Patrick Spencer
Main Page: Patrick Spencer (Conservative - Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)Department Debates - View all Patrick Spencer's debates with the Home Office
(1 month ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) for securing this debate and for comprehensively outlining many of the problems. It was good to hear his insights and the work that he has already done, particularly around rural thefts and thefts of farm equipment, which are a big issue in my constituency. I will focus on fly-tipping, which is a huge blight in Sittingbourne and Sheppey and across the whole of Kent, where it costs about £1.8 million annually.
One of my problems with fly-tipping is the name; it is too cutesy. It makes it seem so unimportant—“Fly-tipping? Well, fine.”—but it is a massive environmental scourge and a massive scourge on the people who live near it. In an urban setting, it is often small scale, with lots of people doing it on housing estates and in back alleys— I have that in bucketloads in my constituency—but there are also huge, illegal dumping tips. I have one in my constituency on Raspberry Hill Lane near Iwade. Yesterday morning, a BBC documentary showed drone footage of the site, with a real investigation from BBC journalists into the problems.
Fly-tipping has been going on there for a long time. Residents have raised the issue repeatedly, and they have struggled to understand what has been going on to challenge it. Some of what has been looked at very much involves cross-agency working that has frequently failed. One of my biggest concerns about fly-tipping is whether we have the structures in place to investigate it: are the right organisations doing the investigations, and do we have the right level of punitive punishments for the people who are destroying vast swathes of countryside?
The site that I am discussing is right next to a site of special scientific interest. It is an extremely vulnerable area. It is also right on the edge of a village. The smell, the noise and the disruption is obvious to everybody as they go past it.
At root, this is an organised crime issue. Whether the sites are big or small, it is not just a man in a van dumping stuff in someone’s bins or back alley or on the street. At multiple sites, such as the one that I am talking about in Kent, truck after truck brings along its loads of unprocessed waste, which is dug into the ground and left for the birds to eat and spread around nearby farmland.
I do not think people understand the significant impact that it has on local people, or how frustrated many of them are at not getting a response from the authorities about what is going on. When they have reported fly-tipping, it is hard to understand where investigations have got to or whether anyone is looking into them at all. Because organised crime is involved, many of my residents are afraid to raise the issue publicly.
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point about fly-tipping as an issue of organised crime. I suppose that Opposition Members would also include casual littering in the same bracket. We see that every day in towns and villages, but also on the side of motorways. Does he want to say something about that also being a real scourge of society?
I am very happy to say that. We have a lot of casual littering, with things thrown out of cars as going up the A249 between Sheppey and Sittingbourne, so it is an issue. We also see articles from time to time about middle-class fly-tipping, with people—apparently benignly—leaving furniture out on the street in front of their house for people to pick up. Honestly, I can see that that is well-meaning—or thoughtless. That level of littering needs dealing with in one way, but it is the organised criminal side of it that we really need to look at in a much more systematic way.
Does the Minister think that the Environment Agency is the right organisation to be doing the investigating? It is not really set up as an investigative organisation, but that is where the bulk of the digging and detective work is now falling. That is similar to some of the other issues regarding the Environment Agency, such as with land drainage, where it is pulled into operational matters when that is not really what it is set up for. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts about whether we need to look at how the Environment Agency operates, what its real function is, and whether it should be the investigating agency.
I would also like to look at what the actual penalty for the crime is, where it is provable that those people are organised criminals. Frankly, where landowners have been using land to create organised illegal dumps, I would question whether they should retain the assets—not just the land, but the vast fleets of trucks and lorries that they are using for that. It is being done on an industrial scale and it needs to be addressed, not with fines of a few tens of thousands of pounds, but by looking at actually seizing the assets of those organised criminals.
Finally, the most important thing that I want to talk about is that, at its root, organised crime is a market issue. Those people are criminals, but they are serving a market need, and a lot of that is down to regulation. Are the regulations around the licensing of waste removal and waste processing incentivising criminal gangs to get involved in this “business”—obviously in scare quotes—rather than other areas of crime? Honestly, as with many areas of organised crime, we have to look at the market forces behind that crime and see how we could use regulation to disincentivise criminals and then hopefully get them as they move into other areas.
It is wonderful to see you in your place, Ms McVey. I credit the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) for securing this debate.
I represent a predominantly rural constituency with low crime rates. Those low crime rates have been achieved by focusing on three things: increasing police numbers, effective police strategies and a strong local economy that has minimised the age-old problem of poverty driving crime rates. I pay tribute to my police and crime commissioner, Tim Passmore, and the hard-working people serving Suffolk constabulary. But this positive headline negates two fundamental realities.
First, it does not portray the changing nature of crime across Suffolk and other rural areas, specifically the proliferation of crime in our agricultural sector and on farms; fly-tipping, which was raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall; poaching; damaging heritage and historical sites; crime at logistics hubs and warehouses; and, awfully, hidden crime such as sexual exploitation and domestic violence, which have tragically become all too prevalent in rural communities.
Secondly, the positive headlines ignore the fact that Suffolk constabulary has to police both a very rural countryside with a low population density over a large geographic area as well as urban crime in Ipswich. Covering very different environments and very different types of crime presents huge challenges to many rural police forces, be they in North Cornwall, Suffolk, Essex, Hampshire or anywhere else. We have already heard that the Countryside Alliance rural survey estimates that more than a third of people living in rural communities experience rural crime every year. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall said, the NFU estimates that the cost of rural crime increased by nearly 5% last year to £52.8 million.
The situation facing rural police forces is indeed tough, so in the short time I have, I ask the Minister to comment or give a steer on this Government’s intent on the following. First, earlier this week I had the opportunity to take part in Home Office oral questions, and I raised the long-term problem of looking at the funding formula for rural constabularies. I accept that the problem is long term and that the previous Government did not do nearly enough to tackle the confusing nature of our funding formula. Rural constabularies, as I said on Monday, consistently receive less money than urban ones. Will the Minister agree to publish the formula and methodology, and launch a consultation on reforming it, so that we can move on—and away from this iniquity?
Secondly, the national rural crime unit was set up by the last Government and it has made great strides, along with the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) was epic in the pursuit of. However, the NRCU has a very limited mandate. Could it not expand to tackle other forms of crime that we know proliferate in rural areas, such as fly-tipping, organised crime and rural domestic violence? At the moment, I am afraid to say that it is somewhat limited to the pursuit of crime around equipment and GPS theft, and other things that are specific to agriculture and farming. By expanding its remit, and giving it extra funding, it could support rural police forces with intelligence on tackling problem areas.
Finally, I ask the Minister what steps this Government are taking to invest in technology that will help deter and tackle rural crime? Yes, police forces do need cars and coppers. The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned earlier issues around the public faith in our police to turn up and tackle crime. Just over the recess, my next-door neighbour was broken into. Did the police turn up? No, they did not—it was deeply disappointing.
We need cars and coppers, but we also need drones that can react 10 times as quickly to theft on a farm. We need AI tools and monitoring CCTV that are able to pick up potential targets and suspects. Technology may be expensive up front, but the savings in the long term will be substantial. Rural crime is not just about farms and tractors. It has a real impact on people, lives and livelihoods, and it is too often underestimated here in Westminster.