Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I thank you, Mr Vickers, for chairing the debate, and the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for securing it.

The prevalence of drug deaths and the broader misuse of drugs in Scotland is devastating. The fall in drug deaths in 2024 was welcome, but the figure remains the highest in Europe. Between March and May 2025, drug deaths actually increased by 15%, with statistics showing that people in deprived areas in Scotland are 12 times more likely to die of drug misuse than those in the least deprived areas. We all recognise that this must change.

Nevertheless, the question of how we achieve that is not simple. We are right to reflect on how we reached this situation. The monumental failure of the SNP Scottish Government is apparent. Former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon admitted that her Government had taken their “eye off the ball”. I dare say that turn of phrase vastly understates the scale of the crisis that has gripped individuals and communities in Scotland. When my former colleague, the previous Scottish Conservative leader, put forward his Bill in the Scottish Parliament to address this problem, he said:

“This is a crisis that was made in Scotland, and it is one that can be fixed in Scotland, but not if we do not have willing participants in the Government.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 9 October 2025; c. 106-7.]

I will return to the efforts made by my Conservative colleagues in Holyrood later. However, we believe that approaches to dealing with drug use must go beyond the narrow debate about drug consumption centres.

Let me be clear: both the Conservative party and I respect the independence of the Lord Advocate as the prosecutorial authority in Scotland. The last Government were clear that, provided that power is exercised lawfully, we should not stand in the way. Respect for the institutions that underpin our Union is critical, and I would not desire to undermine them. However, that should not preclude us in this place from criticising decisions made in Scotland or from questioning some of the comments underpinning the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report. That is why the Conservative position on drug consumption rooms in England and Wales is simple: we do not support them. That position was set out transparently when the party was in government, and it is appropriate to continue supporting it now.

It is appropriate to offer clarity on this matter. I understand that was a challenge faced by the Scottish Affairs Committee when questioning the former Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). When she was Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, she produced a report that backed such proposals. As such, it would be interesting to hear from this Minister whether she or the Government believe that these facilities are now appropriate.

The reason for our concern is that the use of drug consumption rooms condones or even encourages illegal drug use. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who is a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, stated:

“I cannot ever support the facilitation of addiction as a way of helping to treat addictions”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 111.]

[John Grady]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the key purposes of a consumption room is to reduce harm to people who would, in any event, consume the substances in question? In Glasgow, we have had significant problems with needle-borne viruses, infections and illness, so it is only morally right to help these people, as they struggle with their addictions, to consume in a safe way. Otherwise, people lose their loved ones, their mothers and fathers, and their sons and daughters. It is a question of compassion.

[Matt Vickers]

I definitely believe that we should be helping people with addictions, but feeding those addictions and allowing the illegal use of drugs is not the way forward. There are many ways in which we should support people with addictions and their families, but we clearly have a fundamental difference of opinion about the role of consumption rooms.

As my colleague on the Committee stated, we can never support the facilitation of addiction as a way to treat addiction. That is alongside the impact of potentially encouraging the continued supply of illicit substances, which invariably happens if there are specific locations at which to consume the products of this trade—a trade that, as we all know, has devastating consequences for our communities. Police Scotland states clearly on its website:

“Drugs can be very dangerous to your health and can kill.

The advice of Police Scotland is simple…There is no ‘safe’ way to take drugs, there is always a risk…The only way of staying safe is to avoid drugs altogether.”

Let me demonstrate why we need an effective police response. The county lines programme—which was started by the previous Government, and which has rightly continued—found a notable impact on drug misuse. Its evaluation, released at the very end of 2025, illustrated that drug misuse hospitalisations decreased by 29% in the exporter areas as a result of the county lines programme, when compared with the control group of areas that receive direct county lines funding. At the same time, the evaluation showed a 15% reduction in drug-related hospitalisations, equivalent to 22 fewer hospitalisations on average per quarter, in the importer forces, which were defined as those police forces most likely to be impacted by spillover effects from the county lines programme. Comparing the data to the 2024 evaluation illustrated that the programme is having a continued and seemingly increasing impact on reducing drug-related hospitalisations. Despite the best intentions of those who work at drug consumption facilities, it is inevitable that those taking the drugs will acquire them by criminal means. When we have targeted police action, the evidence appears to show improved outcomes for those who abuse drugs.

Clearly, enforcement is not and should not be the only approach to the problem. That is why the 10-year drugs plan published by the previous Government set out that any plan needed to be underpinned by enforcement and treatment. I appreciate that it was not focused on Scotland, but I would highlight that the previous Government’s drug strategy saw £532 million of additional funding through to 2024-25 to support improvements in alcohol and drug treatment.

Additionally, the previous Government took steps through their consultation—and we have backed secondary legislation while in opposition—to expand access to naloxone to more healthcare professionals and services. As Members will be well aware, the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill introduced by a former Scottish Conservative leader, Douglas Ross, sought to give those diagnosed with drug and alcohol addiction a statutory right to receive treatment from a relevant professional.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware that naloxone is widely used in Scotland by paramedics and the police. As a councillor on Glasgow city council, I had the opportunity to be trained in its use, and I have a vial of it that I can carry around—fortunately, I have never had to use it.

However, I wanted to make the point to the hon. Member that the main driver for considering a safer drug consumption room in Glasgow was the fact that, in 2015, we had one of the biggest outbreaks of HIV infections ever seen in Europe. That was tracked back to the sharing of needles and the fact that people were injecting. That is what sparked the whole discussion about whether Glasgow needed a safer drug consumption room. So this is not just about the criminality or treating those who are already addicted; it is about preventing those blood-borne viruses, which are so harmful to people in their individual lives, but which also have such a devastating effect on our health services. It is about more than just misusing drugs; it is about a whole-society approach.

[Matt Vickers]

One drug death is one drug death too many. We agree on that, and we agree on the need to treat people. However, I fundamentally believe that there is a role for enforcement. I do not believe that giving people the ability to take these illegal products, in whatever environment, helps to end that addiction. There are very varied views on that, but I fundamentally do not agree.

The robust and costed provisions set out in the Bill introduced by Douglas Ross are essential if Scotland is to turn around its record on tackling the dangers of drug use by setting out the treatments that would be available, and the data and reporting requirements on the Scottish Government. It would provide a Scottish blueprint for reversing the trends that we have seen over the last decade. It was welcome that the Labour party in Scotland supported that Conservative-proposed recovery Bill to give addicts the treatment they need. Unfortunately, the SNP and the Green party in Scotland failed to back it, which was shameful.

In addition, the Scottish Conservatives have set out robust plans to end the drugs trade behind bars, following significant increases in prison drug consumption over the last couple of years. That would be achieved by installing window grilles, which have been proven to stop drone deliveries, in all prisons, and by investing in drone detection technology, sniffer dogs and X-ray machines. The scope of those proposals shows the variety of approaches needed to tackle drug use.

We know that the Thistle is an expensive experiment. Obviously, we welcome any decrease in drug abuse and drug deaths, but we must ask whether we want our actions to encourage drug use or discourage it. It is right that the Scottish Government take steps to fix this problem, but I am afraid they are not taking the steps that are needed. I would ask the Minister, when she gets the opportunity, to encourage her Scottish Government counterparts to back the proposals put forward by the Scottish Conservatives and supported by Labour. That would ensure that the Scottish Government got back to providing treatment for those diagnosed with an addiction in Scotland.

Draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application To Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials In Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 General Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the Minister for his remarks on these proposals. We recognise the need to give enhanced powers to those who enforce our immigration and customs laws. It is right that we equip them with all the necessary resources to stop any form of behaviour incompatible with our legal regime.

The equality impact assessment shows that the nationalities encountered by immigration officers in Northern Ireland are comparable to those who have arrived in the UK by small boats, demonstrating the continuing need to give sufficient powers to immigration officials to tackle the problems associated with migration. Conferring powers on to immigration officials to search, seize and arrest should always be welcomed when it is done to stop illegal activity on our border.

Much of the debate about the security of our border has rightly focused on the matter of illegal entry, which has increased significantly under the Government. A range of issues encountered by immigration officers require the Government’s attention. I hope the measures achieve the Government’s stated goals, such as greater interoperability between law enforcement agencies, to tackle immigration issues in Northern Ireland.

Critically, I recognise the Government’s point that

“Colleagues in the devolved bodies requested assurances around accountability which were discussed at working level and resolved to all parties’ satisfaction.”

I welcome those robust assurances, but will the Minister say whether any other issues were raised during those discussions or whether any other matters needed to be resolved?

Given the comments in the explanatory memorandum, will the Minister also say what progress has been made to ensure that the guidance is up to date, ahead of the predicted date for operationalisation in March this year, and whether work is under way to ensure that happens within that timeframe?

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has today said that this Government’s funding settlement leaves our police forces with a shortfall of almost half a billion pounds. We have already seen the number of police officers fall under this Government, and that shortfall could make the situation worse. With crime on the rise and prisoners being released early, will the Government commit to getting police numbers back up to the level they were at before they came into office?

[Shabana Mahmood]

It would be a bit easier to take the hon. Gentleman more seriously if it were not true that 94% of the reduction in police officers he refers to occurred when his Government were in office. From March 2024 to June 2024—before the general election— there was a reduction of 1,232 officers, so I will not take any lessons from him. The details of the police funding settlement will be clarified by the end of this month.

Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 General Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I recognise that any changes linked to animal testing will always be an emotive topic. Every effort must be made to prevent the unnecessary suffering of animals. The Minister will be well aware of the feelings expressed by many campaigners in advance of today’s debate, and of the strong views on the changes that the Government intend to implement. I welcome the fact that the number of scientific procedures in Great Britain involving living animals decreased between 2023 and 2024, and were at the lowest level since 2001.

Under the last Conservative Government, through the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, £90 million was invested in research, and a further £27 million was invested in contracts, through the “CRACK IT” challenges innovation scheme for UK and EU-based institutions. Furthermore, last year, the then Science Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), announced that UK Research and Innovation would double its investment in research to £20 million per annum in the fiscal year 2024-25 in order to achieve the 3Rs and develop non-animal alternatives.

It is important that we acknowledge and take further steps to reduce the use of animals in research—this statutory instrument is inexorably linked to such procedures—but, as the Government noted in their recently published strategy, the use of animals is still needed in certain circumstances. Given the continued protests around those sites, and the importance of maintaining a world-leading life sciences sector, that undoubtedly poses difficult questions. Finding the right balance between respecting people’s right to express themselves freely and maintaining law and order is complex. As I am sure the Minister recognises, such decisions should never be taken without serious consideration.

Although there was disagreement at the time—some continue to disagree—I believe that the Public Order Act 2023 has broadly struck a fair balance between those rights. It is therefore essential to ensure that any additions to section 7 of the Act remain proportionate and in line with the original intention of ensuring that key national infrastructure is protected. It is self-evident from this debate that the life sciences sector was not in scope of key national infrastructure provisions under the Act. In fact, I understand that the Minister, who was then in opposition, said in the Bill Committee of that Act that she and her colleagues had problems with the scope of the clause relating to such infrastructure on the basis that much of what was listed was already protected in law under existing police powers, and that there were loopholes and inconsistencies.

Furthermore, although there is some explanation in the accompanying documents to the draft regulations, such as the assertion that the police believe powers under the Public Order Act 1986 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 are insufficient, it does not go into great detail on why those powers are unable to address the challenge identified by the Government. Accordingly, will the Minister explain what steps have been taken to use those powers in practice, and what analysis has been done of the differences that this legislation would make for the life sciences sector? Can she point to any examples of how specific protests may have been treated differently?

The economic note estimates that there could be around 40 charges, but it also acknowledges that that figure is highly unpredictable, so can the Minister share any more in-depth analysis of the impact of the proposals? It also notes that, without such measures, the life sciences sector risks withdrawal—that is a significant risk. I would therefore appreciate an understanding of what the sector has said to the Government about the extent to which that could happen.

Ultimately, the ability of businesses and organisations to go about their activities lawfully is essential in our society, and we must find an appropriate balance in protecting public order. As such, I would be grateful if the Minister set out any further detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

That would not occur. The right to strike is protected in legislation, and it is a defence for a person charged—as it is under the existing legislation. As I have said, this has not changed the parameters of the existing legislation; it has just added a definition. It is a defence for a person charged, and the right to strike is one that people have. I am very happy to write to my hon. Friend with more detail about the specific way that this legislation will work, but I want to reassure her that that is not what would happen in that context.

The two aspects of this debate are the testing of animals and peaceful protest. The parameters of this statutory instrument are about protest. To reiterate, peaceful protest is completely fundamental to our society, and a right that this Government will always defend.

[Matt Vickers]

When in opposition, the Labour party said that this stuff was already covered by the legislation. Now, Labour is saying that we need to extend that legislation. Are there any examples of protests that will be covered by this measure that are not covered by existing legislation?

[Sarah Jones]

Yes; that is why we are introducing it. The powers that the police have now, and the powers that they will have when this is added to section 7 of the 2023 Act, will mean that it will be a criminal offence to interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure in England and Wales. That is not a power that we had before. Where disruption or interference risks undermining our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a pandemic, we have a responsibility to act. The life sciences industry is of vital importance to this country, and it must be protected. That is why we have brought forward this instrument, which I commend to the Committee once again.

Question put.

Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Thank you, Dr Huq, for chairing this debate. As we approach the end of the calendar year, I would like to acknowledge the work of Members who have participated in today’s debate, and those across the House who scrutinise the Government’s proposals on immigration and asylum. In the main Chamber, Westminster Hall and the various Committees I have been part of, there have been numerous robust debates considering the Government’s proposals. That has included significant work to put pressure on the Government, for example to ensure that the settlement period for those on British national overseas visas is continued.

I recognise those contributions because what has typically defined those debates is the question being examined today: what does it mean to have a migration and asylum system that is fair to both the British people and those who want to claim asylum in the UK? Members will find it unsurprising that the Opposition’s view of what is fair to the British people is very different from some of the arguments passionately put forward today.

We need an asylum system that ensures consistent and fair treatment for all those who present claims, and for all those who wish to claim asylum in the UK. To focus on one protected characteristic that has been mentioned today, sexual orientation, data from the Home Office in 2024 showed that the 2023 grant rate for claims where sexual orientation was part of the claim was 62%, similar to the grant rate for non-LGB asylum claims in that period. I believe that the country rightly expects us to treat these people as individuals and to ensure that our asylum system works for everyone.

That means we must take steps to make changes to our existing system so that it acts at speed and provides answers for all people, including those with protected characteristics. That matters because, after almost a year and a half of a Labour Government, we have seen small boat crossings up nearly 50% on the same period before the election, asylum cases at an all-time high, and increases in asylum accommodation.

At last, the Government have decided to set out some detailed proposals to crack down on illegal immigration. It is a necessary step, but one taken only after the problems in our immigration system have become much worse. To respond to comments that these problems emerged during the last Government, let me be clear: the Leader of the Opposition has stated from the outset that we are not only learning from the mistakes that were made in the past, but putting forward a new approach. That recognises that far more needed to be done.

To quantify the impact of those changes, we can observe the scale of the challenges that emanate from illegal migration. The number of small boat crossings since the election has been well over 60,000 people, and this year has already seen 40,000 cross. In addition, 110,051 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending September 2025, which was 13% more than in the previous year and 7% more than the previous peak of 103,081 in 2002. For context, between 2004 and 2020, there were between 22,000 and 46,000 people claiming asylum in the UK each year.

Members may imply that we should be cautious about tying illegal migration to the challenges facing our asylum system; however, they are clearly linked. Government statistics show that claims from small boat arrivals were at a record high in the latest year, with more than half of asylum seekers in the latest year having arrived in the UK through irregular routes, which typically means those who arrived in the UK in small boats. Another 38% of asylum seekers had previously entered the UK on a visa or with other leave with relevant documentation. Therefore, we as an Opposition agree that there is a case for significant reforms.

When reforms were put to the House, my colleague the Leader of the Opposition said that the Home Secretary

“seems to get what many on the Labour Benches refuse to accept, and she is right to say that if we fail to deal with the crisis, we will draw more people to a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.”

The current system

“is not fair on British citizens, it is not fair on those who come here legally”,

and it is often not fair on the many people we are discussing today:

“those in genuine need who are pushed to the back of the queue because the system is overwhelmed.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 513.]

That is why the Opposition have promised our support to the Government to get elements of the proposals passed. It is also why our own borders plan sets out systematic changes across our asylum system, which would apply a consistency, so that all individuals who cross the channel and those who are in the UK illegally will be removed at speed. In doing so, we will go back to the original principles that we signed up to in the 1951 refugee convention, so that the Home Secretary will grant refugee status only to those whose countries’ Governments are trying or threatening to kill, torture or persecute them for a reason set out in the convention. It would not, for instance, apply on the basis that the welfare state in a country is less generous than the UK’s. It is a tough plan, but one that I believe is truly fair to the British people and would still allow the UK to create a much more effective asylum system.

If we could end the mass scale of illegal migration, we could look at implementing limited discretionary non-asylum humanitarian schemes such as the Ukraine scheme, which the last Government created. We have said clearly that any such scheme would prioritise women and children who are in genuine need. That would be in stark contrast to today’s data, where over 72% of asylum claims in the past year were submitted by men. That overrepresentation should be a clear sign that our asylum system is skewed in the wrong direction when it comes to protected characteristics, with many women and children being pushed aside.

Ultimately, I think we can all recognise why people want to come to the UK. Our policies towards Ukraine and Hong Kong demonstrate how open and welcoming the UK can be to those under threat. I want our country to be able to demonstrate those values, but they must be accompanied by an end to illegal migration. The number of asylum applications are in excess of historic trends, and we should support changes that adapt our system to deal with the problems we continue to face. Although the Government have often said they will take no lectures from the Opposition, it is clear they have moved towards many of the ideas set out by our party and rejected by the Government during the passage of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. As we move forward, the most positive impact the Government can make is to implement proposals that create changes to our asylum system as quickly as possible.

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving the House the chance to discuss this important issue that affects the lives of millions of women and girls across the country. This issue is a stain on our society, and I am sure that Members across the House will support the ambition to halve violence against women and girls. For the same reason, I hope that the Minister can recognise the work undertaken by the previous Government through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the related plan, funded by hundreds of millions of pounds, alongside important changes to legislation in areas such as harassment. While it is clear that much more still needs to be done, those were critical steps in the right direction.

Worryingly, according to data from the crime survey for England and Wales, sexual offences, rape, stalking and harassment have all increased by between 5% and 9% under this Labour Government. That has occurred at the same time as the number of police officers has fallen under this Government. It demonstrates that despite the targets that have been set and the undoubted will of the Minister to reduce these life-altering crimes, there remains a significant gap between ambition and results.

We look forward to seeing the full scope of the strategy, which I am sure all Members would have wished to see sooner. I am sure that Members would have preferred to hear it in the House, rather than in the press. Is there a plan to identify and build on the measures in the strategy that are found to be most effective? Given the Government’s cuts to police numbers, what will be done to ensure that police forces have not only assigned individuals and titles, but the resources needed to tackle violence against women and girls head-on?

[Jess Phillips]

I will pick up on a couple of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. On the reduction in police numbers, I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition cited those figures, too. Just to be clear, 94% of the fall that has been cited was from March to June 2024, which was before this Government were elected. I just want to be clear on the numbers we are talking about.

[Matt Vickers]

Police numbers are produced in March and September. The last official records show—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Minister.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for securing this critical urgent question.

It is important not to forget the context of this decision. It came only weeks after the tragic events of the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation attack. After the attack, the Prime Minister spoke to the Jewish people. He said that he would do everything in his power to guarantee them the security that they deserve. Yet when it came to a football club predominantly supported by Jewish people, they were suddenly deemed a risk to public safety. That is not just inconsistent but an insult to a community still reeling from a violent antisemitic attack. At a moment when Jewish families needed reassurance, this decision sent entirely the wrong message. It undermined confidence, contradicted the Prime Minister’s own promise and fell short of the duty we owe to the Jewish people to keep them safe.

Why was this decision taken? When the Minister addressed the House a couple of weeks ago, she said that the shadow Home Secretary was “jumping the gun a bit” in saying that certain pieces of intelligence were “just made up”. We now know that not only did imaginary matches somehow enter the intelligence picture, but officers giving evidence to Parliament were inaccurate about their dealings with the local Jewish community. That seriously undermines the integrity of this House and the vital work that police forces do in securing accurate intelligence.

The Government have asked HMICFRS to review the intelligence, but will the Minister go further and ensure that the details are made public? We need full transparency and more accurate accounts than we have seen so far, so that proper accountability can finally take place.

[Sarah Jones]

I remind the House that the Prime Minister’s view and the view of this Government is that the decision taken was the wrong one. The Prime Minister was very clear about that from the outset, saying:

“This is the wrong decision. We will not tolerate antisemitism on our streets. The role of the police is to ensure all football fans can enjoy the game, without fear of violence or intimidation.”

That is our view, as it has been consistently since.

We are trying to make sure that we can avoid such a situation happening again. HMICFRS will do its report in the normal way, and we are asking it to do so in two stages. One stage will include the information about West Midlands, and the second will take a wider look at how police information is fed into safety advisory groups. HMICFRS will do its report in the way that we would expect.

I do not want to disagree with the hon. Member about the harm that this has done. I am very well aware of it, and I have had many conversations with Jewish colleagues and organisations since this incident. I hope that we can put it behind us by learning the right lessons and making sure that we take appropriate action.

Angiolini Inquiry

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement and for coming to the House to speak to the incredibly disturbing and damaging issues outlined in today’s report.

Over four years ago, the reprehensible abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard shocked us all. It forced the police to confront their failure to remove Wayne Couzens as a police officer. The crime was vile and abhorrent, extinguishing the life of an incredible young lady in the most awful way. We should never forget the impact of this crime, with Sarah’s mother describing the final hours of her life as a constant torment to the family. I know that Sarah, her family and her friends remain in the thoughts of the whole House and people across the country today.

This incident underlines our responsibility to confront not only the problems outlined in this case, but to go beyond any single evil person and tackle challenges in our police and society more widely. Sarah’s murder had a profound effect on women. As the report outlines, women changed their travel plans, their routines and their lives out of fear for their safety. I am sure the whole House will agree that that is simply not acceptable. This reflection is critical. We will always support the police and have advocated the need to give them the powers required to tackle crime in our society. However, that support is predicated on a deep responsibility that extends beyond the responsibilities to which many in our society are bound. As the code of practice for ethical policing notes:

“Effective policing is built on public trust and confidence. This depends on a policing profession that is ethical and professional in the way that it respects, listens, responds, improves and serves the public.”

As the Minister will be aware, the terms of reference for part 2 were set and published in May 2023 by the then Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). The scope appropriately asked the Government to cover the three broad areas set out by the Minister today: recruitment and vetting; police culture and standards; and the prevention of sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces. The report highlights our responsibility to ensure that women and girls feel safe in public spaces, where there is clearly a significant gap today. The Minister, in her role, rightly mentions some of the steps the Government are taking to tackle violence against women and girls. In that spirit, I recognise the important steps taken by the previous Government, which brought forward Operation Soteria, a programme highlighted by Lady Elish in her statement this morning, which sought to radically transform the way the police and the Crown Prosecution Service investigate rape, and which I understand the Government are implementing the principles of in training. This was among a range of other measures set out when the first part was published, but as was acknowledged we need to go much, much further. Therefore, I hope the Minister can follow through on what she outlined today and ensure that the violence against women and girls strategy is published, having been delayed over the past year.

The Minister’s statement does not mention the use of data, a point the report suggests is lacking. Can she provide assurances that the Government, in the strategy, will have a comprehensive plan for implementing better data recording, encompassing and publishing a wider array of data pertaining to violence against women and girls?

As shadow Policing Minister, I would also reflect on what we can do at speed to instil trust within the public that the police will tackle this problem. The dreadful murder of Sarah Everard did huge damage to public trust in the police, especially among young women. In particular, I refer to the proposals around officer vetting and conduct, which I expect to be raised in the second half of the report. The truth is that, for a variety of reasons that the Minister and I can both acknowledge, the measures to bring forward changes to our vetting and dismissal procedures have not been implemented at sufficient speed. Will the Minister therefore discuss with her ministerial colleagues the need to implement the changes swiftly once the legislation is passed?

The inquiry report demonstrates the necessity of tackling violence against women and girls in our public spaces. Unfortunately, we know that there are survivors of grooming gangs who were failed by the police and local authorities, often in plain sight. I therefore implore the Minister to provide answers about the terms of reference and timings of the grooming gangs inquiry, and to ensure that there is justice for all those affected by these heinous crimes.

Additionally, I ask the Minister about her level of confidence in implementing the recommendations set out in Lady Elish Angiolini’s report today. As Lady Elish rightly highlighted, this is a “whole-society” issue that requires a whole-society response. The Minister has herself highlighted some of the challenges in achieving cross-Government responses to the violence against women and girls strategy. I hope that she will now be able to drive forward the change needed to protect women and girls.

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tone and his genuinely constructive questioning. The first thing to say is that, absolutely, Operation Soteria started under the previous Government—I worked on it alongside Ministers, as well as police forces, at the time—and in that spirit, I always welcome such cross-party working. It seems that Operation Soteria has been a game changer, as Lady Elish’s review certainly highlights. The review also states that it needs to be on a consistent footing, so we very much hope that putting it in the new centre will provide consistent footing to the very good work started under the previous Government, which I absolutely give them credit for.

On the issue of data, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. What data we measure and how data needs to be improved will absolutely be part of the strategy. The Government have said that they are going to halve violence against women and girls within a decade—the first time that any Government have tried to put any numbers on it—and we cannot have numbers unless we have a lot of data, so looking at data will be very important.

The hon. Gentleman highlights the issue, which Lady Elish herself talks about, that progress has not been fast enough. The recommendations for the Government in the previous report are being undertaken, but a clear issue throughout the report is the nature of the 43 police forces, as everybody will see when they read it. One of the reasons for having the new national centre for violence against women and girls is to try and do something about that. We also need fundamental reform with regard to policing and standards, so that we do not end up with a postcode lottery across our country. The Home Secretary has already announced some reforms around police and crime commissioners, but broader policing reforms will be coming in the new year, for the exact reason that Lady Elish outlines, which is the postcode lottery across police forces. How confident am I? I am always confident that we will undertake as much as possible. That will never be as fast as I or anyone would like it to be, because this is hard work, and we cannot just change things for good announcements. We have to change the culture, and that is going to take a lot.

Injury in Service Award

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Emergency service workers are the bedrock of society. They are the people who run towards danger while others run away, and they are there in our hour of need and deserve our utmost respect. I pay tribute to every emergency service worker across the country for the incredible job that they do, in difficult circumstances, to serve the public and their local communities.

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate and those who have engaged with and supported this campaign. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), who secured the debate and ably set out the need for this recognition. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), who has long championed this cause.

Tom Curry, who joins us in the Gallery today, is a truly remarkable campaigner who is not prepared to take no for an answer. Tom served in Sussex police as a detective, but he was forced to retire early after suffering a life-changing injury. It is fair to say that Tom is not a quiet man, but he is a great man who brings people together and has spearheaded this campaign. I know that hon. and right hon. Members across the House will want to join me in paying tribute to him and all the former emergency service workers who join us in the Gallery today.

Tom calls it a “scandalous national disgrace” that those forced to retire through injury in the line of duty are not awarded a medal, and I agree entirely. It is time that we honoured their service. These individuals have put themselves in harm’s way to serve our communities, and their injuries have cost them their job—often, a job that they had dreamed of all their lives.

Earlier this year, alongside the hon. Member for Cheadle, we welcomed dozens of former emergency service workers to Parliament. It was an insightful and, at times, very emotional discussion. Anyone who listened to their stories, and to the real impact on those people’s lives and that of their families, could not oppose awarding this recognition. Each and every former emergency service worker there had a story—many Members will have heard about the experiences of their own constituents, but there is one story I would like to share with the House today. Elsie Galt, who also joins us in the Gallery today, is a former police officer. She was injured while serving with Merseyside police, involved in a horrific road traffic accident with a lorry. Sadly, her injuries were severe, and have left her relying on crutches to remain mobile. To join us today, Elsie has travelled from the Scottish highlands on the night train, and will make her return journey on the same train later today—that is how much this debate means to her. She wants to see recognition for other people who might have to endure what she has had to live through. Elsie’s determination is truly inspiring.

Turning to the specifics of this campaign, the ask is very simple—that those injured in the line of duty must be recognised. As it stands today, no such medal exists other than for actions of high gallantry, but for understandable reasons, very few of those medals are ever awarded. It is right that those who serve our communities and are injured in the line of duty have their service recognised. The proposal has very clear qualifications, replicating the established injury on duty pension criteria. I also understand that both the Fire Brigades Union and Unison fully support this proposal. Thanks to Tom’s determined efforts and perseverance, such a medal was already being looked at by the last Government after the then police and fire Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp)—who is now the shadow Home Secretary—ensured that the matter reached the Cabinet Office, which oversees the awarding of decorations and medals. There appears to have been little progress or news since the election, but given that the new Policing Minister is one of the 219 MPs who signed up to support this campaign, I am hopeful that we can rely on her to take it forward.

I urge the Minister to listen to the campaigners and the Back Benchers. This is a no-brainer—let us get it done. We have heard some excellent contributions from Members across the House today, and I hope the Minister understands just how important this issue is to former police officers in the Gallery and right across the country. I hope he will be able to update the House on progress today, and I also ask him to commit himself and the Policing Minister to meet Tom Curry. I think if Tom were stood at this Dispatch Box, his question would be “When, not if, will we award these heroes the recognition they deserve?” Emergency service workers do so much for us; now it is time that we do something for them.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

The Opposition join the Minister in thanking our colleagues in the other place for their work on and scrutiny of this Bill. I would like to thank my colleagues Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies of Gower, as well as numerous members of the other place, including Lord Jackson, for their work.

The subject of the Bill is extremely important to this country and its future. I am afraid the reality is that, under this Labour Government, illegal immigration has got much, much worse. We are in the grip of an immigration crisis. Small boat crossings have surged. They are up 55% against the same period before the election. In the nine months before the election, the number of people in hotels had gone down by 47%, but since this Government came to power, it has gone up.

This country is our home; it is not a hotel. We need stronger borders to make sure that those who come to our country share our values, contribute to society, and are not simply a drain on the resources that taxpayers fund. The Bill will remove powers that allow us to detain and deport people who arrive here illegally. It will remove powers that allow us to mandate scientific age tests for those who arrive here illegally claiming to be children. It will allow people who break into our country illegally to become British citizens. Those who break into our country should not be allowed to stay.

This week, the Home Secretary announced a new plan, which she says will tackle the immigration crisis.

Lords amendment 37 would ensure transparent data on one of the key contributors to the high immigration that the Government say that they want to reduce. Transparency matters for public trust and accountability. Opposition to the amendment is completely at odds with the Home Secretary’s rhetoric, and the action that she promised us earlier this week. Once again, the Bill has been nowhere near as ambitious or radical as it needs to be to stop dangerous crossings in their tracks. The Government should be using every tool available to control immigration and make our country safer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

With the leave of the House, I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions and to those who took this legislation through all its previous stages.

Let me address some of the points made today. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) made some important points around online advertising and the responsibilities falling not on the providers, but on those sending those messages or putting out those advertisements. We think that is the current gap in provisions that we need to fill, but providers have a really important responsibility too. There are provisions in the Online Safety Act 2023 that relate to that work, but I reassure him that we talk to providers and will continue to engage with them to ensure that their platforms are not being used for what is the ultimate trade in human misery. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) mentioned that issue as well.

I share the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen made about conflict resolution. We talk about upstream working, and that is the ultimate upstream working—it is very much Britain’s place in the world. British Aid works to tackle famine and disease and also works on education, particularly for women and girls, which we know can be transformative around the world. I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s point about our work overseas, which the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), also talked about. That work and that international co-operation are crucial, and I assure colleagues that we are doing that day in, day out, as I always say.

We had the pleasure of hosting the Berlin process in recent weeks. I said to all my counterparts that we are dealing with these shared challenges, and they agreed. The organised immigration crime networks, which we are talking about and which are addressed in this legislation, are by definition sophisticated and global, and we are engaging with them in different ways. We have to ensure that we have as good a co-ordinated approach as possible.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, given his long professional work in this space and his work on the Home Affairs Committee. I am grateful to him for enhancing the process of this Bill’s passage and other processes, and he is right: at the root of this issue are death and misery, which is exploited by criminals. We must tackle that, but those criminals’ networks are sophisticated, so as their capabilities increase, so must ours. That is the purpose of this legislation—both being able to tackle where those criminals advertise their services, and giving Border Security Command and others the tools they need to tackle them. I totally agree with his point about the value of data in its collective form, rather than any one strand, which I will address when I respond to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers).

I thought that the Lib Dem spokesperson was slightly unfair—which is not in his nature—in his characterisation of what happened on Monday. Everything we talked about on Monday builds on what we are putting in place through this legislation; it is all part of the same approach to tackling both organised crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said, and the supply and demand challenges in this area. I know that the Lib Dem spokesperson thinks the work on safe routes that we announced is really important. He and his colleagues are going to want to take part in that process, and of course they will have an opportunity to do so.

That brings me to the Opposition spokesperson. He has a terribly difficult job—the word I wrote down was “desperate”, but I am not going to use that word in this context. “Difficult” is what I will say to the hon. Member for Stockton West, because he wants people in this place and those watching us to believe that there is in some way anger among Conservative Members at the circumstances we find ourselves in today regarding hotels and small boat crossings, as if these are not phenomena that can be dated to within much less than a decade and started on the Conservatives’ watch. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Monday, and as I will say again, any contribution from the Conservatives that does not start with an apology will not wash with the British public.

[Matt Vickers]

Is the Minister aware that in the nine months up to the election, the number of people in hotels fell by 47%? It has now gone up, and the number of people arriving in this country has gone up by 55%, while the number of those arriving in small boats and being removed has gone down. It is just not on—it is a car crash.

[Alex Norris]

Again, I know that the hon. Gentleman has to try hard to desperately defend the previous Government’s record and their failure. He knows as well as I do that the original sin in this area was the six-year head start that he and his colleagues gave to organised crime, and he will now chirp from the sidelines while we break that cycle. We are getting on with the job while the Conservatives talk about it.

Let us talk about the removal of the deterrent—that is not quite within the scope of the amendments made in the other place, but the hon. Gentleman talked about Rwanda, as his colleagues did the other day. I would gently say that from the day that the Rwanda deal was signed to the day it was scrapped, 84,000 people crossed the channel, so the idea that it was in some way a deterrent is for the birds. Until and unless colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench enter the real world, they are going to struggle for credibility.

[Matt Vickers]

Those people who arrived in this country illegally were going to Rwanda. Where are they now?

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman will know that in this Government’s 16 months in office we have removed 50,000 people who had no right to be here.

[Matt Vickers]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman can ask the questions, but he cannot give the answers as well. I am afraid that I will not give way again—I am going to finish my point. When it comes to removing people with no right to be here, our record in office is a 23% increase on what the Conservatives managed to do.

On Monday, we heard something very interesting from the Leader of the Opposition. She committed Opposition Front Benchers to co-operating with what she said was such an important shared endeavour, and we have an opportunity to test that today, because the hon. Member for Stockton West heard what I said in my opening speech. He heard about my belief in transparency in this area and building public confidence through transparency in the statistics, which he also expressed in his contribution.

[Matt Vickers]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman really does have to let me finish my point before I give way. He heard about this Government’s commitment to that, and about the work that is under way. Having known each other for as long as we have, I hope he will take it in good faith that we are committed to publishing stats that will mean people know what is going on in this area. On that basis, the hon. Gentleman does not really need to support the Lords amendment, but I will let him make his case.

[Matt Vickers]

People out there are really concerned about people arriving illegally in this country claiming to be children, and the impact that that can have on our education and care settings. This Bill removes our ability to scientifically age-verify some of those people, but more than that, since this Government came to office, they have stopped publishing the data on age disputes on arrival. What do they have to hide? Why will they not publish that data?

[Alex Norris]

I am afraid that panto season is starting early, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Alex Norris]

We want to bring forward a whole set of data on this issue that helps people get a picture of what is going on—I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) heard me say that, but the hon. Member for Stockton West certainly did. I have made that commitment from this Dispatch Box, and that is what we will do.

[Matt Vickers]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Norris]

I will not give way, as the hon. Gentleman has more than had the opportunity to make his case. We have said that that is what we will do, and that is what we will do. On that basis, there really is no need for Lords amendment 37, but as I say, we will test the co-operation of Conservative Front Benchers. Will it last even 48 hours? From the hon. Gentleman’s demeanour, I suspect it will not.

It is so important that this legislation reaches the statute book quickly. The need for these powers is urgent, and we are down to one point of disagreement with the other place. This Bill is central to the Government’s actions to strengthen border security. It includes new, transformative measures to deliver on our manifesto commitment to identify, intercept, disrupt and prevent serious and organised crime through new criminal offences, expanded data-sharing capabilities and improved intelligence. It will disrupt the business models of organised crime groups and reduce unlawful migration to the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

That is always the challenge, because we live in a world of misinformation, disinformation and, I am sad to say, occasionally bad faith. However, my antidote to that is the same as my hon. Friend’s: better transparency is the best way to see our way through. He is exactly right that we already publish a vast amount, including on visas, returns and detention. He is exactly right that we keep things under review in line with the code of practice for statistics.

I say gently to Opposition colleagues that we have made a commitment. Many of them did not see my opening speech, so it perhaps bears repeating. We understand the heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public in the number and type of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals and what happens to them. It is in everybody’s interest for that to be known. It is also in everybody’s interest for that dataset to be as good as possible.

[Matt Vickers]

People out there are concerned about 30-year-olds trying to get into classrooms with 13-year-olds. They want to know how often it is being tried. Why have the Home Office and the Government stopped publishing the data around age verification?

[Alex Norris]

It is getting to the point where I might not be able to help the Opposition spokesperson, because I have answered the question. It is in nobody’s interest, as I say, for important information to not be available. We are preparing it as a whole dataset. I said that in opening, and I have said it in response to him at least once, and I have said it again. [Interruption.] I hear the question, “When?” As soon as we can accurately publish it, that is what we will do.

There is a danger that we are down to the narcissism of small differences on this Bill. I do not really think that this is the hon. Gentleman’s principal objection, but I know that he has committed from the Opposition Front Bench, as did the Leader of the Opposition, to co-operation in ensuring that we tackle the pernicious crime of organised immigration crime and that we have order and control at our borders. I look forward to their co-operation.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 37.