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

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 General Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(v) other measures related to terrorism protection training;

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

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

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

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

Government amendments 1 and 2.

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

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

Government amendments 3 and 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government amendments 5 to 24.

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

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

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

[Paul Holmes]

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

[Tim Roca]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Tackling Stalking

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her statement, and for advance sight of it. We welcome the Government’s announcement on stalking and remain committed to working with Members across the House to do everything we can to tackle violence against women and girls.

I pay tribute to Nicola Thorp for sharing her experiences, which are harrowing to hear. I cannot even imagine the fear and worry that she will have gone through during this ordeal. Speaking up takes a great deal of courage, and I cannot thank her enough for bringing this situation to light.

I also thank the Minister for all she has done throughout her career to ensure that women and girls who have encountered violence of all kinds receive the support and care they need. I also pay tribute to her for speaking up about her own experiences as a victim of stalking.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) said in a previous debate, we must also discuss the role of men in these incidents, as the evidence shows that men are more likely to be the perpetrators of violence against women and girls. Furthermore, we must not forget the large number of male victims, who overwhelmingly experience violence at the hands of other men too.

The previous Government made real progress on this issue. We launched our tackling violence against women and girls strategy to increase support for victims. We elevated violence against women and girls to a crime type that police leaders must treat as a national threat. We ensured that victims can always access professional support. We doubled the maximum sentence for stalkers from five to 10 years, keeping behind bars for longer those who devastate their victims’ lives. We also made stalking a specific offence, to ensure that women and girls are protected and to show beyond doubt that stalking is a crime. We know that the most harmful illegal online content disproportionately affects women and girls, and that is why the Online Safety Act 2023 requires platforms to proactively tackle illegal content such as harassment, stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour, extreme pornography and revenge pornography.

It is not right that victims have to live in fear because they are not allowed to know who their stalker is, so I welcome the Government’s announcement that the police will be able to reveal the identity of online stalkers under the new “right to know” powers. I am pleased that the courts will be able to impose stalking protection orders directly at conviction or on acquittal, if there is enough evidence to suggest that there is still a risk to the victim. We also welcome the announcement that multi-agency statutory guidance on stalking will be introduced so that professionals know how better to work together to tackle this issue.

We know, however, that there is still much more to do to tackle not only the crime of stalking but violence against women and girls. I welcome the Government’s pledge to halve the rate of violence against women and girls in a decade, as it is a significant target. The Minister has confirmed that the Government are still working towards this target, but will she confirm that the target has not disappeared from the Government’s priorities? Could she also set out what metrics will be used for measuring the rate of violence against women and girls and, therefore, the Government’s success against the target?

Members across the House, and people across society, must work together to stop violence against women and girls. We welcome the Government’s actions on stalking, and we want to work with them to eradicate this crime once and for all.

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support and the tone in which he has approached the issue. I do not know where the idea that the Government have dropped their mission to halve violence against women and girls has come from, so I will say as clearly as I can: it is still the mission of the Government to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. That mission is not something that only the Home Secretary and I fought for, with people rolling their eyes at us; it comes right from the top, from the Prime Minister. The subject is an obsession of his, so the mission has not gone away and the hon. Gentleman need not worry.

On how we will measure the success of our mission, the prevalence of violence against women and girls is currently measured by the crime survey for England and Wales. That will be our key headline metric for measuring the ambition to halve VAWG. The Office for National Statistics is producing a combined violence against women and girls prevalence measure that will include domestic abuse, sexual assault and stalking, because the data is not necessarily collected like that at the moment. There will be not just a headline metric but many metrics and tests sitting underneath it, such as for female homicide, femicide, repeat domestic abuse victims and the prevalence of sexual harassment, which will inform a suite of measures. The hon. Gentleman is right that the previous Government’s efforts in the House and on the statute book were not without care or attention to violence against women and girls, but the difference that that made on the streets is questionable. We need robust measures to ensure that the nice words that we write on goatskin actually mean something.

Respect Orders and Antisocial Behaviour

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for advance sight of it. It is not right that anyone should live in fear of intimidation in the place that they call home. Antisocial behaviour has real consequences—it can ruin communities and prevent people from making the most of their local area. Antisocial behaviour can make women and girls feel unsafe walking home at night, and it can have a huge impact on shops and businesses if customers are left feeling unsafe visiting their high streets and town centres.

We welcome any focus on antisocial behaviour and efforts to tackle it, but tackling it requires more than a press release or a rebrand. Those in the sector have described the proposed respect orders as wholly unnecessary and near-identical to existing powers already held by the police. We will engage with the Government as proposals are brought forward, but we are keen to see meaningful action rather than just the renaming of public space protection orders and criminal behaviour orders. Changing names will not change outcomes.

The last Government launched the antisocial behaviour action plan, backed by £160 million worth of funding and over 100,000 hours of police and other uniformed patrols, undertaken to target antisocial behaviour hotspots. As of February 2024, our plan led to nearly 600 additional arrests, close to 1,500 stop and searches and around 700 uses of antisocial behaviour powers such as community protection orders and public protection orders.

My own Labour police and crime commissioner in Cleveland has commended the huge contribution made by the last Government’s hotspot policing initiative. Uniform patrols delivered by local authority wardens in Cleveland clocked up a total of 7,685 hours on the streets of Stockton, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough and Redcar. As a result, between 23 September and 24 August, the police reported that incidents of antisocial behaviour were down by 21% in hotspot areas. We also banned nitrous oxide and increased fines for fly-tipping, littering and graffiti, all of which are a blight on our communities. The Conservative Government made sure that the police had the tools to discourage antisocial behaviour, and dedicated funding to support police and crime commissioners to target enforcement in the areas where antisocial behaviour is most prevalent.

The police play a vital role in tackling antisocial behaviour and keeping our communities safe. The Conservative Government invested over £3 billion, including additional funding each year. That rolled into Government grants to enable the recruitment of 20,000 additional police officers—a Government priority and a manifesto commitment. By March this year, the police headcount hit 149,769—a record number of police, and 3,000 higher than previous records. Last year, the Conservative Government arranged a £922 million increase in funding for frontline policing for this financial year—something I hope will be matched next year. Does the Minister agree that in order to tackle antisocial behaviour, we must ensure that police have the necessary resources and support?

The right hon. Lady spoke about Labour’s manifesto commitment to provide 13,000 additional police officers, police community support officers and specials, but has failed to set out any of the detail of when those officers will be recruited and which forces will receive those additional officers. Can she explain how these respect orders are different from the failed antisocial behaviour orders, or the existing public space protection orders or criminal behaviour orders? Our action plan puts safety, security and a basic respect for others at its heart. Will she commit to continuing the hotspot policing initiative, especially as we can already see the results across the country? I know I have asked before, but I never quite managed to get an answer: the last Government increased funding for frontline policing by £922 million for this year—will the Government match that increase next year?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for acknowledging in his opening comments the effect that antisocial behaviour can have on communities and on individuals. But during the rest of his response, he seemed to have lapsed back into that condition that affects a number of right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches: amnesia about what happened over the course of their 14 years in power, including the vicious cuts to policing, with over 20,000 police officers and thousands of police staff cut. Trying to ignore the legacy that we have inherited and are having to deal with today is not satisfactory from the Dispatch Box.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I certainly welcome the work that has been done to tackle the gangs the right hon. Gentleman refers to. Such crimes have a huge impact on communities. We need the National Crime Agency working not just through the regional organised crime units, but with local forces right through to the neighbourhood police on the beat. That is often where the intelligence comes from, especially where children are being dragged in.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I know the Home Secretary understands the importance of our brave firearms officers in dealing with serious and organised crime that poses a danger to the public. I welcome the measures to provide anonymity, but will the Government consider going further by allowing a defence in misconduct or criminal proceedings if an officer can show that they followed their training and procedure?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we set out very swiftly the response to the accountability review. That included a series of measures not just on anonymity, but on strengthening the law and on the need for the system to work much more speedily to support officers in very difficult split-second decisions. We have a review under way, involving Tim Godwin and Sir Adrian Fulford, which is looking at many of these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

One of the best ways to help tackle retail crime is to put more police on the streets. The last Conservative Government did just that—[Interruption.] The last Conservative Government did just that, delivering record numbers of police, with more funding than ever before, but we were not stopping there. This year, the Conservative Government increased frontline police funding by £922 million. Will the Minister commit to matching or even improving that figure next year?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I do not know if it is just amnesia on that side of the House, but I think the Shadow Minister needs to reflect on what we actually inherited: PCSOs cut by 50%, specials down by two thirds and over 20,000 police officers cut under the Conservative Administration. So a little bit of humility about what they have left us with would go down very well.

Draft Criminal Finances Act 2017 and Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 General Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the Minister for his welcome and look forward to him returning to the comfy seats on the Opposition side in the not-too-distant future.

I also thank the Minister for bringing forward the regulations to tackle economic crimes and fraud. It is right that, as a country, we empower our law enforcement agencies with the necessary tools to address these pressing issues. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 was introduced in the previous Parliament specifically to confront the challenges of economic crime and corporate transparency. It was a necessary piece of legislation to ensure that we keep our country safe and our economic jurisdictions clean.

The Minister rightly highlighted the need to tighten the regulations to ensure their effectiveness. As I understand it, similar regulations were originally scheduled for discussion prior to the election. It is appropriate that they are adapted to align with the original intentions of the 2023 Act. A key aim of the legislation passed by the previous Government was to simplify powers, so it is appropriate for the current Government to do all they can to facilitate that process.

The Minister highlighted cryptoassets, the use of which in illegal activities has been a worrying development over the last decade. Although it is challenging to ascribe specific figures, the National Crime Agency has suggested that over £1 billion in illicit cash is transferred overseas. Additionally, analysis by Chainalysis found that the total value of cryptocurrency received by illicit addresses globally exceeded £24 billion in 2023. I am therefore pleased that the new powers outlined in the 2023 Act, which are operational in England and Wales, have been exercised in more than 80 cases, as of the end of October, including cases involving the seizure and confiscation of cryptoassets. We must ensure that seizures continue effectively.

I would like to press the Minister for further clarity on a few specific points. Will he outline whether the Government anticipate an increase in the number of custodial sentences as a result of the regulations? Will he clarify how the regulations fit within the Department’s broader approach to cryptocurrencies? Has the Minister made any assessment of the types of cases in which such assets have been seized? Will the Department ensure that its strategy is robust in addressing those cases?

It will be essential to adapt and evolve the UK’s legislative response to economic crime. No matter how ingenious criminals may believe they are, we must always be prepared to thwart their efforts. I hope the regulations will play some small part in advancing that mission.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

The last Conservative Government stood with our brave police officers and emergency service workers. We introduced tougher sentences for those who assaulted them and the Elizabeth medal to recognise those who lost their lives in the line of duty, and we were looking to recognise those who were discharged from service as a result of injuries on the frontline. Will the Secretary of State continue that work? Will she meet with me and former policeman Tom Curry, who has been leading an excellent campaign on this important issue?

[Yvette Cooper]

I have long been a strong supporter of the Elizabeth medal. I pay tribute to Bryn Hughes and others for their work campaigning for recognition for police officers and other emergency workers who have been lost in the line of duty, and who have given so much to support other people and keep others safe. I have attended the police bravery awards every year for the last 14 years, exactly because it is so important to support brave officers. I am absolutely determined to ensure that we not only continue with that work, but go further to support brave officers who put their lives at risk. I am very happy to continue cross-party working on this issue.

Draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 General Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the Minister for her comments and statements. I also thank the ACMD and its chair, Professor Owen Bowden-Jones, for their continued work in providing advice to the Government in this critical area of focus.

In May, the previous Government accepted all five recommendations set out in the ACMD’s March 2024 report, and I welcome the new Government’s continued commitment to accept the recommendations set out in the report. The measures set out in this order will build upon the previous Government’s work to mitigate the very real threat of synthetic opioids across the UK, after previously banning 15 new synthetic opioid drugs.

The conclusions of the Advisory Council’s March 2024 report made clear the substantial risk that the Taliban’s ban on growing opium poppy for heroin production in Afghanistan may result in an increase in the appearance of new synthetic opioids. The March report adds that specifically listing currently identified compounds for control is the simpler approach, but risks being overtaken in the future by the development of further variants.

The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Committee noted that the Home Office would

“need to remain agile in amending the definition to capture new variants.”

What steps are being taken to ensure that the Government remain vigilant to ensure that any variants beyond the scope of this amendment are spotted, and further amendments are made accordingly? Is the Minister confident that the Department and the ACMD are equipped to act in a timely manner to make further necessary amendments?

Of course, other drugs are also affected by the order. Xylazine—also known as “tranq”—is increasingly being used with opioids and being involved in overdose deaths in the United States, and is seen as an emerging threat. The previous Government welcomed and accepted the ACMD’s recommendations, and I welcome the fact that the incumbent Government are continuing to categorise xylazine as a class C drug. To that end, can the Minister provide reassurance that the Department will robustly monitor the impact of categorising xylazine as a class C drug and take any further precautions accordingly to ensure that the Government do their duty in reducing the tragic number of drug-associated deaths?

Lastly, what reflection does the Minister have on the ability to sentence for drugs misuse in the context of the Government’s decision to release low-level offenders early?

Draft Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2024

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 General Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I will comment very briefly to seek clarity on the order.

The measures brought forward by the last Government have undeniably had a huge impact on the legislative framework around immigration and asylum. Indeed, under the last Government, in the year June 2023-24, small boat arrivals were down by 29%, migrant returns rose by a fifth, and enforced returns rose by a half. We want the Government to continue to make progress in tackling this issue. Indeed, it is of huge national interest and consequence. Although the argument is already well exercised, without that meaningful deterrent, everything else is just tinkering around the edges.

French officers have been able to carry arms in areas of the channel for years. If the amendment improved the effectiveness of partnership working and helped to frustrate channel crossings, we would be supportive. However, I seek some clarity from the Minister on its impact. If she is not in a position to provide that clarity now, we are happy to take a response in writing.

Why has no impact assessment been undertaken? Surely there is an impact on public service provision—that is, policing. Under what circumstances will the use of firearms be permitted and what are the restrictions, if any? Will a review mechanism be put in place? There are huge concerns about the nature of and delays to the implementation of EES, and the potential impact on legitimate UK travellers. In the spirit of partnership, what mitigation is being put in place for that and what can we expect in reciprocation for securing our own borders?

Rural Depopulation

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) on securing this important debate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition. The hon. Member told us about his deeply rural and very special part of the world and the unique challenges that it faces in terms of childcare and labour shortages.

I echo right hon. and hon. Members’ comments highlighting just how important our countryside is to the United Kingdom. We heard about the challenges of ensuring that young people are not forced out but can afford to live locally with access to jobs and housing, and about the challenges of access to schools, doctors, banks and other public services when there is no longer a critical mass.

Not only does the countryside make up 90% of the UK’s land, as well as being home to millions of people, it contributes over £270 billion to our economy in England alone. As many speakers have observed, our labour market in rural areas has for a long time been constrained by a lack of supply, particularly with regard to certain skills. The supply of financial capital has also been limited by the structure and regulation of financial services. Historically, poor connectivity—both physical transport links and digital infrastructure—have added to the challenges in rural areas. That is why the last Government made it their core mission to level up parts of our country that had been traditionally overlooked, and I was proud to support the previous Administration’s investment in rural communities.

In government, we introduced local skills improvement plans and a new local skills improvement fund to counter rural depopulation. We delivered the £3.6 billion towns fund, boosting investment to create jobs and opportunities across the country and grow the economy. We committed £110 million in extra investment to rural areas as part of the rural England prosperity fund to create jobs across the country. We invested in rural economies by helping farmers with an investment of £2.4 billion a year while EU land-based subsidies were phased out and new schemes were introduced that aimed to work for farmers, food producers and the environment. The farming investment fund will help to improve productivity and efficiency within farming businesses and animal health and welfare in the years to come, and bring forward more environmental benefits.

As well as supporting farmers, ensuring they have access to training to meet the needs of local communities and backing Britain’s farmers, the last Government also made progress in tackling challenges to living in rural areas. I represent some of the most beautiful rural communities in the country—although not as deeply rural as others—so I know the challenges of poor broadband connections, limited public transport and rural crime only too well. Poor broadband connections create huge challenges for youngsters in education, impede rural businesses and put blocks on remote working. There is a long way to go on broadband roll-out but we are making huge progress. The last Government invested £5 billion to roll out and it is expected that by 2025 85% of homes will have high-speed gigabit broadband.

Another huge concern for those I represent in rural communities is public services, particularly public transport and bus services. Limited services prevent youngsters from getting to school, adults from getting to work and elderly people from accessing health services and social activities. The obstacle to commercially sustainable services in some of those communities is obvious, but we cannot leave rural communities cut off and isolated. There is much more to do. The last Government put forward an additional £150 million to local authorities to help them to introduce new routes to unconnected areas or introduce demand-responsive transport services, such as my local Tees Flex service. We also established a new national rural crime unit, delivering our plan to crack down on crime and make our rural communities safe.

Yes, the previous Government invested and made progress in tackling the concerns and challenges facing many rural communities, but there is a lot more to do. I hope the new Administration will continue to look at how we support those communities, maintain investment, mitigate challenges and spread opportunities. The signs so far are not promising. Under the previous Labour Government, rural unemployment doubled in the last year of their Administration; at the general election, Labour’s manifesto barely mentioned rural communities; and barely two months into the new Administration, we hear that Labour is looking to claw back £100 million from the farming budget.

Given today is Back British Farming Day, will the Minister provide some clarity on the Government’s intention for the farming budget? The Government can make a substantial difference to our rural communities through protecting their distinct way of life. In the light of recent proposals to change house-building targets, will the Minister clarify how the Government will listen to rural communities with the new planning framework so those communities have a say in their future? There is much more still to do to support our rural communities. It is vital the new Government continue to work quickly to build on the work of the previous one and develop a vision for the countryside, to spread opportunities to all areas of the United Kingdom.