worked with the local authority on a closure order for a shop in Bexleyheath town centre that was selling illegal tobacco and vapes. Unlike the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), they have had great success in making shops report shoplifting again, and have managed to secure action against a number of individuals. In Crayford, they have taken action against drivers, predominantly from the large retail takeaways, which has led to 10 vehicles being seized and five arrests—two for shoplifting and three for immigration offences.
I pay tribute to the work of my police on the ground in Bexleyheath and Crayford. There is clearly pressure on funding, but we made a commitment to introduce extra police officers on the ground. We did that when Labour controlled Bexley council 20 years ago, and I am sure the Government will work with our Mayor of London to restore those numbers, because they are absolutely crucial for retailers in my constituency.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing this important debate.
We have heard countless times today that, in 14 years of Conservative government, neighbourhood policing was decimated to the detriment of our town centres and high streets, which are now gripped by an epidemic of antisocial behaviour, theft and shoplifting. Let me be frank: too often, the last Government wrote off those crimes as low level and left communities to pick up the pieces.
There are few places more visible in our communities than our high streets and town centres, which are vital for social and economic needs. National data suggests that police visibility in those spaces has reduced from 27% to 12% in the last decade. PCSOs are often on the frontline in those places, but they too have been cut to the bone: their numbers are down 56% since 2010.
In Uxbridge and South Ruislip, like many constituencies we have heard about today, shops are being ransacked multiple times a day, often by the same people, with little consequence. Supermarket staff in Uxbridge, Yiewsley and Ruislip Manor all tell me the same story. Whether it is men and boys on bikes grabbing phones, taking money from children, openly dealing drugs or engaging in shoplifting or theft, it is bad for business. It leads to more victims of crime and erodes trust and pride in our high streets.
I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to turn the situation around. The significant increase in real-terms funding for neighbourhood police officers nationally and in London is welcome. I also welcome the Crime and Policing Bill, which will lead to tougher action on theft and shoplifting, and will deal with the terrible crime of assaulting shop workers.
Anna Dixon
I recognise this issue, because many of my local independent shops in Bingley have been victims of crime, particularly by aggressive scammers demanding money. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that independent shops not only feel confident about reporting the crime, but know that the police will respond and that there will be prosecutions?
Danny Beales
I wholeheartedly agree. We need action: those individuals must be punished quickly, and the court backlogs must be dealt with. The whole process must incentivise action and deterrence.
When I met the couple who run the local post office in South Ruislip, they told me a heart-wrenching story of the change over the past 10 years. They have worked there for decades, and now they are threatened and abused almost weekly. Enough is enough.
I am pleased that the Government are taking action, but more can and, I am sure, will be done. I would like neighbourhood policing to continue to be prioritised, in order to deal with the capital policing challenges in London. Neighbourhood policing should be properly funded, as colleagues have said. I would like the police to regain a footprint in neighbourhoods. Lots of spaces where the police would base themselves closed down under the previous Conservative Mayor of London and Conservative Government. We have a fantastic neighbourhood town centre team in Uxbridge high street, which is doing great work, but we also need a town centre team in Yiewsley and West Drayton high street.
I hope the Government also consider providing support for the development of business crime prevention networks where there are not business improvement districts and more formal structures. Often, shops on smaller high streets are disparate and do not share information. They do not have the funding to focus on training, advice and crime prevention, so there is room for improvement in that space.
I would like to see the rapid deployment of the 13,000 new neighbourhood officers, with particular priority for our town centres and high streets. I hope that, under this Government, we will see a complete shift from the situation under the last Government. We must value our high streets and community policing, and not leave our communities alone. We need sustained, long-term investment to rebuild what the Conservatives destroyed so that we can once again be proud and safe on our high streets.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), whose tenacity in tackling this issue—with the ear of Simon Foster, our police and crime commissioner, and of the chief constable, Craig Guildford—has been outstanding. I have been watching the progress of Operation Fearless, and I thank and congratulate her for the work that she is doing.
I will take any opportunity to champion my local shops in Wednesfield high street—the village. It is a real source of pride, really community spirited and a welcoming place, but, like on high streets across the country, we have seen an alarming rise in shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. After more than a decade of police cuts, all this has become too common and far too normalised. From larger chain stores to the small, often family-run businesses across Wolverhampton North East, the message is the same: shopkeepers are fed up with thieves who show no respect for them or the law and who steal in broad daylight, sometimes swiping shelves clean to make a quick buck. Time and again, residents ask, “Why has this been allowed to spiral?” Well, after 14 years of cuts, our brilliant local officers and PCSOs—I would love to name them individually but I do not have the time—have been overstretched and under-resourced.
People want and deserve to feel safe. They need someone to finally listen to them, and under this Labour Government, that is exactly what is happening. I will continue to use my voice to speak for my community. A year ago, at the general election, we had 700 fewer officers and 500 fewer PCSOs in the west midlands than in 2010. That is being turned around thanks to the Home Secretary and the Government, with 150 new neighbourhood officers and 20 additional PCSOs. Much more needs to be done, but it has started.
After meeting Chief Superintendent Jenny Skyrme, I am pleased to announce that each of our eight wards in Wolverhampton North East will have a dedicated neighbourhood officer—a named officer, contactable by residents and ringfenced for that ward alone—with an additional role for Wednesfield high street. That will not solve everything overnight, but it is a start to restoring the bobby on the beat and a better focus on crime prevention.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) on securing this important debate. We know that visible local policing is key to building trust between communities and the police service. It acts as a deterrent to crime, reassures the public, and enables officers to gather intelligence and respond quickly to incidents before they escalate.
Just this weekend, I knocked on the door of Robin Kinson, who said he was delighted to see two police officers walking down his high street and could not remember the last time he had seen that. I must admit to feeling the same sort of flutter of delight when I saw two officers walking down my high street in Winton, which is a big change. Significant cuts to police numbers over the past decade have hampered the forces’ ability to maintain that visible presence.
Residents in Bournemouth West have told me repeatedly that they want to see more officers walking the beat and engaging with local businesses, young people and vulnerable groups, rather than arriving only after emergencies occur. Improving Bournemouth town centre has been a key campaign pledge of mine, and tackling crime and antisocial behaviour is absolutely a part of that. At recent residents’ meetings that we hosted, it was the No. 1 issue that residents told me they wanted us to tackle.
It is important to recognise the positives—the successes and the progress. Violent crime is down 21% on last year in Bournemouth. That is because of hotspot policing, for which Dorset police has just received more funding, and innovative collaboration between businesses, the police and our council. My office is in the town centre, so I see this every day. However, perception remains a major challenge, and the successes in the town centre often come at the expense of some of our other district centres.
Police presence is essential to changing that, but so is a joined-up strategy that includes investment in social services, youth provision and community support. Can the Minister therefore assure me that any new recruits will be properly trained and deployed in ways that maximise visibility in our high streets and community hubs, and that the Government will support forces in building stronger community relationships, especially in areas that have historically had mistrust as a result of under-policing?
The Minister knows that I have raised this issue before, but I want to highlight the challenge of seasonality. Many of my colleagues in coastal constituencies will recognise that Bournemouth, like other places, experiences a huge surge in population over the summer months, with millions of people visiting our beaches and town centres, yet Dorset police receives no extra funding to cope with the seasonal increase in demand. What work is being done to adjust the police funding formula to reflect those seasonal pressures, which place significant strain on policing in my constituency? Only by working together—Government, police and communities—will we restore confidence in our high streets as safe and welcoming places for all.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing this important debate.
The saying goes, “Money isn’t everything,” but it is when you have not got it, and in London, the Metropolitan police certainly has not got it. Having been forced to make £1.2 billion-worth of cuts over the last 14 years, the Metropolitan police has been stripped to its bones. We look forward, hopefully, to better days.
Police presence is about more than simply putting more uniformed officers on our streets or reopening police stations closed by years of Conservative budget cuts. It is about having officers on our streets that people can trust—officers that women and girls can trust to believe them and support them when they need it; officers that all communities can trust and will not unfairly target or profile some. It is about trusting that officers generally understand the neighbourhoods they serve. We need the right kind of police presence on our streets—one that is locally rooted, competent and visibly engaged. We need a force that understands the area, knows the crime hotspots and earns the trust of every resident, regardless of gender, race or background.
As council leader, I knew we could not accept the status quo that Conservative cuts were delivering. We needed to act locally to maintain meaningful police engagement with residents. In Redbridge, we implemented innovative enforcement and engagement hubs across the borough, including one mobile enforcement hub. Those low-cost alternatives to traditional stations are vital access points for our communities. They provide a place for residents to speak to officers, share concerns and build relationships, and, in turn, for officers to learn directly from the people they serve.
Neil Coyle
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that Southwark borough senior officers have closed the Seven Islands base and moved the local safer neighbourhood team to Borough station, which is, by their own account, more than 25 minutes’ drive away, in contradiction of the Metropolitan police’s 2017 public access strategy?
Jas Athwal
Absolutely. In Redbridge, we had to turn that around. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) will certainly agree with me, because we put a police hub in his constituency, which saved 4.5 full-time police officers’ time over the course of a year. We also introduced specific engagements, such as police walk and talks, which offer devoted time for officers to engage with those most underserved by police. Even amid devastating cuts, we showed that meaningful police presence is possible and necessary to keep our communities safe.
I welcome the Government’s steps to restoring meaningful police presence, including the £204 million in additional funding to the Metropolitan police laid out in the police grant report and the £22.8 million allocated for neighbourhood policing in the police funding settlement. However, reversing over a decade of damage is not simple. It requires more than just money. It requires bold reform that makes our police truly accountable and genuinely connected to our communities.
As we look ahead to the spending review, I urge the Government to not merely sustain, but substantially increase funding for the Metropolitan police. Police presence is not about visibility; it is about trust. It is about residents recognising their local officers and having the confidence that when they speak up about crime or harassment, they will be heard, believed and protected.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss—for the first time, in my case. I pay sincere and warm tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for her passionate speech and her huge dedication to the great work that has gone on in her constituency to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour on our high streets. In particular, she highlighted the great work done by local police officers on Operation Fearless, in conjunction with the local community. A key theme we have heard in this debate is the critical importance of not just looking to the police to sort these issues out, but working in partnership with retailers, communities and all people affected by crime.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) about his young constituent Jack, who represents that extremely important demographic of young people affected by crime, who will be left fearful for the future if we do not get a grip of it. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) rightly alluded to the underlying economic causes of crime. Perhaps this is a good opportunity for us to remember the words of a former Labour Prime Minister about being tough on not just crime, but the causes of crime. It is important that we take note of those underlying social and economic causes.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned the experience of New York. Some would argue that Rudy Giuliani has gone in a somewhat different direction since the height of his powers in the 1990s. In those days his “broken windows” theory of crime held that, as a number of Members have alluded to, if we do not tackle graffiti and other supposedly low-level manifestations of crime, we open the door—or indeed the broken window—for far more serious types of crime. That underlines another key theme we have heard: the role of prevention and taking preventive steps, rather than hoping to deal with the symptoms and consequences.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) also talked about the role of prevention and the importance of community services. She talked about the role of seasonality in crime, which is clearly important in many constituencies with major events, with summer traffic, or sometimes with worse weather leading to less crime because people are outdoors less. It is important that we recognise the trends in the data on what causes crime and what levels of intervention are needed.
The key theme discussed by nearly all Members was police numbers and funding. That includes the hon. Members for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting), for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury). In that regard, we heard a lot of criticism of the previous Conservative Government.
However, we also heard some important points from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and the hon. Member for Bournemouth West about the regionality of the police funding formula. We often face the key question of how to take account of different regional funding requirements in this country, so it would be interesting to see what the Minister has to say about that. We also heard about the impact of antisocial behaviour and crime on people, its economic impact on retailers and it impact on their mental health and feelings of safety and security in their role. All that contributes to the wider sense of our high streets being in decline; if people do not feel that they are safe places, they will not go and shop there. We must be careful not to end up in vicious circle.
We heard from hon. Members about the importance of having named and contactable police offers. It is not just about having visible police officers in the streets; it is important, as the hon. Member for Ilford South said with particular eloquence, that those police officers are embedded within their community and really understand its diversity and differing requirements. Many hon. Members paid tribute to the shop owners affected by crime and the police officers who work so hard to try to keep our streets safe. It is important that we support them, both with more resources and with public displays of support.
Many of the same issues are manifested in my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, where communities are concerned about increased antisocial behaviour in the town centres of Wallingford, Wantage and Didcot—particularly increased pickpocketing and shoplifting. Last year, reports of antisocial behaviour at a local event in Didcot meant that the police had to authorise a section 34 dispersal order, empowering officers to issue section 35 orders to remove individuals suspected of being involved in antisocial behaviour. Of course such events are not representative of our high street, but the fact that they are becoming more of a concern to people means that we must take action.
I have met business owners on Didcot Broadway—an older part of my town, from before the town of Didcot and large retail centres arose—who feel that the combination of antisocial behaviour and larger retail developments are placing their businesses at risk. That problem is shared by the Orchard centre, the large shopping centre in Didcot, where there is also widespread concern about antisocial behaviour and that there is not enough for young people to do.
I have also heard high street businesses complain about drug dealing, street drinking and bicycle theft. As we heard in this debate, ambitions on law and order are good—but ambitious plans need to be supported by ambitious funding. Many hon. Members have paid tribute to the early work that the Government have done on this, and we look forward to hearing more from the Minister.
Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home and when walking down their streets; that is important not just for their safety, but for their feelings of economic confidence, so that we can address the decline in our high streets. The previous Conservative Government failed to keep our communities safe from crime, and unnecessary cuts left our police forces overstretched, under-resourced and unable to focus on the crimes that affect our communities most.
Every day, 6,000 cases are closed by the police across England and Wales without a suspect even being identified, according to Home Office figures. Meanwhile, just 6% of crimes reported to the police result in a suspect being charged. Three in four burglaries and car thefts also go unsolved, and the Conservatives slashed the number of police community support officers by more than 4,500 since 2015. The Government must continue their efforts to restore the proper community policing that local people deserve.
To do that, we must get more police officers out on the streets, embedded in and understanding their communities. We Liberal Democrats feel that that could partly be funded by scrapping the expensive police and crime commissioner experiment and investing those savings in frontline policing instead, including addressing the dramatic cuts to PCSO numbers.
At the same time, we would free up existing officers’ time to focus on local policing by creating a new national online crime agency that would take over issues such as online fraud and abuse, leaving more time for local forces to tackle burglaries and other neighbourhood crimes. As we have heard, prevention and early intervention are key, not just visible crime.
Neil Coyle
Can the hon. Gentleman clarify whether the Lib Dem position has changed since they introduced police and crime commissioners? Did he describe the cuts in officers as unnecessary, and is he putting on record an apology from the Liberal Democrats for cutting police officers in constituencies such as mine, where we still have fewer police officers in 2025 than we did in 2010, thanks to the coalition Government that the Liberal Democrats were fully embedded in?
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention—[Interruption.] Well, I will answer in good time. Of course it would not be a debate in this place without him having a pop at the Liberal Democrats in Government. As he will appreciate from the many councils where Labour is in coalition with the Liberal Democrats and other parties, when a party does not win a majority, it has to work in partnership with others. I would also remind him to have a read of his own party’s 2010 manifesto, which proposed cuts just as harsh as the Conservatives’.
But let us look to the future, not the past. In terms of retail crime, there are significant concerns over the increase in shoplifting. Official statistics from the crime survey for England and Wales showed more than half a million shoplifting offences recorded by police forces in the year ending 2024, an 18% increase on the previous year and the highest figure since current recording practices began.
Surveys of retailers indicate a high prevalence of shoplifting and violence towards shop workers, as we have heard, and there have been concerns about how the police respond to shoplifting. For example, the 2025 British Retail Consortium’s Retail Crime survey found that 61% of retailers considered the police response to incidents of retail crime to be poor or very poor. Retailers said that their lack of confidence in the police response to reports of shoplifting contributed to their decision not to report some incidents.
As we have heard, antisocial behaviour can encompass a wide range of actions that cause nuisance and harm to others, such as vandalism, noise nuisance, threatening behaviour, use of off-road bikes, drug use and harassment. The 2024 crime survey for England and Wales suggested that 36% of people had experienced or witnessed antisocial behaviour, and around 1 million incidents are reported to the police each year. However, YouGov research suggests that there is significant under-reporting, with 57% of victims or witnesses not reporting ASB at all. The Victims’ Commissioner has long raised concerns that the police and other agencies are not able to respond effectively to such reports or to provide support to victims.
In conclusion, while we all agree that money and police resources are important, they will only get us so far. We also need prevention and early intervention, intelligence, partnerships and community action.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing this important debate and for her passionate work on this subject. In fact, I thank all hon. Members for their insightful contributions to this debate. I welcome the news that the brother of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) has joined up to the police force, particularly as he has done so in Durham—on my streets, no less. We all know the brilliant work that our hard-working police officers, PCSOs and civil enforcement officers do to protect our high streets and local communities. The police put themselves in dangerous situations to stop the criminals who blight our communities and undermine the social fabric that binds them together. Although it is welcome that headline figures from the crime survey for England and Wales show that crime fell by more than 50% between 2010 and 2024, there is still much more to be done, and protecting our high streets is an integral part of that mission.
I have the honour of representing Stockton, whose high street is a great place and home to some incredible businesses. I will always encourage people to support them, but I would fail in my duty if I did not acknowledge or try to tackle the many challenges they face. If my grandparents were alive today, they would be devastated to see what has become of our high street. Over decades, Stockton’s Labour council has allowed it to decline and to become home to unacceptable levels of crime and antisocial behaviour. Instead of employing more civil enforcement officers and street wardens, the council chooses to employ a huge number of managers on £100k-plus salaries—it recently came to light that it had spent £15.8 million on recruitment consultants in the last three years.
Daniel Francis
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the cuts from the previous Government have resulted in my local authority, the London borough of Bexley, having to make every one of its CCTV staff redundant, so that the council is no longer able to assist the police in fighting crime?
Matt Vickers
It is incredibly important that whatever money councils have is put to good use. In Stockton, we have terrible examples: people being flown abroad to watch shows to scout for festival appearances, and the CEO of the council recruiting a chum of his on £900 a day, without it ever being seen and considered by the council. Councils have a responsibility to spend properly the money that is given to them, and in Stockton there are too many examples where that is not the case.
Instead of the council using all the powers available through public spaces protection orders to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, its soft approach means that lots of antisocial behaviour has gone unchallenged. Moreover, Stockton’s Labour council volunteered as a dispersal authority, taking a completely disproportionate number of asylum seekers. For many years it has had one of the highest asylum seeker-to-resident ratios of any local authority across the entire country. Those asylum seekers are all housed near the town centre, creating challenges in accommodation, public services, and integration, and leaving huge numbers of lone men hanging around the town centre. The situation is made worse by the council’s approach to housing, which allows huge amounts of houses in multiple occupation, bedsits and bail accommodation to emerge around the town centre.
I will continue to push the council and local police for more action to support Stockton’s fantastic high street and the incredible businesses therein. Before addressing the police’s specific role in protecting the great British high street, we must acknowledge the challenges facing our high streets as a result of this Labour Government’s actions. The Government’s jobs tax and the slashing of small businesses—well, of small business rate relief, though actually they are slashing small businesses—is putting the survival of many of our high street businesses at risk. Confidence has been sapped, and in April business confidence once again turned negative.
The Government will always have the support of the Conservative party in backing our hard-working police officers. We need more officers than ever. It was interesting to hear, during Home Office questions, the Minister and the Home Secretary reading with some excitement a table listing the number of neighbourhood policing officers in each area. How many more police officers—those who can arrest the most serious criminals in our society—does the Minister expect to be in place by the end of the year? Will that number exceed the March 2024 figure?
This discussion comes against the backdrop of six of Britain’s most senior police chiefs warning that important and laudable ambitions to tackle knife crime, violence against women and girls, and neighbourhood policing are all at risk because of funding shortfalls. The Government’s decision to let criminals out of prison early, many of whom will inevitably commit more crime, will put more pressure on our police.
The proposed settlement for policing in 2025-26 is insufficient and risks causing job losses. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, has said that his force is facing the potential loss of 1,700 officers, PCSOs and other staff. I am keen to hear from the Minister whether she thinks that Sir Mark’s figures are correct.
Special constables are invaluable, but we also need full-time officers to investigate serious crimes and secure convictions against the worst offenders on our high streets. That is critical; the public expect not only a police presence, but effective action. Although we were pleased to agree on stronger laws in the Crime and Policing Bill to address offences on our high streets, such laws are meaningless without proper enforcement and punishment. Having spent a long time campaigning alongside the likes of the Co-op, the BRC and USDAW, I am delighted to see the stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker on the statute book.
On policing our high streets. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on recent remarks made by the Mayor of London and his Drugs Commission. Within the mayor’s expression of support for the proposal to decriminalise possession of small amounts of cannabis, there were concerning references to police stop-and-search powers, in which he questioned the scope of their application. Frankly, that is extraordinary, reflecting a worrying disregard for public spaces such as our high streets, where all of us should expect to feel safe. I hope that the Minister will condemn those comments in the strongest possible terms and send a message to our hard-working police officers that stop and search is a vital tool in their armour, and that we entirely support them in using it.
This week, I met representatives of the Federation of Independent Retailers, who shared their experiences of retail crime and the way that the use of in-store facial recognition and AI technology is making a real difference. They suggested that a grant scheme could help them to take the fight to criminals; I would be delighted to hear whether the Minister has given any consideration to introducing such a scheme.
In conclusion, we should celebrate the work of the hard-working police on our streets and of the retail workers in our stores, but we must remember the challenges that they face because of the decisions of this Government. High streets are at the heart of our local communities. The Government must do much more to ensure that they are safe and thriving places that people want to visit.
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Furniss.
I start, of course, by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for making such a passionate and eloquent speech on behalf of her constituents, and for what she said about her fight—indeed, her mission—to take back Erdington High Street. I think she said that she wanted to make her voice and her community’s voice heard; she has certainly done that this afternoon. It was clear that Erdington deserved better than it was getting and she has delivered that improvement, so she should be very proud of that.
It has been a really wide-ranging debate with lots of local and national flavour. Many different areas and constituencies have been referred to, and I am grateful to all the Members who have spoken today. The fact that it has been such a comprehensive debate reflects the significance that is attached to these issues by us as parliamentarians and by our constituents.
Before I respond to some of the specific points that were raised, I will be really clear about this Government’s position. We believe wholeheartedly and unreservedly in the value of a visible and responsive police presence in our communities. As we have heard, that is especially important on high streets and in town centres.
It is very encouraging indeed to hear about initiatives that have made a real difference, such as Operation Fearless in Erdington, in Birmingham. As I have already said, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington for her work. I also commend the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, the chief constable of West Midlands police, Craig Guildford, and the assistant chief constable, Jen Mattinson, for driving this initiative forward for the community.
Across the country, however, far more needs to be done, and we need to build on the work of Operation Fearless and similar operations around the country. In recent years, too many neighbourhoods have been plagued by antisocial behaviour and crime, with shoplifting and street theft in particular surging. As those offences have shot up, we all know the reality—neighbourhood policing was eroded under previous Governments. Actually, let us be clear: it was slashed by previous Governments.
The impact of that is very well documented. Across the country, the belief set in among local businesses and residents that police were not on the streets. Antisocial behaviour and shop theft were treated as low level, and if people called the police, nobody came and nothing was done.
I think we all agree now that that is totally unacceptable and needs to be fixed. That is why this Government have made rebuilding neighbourhood policing a focus of our safer streets mission, which is central to the Prime Minister’s plan for change. Under the mission, we are aiming to halve violence against women and girls and knife crime in a decade, tackle shop theft, street crime and antisocial behaviour, and improve trust in the criminal justice system. All those aims are tied in some way to another of the mission’s core strands: rebuilding the neighbourhood policing model. Without a strong local police footprint, our communities are left exposed and people suffer. Put simply, neighbourhood policing is the beating heart of our law enforcement system. After years of neglect, this Government will restore it to full health.
I also want to make a comment about police funding and resources, because a number of hon. Members have talked about that this afternoon. Clearly, the funding formula is the one we inherited. We have been in power for 11 months, but we have been clear that we will embark on police reform, and there is a White Paper coming in the next few months. I want to make clear to hon. Members this afternoon that, within that, there will undoubtedly have to be a discussion about finances and resources for policing.
Let me turn to the points that have been raised. We have already made £200 million available to forces to kick-start year one of our programme, which will support the first step of delivering 13,000 additional officers into neighbourhood policing roles. Like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), I welcome PC Coyle to his new role in Durham. I also pay tribute to all our police officers, who work for us day in, day out, particularly the neighbourhood police officers I met this morning in Milton Keynes, who were doing a fantastic job for their community. Our approach to delivering on the 13,000 in 2025-26 has been designed to deliver an initial increase to the neighbourhood policing workforce in a manner that is flexible and can be adapted to the local context and the varied crime demands in certain neighbourhoods. Police forces have embraced that and want to make a positive start towards achieving the goal of 13,000 additional neighbourhood officers by the end of this Parliament.
The neighbourhood policing guarantee was announced by the Prime Minister on 10 April. He said that, along with the Home Secretary, he had written to all chief constables and police and crime commissioners, setting out key objectives. The guarantee aims to reverse the decline in visible policing through clear commitments, designed with the support of policing, to be achieved throughout the course of this Parliament. By July, every neighbourhood throughout England and Wales will have named contactable officers. These officers will know their areas and build relationships with residents and businesses, and they will understand local concerns. In too many instances in the past, residents felt they had no one to go to. By July, there will be a guaranteed response time to local neighbourhood police queries from members of the public and businesses of 72 hours.
Having committed to these steps, it is now down to Government and policing to deliver on them. We expect that by July, all police forces will be able to demonstrate that that commitment to the guarantee has been achieved. Additionally, the College of Policing will begin the national roll-out of its neighbourhood policing training programme during the neighbourhood policing week of action in June. The training will equip officers with essential skills, such as problem solving, relationship building and crime prevention, to effectively tackle local issues and enhance community engagement. This dedicated training aims to transform neighbourhood policing services, ensuring trusted and effective policing that cuts crime and keeps people safe. There is also the hotspot action programme, which focuses on particular hotspots and really putting in the resources—it sounds very similar to what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington referred to.
I want to make some comments about retail crime. It has been very helpful to hear from Members today who have experience of the retail sector. We know that in the last two years of the previous Government, shop theft soared by 70%. There is an epidemic in shop theft, and we need to do something about it. As has been said, in the Crime and Policing Bill we have brought forward a new offence of assaulting a retail worker to protect the hard-working and dedicated staff who work in stores, after years of campaigning by USDAW and the Co-op, among others.
Also included as part of the Bill is the removal of the legislation that makes shop theft of and below £200 a summary-only offence, which meant that it could only be tried in the magistrates court. This sends a clear message that any level of shop theft is illegal and will be taken seriously. I noted what the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said about that, but there is a deterrent in this, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins). It is about saying that shop theft of any value is theft, and action will be taken. We still expect that the vast majority of cases will be heard in the magistrates court—[Interruption.] I do not have time for an intervention, but I am happy to discuss it with Members after the debate.
There is also additional funding going into the National Police Chiefs’ Council to give further training to police and retailers on preventive tactics. We are putting £5 million into the specialist analyst team within Opal, which is the national policing intelligence unit dealing with the serious organised criminal gangs that are now getting involved in shop theft. There will also be £2 million over the next three years for the National Business Crime Centre, which provides a resource for both police and businesses to learn, share and support each other to prevent and combat crime. We also have the retail crime forum with representatives from major businesses, which I chair.
We are determined that this summer, for the next three months starting at the end of this month, we will put increasing the safety of our town centres and high streets under the microscope, in partnership with PCCs, councils, schools, health services, businesses, transport and community organisations. I am aware that tackling criminality and antisocial behaviour in town centres is already a focus for many police forces, but we need to do more and go quicker. We have to take that action, and I look forward to the plans that PCCs have been drawing up and will be providing to the Home Office in the next few days. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington for calling this debate, as it is an issue that every Member of this House cares passionately about.
Paulette Hamilton
Your chairing today has been excellent, Ms Furniss, and I hope to take part in many more debates with you in the Chair. I thank all the hon. and right hon. Members for taking part in this debate. I also thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), and give thanks to the Minister, who I felt gave a strong response.
The clear message highlighted today is that high streets are the beating hearts of our communities, and that constituents want to feel safe on them. It is also key that the police are funded to do the job. I join Members in paying tribute to the police and their partners, who work so tirelessly to keep our high streets clean and safe.
Finally, this is a very special debate because it is about people’s lives. Members have to work together—hon. Members, right hon. Members, the Opposition and Ministers—to ensure that our residents feel that we not only care but are listening and will answer the cry for help.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered police presence on high streets.
Maths: Contribution to the UK
(2 days, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of maths to the UK.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate, the Members who put their names to the application and those present today. I look forward to hearing their contributions.
A mathematician often begins with a conjecture—a statement that they believe to be true, a theory that is perhaps well informed by evidence but has yet to be widely accepted, thoroughly proven and fully implemented. If I had a blackboard, this is the theory that I would write up: that a thriving maths ecosystem is fundamental to the Government’s growth ambitions.
I have a deep affection for mathematics, and that may have led me to prepare rather more material than is customary for a Westminster Hall debate, but given the numbers in attendance I hope that Members will indulge me. There is something profoundly satisfying—to me, at least—about how mathematical problems yield to patient reasoning and how seemingly unrelated concepts can connect in unexpected ways. While my days of wrestling with differential equations are largely behind me, the habits of mind that mathematics taught me—breaking down complex problems, testing assumptions and seeking elegant solutions—remain with me in every aspect of my work, including in Parliament.
There is compelling evidence for my opening conjecture. In 2023, mathematical sciences contributed £495 billion to our economy: that is 20% of the UK’s total gross value added. To put that in context, mathematical sciences contribute more to our economy than the entire manufacturing sector. That figure is almost certainly an underestimate, as it does not capture the many downstream benefits of mathematics. The algorithms and encryption that empower and enable safe access to the internet, which are so fundamental to nearly every business across the country, are all built from mathematical foundations.
The impact is accelerating. According to research from the Campaign for Mathematical Sciences, between 2019 and 2023 there was a 6.2% increase in the proportion of jobs requiring undergraduate-level mathematics skills across all sectors, and 94% of employers anticipate placing at least as much emphasis on these skills, if not more, when hiring in the next couple of years. Whether it is the artificial intelligence revolution that will have an impact on healthcare, the quantum computing that will transform cybersecurity or the climate models guiding our path to net zero, mathematics is not just contributing to our present economy—it is building our future.
There is every reason to be optimistic about the next generation. Mathematics remains the most popular A-level subject, with over 100,000 students choosing it last year. That is more than ever before. Those young people clearly see mathematics as part of the future, and rightly so.
Britain has always been a mathematical powerhouse. We may be small by population on the global stage, but we are mighty—particularly in our research activity. The UK is home to 4% of the world’s mathematical sciences researchers, but their output represents 14% of highly cited articles. We are a global centre of excellence for mathematical sciences research, with top-ranked universities and research institutes, and some of the fastest-growing tech companies. In fact, according to the global innovation index, the UK is home to the world’s No. 1 science and technology cluster by intensity, in relation to its size: Cambridge. It is a privilege to represent part of that cluster.
From Newton’s laws to Turing’s machines, from Bayes’s theorem—a personal favourite to mine—to Hawking’s insights into black holes, which are possibly a personal favourite of the Chancellor’s, British mathematicians have repeatedly changed how we understand and interact with our world. Today, that tradition continues. Our cryptographers protect national security: GCHQ remains one of the UK’s largest recruiters of pure mathematicians. Our financial modellers help manage trillions in global assets, and our data scientists are revolutionising everything from drug discovery to climate science.
However, despite that remarkable heritage and current strength, we risk undermining our mathematical future through policies that, I accept, reflect difficult choices but seem to work against our mathematical advantages on the global stage. In their plan for change, the Government promised growth. They promised to raise living standards, revive our NHS, drive research and innovation, and deliver economic stability. Yet if mathematics underlies so much of the innovation that will be key to delivering those aims, some of the recent policy decisions represent what Marcus du Sautoy, Simonyi professor for the public understanding of science at the University of Oxford, has called a “national miscalculation”.
The cuts to the advanced mathematics support programme, universities across the country shrinking and closing mathematics departments, the cancellation of the exascale supercomputer in Edinburgh and real-terms cuts to the UK Research and Innovation budget for 2025-26 are just some of the concerning decisions. I acknowledge that they span multiple Governments, but cumulatively they risk creating a mathematical recession just when the global economy is becoming increasingly mathematical.
My asks for our mathematical future break down into three strands: research funding, higher education and mathematics in schools. The Government have ambitious and admirable aims, but real growth is simply not possible without an adequate pipeline of mathematicians and advanced mathematical skills. Continuing to attract the extremely productive researchers who bring so much economic benefit and soft power to our country should be a national priority. To that end, in 2020 the previous Government announced a welcome additional £300 million in Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council funding for the mathematical sciences to be deployed over five years, but only about 40% of that total was ultimately allocated.
At a glance, to the casual observer, it may not be obvious what £300 million of funding for PhD and postdoctoral study in such seemingly abstract disciplines as geometry, topology, algebra, combinatorics and number theory might mean for our country, but the impact of those studies is often much more long-term than successive Governments seem to realise. Once-abstract domains often become integral to new technologies in ways that have not been predicted. To name just one crucial example, computer scientists are increasingly looking to pure mathematicians to help them understand their own machine learning models.
Despite the Government’s determination that AI is vital to turbocharge every mission in its plan for change, from driving down NHS waiting lists to speeding up cancer diagnoses and saving time across the civil service, there appears to be a disconnect between that ambition and the long-term investment needed in the mathematical sciences to achieve those goals. The number of UK centres for doctoral training in the mathematical sciences has fallen from 11 to five, and the latest allocation of UKRI funding represents a real-terms funding cut, which will constrain the UK’s research output. Rather than continuing to pull the rug from under those who are constructing the backbone of our future technologies, would the Government consider exploring a new funding settlement that better reflects the value of the mathematical sciences and what they bring to the UK? Investment in mathematical sciences to fuel the UK’s growth needs to be far longer term than simply increasing postgraduate research funding contracts in the near term. That leads me to the second strand that I want to pick up: higher and post-16 education.
Ensuring the best possible mathematics education for students post 16 is crucial to strengthening the wider graduate pipeline. Boosting progression to mathematics degrees should be a key part of the Government’s growth strategy, I would suggest. With a sharp drop in UK mathematics undergraduate entrants expected over the next 10 years, from just under 7,100 to just over 5,600 by 2035—that is the forecast difference between 2030 and 2035—we seem to face a crisis in the mathematical pipeline, and that trend particularly affects mid and lower tariff institutions, where it is over three times more likely that students will go on to become teachers post-graduation.
When universities close maths departments, we do not just lose degree places; we lose the next generation of mathematics teachers. Specialist post-16 institutions, such as the Cambridge maths school, which serves many young people in my constituency, are fighting to increase access to science, technology, engineering and maths degrees. They recognise that investment in STEM education is vital to the UK’s future workforce. Through nurturing ambition, particularly among students from disadvantaged or underrepresented backgrounds, they are seeing impressive results, and I would like to share some of those: students with special educational needs and disabilities at the school represent double the national proportion of A-level further mathematics students; 8% of students have an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis compared with around 1% nationally, and those students are predicted to achieve an average grade of A*; and 46% of current year 12 students are female, which is remarkable given the national underrepresentation of women in advanced mathematics.
It is through not just excellent teaching that these young people are excelling, but targeted initiatives for inclusion. Cambridge maths school runs an access and application support programme that funds travel bursaries, test preparation support and interview coaching to remove barriers for disadvantaged students from across the east of England, but that support is precarious without solid Government backing. The disappearance of the pupil premium post 16, the school reports, is a significant oversight at a critical stage of education, particularly in specialist settings. On that basis, might the Government consider the merits of providing some ringfenced funding for access and outreach initiatives to recognise and protect the role of specialist post-16 institutions in driving social mobility and mathematical excellence?
The Campaign for Mathematical Sciences is also working to boost uptake of university mathematics courses through its maths degrees for the future scheme, which is rewarding universities that show genuine commitment to increasing the accessibility of their mathematics courses and those that commit to equipping undergraduates with the flexibility and foundational skills to move into a wide range of future careers. There are grants of up to £500,000, but that on its own will not be enough to support the sector. I hope that the Government will show the same commitment to the future of mathematical sciences that the universities winning those grants are demonstrating.
To move further back in the pipeline, to mathematics in schools, the Government have significantly scaled back the advanced mathematics support programme. In response to my written question, the Minister confirmed that with reduced funding of £8.2 million for 2025-26, the programme must now focus on narrower areas:
“supporting schools with low girls’ progression to level 3 mathematics”,
helping “disadvantaged students” and artificial intelligence-related skills. Although those priorities are extremely important, that nevertheless represents a fundamental reduction from the comprehensive programme that, since 2009, has increased A-level mathematics entries by nearly 40,000. The programme can no longer provide the broad-based support that it once did, and with funding beyond 2026 subject to spending review, there is ongoing uncertainty about its future. Although I understand that it makes the best of difficult circumstances, will the Minister acknowledge that that refocusing represents a significant reduction in our national commitment to mathematics education at precisely the time that we need to be expanding it?
Mathematics teaching is another pressing concern and the forecast decline in undergraduate numbers that I mentioned is even more rapid at mid and lower-tariff institutions. As I have said, those are the ones where it is far more likely that their students will become teachers post-graduation. I declare an interest as a governor of the Cambridge Maths Hub, a group that fosters professional dialogue about mathematics teaching between schools in Cambridgeshire, Peterborough, Norfolk and Suffolk. To quote the hub
“quality teaching is led by expert questioning, predicting, exposing and correcting misconceptions, and designing work that challenges students so they experience success when they apply their knowledge and think mathematically.”
To me and many others, that could be reframed by saying that mathematics teaching is best performed by mathematics graduates.
How will the Government work with universities to ensure that strong mathematics provision continues in every region? Could the Minister outline how mathematics teachers might be prioritised in the strategy to recruit 6,500 new teachers? Beyond that, I hope that the Government will examine what is being studied, as well as schools’ capacity to deliver the education. The current pass rate for GCSE mathematics retakes is one area of concern, with only just over 17% of nearly 200,000 post-16 entrants achieving grade 4 or above.
The Maths Horizons project recently found that 82% of polled teachers think that there is too much content on the national curriculum, and that that is impeding the success of many students. It argues the national curriculum still does not appropriately prioritise “teaching for mastery” and rigour, despite the efforts of the 2014 reforms to key stage 4 mathematics. On that basis, I hope that the Government will consider taking on board the findings of that Maths Horizons project research in its curriculum and assessment review and to find ways to rebalance—not cut down—the mathematics curriculum in schools.
If the UK is to remain a world-beating hub for research, innovation and growth, we must nurture mathematical excellence right from the beginning. The skills of logical reasoning, problem solving and analytical thinking that mathematics develops are not just useful for future mathematicians, but essential for all citizens in an increasingly complex world.
Mathematics is too important to be left to chance or to be treated piecemeal. We need a national strategy for mathematics with a comprehensive approach that recognises the fundamental role of mathematical thinking in everything from personal finance right through to national security, and from healthcare innovation to other areas of science. Such a strategy would co-ordinate efforts across the three areas I have outlined. It would ensure that our research base remains world leading, support our universities to maintain and expand mathematics provision, and give every child the mathematical foundation they need to thrive. It would recognise that mathematical skills are not just about producing more mathematicians, though we do desperately need them, but about maintaining our competitive edge in an increasingly quantitative world.
My asks have been multiple, from strengthening foundational mathematical knowledge in primary and secondary schools and widening access to mathematical sciences courses in universities to funding our research sector for the years to come. The Government must urgently examine every stage of the mathematical skills pipeline in detail and introduce a national strategy for mathematics to secure our future.
The Government have set out ambitious goals for growth, innovation and improved living standards. Mathematics is not just relevant to these aims; it is absolutely integral to them, as I have argued. To achieve growth, we need mathematicians, and for the UK to develop the best mathematicians, the sector needs strategy, investment and sustained attention. That is my conjecture on my imaginary blackboard. I hope I have gone some way to providing the supporting evidence for it, and I hope the Government will take up the challenge of providing the proof.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for bringing this debate to the House. There may be plenty of things we disagree on, but when it comes to maths, I am sin2θ and he is cos2θ, and together we are at one. There are a lot more of those jokes to come, Mr Vickers.
I am a former maths teacher, I am married to a maths teacher and I am looking forward to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) commenting on how good the maths teachers are in her constituency. In fact, when I first met my wife—this is a little bit raunchy—I told her she was 1/cos C. Only the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and I will get these jokes, unfortunately; I apologise that my speech is not going to be at the same intellectual level as that of the hon. Gentleman.
I taught secondary school maths in schools across Essex, and the two things students most often asked were a) “When are we going to use this in real life?”, and b) “Will this be on the exam?”. I am genuinely passionate about maths, not because it is on the exam or because there is a problem to be solved, but because maths in itself is a beautiful thing and something that we should enjoy. Those questions were therefore incredibly frustrating.
After part a), they would sometimes add another line: “When will we use this in real life? And don’t say engineering.” I have to say to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire that I was not a maths graduate—I was actually an engineering graduate, but I think he will understand. There is a lot of maths in engineering, and I was wholly qualified to teach it. I genuinely believe that we should love maths and not see it as a challenge to overcome but a tool to help us. I do not want to write a shopping list that says I am buying six apples and five bananas if I can use a and b instead. That is really important.
On part b), one of my favourite things to teach, which is not on the curriculum, is the Fibonacci sequence. When I teach the Fibonacci sequence, I show pupils how that leads on to the golden ratio and how the golden ratio applies in real life to the shape of leaves or seashells, or to the amount of bees that live in a hive. In fact, Liz Hurley can be compared to the golden ratio. On literature, paper sizes are based around the golden ratio. When we read a book, we are likely to find that something significant happens around 61.8% of the way through, because this is a really important ratio. It is not just mathematical—it occurs in real life. I genuinely think that is interesting. I want to emphasise that we have a habit of talking about maths as a kind of challenge—almost a monster in the room—but it is not. It should be seen as our friend.
The question of the role of maths in the UK is substantial, so I have thought about it a little more at the local level as being about the use of maths in Harlow. Hon. Members will be aware that Harlow is the home of Hannah Fry, who shares my passion for mathematics. It is also where George Hockham and Charles Kao invented the fibre-optic cable. It is fair to say that such an invention could not have happened without the use of applied mathematics. In fact, any business, school or organisation in Harlow will rely on maths, whether that is to fill out tax returns or produce wage slips. Maths is absolutely everywhere.
I find that one of the biggest frustrations with maths is that it seems to be acceptable for adults to say, “I’m not very good at maths.” When I was a teacher, some colleagues and senior colleagues said it. In one of the schools I worked at—I will not name which—one of the deputy heads, a fantastic English teacher, proudly said on stage in front of students, “I was never very good at maths.” Imagine the impact that had on young people, who were perhaps already struggling with maths, about the importance of learning it.
I am not saying it is right to criticise people who struggle to read or spell, but I am pretty confident that someone would not say that in the same way they are happy to say that they are not very good at maths. I appreciate I am talking in jest a little, but I hope the Minister will take from my speech the hope that we can challenge that misconception and say that it is important to be able to do maths, as the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire mentioned.
I was not going to be too political, but in preparation for hearing the shadow spokesman claim that we have never had it so good on maths teaching as we did under his Government, I say to him that that is as imaginary as the square root of minus one. I respectfully point out that the number of qualified maths teachers—yes, I am one of them—went down under his Administration. More and more, schools were forced to rely on non-specialists to teach maths. Some did so very successfully, but clearly when it comes to higher-level maths—A-level maths and A-level further maths—we want specialist teachers, even if they are engineering graduates, to tackle that.
I welcome the fact that the Government have started to bring confidence back into the teaching profession and, dare I say, that with today’s announcement, they will also ensure that the young people we teach have full bellies and are able to learn. I will finish on a positive note. As a sci-fi fan, I welcome the fact that, if we ever meet alien life forms, it will be mathematics that serves as our common language.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) on securing this debate. It is heartening to hear about his love of maths as well as the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).
I have to confess that was not my experience of school. I was at a school which had a quirk: we had to sit maths GCSE twice—once in year 10 and in year 11. Although I can report to the House that I achieved a good grade in both exams, there was a clear narrative: that maths was a difficult subject, and definitely not for everyone. A lack of enthusiasm for the subject certainly pervaded among many of my peers and was allowed to go unchecked within the education system at large. I do not blame only my school for that; I think it was a common thing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow said, we need to challenge that. I have done the best to challenge it with my daughters, the youngest of whom sat her maths GCSE paper yesterday, so we will see whether I have been successful.
We must have an approach that emphasises the critical importance of maths in our primary and secondary education systems and its foundational nature for so many aspects of education and life, and that also encourages a love of maths as part of a love of learning. Maths is key to problem solving and supports logistical reasoning and analytical thinking. It develops flexible thinking and creativity. Mathematical problems often require trying different approaches and tackling a question from multiple angles. Those skills equally apply in arts and the humanities subjects as they do in the maths and sciences. Maths is therefore foundational in building those essential critical skills.
The practical applications of maths matter too. Financial literacy is important for us all. The Education Committee undertook an inquiry into financial literacy in May last year, in the previous Parliament, and recommended expanding financial education at primary level, the appointment of financial education co-ordinators in secondary schools and the provision of high-quality independently provided learning materials in all schools. Budgeting and saving, planning finances for the future, understanding how loans and interest work, and contributing to a pension pot are all skills that every young person should have when they leave school.
Maths is a specialist subject, and we need skilled teachers to deliver interesting and inspiring lessons from reception all the way through to A-levels and on to higher education. There have been real challenges with the recruitment of new maths teachers for a number of years, with just under three quarters of the target of 3,000 teachers recruited for the current academic year. There are so many career opportunities open to graduates with degrees with a strong mathematical component, so it is important that the Department for Education offers strong incentives to train, recruit and retain maths teachers. I welcome the Government’s commitment to delivering an extra 6,500 teachers in England. It is critical that that target includes a good level of new maths teachers, appropriately supported to be recruited and retained within our education system.
I turn briefly to the question of attainment in mathematics. Last year, 65% of pupils achieved a standard pass at grade 4 or above at GCSE in English and maths, but disadvantaged pupils were less likely to meet the expected standard—only 59% of them did so, compared with non-disadvantaged pupils. That means that 35% of young people are routinely not getting a qualification in maths while they are school. That should be a concern to us all. We want every young person to fulfil their potential in maths.
Currently, those who do not achieve a grade 4 or above are expected to resit GCSE maths during their post-16 education. For some students, that means multiple resits of a subject that they have already found challenging for several years at school, and it traps them in a cycle of failure, just at the point where they should be discovering a love of learning and finding their vocation. The Education Committee has been looking at this policy as part of our inquiry on further education and skills, and asking whether that really is the best approach for all young people who do not achieve a grade 4 or above.
For some students who achieve grade 3, the extra work in a new environment that is different from school may help them to successfully resit their maths GCSE, but for others repeated, unsuccessful resits can be demoralising and counterproductive. We have yet to report, so I cannot draw conclusions on behalf of the whole Committee, but we have received quite compelling evidence that embedding practical maths content into the curriculum for the particular subjects needed for the student’s chosen course of study may be a better way to support students on vocational pathways to achieve the level of both English and maths that they will need to apply later on in life, rather than the endless cycle of GCSE maths resits.
Moving beyond GCSEs, it is good to see that maths is the most popular A-level subject, with more than 100,000 entries for A-level maths last year, as well more than 17,000 for further maths. But within those statistics, more work is needed to tackle the gender gap, because just 37% of last year’s maths A-levels were taken by young women, and a mere 27% of last year’s further maths A-levels.
Increasing the number of girls taking maths will help to tackle the gender gap in science, engineering and maths at university and beyond. Having positive role models, and improving understanding of just how many well-paid and rewarding careers are out there, for which maths can help, are definitely two important approaches, but we need to do more. There should be more practical support available in our schools to overcome that gender gap in maths.
Maths is an important component of many STEM degrees and myriad careers. To underpin a high-skill, high-wage economy, we need more young people with a good training in maths. I will end there, but I will just say that the Education Committee looks forward to scrutinising the curriculum and assessment review, and to scrutinising the Government’s recruitment of teachers, and we hope to see good progress in improving maths education and attainment for all pupils, across all our demographics, in every part of the country.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for securing this debate. Like him, I have a deep affection for maths. In fact, I would probably go further and say that I am a maths nerd. And, like him, I believe that it still influences my thinking now, including here in Parliament. I love maths for its own sake. I was inspired as a child by watching shows such as Johnny Ball’s “Think of a Number”, I was only too happy to get a scientific calculator for my 11th birthday—I am not sure many 11-year-olds would be—and I went on to study maths at university, so I could not pass up the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
Having said that I love maths for its own sake, though, I want to make the case that mathematics does not just contribute to our country in the headline-grabbing ways highlighted by my hon. Friend, such as AI innovation, although those are obviously very important. I believe that having a mathematically literate population can contribute to our society in myriad smaller ways, too, by ensuring that we can all think critically about what we are told, and make better decisions about our own lives.
There is a somewhat old-fashioned idea that, as long as people can work out their change when shopping, that is all the maths they need. It is true that basic numeracy is important, even in a world where we are more likely to wave our cards at a machine than to pay with cash, and where, contrary to teachers’ expectations in the 1980s, most of us do carry calculators around with us. From working out how long it is until the train or bus, or measuring whether that flat-pack furniture will fit in our living rooms before we buy it, to scaling up a cake recipe, there are plenty of ways in which basic arithmetic matters, but I think the importance of mathematics to every one of us goes way beyond that.
In a world where we are bombarded with information and misinformation daily, mathematics is vital to the critical thinking that stops us getting scammed and helps us to make truly informed decisions on matters such as healthcare and our personal finances. I will illustrate that with an example from a few years ago, when the BBC reported:
“Teenagers whose parents smoke are four times more likely to take it up themselves, experts have warned.”
There was an absolute bombardment of people saying that that was rubbish because their parents smoked and they did not, but let us look at the figures. What the article said was that
“4.9% of teenagers whose parents smoke have taken it up too. By contrast, only 1.2% of teenagers whose parents do not smoke begin to do so.”
It was absolutely right to say “four times more likely” but, even with parents who smoke, the vast majority—more than 95%—will not go on to smoke themselves. Those misunderstandings reoccur across many examples of scientific and medical stories in our mainstream press.
If we do not understand numbers, how can we make truly informed decisions about medical treatment? Do we really understand what a one-in-a-thousand risk of a side effect is? What does it mean if a contraceptive is 95% effective? What does it mean, in absolute numbers, for a treatment to carry a 10% increased risk of a type of cancer if the original risk was extremely low, and how does that compare with the risks of not having the treatment?
I think it became evident during the pandemic that people—including some at the highest levels of Government, apparently—did not understand the concept of exponential growth. We heard from Lord Vallance in the covid inquiry that the Prime Minister at the time had been “bamboozled” by graphs. He apparently wrote in his diary:
“Watching the PM get his head round stats is awful. He finds relative and absolute risk almost impossible to understand.”
Most of us will not have to lead the country through a pandemic, thank goodness, but we do need to make decisions about our own lives.
When it comes to school education, I can understand the sentiment of those who wanted to extend maths, but doing another two years of what has already not been working does not make any sense. I would rather see a focus on rebalancing the curriculum to 16, and ensuring that we have specialist maths teachers to deliver that and inspire our young people today.
I often speak on the subject of special educational needs, so before I finish, I will briefly say something about dyscalculia. Schools in England have a responsibility to identify and support students with special educational needs arising from specific learning difficulties, and that includes dyscalculia. But there is no requirement for teachers to learn about it; it is poorly understood and awareness is very low among both professionals and parents. Given that maths is so important to our lives and that dyscalculia is about having difficulty with understanding number-based information, I make a plea that it should be taken more seriously.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for securing this debate and for the passionate speeches from across the Chamber, which highlighted that maths is not just an academic subject but a fundamental gateway to prosperity, opportunity, and innovation for individuals across the UK.
As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for science, innovation and technology, as the MP for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, I am proud to speak in this debate. I am someone who personally owes a lot to maths: I studied maths at A-level and went on to do a master’s in economic policy. At school, I was proudly somehow the school’s maths champion for two years in a row, but sadly did not quite make the cut for the maths Olympics—[Interruption.] I know.
Maths gave me much more than equations and graphs; it gave me the confidence to tackle problems, persevere through setbacks, and think logically under pressure. My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) beautifully explained how it is really about thinking and how it can help us to logically go through problems. Those skills have stayed with me, from working in the private sector to running my own business, and now in my role in Parliament. Maths has opened doors for me, and such opportunity should be a national priority.
For the Liberal Democrats, ensuring that everyone has access to high-quality maths education is essential for fairness and innovation and for securing our country’s future. It has been a real pleasure to hear from the hon. Members for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) about the importance of that and about upskilling our next generation. I particularly love how the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood talked about encouraging the love of maths and of learning, and about embedding maths into vocational subjects. It is important to look at the Finnish model, which asks how we can apply maths, because there are many ways to learn maths that are important to our everyday lives.
The Liberal Democrats also believe that every young person deserves the opportunity to develop strong maths skills regardless of their background. Maths skills are critical not just for economic growth, but for critical thinking, problem-solving skills and social mobility more broadly. We will champion proper funding for maths education and research as essential pillars of a forward-looking knowledge-based economy.
In my constituency, I see the best of the UK’s maths ecosystem at work. Alongside Rothamsted Research, our globally recognised research hub, are fast-growing local tech businesses. Our schools are working hard to ensure that maths is not just a subject learned in the classroom but a skill that inspires, empowers and prepares young people for life. My hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire talked about the importance of the tech sector, and how Cambridge is No. 1 for science and technology in terms of intensity, as well as the data science that comes out of that.
Coming back to the schools in my constituency, Tring Park school for the performing arts is a vocational school for future performers, but maths is celebrated there as a creative and intellectual pursuit. Pupils compete in math competitions—one may become a future maths champion—and are encouraged to see mathematics as a tool that complements their artistry, as has been mentioned. From subdividing music and choreographing patterns, to developing algorithms in digital art, students are not just taught to do maths; they are taught to be mathematicians.
At Roundwood Park school in Harpenden, maths is one of the most popular A-level subjects, with a thriving enrichment programme that includes university taster days, United Kingdom Mathematics Trust challenges and presentations linking maths to real-world issues such as AI, oncology and environmental economics. Its pupils go on to study maths, economics and engineering at competitive universities, and the curriculum explicitly links abstract thinking to practical application.
Alongside those successes, schools in my constituency tell me that they are struggling to recruit the teachers they need—an issue reflected across the country, as Members on both sides of the Chamber mentioned. For example, St John Lawes school in Harpenden, a high-performing comprehensive, has a fully staffed maths department today, but its headteacher warns that recruiting high-quality staff is becoming harder. To manage, it has invested in platforms such as Dr Frost Maths and Sparx to help to consolidate maths learning, but it knows that that is not a suitable alternative to great teachers. As the hon. Member for Harlow mentioned, there are fantastic maths teachers across Harpenden, so it is vital that we get recruitment right. Those new teachers are the maths teachers of tomorrow.
Nationally, the situation is much more concerning. Although maths remains the most popular A-level, undergraduate numbers are predicted to drop by 20% by 2035, with departments across the country at risk of closure, particularly at lower-tariff universities. Meanwhile, teacher recruitment in maths reached only 63% of its target in 2023-24, and schools nationwide are increasingly reliant on non-specialist teachers. That directly impacts students’ engagement and confidence, and is especially worrying for girls. Despite outperforming boys at GCSE, girls are far less likely to continue maths post 16. According to a 2024 survey from Teach First, more than half of girls lack confidence in maths, compared with 40% of boys. We are losing that diverse talent where we need it most. We urgently need to dismantle those barriers by promoting role models, tackling bias and ensuring that inspiring, qualified teachers are available to every student.
As the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology spokesperson for the Lib Dems, I see the fast-paced change in science and technology, and I believe it is vital that women play a leading role in that future. For many, that will start with maths and science, as the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood highlighted. That is why programmes such as the advanced mathematics support programme are so important, as they have boosted A-level and further maths participation rates, nearly doubling core maths qualifications since 2018. Recent cuts threaten their continued success, however, which is why we want to hear the Minister’s response on those schemes. We should expand them, not scale them back.
The funding shortfalls have broader implications for science and innovation. The UK’s domestic computing capacity has slipped from third to 10th globally, and the Government’s independent review warns that that undermines our global position in science and technology. The decision to shelve the £800 million exascale computer at the University of Edinburgh, crucial for breakthroughs in drug development and clean energy, highlights that worrying trend. I echo the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire about the implications of the real-term cuts to UKRI on the future of maths.
To lead in innovation, green technology and AI, Britain must invest in mathematical sciences. That is why the Liberal Democrats would champion proper funding for maths education and research as an essential pillar of a forward-looking, knowledge-based economy. In 2023 alone, mathematical sciences contributed £495 billion to the UK’s economy. I would love the Minister to outline the funding that is going into supporting maths education and research.
The Liberal Democrats would ensure that maths and STEM teaching reflects the skills children need, including statistics, coding and data science, taught through creativity and critical thinking. We would embed digital and data literacy across the curriculum. We believe in preparing students for a future shaped by AI and new technologies.
Maths is more than just numbers; it underpins critical thinking, innovation and our ability to solve global challenges. Our economic strength, national security and capability to tackle climate change, disease and technological breakthroughs all depend on robust mathematical sciences. Maths also helps to develop the future of each individual.
I wholeheartedly support this debate from my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. If we get this right, maths will not just be our national strength but secure our national future.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) on securing this important debate. We have had some fantastic speeches, and any debate in which Johnny Ball gets a shout-out is a good debate in my view.
Our profession, politics, is awash with mathematical metaphors. Lyndon Johnson famously said that the first rule of democracy is that you have to be able to count. In Westminster, the Treasury is always insisting on making the numbers add up. Lots of junior Ministers who interact with the Treasury and try to get money out of it discover that they get the square root of naff all from those discussions. Occasionally, when I listen to hon. Members who are less concise—they are not in this debate—trouting on in the main Chamber, I am reminded of the space-filling Hilbert curve, which is repetitious and capable of filling an infinite amount of space if left unchecked.
One of my greatest beliefs is in the non-linear nature of innovation. As hon. Members have already alluded to, mathematics is a brilliant example of that. It was never obvious, when the obscure philosophers who became logicians were faffing around with strange upside down a’s and backwards e’s, that they would lay the foundations for the computation that defines our world today.
I read in Quanta magazine that in the ’60s we discovered something that seemed perfectly useless: Penrose tiling—infinitely non-repeating patterns, which are very pretty and obviously totally useless, right? No: they are now used in quantum encryption. We have found a use for that seemingly useless thing.
The same is true of one of the UK’s greatest industrial successes: Arm, which does obscure-seeming work on reduced instruction set computing. What use is that? Why would anyone need a really tiny thing that does not use much power? But we all have mobile phones, and the intellectual property from that bit of Britain’s industrial policy is now in everyone’s pocket, all over the world. Mathematics is hugely important. I completely agree with all hon. Members who have said that.
I have been goaded by the brilliant speech of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who said that I would talk about the last Government, and of course I will. It would be inappropriate not to add some numbers to a debate on maths, so what happened to mathematics under the last Government? Let us look at some international comparisons.
In the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study—TIMSS—between 2011 and 2023, England went from 10th in the world to sixth in the world for maths, and from ninth to fifth for science. That is remarkable progress that puts us top in the western world. We are not quite at the level of the Asian people who dominate the table, but we are the best in the west.
I cannot tell hon. Members how Scotland and Wales are doing on that metric because their Governments chose to withdraw from those competitions as they did not like the scrutiny. However, I can give a comparison by stating where those devolved Governments are in the results of the Programme for International Student Assessment. Between 2009 and 2022, England went from 21st to seventh in the world for maths in PISA results, and from 11th to ninth for science. Whereas Wales —where a lot of the reforms that we had in England were avoided for ideological reasons—went from 29th to 27th for maths, and slumped from 21st to 29th for science.
That is part of a wider picture. I encourage everyone to read the brilliant report “Major challenges for education in Wales” by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which points out that the average deprived child in England is now doing as well or better than the average child in Wales. The gap is so big, and the deprivation progress has been so great in England, that the deprived child in England is now in a better position than the average child in Wales. That is an incredible situation.
Looking at the improvement in school attainment by IDACI—income deprivation affecting children index—decile, we see improvement across the income distribution under the last Government, but the biggest improvement in England was in the bottom half of the income distribution. That is true for maths throughout the educational life cycle. Today, 90,000 more children at key stage 2—the end of junior school—meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths than in 2015-16.
That progress was driven by a number of measures, including our putting in 27,000 extra teachers over our time in government. Over the last Parliament, we increased real-terms per pupil funding by 11%. We brought in things such as maths schools and maths hubs, lots more low-stakes testing—my daughter is about to do the year 4 times tables test—and the key stage 2 tests. All those things, by the way, are still opposed by some people in the trade unions even though the evidence for the effectiveness of low-stakes testing, for example, is so strong. The National Education Union still opposes all forms of testing in primary school—a crazy position that we were right to reject in England.
There has been real progress as a result of those reforms. Although everything in England is far from perfect—there is loads of room for progress and lots of problems to fix—we can see what the alternative is. Where those reforms were not made for ideological reasons because the unions said no to academisation, school choice and school accountability, things got worse. The people who suffered from that ideology were not the rich and those who could afford to go private, but the poorest.
Some of the things being done now in schools are a mistake, such as hammering the budget for the advanced mathematics support programme. As has already been touched on in this debate, and as quite a lot of the people who care most about maths have pointed out, that is a big mistake. Jens Marklof, president of the London Mathematical Society, said that it will harm the chances of children from poorer areas. He said:
“There’s no AI without maths and if the government is really serious about its AI strategy they have to significantly scale up the support for maths education at all levels…The big success of AMSP was to enable kids who went to schools that didn’t offer further maths to give them this opportunity”.
Likewise, Adrian Smith, the Royal Society president, said it is
“spectacularly short-sighted to pull funding from programmes designed to support teachers and schools to deliver better maths provision.”
He also said:
“Our maths education is not up to scratch—too many young people are leaving school without the skills they need for life or the well-paid jobs that will drive economic growth”.
Dan Abramson, the chief executive of U-Maths, the umbrella organisation for university maths schools in England, and a professor of maths at King’s College London, said:
“For the UK to be at the forefront of AI and the data-driven modern economy, we need excellent mathematicians from all backgrounds, and we need more of them—that means more investment, not less”.
We set up the advanced mathematics support programme in 2018 to provide extra maths help to schools, and the Government have now cut it. I think that it is a mistake and I hope that they will look at it again. Unfortunately, that is part of a pattern. The Government have cut support not just for maths, but for physics, computing, Latin, cadets and behaviour hubs. A lot of the things that were doing a lot of good, including for maths, have been axed even though they are very small in the grand scheme of the Department for Education’s £100 billion budget. I hope that the Government will rethink those cuts.
The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire also wanted to talk about the higher education part of the piece. It is very striking that although 50% more people are now doing A-level maths—a great success—and the number of people doing double or triple science at GCSE has more or less doubled, which is great progress, that has not always translated into increases in the number of people doing maths at university. In fact, while there has been about a 20% increase in the total numbers entering HE courses at university since 2018-19, the number going into maths, while marginally up, is broadly flat.
Why is the improvement we are seeing in schools not leading to larger numbers doing maths at university? I am afraid that goes to the heart of the issues with our higher education system more broadly. I understand the logic of why tuition fees were brought in and I accept up to a point the idea of a market in higher education, but it seems to us that that market has gone too far. It is really a pseudo-market, because we rely entirely on young people aged 16 and 17 to drive the allocation of resources into our enormous higher education system.
The gradual move from teaching, or T, grants to a highly fees-based system gives Ministers far less control than they previously had. The Government’s decision last week to further reduce high-cost subject grants—T grants, as they used to be called—by a further 10% in real terms is a mistake in its own right because it hits the subjects such as engineering and science that we need for the future, and gives Ministers less control over what is going on in higher education.
The incentives set up by the pseudo-market in education have led to a great growth in courses that are cheap to provide but do not necessarily give great value to either the student or the taxpayer. We know from the leading work of the Institute for Fiscal Studies that, when we look at the combined perspective of the taxpayer and the student themselves, higher education is not worth it, at least from an economic point of view, for around 30% of those who go into it at the moment,.
Since the work that the IFS did, which is based on those who graduated during the mid-noughties, we have seen the graduate premium decline even further. The marginal students who we have been adding have even lower earnings, so those figures could easily be worse if we were to rerun that analysis now. That needs to be addressed.
There is absolutely sometimes a case for higher education to be simply beautiful—to do theology, art or whatever—and for it not to be of economic value, but we should be clear about when we choose to subsidise that. We should also be clear that things that are highly economically useful, such as mathematics and science, also have intrinsic value. They are also beautiful and there is an intrinsic value to studying them—that is not just the case for some of those things, particularly the creative arts, where we see the great concentration of those who end up with very low earnings and negative returns from an economic point of view.
We need to rethink. We need not just to patch up and mend the existing system, but to fundamentally rethink the incentives that it has set up. We should give ourselves the ability to make sure that we are investing in and driving up the growth of subjects such as mathematics, which are so critical to our future economy and security as a country. I will not go further into it than that, but the issues facing mathematics are, in a sense, part of the wider issues facing higher education. I hope that the Government will move from a patching up and mending attitude to a reformist and overhauling one.
The one thing I want discourage Ministers from doing is something that I am worried will come out of the Government’s curriculum and assessment review. Although I have lots of respect for Becky Francis, who is leading the review, one of the things that Ministers have been very keen to do is say that we need to have lots more time for arts subjects—for fun subjects such as music, drama and dance. That is fine in a sense, but Ministers have to be super clear about how they will find that time, and whether they are going to find it by funding some extra hours in the school day or something, because otherwise it inescapably means less time on other things. One of the good things that has happened, and one of the reasons standards have gone up, is that schools now spend about 13% more time teaching maths than they used to in 2010, so more time is going into this critical subject than was before. If we say that we want to have more time for something else, let us be honest about the trade-offs and what we are going to not do and let us also be honest about the consequences of that.
Chris Vince
This does not have to be a political point, but to answer the question that the hon. Gentleman just posed about where schools find the time: my argument is that maths does not need to be taught in a silo. Many subjects—even creative subjects such as art and music, and certainly design and technology—would include an aspect of maths. For many young people, being able to apply maths in those particular subjects would actually be really useful. Would the hon. Gentleman concede that point at least?
Neil O'Brien
I am happy to agree that we can bring maths into many other things, and that is also a fun way of teaching maths. In return, I put back to the hon. Gentleman that there are limits to that. If we want to have more time for something else, we have to say where it is coming from. The improvement in those international league table rankings that I mentioned has not come about as a result of some sort of magic. It has come about by us spending more time on that, putting more resources into it and making it a priority. Unfortunately, not everything can be a priority. If everything is a priority, then nothing is. The last Government chose to prioritise maths and STEM. I think it was the right decision. One can argue that we should go for a different course, but if we are going to do that, people should be explicit about it and honest about what they are actually going to do.
Let me not turn into the thing that I have already criticised—the space-filling Hilbert curve—and take up endless time in this debate. It has been a hugely important debate with brilliant speeches from lots of Members from across the House. I hope that the Ministers will act on some of the brilliant suggestions that have been made, and that we can further improve math education in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
It is a real pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the many hon. Members for participating in this debate on an important subject. I am sure that you would agree with me, Mr Vickers, that their enthusiasm and passion means we can rest assured that this all adds up and that there is a level of agreement.
I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for securing this important debate and for his optimistic thoughts on mathematics and its being a significant part of our present and future society, especially for our young people, teachers and institutions, as well as economically.
I want to acknowledge what my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) said about maths being a beautiful thing—it is indeed. I enjoyed maths when I was at school and I still do it with my children, helping them through their own education; it is with us everywhere.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for her contribution and wish her daughter every success with her results. I agree that we need to celebrate, encourage and have a love for learning maths.
I will of course attempt to respond to the many areas of the subject that Members have mentioned so far. I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for speaking so eloquently about the significance of number-based information and how relevant that is for our life in general and for life skills. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) on being a maths champion and on the many points that she raised. I thank all those involved in maths and the teachers in our schools, colleges and universities for doing such an excellent job in teaching our children, our young people and adults about this most important subject.
I do not perceive the debate as contentious. Nobody here today would say that maths is not important, because it absolutely is. We all agree on that. I loved maths when I was at school. It was one of my favourite subjects and it remains so. But why is it so important? It has a critical role to play in the future of the UK economy. Higher levels of achievement are usually associated with higher earnings and productivity, which are a key determining factor of economic growth. There is a strong demand for mathematical skills in the labour market. Such skills can increase individual productivity, earnings and employment opportunities and are important in everyday life and activities.
Many careers require maths skills, which change over time. I think it is safe to say that for most of us in this Chamber, the need for maths when we were starting out was different to the needs for maths today. We only need to mention the words artificial intelligence—it has already been mentioned—to recognise that. Excellence in maths is one of the many skills needed to drive growth in the AI industry, and we want to ensure that all children and young people have the foundational maths knowledge and equal opportunities to progress in their careers. Advanced mathematics underpins the development of cutting edge AI, which the Prime Minister has set out as a key driver in the plan for change, helping to turbocharge growth and boost living standards.
In schools, all key stages play an essential part in maths knowledge. Under the current curriculum, in key stage 1 pupils are taught a basic underpinning of mathematics, ensuring they develop confidence and mental fluency with whole numbers, counting and place value. The principal focus of mathematics teaching in key stage 2 is to ensure that pupils become increasingly fluent with whole numbers and the four operations, including number facts. The percentage of pupils meeting the key stage 2 expected standards in maths in the 2023-24 academic year was 73%.
The programme of study for key stage 3 is organised into apparently distinct domains, but pupils should build on key stage 2 and connections across mathematical ideas to develop fluency, mathematical reasoning and competency in solving increasingly sophisticated problems. The mathematical content set out in the key stage 3 and key stage 4 programmes of study covers a full range of material contained in the GCSE mathematics qualifications. In 2024, 72% of pupils achieved a GCSE grade 9 to 4 in mathematics by the end of key stage 4. I should point out that that is based on the current national curriculum, but there is an ongoing independent curriculum assessment review, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. I welcome the Education Committee’s keen interest in this topic, and I am sure there are many other views as well.
Maths does not stop when someone leaves school. The study of maths post-16 is important to ensure the future workforce is skilled, competitive and productive. Skills developed while studying maths help adults with everyday life. There is an expectation that students will continue to study maths if they need to and, of course, if they choose to. From what I have heard from Members in this room, I am sure we all encourage those students who have an aptitude for maths to continue at A-level and Higher maths.
It is good to know that last year almost 100,000 students took A-level maths, and there was a 20% increase in students of A-level further maths. A-level maths remains the most popular A-level subject, as it has been since 2014. But there will also be those young people who did not get the grades they needed at school. Any young person who has not yet attained GCSE grade 4 in maths must continue to study maths under the maths and English condition of funding.
We support young people who are aged 16 to18 at the start of their apprenticeships to continue to develop vital maths and English skills during their apprenticeships, either through GCSE or functional skills qualifications. Gaining level 2 skills in these areas is important, giving young people the opportunity to progress in life, in learning and in work.
We do not stop with young people either. There are many adults who missed out earlier in life for whatever reason and need the right maths skills or qualifications to get on. Unfortunately, the numbers do not make good reading. Some 8.5 million adults have low maths or English skills, or both. That is why we fund adults aged 19 and above to study maths for free through our essential skills legal entitlements. This allows adults without level 2 maths skills to study high-quality qualifications such as GCSEs and functional skills qualifications and to gain the skills they need to succeed in life.
In 2023-24, we funded more than 100,000 adults to study maths through the legal entitlement. However, the number of adults studying maths has declined in recent years, so it is important to turn that around. Adults undertaking apprenticeships continue to benefit from the job-specific maths and English skills they need to do the job.
Although A-level maths is the single most popular A-level, we are not taking that for granted in our plan for change. We are investing £8.2 million to improve participation in and the teaching of advanced maths. The funding for the advanced maths support programme will support teacher career progression development and student enrichment, with a focus on girls and students from disadvantaged backgrounds, breaking down the barriers to success, so that all young people have the chance to progress to STEM and AI careers in the future.
The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire spoke about long-term investment in mathematics and mathematical science. I would like to talk briefly about the importance of undergraduate-level maths and the significant growth in demand for jobs requiring undergraduate maths skills. We fully recognise the critical importance of sustaining a strong pipeline of mathematics graduates to meet the evolving need of the economy, research and innovation sectors. Maths underpins a wide range of disciplines and industries. Ensuring a steady flow of skilled graduates is essential to maintaining the UK’s global competitiveness, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien).
It is encouraging to see that in 2023-24, 9,105 undergraduates qualified in maths, which is up 2.2% from the previous year, despite that figure being lower than in earlier years. It is also good to note that in 2024 there were more than 55,000 applications to main scheme full-time undergraduate courses in mathematics, an increase of 5.5% from 2023 and 10% from 2019.
Internationally, England has performed well in recent studies. However, there is still work to do and there is a significant difference in performance between different pupil groups, including a gap associated with disadvantage. In 2022, pupils in England achieved a mean PISA mathematics score of 492, which is significantly higher than the OECD average of 472. In 2023, pupils in England performed on average significantly above the TIMSS centre point in mathematics and science in both year 5 and year 9. They also performed significantly above the 2023 international mean in both subjects and in both year groups.
Many Members have talked today about teaching, teaching recruitment and our focus on that area. I will just reassure Members that we remain extremely focused on recruiting teachers, including maths teachers. We have a series of bursaries and scholarships, and we are also focusing on how we retain teachers. We will continue to focus on that, because we recognise that we need to meet that target of 6,500 teachers. I also reassure Members that we have had an increase in the number of teachers of maths at secondary schools and in SEND.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for securing the debate and for speaking about the importance of maths. I am also grateful to all the other Members who participated in the debate for the significant points that they made. Everyone has made very valuable points about the importance of maths, so I hope that Members are happy that the Government share their views and the concerns they have raised. It is always good to find common ground and consensus across the House on important matters. The steps we have taken underline the importance of maths to individuals, to employers and indeed to the country.
Ian Sollom
I thank the Minister for the Government’s response to this debate and I also thank all the Members who contributed.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) rightly pulled me up on engineering, which I will squeeze into the mathematical sciences, and I apologise. He also shared his love of teaching maths. It was so wonderful to hear his excitement, for example, about communicating the idea of the golden ratio, the beauty of which is everywhere to be seen.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) touched on an aspect of financial education that I did not get to, although I would have liked to. She also spoke about those who do not achieve grade 4 and have to go through endless rounds of resits. I could not agree more that getting the teaching of mathematics skills into vocational training will be a much better way forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) spoke eloquently about how we are bombarded with information in the modern world. Understanding numbers is critical for decision making and understanding the world around us. She also touched on dyscalculia, which requires specialist understanding in schools. I look forward to hearing more about the Government’s plans for SEND in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) responded for the Lib Dems today. I, too, congratulate her on being a maths champion. I was not—I never achieved that particular accolade—but I hope that we are all maths champions today.
The spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), shared possibly the most obscure mathematics joke that the House has ever heard. However, his description of Hilbert space was totally apt.
I will wrap up my comments now, so as not to go on infinitely. We have had a really good debate today. It reflects the importance of mathematics to the UK, and long may that contribution continue. I am reassured by some of what the Minister said, but we will continue to scrutinise the Government’s plans as we see them being put into action.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the contribution of maths to the UK.