Crime and Policing Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, who I suspect will speak to it later. I agree that in many cases honour-based abuse is perpetrated not by a single individual but by an extended family or other group of persons. The challenge we have with the amendment is that the definition in the Bill adopts the usual legislative conventions whereby references to the singular include the plural unless otherwise indicated. Therefore, the statutory definition already applies where abuse is perpetrated by more than one person. However, we do want to develop the statutory guidance so that that is completely clear for everybody.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will remember our discussion, and I hope that she can help me. Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC was appointed to lead an independent review of laws on public order and hate crime. The review was also to consider the laws around protest, and we were hopeful that we would have that. I am not aware that the review has concluded, so perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us. If it has not concluded, why are we legislating before that?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend, who I know feels strongly about this issue, as do many others—I very much respect that position. I met him a few months ago, when the review had just started. The review has yet to conclude, but it will do so in the coming months. The work that Lord Macdonald is undertaking is quite substantial, and I know, having received updates on what he is doing and who he is talking to, that it is wide and is taking a bit longer than expected, but that is in order to get it right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) will know that the cumulative disruption amendment was announced by the Home Secretary after the Heaton Park attack. Perhaps we will come to this more in closing the debate, but I think there is a lack of understanding in some quarters—I do not mean my hon. Friend—about the nature of that amendment. To be clear, sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 empower senior police officers to impose conditions on processions and on public assemblies respectively. They can impose conditions only under certain criteria to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption. We are not changing sections 12 or 14. At the moment, the police can consider cumulative disruption when looking at whether a protest should have conditions imposed on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns—I think many people across the country share them—not only about the issue, however strongly people might feel about it, but about the way that it was added to this Bill after Committee stage, meaning that some of the scrutiny that might otherwise have happened did not, and no evidence on it was given at the evidence sessions. It was slipped into the Bill, and I do not think that there was adequate scrutiny of it. Lots of people across the country share that concern. Such a seismic change in the relationship between the state and individuals should have had more scrutiny in this place.

On fly-tipping, I believe that removing the instrument of this crime is an effective tool, and it could extend beyond the legislative framework set out by the Government in the waste crime action plan.

However, the measures brought forward in the other place are not limited merely to the issue of fly-tipping. There are important proposals relating to non-crime hate incidents. In Lords amendment 334, colleagues in the other place wisely took the step of ending the investigation and recording of non-crime hate incidents and ensuring that any future incident recording guidance has

“due regard to the right to freedom of expression.”

That is a sensible, necessary measure, as the Government’s proposal appears to be a rebranding of the existing scheme with a more restrictive triage system. Reports would still be logged, personal data would still be recorded and disclosure rules would remain unchanged. Officers and staff would still be tied up monitoring incidents that do not meet the criminal threshold at a cost of time and resources. As Lord Hogan-Howe told the Lords,

“we need to move on from the recording of non-crime hate incidents by removing them altogether from police systems.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2026; Vol. 852, c. 173.]

I am afraid that unless we agree to the amendment, we risk returning to this issue in the future. It is estimated that 660 hours of police time have been spent on non-crime hate incidents. We can change that and see that time invested back into policing our communities.

On antisocial behaviour and illicit retailers, we hear repeatedly from businesses and local communities about rogue premises causing persistent problems on our high streets. If we are serious about supporting the police to do their job, we must ensure that they have the powers they need to tackle not just crime but the wider public nuisance and disorder that too often accompany it.

A range of organisations, including the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, have been clear that stronger powers are needed to deal with rogue retailers. While the current legal framework does provide tools, in practice they are too often insufficient. The time limits attached to closure notices and orders simply do not go far enough. Instead, we see a revolving door: offenders wait out short closure periods, reopen under a different name and continue their activities, sometimes shifting location before enforcement agencies have the chance to complete proper investigations. That is the crux of the problem: the system does not enable action that sticks.

In the meantime, the impact is clear. Our high streets suffer as legitimate businesses lose trade, confidence declines, and responsible retailers who follow the rules and invest in their communities are left competing against those who operate with impunity. There is also a wider impact on our communities, particularly on young people. Premises linked to that kind of activity can become focal points for antisocial behaviour, drawing in vulnerable individuals and exposing them to harm. If we want safer streets and stronger communities, we cannot allow that cycle to continue. Lords amendment 333 offers a practical solution: it would extend the timeframe for enforcement, giving agencies the ability to take action that is thorough, proportionate and, crucially, effective. It is about ensuring that when action is taken, it delivers real results, not just temporary disruption.

To uphold public safety, we must update the law to reflect the current nature of the crimes our society faces. Lords amendment 311 reflects the worrying growth in the number of protest groups that engage in serious criminal activity to further their aims. However, being organisations, they are often shielded from the full force of the law, as was set out in the other House. The designation in the amendment is not terrorist proscription. It aims to restrict membership, promotion, fundraising, organising and material support, with proportionate penalties that are less significant than those that proscribed terrorist groups attract. Although I understand that the Government believe the proposal to be premature given their ongoing review, they have acted for understandable reasons on cumulative disruption. Why should that not be extended to this provision to ensure that there are restrictions on organisations whose purpose is to break the law?

On extreme ideologies, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary have been clear that the Conservative party would work with the Government to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is apparent to many Members across the House, and to our counterparts in the EU, that the threat posed by the IRGC is real. However, despite their comments in opposition, the Government have not introduced such measures.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the proscription of the IRGC. Will he explain to the House why the Tory party did not do that in their 14 years in government?

[Matt Vickers]

The then Opposition told us that they had really strong views about it. They are now in government but are not doing anything about it. The hon. Gentleman need not worry about another day or another week; he has the opportunity today to set the process in motion by voting for Lords amendment 359. It is not enough that Iran is covered by the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme—we must go further. The IRGC is not a theoretical concern. As my colleagues have repeatedly stressed to the Government, it has threatened those in our country and supported armed groups that have killed British and allied troops.

We welcome the Government’s adoption of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) to address the depiction of strangulation in pornography. I understand that, through discussions with Baroness Bertin on related subjects, the Government have undertaken to separately progress further measures to tackle pornography featuring 18-plus step-incest—in which one party is the family member of another—and the mimicking of children aged 16-plus, as well as on age verification in pornography. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified those matters further.

I put on record my party’s opposition to Lords amendment 301, which unnecessarily expands the definition of “aggravated offences” to include certain characteristics, even though existing law already covers most of those factors at sentencing, and provides extensive hate crime protections. The change has been introduced late in the legislative process, with minimal scrutiny, raising concerns about transparency. The Law Commission has warned in expert advice that including sex as a protected characteristic in that setting could be ineffective and even counterproductive, as it may complicate prosecutions and create hierarchies of victims. Overall, the amendment appears more symbolic than practical, adding complexity without clear benefit to crime reduction.

The Government have before them amendments that would strengthen our legal system and better protect the public and the police, but we cannot ignore the reality on the ground. Officer numbers have fallen while demand continues to rise, and the Bill will add to that pressure. That is why it matters that, when the police act, they can use the full weight of the law. Without the right powers, higher expectations mean little. Where disorder takes hold, it damages communities and undermines confidence, as we have seen in places like Clapham common.

While parts of the Bill are welcome, there are still gaps. The Lords amendments to which I have spoken would strengthen enforcement and support officers. If we are serious about safer streets, removing them risks falling short of what the public expect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

Follow that!

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Follow that, indeed!

Let me begin by making it clear that I welcome the Bill and the many measures that the Government have introduced. There is much here that will strengthen policing, protect communities, and respond to genuine public concern about crime and safety. However, Lords amendment 312 causes me real concern, because protest is not some peripheral irritation in our democracy. It is not an inconvenience to be managed. It is, in truth, part of the lifeblood of the labour movement, and of every movement that has ever expanded rights, protections or dignity in this country. From the earliest trade unionists to the Chartists to those who organised in the streets when they had no voice in this Chamber, progress in this country has never been handed down; it has been demanded, organised, and often disrupted into being—yes, disrupted. Protest exists precisely because Governments of the day, of all political colours, have too often sought to restrict the expression of public opinion when it has become uncomfortable. We should be honest about that.

Public organising—protest—is how people express their view, but expressing a view is not the same as being heard, and it is certainly not the same as achieving change. Change comes when that expression is repeated, sustained, and cumulative—when it builds pressure over time until it cannot be ignored. That was as true for the suffragettes as it was for those in the anti-apartheid movement. Neither succeeded because they protested once, politely, and then went home. They succeeded because disruption accumulated, because pressure mounted, and because their cause could not be quietly set aside. That is the democratic tradition we inherit, and it is one that we should be extremely cautious about constraining—which brings me to Lords amendment 312.

Whatever its intentions, the amendment represents a continuation of, not a departure from, a trajectory set by the last Government. We have in recent years seen a steady expansion of public order powers, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023. At each stage, concerns were raised—by Members on both sides of the House, by those in the other place and by civil liberties organisations—that the balance between public order and the right to protest was being tilted too far, and we are now being asked to accept a further step in that same direction.

It was not so many weeks ago that Gina Romero, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, was in this Parliament, expressing horror about the fact that the United Kingdom Government were at the leading edge of these provisions. The rest of the world is looking. Other countries are waiting to see how this plays out in our country, because they intend to copy and paste and do the self-same thing in their jurisdictions. It is perhaps fortunate that Viktor Orbán has gone, because I am pretty convinced that he would be looking to these measures, among others.

Lords amendment 312 does something very specific: it revives, in substance, provisions that were previously rejected. Hon. Members will recall that during the passage of the Public Order Act 2023, the then Government sought, through Lords amendments 48 and 49, to require the police to take account of cumulative disruption when imposing conditions on protests under sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. Those provisions were defeated in the House of Lords, with opposition from Labour, Liberal Democrat and Cross-Bench peers, yet even before the ink was dry on those proceedings and the 2023 Act had received Royal Assent, the then Government sought to achieve the same outcome through secondary legislation: the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023. Those regulations did three things of note: they lowered the threshold of disruption to “more than minor”, introduced the concept of “cumulative disruption”, and expanded police discretion to consider multiple events collectively.

And what happened? The regulations were quashed by the courts in the National Council for Civil Liberties v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2023. They were quashed because the process by which they were brought forward was found to be unlawful. To be fair, the Government have learned from that episode, and Lords amendment 312 is more cautious. It embeds the concept of cumulative disruption in primary legislation, and avoids reopening the broader and highly contentious definition of “serious disruption”, reflecting an incremental approach shaped by judicial intervention and parliamentary resistance. I recognise that, but recognising that the drafting is more careful does not answer the central question: should we be doing this at all? We are being asked to take a concept that was rejected in this House and the other place, and which was unsuccessfully imposed through regulations that were struck down by the courts, and to reintroduce it. It is more carefully packaged but substantively similar.

There is a second concern, which is about the process, because this measure has not come to us in the ordinary way. It has not been introduced as a Government clause in this House, which would make it subject to full debate, amendment and Division; it has been inserted by the Lords. I say gently but firmly that that mirrors the approach that many of us criticised when it was adopted by the previous Government. If we believe that something is important enough to legislate on—particularly something that touches on fundamental rights—it is important enough to be properly scrutinised in this Chamber.

In considering the proposals, we should reflect on very recent events. It has been reported that in the case involving Ben Jamal and Chris Nineham, which I understand is now subject to appeal, the defence argued that at the protest in question, the police relied on powers relating to cumulative disruption that were derived from the 2023 regulations, which were later quashed by the Court of Appeal in the National Council for Civil Liberties v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If that account is borne out, it raises serious questions. It means that even without a clear statutory footing, such expansive interpretations are already influencing operational decisions, which underlines the risk that legislating for cumulative disruption may not clarify the law, but instead entrench uncertainty and overreach at the expense of the right to protest. 

I say to Ministers that much in this Bill commands support, and there is no need to jeopardise that support by attaching to it a measure that raises serious civil liberties concerns and has not been properly tested in this House. The Government should withdraw Lords amendment 312. If they do not, Members should be clear that this is not a minor or technical issue to be nodded through. It may require the House to divide—if necessary, on a roll-up motion at the end of the proceedings—to ensure that our view is properly recorded and we defend the civil liberties that generations have so proudly fought for.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly support the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) has tabled to Lords amendment 300. Those of us who have dealt with honour cases recognise the overall family involvement, and there needs to be recognition that we are talking about persons, not a person.

I have listened to a large number of speeches that have done a tremendous job of setting out the principles behind the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 312, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), which I support. I do not want to talk about the principles; I want to talk about the practicalities, because I am worried that it is when the Government rush to legislate around a particular incident, and do not provide adequate time for debate and individual votes, that Parliament makes significant mistakes. That has been demonstrated in the past.

The Minister referenced the Manchester events, which were absolutely tragic, and the demonstrations that took place then. However, she also mentioned that the powers to deal with such events—to prevent and restrict demonstrations that are causing such distress—already exist. She also mentioned that the cumulative impact is a factor that police officers need to take into account; the change made by the Bill is simply that it will say that police will be required to take the cumulative impact into account. That seems like a simple, small step forward, but I think it will cause immense problems. In particular, it will place a burden on the police, but it will also introduce an element of subjective judgment by a number of senior police officers.

I will give examples from our history. In the 1980s, I was involved in the City of London branch of the anti-apartheid movement, and for two years, we held a permanent demonstration outside South Africa House. I remember being there, singing Christmas carols, on Christmas day. It was disruptive, and people were arrested for individual offences, but that was the whole point. We were there because we said that we would not leave until Nelson Mandela was released. At that time, we were condemned in this House for supporting a terrorist, and for supporting a terrorist organisation called the African National Congress. These days, if we held up the banners that we held up then, we would probably be arrested. The other example I give is from 1985, I think. I was involved in the organisation of the people’s march for jobs. A group of unemployed workers marched from the north all the way to London, and my job was to prepare for their arrival in London, but in every town and city, they were met with a demonstration. On many occasions, those demonstrations were disruptive—that is cumulative.

For me, the other issue is that unfortunately, I think this change is largely targeted at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstrations in London. I have been involved in some of the processes of negotiation with the police on each of those demonstrations—I have been on virtually every one, over two years. I have been advising the organisations involved when they are going into the negotiations, as well as during those negotiations. So that Members understand, what happens is that a date is identified months in advance. As that date gets nearer, discussions take place with the police, and severe restrictions are placed on the route and the timing of the march. The issue of synagogues has come up; I do not think there has ever been a synagogue within half a mile of one of those marches, but the demonstrators themselves have said, “We’ll adjust the times, so that it does not in any way interfere with any service.” Those are the negotiations that go on. It is a thorough process.

However—I do not say this lightly—as a result of my experience of the whole process, I have lost confidence in the judgment of the senior Metropolitan police officers. I say that because I was involved in some of the discussions on the demonstrations in which Ben Jamal and Chris Nineham were arrested. I found then that the use of the restrictions was deliberately provocative. What has been said in court since then has been disingenuous, because I was there on the spot, and I saw what happened. In fact, the next day, I was pulled into the police station and interviewed as a result of the events that day. I have lost that confidence, because we were assured that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and his senior team would consult with the wider communities in advance of planning for these demonstrations, so that views could be taken on board, particularly the views of the Jewish community. “Consultation with the Jewish community” has largely been interpreted as consultation with the Board of Deputies. The Board of Deputies represents a certain section of the Jewish community. In fact, it has split. Last year, 37 members expressed their concern about how the Board of Deputies was expressing its position on Gaza.

During the demonstrations, I start the march with the Jewish bloc. I have marching beside me Stephen Kapos, the Holocaust survivor who became quite a famous architect. The organisations in the Jewish bloc have never been consulted about the march. The Haredi community, which is the largest Jewish community, particularly in London—the orthodox Jewish community —has never been consulted about these demonstrations. I am sorry, but I have lost confidence in the assurances that we have been given that there are wider consultations with the community.

In the past few weeks, I have lost so much confidence in the judgment of Metropolitan police senior officers. Every year for decades, we have had a march in London for the Palestinians on the anniversary of Nakba, to commemorate the Palestinians being forcibly removed from their own land. Nakba means catastrophe. There is a march in London every year around 16 March. This year, it was going to go ahead as normal. Planning and discussions were taking place, and then the police said, “No, you can’t go on your normal route.” Why is that? Because the police had allocated it to Tommy Robinson. We saw what happened last year in London on Tommy Robinson’s march. There was violence, and there were attacks on police and individuals, yet the Palestinian demonstration was displaced for this far-right group—thugs, in many instances. That demonstrated to me the bias among Metropolitan police senior officers. In many ways, it demonstrates how they could start interpreting the concept of cumulative impact in this legislation, which will go through today.

With every move towards restricting peaceful protest in any way, there is a risk. We have seen in the past, on a number of occasions, that if we deny people the right to peaceful protest, they will riot. There is a risk that, through this legislation, we undermine our historic, real commitment to democratic, peaceful protest. That right has achieved so much in our country; we have achieved so much through the reforms that have been demanded. This legislation puts in peril those rights, and in addition, through it, we could be acting provocatively, undermining the peaceful protest that we want to see. That could result in the potential for riot. That is why we needed more time to debate and discuss the issue, and why we needed a right to vote on the motion to disagree. That is not going to happen tonight, and I think we will regret it in the long term.

[Andy McDonald]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that although Lord Macdonald of River Glaven has been commissioned to carry out a review of the complex public order architecture, we are taking a measure in this arena without the benefit of that review’s findings? Is that not putting the cart before the horse?

[John McDonnell]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He made the point earlier, and I think it is completely rational and understandable.

What adds to my anxiety is that in the normal run of things, a serious matter such as this would be introduced in the House of Commons, and there would be a proper Commons debate, after which the matter would go off to the Lords, and then come back to us. I feel that we are being bounced into this today, and I did not expect that of my Government on an issue of this sort, because it is so important, and because it will have major consequences for us in the future—and particularly for our movement, which was based on protest from the very beginning. We seem to be undermining our historic tradition, and our commitment to a role that we have played historically and will almost inevitably need to play in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

Yes, he is a shadow Minister—I am very happy to give him his correct title.

Britain is a country that will not tolerate hate, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth said. She spoke about aggravated offences relating to disability, trans and sex, and bringing those into line with the existing aggravated offences. That will support victims, and not just in terms of potential sentencing and justice; it will mean that victims can access more support, which I very much welcome, and I am glad that she does too.

Turning to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the issue of the glorification of terrorism—oh, I see he is not in his place; I will come back to that issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) has been doing so much work on a number of different areas, not least all of the Lords amendments that relate to porn. She gave a really powerful speech about how pain for women is increasingly perceived as equalling pleasure for men, and she spoke of the need to tackle that in many different ways, because sexualised violence online can become violence in real life. I am glad that she welcomed the step-incest amendments, which are absolutely right, as well as those on people trying to look like children, which she called “barely legal content”. I heard her message about proactively verifying age and consent and about bringing in the timetable to deliver that as soon as we can.

My hon. Friend also talked about honour-based abuse. We understand and agree with her, as well as other hon. Members who raised the importance of realising that often it is not a single crime but involves a whole group of people. We need to ensure that is clear in all the training done on identifying and responding to this form of abuse. Therefore, alongside the statutory guidance, we are developing additional free learning modules for professionals who work with victims and perpetrators of honour-based abuse. That includes a general module as well as dedicated modules on multi-agency responses. Together, those modules will strengthen statutory professionals’ ability to recognise the signs and to manage cases appropriately and safely in practice. I hope that is reassuring to my hon. Friend.

I turn to Lords amendment 312, which many hon. Members spoke to. There are a number of things to say on our cumulative disruption amendment. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who talked powerfully about his position, which I respect. I agree that protest and the right to protest is part of the lifeblood of the Labour movement, and that progress is rarely—if ever—handed down without first having been campaigned for. I understand his concern, and the concern of everyone in the House, that we balance the right to protest with the impact of protest. We have had many debates on that in this place over the past few years.

The Home Secretary asked Lord Macdonald to review public order legislation and hate crime legislation, because we have had lots of different pieces of legislation and there is a need to take a holistic look at that to see whether it is right. Lord Macdonald has not reported yet; he will do so within a few months, and we very much look forward to what he has to say. I hope that when he does report we can consider his recommendations in this place and discuss all his findings together.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Given what she has just said, would it not have been wiser to await the outcome of the review, so that we could have seen Lord Macdonald’s view of the entire scene before taking yet further legislative measures that will move the dial even further? Would that not have been the right course of action?

[Sarah Jones]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point, which we have discussed before. As he knows, the announcement that the amendment would be made was given by the Home Secretary after the Heaton Park attack and the protest that followed. It has not come from nowhere; it has been debated and suggested by policing colleagues for some time. The Government’s view was that this Bill is a vehicle we could use to introduce this legislation, and that we should take the opportunity to do so. I know that he disagrees with that decision, but we made it because we feel this is a necessary step, given the situation in which we find ourselves.

I want to be really clear again about what the amendment does and does not do. Marches can only be banned in very, very specific circumstances, as happened with the al-Quds march recently—the first time a march had been banned since 2012. The amendment will make no difference to that whatsoever. It will make no difference to what march can and cannot be banned. An assembly cannot be banned at all, as there is no legislative basis for that, so again, the amendment will make no difference at all.

It already is the case, and it has been since 1986 when the Public Order Act was introduced, that the police can consider cumulative disruption when they look at imposing conditions on a protest. A condition could be the time that the protest is allowed to take place, the route that the protest can go down or the number of people allowed on that protest. Since 1986, the police have had the ability to consider cumulative disruption when they look at whether they should impose conditions. The amendment means that they have to look at and consider the impact of cumulative disruption when they look at imposing conditions.

[Sarah Jones]

My point was that the basis of cumulative disruption has been in the law from the Public Order Act 1986. In terms of the definition, the police use their discretion on the definition—that is absolutely the case—and they have done so since 1986, when they were able to consider that.

I will say a couple of things on that basis. The police have to balance the rights of freedom of assembly and speech that are enshrined in the European convention on human rights—they have to do that. When they are considering what they do with protests, they have to balance and consider those rights, and if they are going to impose conditions, that has to be done under specific areas, which might be serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. When and if this Bill is passed and we move forward, I will commit to working with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to make sure that the guidance is as clear as it can be. However, the definition of cumulative disruption is just its natural meaning, and the police have had that power since 1986.

[Andy McDonald]

May I trouble the Minister one more time?

[Sarah Jones]

Yes.

[Andy McDonald]

Just on that, if she is going to consult with the College of Policing and others, where is the role for this House to have its voice in that discussion? There are many people here who would like to positively input into that discussion.

[Sarah Jones]

The role of this House is to debate, which is exactly what we are doing now. I listened, for example, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who talked about his experience with the Metropolitan police in recent times and his sense that he had lost confidence with the way that they were making decisions on protests. I hear all those things and am happy to have more conversations. I am sure that the police would be happy to as well.

I will just say—this does not have an impact on anything that I think about what the law should be on protests—that there has been a 600% increase in the number of protests over the last couple of years. There has been a huge increase in the number of people protesting and the physical ability of the police to just deal with that in terms of resources is not insubstantial. They spend a huge amount of time on this, as we all know, and our neighbourhood officers are often abstracted. That is right and proper—I am not suggesting otherwise—but it is a challenge for the police, particularly in the big urban parts of our country, to have to manage the impact of these protests.

To repeat, the cumulative disruption amendment does not change the guardrails of the powers to impose conditions. It does not change anything about the need to balance the right to protest in the European convention on human rights with the Public Order Act. None of those things will change. What is changing is that we are saying that the police will consider cumulative disruption, rather than that they can consider cumulative disruption.

Immigration Policy

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for that question. It is really important that colleagues appreciate that the Homes for Ukraine scheme—the way by which people came to this country from Ukraine—was never intended as a settlement scheme. That was part of our engagement with the Government of Ukraine at the time. Nevertheless, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have extended that period of protection for longer, in line with the challenges that people are facing. We want those people to live fully while they are here, and I hear the challenges that he describes, but, as I said, that scheme was never designed as a settlement scheme.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. On work visas and people integrating into our communities, will he say something about the abuses that we hear of—including how sponsors control the situation for these people—and about the potential damage that will be caused, especially to our public services, if the thresholds are unobtainable to many of our key workers, especially those in our health service?

[Alex Norris]

I absolutely recognise the characterisation offered by my hon. Friend. We know there was abuse of that scheme by unscrupulous employers. We have been working with trade unions—indeed, I met their representatives only this morning—on what a future model could look like to avoid such abuse, so that if people come to this country, they are not so precariously reliant on one employer, who therefore has a very unhelpful amount of power over them and their lives—it is an imbalance. We are looking at that closely.

Police Grant Report

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

Goodness me, this is already becoming very congested, but I cannot possibly resist my right hon. Friend’s entreaty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

rose—

[Chris Philp]

I will happily give way quite a lot, but I have not even started, and I have given way a couple of times already.

I was going to start by echoing the Minister’s tribute to police officers up and down the country who, every day, put themselves in the line of danger. I have attended the annual police memorial service and met the families of officers who have tragically lost their lives while keeping us safe, and I think they should remain at the front of our minds during the debate.

The Minister threw around some big numbers earlier in respect of the increase in police funding that has been announced, but the 4.5% increase for frontline police forces—the increase being given to police and crime commissioners—is not enough to meet the funding and cost pressures that they face. Earlier today I spoke to Roger Hirst, the Essex police and crime commissioner, who is, as the Minister knows, the finance lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. He told me that, according to his assessment, this funding settlement is about £100 million short of the cost pressures that police forces will face, which means that they will have to find cuts—but it is not just Roger. The National Police Chiefs’ Council, the body that represents chief constables, said on 28 January:

“Many forces are planning service reductions, with consequences for officer numbers, staff capacity and…resilience.”

In other words, both police and crime commissioners and the NPCC say that the settlement is inadequate to maintain police resources. But it not just them either. The Labour police and crime commissioner for Avon and Somerset has just had to cancel the recruitment of 70 new officers because of “lower than expected” Government funding. The Cambridgeshire police and crime commissioner says that the settlement falls short of what is required. The chief constable of Cleveland says that his force faces a £4 million funding gap. The Essex police and crime commissioner, whom I mentioned a moment ago, says that

“the Government…settlement…is insufficient to cover rising costs”,

and Greater Manchester police say that they face a £32 million funding gap. In summary, this settlement is not enough to enable police forces up and down the country to maintain their level of service. They will shrink, and their services will be diminished.

The Minister mentioned the money being provided for the 1,750 neighbourhood policing officers, but did not say how much it was. In fact, the Government are providing £50 million for that purpose. If we divide the one number by the other, we find that it comes to £29,000 per officer. As the NPCC has pointed out, the cost of an officer is, on average, £68,000, so the Government are funding only 42% of the cost, leaving the other 58% completely unfunded. The Minister also forgot to mention that the Government are cancelling the funding for antisocial behaviour hotspot patrolling, which was introduced by the last Government and should have been continued.

As for the way in which the money is distributed, it remains the case that the funding formula is deeply unfair. Changes are long overdue, and I ask the Minister to introduce those changes to make the formula fairer. The Metropolitan police receive by far the highest amount in the country. Even if we account for the national capital city grant and counter-terrorism funding, they receive £439 per head. As for the lowest-funded forces, Dorset receives £255 a head, Essex £236, Cambridgeshire £237 and Wiltshire £235. They are inadequately funded, and the formula urgently needs to be updated. I ask the Minister—or her colleague the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), when she sums up the debate—to address that point.

The consequence of this inadequate funding settlement is just the same as the consequence of last year’s inadequate funding settlement, when my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), my shadow ministerial colleague, stood at the Dispatch Box and warned the Minister’s predecessor that the settlement would lead to reductions in police numbers. We now know that that has come to pass. The most recent figures, published only a few weeks ago, show that in the year to September 2025—an entire year in which Labour was in government—the number of police officers fell by 1,318. Numbers are being cut under this Labour Government.

The Government say that they want to hire staff instead, to do jobs behind desks, but the number of police staff fell as well, by 529. They talk about police community support officers. Well, the number of PCSOs fell by 204. Special constables are down by 514 and police volunteers are down by 429. That is a reduction of 3,000 in the police workforce in just one year under this Labour Government. They are not funding the police properly, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her remarks. She will find very considerable support for the broad thrust of what she said, especially on streamlining and the new policing models. I know that she is thinking very seriously about how to get the best return on the reorganisation in order to tackle serious and organised crime, and she is alive to the regional specialisms and expertise that already exist. I thank her for that, and for her commitment to delivering better funding for our police force following the disastrous period of austerity under the Conservatives.

I want to put some challenges to the Minister, because I have some local concerns. However, after hearing the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks about police numbers, I have to say, in all candour, that the reduction of 20,000 police officers in the name of austerity was one of the most reckless and stupid things a Government could ever do. I would like him to come to the Dispatch Box and apologise for that gross dereliction of duty. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) chunters and laughs from a sedentary position.

[Mark Pritchard]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy McDonald]

I will in a minute.

Perhaps the shadow Secretary of State would like to apologise to the country for the damage that was caused. I can tell him that removing so many officers at a stroke had a devastating impact. Looking at the raw numbers—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member chunters, but he fails to comprehend.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Member is focusing on the events of 14 years ago, when that Government were fixing the financial mess that Gordon Brown had left behind. I would remind him that the last Government left office with record police numbers, and I suggest he reserves his ire for the falling police numbers we are seeing under this Labour Government.

[Andy McDonald]

The penny has not dropped for the shadow Secretary of State, who cannot for one minute understand how that translated in our communities. That is the issue, because he simply does not take into consideration that loss of expertise. We cannot replace those police with recruits overnight. It was the stupidest thing a Government could do.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes my point for me, which is that the devastating thing was ripping the experience out of our police force and then dressing up new recruits as somehow a replacement. That led to higher crime in my constituency and, I know, in his.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Those were the lived experiences of our constituents, and those were the consequences they had to live with. Opposition Members may say that was because of the financial situation they were left with, but austerity was of course a political choice. The Conservatives deliberately ploughed this furrow with disastrous consequences, and they should have the humility to get up and acknowledge the error they made.

[Graham Stuart]

I have never heard someone so passionately misinformed in my life. The Labour Government left a massive, gaping overspend. In other speeches the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the national debt going up under the Conservatives, but we brought it down every year, and we fought and reduced crime as well. Having ensured that the country recovered, we left record levels of police officers and a 50% cut in crime. He puts on this faux outrage, but the lived reality for his communities and mine was an improved service and balanced books.

[Andy McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman should not consider it to be faux outrage. I lived in my constituency throughout that period and saw the damage it caused.

[Graham Stuart]

So did I.

[Andy McDonald]

Yes, and we should acknowledge the damage that was caused. I am going to be challenging my own Government, and I am trying to be objective about these issues, but what has to be understood in this place is the consequences of the terrible decisions that were made.

I will now move on, because I want to ask the Minister to address the real issues involving Cleveland police. There is more to be done in improving funding, which remains uneven, and some local areas continue to miss out. I hope to explore this in an objective and rational way with those on the Front Bench.

I want to draw attention to the urgent and growing concerns of Cleveland’s police and crime commissioner about the funding of our local force. Despite serving one of the most deprived and high crime areas in the country, Cleveland police remains the force with the lowest number of officers compared with 2010—a reduction of some 12%—leaving the community more vulnerable and officers overstretched. With the greatest respect, the recent funding settlement compounds the problem. Cleveland received the smallest increase in the country—just 3.3%—and after accounting for inflation and pay awards, that leaves a real-terms shortfall of about £2.4 million, which is equivalent to 40 officers. The Government continue to expect this deficit to be met through local council tax, and I just respectfully suggest that is unreasonable.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman was practically spitting with anger when he talked about the Conservatives’ record of increased numbers of police officers and a halving of crime, but now he “respectfully” makes suggestions to the Minister. Is it his understanding that, as a direct result of the settlement that this Minister has brought to the House, there will be a cut in service level in his deprived communities, making them less safe? Is that his understanding, and if so, perhaps his passion could rise up a little?

[Andy McDonald]

The difference between me and the right hon. Gentleman is that I am capable of being objective when facts are put in front of me, whereas he appears to be completely myopic and in total denial about his own Government’s record of decimating our police forces and the consequences of that. I am perfectly content with making proper representations to the Government on the settlements that have been devolved. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, and it is a shame that he could not participate in a more sensible discussion.

With almost a third of our neighbourhoods in the top 10% of the most deprived nationally, local residents cannot shoulder a £90 increase on band D properties to restore staffing to safe levels. The police and crime commissioner has written three times to the Minister seeking urgent clarity about how the settlement was calculated. Each time, he has not had a response, and I ask the Minister to reflect on that and come back to me. Our communities and their elected PCC deserve answers. It is not just a matter of fairness; it is a matter of public safety. Without adequate funding, Cleveland police cannot meet the Government’s own objectives of reducing knife crime, tackling violence against women and girls, and maintaining effective neighbourhood policing.

The people of Cleveland, their PCC and officers on the frontline have done everything asked of them—exceeding recruitment targets, investing in neighbourhood policing and achieving crime reductions above the national average—and of course they made incredible efforts in response to the riot on 4 August 2024. It was the most remarkable response by the police and the community, banding together in the wake of the most violent attack on our community. I must pay tribute to the incredible work the police did, because they have never had to deal with anything like that. They did it with such incredible dedication and professionalism, and we cannot ever be thankful enough to them for their efforts. Again, I just ask the Minister to reconsider this settlement, because I am not convinced that it reflects their efforts, and it redistributes scarce resources to other forces with less need.

I therefore urge the Government to revisit the settlement urgently; to properly resource Cleveland police based on need, deprivation and demand, not on population alone; and to provide the answers that the PCC and our communities deserve. Our officers deserve the support they have earned, and our residents deserve the safety and security that only properly funded policing can provide.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I could not agree more. That is why the number of robberies against businesses has surged, shoplifting is up, and people feel less safe on our streets. Between September 2024 and September 2025—entirely on this Government’s watch—the number of officers fell by 1,318, compared with the year before. More broadly, 3,000 fewer people are working in police forces across the country to keep us safe.

[Andy McDonald]

I hear what the shadow Minister says about police numbers, but what did he say when Cleveland lost 500 police officers on his Government’s watch? Was he concerned then?

[Matt Vickers]

Back in 2010, I was deeply concerned about lots of things—the damage to our economy, the number of people without a job, the challenge of the difficult choices that the Government had to make—but the previous Government left office with record numbers of police on our streets.

Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate, which is important because it speaks to who we are as a country and how we uphold commitments to all people fleeing persecution.

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister acknowledged that racism is “returning to politics” and that

“racist rhetoric, divisive rhetoric…makes people feel very scared.”

That recognition is welcome, but the Home Secretary’s asylum proposals in the “Restoring Order and Control” policy paper have undoubtedly prompted widespread criticism from refugee support organisations and others. However, I commend the recognition across the House that we need an immigration and asylum system that is both controlled and humane. That balance is not only possible; it is essential.

Unfortunately, the debate on this subject has become toxic. Stories claiming that refugees would be stripped of valuables provoked fear. Thankfully, the Home Secretary has clarified that no such policy exists. But criticism of policy is not an attack on democracy; it is proper scrutiny in a properly functioning democracy.

One of the most troubling reforms is the proposal to review refugee status every 30 months, potentially over decades. Framed as reassessing the status of safe countries, the proposal raises serious legal, practical and moral concerns, as highlighted by the Refugee Council, Amnesty International and others. The Home Office already struggles with backlogs, and repeated reviews would leave people in constant insecurity. Amnesty warns that the policy could trap refugees in limbo, undermine family life and integration, and breach the refugee convention. Refuge must mean stability, not a fragile, temporary status.

The British Red Cross highlights further concerns: family reunion may be delayed or blocked; reassessing core protection every two and a half years risks instability; and ending statutory asylum support could push vulnerable people into destitution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better to tackle channel crossings by introducing more humanitarian visas and, once we have, not pulling the rug out from underneath people?

[Andy McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent point. Indeed, that is one of the things the Red Cross highlighted. Narrow safe routes alone will not prevent dangerous journeys. The Public and Commercial Services Union report “Welcoming Growth” recommends processing claims within six months, and legal, English language and employment support for refugees. Such measures would protect people, reduce costs, speed up integration and enable people to contribute to society.

Will the Minister say whether unaccompanied children and families who are in danger will be exempt? Can core protection be granted for five years to provide stability and reduce bureaucracy? How will the Government safeguard against the unfair loss of support? Will family reunion remain accessible, with the piloting of a humanitarian visa system to provide legal protection?

The way to build a fair, humane and effective system is to invest in faster processing; get it right first time; provide legal, language and employment support; and strengthen humanitarian visa routes. If we truly want safe alternatives to dangerous channel crossings, to combat smuggling and to maintain control of our borders, the path forward is thoughtful reform that supports those who are genuinely seeking sanctuary and integrates people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for a very good question. Within the 12-week consultation, we will consider vulnerable groups. I reassure hon. Members that more detail is coming on the exact requirements. When we say “A-level”, we are not talking about our A-level standards—applicants are not going to have to study Shakespeare and poetry. The standards will be for foreign language speakers, but more detail will follow on the English language requirements.

We will continue to offer a shorter pathway of five years to settlement for non-UK dependants of British citizens. We will retain existing safeguards to protect the vulnerable, including settlement rights for victims of domestic violence and abuse. The EU settlement scheme and grants under the Windrush scheme are not within scope of the proposed reforms, so those routes will remain unchanged.

The earned settlement consultation, officially launched on 20 November, will be open for 12 weeks until 12 February 2026. We have had nearly 60,000 respondents to that consultation so far, and this debate is useful for feeding in the views of constituents, so I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I encourage all hon. Members to ensure that their constituents are aware of the consultation so that it reaches as many members of the public as possible. As the Home Secretary set out last week, the reforms are underpinned by values that are truly representative of our country: contribution and fairness.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister reaffirm that the act of seeking asylum is not illegal or unlawful—in fact, it is lawful under the refugee convention? That appears to have become somewhat muddied and clouded in this debate. Would he like to clarify the Government’s reaffirmation of the principles of the convention?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. Claiming asylum is not illegal in itself; it is on the person to claim asylum in the first safe country that they travel into. That said, we are opening more safe and legal routes to ensure that we contribute to helping people in need from around the world, and more detail will come on them.

Turning specifically to the BNO route, the Government remain steadfast in our support for members of the Hong Kong community in the UK and are fully committed to this route, which will continue to welcome Hongkongers. We fully recognise the significant contribution that Hongkongers have already made to the UK and the role they will continue to play in the years ahead. That is why we have confirmed that those on the BNO visa route will continue to be able to settle in the UK after living here for five years, subject to the mandatory requirements. The BNO route is a unique immigration route that was established following China’s passing of the national security law and reflects the UK’s historical and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman highlights an awful crime that was very much overlooked by the previous Government. We are changing the system, so that the £200 rule—whereby crimes would not be investigated if the goods stolen were worth less than £200—is scrapped. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris) championed in opposition, we are bringing in a new offence of assaulting a shopworker. This issue needs a really targeted response, and we know that a lot of local police are working closely with the Co-op group and others to make sure we target the prolific offenders who are responsible for a vast amount of these crimes.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

The Government have tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill that would create sweeping powers to impose conditions on public protests based on cumulative disruption. Can the Minister set out to the House what that amendment means by serious disruption to a community? How will this be determined and measured, and how will these powers be made subject to democratic scrutiny?

[Sarah Jones]

That would probably take longer to answer than the amount of time I have for a topical question, but I am very happy to speak to my hon. Friend about this issue. The definition of serious disruption is not changing; the amendment deals with the circumstances in which a police force can put conditions on a protest while not banning it. I am very happy to have more conversations with my hon. Friend about this.

Police Reform

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The announcement today is on police and crime commissioners, which will not change those boundaries.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. I whole- heartedly agree that the public have not bought into this model, but that does not mean there has not been some excellent work done by PCCs and their staff with great commitment and professionalism. Will she join me in thanking Matt Storey, the Cleveland police and crime commissioner, for the sterling work he has done in engaging with young people. She heard from some of those young people just two weeks ago, and the voice of youngsters is being heard in Cleveland. Could she also say something about the services commissioned by PCCs, especially in the areas of sexual assault, domestic violence and drug rehabilitation? People today will be in shock about this decision, and they will want some reassurance that their good practice will not be lost in the transition,

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that thoughtful question, and I join him in paying tribute to Matt Storey. I met him, and a group of young people he brought to see me, who were also incredibly thoughtful, and he is doing some excellent work. He points to the challenges of transitioning all these services. We are already learning lessons because, where the mayoral model is coming in, we are already transitioning from the police and crime commissioner model to the deputy mayor model, and we are learning as we go. There are statutory responsibilities for commissioning, such as victim services, and he mentioned sexual abuse and serious and domestic violence services as well. We will ensure that those statutory functions are maintained, and we are already talking to local authorities, our PCCs and other Departments to ensure we get that exactly right. I welcome any thoughts from hon. Members on that.

Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I say to the hon. Gentleman—hopefully in a constructive way—that the only distinction I am seeking to make is between those who break the law and those who do not. We saw a very interesting comparison over the course of this weekend; tens of thousands of people came to protest, and were able to do so, expressing their concerns about the terrible situation in Gaza without supporting a proscribed organisation. As I said in my earlier remarks, there is a big difference between being able to protest in support of a legitimate cause and expressing support for a proscribed organisation. That is a criminal offence, and the police have an absolute duty to enforce the law, which is what they did.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Nobody is above the law, yet the Metropolitan police report that a total of 857 people were arrested under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at the weekend, the vast majority for simply holding placards stating, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have received any legal advice concerning the implications of hosting a visit by Israeli President Herzog in relation to the UK’s genocide convention responsibilities, particularly given his recent record of stating that there are “no innocent civilians” in Gaza and personally signing artillery shells destined for use in Gaza? Will any visa application made by the Israeli President to visit the UK this week be rejected, or will he be subject to police investigation if he does arrive?

[Dan Jarvis]

I understand why my hon. Friend has asked me that question. I hope that he will understand that he is asking me about matters for which I do not have ministerial responsibility. He will also understand that the Government receive a range of legal advice across a range of different Departments. The purpose of this particular response today is to look at the issue of proscription and the recent protest activity. I can give him and the House an absolute assurance that this is a Government who believe in upholding the law. This is a Government who believe in the importance of international law, and we will work with our allies and partners to ensure that international law and domestic law are upheld.

Police Grant Report

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers]

Have a play with Hansard and let us see.

In fact, the sum of £230 million alone could have funded the recruitment, or at the least the retention, of thousands of officers who could have been out there protecting our neighbourhoods. Instead, it will be funnelled back into the Treasury to cover a host of other public sector pay demands from Labour’s union paymasters.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Would the shadow Minister like to explain how he could sit on the Government Benches for several years but not say a word about the 20,000 officers who were lost, including the 500 lost in Cleveland?

[Matt Vickers]

After the last Labour Government’s spending and borrowing splurge caused the economic crisis of 2008, cuts were made, but the hon. Gentleman should be happy because thereafter we increased the number of police officers on the streets of the UK to record numbers: 149,679. That is the highest number of police officers ever on our streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for her opening speech, and I welcome the almost £20 billion of total funding for policing in England and Wales in today’s settlement, an increase of up to £1.1 billion when compared with the previous deal under the Conservative Government. This is a real-terms funding increase of 4.1%, and a cash increase of 6.6%. The announcement of the doubling of funding to kick-start the recruitment of 13,000 more neighbourhood police officers is vital.

Policing on Teesside continues to be impacted by the legacy of Conservative cuts. In March 2010, we had over 1,700 officers. After an initial loss of 500, we still have around 200 fewer officers than we did in 2010, so I welcome the new recruitment funding announced this week and the Minister’s recent visit to my constituency. I trust that she was as impressed as I was by the incredible engagement from not just police officers across Cleveland—particularly those from Hartlepool and Middlesbrough—but other agencies and stakeholders, which demonstrated the complete rejection of the terrible events that we saw on our streets in the summer.

[Mr Brash]

I join my hon. Friend in thanking the Minister for her unwavering support during the troubles last summer, which was appreciated by me and other Members of Parliament whose constituencies were affected. Will he join me in congratulating Cleveland police on their exemplary work in dealing with what happened last summer, particularly as we recognise that some police officers in Hartlepool ended the night in hospital as a result? Will he also join me in reminding all Members that having temperance in the way that we speak about crime is incredibly important? Not doing so makes the job of our police harder, not easier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is critical that when discussing crime and social tensions, we express ourselves in this place and outside with the greatest care. It falls to everybody on both sides of the House to ensure that people do not rush to social media to try to exploit an already inflammatory and delicate situation. We all have that obligation, and I share his celebration of the response from the community and the police in working together. That was truly remarkable, and it was only as successful as it was because the community and the police worked together in that way.

The Minister will no doubt remember a very impressive officer from my hon. Friend’s constituency of Hartlepool, who I know only as Coggy. He is the most impressive individual, and he took it upon himself—his colleagues did the same across the Cleveland force area—to engage with young people who had lost their way and were not engaged. He told me that on one occasion, he had to remonstrate with a young man by saying, “I went to school with your dad, and he would be embarrassed.” The young man said, “No, that’s not true. You didn’t go to school with my dad. You went to school with my grandad.” Coggy is a remarkable man.

I want to talk about some of the impacts on my local force, Cleveland Police, and to put on record my thanks to our police and crime commissioner, Matt Storey. A big positive for Cleveland is the doubling of the neighbourhood policing grant, which will help us to deliver on our commitments locally and to drive the Government’s pledges nationally. It is clear that this Government’s commitment to funding community policing is like night and day by comparison with 14 years of Tory austerity, but there are some comments that I would like to make.

The funding formula still hurts us in Cleveland. We have the budget of a small rural force, with metropolitan levels of crime. We need a formula based on need and deprivation, just as local government has had. Cleveland’s grant is slightly below the national average, which means that we have to make up the gap somewhere else. The chief constable’s analogy is that we have a king-size bed with a single duvet: we are constantly moving it around, but we cannot cover everything. For example, a neighbouring force, with far less need than Cleveland, received £10 million more than we did in 2010. Today, the gap is £30 million.

We need the funding for our historical investigations unit to continue at its current level and not taper off, as had been planned. The unit is doing critical work and has been given excellent inspection reports. The work it is doing is essential to ensuring justice on some very complex issues. I will raise those issues directly with the Minister outside the Chamber.

It is clear that under the Tories, neighbourhood policing was slashed in communities across the country, but this Labour Government are now recruiting the neighbourhood police officers that we need to help and protect the public and keep our streets safe, and the constituents that I serve in Middlesbrough and Thornaby East will very much welcome that.

I want to finish with a comment about the loss of 20,000 police officers since 2010. This has been remarked on by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), prompted by an intervention about the loss of experienced officers. I cannot think of anything more reckless and cavalier, and I shudder to think of the consequences that have flowed from the loss of that level of experience across our country. It was the most reckless thing to do, bordering on negligent, as would be seen if we were to monetise it in terms of the demand placed on other public services by the lack of police officers’ presence where they were needed. Frankly, the Conservatives should reflect very carefully on their record in office and hang their heads in shame.

Violent Disorder

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She will be aware that the riots, which sought to exploit the Southport killings for a racist and Islamophobic agenda, included one in Middlesbrough that saw homes, businesses and vehicles damaged in a predominantly Asian and Muslim area, where thugs created roadblocks that allowed only white British drivers to pass. That racist violence caused real fear, resulting in the postponement of the Middlesbrough Mela, the premier celebration of multiculturalism in the north-east. The community, which so magnificently cleaned up the mess, refuses to be cowed, so the mela will go ahead this coming weekend. Will the Home Secretary join me in welcoming the restoration of the Middlesbrough Mela, as well as all mela events held across the country, as important demonstrations of working-class communities enjoying and celebrating our diversity?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am glad to hear my hon. Friend’s description of the way in which communities come together to celebrate. It is distressing to hear about the fear that was created and the community events that were delayed because of it. I thank him for continuing to champion his constituents throughout the violent disorder that we saw in Middlesbrough. He and I have spoken about the things that happened, and I thank him for standing up for his constituents.

Criminal Justice Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 28th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

This is the problem with the Policing Minister: he just thinks that the country has never had it so good on crime and policing. As far as the country is concerned, he is incredibly out of touch. That is not what is happening in towns and cities across the country. The idea that we can just merge neighbourhood policing and response teams, which are different things, shows that he simply does not understand the importance of neighbourhood policing or what it actually does.

Neighbourhood police are the teams who are located locally. They will not just be called off for a crisis at the other end of the borough, district or force area; they are the police officers who can deal with local crimes. They are not the officers who have to deal with rising levels of mental health crisis, which we know so many of the response units have to deal with. There has been a big shift away from neighbourhood policing and into response policing because the police are being reactive, dealing with crises that this Conservative Government have totally failed to prevent for 13 years.

The Government have demolished a lot of the prevention work and teamworking between neighbourhood officers and other agencies in local areas, and as a result the other response officers are having to pick up the pieces instead. The Policing Minister’s approach just shows why the Tories are failing after 13 years. It is not the answer.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Ind)]

On the restoration of police numbers, may I inform the Policing Minister that in Cleveland the numbers have been slashed by 500 since 2010? They have still not been restored, so we are still down in those numbers. On retail crime, we cannot take any lessons from the Conservative party—the Conservative police and crime commissioner in Cleveland received a caution for handling goods stolen from his then supermarket employer. This stuff about retail crime is, quite frankly, hogwash.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point—[Interruption.] I do not think the claims made from a sedentary position by the Policing Minister help him in the slightest, given the challenges involving the current police and crime commissioner.

We ought to have a consensus on tackling knife crime. There are some measures in the Bill, but they do not go anywhere near far enough. I urge the Home Secretary to consider a proper offence of child criminal exploitation to prevent people drawing children into criminal activity in the first place, as well as stronger action on the loopholes that still allow online marketplaces to sell knives. We have had multiple announcements over the years about taking action against zombie knives, but it is groundhog day, because far too many are still being sold easily and not enough is being done about it.

The Bill also does not go far enough on violence against women and girls. We still need rape investigation units in every police force, we need all 999 control rooms to have domestic abuse experts, and we need stronger requirements on police forces to use the tactics and tools normally reserved for organised crime and terrorist organisations to identify and go after the most dangerous repeat abusers and rapists and get them off our streets.

Too many things are not in the Bill. Overall, there is still no proper plan to raise confidence in policing and the criminal justice system. That confidence has plummeted, putting respect for law and order in our country at risk. We support the Bill and will work across parties to strengthen the measures in it, but it will not tackle the serious problems that we face. Security is the bedrock of opportunity. If people do not feel safe—if they do not believe that anyone will come or anything will be done when things go wrong—that undermines confidence in their community, in their way of life and in the rule of law in our country.

That is what is at stake here, that is why incremental measures are not enough, and that is why we need to tackle the crisis of confidence and halve serious violence. Labour has committed to halving serious violence, including violence against women and girls, and to increasing policing confidence, the number of criminals who are charged, and the number of victims who get justice. Those ought to be shared objectives, but for too long the Conservatives have undermined them. That is why we need change.