Employer National Insurance Contributions: Police Forces

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of planned changes to employer national insurance contributions on police forces.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I rise to address a matter of significant concern that will affect police forces in my constituency and across the country.

Hon. Members will be aware of the broader tax and fiscal challenges presented by the Government in the autumn Budget, including changes to the agricultural property relief and the cruel cutting of the winter fuel payment, which have been rightly widely condemned, and to which I have objected many times in this House. In fact, this room was jam-packed last night with hon. Members from across the House condemning the Government’s family farm tax. People sat on the ledges here trying to speak—some were not able to—such was the feeling against some of the disastrous consequences of the Budget.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Esther McVey]

I will not just yet. Please allow me to make the case, and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. We know about the removal of the winter fuel payment from nearly 10 million pensioners, we know about the family farm tax and we know about the VAT on private schools. All have received much attention in this House, but we must not overlook the breadth of the ramifications of the autumn Budget, particularly the changes to employer national insurance contributions. They will have a devastating impact on individual employers and businesses, but their impact on our treasured public services has been widely overlooked. I want to focus my comments on the impact on our police forces.

You will be wondering, Dr Allin-Khan, how the Member for Tatton knows what is going to happen here. Did the Treasury conduct an impact assessment? Did the Chancellor generously share the assessment with Members from across the House? Were police forces consulted on such changes? The answer to all those questions is no, as is often the case with the Government’s policy announcements.

Late last year, I submitted freedom of information requests to every police force in the UK, asking for the expected additional costs that each will incur as a result of the Chancellor’s hike in employer national insurance contributions. I was shocked, yet unsurprised, to learn of the devastating impact that the policy will have on our police forces. In my county of Cheshire, the local constabulary will face an additional £3.7 million per year in employer national insurance costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

My right hon. Friend might have hit on a point, as the burden could well come back to the taxpayer. Remember that this is tax—it is money that will be going on tax, and a bill that the Government are imposing. However we look at it, it is money that the frontline police service are being deprived of. Let us consider the financial burden that the changes will place on the police force. Employer national insurance contributions represent a significant cost for everyone, but they will hit the police especially hard. For police forces that employ a number of police officers and staff to protect our communities, the cumulative cost of the increase will run well into the tens of millions of pounds. To put that into perspective, take West Yorkshire, where the figure of £11.2 million per year is the equivalent of 220 police officers. That is potentially 220 fewer police officers keeping our communities safe as a direct result of the Government’s Budget.

Let me name a few other places, such as my home area of Merseyside—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—Thank you very much indeed. It will be paying an extra tax bill every year of £7 million, which is roughly 130 police officers. Kent will be paying more than £6 million, which is about 100 police officers a year, and Thames Valley police will face an £8 million tax bill every year.

[John Slinger]

The right hon. Lady is making an entertaining speech, as is often the case. In the midst of all those words about tax, I merely point out the Conservative party’s two unfunded national insurance tax cuts and the £22 billion black hole that is based on unfunded spending pledges and kicking the can down the road. What is her suggestion for filling that devastating black hole, which affects our constituents? Is it more austerity, an increase in borrowing or other tax rises? Ultimately, this Government, like any Government, have to deal with the crisis that is a £22 billion black hole.

[Esther McVey]

I think I need to pull the hon. Gentleman up straight away. This is not in any way an entertaining speech—indeed, I would put this down as a horror speech. This is a disgrace of monumental proportions, so the word “entertaining” was used absolutely incorrectly.

Let me talk about the choices that different Governments have made, and where money could have been saved. One example is GB Energy, which the new Government thought they could find money for. They could not find money for the pensioners or the farmers—this Government are giving away half a billion pounds a year to farmers overseas, but they cannot find that half a billion pounds here. We would stop money being spent on things like GB Energy, which does not produce any energy; it seems to me like another quango that will cost money. We would not have increased foreign aid, and I can tell Members one thing that we would not have done: we would not have capitulated to the rail unions, finding money for the railway workers without any modernisation whatsoever. There is a big list of things that we would not have been paying for.

[John Slinger]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Esther McVey]

I will not take another intervention, because I cannot quite get over the word “entertaining” being used about such a devastating policy, which will have devastating impacts on the streets of all our communities. There is a real risk that police forces will have to scale back on recruitment—that is not entertaining. There is a real risk that they will have to cut back on vital training—that is not entertaining—or reduce operational spending in other areas, which again is not entertaining. These decisions could have serious consequences for the police service’s ability to deliver an effective police force. The planned national insurance increases will make it harder for police forces to recruit new officers, particularly in areas where the cost of living is already high. The Government have committed to recruiting more officers, yet those efforts will be undermined by these fiscal pressures through taxation.

A common theme of this Government is their lack of foresight. They failed to consult with Back Benchers, public services and Government Departments before steamrolling ahead with this policy. They failed to understand the impact of the rise in employer national insurance costs on our public services, a mistake so basic that it is sometimes hard to comprehend. I think we all remember the immediate outcry that we heard from GPs, charities, social care providers and hospices. I remember being in the main Chamber when the Secretary of State for Health came to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on this policy, and he was taken aback. He did not know how to answer those questions, and his plea to the Chancellor at the time was, “Where are we going to get that extra money? I hope I will get that extra money, and I will come back to Members later with answers.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend is correct. That is why I highlighted the cost implications of the policy to the Secretary of State for Health that day on the Floor of the House, and he was absolutely taken aback. There was muttering among the Government Front Benchers, and the Government put in a solution straight away, but they overlooked the police. Later in my speech, I will come on to the fact that the Government now think they will put money into this area.

Fewer police will inevitably have broader consequences for public safety. Police officers are on the frontlines, tackling serious and organised crime, addressing domestic violence and responding to emergencies. Every officer we lose or fail to recruit means less protection for communities such as Tatton. To give an example, in Cheshire there has been a significant rise in serious sexual assaults by people who are in this country illegally. Money that should have gone into supporting our police force to halt that crime will not be there, which is making our streets less safe.

This Government are fiscally illiterate. They made a £25 billion grab in employer national insurance contributions at the Budget, without really thinking where that money would come from. Remember, the Government said that they did not want to tax working people, yet we know this will hit working people—the Government never thought where that money would come from. Instead, the measure was born from ideological reasons, whether that meant funding the Government’s net zero obsession, foreign aid or their union paymasters. In introducing the change, the Government have failed to consider the most basic duty of any Government: to protect their citizens.

[John Slinger]

On that point, will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Esther McVey]

I am afraid I will not.

I understand that the Government say that they will pick up the £230 million tab, but that still means that the Government will be paying a tax bill rather than having money to spend on frontline police. Last month, we heard the Home Secretary announce a £200 million boost to neighbourhood policing to fund the recruitment of 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, as the Government said before the election, although they had been very quiet on that for a long period of time.

I wonder whether the Government can do that. The numbers are very similar: £200 million for 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, yet they have given themselves a £230 million a year tax bill. Will those 13,000 neighbourhood police officers ever materialise? In her summing up, will the Minister say what will happen, particularly in light of the national insurance contribution black hole, as those national insurance contributions are to be paid year in, year out? Will the Government pay for those police officers, year in, year out? If so, what will be the amount paid during a whole Parliament? Where will that money come from?

I urge the Government and the Chancellor, through the Minister, to stop this ill-thought-through, ham-fisted Budget change to employer national insurance contributions. The only solution to the problem—

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for the opportunity to speak in this very important debate; it is good to have an opportunity to air some of these ideas.

Let me point something out to the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I sought to pay her a compliment about her oratorical style; these issues are not entertaining, of course, but I found her oratory powerful. However, in this instance I think the content is wrong.

The Government have secured a £1.1 billion funding boost for policing. It is a real-terms increase in the settlement on what the previous Conservative Government would have provided of 4.1% in real terms and a cash increase of 6.6%. That is a significant increase in funding and will allow this Government to provide the additional officers and support to our police forces that will enable us to take back control of those streets from the criminals.

I will conclude by saying that law and order is not an issue on which any particular party has a monopoly. Government Members and I think Members from across the entire House care greatly about giving our police officers leadership; I meet rank-and-file officers regularly, as I am sure the right hon. Lady does in her area. We want to support them, and this new Labour Government are supporting them.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

Does the Minister agree that if police officers are cut by 20,000, and then their numbers are replaced by 20,000, not a huge amount has been done to boost police numbers?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am also conscious of the loss of experienced officers in that 20,000. We know that the service is now very young; I think about 40% of officers have under five years of service. That presents all sorts of challenges for policing.

I want to make it clear that we have increased the funding available for neighbourhood policing by an additional £100 million. That is compared with the provisional settlement that was announced at the end of last year. We in this Chamber can all agree that neighbourhood policing is so important to our constituents, and the figure for that will now be at £200 million. That investment is to kick-start the delivery of the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers, PCSOs and specials that the Labour Government promised in their manifesto. It will also ensure that public confidence in policing is restored. As I said when opening the debate on the police grant report last week in the main Chamber, the settlement underlines the Government’s commitment to working with the police to deliver the safer streets that all our constituents deserve.

It is worth saying that I spoke to the PCC in Cheshire last week about the funding settlement. He was positive about the settlement that had been announced for his force. He did not raise any specific issues on national insurance, and the force did not raise any concerns in the consultation on the provisional settlement after it was published in December.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

John Slinger Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for taking the time and trouble to visit Rwanda, which almost no supporter of the Bill has ever bothered doing. It is clear that the Rwanda scheme would have had a deterrent effect, had the Government allowed it to start. The National Crime Agency has said that, and we have seen it work in Australia. The fact that this Government are removing only 4% of people who cross by small boat—meaning that 96% are able to stay—explains why so many more people have crossed the channel under this Government than under the previous regime.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Can the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members look themselves in the mirror, with a hand on their heart, and say in good conscience that for a great nation like ours—a country that believes in the international rule of law—to outsource its asylum policy to a country like Rwanda is the correct way to behave? Can he really say that that is the right policy for this country?

[Chris Philp]

The right policy for this country is for the Government, not people smugglers, to decide who comes into this country. Unlike this Government, we have a plan to deliver that. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that France is a safe country. There is no need to cross the English channel to flee war or seek asylum. France has a perfectly well-functioning asylum system.

When it comes to people who are genuinely in need, this country has a proud record. The Home Secretary referred—rather generously, I might say—to initiatives undertaken by the last Government. They include the Ukraine scheme, which allowed in 200,000 or 300,000 people; the resettlement scheme that welcomed around 25,000 Syrians from about 2015 to 2020; the provisions made for British nationals overseas who came here from Hong Kong, and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and Afghan relocations and assistance policy. That is the record of this country, and of the previous Government, on people who are in genuine need. But people—overwhelmingly single young men—leaving France, conveyed here by people smugglers, are not the people whose entry we should be facilitating.

Let me move on to the Bill’s provisions to repeal much of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. One such provision to be repealed, therefore depriving the Government of the ability ever to use it, is section 2, which created an obligation on the Government to remove people who come here illegally. Let me point out to those people who are concerned about genuine asylum seekers that section 2(4) of the 2023 Act makes it clear that the provision does not apply if someone comes directly from a place of danger. That is consistent with article 33 of the 1951 refugee convention, which Members will be familiar with. But people who come here directly from France—a safe country where no one is being persecuted, which has a perfectly well-functioning asylum system—should not illegally enter the United Kingdom.

The Bill will also repeal section 32 of the 2023 Act, which prevents people who enter the country illegally from gaining citizenship. By repealing that section, the Bill will create a pathway to citizenship for people who entered the country illegally, and I think that is unconscionable.

The Bill will also repeal sections 57 and 58 of the 2023 Act —a topic on which the Minister for Border Security and Asylum and I have had some correspondence—which concern scientific age assessment methods. Every European country apart from this one uses scientific age assessment techniques, such as an X-ray of the wrist, although there are other methods. That is important because quite a few people entering the country illegally who might be in their early or even mid-20s falsely claim to be under the age of 18, and without a scientific age assessment method it is very hard to determine their age. That creates serious safeguarding issues. There have been cases of men in their mid-20s ending up in schools with teenage girls, which carries obvious safeguarding risks.

A statutory instrument passed in early 2024—quite soon before the election—commenced the power to use those age assessment techniques. I really hope the new Government will use those powers and start using wrist X-rays, or other techniques, to ensure that people cannot falsely claim to be under 18. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on that in her winding-up speech, because we would certainly support her work in that area. As I say, there is an important safeguarding element to this matter, as well as a migration element. I note that in repealing section 57 of the 2023 Act, the Government will no longer be able to treat as over 18 somebody who refuses one of those tests. There are some predating provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, but the provision being repealed is stronger, and in the circumstances that may be rather unwise.

There are various things missing from the Bill. We will table various amendments during its passage that will seek to introduce much stronger measures, but I want to point to two in particular now. The first addresses the fact that there is no mechanism in the Bill for a binding annual cap on legal migration.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

No, I will not.

The Bill repeals most of the Illegal Migration Act, removes the duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements to remove persons who entered the UK illegally to their home country or a safe third country, and allows illegal migrants to obtain British citizenship—more incentives. The Illegal Migration Act blocked asylum seekers from claiming asylum based on their method of entry, so those who entered the country illegally via small boat were unable to claim asylum, not eligible for support and, crucially, not eligible to claim British citizenship.

The Government talk tough on deportations, proudly boasting that they have deported record numbers of migrants, but more than 80% of those individuals are voluntary returns. When I asked the Home Office how much they were each awarded in financial incentives of up to £3,000 per person, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum could not provide that information. Why does she not know? Even those who lose the game still walk away with a cash prize.

With no credible deterrent since the election, we have seen numbers rocket and migrant hotels reopen. In just three months since the election, the number of migrants in asylum hotels rose by 6,000, which is roughly equivalent to the population of the third biggest town in my constituency. Indeed, in Cambridgeshire, the hon. Members for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) have asked the Home Office to rethink its decision to move 146 male asylum seekers into the Dragonfly hotel in Peterborough. I imagine that was not on their bingo card for the first six months of a Labour Government.

The only deterrent in the Bill appears to be five years in prison if migrants refuse to be rescued in the channel by French authorities. I will be staggered if a single person is prosecuted for refusing to be rescued by the French. For reference, threatening someone with a weapon carries a maximum sentence of four years’ custody in the UK, so to suggest that migrants will receive a harsher sentence for not being rescued by French authorities is a nonsense.

This is a terrible Bill that pays lip service to controlling illegal immigration by talking tough while crossing its fingers behind its back. We know that Government Members are more comfortable signing letters to stop deportation flights than they are actually deporting people, but this Bill pours fuel on the fire of illegal migration. It encourages it and facilitates it, and I would not be surprised if Lord Hermer had advised on it. The Bill makes for a snappy headline, but it will not be the solution needed to curtail illegal immigration.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

The Conservative party has a record of failure, and now it is failing to back our measures to put things right. On Rwanda, so much money was wasted to deport so few people, and with so little remorse. Imagine the howls that we would have heard if a civil servant or trade union had wasted just 1% of that sum. On the asylum backlog, the graph is like the NHS waiting list under the Conservatives: up and up it went to 166,261 by 2022—an elevenfold increase on the number that they inherited. That is what happens when those who do not believe in government are the Government.

While this Bill focuses more on asylum, the net migration figures also illustrate that the previous Government let things get out of control, with a 220% increase in net migration from 244,000 in 2010—then a record—to 782,000 in 2023. As with policing and defence, so it is with asylum and immigration: the previous Government failed, yet Conservative Members rail against us as we tackle the crisis that they bequeathed us. I do not want to rehearse the excellent policies set out by Ministers and by my Labour colleagues, so I will just gently ask right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches to put their hand on their heart and tell us that they are proud of their record. Do they think it is dignified for a great country such as ours to offshore our responsibilities to Rwanda, a country that they needed—with an Orwellian flourish—to define as safe? Hand on heart, do right hon. and hon. Conservative Members think that it is in the national interest to vote against the robust, practical and principled approach in this Bill?

It is a shame that the Conservative party continues to resort to false promises and populist language. We have heard that tonight, such as “surrender”, or the words of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who spoke about the £49.18 per week that asylum seekers receive to pay for clothes and toiletries. These are human beings. I am sure that the hon. Member was not suggesting that a country such as ours should not be offering people the ability to clothe themselves.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I was not suggesting that people should not have the ability to clothe themselves; my point was that this is advertised on the Government website, and is a pull factor. What does this Bill do to address that pull factor?

[John Slinger]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. This Bill proposes numerous measures that will get tough on the evil criminal gangs that are bringing people here on those boats, and my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches have made that point very clearly.

With their hand on their heart, are right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches perhaps feeling ashamed of flirting with the idea of derogating from our international rights obligations? In time, I believe that the public will see that—led by a Prime Minister who has actually tackled criminal gangs—the Home Secretary and her team will leave behind the failure, gimmicks and populism of the past and replace them with effective action.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the Front Benchers. I call Matt Vickers.

Extremism Review

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that, of course, the police should and will be guided by the law. As an experienced Member, I am sure he will have worked very closely with the police over many years. My experience of working closely with the police is that they make the right judgments for the right reasons, but where there are issues that require further attention, the Government will of course look at those matters.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It seems that advice to Ministers on national security issues has been leaked to a former Tory special adviser, and as a result of that leak the Security Minister has been summoned to the Chamber to answer questions, even though the leak does not represent Government policy and the Minister has made it clear that the advice has been rejected. Does he agree that this sets a dangerous precedent and may encourage more disgruntled individuals to commit politically motivated leaks, and that it shows that His Majesty’s official Opposition are sadly sinking into the mire of populism, which can only undermine our national security and, indeed, our democracy in the future?

[Dan Jarvis]

As I hope I have made crystal clear, I am always happy to come to this House to debate and discuss matters relating to national security. I will do that whenever the House wishes me to do so, but on this particular occasion—as I think I have also been crystal clear about—this leak is about something that does not represent Government policy.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

John Slinger Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. In addition to the measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, including on the proper identification of children to strengthen child protection, which is crucial, we need much stronger measures to tackle online abuse and exploitation. I am really worried about the pace at which this problem is escalating, about the fact that it involves online grooming, abuse and indecent images, and about the impact of drawing young people into contact abuse. We will bring forward new laws in this area.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the new victims and survivors panel will have representation from regions across the country to ensure that victims’ voices are heard loud and clear? Does she agree that we need to dial down the political opportunism that we have sadly seen from some Members on the Opposition Benches?

[Yvette Cooper]

Yes, the victims and survivors panel will include people from right across the country. The inquiry into child sexual abuse had cross-party support, and I really hope that there will be cross-party support for implementing the action that we need, which I have set out today.

United Front Work Department

John Slinger Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member makes an important point about public awareness, and I will take that away and give it further consideration. With regard to the remarks he made at the beginning, he has essentially underlined the importance of why we need the FIR scheme. As I have said a number of times before, the Government are committed to implementing the scheme. We are getting on and will implement it in the new year.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Notwithstanding the somewhat chiding tone of some of the comments from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, does the Security Minister agree with me that it is actually possible both to maintain a consistent and long-term relationship with China, as we must, and to take the robust measures that he has set out today to defend our national interests?

[Dan Jarvis]

I do agree. That is the challenge for any Government, regardless of their political stripe. Yes, of course national security is the priority and we must defend against the threats that we face, but we also have to co-operate economically. The Government will seek to balance those two responsibilities.

Tackling Stalking

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

First of all, I must pay tribute to Rhianon. If Members of the House are not aware of her case, what she has been through is harrowing and she continues to campaign. We pay such tribute to all those who speak up to try to make things better for other women, even if in their cases that ship has sailed. That is an amazing thing.

I want to assure the right hon. Lady that there should be nothing stopping the same multi-agency situations happening in Wales any more than anywhere else where local health authorities give out funding. We will never solve the issue of violence against women and girls unless every part of Government, including at delegated, local level, takes responsibility. That is certainly a postcode lottery at the moment.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her statement and for discussing the broader issues with hon. Members in a Westminster Hall debate last week. Women and girls will have seen from today and previous efforts that they have a dedicated champion in the Minister.

There have been several important announcements by the Government in recent days to tackle violence against women and girls, which is obviously perpetrated mainly by men. Can the Minister set out any further details about how the Government are working across Departments to drive down those despicable crimes and embed a culture of taking action wherever we can?

[Jess Phillips]

I am mindful that sat here on the Front Bench with me now is the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali). She has frequently attended meetings alongside us in the Home Office to discuss how local authorities and housing interact with the lives of victims of domestic abuse and those fleeing other forms of abuse and violence.

Government Departments working together on this issue should no longer just be about a piece of paper that gets written. There has to be firm commitment, and it has to come from the very top. In the last urgent question today, we heard about a previous Prime Minister’s commitment to tackling modern slavery, which led to a world-leading change in that space. That was because it came from the centre. I can assure my hon. Friend that, from the very centre of this Government, there is a desire to make sure that we get this into the mainstream of every Government Department—although I am struggling to make this about fish and fisheries, but I will find a way.

Freight Crime

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank my hon. Friend for his useful intervention, which I agree with. I was proud recently to launch the “Securing Our Supply Chains” report with the APPG and the Road Haulage Association, and I would like to raise its recommendations. The report highlights the clear damage that freight crime is doing to the UK economy. In 2023, there were 5,370 reports of heavy goods vehicle and cargo crime in the UK, and £68.3 million-worth of goods was stolen in freight crime. It is likely that £1 billion has been lost since 2020 due to this serious crime.

The report lays bare the stark issues affecting one of Britain’s most vital industries, in which 90% of businesses are small or medium-sized enterprises. It also makes it clear that the police do not feel adequately equipped to tackle freight crime. Such crime is not opportunistic; it is serious organised crime and that is why freight criminals target service stations, which have become freight crime hotspots.

The National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service has identified several service stations that are repeatedly targeted by freight criminals, including Corley services on the M6 in my constituency. In 2023 alone, Corley services experienced 76 offences of freight crime. Other crime hotspots include Stafford, which had 138 offences; Thurrock, which had 103 offences; and Warwick services, which experienced 87 offences. It is clear to me, as it should be to all Members present, that that means criminals have organised effectively to target certain service stations repeatedly. Will the Minister commit to working with the Department for Transport to improve service station security for freight drivers?

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Some 6,000 of my constituents work in transportation and storage, so I know how important this issue is to them. Much of the allocated overnight lorry parking is insecure, open to the public and lacking in CCTV. As a result, 75% of freight crime offences happen in independent road parking or unsecured motorway service areas. There can even be knock-on effects for the wider community. Does my hon. Friend agree that better standards must be enforced to make sure that drivers can access safe and secure parking facilities?

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is why I would like to reiterate my invitation to the Minister to visit Corley services in my constituency, so that he can hear at first hand about how freight drivers feel and the security issues that they are facing.

Freight crime often involves criminals slashing a lorry’s curtains to gain access to its goods or siphoning fuel from tanks while drivers are parked to commit fuel theft. Cyber criminals are now cloning the websites of legitimate hauliers and tricking sellers into letting them drive away with valuables. Yet, in law, freight thefts are treated with the same seriousness as someone smashing a car window and stealing a phone from the passenger seat. That must change; we need a co-ordinated policing and enforcement strategy.

I have highlighted the impact of freight crime on the economy, but it is crucial that we understand what freight crime does to an industry that is made up mainly of SMEs. To understand that impact, it is crucial to hear from representatives of the industry, as I have. Dave Hands is the managing director of LTS Global Solutions, and he introduced me to this industry when I was standing for election. Since March, his company alone has experienced six fuel theft incidents. Each theft has a significant impact on his operation and customers. LTS loses a day of deliveries, and then must replace the stolen fuel, pay a call-out fee to repair the vehicle, and supply fuel to get the vehicle to the nearest garage. Dave says that in a sector that operates on a 2% to 4% net profit margin, such incidents not only cause LTS to lose money but put their customer relations at risk.

Rhys Hackling is the managing director of Direct Connect Logistics. In January 2022, he had a truck attacked by thieves who stole pallets of batteries. The company lost all the revenue from the truck for three days while the inquiry went on and the truck was repaired. Even worse, Rhys says that Direct Connect Logistics has lost drivers due to the damage to their mental wellbeing, as the cutting of the lorry curtain is a direct attack on them.

The RHA detailed to me how curtain slashing can take place even when a vehicle is in transit. Freight criminals will pull up behind or to the side of the cab, slash the curtains, steal goods and put other drivers on the road in danger. Rhys says that many of his drivers remain committed but they do not sleep properly at night due to the threat of being targeted. Hollie Middleton is a transport manager from WOW Logistics and Warehousing—one of the country’s handful of female-run logistics companies.

Migration and Border Security

John Slinger Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We are clear that net migration needs to come down after the huge increase. We also need to restore order to the asylum system. Part of that is going after the criminal gangs who are undermining border security and putting lives at risk, and tackling the small boat crossings. There is also an issue about the increase of in-country asylum applications. We have instigated a review into that, to get to the bottom of what is happening and why. We found that the previous Government’s decision to remove visa requirements for visitors led to a significant increase in asylum applications from people coming as visitors. We have reversed those changes made by the previous Conservative Government and reintroduced visitor visa requirements for those countries.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s recent visit and the agreements that flowed from that. Does she agree that support from the UK and allies for the Kurdistan region in Iraq across all spheres, plus the efforts of our own Government and allies to strengthen relationships between Baghdad and Erbil, fosters greater prosperity and stability, helps to reduce corruption and thereby helps to alleviate some of the push factors that cause migration to this country in the first place?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I thank the Kurdish Regional Government for their hospitality and welcome, and the Iraqi Government for their welcome and support for my visit last week. We had important and serious discussions with both the regional authorities and the Iraqi Government on a range of issues such as tackling organised immigration crime, but also the positive work that both the Iraqi Government and the Kurdish Regional Government want to do to support economic prosperity. They repeatedly made the point that security is the foundation of economic growth. That is why they are so keen to tackle organised immigration crime and other forms of organised crime that can end up undermining their security and economic opportunities.

Respect Orders and Antisocial Behaviour

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Can I just say to the hon. Gentleman that I have not dismissed anything? I am very conscious of and take seriously my responsibilities in the allocation of resources for policing. We have been in power for five months and we have to announce next month the provisional police settlement for 2025-26. Those figures will be announced in a few weeks’ time. As to whether we want to look longer term at resources, we of course keep that all under review. But for the moment, the thing I think most MPs are concerned about is the allocation for next year. That is what I am working on at the moment. That is the thing the Home Secretary is working on. We are trying to do our best and the Home Secretary has already announced an additional half a billion pounds for policing.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important component of ensuring that our streets belong to law-abiding citizens is the good work of councils such as mine, for example in providing highly professional community wardens with enforcement powers, working in partnership with business improvement district rangers and the police? Does she agree that that innovative approach to the antisocial behaviour ecosystem might lend itself to Rugby being high up the list to be a pilot?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I will certainly add Rugby to the list. My hon. Friend makes an important point about how this cannot just be done with the police alone; it has to be done alongside councils. I commend the use of community wardens, who are a great resource for communities in dealing with antisocial behaviour. Social housing providers are also key. This has to be about partnership working.

Violence against Women and Girls

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on bringing forward such an important debate.

I want to touch briefly on the example of a young woman in my constituency who told me that during one walk across town she had been subjected to two separate incidents of catcalling. She was angry and upset, and she felt there was nothing that she could do. Rather like the concept in law that someone can be a victim of assault when attacked with words, not just physical force, so—I am sure we would all agree—we should consider the catcall as a form of sexual violence against women and girls.

I know that the Minister wrote earlier this month to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee to confirm that she supports research into the potential links between a broader range of non-contact sexual offences and subsequent offences. I am confident that the Minister will agree that we must engage in both a shift towards proper enforcement, despite evidential challenges in this area, and a cultural shift among men. Catcalling is not a low-level offence and it is certainly not a bit of harmless fun. The men who do not catcall must also take action—we must call out catcalling.

Enforcement and cultural improvements are linked. When the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 comes into force, I hope that there will be some prompt convictions. I do so because I hope that that will send a strong message, like our announcement today on antisocial behaviour, that men will no longer be able to create a toxic, demeaning, and threatening environment for our women and girls going about their lives. It is those women and all law-abiding citizens who own the streets, not catcalling misogynists.