Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Melanie Onn and Gideon Amos

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I rise to speak mainly about Lords amendment 333 on illegal trading, but I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) about the illiberal nature of the crackdown on protests. I never thought I would be entering into a world in which old ladies sitting down in protest would in effect be proscribed as terrorists. We are moving into some kind of Kafkaesque world, and the provisions of this Bill worry me in the same way. However, as I wish to focus on illegal trading, that is what I will do.

I and the Liberal Democrats support Lords amendment 333, which would extend the length of closure notices. We campaigned during the general election for a return to proper community policing and to safer high streets and town centres, and ending the scourge of illegal trading must be part of that. Extending the period over which closure notices may be served by police inspectors or local authority chief executives under section 77 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to seven days, as set out in Lords amendment 333, would be a move in the right direction. I therefore oppose the Government’s motion to strike out that amendment.

Thanks to local publicans in my Taunton constituency who came forward with vital information, I raised illegal trading in Taunton with Somerset council and the local police about a year ago. I would like to pay tribute to police officers like Andy, the trading standards officers and my Lib Dem Somerset councillor colleagues, such as Mike Rigby, overseeing the work that has led to a number of really high-profile closures. Taunton Market, Mr Taunton and Top Market have rightly been closed down, following just the kind of crackdown that was needed. I have a message for anyone else considering that kind of activity in Taunton and Wellington: “Illegal trading isn’t welcome, you will be closed down and you will be prosecuted.”

We need to go further, though. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute has pointed out that we need properly resourced trading standards services, which means tackling the local government funding crisis, particularly the social care funding crisis that is the main burden under which councils are struggling.

Somerset councillors to whom I have spoken about this also want civil penalties against landlords who knowingly let their premises be used for illegal trading, and that has also raised by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. Those fines should be given to the council both to support trading standards work and to clean up the town centre environment. I believe that repeat offenders among landlords should forfeit their retail property to the council to allow its reuse or regeneration. Behind too many illegal shops are complicit landlords cashing in on the rent from illegal activity, and right now they face no consequences at all.

As well as supporting Lords amendment 333, the main change I am pressing for, following my visit with police officers around Taunton, is to address their frustration with the reality of tackling illegal sales at one end of the counter while trading continues at the other end of the counter in the shops they are tackling. I understand why the law requires that any closure notice must be followed up, under section 80 of the 2014 Act, with an application to the courts for a closure order. Frankly, however, that requirement is a hugely onerous demand on the time of hard-pressed officers, which too often discourages closure notices being served when they are needed.

I am therefore pressing for section 80 to be amended so that closure notices could be served on the authority of a superintendent or local authority chief executive and be effective for up to 14 days, but, crucially, without the requirement to apply to the courts. To ensure a just approach to retailers, exercising such a power would have to be dependent on evidence of unlawful or illegal trading, such as the sale of stolen goods. The Association of Convenience Stores found that 25% of retailers identified stolen goods being sold locally in their areas, including the under-age sale of alcohol, tobacco, vapes or counterfeit goods, such as cigarettes. Enabling a rapid response of this kind would also help to tackle phoenixing, whereby new ventures open a new company just a few doors down from their closed premises.

I am delighted at the action taken locally in Taunton. I support Lords amendment 333 and I do not really understand why the Government oppose it. Action could be taken and they should take it. Councils and police are too often operating with one hand tied behind their backs. There should be immediate closure where that is needed. Town centre businesses in Taunton and Wellington should not be forced to compete with criminal activity, and I will continue to push the case for stronger powers to stamp that out.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I would like to recognise the work the Government have already undertaken to improve our high streets, including measures announced in the Budget last year: the taskforce to tackle organised crime groups; additional funding made available to trading standards, customs and excise, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; and support for community policing, ensuring that there is a community police officer in every neighbourhood across the country. Those are all welcome and important, and it is right that we acknowledge that context in which this debate sits. I would also like to congratulate the Minister for Policing and Crime. She works incredibly hard. Today, she is working a double shift and we appreciate it.

I rise to speak to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333, which sought to extend closure orders to 12 months. That has been the subject of some discussion today. I appreciate that the Government understand and recognise the importance and necessity of closure orders, to the point that they have tabled this amendment in lieu. I have to say to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) that I do not see that as the Government opposing, but rather nudging gently towards the right direction. They are acknowledging the need for closure orders, while recognising the sensitivity that comes with them: the impact they can have in residential areas—this is not just about commercial premises—and on our high streets. In particular, I think about the potential addition of boarded-up, empty homes for 12-month periods and the same for commercial properties on our high streets. That will be a concern and I therefore recognise the need for the Government to consult, but the Minister will know that this draws concern from me and other colleagues who are keen to tackle the scourge of dodgy shops in their communities—and to do so quickly.

Local Post Offices

Debate between Melanie Onn and Gideon Amos

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

I agree. I am sure that the Government will say in due course that, whatever its exact business model, a viable post office is what matters, and there would be some truth in that, but a secure post office, established for the long term, is what really matters.

The worries we hear from across the House and the country are not without foundation. We have seen worrying closures across the country. Notably, as has been mentioned, there was a recent consultation on the closure of 150 post offices. The loss of branches means that fewer communities can access vital services. House of Commons data shows that the number of post offices is rising overall, but in the south-west, which has lost more post offices than any other region in England, it is falling.

Wellington in my constituency lost its post office in 2019, and we can see the damage caused by that loss. Wellington is not a small town; it has 15,000 residents and is growing fast. Its population has grown by a third over the past two decades according to census data, and around 1,500 new homes have been built there in recent years. It also has a proud history as the home of Fox Brothers & Co, which has been manufacturing the finest flannels and fabrics for over 250 years and also owned its own bank—the Fox bank on Fore Street was the last bank in the country to issue its own banknotes. It is unacceptable for such a town to have no main post office. Losing the post office in 2019 has been a real blow. One constituent told me that he finds it

“totally baffling why Wellington Post Office was ever closed”.

It is particularly difficult for those without access to a car to visit the nearest alternative at Rockwell Green, a village several miles away. If they do, residents often find that the sub-post office is oversubscribed, with queues out the door. As a small village post office, it was only intended to provide for small numbers, and when it is open, parking has become a bit of a nightmare.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I was very pleased to support the hon. Gentleman’s application to the Backbench Business Committee for this debate. Does he agree that Crown post offices are one of the last bastions of the civil service in local communities, as they are not centralised? They provide good jobs in places like Wellington in his constituency, and they give support to communities that often have an older population. They have an expertise that franchises simply cannot provide.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and I am extremely grateful to her for helping us to secure this debate. Post offices act as hubs for a whole range of services, and they could arrange for a range of other public services, and often do, which is why a secure, proper post office is so important.

As I say, the nearest post office to Wellington is some miles away and very difficult to access. As hon. Members can imagine, there was great relief when Wellington residents were told that they would be getting a new hub opened by an organisation called the Post Office, staffed by staff working for the Post Office, and that there was to be a logo outside the building with “Post Office” written on it, but they were disappointed to find, when they went inside the building, that it was a banking hub that does not provide any post office services. Frankly, people feel misled and let down. Will the Minister instruct the Post Office to review the case for granting Wellington post office the status of main post office? I am convinced from discussions with franchise holders that that would be enough to secure one for Wellington.

As we can all see, in this case, there is an obvious and straightforward solution: we should allow banking hubs to offer postal services. There is no fundamental reason why they cannot. They already have post office tills and post office systems. They are run by postmasters and postmistresses, and staffed by post office staff. The one in Wellington even has two banking desks and space for a third desk, presumably awaiting a post office counter. That would be a very good use of the remaining space in a building with “Post Office” written above the door. Perhaps most importantly, having spoken to post office staff, I know that they would be very keen to offer such services in banking hubs.

The issue lies simply in such arrangements not having been included in the agreement on banking hubs between the banks, which fund them, and the Post Office, which provides those services. It is not a hugely complex problem. With a bit of effort and ingenuity, which I am sure the Minister and the Government have, this could be overcome, and the system could be made hugely more efficient. There are 76 banking hubs in the UK, and in this way we could significantly increase the provision of post offices at very little cost. Will the Minister ask his Department to develop incentives for banking hubs to offer postal services, especially given that they all have the “Post Office” logo outside the door, even when they do not provide any postal services.

To conclude, post offices are vital hubs in communities throughout the country, particularly for those in need and at risk of exclusion. The loss of the post office in Wellington, such a significant market town, has really hit the town centre badly. I know hon. Members will have their own examples of the importance of their local post offices to their communities. I look forward to hearing their speeches, and maybe to intervening on them. It is vital to ensure that substantive towns and communities such as Wellington do not lose their post offices altogether. In short, post offices are too important to be left to uncertainty. The Government must act now to safeguard these vital institutions, ensuring that towns, such as Wellington and so many more, do not remain without essential services. I urge the Minister to take tangible steps to secure the future of post offices before more communities are left without them.