Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Paul Holmes.

[Paul Holmes]

Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I had to nip upstairs to sit in a Bill Committee programming session.

I am delighted to be here to speak on this legislation. As I mentioned earlier to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), I had the privilege of working alongside the Minister when I was the shadow Home Affairs Minister who took the Bill through Second Reading. I say again to the Minister, and to the Home Secretary, that I am a big fan of his, as he knows. That is for genuine purposes: for the way he treated me as the shadow Home Affairs Minister at the time, with informal consultations and phone calls, and for genuinely opening up the spirit of cross-party working on this legislation. I congratulate him and pay tribute to him, his Department and all officials working on the legislation for making sure the Opposition were involved. I am very pleased that he is in his place this evening so that I can thank him for that spirit of co-operation.

We know that the Bill is a key piece of legislation and a commitment that the Conservatives made at the last general election, and I am delighted that the Government have taken it forward. As he will know, I spoke of some concerns on Second Reading that I want to chase the Minister on, if he might be so bold as to try to answer them at the end. I have a number of concerns that I will speak about briefly, as you will be delighted hear, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot promise to be too brief, but I will be as brief as I can. You will have to excuse me if I am out of breath—I did run upstairs and then back downstairs to get here in time, and I am not the fittest person in the Chamber.

I pay tribute to Figen Murray and Martyn’s family. As I said on Second Reading, it should not require circumstances such as those we have seen to bring about a change in legislation. However, Figen Murray can rest assured that Martyn has played a huge role in changing the law for the good, and Martyn’s family have a right to be proud of that legacy.

I rise to speak in favour of new clause 1 and amendments 25 and 27, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). We all support the aims of the Bill and want to see the legislation succeed. We want to make venues across the country safer and to ensure they have the correct apparatus in place so that people who use hospitality or other venues across the country, of all shapes and sizes, can do so with confidence that a system and a regulatory framework are in place. We want people to be safe when they use those venues. My constituents expect that. I expect that for myself and for my family.

Just last night, my family and I used a hospitality venue for a good couple of pints. That will be one of the venues covered by this regulatory framework. Sitting there, looking forward at the parliamentary agenda, I thought how venues such as that one have a number of concerns. Those are the things I want to talk about this evening. In our constituencies, we have voluntary sector organisations, theatre groups, community centres and charities of all shapes and sizes who volunteer every day to do their best by their community, to represent the community and to work for the community in the best way possible. I remain concerned that, as has been outlined by a number of my hon. Friends, including the shadow Minister, there remains an undue burden that will be placed on those organisations, because of some of the environmental factors—I wondered how to put that, as I do not want this speech to be political at all—that have been placed on them in recent months.

[Patrick Spencer]

Will my hon. Friend speak for a moment about the situation facing small football clubs? They often have many people turning up week after week to watch their team play and are on a tiny budget with tiny margins, no money to spare and no money available for training. In such circumstances, surely those clubs will be really hard done by under some of the provisions in the Bill.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is correct. My constituency has a number of small football organisations, some of which are subject to legislation that is currently going through the Lords more slowly than we would necessarily expect a piece of legislation to progress. The income of small football groups will be the focus of that Bill. However, my hon. Friend is right: not only does this Bill cover small football venues and football clubs, but it covers all sorts of organisations, some of which I have mentioned.

There are small community theatres, for example, which are the backbone of many small communities. People want to go to them with their family and watch amateur dramatics. The plays are sometimes better than in the west end—I have seen them—and the scale of some venues means that they will be in the lower tier under the Bill, but they have very small incomes. There are also charities with very small incomes that have been affected by fiscal decisions in the Budget. I assure the Minister that I am not being political, but as the impact assessment shows, and as the constituents I have spoken to have said, many charities will be affected by increased costs through their national insurance contributions and the different taxation that will come in.

From what I have read, the average cost for smaller venues will be £330 a year and the cost for larger organisations will be £5,000 a year. Those are the latest figures that I can find, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that additional cost of £330 a year for smaller venues, because to many organisations, that will place a big burden on them. I met representatives of small theatres recently who were concerned that they have not been invited to a roundtable with the Minister to discuss the implications for the sector. I would be grateful if he outlined whether the Government intend to meet them, based on their concerns about the Bill.

I will bring my comments within the scope of new clause 1. Given the issues that I have outlined, I think the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford to have a review process for the SIA is perfectly sensible. When we set up a new organisation that has some kind of independence, regulatory enforcement capacity or management capacity, it seems purely sensible that after the period set in the new clause, we look to see whether its action has been proportionate, whether there has been overreach and whether it is doing its job properly. Has it taken the full responsibilities outlined in the legislation? Members may not think that it is overworking; it might be that it is underworking and we need to give it more responsibilities in the long run.

It seems perfectly sensible for the Government and the Minister to come to the Floor of the House. They should see new clause 1 in the spirit in which it is intended. Opposition Front Benchers, me and all my colleagues want the Bill to succeed, but we want it to be proportionate. When we set up an organisation with such responsibilities and an organisational jurisdiction, we want to ensure that it is reviewed, that it is conducting itself and taking its responsibilities seriously, and that the system is working.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 1 is not about a presumption of finding fault, but about ensuring that the proposals work correctly? It is so important that the regulator and the regulatory role work perfectly so that the Bill can be implemented in the way that is expected.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is reasonable and a very good colleague in the way she carries out her duties in this House, so it will come as no surprise to hear that I absolutely agree with her. I do say that about some Government Members, so I am not being partisan—[Interruption.] Most of the time. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point.

That is why the Minister should see new clause 1 in the spirit in which it is intended. We do not want to disrupt the passage of the Bill. We do not want to disrupt the good intentions and the outcomes that everybody, on both sides of the House, wants. As a Conservative, I naturally think that the state should not be big or oversized. When we set up organisations such as this, it is natural that the House and Members will want scrutiny functions to make sure that the organisation acts within the spirit of the law and within its jurisdiction and responsibilities. I think that is perfectly reasonable.

[Dr Luke Evans]

For me, when we think about creating the regulator, it is about ensuring that it is effective. It needs to be staffed and funded appropriately, and we need to ensure that it does the job that the House expects it to do. The idea of having a system to report back is important when we make these provisions. When my hon. Friend was shadow Minister, did he give any thought to how many businesses come within scope, and whether there are resources in the regulator to even provide those assessments, so that we can make sure that it is held accountable and that this is effective legislation?

[Paul Holmes]

I would like to say that I have given that great thought, but as hon. Members across the House will know, after we came back in July, my tenure as a shadow Home Affairs Minister was rather short—[Interruption.] I thank the Minister, who said, “Shame”. That was after being shadow Northern Ireland Minister, shadow Foreign Affairs Minister and other Ministers, too. But I took this piece of legislation very seriously. The Government should make that decision, but I hope that the SIA is properly resourced and that it conducts its duties in the right way. That is why I think new clause 1 should be accepted this evening.

I do not want to overstay my welcome, but I will speak briefly about one of the concerns that I raised on Second Reading about the responsible person element of the Bill. I remain seriously concerned about this, and it was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). Although I accept the scope of the Bill and the impact that it will have on the statute book, many organisations, particularly during cost of living crises and at this time of year, rely on their volunteers, and if we place undue and burdensome regulations on them, volunteers will simply not come forward and be in the voluntary sector. Charities are going through a difficult time. I remain concerned that if we tip slightly too much towards being overburdensome on those very small organisations, we will see a dearth of people in the voluntary sector. No one wants to discourage people from volunteering—we do not, and I know the shadow Minister and the Minister do not—but I worry that the thresholds set out in the Bill will have unintended consequences. I ask the Minister to look seriously at new clause 1 and amendments 25 and 26, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford.

Many will be happy to know that I am drawing my comments to a close. However, I am personally delighted that this Bill is before the House in record time, five months after the Government came into office. I hope that the Minister will see that the Opposition are working, and will continue to work, in a constructive way to get this on to the statute book. It is sad that, in order to have a relatively major piece of legislation changed so rapidly, we had to go through the atrocities that we saw in Manchester and terrorist attacks around the United Kingdom. However, I know that the legacy that Martyn leaves is one that his family will be greatly proud of, as this country should be. This is a mainstream, major piece of legislation, and I hope that by working together, we will ensure that people who go to venues for many years to come will be protected, and they will be protected in Martyn’s name.

[Chris Murray]

I welcome the fact that the discussion in the House today shows real cross-party support for the aims, principles and objectives of the Bill, and that the amendments focus only on nuances and more technical aspects. That shows that we are all united in trying to achieve this goal and in preventing tragedies such as that which happened in Manchester from happening again.

In trying to understand those nuances and where the more technical sides should be drawn, it is useful to reflect on the legislation’s key dimensions and advantages. First, obviously, it makes terrorist attacks less likely. The terrorist threat is substantial and we know that it is changing. It has gone from large-scale infrastructure and iconic sites to much more workaday, normal locations.

The most recent terrorist attack that we tragically saw in this country was an attack on a children’s dance class. It is clear that the terror threat is evolving and we must evolve with it, which is why the Bill is important, but it is also important because it minimises the death and destruction that result from a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks may still happen despite our best efforts, and it is important for us to plan for that eventuality and make the right decisions in order to be ready when they do happen.

The former President Obama’s Under-Secretary of State for Homeland Security, the Harvard professor Juliette Kayyem, has talked of the “boom” of a terror moment or crisis, and divides planning into “pre-boom” and “post-boom”. Pre-boom is what must be done to prevent an event from taking place, but it is equally important to plan for the post-boom moment. We must ensure that even those running small venues have done some thinking in advance of an attack. What are the escape routes? Who needs to have the keys? What happens if they send people in this direction rather than that direction?

The Bill incorporates a distinction between enhanced and non-enhanced tiers, and that too is important. In my constituency we put on some of the biggest and best events in the world. I am utterly confident that those in the football and rugby stadiums and theatres who are in charge of security planning do all this thinking anyway, but there are many smaller venues where it has not occurred to people that that is necessarily their role, but which are now in the line of fire. It is important for people to recognise that responsibility, because the public have a right to expect it. The Bill codifies what should be happening anyway. We must bear that in mind as we decide where to set the thresholds, who falls in or outside scope, and what level of burden we expect organisations and venues to face.

In Committee, it was reassuring to hear several of my concerns being allayed. One of them has already been discussed, namely the impact on business and the potential for a burden. There is no denying that something of a burden will be placed on some organisations where no one has done any thinking or preparation for a potential terrorist or other attack, but the Bill contains very proportionate elements that do not impose much of an extra burden. Its requirements are intuitive, they are not onerous, they are straightforward and they are commonsensical. As I said in an intervention earlier, they are essentially prompts for organisations to do the kind of thinking that we would hope they were doing already to avoid an attack. That not only avoids attacks, but mitigates their impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

If the right hon. Gentleman bears with me for a moment, I intend to say more on the matter, but I assure him that if he is not satisfied, I will give way to him again.

We have introduced a fairer basis for calculating whether a premises or event is in scope. Replacing capacity with the “reasonable expectation” of the number of people who may be present will reflect the actual usage of premises or attendance at events. I am confident that this version of the Bill strikes precisely the right balance.

I turn to amendments 25 and 26 tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West for the Opposition. Clause 32 will allow the Secretary of State to increase or decrease the qualifying threshold for either tier. We anticipate that the thresholds would be reduced to either floor only in very limited circumstances, such as if the nature of the threat from terrorism were to change significantly. That will enable the regime to maintain an appropriate balance between being able to protect the public and managing the burden on those responsible for premises and events. The amendments proposed would remove that ability.

Furthermore, the power is narrowly drafted, and regulations made under it will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In requiring the approval of both Houses before they are made, parliamentarians will be able to scrutinise any proposed changes. The Government therefore do not support the amendments.

I thank the hon. Member for amendment 27. I thought he made his points in a reasonable way, as he often does. While I understand the sentiment, the Government do not support the amendment, but let me explain why. It is intended that the Security Industry Authority will rely on advice and guidance in the first instance. However, a credible enforcement regime with suitable monetary penalties is necessary to ensure that the regulator can secure compliance, particularly where the regulator identifies serious or persistent non-compliance.

The maximum daily penalty amounts are set at a level to counter financial gain from non-compliance, recognising the breadth of organisations in scope as well as the potentially more serious consequences at larger venues. It is important that the Secretary of State has the power, by regulation, to change those maximum amounts, including to increase them if necessary—for example, if the amounts were to prove ineffective in ensuring compliance, or the figures needed updating to reflect changes in economic circumstances in the longer term.

Critically, when determining penalty amounts, the Bill requires the SIA to take into account a range of factors, including the seriousness of the contravention, any action taken to remedy or mitigate its effects, and an organisation’s ability to pay. That will ensure the penalties are effective but proportionate. I reassure Members that changes will be subject to the affirmative procedure, unless they are simply to reflect inflation.

The hon. Member raised concerns over the role of the SIA as the regulator, which I believe is the motivation for tabling new clause 1. There are several reasons why the Government do not support the new clause. The Government are confident that the SIA is the right delivery option for the Martyn’s law regulator, owing to its years of experience in increasing security standards and ensuring public protection. It already plays an important role in safeguarding the public through its work regulating the private security industry. The SIA has long-established inspection and enforcement functions that ensure compliance with its licensing regime, and it already works with security partners to promote best practice around counter-terrorism protective security.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

If the hon. Member will bear with me, I am going to address some of the points he raised.

Furthermore, it will take at least 24 months following Royal Assent for the SIA to begin undertaking its enforcement duties. It would not be fair of us, nor indeed possible, to judge its performance before it has begun carrying out its new functions, which seems to be the effect of the new clause.

[Dan Jarvis]

I will make a bit of progress.

I can also assure the House that the Bill already contains provisions to ensure the appropriate oversight of the SIA. Ultimately, the Bill gives the SIA the tools that it will need to deliver its new enforcement functions successfully. We are committed to exploring wider opportunities to strengthen the SIA so that it can carry out its public protection role and deliver the Government’s ambitious agenda.

I turn to the amendments on training provision tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire). I thank him again for his interest in that important issue. As he knows, the Bill has been developed to ensure that those working at premises and events are better prepared to respond quickly to evolving situations in the event of a terrorist attack occurring or being suspected. Those workers make rapid decisions and take actions that could save lives. There is no specific training requirement in the Bill, but it is essential that workers with responsibility for carrying out public protection procedures are adequately instructed—and, where appropriate, trained—to do so. Training and instruction will be tailored to the premises and events in question, and to the procedures that they have developed, rather than our using a one-size-fits-all approach.

[Paul Holmes]

rose—

[Dan Jarvis]

I will make a bit more progress.

The Government think that the focus of premises and events should be on how to ensure that their people can effectively carry out their roles, rather than requiring the completion of generic modules or courses. We understand the importance of training, and so have committed to publishing free dedicated guidance and support. That guidance will ensure that those responsible for qualifying premises and events have the information required to understand and identify training needs. The Government also intend to signpost a range of training offers, including the significant support that we offer in the shape of access to expert advice and training on ProtectUK, which already includes free access to the “Action Counters Terrorism” and “See, Check and Notify” training packages. Furthermore, following Royal Assent, the Government intend for there to be an implementation period of at least 24 months before the legislation’s commencement. We are confident that that will allow sufficient time to understand the new obligations and to plan and prepare accordingly, including by training staff where necessary.

I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to respond to points made by a number of hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) made important points about the threat of terrorism. He also rightly paid tribute to Manchester city council for its work with local businesses. What he said about proportionality should reassure any businesses that might have concerns.

As a former police officer, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) speaks with great authority on these matters, and I pay tribute to him for his service. He rightly made the point that the Bill is not just about securing physical premises but has a wider value, and that protecting the public is not just a matter for Government; others also have an important responsibility in that area.

Let me turn to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who has been very patient. I have to say, I am a little mystified that he is not on the Opposition Front Bench. He seems an effective performer and responded well on Second Reading. [Interruption.] I am not sure that I am helping him, but I thought he made a strong contribution again tonight, and I found his words about Martyn’s legacy particularly moving. I am grateful for his constructive approach this evening and previously. He helpfully highlighted concerns about smaller venues, particularly small theatres. I assure him that there has been extensive consultation with smaller venues, although I am sorry that it did not include the constituency venue that he mentioned.

All hon. Members have village halls, churches and community halls in our constituencies, and we all recognise the hugely important role that volunteers play. The Government raised the standard tier threshold from 100 to 200 people specifically in response to the feedback, including from those operating smaller venues similar to ones that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley mentioned. We assess that that has resulted in a reduction in the proportion of village halls in scope of the Bill’s requirements from 56% under the original proposals to 13% now. I assure him that we will continue to work closely with smaller venues to ensure the easiest transition to the new arrangements.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) said that the nature of terrorism is constantly evolving, and that we need to plan to protect against it. He pointed out that the Bill contains straightforward measures—prompts, essentially—that are light touch and proportionate. He also very helpfully referenced the Edinburgh example. I hope that that provides positive evidence of the potential benefits to businesses of the measures.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was constructive, as he always is. He speaks with great experience and authority on matters relating to terrorism, so I always listen carefully to what he has to say, and often find it profoundly moving, as I have again tonight. He mentioned churches, which he has raised with me before. The Government acknowledge that places of worship have a unique and important role in communities right across the country, and have considered them very carefully in the context of this legislation. We have consulted extensively with churches and with places of worship more generally, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to work closely with them to ensure that they have the support and guidance they need. That is a commitment that I make to him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Ensuring that constituency Members are informed is something that I take seriously. It often did not happen in the past, but it is important and it needs to happen. The overall situation that we inherited included an asylum backlog that was increasing because asylum decision making had totally collapsed. We have now increased that decision making so that we can clear the backlog and end hotel use. Sadly, that will take time—because of the soaring backlog we inherited as a result of the collapse in decision making—but we are determined to ensure that we can clear the backlog and save the taxpayer hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Given the Home Secretary’s claim that she would smash the gangs, with £540 million to upgrade the Manston centre, asylum hotels reopening rapidly and 14,000 small boat crossings since she took office, is that the plan that she had for her new border commander? Might it be fair to say that it is not going very well?

[Yvette Cooper]

I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman what we inherited from the previous Government. In the first six months of the year, there were the highest number of boat crossings on record because of the total failure of their programme, including spending £700 million on a scheme to send four people—four volunteers—to Rwanda. As for the contract, he may be interested to learn that the first Manston contract notice was issued on 4 December 2023 under the previous Home Secretary for £700 million for six years with no suggested break clauses. The new contract is not only substantially cheaper because we have made savings, but also includes break clauses so that we can close, change or reduce the contract to save the taxpayer money, which the previous Government failed to do.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Paul Holmes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Let me begin by paying tribute to Figen Murray and the Martyn’s law campaign, to Survivors Against Terror, and to all the security partners, businesses, charities, local authorities and victims groups that have informed the Bill and helped to get us where we are today. I also thank the Minister and the Home Secretary for the constructive tone that they have taken in debate, and for their offer to work with us to ensure that the Bill completes its stages rapidly. It is a tragic turn of events that a terrible incident is the catalyst for a change in the law, but I hope that the family of Martyn Hett can take some pride in the legacy that Martyn has left.

We have heard some very good contributions this evening, and in particular two very good maiden speeches, the first of which was made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour). It was lovely to see her family in the Gallery—they were obviously very proud of her—and to hear of a number of local priorities on which she will be working on behalf of her constituents. Although she said that she did not have much in common with the Iron Lady, whose birthday was yesterday, I could tell that there was an iron lady within her, and I look forward to hearing her future contributions in this place.

The second maiden speech was made by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop). He paid a generous tribute to his predecessor, Mark Harper, who worked hard for the constituency, and told us how hard he would work for his constituents in this place. He challenged a number of Members on whether they could say that a television show had been made about their constituencies, and on which was the most beautiful. Well, I can, because that BBC blockbuster “Howards’ Way” was filmed in Hamble Valley. We are particularly proud of that, and the hon. Gentleman should be rightly proud of his constituency.

We have had some other really important contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) spoke as someone representing the locality of the terrorist attack in Manchester—his constituency is in Greater Manchester. He spoke very passionately on behalf of his constituents about the lessons of the inquiry, which were outlined in his speech. I could tell that he cares deeply about his constituency and what happens with this piece of legislation going forward, and I pay tribute to him for his speech.

The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) spoke about the compassion and kindness of the people of Manchester. When Conservatives go to the Tory party conference in Manchester, we are always welcomed very warmly in the bars and by the people of Manchester, despite expectations. We send them our best wishes going forward.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) rightly paid tribute to Figen Murray and the charities that helped her and her wider campaign secure a change in the law. My right hon. Friend also mentioned the former Security Minister James Brokenshire, to whom I was briefly Parliamentary Private Secretary and who passed away three years ago. She is absolutely right to outline the early work that he did on this change in the law, and we all very much miss him in this place. We also miss Sir David Amess, who was brutally murdered three years ago tomorrow, and we remember Jo Cox in this House as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) rightly outlined some concerns about the Bill’s shortcomings, particularly around organisations that have seasonal peaks. I will be interested to hear the Minister outline how some of the challenges for smaller businesses with seasonal peaks can be addressed in this legislation.

Our great country has come under attack far too often, and all Governments have worked tirelessly to protect the United Kingdom. We believe that that is why we must support the legislation in its aim. I am proud of the work that the previous Government, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham, did to bring in Martyn’s law. It is a measure of how much work was done by his family and various organisations that both I and the Minister can stand here today to show that this Bill is needed, and that we can broadly support its measures and aims. Once again, I sincerely congratulate the Government on the fast-tracking of this Bill, and I congratulate the Home Secretary on the way in which she opened the debate.

The aim of Martyn’s law is to ensure that premises are better prepared for terrorist attacks, to help protect the public. As I have said, we welcome this Bill, but we need to make sure that we find the right balance between public protection and the requirements placed on businesses and community venues. As noted by Neil Sharpley, policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, this law will have an administrative impact on small businesses and there will be an additional cost to them. Michael Kill, the CEO of the Night Time Industry Association, said:

“We must ensure that the balance between heightened security and practical implementation is carefully considered.”

The shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), said that although we are supportive of the Bill, we remain concerned about the level of regulation that will be imposed on the venues included in this legislation. The Government’s impact assessment outlines that 155,000 small businesses with a capacity between 200 and 799 will have average costs of £330 per year, and that larger venues will have average costs of £5,000 per year, so I would like assurances that the Minister is looking at a range of options to mitigate those costs as much as possible. I would also like assurances about the burdensome costs on smaller venues, charitable venues and religious venues that have that level of capacity, as mentioned by both my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham.

I want to raise some concerns about clause 4 of the Bill and the “person responsible” element of the legislation. Although I accept that clear lines of accountability are necessary, what important safeguards will be in place for the responsible person in the horrible event that something should tragically go wrong? They could include anonymity, support structures that can be placed around the responsible person, or a line in the Bill stating that the SIA must use its powers and investigatory functions in the most constructive way possible.

I want to finish by thanking the Government once again for continuing the important work on the Bill. As I have said, we will work constructively with the Government throughout the passage of this Bill and raise concerns should we have them, as we have done this evening. I welcome the Minister’s approach once again, and praise the family and supporters of Martyn for their work in getting this important legislation on the statute book. As the official Opposition, we look forward to supporting its passage in this place.

Financial Fraud and Economic Crime

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and to be able to respond to this debate on behalf of the Opposition as a newly appointed shadow Home Office Minister, as of this morning.

I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on securing this debate and thank him for giving us the chance to discuss the serious issues that he outlined. Also, may I put on the record my commiserations to the constituent he mentioned, whom he saw at his surgery last week, for the serious issues that she has faced? I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for as usual showing his knowledge of yet another subject.

Many of us will have been, or know someone who has been, a victim of financial fraud. The hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) outlined the various possible targets, from the pensioner who is tricked into giving away their savings by a rogue cold call, to an unsuspecting parent receiving a scam text purportedly from their child asking for money. All ages and sections of society are at risk.

As these criminal schemes become more sophisticated, nobody is immune. We have seen that bank accounts can be emptied in minutes and life savings lost. In 2021, victims reported losing £2.35 billion to fraudsters and scammers. We also know from statistics that it is elderly and vulnerable people who are most susceptible to scams and fraud. To the vile criminals who target them, they are seen as a means to enrichment and to profit from their misery. It is our duty to protect them.

In an astonishing statistic, Home Office figures indicate that the social and economic cost to the UK from economic crime is £8.4 billion a year. Those costs directly impact the lives and livelihoods of millions of citizens, and further exacerbate social and economic pressures. I look forward to hearing reassurances from the Minister, whom I welcome to his role, on how he will continue to make the progress delivered by the previous Government.

We also know, as the hon. Member for York Outer mentioned, that it is not just individuals who are targeted. In a time of increasing global instability, adversaries are constantly probing for weaknesses in our digital financial infrastructure, from cyber-attacks aimed at crippling software, to ransomware attempts to extort money. Our systems are constantly having to update and evolve to keep ahead in a technological arms race. I was interested to hear recommendation 1 in the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I would press the Minister to look seriously at that proposal, which would get support from the Opposition, as he outlines his proposals.

The previous Government showed leadership in this area. They introduced a reporting mechanism that was bolstered by replacing Action Fraud with a state-of-the-art system for victims to report fraud, while a new national fraud squad, with more than 400 new specialist investigators, made fraud a priority for the police. Will the Minister look seriously at the proposal outlined by the hon. Member for York Outer for a new national fraud centre? That is an interesting proposal and I would like to know whether the Government would look at that, as well as at an anti-fraud tsar who would be a champion in this place, to whom hon. Members can go. I know the Minister is a champion and has many responsibilities. We could never go without another champion in this Parliament.

If we take a new approach, we can make a great deal of progress on the 13% reduction in fraud that we saw under the previous Government; indeed we can go further. The need to tackle this growing threat is clear. The economic crime plan, brought forward by the previous Government, for the first time introduced a more effective and joint way of working across various organisations, including law enforcement, supervisory agencies and the private sector, through the landmark Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. Stronger tools were put in place to help us fight economic crime. We are all alive to the threats affecting our national security, with our economy being a prime target for rogue forces. The strengthening of our defences by widening our ability to freeze assets and to prevent abuses of our open economy proved to be key after Russia invaded Ukraine, and we must continue to strengthen our economic defence in the wake of rogue foreign entities.

Finally, we have seen the new Government make lofty statements about their desire to get tough on fraud, with a new expanded fraud strategy, which I welcome. Given recent policy decisions by the Government, going against promises and commitments in other areas made during the general election, I hope that this is not an area where we will let vulnerable people down. I hope that the Government deliver on those promises. We all agree on the need to tackle this issue. It is to be hoped that this Government are as committed and passionate as the previous one about dealing with this issue, so that we can make progress together. The Minister will have the Opposition’s support in tackling this issue.

Immigration and Home Affairs

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cleverly]

As I said on the radio this morning, if the right hon. Lady is going to pluck figures out of the air, she should avoid nice round numbers, because it is a bit of a giveaway. She will know that we brought people into detention and that we had chartered flights. The fact that the new Government scrapped the scheme and, with a degree of diplomatic discourtesy, did not even—[Interruption.] Labour Members can groan from their Benches, but they will get used to the fact that we cannot treat international partners in this way.

Our relationship with Rwanda was entered into in good faith by both parties. The Rwandans discovered that the incoming Government were tearing up that bilateral relationship in the pages of the British media. The Home Secretary should learn that her new Foreign Secretary should have had the diplomatic courtesy at least to pick up the phone to his opposite number in Rwanda to explain what was going to happen before they read about it in the British press. She and I both know that her Government would not have acted with that level of vile discourtesy had that partner been a European country. [Interruption.] Labour Members can groan all they like, but we all know that is true.

The simple fact of the matter is that the new border security command replicates in all respects the work of the small boats operational command. It took almost the whole general election campaign before the right hon. Lady attempted to clarify the roles. We still have very little clarity on the division of labour between the so-called new border security command and the small boats operational command. Yesterday, at the Dispatch Box, she tried to imply that there had been no returns under the Conservative Government, but let me put some facts and figures on the record. Last year, we returned more than 25,000 people to their home countries, including almost 4,000 foreign national offenders, in order to keep ourselves safe—foreign national offenders for whom, I would remind the House, her Prime Minister in his former guise fought tooth and nail to prevent being deported. Voluntary and enforced returns were both up by more than two thirds, at their highest level for five years—operations done by our immigration enforcement officials, which sounds a lot like a returns unit to me.

I am not sure what the right hon. Lady was doing while in opposition, but she might be surprised to learn that we were indeed smashing the gangs, and we were making sure that people were arrested and incarcerated. Last year, we smashed almost 100 criminal gangs through our law enforcement agencies. I remind the House that Labour Members voted against the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which is the legislation that we have been using to incarcerate those people smugglers. They voted against that legislation. Labour, in government, are now so worried about their continuing reputation for being and for looking weak on immigration that they felt the need to announce a raft of things to sound tough which basically already existed. They announced the border security command, even though there is already a small boats operational command. They announced a returns unit, even though immigration enforcement already does that. What will they announce next? What will they invent—the RAF? I look forward to seeing what functions are to be replicated.

We will look at legislation when it comes forward but, as I have discussed, the Government already have the tools they need, and as long as they do not undermine their own efforts by scrapping more things, we might see an opportunity for them to reduce numbers, in large part because we passed the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. The right hon. Lady has tools at her disposal.

On legal migration, I remember coming to the Government Dispatch Box in December last year and presenting to the House a series of visa curbs to cut net migration. With our measures, 300,000 people who came here last year would no longer have the right to come, reducing migration by a record amount. Already the data is showing that, because of the actions I took as Home Secretary, visa applications are down by 48% compared with June last. On the current trajectory, net migration is set to halve in the next 12 months, thanks to the actions that I took—actions opposed by the Labour party at the time.

The Labour manifesto said that net migration would come down, but not by how much. As I said, the first 50% of that reduction is because of actions I took. Perhaps, in her speech, the right hon. Lady can confirm how much further than that 50% she envisages bringing net migration down. Labour talked tough ahead of the election about clamping down on employers bringing in foreign workers, but those plans have apparently now been shelved, as we saw nothing of them in the King’s Speech and have not heard anything more about them.

On policing and crime, I am delighted to have my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) as shadow Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime. There are many brilliant things about Stockton, a place I have visited and enjoyed, and he is of course one of those wonderful things. I welcome the plans set out in the King’s Speech for a crime and policing Bill to tackle issues such as antisocial behaviour, retail crime and knife crime and to drive up standards in the police force. Of course I welcome them, because those are issues that I put forward when I was Home Secretary. The Government can therefore count on our general support for these measures, if they bring forward detailed proposals that properly address the issues. I really hope that the right hon. Lady has more success than I had getting her colleague, the Mayor of London, to focus on bringing down violent crime in our capital city. We will of course scrutinise the legislation alongside the victims, courts and public protection Bill.

Over the previous Parliament, it was the Conservative party that put 20,000 new police officers on the streets. At the election, we promised to hire an additional 8,000 full-time, fully warranted police officers to protect our neighbourhoods. During the general election campaign, the Labour party made no such commitment, limiting their aspirations to only 3,000 full-time, fully warranted officers. I hope that they will match our commitment to 8,000.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State should also remember that the Labour party opposed our measures for bringing in 20,000 extra police, and during the general election campaign it committed to having 13,000 extra neighbourhood officers, which many police and crime commissioners have said cannot be funded, because they are not clear how they are to be funded. Is it not the case that the Conservative party has a track record of delivering on more policing, and the Government have no idea whatsoever?

[Mr Cleverly]

I am very proud of the fact that in many parts of the country, including my county of Essex, there are now more warranted police officers than at any time in the force’s history—in sharp contrast to Labour-run London, where the Conservative Government put money on the table to recruit extra Metropolitan police officers and the Labour Mayor of London has spectacularly failed to recruit those officers, has not backed officers when they said they needed to do more stop and search, and has seen knife crime accelerate, distorting the whole national picture. I really hope that the right hon. Lady takes this seriously. She can chuckle all she likes, but this is about kids getting stabbed on the streets of London, and she should take this more seriously. [Interruption.] She should recognise that we introduced tougher sentences under the Public Order Act 2023 to clamp down on disruptive protests—the benefit of which we have already seen this week with the jailing of Just Stop Oil protesters—in addition to plans to grant the police further powers to clamp down on protests that go too far and disrupt the lives of people around this country.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Paul Holmes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Member if he can say whether he agrees with the previous immigration Minister or the current one.

[Paul Holmes]

I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for asking me questions; she overestimates my ability. Talking of Christmas turkeys, this morning the Leader of the Opposition gave an interview on Radio 4 that, typically, contained no policy whatsoever. Can she outline how she would reduce immigration and tackle the problems that she is castigating this Government for, given that everything she says she would do, the Government are already doing?

[Yvette Cooper]

The trouble is that they are not—they are just not. The scale of the Government’s operations to go after the criminal gangs is tiny. The £300 million that the Government have already committed to Rwanda is a third of the budget of the National Crime Agency. They are prepared to put that investment into Rwanda—into this tiny scheme that will affect only a couple hundred people—but are totally failing to invest sufficiently in tackling the criminal gangs, working with Europol and going after the supply chains. There are warehouses of boats across Europe that the European police forces are totally failing to go after, which our party has said we would go after. We would work with Europol and get new security arrangements in place, which again, the Government are failing to do.

Instead, we have the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), who signed the last agreement and brought forward the last piece of legislation, saying that the Bill is fatally flawed and will not stop the boats. Yesterday we had Back Benchers saying that the Bill should have been pulled because it is partial and incomplete, and the Home Secretary—who privately called this whole thing “batshit”—is out to bat for it today, even though he knows it will not work.

This is the Tories’ asylum crisis. Five years ago, we did not have a major problem with dangerous boat crossings, but they let criminal gangs take hold along the channel. They failed to work with France at the beginning when they had the chance, and they let smugglers spread their tentacles along the coast, organising dangerous boat crossings that undermine border security and put lives at risk.

At the same time, the Tories let Home Office decision making collapse. They decided to downgrade the skills and experience of caseworkers, then shrugged their shoulders when productivity dropped. They failed to return people—they have let returns collapse, down by 50% compared with the last Labour Government. The next Labour Government, if we are elected, would set up a new major returns unit with, 1,000 additional staff to increase returns. Rather than the total number of returns collapsing and the Government failing to return people who have no right to be here, our party would introduce a new returns unit to make sure we have proper enforcement. [Interruption.]

UK-Rwanda Partnership

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

We have no intention of leaving the ECHR, so the hon. Member’s concerns are unwarranted.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

The Home Secretary has delivered his deal with his typical efficiency and transparency, and that should be welcomed, but one key aspect of immigration policy is the fast processing of claims in this country. Will he outline the progress the Government have made in that regard, and can he tell me and the House how it goes hand in hand with the Rwanda policy?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is part of a plan that has a number of elements. The speedy processing of asylum claims here in the UK is an important part of that. There has been a tenfold increase in the pace of asylum decisions, which is really important. That relieves pressure on asylum accommodation, which I know something about as the MP representing Wethersfield. We are absolutely determined that this plan, in conjunction with the other elements of our migration plan, will stop the boats, gain control of our borders and ensure that people know that those who come to the UK have done so through safe and legal routes, are adding to our society, are contributing to our economy, and know that they will be welcomed when they arrive.

Illegal Migration Bill

Paul Holmes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

rose—

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I give way to the hon. Member for Eastleigh, who has been patient. I will then make some progress before I take further interventions, because I am conscious of the time.

[Paul Holmes]

As is her right, the shadow Home Secretary is outlining her objection to this piece of legislation. She asked my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) whether he would back her proposals, so could she do the House a favour and outline her proposals—or is this another example of her consistently opposing and not coming up with any fresh ideas herself?

[Yvette Cooper]

Indeed, I am very happy to. I hope the hon. Member will support our proposal for a cross-border police unit to go after the criminal gangs and bring up those convictions, which have totally collapsed on the Conservatives’ watch. I hope too that he will support our proposals for a fast track for Albania and other safe countries, which Ministers are not doing. [Interruption.] This is interesting, because the Immigration Minister says, “Oh, we are already doing it,” except that they are not. Only 1% of the cases from Albania have been decided. The Home Office is not taking fast-track decisions on safe countries such as Albania, for all the promises the Government made. Even where they have the powers to take action, they are not doing it. I hope the hon. Member will also support our proposals to work on not just return agreements with France and other countries, but family reunion arrangements and reforms to resettlement schemes to make those work.

Instead, we have a Bill that is a con and that will make things worse. We have been clear that the Home Secretary has nowhere that she can say she is going to return people to. Last year, the Government made exactly the same promises when they said that 18,000 people would be inadmissible because they had travelled through safe countries, yet just 21 people were returned. Of those the Home Secretary said were inadmissible, just 21 were returned. Now she wants to say that everyone is inadmissible, but if she still manages to return just 0.1% of them, the reality is that she will have tens of thousands of people left. She is simply creating misinformation and conning those on her Back Benches, who have been cheering for the things she says but will see them unravel in practice.

The Home Secretary says this legislation means that she can return people to designated safe countries such as Albania, but she can do that already. She does not need this law to do that. She already has the power to fast-track Albanian and other cases. We have been calling for it for months, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees proposed it two years ago and the Prime Minister even promised it before Christmas, but it is not happening and 99% of those cases are still in limbo.

Just 15 people who had arrived in small boats were returned last month. That is the equivalent of 180 a year, when over 10,000 people came from the designated safe country of Albania. The real problem is that Conservative Home Office Ministers just do not have any grip on the system that they are supposed to be in charge of.

Crime and Neighbourhood Policing

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

The data I have is that knife crime has gone up in London, and there are really serious challenges when it comes to Labour’s management of policing in London.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Despite what the shadow Home Secretary said, knife crime in London has risen by 11%. That is proven by “Crime in England and Wales” from the Office for National Statistics, dated 26 January 2023.

[Suella Braverman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. We have made £130 million available over the financial year 2022-23 to tackle serious violence, including murder and knife crime. Take our violence reduction units, which have reached over 260,000 young people who are vulnerable, preventing them from falling into a life of crime in the first place. Our Grip police enforcement programme is supporting the police in the crime hotspots most affected by serious violence. Together, Grip and violence reduction units have prevented an estimated 136,000 violent offences.

We went further. Our Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act introduced the serious violence duty: a new legal requirement for agencies to work together to prevent and reduce serious violence locally. What did Labour Members do? They voted against it.

Everybody deserves to feel safe everywhere. I am proud of our safer streets fund, which was launched in 2020 by the Government and has supported 270 projects around the country designed to cut neighbourhood crimes such as theft, burglary and antisocial behaviour as well as violence against women and girls. In Humberside, improved communal entrances to flats are helping to prevent drug dealing, and new storage units are stopping bike and motorbike theft. In Northampton, funding has supported improvements to the security of thousands of homes that were vulnerable to burglary with alleyway gates installed to prevent an easy escape for offenders. In Essex, the use of public space protection orders has resulted in a significant reduction in nuisance and antisocial behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Unsurprisingly, I rise to speak against the motion this afternoon. Before I explain why, I wish to pay tribute to my local policing team led by William Rollinson. I was out with them last week, seeing the selfless work that they do on our behalf, even during this difficult time for policing in general.

I am against the motion because it does not address the full range of actions on which this Government are focusing in relation to policing and crime, and because it does not acknowledge the Opposition’s failure to back any measure that has been taken by this Government in making the population of this country safer.

Earlier, the shadow Home Secretary said that she did not know what the Home Secretary was doing. Well, I know what the Home Secretary is doing—she is leading by putting more police on the streets in my community and communities around the country. I also know what the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Front Bench are doing—they are consistently opposing everything. They opposed the Public Order Bill, which gave our police more powers. They oppose the National Security Bill, which gives the security services and law enforcement more powers. They have always talked down the increase in police numbers that this Government have brought forward, and that undermines the role of policing and neighbourhood policing in this country, because they are consistently saying that there are fewer police on the streets than there were when we came into government. As the Minister outlined, there will be more police on the streets once the 20,000 uplift has happened.

Labour Members needs to take their responsibilities as an Opposition very seriously. They have consistently opposed any actions that this Government have taken. When I was a parliamentary private secretary at the Home Office, following some very good colleagues who are currently Parliamentary Private Secretaries on the second Bench, the shadow Home Secretary consistently opposed without putting decent policies forward herself. She just opposed all the time, to try to make this Government look weak, when this Government have addressed policing in the strongest terms that we have seen for decades.

That plays out in the fact that 16,500 police officers have been recruited ahead of time for our 20,000 target, requiring an extra £540 million. I am pleased that in Hampshire that equates to 500 more officers, who will be keeping my constituents safe, and sometimes me as well. That is because of the leadership of the former Home Secretary, the former Prime Minister, the current Home Secretary and the Policing Minister in delivering that.

Those increases in police numbers have meant that crime has been reduced. Since 2010, overall crime has reduced by 50% and the number of young people assaulted with sharp weapons has dropped by 23%. I have found it extremely irritating during this debate to hear shadow Ministers consistently criticising the policies of this Government, but not taking into account their own elected politicians who run policing in this country, such as Sadiq Khan in London, where crime has gone up by 11%. In Manchester, a force has gone into special measures. Not once did the Labour party call out its own politicians for their failures in office; Labour just wants to be opportunistic in this debate.

As I mentioned, I was out with my force last week and saw police engaging with businesses and people on new housing estates, talking about issues such as antisocial behaviour, vandalism and traffic issues. That is neighbourhood policing being delivered every day because of the extra officers put forward by this Government.

I ask the Minister for reassurance on two things. First, the recruitment is happening, but I would like to make sure that retention follows. When police officers do a degree as part of the recruitment process, will the Minister keep an eye on that to ensure that they do not leave the force after they graduate? Secondly, may I lobby the Minister on a fair funding formula for Hampshire, which is often under-resourced for its demographics, with two big cities in Portsmouth and Southampton and an ex-railway town in Eastleigh? I hope that we will be able to get a speedy solution to that.

This is not a long speech, but I was horrified by the tone that the Opposition took. This Government are delivering on policing and delivering on crime. Crime is down and numbers are up. It is about time that the Labour party and the Opposition used their time to have a constructive debate about policy. So far in this debate, we have heard nothing from them but carping, without holding their own side to account where they are in charge of police.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

In West Denton last month, a big pile of rubbish was set alight by teenagers, who threw petrol bombs at firefighters when they arrived to tackle the blaze. Communities are scared of arson, and no wonder: cases of antisocial arson went up by 25% last year. In one horror home in Cleveland, a den for crack deals with Rambo knives, antisocial behaviour has made lives in the community a misery, with litter everywhere, assaults outside the property and local residents terrified, and no wonder: knife possession is up by 15% on pre-pandemic levels, with more than 6 million Brits witnessing drug dealing or drug use last year, and 3,000 reported incidents of antisocial behaviour every single day.

In Lancashire just a few days ago, young people were throwing rocks in a shopping centre and careering around the car park on quad bikes. Communities are scared of antisocial behaviour, and no wonder: more than 35% of people—more than 20 million people—have witnessed antisocial behaviour in the last year. People all over the country know exactly what this feels like. They know what broken Britain feels like. This is Tory Britain.

So what went wrong? Today’s debate has laid it bare. First, they came for our police officers, cutting 20,000 across the country. Then they came for our PCSOs, cutting half the entire workforce. Our wonderful specials did not escape—8,000 down—and police staff who do the vetting, the training and the forensics have been cut by 6,000 since 2010. Then they came for the courts, with cuts leaving victims waiting years for any hope of justice and turning away from their cases in record numbers. Now they are coming for our public services. The transport network is in ruins, hospitals are at breaking point, and our police are spending hours—days—dealing with mental health cases. In one force, mental health-related calls are up by more than 450% since 2010 because there is simply no one else to pick up the pieces.

The worst thing is that they are coming for our future, too. Support services for our kids have been decimated, with mental health, Sure Start and youth work cut, cut, cut, so our lost boys and lost girls are a lost generation. What about victims? They have simply been ignored. Charge rates have plummeted and victims are not reporting crimes; they are simply walking away.

I turn to the results. We have heard eloquently about the impact from hon. Members. My hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) talked about the pictures in their communities of the effect of crime. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) talked about the fear that people have about going into town centres. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood) talked about the number of arrests having halved nationally since 2010 and how, in his survey, only 8% feel safer than they did in 2010.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) talked about the impact on neighbourhoods of the cut in PCSOs. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) talked about the police staff cuts. We need to free up officer time for them to be in the neighbourhood, but now we have warranted officers doing police staff jobs. They cost more money, and that is not what they should be doing.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) might want to check some of his facts. He said that there are more police on our streets than ever before and that crime in London is up by 11%. Neither of those things is accurate. Perhaps he will want to correct the record. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) summed it up by saying that people in our constituencies are not stupid; they know the truth.

[Paul Holmes]

In response to the shadow Home Secretary, I gave the source and figures that show that, in London, under this Mayor, crime was up by 11%. Perhaps she would like to correct the record.

[Hon. Members]

Knife crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I think it is fair to say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who I believe has done a sterling job in the role, can be proud of seeing burglary down by 24% nationally, neighbourhood crime down by 33% and vehicle offences down by 28%. We have got 72,000 weapons off our streets since 2019. Leicester, which I visited a couple of weeks ago, has a hugely successful violence reduction unit that is driving down criminality, steering young people away from that course. Some 49,000 offences have been prevented nationally, with a return that means that in the round we are seeing benefits to society: violent crime is not happening, because it has been prevented by the work that my right hon. Friend has done.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to support those fleeing war in Ukraine.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

The UK Government rapidly created the UK visa scheme to support Ukrainians seeking refuge from Putin’s barbaric invasion, each for a three-year period with full access to work, public funds and services. The Ukraine family scheme was the first of its kind to be operational anywhere in the world, and we should be proud of the role that our country has played in helping.

[Paul Holmes]

The UK was the first country anywhere in the world to operationalise its Ukraine visa scheme, welcoming thousands of people to this country. May I congratulate the Home Secretary and her officials on this feat, which was undertaken in a matter of days back in March? May I ask her to reaffirm that this country will continue to offer the support needed by Ukraine and its brave people, as she has always shown during her time at the Home Office?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are consistently working hard to maximise the number of people in sponsorship schemes, as well as those coming through the visa routes. It is also worth noting that there has recently been an uptick in the number of people applying for these visas. That is because the scheme is not only successful, but generous, and is helping people who are in need of support right now.