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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Rural crime and tool theft are out of control. A tradesman’s tools are stolen every 21 minutes, and when a farmer or tradesman has their equipment stolen, it causes complete misery and costs them severely. Their means of work are then all too often sold in broad daylight at car boot sales. Will the Government adopt our rural crime and tool theft plan to crack down on the sale of stolen goods and on the misery being caused to so many farmers and tradesmen?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we are committed to the implementation of the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 and fully support its intentions. Indeed, it was brought forward by a Member of his own party—the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). We support the Act and are working with colleagues across the policing landscape to ensure that we can do just that. But I will not take any lessons from the shadow Minister who left crime in the state that it was, had no rural crime strategy, unlike this Government, and whose record took our police away from our neighbourhoods—we will put them back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Joy Allen, Labour’s very own police and crime commissioner for Durham, has said that the Government have consistently demonstrated their complete lack of understanding of policing and community safety. Does the Minister think that she said that because the Government have cut police numbers by 1,316 since they came to power, because crime is surging, or because senior police officers are warning that the Government are creating a funding crisis?

[Sarah Jones]

I pay tribute to Joy Allen, who I know very well. She is a very good police and crime commissioner, and I thank her for all her work. I know that our announcement last week was difficult for police and crime commissioners to hear, but we thank them for all the work that they do and will continue to do for the next two years.

What do the public want? The public want police in our neighbourhoods fighting crime. Did the Conservatives deliver that? No, they did not. Neighbourhood policing was slashed, the number of police community support officers was halved, and the Conservatives failed to tackle the fundamental problems in policing that need reform. Policing is the most unreformed part of our public services. We will make—the Home Secretary will make—the tough decisions in the coming weeks in order to put policing on the right footing for the future.

Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Since this Government entered office, the illegal immigration crisis has gotten seriously worse on every front. The number of people arriving in this country illegally is up, and not just by a little bit; arrivals are up by more than 50% compared with the same period before the election. Before the election, the number of migrants staying in hotels had fallen by 47%. It has now gone up, and fewer of the people breaking into this country illegally on a small boat are being removed.

We are now in a position where the Government are putting forward a proposal that, in opposition, they described as “an admission of failure”. The Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), is unable to say whether the plan will save us money or cost us more. We also hear that this proposal will involve accommodation on a site that is directly next to homes provided to the families of our brave armed forces personnel. Have the Government consulted those families about this plan?

All this demonstrates that we need much stronger proposals than the weak efforts the Government are presiding over. That is why we have put forward the borders plan, which goes beyond tinkering with the system. If we want to stop the use of this accommodation, we need to change completely how we approach this problem and ensure that all illegal immigrants are removed within a week. It is a comprehensive plan based on our proposals to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, reform how our asylum system operates, and remove the blockages that have prevented the removal of illegal entrants. It is a proposal that is not only practical, but fair, as those who come to the UK illegally should not be housed at the taxpayer’s expense in ever greater numbers. People need to know that if they break into this country, they will be detained and deported. That is how we will solve this crisis.

I will finish by asking the question we are all wondering: when will the asylum hotels close? Will the Government commit to closing all asylum hotels within a year?

[Alex Norris]

What an optimistic effort by the hon. Gentleman! He invites us to believe that he and his colleagues have worked out in 14 months how to fix a system that they broke over a period of 14 years. The British public saw through that in July 2024, and I suspect that they will see through it again.

The hon. Gentleman talks about removals. Of course, removals are up—over 35,000 since we took office. When it comes to the question of why we have hotels in the first place, what was the original sin? It was that Conservative colleagues stopped assessing claims. That is why we have hotels, and it is why we have made the efforts to shift the backlog.

The reality is that the system is broken. It is a very simple equation—it is a complicated issue, but a simple equation. We are a very popular country and people want to come here. Of course we are popular—we are the greatest country in the world, with brilliant institutions—but that popularity is also due to the fact that people are sold a dream that they will be able to come here, live in a hotel and work illegally. Until and unless we attack those two fundamental factors, nothing will change. We know that the Conservatives do not oppose the plans we are debating today, because after all, they used two military sites themselves.

Knife Crime

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Thank you for chairing this debate, Ms McVey, and I offer my condolences and pay tribute to those whose lives have been tragically lost as a result of knife crime. We recently saw the tragic dangers posed by knife crime during the appalling terrorist attack at Heaton Park, and I offer my condolences to the victims of that cowardly attack. As has been said, today marks four years since the death of the great Sir David Amess, whose family I am sure will be in all our thoughts.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this important debate, for his ongoing work to highlight the impact of knife crime, and for his straight-talking common-sense efforts in this place. Crimes involving knives are devastating. The lives lost, and the crimes committed using those weapons, scar our society.

Given the Government’s ambition to reduce knife crime by half, I look forward to hearing what the new Minister has to say about the methods they intend to use to reach that ambitious target, which we would all like to see achieved. Under the last Government the headline rate of crime, excluding fraud and computing misuse, dropped by more than 50%, showing that such reductions in crime are possible. As shadow Minister in the Crime and Policing Bill Committee, I listened carefully to the proposals put forward by the Government. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will welcome the Government bringing forward further proposals that could deliver reductions in such crime even more swiftly.

Although the number of hospital admissions related to knife crime has declined from its peak, it remains far too high. That problem is further exacerbated by the concentration of offences in hotspots: the crime survey for England and Wales from March this year shows that the Metropolitan police service area accounted for 31% of all offences, West Midlands police recorded 8%, and Greater Manchester 6%. The Met police recorded a staggering 9% increase, and data up to December 2024 shows that London accounts for 45.9% of all knifepoint robberies in England, despite having only 15.5% of the population. The Government must take further targeted action to address the situation. Over the past decade, steps have been taken, from banning knives to legislating for the serious violence duty and the role of violence reduction units, and violence against the person has decreased significantly since 2010, but knife crime remains far too high.

I welcome measures in the Crime and Policing Bill that replicate the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill for more stringent rules on knife possession and expanded police powers. Increasing the penalty for those selling to under-18s is clearly a welcome means of protecting young people, but as police have highlighted, its practical impact on investigation timeframes will be critical in their efforts to prevent the illegal sale of these weapons. It is also important that, when police search a property, they have the authority to seize and destroy weapons where there are reasonable grounds to believe they may be used in unlawful violence.

Legislation alone is not enough. Getting more knives off our streets requires us to have more police on the streets, with the power to act and a focus on the crimes that really matter. The previous Government put a record number of police on our streets, and when the Conservatives left office there were more police on our streets than ever before, but since Labour came to power, we have seen a real hit to police funding affecting both the headcount and the resources available to police. This Government hit our police forces with a £230 million national insurance bill—literally taxing the police off our streets—and their failure to build the pay award into the funding settlement, as the previous Government had, is a further £200 million hit to funding.

The result is that police numbers are falling when they need to be increasing. The number of police officers, police community support officers and staff has already fallen by 1,316, and looks set to get much worse. The biggest hit is to the Met, which deals with a disproportionate amount of knife crime, as we have said. I hope that the Minister will be an active champion for our brave police officers, PCSOs and staff, and take the challenge to the Treasury so that police get the resource they need to tackle knife crime and save lives.

As I have said many times before, not only do we need to put more police on the streets, but we need them to be able to focus on the crimes that matter. Non-crime hate incidents have morphed beyond all recognition, and well beyond their intended purpose. Originally intended to apply when there was an imminent risk of crime, they now tie up 60,000 police hours every year—policing our tweets rather than policing our streets. The argument is well trod, whether in the press or in this place. Will the Minister comment briefly on what is being done to ensure that our police can focus on the crimes that matter most, such as knife crime?

The most direct way for the police to remove the threat posed by knives is to remove the knives from those who might do harm with them. Yes, we need to tackle gang culture and improve education so that young people are aware of the risks and harm created by their actions, and yes, we need to restrict sales to prevent young people from getting hold of weapons, but we also need to give our police officers the power, authority and backing they need to remove knives from the hands of those who might do us harm.

Stop and search removes knives and saves lives. We can see that in London without a doubt. There is a correlation between the Mayor’s decision to allow stop and search to decrease by 60% between 2021 and 2024 and the fact that the volume of knife crime offences increased by 86%. We need to remove the barriers that prevent our police officers from using stop and search. We debated this issue at length during the passage of the Crime and Policing Bill, and we encourage the Government to make appropriate amendments to legislation, including the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code A, to make it easier for officers to use.

Just before the election last year, the Government gave the Home Office £4 million to fight knife crime and boost the use of technology, including new technologies that can detect carried knives from a distance. What progress has been made with that, and what steps are the Government taking to harness new technologies in the fight against knife crime?

Given the impact of knife crime on families and communities, reducing it is an essential task for the Government. I hope that the Government will consider what more they can do to increase the ability of police to clamp down on these awful crimes. Alongside measures relating to education and support, we must ensure that our police are properly funded, deployed and resourced to tackle knife crime.