(3 days, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this debate on a critical issue for our region. I join him and colleagues in paying tribute to our two brave police officers in Cleveland, Tom Clough and Matthew Blades, who tragically lost their lives recently. I also pay tribute to their colleagues and friends in our force, particularly Chief Constable Victoria Fuller, who has conducted herself with incredible professionalism in this difficult time. Thank you to all of the police officers who deal with my office every day and who report and tackle crime, including Inspector Neil Deluce and Inspector Ian Mitchell, who are the pinnacle of professionalism, despite these challenging circumstances.
I also take a moment to thank everyone, including in the community, who has supported our police force amid everything they have been going through in recent weeks. The chief constable said to me recently that every single police station has been filled with gifts, cakes and cards for our officers—there has been a huge outpouring of support from the public. As she cannot speak in these kinds of debates, I take a moment to recognise my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), given that this incident took place in her constituency and she has been engaged in all the same conversations as I have been.
Cleveland has a relatively small police force, but it suffers from some of the greatest demands in the country. We have among the highest recorded crime rates in England and Wales, alongside severe deprivation, serious violence, organised crime and immense pressure on public services, yet our funding has failed to keep pace for well over a decade. I heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham how the percentage change since 2010 in full-time equivalent police officer numbers shows that there are serious issues, not only in Cleveland, but across the north-east. We are not allowed to use props in these kinds of debates, but if I were to get out a graph, it would show Cleveland, Durham and Northumbria suffering the worst cuts in the country.
The chief constable said that an estimated 500 additional officers would be required in Cleveland to bring workload closer to the national average. That is just to catch up to the average, not to deal with the additional demands in our region. Those pressures are being felt by frontline officers every day and Cleveland Police Federation has warned about unmanageable workloads, with officers responding to traumatic incidents involving domestic abuse, serious violence and vulnerable people. In my constituency, that means officers dealing with antisocial behaviour in places such as Hemlington and Park End, illegal off-road bikes, as has been mentioned, in places such as Easterside, and the very different challenges of policing our rural villages in East Cleveland. In Guisborough, our town has suffered from shoplifting on the high street, and I want to recognise the work that Councillor Bill Suthers has done to convene residents, police and the council to discuss what more can be done, and to get results from that discussion.
At the same time, Cleveland has made real progress. The force has come out of special measures and has been recognised for its improvement. Our officers are delivering results, despite the pressures they face. This is nothing short of a miracle. So, too, our councils are delivering programmes to support their work tackling antisocial behaviour and crime. I welcome the decision taken just this week by Mayor Chris Cooke to introduce new public space protection orders in places such as Hemlington Lake to help address some of these issues. However, the reality is stark, and the PCC and chief constable have called for at least £20 million in additional funding each year, to keep pace with demand. It is a clear and practical request, backed by cross-party leaders across Cleveland.
When the Government take forward their police funding reform, they must ensure that deprivation, crime rates and demand are properly recognised, so that Cleveland finally receives the funding that reflects the challenges our officers face every day.
I also mention the similar challenges facing our fire brigade—the fire service funding formula also needs to change. It has also lost a third of its full-time firefighter posts since 2010 and now faces a £1.2 million funding gap. This is the legacy of austerity writ large in a region that desperately needs an urgent injection of funding for its police and fire brigade. We need a particular focus on our region as police reforms progress, and special consideration must be given to accelerating those reforms in the north-east, perhaps through a pilot programme, given the challenges across the whole region.
We also need clarity about what will happen with PCC funding beyond 2028. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham spoke about domestic abuse in our region. We have some fantastic organisations on Teesside, including ARCH Teesside, My Sister’s Place, EVA Women’s Aid, the Halo Project and many others. Many get their funding from police and crime commissioners, and they do not have clarity about what will happen after PCCs are abolished, so I would welcome some clarity on that from the Minister.
The message today from me and colleagues is that residents need safer streets and proper neighbourhood community policing again, which means that our Government must back our police force with the resources it desperately needs.
Several hon. Members rose—
My hon. Friend and I have had several conversations on this matter in recent times. Of course, I have talked to Victoria, I am well aware of all the statistics and I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. What I am saying is that we are reviewing the funding formula, and it will be fair.
The funding for the year ahead will be allocated and it will not be under the new funding formula. At the moment, we are going through a process to which the chief constable, Matt Storey and all the police chiefs and PCCs from across England and Wales are party. They can come to us while we allocate funding for next year and tell us their exceptional financial situation or exceptional circumstances. Of course, we are having those conversations with colleagues across the north-east, as all Members present would expect.
Although the funding formula will come with the reforms, we are looking right now at what we will do about the exceptional funding requests that people are making across the country. That is the second thing I wanted to say: there is a process, and we are looking at the funding for the next funding year, as well as reforming the funding formula, which will come later.
Luke Myer
I welcome the commitment to changing the funding formula. That is genuinely a seismic change. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) is making is that we cannot wait. This Government have already been in for two years, and it will be another two years until PCCs are abolished. We are encountering these incidents every single day. Last year, Norfolk had 20,000 fewer crimes than Cleveland but received £50 million more in funding. That cannot be justified. It is unfair and it is un-Labour. I urge the Minister to look at what can be done in-year and to look at the proposal to accelerate reforms in the north-east in particular.
That is exactly the point about looking at the funding for the coming year. We are doing that. We are looking at the exceptional circumstances for police forces across the country right now, and what we need to do about that.
I want to touch briefly on police reform, which some people have mentioned. The point of police reform is to do two things. The first is to make sure our police are equipped to tackle the epidemic of everyday crime that we see in our communities, and the second is to make sure we are equipped to tackle the changing nature of crime. Most crimes have a digital footprint. Serious organised crime does not pay any attention to boundaries and is much more complex than it used to be. Members have mentioned online sexual abuse, for example. We need to be able to tackle complex crimes. That is the point of police reform. We do not have the time now for me to set out how we will achieve the changes that we will achieve, but we will legislate on the police reform programme in this Session. We will introduce changes to the structure of police forces, and the way in which the funding formula works will have to fit with those structural changes.
Importantly, we are also putting more police in our neighbourhoods. I want to make one final point, which is hard to make in a short space of time. We have had lots of conversations on police numbers, which I understand and appreciate and do not disagree with, but we cannot judge a police force on just numbers. It does not work. When the Tories were in, they cut police numbers by 20,000. They then rushed to recruit another 20,000, and arrest rates have actually gone down because we have 12,000 officers sat behind desks, not out in our communities fighting crime.
We have had no investment in technology over the Tory years, which means that everybody has to spend hours filling in forms and doing the bureaucracy—I am sure that hon. Members find the same whenever they go out with the police. If we can cut that, people will have more time to be more productive. If we can get police out from behind desks and into our communities, they can be more productive. I am not denying the point that hon. Members make about police numbers, but if we measure just police numbers, that does not actually reflect what the police do and how they do it.
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for public confidence in the police.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I start by noting that the Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), cannot be with us today because she is attending the funeral of PC Matthew Blades, who so tragically died in Cleveland in the collision that we are all sadly familiar with. I pay tribute to the two officers who died in the line of duty, to all the Cleveland officers who continue to serve in spite of what has happened, and to the whole community who have rallied round both families and the officers they now, more than ever, appreciate and want to show that appreciation. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), for attending the debate in the Policing Minister’s place.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for paying tribute to our incredibly brave police officers in Cleveland, who have had an extraordinarily difficult couple of weeks but have dealt with the situation with extreme professionalism. One of their challenges is that since 2010 Cleveland has 220 fewer officers—it is at the bottom of the table for police cuts—so it is extraordinary how the force has approached the situation with such professionalism, bravery and courage despite that situation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the funding formula needs to be urgently reviewed so that we are not penalising areas of high deprivation?
Jonathan Hinder
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. The police funding formula is long overdue for reform, and that incident can accelerate our move towards that. Middlesbrough is a high-crime area and a very deprived area, and that needs to be reflected in the formula. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to push forward reform there and across the country.
I secured this debate on public confidence in the police because, over the last decade and a half, public confidence in the police has been heading in the wrong direction. Whether we look at crime surveys, victim satisfaction surveys or polling trackers from companies such as YouGov, the trend has been downward, which is worrying. If a significant proportion of the public were no longer to see the police as legitimate, we would be headed down a very dark path.
I do not want to spend my whole speech lamenting the then governing Conservative party’s handling of policing—cutting 20,000 officers and then hurriedly returning officer numbers to the same level when they realised what a serious error they had made; constantly shifting their stance on stop and search, tightening and then loosening it; the full circle performed on police recruitment routes; and so on—but the recent history is critical to understanding the position that policing finds itself in today. I know what a disastrous impact it had on neighbourhood policing because I was there, serving as a police constable, sergeant and inspector during those years.
Just at the time that policing was being—let us say—deprioritised by the Government, policing demand changed significantly. High-harm offences committed behind closed doors, as opposed to in the street, were reported in much higher numbers, thanks to changing societal attitudes, improved police culture and high-profile historical cases increasing awareness. Domestic abuse reports to the police doubled in 10 years, reports of sexual offences rocketed, and child abuse became much more commonly reported.
It is good that people now feel able to report those offences and that the police are taking them seriously, but it was a perfect storm. Just at the time when policing was losing not just thousands of officers but thousands of experienced officers, a huge wave of high-harm demand emerged while policing was—and in some cases still is—equipped with data systems from the 1970s. It is absolutely right that investigating high-harm offences is now core policing business, but we must acknowledge that the huge change to policing demand has reduced police visibility on the streets, which is a key determinant of public confidence.
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on introducing the debate. I am grateful to the petitioners for bringing this important issue before the House, and to the more than 114,000 people who signed the petition, including over 100 from my constituency. Might I say, as a former sabbatical officer myself, that this is yet more evidence that the phrase “student politics” should be seen as a compliment in this place, rather than a criticism?
Misogyny and violence against women and girls are not inevitable, and they should not be dismissed as something that women and girls simply have to put up with, whether on the street, in the workplace, in school or, increasingly, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, online. I have spoken in this place before about the scourge of deepfakes and AI-enabled abuse. In the spirit of cross-party collaboration, I also commend the work of Baroness Owen in this regard.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackle violence against women and girls and halve it within a decade. Prevention, early intervention, relentless pursuit of the perpetrators and proper support for victims are the foundations that we absolutely need. We need to deal with the attitudes and behaviours that allow violence and abuse to develop in the first place.
That is particularly important when we consider the growth of misogynistic material online. Young people can now be exposed very quickly to content that presents contempt for women as normal, glorifies control and abuse, and can draw boys and young men into increasingly extreme communities. That is why the Government are right to put prevention at the heart of their strategy, including through schools, colleges and universities, and to recognise the particular challenge posed by online misogyny. However, there is much more to do, and the petitioners are right to ask us to recognise misogyny as a hate crime.
The fact is that our hate crime framework has developed unevenly, although we have seen some progress. As we heard from the hon. Member for Bath and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, the Crime and Policing Act added sex to the characteristics covered by aggravated offences, which is a significant step forward. But the petition raises the wider question of consistency, and I hope the Minister will look carefully at whether hostility on the basis of sex or gender should be reflected consistently across the wider sentencing framework. There is also the question of stirring up hatred. The Law Commission has previously recommended extending such offences to cover sex or gender, in part because of the growth of extremist misogynistic ideologies and their potential to contribute to serious offending.
I heard today from organisations working on the frontline in my constituency, and what they told me should be part of this debate as well. My Sister’s Place supports women experiencing domestic abuse across Teesside. We have had some progress recently in the form of domestic abuse specialists now embedded in the 999 control centre at Cleveland police—something that the Government promised in their manifesto and are now starting to deliver. That is a positive step forward, but one issue that My Sister’s Place raised with me is that there are simply not enough refuge spaces or suitable move-on housing locally in Middlesbrough, so a woman who makes the extraordinarily difficult decision to leave an abusive relationship faces the question, “Where is it safe to go?” I would welcome the Minister’s saying a little about how the Government intend to improve the availability of safe accommodation and, crucially, the route from emergency refuge provision to decent and permanent housing.
I thank the hon. Member for mentioning women fleeing domestic abuse. Their recovery should be subject to a longer-term strategy; it is not just about finding crisis accommodation. Often, women face their abusers for many years and do not get any support. Does he agree that we need to look at the longer-term effects, too?
Luke Myer
I absolutely agree, and I thank the hon. Member for making that point.
That takes me to the next point I wanted to raise, from the second specialist organisation that I spoke to today. ARCH Teesside does vital work supporting victims and survivors of sexual violence and preventing harm before situations escalate; it puts wraparound support around an individual. It raised with me today a practical concern about what will happen to prevention funding, particularly when police and crime commissioners are abolished from 2028. They are often a main source of funding for local specialist violence against women and girls organisations. ARCH Teesside is concerned that the need for services will not change when the structures change, and it does not have certainty about the funding currently held by PCCs.
Organisations such as ARCH need to be able to plan ahead, retain specialist staff and know what funding framework they will be working with. I will be grateful if the Minister can give some reassurance that specialist local services will not lose dedicated prevention funding as responsibilities move away from PCCs, and tell us a little about the clarity that organisations will receive about the future framework into which they will need to bid.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about certainty of funding. Some of the organisations that I have spoken to in my Chelmsford constituency that deal with victims of domestic abuse point out to me that often the funding is project-based. It is not about what they have tried before, have proven to work and want to continue with; they find that people say, “Oh, yes, but we’re starting this new project now, so we’re only accepting bids for new projects and things that haven’t been done before,” and all the great work that has been done before is forgotten. Does he agree that we are always going to be chasing our tails in that way, and nobody will be well served by it, and that we need certainty of funding for things that are proven to work as well as for trialling new stuff?
Luke Myer
I agree. This is slightly tangential to this debate—I apologise—but when I was in local government, we set up a specialist team to work with families and young people at risk of exploitation, and we gave them that sort of long-term focus and freedom to approach things in a range of different ways, rather than giving them time-limited funding, say for three months. Chopping and changing can be very disruptive for families, and it is exactly the same here.
The petitioners are right to ask Parliament to take misogyny more seriously. The Government have taken some important steps, which I welcome, but I hope they will now build on that work, look carefully at the remaining gaps in the law and, above all, make sure that the ambition of halving violence against women and girls is matched by what women experience in communities such as mine.
Satvir Kaur
As the Home Secretary said during her statement to the House last week, it will form part of the ongoing policing reform. That will naturally have an impact on how regional and local areas are funded, and that is right and proper.
Luke Myer
PCCs will be abolished in 2028, but the reforms will take much longer than that. In many parts of the country the PCC role will easily transfer over to a mayoral role, but that will not be the case in Cleveland, where the boundary of the police is not coterminous with that of the combined authority. The Minister mentioned that one of my councils is very advanced in this work. Can she take away the proposals for some of the funding and powers to go straight to the local authority level in cases where there are such tensions between different government boundaries and bodies?
Satvir Kaur
I am more than happy to arrange a meeting with the relevant policing Minister to ensure that that is explored fully.
Before I conclude, I want to cover the other issues that have been raised. On data gaps and reporting, I want to highlight that the Enough campaign is bearing fruit, but it is obviously a big piece of work. Specialist VAWG teams are also going into local areas, and a part of their role is ensuring that local police forces work with local communities so that there is an uptick in reporting, which must be taken more seriously to help address data gaps, because we know that is an ongoing concern.
I was asked about conversations with police forces, and those are ongoing. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) has left the Chamber, but he mentioned what happened to the female protester at the Reform conference. That was disgusting and unacceptable, and I know that the police are encouraging the victim to come forward; I feel we should all do the same to ensure that justice is done.
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The whole of Teesside has been shaken by the tragic deaths of PC Tom Clough and PC Matthew Blades last week, and the real Teesside—the one not depicted in the media—is the one that filled up the Riverside with a standing ovation for those two brave officers on Saturday, that has raised over £1 million for their families and that stands with our emergency services every single day. However, those services need their Government to stand with them, too. I am grateful for the £2 million extra funding that has been announced today, and for the 300 extra officers who have been deployed from across the country to keep our streets safe in the short term, but what we need in the long term is funding formula reform, so will the Home Secretary bring that forward at pace and ensure that we get the fair funding settlement that Cleveland so desperately needs?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way that he has responded to this incident on behalf of his constituents, who I know have been deeply affected, as he has himself. The outpouring of support for the families of PC Blades and PC Clough is a real testament to the people he represents. Let me assure him, on ensuring that the Government proceed with their planned review of the funding formula, that as we change police force structures, the case for the necessity of changing the formula is also made out. We could not keep the same funding formula with a new policing system in any case. I say that to assure him that both reviewing and reforming the police funding formula are absolutely critical to the programme of police reform. We know that on many occasions over 14 years the previous Government promised reform of the funding formula but then ducked that reform at every opportunity. The move to a new structure for policing in this country provides the best opportunity to relook at funding, and let me reassure him that that is absolutely on the agenda. We will be updating the House on the timetable for that, once the independent review on police force structures has been completed and presented to the House.
(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberAs part of our measures to tackle antisemitism, this morning we have announced funding for an additional 500 police officers in areas where we need them most, which I am sure that Members across the House will welcome. The right hon. Gentleman asks about forces. As he will know, a review is currently being undertaken by Lord Bernard Hogan-Howe, who is looking at both local policing units and regional-level units, as well as the national police service, which we will be introducing.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I welcome the 48 new neighbourhood officers and policy community support officers who have joined Cleveland police in the last year, but I want to see an overhaul of the national police funding formula to support the Cleveland area. The Policing Minister has committed to do that, but can she clarify the timeline for when we will see the formula changed and more officers back on our streets again?
My hon. Friend is right that the funding formula is completely outdated. It was not updated by the previous Government, and it is almost decades old. We are going to review it, and we are working on that now as part of the reform programme. As soon as we have an announcement, we will bring it forward.
(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberHouses in multiple occupation have always been a part of providing refuge for people with mental health issues, people fleeing domestic abuse and those in many other circumstances. Use of them can be right. We want to find the right balance and ensure, through our policy of full dispersal, that the burden is shared more equitably. Fundamentally, we want to reduce demand—that is at the heart of the debate.
The Bill does five things, and I will try to group the points made by hon. Members around those five things. On the independent immigration appeals authority, we heard lots from the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), from my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for Bassetlaw (Jo White), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), and from the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts).
I want to recognise the important work that judges do in the system. They work hard and have been creative to provide more capacity, and I am grateful to them for doing so. Nevertheless, I want to be clear with the House that simply trying to sweat the existing model will not give us the capacity that we need to have a functioning appeals system. That is why we are making these changes.
I cannot accept that the lack of legal training in itself is a weakness in this model. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, we see it, for instance, in the magistrates system. We also know that other countries, such as Canada and New Zealand, have lay adjudication as well.
Colleagues have made important points about the independence of the appeals body and the potential blurring of lines with the Executive. We have no desire whatsoever to do that. I think that what is on the face of the Bill shows that separation clearly, but we will nevertheless work with colleagues throughout the passage of the Bill to give them the confidence that, as I say, we have no desire to blur those lines.
On the impact assessment, a lot of the uncertainty relates to the fact that we are not setting an arbitrary timeline by which the new system must be fully operational. We have to have security that the system will stand up properly, including with a period of double running. That is why there is a degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless, we need the greater capacity that the system will give us.
On the European convention on human rights, again, we have heard important contributions from colleagues across the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and the hon. Members for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking).
On this point, we have a contrast. We have the empty calories offered by the Opposition in their reasoned amendment, with the idea that all our issues could be solved by leaving international agreements—which would, in fact, make all of us weaker. These rights, both domestic and international, are for all of us. In lieu of serious answers, the Opposition try to offer us three-word solutions, but that will not work in this case. They talk about this in the context of returns, but returns need two things: yes, an individual must be barrier-free legally, but there must also be a place for that individual to return to. Having negotiated returns agreements around the world, I say gently to colleagues that resiling from very important international agreements would weaken the process, rather than strengthen it.
What I will say to those on the Government Benches, but perhaps not to those on the Opposition Benches, is that we must ensure that we do not defend a broken status quo, although I am happy to say that I did not hear much of that in the debate. We must recognise that it is not unreasonable to seek to align those agreements a little better, particularly when they are being applied more broadly domestically than in Strasbourg case law. I think that is an entirely reasonable thing to do.
We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the ways in which some people have sought to game the process. We should close the loopholes so that we maintain can public confidence and consent for the ECHR.
I am afraid not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned core protection. It is right that we simplify the protection status in this country and put into statute what we put into the immigration rules in the spring. I say to those who are concerned about the 30-month status that I have been clear from this Dispatch Box and in other forums that we do not want people to stay on core protection for long periods of time. If they switch to a protected work and study route, it will take them out of the 30-month renewal, as will coming via safe and legal means.
Let me turn to asylum support. Important contributions were made by the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) and for North Northumberland (David Smith). In principle, it is reasonable to recognise that support for asylum seekers is a unique thing and that it comes from a significant multibillion-pound contribution made by British taxpayers. It is right, and perfectly in line with the refugee convention and our international obligations, that we ask for a contribution towards that.
I cannot recognise or agree with the concerns around destitution. We have been very clear that this is about when people have the means to earn. We do not want to choke off someone’s life that they are building in Britain, and we certainly would not want to push people into poverty. I have heard from colleagues, particularly Labour Members, that they want to see greater detail. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the commitment in her opening speech that we will publish that regime as this legislation goes through, so that colleagues will know exactly what we are seeking to put into practice.
On modern slavery, lots of colleagues talked about their own personal records in this space, and I say to them: well, me too. I have been doing this for nine years in this place; I have always used my platform to push for better protections against slavery.
Some colleagues—including the right hon. Members for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) and for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—asked, “Why is this in here?” First, it is an opportunity to strengthen the regime. I have spoken about transparency in supply chains and section 54 for all my years in this place. This provision strengthens that, and it recognises that there are ways in which the system is being used in interaction with the immigration system.
On the late disclosures, I accept that not everybody’s recovery from slavery will allow them to immediately disclose that they have been a slave—they may not even recognise it themselves or have overcome their trauma. We are saying that when that is used at the very, very last minute—as it has multiple hundred times in the last hours before removal—the court ought to take into consideration whether that is really being declared in good faith or not. That will still be a rebuttable proposition, but I think that is right.
Similarly on the public order disqualification, I urge colleagues to look at what is in the Bill. It is totally reasonable for the Government of the day to say that the interaction of slavery protections should not trump considerations of national security. If people do seek to do terror and are convicted of terror offences, then of course that must be taken into account.
(3 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mike Tapp
I am absolutely fed up of being lectured by the Opposition, who gave us this problem. It is like being lectured by the arsonist on putting out the fire. I will go absolutely no further with that.
I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock). It is absolutely right that we must remove the pull factors. We have to ensure that there are deterrents for people looking to come over. When we came into the Home Office, the fact is that there was asylum shopping going on across Europe, because the offer that we gave to those seeking asylum was better than many others, so we have brought ourselves in line with the rest of Europe. That will make it less attractive to come here.
We are also moving individuals out of hotels and into larger sites, removing one of the pull factors. I have already mentioned that immigration enforcement, when it comes to illegal working, is up 81%, which is removing another pull factor. But of course compassion is essential; that is what makes us great. Looking at safe and legal routes to be introduced in due course is another part of the solution.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made a good point about our duty to help those who are fleeing persecution and war. Capped safe and legal routes will ensure that we do our bit to help people. He talked about decision making; the speed of our initial decision making is up 71%, and there is still further to go. We have reallocated and employed more caseworkers to ensure that we get through that, but our initial decision making is up.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made a point about the Dublin agreement and its impact on increased arrivals. I think that he was right to make that point, but wrong to associate it with the EU, as countries such as Norway and Iceland are signatories. Has any consideration been given to joining multinational returns agreements to speed up decision making in the UK?
Mike Tapp
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We saw the start of the boat crossings crisis only after we left the EU; of course, the Dublin agreement provided some sort of deterrent. However, reopening the Brexit wound is not something I want to do, which is why we are looking at introducing more returns agreements, so that we can deport and remove more people.
(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
My hon. Friend always brings wise words and wisdom to the debate.
We frequently hear the narrative that Northern Ireland maintains historic lows in overall crime, but sweeping generalities do not always give the true picture. I know that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is not the Minister’s responsibility, but to give a perspective from Northern Ireland, which I always do in these debates—it is really important that we put it on the record—the PSNI has said that the overall crime statistics are down by some 2.3%, but in relation to my constituency of Strangford and to Newtownards in particular, Ards and North Down has bucked the positive trend. It stands out as one of the few policing districts to experience an increase in recorded crime. Unfortunately that is happening, and I am here to reflect that in this debate.
Long-term trend data reveals that, across the region, theft offences have risen substantially, driven heavily by a massive surge in shoplifting. It has reached the point at which shoplifting has hit some of the highest levels ever recorded in Northern Ireland’s recent history. In town centres such as Newtownards, the commercial crime wave is felt acutely. CrimeRate shows that the overall crime rate in Newtownards sits at 44 crimes per 1,000 people, which is 24% higher than the Northern Ireland average. That, again, gives an indication of the issues.
Crucially for our high streets, theft and shoplifting make up more than 20% of all recorded crime in Newtownards. That goes along with high-density antisocial behaviour and criminal damage, which intimidate shoppers and drive down footfall. As National Trading Standards warns, organised crime groups are actively infiltrating high street retail spaces. On our own doorsteps, shopkeepers face organised, brazen shoplifting rings that steal to order, often funding low-level drug networks or residual paramilitary elements that still attempt to exert control over our towns. I have been in touch with PSNI Superintendent Johnston McDowell to ensure that the police have a proactive partnership with the shopkeepers, the chamber of trade and individuals to reduce that. To expect a small business owner already battling inflation and footfall migration to absorb the financial losses of relentless retail theft is completely unsustainable.
The Minister is always responsive, and I know that she travels to Northern Ireland regularly. I also know that she likes going there—I am very biased, but doesn’t everybody? I believe we must work with the Northern Ireland Executive to allocate dedicated and visible town centre foot patrols that cover the full span of the constituency with a heavy permanent presence in Newtownards and stretching down as far as Ballynahinch so as to deter organised theft rings.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to intervene on the hon. Gentleman for a change. I have been raising similar issues with Middlesbrough council about Middlesbrough town centre. I am assured that the council is bringing forward a plan soon. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be closer collaboration between local government and central Government to address these issues?
The hon. Gentleman is right to add that issue to the debate. I know that when the Minister responds he will encourage us all in that regard.
I am not going to take all the time that has been awarded to me in this debate, but I will say that we must be more aggressive with the legal outcomes for repeat offenders. Shoplifting cannot be dismissed as a victimless, low-level offence; it is not that for those who are trying to make their living.
What discussions has the Minister had with the Justice Minister back home to ensure that we can do better? We need cross-district town centre shared networks with enhanced capital funding to expand localised business crime partnerships—that is the police, chamber of trade and local shopkeepers. We also need to share live digital intelligence and instantly flag active shoplifting groups. After Newtownards earlier this week, will those groups be in Bangor, Comber, Ballynahinch or Saintfield the following week? Our constituents and retailers across Strangford and this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland deserve town centres that feel welcoming, prosperous and secure. Let us deliver the legislative teeth that we need to ensure our shopkeepers and businesses are able to trade.
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Natalie Fleet
Thank you.
We will look at research, including on the role that ethnicity, culture and religion play in group-based offending so that our response can lead to lasting, systemic change that everybody in this House, including the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), is right to call for today.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
There is a worrying tendency to view these issues as historical. A few months ago I pressed the Home Secretary on the question of whether the national inquiry will be able to look at evidence of crimes that might currently be being committed and refer them to the relevant agencies. Does the Minister agree that is absolutely necessary if we are to deal with these crimes today?
(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberI never cease to be amazed by how incredibly resilient people are in their ability to suffer such loss and then come forward and campaign to ensure that it does not happen again. There are a number of different ways in which people can get involved—for instance, through the work of violence reduction units and local violence reduction plans. I am sure I can give my hon. Friend a list of organisations with which her constituent could potentially get involved. We need as many people as possible to help in this regard, because what is needed is a community-led and community-driven response.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I regularly raise the need for more resources for frontline policing in Cleveland. We have a small population but high deprivation, and the police funding formula does not take account of the severity of crime in our region—including knife crime, the prevalence of which is among the highest in the country. I welcome the 48 new police personnel who have begun neighbourhood roles over the last year, but what more can we do to get more resources to the frontline and make our streets safe again?