Employer National Insurance Contributions: Police Forces

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for chairing this debate. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this important debate, and for all her work in raising awareness of this issue and its consequences.

The last Government recruited 20,000 more police officers, ensuring that there were more police officers on our streets than ever before. Why would anyone think that the solution to any problem would be a tax raid on our police forces? Any MP who has engaged with their PCC or chief constable knows that the funding settlement put forward for local police forces by this Government is entirely inadequate. Just the other week, when questioned by Nick Robinson about the absurd tax raid on local police forces and the fact that the police funding settlement will cut the number of police on our streets, the Minister conceded that she was not going to pretend that it is not challenging for police forces.

Since then, the Government have painted a different picture, understating the impact that this could have on our police forces and on police numbers. At first glance, the settlement may appear generous in cash terms. However, there is a sleight of hand. The Government are claiming to have increased police funding by £1.09 billion, masking their tax raid on our police forces and their failure to build police pay awards into the baseline. The previous Conservative Government provided in-year funding for PCCs to cover the police pay award, adding this to the baseline for subsequent years. By contrast, the in-year adjustment for this year’s pay settlement was not added to the baseline, so about £200 million of the apparent increase this year simply makes up for that omission.

Furthermore, as hon. Members have said, some £230 million of this apparently generous settlement will go straight back to the Treasury to pay for the Government’s national insurance tax raid on our local police forces. The Government are literally taxing the police off our streets. Therefore, about £430 million of this apparently generous increase just makes up for the Government’s choices. Adjusting for that, the increase in funding for policing next year is not £1.09 billion, but more like £660 million, or nearly £300 million less than the last increase under the previous Government. Make no mistake: this tax raid on local police forces, created by our own Government, will have real consequences for communities across England and Wales.

There are estimates that the shortfall in police funding could see 1,800 fewer police on our streets. My force, Cleveland police, has already been placed under special measures, with a recent report from His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services giving it an inadequate rating for responding to children at risk of harm and for investigating child abuse, neglect and exploitation. It is deeply concerning and entirely unacceptable that vulnerable young people are being let down in such a way. Protecting children should be a priority for the Labour Government and for Cleveland’s Labour police and crime commissioner. These children deserve better. Does the Minister agree that creating a shortfall in funding for a force could lead to more failures in responding to and investigating child abuse, neglect and exploitation in Cleveland?

[Adam Jogee]

The shadow Minister knows I am a reasonable man, and I am not going to engage in partisan games for the fun of it—not all the time, anyway—but I want to draw him back to his use of the word “inadequate” to describe the settlement. Will he confirm that, if he had been the Policing Minister, the settlement would have been higher, and if so, how would that have been paid for?

[Matt Vickers]

As the hon. Member will have seen, in previous years, we were increasing the funding by more. In fact, last year we increased by £300 million more than what Labour is doing this year. We were not raiding our police forces with national insurance tax raids; we were putting the pay award into the baseline. I would be wasting less money on GB Energy. I would not be looking to give train drivers on £55,000 a year a bumper pay rise of almost £10,000, with no efforts to increase productivity. It is about priorities. Policing was a priority for the Conservative Government. That is why 20,000 more police officers were put on the streets, reaching record numbers.

The Government have pointed to their promise to recruit 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, but we all know that a relatively small number—just 3,000—are new officers. Most of the claimed 13,000 are either reassigned or redeployed, are part-time volunteers or are police community support officers with no powers of arrest. That redeployment is concerning for many. Will the Minister assure MPs that when their constituents ring 999, they will not have to wait longer for an emergency response because response officers have been redeployed to neighbourhoods? Will she guarantee that police numbers will not fall any lower than the current level as a result of her funding settlement?

Given the nature of modern policing and overtime, to what extent did the Government consider the impact of overtime on the increased national insurance cost, and could there be a further shortfall as a result? We owe a huge debt of gratitude to our brave, hard-working police officers, PCSOs and police staff. They deserve resources and support, not tax raids and funding shortfalls.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Matt Vickers Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Today’s remarks from Conservative Members have been clear—we understand the public’s frustration that more has not been done to reduce these numbers. They are too high, and they must be lowered. During the election campaign, Labour said that it wanted to smash the gangs, but since it took power, small boat crossings have risen by 28%. Before the election, we were closing hotels, yet now 6,000 more people are in hotels, and the number of people arriving in small boats and being removed is down. Conservative Members remain deeply concerned that this Bill and the Government’s approach would represent a backwards step. Rather than utilising every power available, they are focused on tweaking existing laws and stripping away powers that were previously put in place. That is not the approach that the UK needs; rather, we need legislation and a strategy that establishes powers to stop illegal migration for good.

I can already hear Labour Members criticising the last Government. We do not deny that numbers were far too high—quite the opposite—but it was the last Government who introduced a deterrent, one that was scrapped by the Labour party immediately upon taking office before it could even begin. The Leader of the Opposition has been abundantly clear that despite efforts made by the last Government, far more needed to be done to solve the problem.

The problem for the Government is that, despite their complaints about their predecessors, this legislation is unlikely to provide anything like a real solution. The immigration crisis is undoubtedly one of the biggest challenges we face as a country, and it requires bold action. If people believe that they can arrive here illegally and stay, they will continue to come in ever-increasing numbers. The cancelling of the deterrent was an act of national self-harm. The increase in small boat arrivals since the Labour party took office makes that clear for the whole House to see.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Matt Vickers]

I will give way to people who have been here throughout and have contributed to the debate.

Some of the changes in the Bill weaken rather than strengthen our ability to deal with the issue. Creating a route to British citizenship for those arriving here illegally—enticing more people to come—cannot be part of the solution. Weakening our ability to scientifically verify the age of those arriving, creating huge safeguarding risks in our education and care system, is also not part of the solution.

The National Crime Agency, and examples from Governments around the world, show that a deterrent must be in place, but this Bill does the opposite by removing the deterrent that is currently in law. It seems to stem from the misguided belief that arresting a small number of these heinous criminals will be enough to stop the crossings. Even though we would all like that to be the case, it is a vast oversimplification.

On deterrence to stop criminals, we all agree on the need to arrest the people behind these crimes, which is why, in 2023, there were 246 arrests of people smugglers and 86 arrests of small boat pilots—and I am still stunned that the Labour party opposed life sentences for people smugglers. We need measures that stop people boarding those boats in the first place, however, because failing to do so not only harms our country but fails those who endanger their lives by making that perilous journey.

Where legislation increases enforcement powers, enables further interventions and enhances data availability, we will welcome it. The experience of the enforcement authorities must be heard to ensure that they have the necessary powers. These sensible measures should not, however, be bundled into a Bill that simultaneously weakens the Secretary of State’s authority. The Home Secretary’s remarks failed to acknowledge the impact of the repeals. [Interruption.] She could have commenced them with the stroke of a pen. We must ask why this Bill repeals sensible provisions. It is stunning that the Government would prefer to weaken their powers rather than strengthen them.

Turning specifically to the repeals of previously passed legislation, I ask the Government what is wrong with the principle that if someone enters the UK illegally, they should never have a path to British citizenship. Why remove that provision? British citizenship is a special privilege, not something to be granted lightly. Those who enter our country illegally—breaking our laws—should not be offered a pathway to citizenship. Regularly granting citizenship to such individuals undermines the deterrent and sends the damaging message that breaking the law can lead to benefits. That harms the UK and endangers those who risk their lives to come here.

Additionally, the legislation repeals the Secretary of State’s ability to regulate consent for scientific age assessments where there are no reasonable grounds to withhold consent. That was a sensible step to prevent the abuse of the system. Some may argue that the provision is unnecessary, but between 2016 and September 2022, around 8,000 asylum cases involved age disputes. In about half, the individuals were assessed to be adults. Removing that power again weakens our legal infrastructure. We have also suggested significant but appropriate changes to indefinite leave to remain and citizenship. Why should the right to stay not be dependent on someone’s willingness to contribute and obey the law?

Last week, the Brussels correspondent for The Times reported that the European Union is drafting plans to overhaul the post-war refugee convention in what may be one of the most significant shifts in migration policy for decades. That is a clear signal of a growing consensus across the western world that the legal structures and institutions that restrict the Government from doing what is best for our country, and that have been obstructive, are no longer fit for purpose in tackling this significant issue.

While EU countries look to put together a deterrent scheme similar to the one cancelled by the Government, we must ask what the Government are trying to achieve with this legislation. Rather than implementing the significant changes being seriously discussed in Europe, or those that have been effective in Australia, they are opting for limited interventions. They are focused on tweaks to the system while simultaneously reducing their own powers in other aspects of the legal framework. That is not the decisive leadership that we need from the Government of the United Kingdom; it is a weak approach stemming from weak leadership, and for that reason I urge the House to vote for the reasoned amendment. It would be far better for the Government to go away, return swiftly with the necessary legal changes, and adopt an approach that genuinely deters people from coming to this country illegally.

I remind Members that despite pledges to smash the gangs, as of yesterday crossings were up by nearly 28%. That demonstrates that, as we warned the Government, their plan is not working, and the reality is that there are no easy fixes to this problem. There are significant challenges in addressing the issues arising from channel crossings, but we do not believe that the appropriate response is to dismantle legislation that provides the Government with powers they could use for the benefit of the country. That would be capitulation, and a charter for illegal immigration. I say to the Government: bring forward a Bill that enhances the ability of enforcement agencies, rather than one that strips them of their powers. We need a solution that takes the transformative steps to reduce illegal migration significantly, and action that secures our country’s borders and stops these life-threatening crossings. It is wrong to tell the world that if someone comes here illegally they can become a British citizen. I urge Members to back the reasoned amendment.

Police Grant Report

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Before engaging in the substance of the debate, I thank the brave, hard-working police officers, PCSOs, police staff and volunteers who work tirelessly to protect the public. They work day and night to make our communities safer, and run towards danger while others run away. We recognise the huge sacrifices that they make, giving their time, their health, and in the most tragic cases, their life.

I know that MPs across the House recognise our responsibility to support the police in their work. I am therefore pleased that Members have expressed their concerns to the Minister about this settlement. The reality is that the funding settlement put forward by the Government is inadequate. Everyone in this Chamber who has spoken with their local police force knows that the settlement will not provide the necessary resources, particularly given the inflationary pressures.

Last week, when questioned by Nick Ferrari about the absurd tax raid on our police forces and the fact that her settlement will cut the number of police on our streets, the Minister said that she was

“not pretending that it isn’t…challenging for police forces”.

Today, however, she and her colleagues are attempting to present a different picture, understating the settlement’s impact on reducing police numbers, and the financial challenge that it poses to our police forces. Last week, she stated that PCCs and chief constables must make local decisions about the composition of their forces. Will she now acknowledge that her Government’s decisions have created that impossible position for police leaders? At first glance, the settlement may appear generous in cash terms; however, there is a sleight of hand. The cash increase is not enough to cover new financial pressures, the biggest of which have been created by the Government. The funding will not be sufficient to sustain police forces. Without further action, it will ultimately lead to reductions in officer numbers.

Since the funding settlement was announced, numerous PCCs, chief constables and representative bodies have warned the Government about the challenges that it will create. Why are police forces so concerned? The impact of this year’s funding must be assessed in the context of two key factors. The first is the Government’s increase in national insurance contributions. Some £230 million of this apparently generous settlement will go straight back to the Treasury to pay the Government’s own tax raid on our own police forces. The Government are literally taxing the police off our streets. Economic data has already shown the harm that the national insurance raid has inflicted on businesses and jobs, but it has also reduced the financial benefit that the police will receive from the settlement.

Since the Government chose to impose this tax nationwide, it is only right that the Home Office should fully cover the cost of the tax increase for police forces, but the Government now claim that the £230 million that covers their own tax hike somehow counts as a funding increase. It is not a funding increase; it just covers an extra cost that the Government have imposed on our hard-working police forces. Would that money not have been better spent on more police officers, investments in technology to improve efficiency—something that the Government claim to prioritise—or targeted interventions?

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The shadow Minister, like so many Conservative Members, was supportive of the health and social care levy, which was a larger and more wide-ranging increase in national insurance than anything proposed by this Government. I have just checked Hansard for the entire time that he has been a Member of this place, and not once did he speak out against that tax hike and not once has he referenced police funding, until today. What is it about being in opposition that makes him think he now has the moral high ground?

[Matt Vickers]

That is a false statement, actually—it is misleading. I have definitely mentioned police funding in the House before.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

When?

[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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Matt Vickers]

No, I am going to make some progress, thank you very much.

Some might say that the Minister is giving with one hand and taking with the other. However, given the tax rises, it is clear that she is giving with the left hand and taking back with the far-left hand—[Interruption.] Does the Minister want to intervene?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

I wonder whether the shadow Minister knows what pays for policing. The money comes from the Treasury, and when there is nothing left—for example, because the Home Office in which the shadow Home Secretary was a Minister did not put any money towards many of the schemes set out in their Budget—where does he think the money has to come from?

[Matt Vickers]

Taxpayers—the people who go out day and night, work hard and cough up for the national insurance rise. It is those small businesses battered by the Government’s slashing of rates relief on leisure, hospitality and retail businesses—absolutely horrendous. Those hard-working men and women out there paying their taxes fund these police officers.

The second big issue with the funding formula is that previous Conservative Governments provided in-year funding for PCCs to cover the police pay award, which was then added to the baseline, so any increase was on top of that already elevated baseline. By contrast, the in-year adjustment for this year’s pay settlement was not added to the baseline, so about £200 million of this apparently generous increase simply makes up for that omission. Around £430 million of that apparently generous increase actually makes up for the Government’s own choices. Adjusting for that, the increase in funding for policing next year is not £1.9 billion at all, but more like £660 million—nearly £300 million less than the last increase under the previous Government. That actual increase of £660 million is not enough to meet pay and inflationary pressures.

Freedom of information requests from police forces highlight the financial strain, with some forces not receiving the full amount required from the Home Office. That shortfall must then be covered, either by local taxpayers or through cuts elsewhere. I would be interested to hear the Minister for Policing’s view on this, given that her party was a strong proponent of freezing council tax in 2023—a principle that, like so many others, seems to have been abandoned now that Labour is in government. All that means is that police budgets are overstretched and the forces will inevitably have to make tough decisions.

Although estimates vary, the National Police Chiefs’ Council projected in December a £1.3 billion funding gap over the next two years, which the council’s finance lead said would inevitably result in job losses. Other estimates suggest that the funding shortfall is closer to £118 million per year, even when accounting for the additional funding announced last week.

Regardless of which estimate we use, either should be of serious concern to the Home Office and the Government. Given current staffing costs, the lower figure of £118 million could mean job losses for over 1,800 officers, which is unacceptable. Yes, a Labour Government who are borrowing like no one is watching and spending like there is no tomorrow could still leave us with 1,800 fewer officers on our streets.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I would like to explore a little further the shadow Minister’s understanding of how taxes pay for things. He says that taxation pays for police officers and he believes that he has identified a funding gap. Will he explain to the House how he would fill that gap?

[Matt Vickers]

Last year there was funding of £900 million-plus; this year it is only £660 million. The hon. Gentleman is completely overstating what the Government are giving police officers. [Interruption.] He is wrong. We managed the finances to put the largest ever number of police officers on the streets of the UK. The Minister has given no guarantees that she will maintain that.

[Chris Vince]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Matt Vickers]

I will carry on; I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities for everybody to contribute to the debate.

Thanks to measures introduced by the then Conservative Government, the total number of officers stood at 149,769 in March 2024—the highest headcount since comparable records began.

[Chris Vince]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Matt Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunities to contribute.

I know that Labour Members do not like this fact, but the Conservatives left office with record numbers of police and thousands more officers on our streets than ever before. All we are doing is calling on the Government to try at the very least to maintain that number, not reduce it. In reality, the Government are placing police forces in an impossible position. How do they expect forces to meet their financial obligations without cutting officer numbers?

The Government will point to their intention to recruit new neighbourhood officers, but we all know that includes only a relatively small number of new officers—just 3,000. Most of the claimed 13,000 officers are either being reassigned, are part time, are volunteers or are PCSOs with no power of arrest. Given the existing budget shortfalls, I am concerned that that level of recruitment will not be enough. The £200 million allocated in that inadequate settlement appears insufficient to meet the Government’s stated objectives.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

rose—

[Matt Vickers]

Will the Minister be honest and acknowledge that in order to achieve what has been outlined, officers will need to be reassigned? If so, will she assure us that those officers will be assigned appropriately? Can she assure MPs—

[Jess Phillips]

Let her intervene!

[Matt Vickers]

I am sure that the Minister will have opportunities to come back to me. Can she assure MPs that when their constituents ring 999, they will not have to wait long for an emergency response, because response officers have been redeployed to neighbourhoods?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

rose—

[Matt Vickers]

Go on—you are welcome.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I just thought it might be helpful if I gave the shadow Minister a reminder. He is right that there were 149,769 police officers in March 2024, but in June—when the Conservative Government were still in power—that figure had been reduced by 1,232 to 148,536 officers. The numbers went down on the previous Government’s watch.

[Matt Vickers]

By the measurements in September, that is not the case. By the time September came—[Interruption.] Is the Minister going to give us the guarantee that the numbers will not go down any further as a result of the funding?

The Government have undeniably set well-intentioned goals. Halving knife crime and tackling violence against women and girls are ambitions that will be celebrated across Parliament and across the country, but what are the actual measures for halving violence against women and girls? Without enough police officers available to prioritise those issues, progress will be far more difficult.

Moving forward, will the Government commit to fully funding pay increases and ensuring that additional tax burdens are not placed on police forces in the years ahead? What has been put forward today does not do enough to provide the resources that the police need to tackle criminals in our society, meaning that the only winners will be those who thrive on criminality.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I begin by putting on record my congratulations to Trevor Rodenhurst, the chief constable of Bedfordshire police, on being awarded the King’s Police Medal for distinguished service. It is well deserved. Like others, I thank the police officers, PCSOs and all police staff at Bedfordshire police for their service.

After years of campaigning for better funding for Bedfordshire police, I am very pleased that this Labour Government have demonstrated our commitment to safer streets and more police in our communities by bringing forward this core funding settlement. Bedfordshire police has been awarded £67.8 million, an increase of 6.6%, as well as £1.8 million in neighbourhood policing guarantee funding for 2025-26. This increase comes after 14 years of Tory cuts and underfunding.

[Matt Vickers]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Rachel Hopkins]

I will not give way.

Those cuts and that underfunding have required Bedfordshire police to cut spending by over £50 million. I thank our Labour police and crime commissioner for Bedfordshire, John Tizard, for his commitment to ensuring that we make the best use of our funds to increase policing capacity, and for his dedication to tackling violent crime across our county. I particularly thank him for his ongoing desire to work in partnership with other public services and the voluntary sector, with a focus on prevention.

Bedfordshire has a diverse landscape, and our police cover urban, densely populated towns including Bedford and Luton, which suffer from crime associated with metropolitan areas. Our county has significant transportation links—road, rail and air—making Bedfordshire a particular hotspot for organised crime, including firearms and drug supply offences. Unfortunately, our police force is also tackling the impact of knife crime; in the period from January 2023 to March 2024, there were 449 knife crime-related incidents in Luton alone, and in recent weeks we have seen more violent crime in Luton. Two stabbings have taken place, one of which tragically resulted in a fatality.

Despite those factors, Bedfordshire police is still currently funded as a rural police force, due to failures by the previous Government to fix the archaic funding formula. Special grants have been provided each year since 2019-20 to tackle the disproportionately high gun and gang crime in Bedfordshire, with a further grant awarded since 2021-22 to combat organised crime.

I cannot comment on the contributions made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), but I and many other Members from across the House who represent constituencies in Bedfordshire have spoken many times about the funding formula for our police force. It is currently awaiting confirmation of the continuation of those special grants, which equate to 5% of its total budget. Announcements are expected later this month, so I urge the Minister to consider the specific circumstances of our police force when taking those decisions, as the impact of those grants cannot be overestimated.

I will close by saying how pleased I am to see multi-year settlements for local government coming in, because that provides local government with more stability in its partnerships with our police forces, working to ensure community safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

We have heard a great deal from Members across the House about the grant and the impact it will have on various communities. I reiterate my earlier point that we are deeply concerned about the effect that will have on policing. Members do not need to take my word for it; they can listen to the words of police leadership. Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, previously said that the force would be

“scaling back our ability to tackle serious violence and organised crime”.

Norfolk’s chief constable, Paul Sanford, who is the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead for finance, described the funding package as challenging and said that cuts were inevitable. One of Labour’s own police and crime commissioners, Joy Allen, PCC for Durham, also said the money

“may not go as far as we would all hope”

and that

“We will have to wait and see what this additional funding covers and how long it lasts”.

Does the Minister think the £100 million announced will be enough to stop those cuts?

Unfortunately, we have seen that sentiment reflected not only in words, but in the actions of police forces. Lincolnshire Police says there is a budget gap of £14 million. To manage that, it plans to reduce the number of police officers by around 200, bringing the total down to 1,000 officers by 2028-29, alongside cancelling the upcoming police officer intake for March. Lincolnshire is unfortunately not alone. In Essex the shortfall in the Government’s police funding settlement led the police force to announce plans to eliminate all 99 of its police community support officers—[Interruption.] I am coming to it; worry not!—and reduce staff numbers by around 65 people. While I acknowledge that that was prior to last week’s announcement, Essex will still receive £2.2 million. However, Essex Police had identified a £5.3 million budget shortfall, so it is still over £3 million short. While the additional funding is welcome, it will not be sufficient to bridge the gap. That is a direct result of the funding shortfall.

Derbyshire’s chief constable stated that its budget shortfall of £1.5 million by the end of the financial year had increased to £5.5 million after the Budget. However, it did not stop there. She said that it was compounded further by the Home Office grant settlement in December, which increased the amount that the force needed to balance the books to more than £8.5 million.

In that context, last week’s announcement appears to be only 18% of the previously announced shortfall. Meanwhile, PCCs across the country—from Norfolk Constabulary to Thames Valley Police, and even in my home force of Cleveland Police—have repeatedly highlighted the challenges they face while having to increase the precept. Those decisions expose the hollowness of Labour’s so-called neighbourhood policing guarantee. How can the Government claim to be delivering that if forces must cut staff simply to maintain officer numbers at their current level?

Another aspect of this debate is the decision to increase funding through precept rises. During last year’s debate, Labour’s then shadow policing Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), said from the Opposition Benches that

“the Government have lifted the cap on the precept so that PCCs can raise it by £13 next year for band D properties. That in itself is a challenge for people’s finances, but it also creates differential challenges across the country… That failure of leadership has consequences for less well-off areas”.—[Official Report, 7 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 286.]

Yet now that the Labour party is in government, its stance appears to have changed. This year’s precept increase is even more significant than the one announced last year. Like so much about this Government, they promise one thing to win an election and do completely the opposite when they are in charge. Given their actions now, will they acknowledge that they underestimated police funding needs when in opposition, and seem to be continuing to underestimate them now that they are in government?

Of course, we will not do anything to stop the police from getting the resources they need, so we will not vote against the motion, but I hope the Government recognise that their actions will not only make their job more challenging but risk undermining communities across the country. They have used a sleight of hand to pretend that the extra money for policing is more than it really is. As a result, police forces will not have enough funding to meet cost pressures, and cuts to police numbers are inevitable. If the Minister for Policing disagrees, will she guarantee that total police numbers will not fall from the record level at the previous Government’s last national workforce count of 31 March 2024?

I know that my colleagues want to work with the Government to empower police forces in their constituencies by giving them all the resources they need. However, we remain concerned that this settlement is a sign that the challenges that the Minister for Policing refers to will only grow over the course of this Parliament. Instead of a tax raid, we should give our police forces the resources they need and show our brave frontline officers the respect and support that they deserve.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

First, I express my gratitude to all Members who have contributed to the debate. Before I respond to their points—and I will respond—I take this opportunity to say a massive thank you to the police officers, staff and volunteers who work tirelessly to keep us all safe. The contribution they make to our society is simply extraordinary, and we are fortunate to have them. I shamelessly take this opportunity to give a shout-out to Orla Jenkins and Jim Carroll, my sergeant and inspector, who almost live in my office—which is not a particularly good thing. They are absolutely amazing, responsive and well-known neighbourhood coppers. It is so important that people know the names of their neighbourhood officers and can contact them.

I do not plan to repeat the top headlines of the settlements that we are debating, as they were covered at length by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, but I reiterate that the settlement represents a significant investment in policing that will kick-start the delivery of the safer streets mission. Neighbourhood policing is the bedrock of British policing. That is why we have injected an additional £100 million into neighbourhood policing compared with the provisional settlement, which means that we are doubling the funding available to forces to a total of £200 million so that they can carry on the fight against crime and keep communities safe.

Let me turn to some of the points raised during the debate. I welcome the comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). It seems that he lives in wonderland. He has talked today as if we have come from some amazing nirvana with regard to policing, not from a situation where every single part of our system—whether it is our courts, our police, our mental health services or our housing—has been so utterly degraded that all of that work landed on the hard-working police forces that he sought to praise.

[Matt Vickers]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jess Phillips]

Go on.

[Matt Vickers]

I was just wondering whether the Minister knew how much this national insurance tax raid was going to cost her local police force and those hard-working police officers in her part of the world.

[Jess Phillips]

I am not exactly sure how much it will cost West Midlands police, but what I do know is that the Home Office is going to give it to them. The shadow Minister has talked as if taxes do not pay for our public services—that is an absolute madness; money has to be raised to pay for our public services. The Home Office is funding the national insurance rise for West Midlands police and every other—[Interruption.] I cannot believe that it is being argued that our police forces were not completely and utterly decimated, and there seems to have been a tiny bit of whitewashing from some Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches about the role that their party also played in taking 20,000 police officers off our streets.

The shadow Minister specifically questioned the Policing Minister on 999 calls and response officers, and on how we will halve violence against women and girls with the help of this settlement. I want to bring him back from wonderland into the real world and tell him a story about Raneem Oudeh, who called 999 13 times on the night she was murdered by her husband. She called out to West Midlands police 13 times, and there was no immediate response—the immediate response that I am being told has always existed, along with, “Oh, something is going to change.”

Oh my gosh—I do not know what system the shadow Minister thinks has existed for the past 14 years, but I will tell him what we are going to do. We are going to put specialist domestic abuse workers in every single one of our police force response rooms, because of the failures of response under police forces decimated by the years of Conservative Governments. Frankly, I am flabbergasted by the shadow Minister’s gall. My husband often says, “I don’t know why you continue to be surprised.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) raised the issue of the funding formula, as have many other Members in the Chamber today. I know that the Policing Minister has visited Bedfordshire and very much heard the particular challenges they face.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) talked about the mental health and morale of police. I went out to Hertfordshire police recently to see some police officers who were dog handlers; the dogs were there to sniff out the hard drives of sex offenders and child sex abusers. One of the officers had this amazing dog, Micky, and I noticed that it was the first time I had seen a police officer look genuinely happy for quite a long time. Morale in policing and the health of our police officers have been dreadfully tested over recent years, and I noted how chuffed this bloke was to be doing his job with this dog—the dog was lovely. We need to make sure we are looking after our police officers, and the Policing Minister informs me that as part of our reform programme, we are having a very close look at how occupational health is handed out to police officers.

The hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) all raised the issue of the Met. The Met is large and complex, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) mentioned—as did many others—the issue of police officers being taken away from the frontlines in their neighbourhoods in order to undertake not just policing of the capital, but sometimes national policing in other areas. I reassure Members that the funding formula for neighbourhood policing means that it has to be spent on neighbourhood policing and cannot really be pulled away to other areas.

[Matt Vickers]

Does the Minister think that reducing the number of people working in response policing to make up the numbers in neighbourhood policing will improve or reduce response times?

[Jess Phillips]

What I think is that we have put £1.1 billion extra into policing, and what I expect to happen across police forces is that we will work with them. As we have seen today from Members in Essex—[Interruption.] Would the shadow Minister like to intervene? What are you shaking your head about, sir?

[Matt Vickers]

rose—

[Jess Phillips]

Go on.

[Matt Vickers]

As we have heard, once you take out your national insurance tax raid and the pay rise that you took from the base, it is more like £660 million, which is £300 million less than last year’s settlement from the Conservative Government.

[Jess Phillips]

Earlier, I heard everybody groan on your Benches—

Knife Crime: West Midlands

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, privilege and honour to serve under your chairmanship on this first occasion, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this important debate. Hon. Members have shared the horror and pain caused by knife crime, which has been suffered by too many across this country.

The rate of knife crime in the west midlands has been and remains too high. Knife crime is a blight on the region, creating challenges that go beyond injuries or, tragically, fatalities. It undermines communities and leaves people feeling unsafe, and in some cases deters people from going about their daily lives. Any Government would be right to prioritise this issue and they have set a worthy goal in committing to reducing knife crime by 50% in the next decade. Precisely how they intend to achieve that goal remains uncertain, however, and it will require difficult and targeted action.

As many hon. Members will know, the number of offences, excluding fraud and computer misuse, dropped by 50% between 2010 and 2023. The number of fraud and computer misuse offences also dropped by 20% from 2017, when it was first recorded, to 2023, and there were also significant decreases in cases of violence with and without injury. We know, therefore, that substantial reductions in crime are achievable, but the specific challenges posed by knife crime will require tailored solutions. Will the Minister elaborate in greater depth on how the Government plan to achieve that ambitious reduction?

People need to know that when they make the decision to carry a knife, there is a good chance they will be caught and face the full force of the law. Police officers need to know that when they make the decision to stop and search, the state will be on their side. We cannot take knives off the street without trusting, empowering and properly resourcing our police officers. That should include utilising violence reduction units and ensuring that the police are deployed in the right places at the right times using hotspot policing.

Continued funding for serious violence in the police funding settlement is welcome, but it appears to fall short of the £55 million a year previously allocated to the 20 violence reduction units. The last Government outlined plans to increase that by 50% to support preventive interventions. I understand that funding for those initiatives is often drawn from multiple sources. Can the Minister clarify how much funding the units will receive and whether further increases are expected in future years?

There are now more police on the streets than ever before, but police forces have raised concerns that they might need to reduce headcounts over the next year due to funding pressures from the recently announced settlement. That issue has been exacerbated by the increase in employer national insurance contributions, and there are projections that as many as 3,500 officers could be lost. Although the Government have indicated that they will increase the number of neighbourhood police, can the Minister assure us today that total officer numbers will not decline over the coming years? A reduction in officers would pose significant challenges to investigating knife crime and delivering justice.

There are also areas where I hope we can find agreement. The Criminal Justice Bill, which was unable to pass prior to the general election, contained measures to strengthen knife crime legislation, including addressing the sale and use of weapons. One proposal was to increase the maximum penalty for selling knives to those under 18 from six months to two years’ imprisonment. Another was the introduction of a new offence for the possession of a knife or offensive weapon in public or private with the intent to use unlawful violence, which carried a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment. When the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council gave evidence to the Criminal Justice Bill Committee, they expressed full support for the proposals. Do the Government intend to include such measures in upcoming legislation during this Session of Parliament?

Turning to the west midlands specifically, knife crime is undeniably a significant issue. The crime survey for England and Wales, released in October, revealed that 10% of all knife crime occurred in that region. Although there was a small positive development, knife or sharp instrument offences recorded by West Midlands police saw a 1% decrease compared with a 16% increase recorded by the Metropolitan police. Overall levels remain far too high. Indeed, the total number of offences recorded by West Midlands police is still 2% higher than pre-pandemic levels.

It is worth noting that NHS data from September 2024 also shows a small decrease in hospital admissions involving sharp objects or firearms, compared with the previous year, with 10 fewer incidents recorded in the west midlands. However, we all agree that we need further reductions. Both the local police force and the Government must strive to reduce the levels of knife crime in the region.

As hon. Members from the region will recall, the police efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy—PEEL—assessment by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services was critical of West Midlands police. Improvements have undoubtably been made since, but there is more to do. One positive example highlighted in the assessment was the force’s use of a knife prediction tool, developed by its data analytics lab. The tool uses three years of data to predict, up to four weeks in advance, where injuries caused by knives are most likely to occur. Measures are then put in place to reduce risks in those areas. Between April and August 2023, compared with the same period in 2022, the force reported a 4.4% reduction in recorded cases of serious youth violence involving knives, and an 11% overall reduction in serious youth violence.

Furthermore, in 2022, West Midlands police benefited from 20,612 additional patrols, funded by the Home Office’s Grip and hotspot policing initiatives. With continued advancements in technology, it is reasonable to expect further gains. Can the Government confirm that they will ensure sustained financial support for those effective policing methods?

Despite those examples of progress, the inspectorate identified areas requiring improvement. One key recommendation was to ensure that officers have the skills and capabilities needed to carry out high-quality investigations. That concern is reflected in the statistics. In the year ending March 2024, 30.1% of offenders who were charged or summonsed for possession of weapons offences nationally were successfully prosecuted. In the west midlands, however, that figure was just 17.4%. Although the figure encompasses various dangerous weapons, knives remain among the most common. How do the Government intend to work with West Midlands police and the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that offenders are brought to justice?

Finally, I wish to raise the matter of devolved powers. As hon. Members from the region will be aware, the former Mayor of the West Midlands and the previous Government sought to transfer police and crime commissioner powers. Although that proposal was not supported by the Labour PCC, it raises questions about the Government’s future plans. In the light of the devolution White Paper, does the Minister foresee the mayor assuming the powers of the PCC?

I am confident that the Minister understands the scale of the challenge to reduce knife crime. It is by no means an easy task, so I hope that we can work together in this Parliament to support measures that will take meaningful action to reduce knife crime, not only in the west midlands but across the country.

Asylum Seeker Hotel Accommodation: Reopening

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir John, for chairing your third debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for proposing this discussion on an important issue for many MPs and their constituents across the country.

If we need to provide accommodation for those who arrive in the UK seeking asylum, it is critical that we do all we can to ensure that that accommodation is cost-effective and does not unduly burden our communities. Unfortunately, we know all too well that hotel accommodation for asylum seekers fails to meet either of those criteria. Despite the disagreements that have been expressed today, this is an issue on which all Members of the House can and should agree.

As the Minister is aware, significant steps were taken by the last Government to reduce the number of people housed in hotel accommodation, which went from a peak of 56,042 in September 2023 to 29,585 at the end of June 2024. That is a 47% decrease. That was accompanied by the closure of many hotels from their peak number. It was therefore welcome to see this Government’s manifesto promise to close asylum hotels entirely. The pledge was clear: the Government would “end asylum hotels”. That is a goal that we all hope they will achieve, as it would undoubtedly benefit communities across the country.

The unfortunate reality, however, is that since this Government took power, we have gone in the opposite direction. Official Home Office statistics show that as of 30 September, 35,651 people were in hotel accommodation, an increase of 21% since the general election. Instead of hotels being closed, we have seen the contrary: the Minister informed the House last week that there has been a net increase of six hotels since the election. We have heard from MPs that announcements about new hotels are often made with little notice, leaving minimal time to prepare and a lack of clarity. Although the Government should undoubtedly improve that process, surely the most impactful approach would be to reduce the reliance on hotel accommodation altogether.

Sometimes it is too easy to focus on statistics. Although they provide an important part of the picture, it is through speaking to residents that we hear about the very real consequences for communities. In November, Councillor Nathan Evans invited me to visit Altrincham to see the huge impact of such a hotel on his community. I spoke to residents, business owners and the local chamber of commerce about the direct and indirect effects of Labour’s decisions. They emphasised the need for safety, security and clear communication. Those were reasonable requests that they felt had fallen on deaf ears at both the Home Office and the local authority.

As well as the concerns about security, there was a very evident impact on the local economy. In Altrincham, the loss of nearly 300 hotel places in the local hospitality sector was huge. Families who had worked day and night for years to create incredible small businesses, operating in an already challenging environment, now had to deal with another huge and unpredicted blow to their footfall. I suggest that the Minister considers visiting Altrincham, not only to see some incredible small businesses with a unique offering, but to see the impact of the decisions she makes.

Too often, places like Altrincham receive information at the last minute, leaving them unable to prepare and taken aback by the sudden loss of normal business generated by these hotels. That lack of warning undermines trust and further fosters animosity towards the system. I understand that this is a complex issue, but will the Minister consider the suggestion that the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), made in November: that greater notice be given to MPs before a hotel opens in their constituency? I also ask the Minister how sites are chosen and what consideration is given to proximity to local schools, care homes and centres for the vulnerable, as well as the impact on the local business community.

I recognise that the Minister and other hon. Members will point out that the number of people housed in hotels was too high under the last Government. They are correct, and my party does not shy away from that fact. The Leader of the Opposition has been clear that mistakes were made regarding immigration. Nevertheless, the last Government were taking steps to rectify these issues by closing hotels and attempting to halt illegal immigration. Since the election, however, we have seen increases both in contingency accommodation and in dispersal accommodation.

Ultimately, the Minister, like the rest of us, knows the root cause of the problem: the illegal and dangerous channel crossings. As of 19 January, 24,132 people had crossed the channel in small boats since the election, a 30% increase on the same period in 2023-24. What is more, the number of those being deported is actually going down.

We need a deterrent. If people arrive here illegally, they should not be allowed to stay. Until that is the case, they will continue to arrive in ever increasing numbers. Despite pledges to “smash the gangs”, it appears that the gangs remain active and evasive. This behaviour underscores the importance of deterrence, as highlighted by the National Crime Agency and reportedly by the head of the Government’s Border Security Command.

Policing alone is insufficient. The rise in small boat crossings illustrates that scrapping the UK’s deterrent policy before it had even started was a short-sighted decision; in fact, it was a decision of national self-harm. The deterrent approach has been successfully implemented in other countries such as Australia, which managed to resolve similar issues through decisive action. We have even seen it working here in the UK, with the Albania returns agreement reducing arrivals by more than 90%. Given the increasing numbers and the failure to reduce small boat crossings into this country, will the Government reconsider whether their approach to illegal migration has been effective thus far?

On costs, the Government’s policy is to expedite asylum decisions. Consequently, the costs associated with accepted migrants risk being obscured within the welfare system. The Home Office has previously acknowledged that it has no estimate of the potential cost of benefit claims and council-housing bills for those individuals. Will the Minister commit to recording and publishing the costs for migrants whose asylum claims are accepted?

I know that the Minister has previously stated that hotels are a temporary measure, not a solution. While she may be well intentioned, the continuing small boat crossings suggest that the need for contingency accommodation is unlikely to subside without decisive action. Can the Minister therefore explain whether there is a contingency plan should small boat crossings persist? Additionally, will the Government ensure that every possible policy option is explored to reduce the number of people in hotel accommodation in a cost-effective manner?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister of State for Border Security and Asylum. Minister, I hope that you might finish at 6.03 pm to allow the hon. Member for Windsor to say a few words at the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am happy to go on to what we are doing, but the legacy that one inherits is important and has to be taken into account when thinking about how we deliver for the future. We said that the Rwanda scheme was not going to work and that we would restart asylum processing. We also said we were going to set up the Border Security Command, which has been done. Opposition Members will know that there is legislation pending on border security and asylum, which hopefully will come before the House in the not-too-distant future. It has taken shape, but it is going through various processes to get agreement on when we can publish and introduce it.

Given the concern of Members in this Chamber, I hope they will attempt to engage positively with the new Bill when it is published, so that we can get the Border Security Command up and running as quickly as possible with the correct powers, including counter-terrorism powers. That will allow us to take more effective action to start dismantling and disrupting the activities of the smuggler gangs. In the last few years we have seen them be allowed to grow across the channel, becoming increasingly sophisticated and industrialising their processes. I hope all Members will agree that we have a duty to take action. We want to restore order to the asylum system so that it operates compassionately and efficiently. That will enable us to exit hotels and bring down the cost of the asylum system by billions of pounds.

Let me address the motion specifically. The strain on the system has necessitated the continued use of hotels in the medium term to enable the Home Office to deliver its statutory responsibilities to house asylum seekers while their claims are looked at. Of course, the more efficiently and effectively we can look at the claims, the less trouble we will have trying to house people—as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) said. I disagree with her comments about the right to work. There are legal ways of trying to get into this country with a right to work that are processed through the visa system. We cannot have people getting around that by coming illegally and then having the right to work. That would be a huge pull factor that we simply do not want to countenance. She and I will disagree about it, but that is the Government’s view.

Since the general election, nine hotels have closed. Fifteen hotels were opened temporarily, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Windsor for the speed with which that had to be done. It is not ideal and I would not want to be in that position again. I have asked Home Office officials to be more open and transparent, as far ahead of time as possible, to try to give warning. We do not want any nasty surprises, but the hon. Gentleman had one. I have apologised for that—

[Matt Vickers]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I will be happy to, but let me finish apologising. I apologised to the hon. Member for Windsor in my response to the letter he sent me. It was not an ideal situation and it is not one we want to get into again.

[Matt Vickers]

What would the Minister say is a sensible period of notice that she would like the Home Office to give before migrants arrive in a hotel?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We do not want to get into that situation, because we want to go down rather than up, but I would want notice of significant changes to be “as much as possible” because, sometimes, operational things occur. A hotel site can be lost—for example, we lost one in Manchester during the floods. Unexpected things can happen that have certain implications, so I will say it is as much notice as possible.

[Matt Vickers]

And MPs would know in advance?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Yes, as much as possible and, I hope, more in advance than we managed during the openings that I talked about.

Since the general election, nine hotels have closed. There were 15 opened temporarily—which is what this debate is really about—and nine are scheduled for closure by the end of March 2025. I certainly hope that, as we look for more dispersed accommodation and a more effective, faster system, we will get to the stage where we do not have to open any more. I cannot give the hon. Member for Windsor any date when the hotel in his constituency might close but I am working to close all such hotels. As I have said on the record, the use of hotels is undesirable and is not value for money. It is unsustainable in the long term and we want to get away from it.

Given that it is 6.03 pm, I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor on securing the debate. I am happy to stay in touch with him about what is happening with the hotel in his constituency.

Licensing Hours Extension Bill

Matt Vickers Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for introducing the Bill today. I also commend the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) who led a version of the Bill in the previous Parliament before untimely events curtailed its progress. Speaking of untimely events, I think we can all agree on the collective disappointment when a pub is closed for or unable to show an important sporting event. I am sure hospitality venues up and down the country will welcome this legislation as providing certainty that they will be able to open for significant events.

At this point I must declare an interest as a regular patron of Stockton West’s pubs. We have some of the best—no, the best—pubs in the country, and I know that they always welcome the opportunity to stay open a little later when circumstances allow. As mentioned already, when the England women’s football team progressed to England’s first world cup final since 1966, the request to extend licensing hours came in late and during a parliamentary recess, which made it impossible to grant the request, denying many businesses the opportunity to extend their licences and many punters the chance to gather and show their early-morning support. Ensuring that the Government can make the change swiftly while retaining the necessary safeguards is a sensible and measured approach. I hope it will resolve the issues that Governments have faced in the past and allow changes to be made when needed.

It may be unlikely, but I remain hopeful that one day the mighty Stockton Town will take advantage of those changes with a future appearance, late in the evening, in a champions league final. While I might have to wait a while for that, in the meantime I express our support for the change and look forward to taking advantage of it during the next international tournament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

The previous Government left office with record police numbers, but police and crime commissioners are deeply concerned that the funding formula and settlement, combined with the Government’s national insurance tax raid, will force cuts to frontline police numbers. My Labour police and crime commissioner faces a £3 million shortfall, and there are projections of 3,500 officers being lost nationwide. Will the Home Secretary take responsibility if police numbers fall in the coming years?

[Yvette Cooper]

I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that his Government took neighbourhood police officers off the streets, meaning thousands fewer on the streets—the number of PCSOs halved and the number of special constables dropped by two thirds. That is the Conservatives’ shameful record, which people know because they can see it—they do not see police on the streets, as a result of his Government’s actions. He raises the issue of funding. This Government have had to add an additional £170 million to police forces this year because the settlement that his party left them with was not enough to cover this year’s pay rise. They let policing down.

[Matt Vickers]

The Home Secretary proudly quotes the funding settlement while failing to mention that £230 million of it will be snatched straight back as a result of her Government’s national insurance tax raid on our police forces. What can be invested in frontline policing is largely determined by how she manages the Home Office budget. Does she agree that it was wrong to spend £10,000 on a swanky dinner for civil servants, and how will she ensure that never happens again?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am afraid I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that his party not only let policing and communities down by taking neighbourhood police off the streets, but let police down on the funding. This Government are providing an increase in police funding of up to £1 billion next year, on top of the additional funding we had to provide for policing this financial year because his party left a huge black hole in not just Home Office or police officer funding, but overall funding for public services across the board—a shameful legacy that we have had to turn around.

Draft National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025 Draft Police Act 1997 (Authorisations to Interfere with Property: Relevant Offence) Regulations 2025

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 General Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I welcome serving under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.

As the Minister rightly pointed out, the draft regulations make a simple but necessary change to ensure that the legislation works effectively across the UK. The National Security Act was an appropriate response to the threat of hostile activity from states targeting the UK’s democracy. Correcting the error of not having altered the Welsh version is a necessary change to ensure that information is disclosed, so we fully support the change and I will not take up any further Committee time on those regulations.

With regard to the draft Police Act regulations, the comments made by the Minister recognise the importance of upholding our national security and taking steps to mitigate the risk posed by new technologies. Around the world, including recently on the east coast of America, we have seen how drones can cause confusion and undermine people’s confidence in security. Therefore, we must take all necessary steps to uphold our national security and provide the police with the powers to act where drone activity could pose a threat. For that reason, we support the regulation.

Our position is consistent. Where new technology poses a clear threat, the police should have the powers to act. Although we support the regulatory changes, I will ask the Minister to elaborate on a couple of matters, which I am sure would provide reassurance to drone hobbyists. I am confident that the vast majority of people will not have any issue with these regulations and will seek to avoid creating any inconvenience. However, what action will be taken to clarify how authorities will notify hobbyists about prohibited areas? While many sites may rely on signage or calls to the police, will the Minister consider how to effectively communicate which sites are designated as no-fly zones? Furthermore, will the Minister ensure that the drone hobbyist community is informed that security personnel will have the authority to ask individuals to move on, and that such authority will not be misused in respect of non-prohibited buildings? I raise that point because I believe it is in all our interests to ensure that police and court time is not wasted on cases that could have been resolved with clearer communication.

Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2024

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 General Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. A version of these changes was discussed in Committee last month, and we rightly support the measures made as a consequence of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act. It is critical that we update our legal regime to ensure we can seize the proceeds from all those who commit crimes, whether they are in cash or cryptocurrency, and a code should apply consistently wherever a criminal operates in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. As such, we support these changes to the proceeds of crime codes. Some things are beyond party politics, and it is heartening to see the new Government continue the legislative process stemming from the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, which was passed by the Conservatives.

Cryptocurrency has fundamentally and permanently changed the way criminals and terrorist groups launder, move and spend their money. It is right for the Government to move quickly to ensure that our police and enforcement agencies have the authority and means to respond to those changes. The ability to do so successfully will play a vital role in our national security.

Based on conversations in Grand Committee, I understand there is potential for the proceeds of crime to be recycled back into agencies under this system. The impact assessment for the Act estimated total benefits of £430.4 million over 10 years. Although I appreciate that it may be challenging to provide precise figures, has the Minister estimated what proportion might be allocated to Northern Ireland? Additionally, given the decentralised nature of cryptocurrencies, what discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in the Republic of Ireland and other partner countries to ensure cross-border co-operation in preventing the illicit use of such funds?

I want to take a moment to salute the work of the National Crime Agency on its recent investigation into a global cryptocurrency money laundering network based out of Moscow. Eighty-four people have been arrested—with the network stretching across 30 countries —including 71 here in the UK. That shows that our law enforcement agencies are getting ahead of crypto, despite its relative novelty. We in this place should continue to play our part to ensure that that remains the case.

Finally, given the recent discovery and exposure of and police action against Moscow-based crypto laundering, has the Minister considered and investigated the use of crypto in sanctions evasion by Russia? Although I understand that what he can share will be limited, I encourage him to prioritise tackling that.

As I said before, national security must always come above party politics. It is in that spirit that I reiterate our support for the changes today and assure the Minister of our continued collaboration on matters of national security.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Developing and implementing training on public protection procedures—

“(1) The Secretary of State must take steps as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to ensure that—

(a) adequate training provision is made available for persons responsible for qualifying premises or qualifying events in respect of public protection procedures that includes—

(i) the monitoring of premises or events and the immediate vicinity of premises or events;

(ii) evacuation procedures and the movement of individuals into, out of and within a premises or event;

(iii) physical safety and security of occupants in a premises;

(iv) provision of security information to individuals on a premises or at an event; and

(v) other measures related to terrorism protection training;

(b) a training implementation plan is put in place to ensure all organisations and persons to which the provisions of this Act apply are encouraged to undertake training related to public protection procedures.

(2) Functions of the Secretary of State under this section may be exercised by any organisation or persons authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the steps they have taken in relation to subsection (1).”

This new clause, together with Amendment 28, would require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a training plan in respect of qualifying premises and events before Parts 1 and 2 of the Act are commenced.

Government amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 27, in clause 19, page 15, line 5, leave out “different” and insert “lower”.

This amendment restricts the Secretary of State to lowering the daily penalties rate for non-compliance by regulation.

Government amendments 3 and 4.

Amendment 25, in clause 32, page 22, line 35, leave out “100” and insert “200”.

This amendment sets the floor for standard duty at 200 individuals.

Amendment 26, page 22, line 38, leave out “500” and insert “799”.

This amendment sets the floor for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events at 799 individuals.

Amendment 28, in clause 37, page 25, line 31, leave out from “force” to end of line 36 and insert

“on the day after the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on developing and implementing training on public protection procedures contained within this Act.”This amendment is consequential on NC2.

Government amendments 5 to 24.

[Matt Vickers]

I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed to the Martyn’s law campaign, the incredible group of individuals who are the Survivors Against Terror, and all the businesses, charities, local authorities, civil servants and security partners that have helped to shape the Bill. Most importantly, I thank the tireless campaigner Figen Murray, and her son Martyn in whose name this Bill has been devised. I would like to reflect for a moment on Martyn and the 21 other innocent victims who were killed in the heinous attack in the Manchester Arena in 2017. The loss of their lives and the pain of their families and friends must never be forgotten.

I pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who is unable to be present today to speak on behalf of the official Opposition.

Martyn’s law was a manifesto pledge for the Conservative party, and we published a version of the legislation in draft during the last Parliament. We took the issue of public protection very seriously when in office. We delivered £1 billion of counter-terrorism funding for 2024-25, so our forces can mount a swift and effective response to any terrorist attack. Funding will total at least £1 billion in 2024-25 as we provided essential support for counter-terrorism policing and ensured the police had the resources they needed to meet and deal with the threat of terrorism. We enshrined our Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 in law, introducing tougher sentences and ending the automatic release of potential terrorist offenders. Those found guilty of serious terror offences will now be handed a minimum 14-year prison term and up to 25 years on licence.

Part of the reason for publishing this legislation in draft was a concern to get the balance right for the different premises to which it applies—their responsibilities, and how feasible it is for them to effectively comply with those responsibilities and with public safety. We are grateful to the Home Affairs Committee, which undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and made valuable recommendations, and to all those who responded to the Home Office consultation. It is because Martyn’s law is so important that it is imperative we get it right in this place. It is in that spirit of support, co-operation and openness that we have suggested small amendments to the Bill.

New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on the effectiveness of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator of these new provisions for both this House and other places within 18 months of the passing of the Bill. This is in recognition of the challenges inherent in extending new regulatory powers to an existing body. The report would include a comparative cost-benefit analysis of the SIA’s regulatory functions and an analysis of the implications if those functions were alternatively carried out at the local authority level.

The SIA’s role in this Bill is extensive, and it is our view that a review after the roll-out of the new provisions will provide the Government with the opportunity to take stock and decide whether the existing arrangements are the most effective regulatory framework. If they are a success, that is fantastic, but if there are issues, it is surely best to address them early and, if necessary, make changes then and there. I know there has been some anxiety from organisations about a perceived lack of clarity in how the SIA will approach regulation and whether it has the institutional dexterity to understand such a diverse range of venues.

From my discussions with relevant representative groups, businesses and venue operators around the country, I know there is wide-ranging support for the changes in our amendment from the industry. They want to ensure their venues are as safe as they can be. Indeed, many have already taken steps unilaterally to improve security and are eager to work with the Government on further progress. However, there is a feeling that current advice and guidance is limited, and this lack of information is leading to anxiety, particularly at a time when business confidence is falling and new taxes are incoming. Therefore I ask the Government to ensure that affected venues and industries are given full advice on how to comply with the incoming regulations as soon as possible. By agreeing to a future review of the SIA’s regulatory effectiveness now, the Government can ease those anxieties and ensure that everyone is focused on the most important objectives: delivering the provisions in the Bill and bolstering our collective security. For that reason, I ask the Government to support new clause 1.

We have tabled amendment 27 in a similar spirit of openness and co-operation. It would prevent the Secretary of State from increasing by regulations the daily amount venues can be fined under this legislation. As the Bill stands, places that are classified as standard duty venues can be fined up to £500 a day for violation. For those classed as enhanced duty venues, the fine is £50,000 a day for violation. I know the Minister will have met many of the organisations that are required to make changes under the Bill, and I am sure that he, like me, found them to be actively supportive of the changes and genuinely interested in working collaboratively towards better safety regulations.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Without the regulations and guidelines being set out clearly, there is a risk that businesses will worry about being fined quite heavily just because they do not quite know what they should be doing. Does my hon. Friend agree that this amendment and new clause 1 will help cement that clarity in place?

[Matt Vickers]

All the people in the industry are genuinely and wholeheartedly committed to improving the safety of their venues, but there are anxieties and concerns about what that means. The review of who is in charge and who is responsible for ensuring compliance will get rid of those anxieties and foster confidence in the industry and let us move forward together with the industry.

We would like reassurance about how the Government intend to use the powers to increase the rate of daily penalties. The Bill allows the SIA to levy large fines for non- compliance with the requirements of this legislation in addition to the daily penalties. For a sector recovering from covid, those could be difficult to meet, as could a daily penalty of £500 levied on a small organisation run by volunteers.

We have heard from several trade associations about the potential impact. Neil Sharpley, policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, said the FSB is “broadly supportive” of the Bill but added that

“we are concerned about the administrative impact of the burden that will be imposed on smaller businesses, and we are concerned about the costs.”

Michael Kill, CEO of the Night Time Industries Association, said that

“it is crucial to address the proportionality of the proposed measures, within all settings. We must ensure that the balance between heightened security and practical implementation is carefully considered.”

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, I piloted the measure as shadow Minister on Second Reading. I welcome the Minister to his place and thank him for his usual courtesy.

This is genuinely not a political point, but does my hon. Friend agree that, with other measures currently burdening small business such as increases in taxation, business rates and national insurance contributions, this amendment helps because it allows venues to plan and make sure that not too much money is going out? That applies particularly to charities and smaller venues. That is why the remit of the SIA must be checked, and why this amendment should be backed.

[Matt Vickers]

I could not agree more. There is huge anxiety among businesses about challenges and pressures—whether the national insurance contribution increases on employers or the huge change to small business rate relief affecting small businesses in leisure, hospitality and retail, slashing it from 75% to 40%. These are challenging times, including for very small family businesses, and also, as my hon. Friend points out, for the voluntary sector and many organisations that prop up our communities and play a central role. By perfecting this Bill, we can relieve those anxieties and allow those organisations to follow on with confidence and comply with the measures in the Bill.

I would appreciate some reassurance from the Minister about how he expects to use the powers to change daily penalties. I hope he will demonstrate that the ethos of the Bill is collaboration between the state and private organisations, not the establishment of an increasingly costly financial penalisation system. We believe that would help to settle any underlying anxieties and allow both the Government and venues to focus on working together to ensure that the roll-out of this Bill is the very best it can be.

Amendments 25 and 26 stop the Secretary of State changing qualifying tier amounts by regulation. They are simply designed to provide future certainty to organisations as they work to become compliant with the Bill. They would remove the power of the Secretary of State to lower the threshold for the standard duty premises and enhanced duty premises from 200 and 799 individuals respectively. The current qualification levels have been determined after consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. These are significant policy choices and I believe the Government have reached this position after listening to that feedback. As I have set out today, the industry and venues are actively supportive of the Bill and actively want to play their part in improving venue security. We worry about the uncertainty caused by the potential of the Secretary of State to change the thresholds for the standard and enhanced duty premises in future. How is that power compatible with allowing the industry to plan long term, in the knowledge that the qualifying criteria for each tier will not change?

We want to ensure that venues have the confidence to commit the required resources to adopting the provisions of the Bill, knowing that the rules will not change suddenly. Impact assessments have shown the challenges that face different types of venues. Smaller venues and lower capacity premises such as places of worship, village halls and community centres showed particular concern about the impact on fellow smaller businesses and their ability to meet the revised requirements within the small resources available to them.

About four in 10—or 39%—of respondents from premises with a capacity of 100 to 299 agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack. Nearly half—46%—disagreed and said that only larger premises should have a legal obligation. About half—51%—reported that revised requirements would be difficult to take forward. Six in 10, or 58%, were at least somewhat concerned that the cost of meeting the standard tier requirements would affect their organisation’s financial ability to continue operating. Among those from places of worship or village halls, only around three in 10 agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack.

More than 54% of those from village halls and community centres, which typically have a smaller capacity than premises across other sectors—72% had a capacity of 100 to 299—disagreed and said only larger premises should have a legal obligation. Over half of those from places of worship and village halls felt the revised requirement would be difficult to take forward, mainly due to the perceived burden in time and effort. I therefore ask the Minister in what circumstances he would envisage needing to lower the floor for either standard or enhanced duty premises and what consultation would take place before the Government did so.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that proportionality is particularly important? While clearly venues like the Manchester Arena should have a properly worked out plan, it is inappropriate for village halls and church halls to worry about the cost and bureaucracy involved. Can we have the lightest possible touch for those small community venues?

[Matt Vickers]

That is right. The community organisations that are affected, whether parish halls, village halls, churches, or small businesses such as the local pub, are invaluable to, and sit at the heart of, our communities, and it is essential that we protect them. There is a balance between what everyone who supports the Bill wants from these protections, be they on the Opposition or Government Benches, namely to prevent the most horrific atrocities, and ensuring that those businesses and community organisations can continue to exist.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

The Bill’s provisions are appropriate for venues below the enhanced tier. They are proportionate, low-cost and not onerous. They are prompts to encourage organisations to do the kind of thinking that they should do anyway to prevent terrorism or any kinds of attack. The measures are not disproportionate at all, and the legislation is appropriate in that respect.

[Matt Vickers]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. An existing regulatory body is being given an additional job; there is no harm in coming back after 18 months to review whether the provisions are working and are fit for purpose. Similarly, there is logic in the House having a say on the fees and penalties that might be applied, rather than that being delegated to the Secretary of State. Those logical changes could relieve some of the anxiety in the sector. Everyone wants the Bill to go forward and fulfil its objective of making our communities safer, but some of the anxieties in the sector about unexpected and unintended consequences for community venues and small businesses are real, so let us relieve some of them by agreeing the amendments.

[Paul Holmes]

I hope the shadow Minister will forgive me for intervening once again, but I expressed concern about the “responsible person” element at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading. As he has outlined, smaller charity and voluntary sector bodies, such as theatres and community organisations, welcome the aims of the Bill, as do I, but when voluntary organisations are responsible for allocating someone who will be legally responsible to the Security Industry Authority, that spreads fear among those organisations, given the bureaucracy that they already face. Does he agree that we need to look carefully at how great a burden we put on theatre groups, and in particular on voluntary community associations, which will be subject to the regulations?

[Matt Vickers]

We need to reflect, take time, and review the measures in 18 months, including the regulations. Many of our community and voluntary organisations already struggle to find the manpower to fulfil their functions, and this is another function. Its purpose is right, and it is right to take the legislation forward and provide these protections, but we have to consider the wider perspective and the proportionality for smaller venues, given the potential impact on communities.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is not in my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but I am church warden of a small parish church. Most parish churches would probably come under the 200-person limit, but the vast majority would be caught by 100-plus. Not only is there fear among volunteers who have to take on this responsibility, but significant risk of unintended consequences. Volunteers may not be prepared to take on the responsibility, and as a result, vital community infrastructure spaces may close to the public. Would that not be a terrible unintended consequence of this well-meaning Bill?

[Matt Vickers]

My hon. Friend is right. We look at the numbers—100 and 200—and think of organisations we know, and events that we have attended in churches and parish halls. I used to be a Scout leader, and the paperwork, the burden and the challenges used to put us off, in many ways, from fulfilling some of our functions. People who might have come along to help one day get slightly put off by the challenges and responsibilities that come with doing so. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the shadow Minister not welcome the fact that the Bill increases the capacity from 100 to 200? His Government previously set the limit at 100—the figure that he is so concerned about.

[Matt Vickers]

I welcome the revisions; that is why we had scrutiny. The fact that the figures can be determined unilaterally is the concern. There is agreement across the House that it is right to take the Bill forward. We are looking at what we can do at the edges to mitigate the impact for smaller venues, but I agree in principle with what the hon. Member says.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am particularly concerned about the Secretary of State or Minister having the power to reduce the number from 200 back to 100 by regulation. That is addressed by amendment 25. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the absence of significant evidence or consultation to support such a move, 100 is essentially an arbitrary number? Why 100, and not 125, 150 or 175? Does he agree that we need more evidence to support that regulation-making power being given to the Secretary of State? Does he therefore agree that amendment 25 is a sensible alternative?

[Matt Vickers]

I agree entirely. There is no reason why we should not bring that measure to the House for decision. There is no reason to delegate that power to the Secretary of State. It would be sensible to take that delegation out. We have just talked about the fact that some people think the number should be 100, and others think it should be 200. It would be logical to bring the measure back to the House, if required, in due course, and I hope the Minister agrees.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

We all hope that the Bill is absolutely right—that is what we want—but there is nothing wrong with increased scrutiny. Would it not be right for the Government to accept new clause 1, so that we can ensure that there is a review? Through that, we can get the evidence, and then we will know whether we have got it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

That is entirely right. Most of the amendments are about looking at what we can do around the edges of the Bill to mitigate the challenges for small community organisations and small businesses.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

We have to be careful. Of course we want to work cross-party, and should be cognisant of small business, but on the other side of the debate, campaigners are worried that the Bill is already leaning too much the other way, and we will start to lose proportionality if we adopt the shadow Minister’s amendments.

[Matt Vickers]

I slightly disagree. A body is taking on this regulation. Reviewing this in 18 months to see whether it is working is sensible. Keeping the ability to make decisions on numbers, rather than giving it to the Secretary of State, is a logical way forward. We all want this Bill to work, and we all realise the meaningful and important reasons why the Bill was brought forward, but we are talking about mitigation. All the amendments are fair, logical and sound in how they try to balance the two interests. We want to make all venues safe, whatever their scale or size, but we need to do so in a way that allows businesses and community organisations to carry on delivering, at the heart of our communities.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Last week, along with Opposition colleagues, I met representatives of a number of hospitality businesses across different sectors. Everyone wants to make their venue more secure, and everyone acknowledged the importance of the legislation, but there are points to address on clarity and the uncertainty being caused. We have talked about the responsibility of volunteers, and where it starts and ends. Some venues will have queues outside, and it is not clear how the legislation will work in that case. An 18-month review is important, because it would allow us to look at whether the legislation is making people more safe and secure. Does the shadow Minister agree?

[Matt Vickers]

My hon. Friend is right. When it comes to the Bill, the stakes are high for small community organisations and small businesses, so I see no harm in reviewing the regulations after 18 months, and in keeping those powers for the House, rather than delegating them to the Secretary of State. That is logical and makes a lot of sense for many venues. It is the way forward.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 2(2)(c), defining the premises that will be covered by the legislation, states:

“it is reasonable to expect that from time to time 200 or more individuals may be present”.

Under the regulations, that might read “100 or more”. Coming back to my experience as a member of the parish church, I would love there to be 100 or 200 people present, but the congregation is closer to six or seven. However, the capacity of the church—the structure—is sufficient to take in 100 or 200 people. While on the face of it, the legislation seems reasonable, does my hon. Friend share my concern that a facility that could welcome 199 people may not have the structures in place, or physically have the people available, to support the increased burden placed on it by the Bill? That would increase the risks of unintended consequences and closure. That would be dealt with by amendment 25.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. In voluntary organisations, men and women who tend to do something else by day give their time to volunteer in the evening or at the weekend. They have other things going on in their lives. They will not necessarily be expert on the laws surrounding venues and what goes on in them, but from time to time—once a year, or once every two years—they will be expected to know about these regulations and to comply with them. There is logic in keeping the number at the intended 200, as well as in reviewing the regulations. We would allow the regulatory body to come back on that point 18 months, in the review, when we would review those numbers. We are just saying that these things should not be delegated to the Secretary of State at this point.

[Tim Roca]

I welcome the progress of this important Bill. We know the danger of terrorism in this country for the constituents we represent. There have been 15 domestic terror attacks since 2017, as well as the tragic arena bombing. That excludes terrorism in Northern Ireland. There have also been 43 late-stage plots foiled by the security services. We recently heard from the head of the Security Service about a 48% increase in terror investigations in the last year alone, so the threat is absolutely real and it is always changing.

We have had various attacks, including the marauding-style terrorist attacks that we saw so tragically here in London some years ago. The Bill is a crucial to making sure that premises, businesses and venues do what they can to keep people safe. We know from businesses and venues that they understand their obligations to their patrons, whoever they might be, and they want to keep them safe.

We have had a healthy debate about the Bill’s provisions. There has been a sensible, mature, cross-party discussion about what works and what is practicable. I pay tribute to Manchester city council for the exercises it undertook. It worked with businesses to ensure that measures were both sensible and proportionate while keeping people safe. Across I think 10 sessions last year, and having spoken to 700 businesses and 2,000 people, it went through some of the measures in the Bill, and businesses overwhelmingly supported them. They understood the need for them, and that they were not onerous. Those ranged from businesses as large as Printworks, which many people in Manchester will know, down to local restaurants and bars, and the response was incredibly positive.

I say that because I want to reassure hon. Members from across the House about the proportionality of the measures in the Bill. In fact, I will quote Gareth Worthington, the night-time economy officer at the Manchester business improvement district:

“If a venue operator does not know how to evacuate their venue they should not be running that venue and if training can be provided to help make that evacuation safer then venues should grasp it with both hands.”

On the thresholds, we have arrived at a sensible place. We had a healthy debate in the Public Bill Committee on them, and I think they are reasonable. I reiterate that I think campaigners would perceive any tweaking of provisions on the thresholds or delegated powers for the Secretary of State as a watering down of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers]

I thank the Minister for his considered response to the debate. However, while entirely supporting the objectives of the Bill, we do not see why the Government cannot commit to a review of the effectiveness of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator, given that the Bill places an entirely new set of requirements on venues and an entirely new set of responsibilities on the SIA, so we will press new clause 1 to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Recent years have seen too many tragedies and too many precious lives taken by terrorist attacks—hurt that will never truly heal. Despite those tragedies, inspirational people such as Figen Murray and Survivors Against Terror have shown us that good can come from bad, and that the power is in our hands to act, even in the shadow of grief. Martyn’s law and everyone who has worked to make it a reality are an embodiment of that spirit.

Implementing this legislation will require us all to work together. National security is a collective endeavour. Organisations affected by the changes are acutely aware of their responsibility. They understand the importance of protecting their customers from terror, and are committed to ensuring that people can attend concerts, exhibitions and performances with the confidence that they are safe. That spirit of collaboration and mutual responsibility ultimately will make the provisions in Martyn’s law a success.

The responsibility goes both ways. Just as we expect venues to take the necessary steps in the Bill, they expect the Government to approach its implementation in a measured and sensible manner. I want to finish by thanking the Government for continuing the important work on the Bill, and to reiterate to the Minister my willingness to work with him on its passing and implementation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.