Town and City Centre Safety

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that 20-odd people wish to speak. That means that everyone will get a maximum of about two minutes—I might as well give everyone a heads-up on that—so if there are to be interventions, then, as I have said in the past, can they be a sketch, not an oil painting, please?

[Baggy Shanker]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson)—my fantastic MP—for her intervention. She is absolutely right: it is a partnership of investment, but people need to feel safe in our city centre.

As my constituent John told me, we can see how much effort and investment are being put into our city, from building housing to breathing new life into the shops and spaces in our city centre. I want every single resident and visitor to be able to take their family out for the day, meet up with friends and enjoy what the city centre has to offer, but the long-term success of regeneration depends on the community feeling safe to enjoy our city centre. As John also told me, he has real concerns about the safety of his family when they are out and about in Derby. Seeing drug users loitering on St Peter’s Street and on paths by the River Derwent has put him off popping to the shops and has stopped his wife going out running in our city centre altogether.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that, should they wish to bob to be called in the debate, they should do so. Members have two minutes to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lola McEvoy]

My hon. Friend is eloquently making a point about the funding given to the police to eradicate e-bike crime. Does he agree that we would be in a better position if we had more bobbies on bikes? Perhaps the Minister will talk about that in her speech.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. We do not have very much longer. I want to get other Members in, and the Minister and the Opposition spokespeople need the opportunity to speak. I am not telling the hon. Gentleman not to take interventions, but I will end up cutting somebody out of the debate if he does.

[Dr Arthur]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. I appreciate that guidance.

We absolutely need more police, but unfortunately their budget was cut in Scotland last year, which has made their job even harder. I recently wrote to Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat. They track their riders’ every move, and they say that despite knowing where they are all the time, they cannot use their apps to track their speeds and whether they are riding recklessly unless I know the order number for the thing that is being delivered. I find that absolutely incredible. I have, however, been offered a place on the Deliveroo rider training course—it will be interesting to see what that comprises. It is really disappointing that the companies are not taking more ownership of the problem.

I approached the Minister for road safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), and she confirmed that the Government will launch a national work-related road safety charter. I really hope the food delivery companies engage with it constructively, but I have my doubts that it will change matters on the ground. Recklessness and exploitation of their workers is fundamental to those companies’ business model, and we need to address that. I hope the Government will legislate if the companies do not step up.

It was said earlier that the Government must take seriously their powers to manage the import and sale of these illegal bikes, and I agree. I find it absolutely incredible that people can buy them given that, in most of our constituencies, there is nowhere that they can ride them. I hope the Minister will address that point too.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I will make two brief points—one per minute. The first is around Rugby town centre and how the police officers, community wardens and BID rangers all work together to ensure that it is safe. Will the Minister look at whether borough or district council-run community wardens can play a really powerful role in defeating antisocial behaviour and criminality at the sub-policing level?

My second point is about children and young people carrying out antisocial behaviour and criminality in our town centres. There was a recent case in Rugby in which the police made several arrests of young people for antisocial behaviour and criminality. Those officers made every possible effort to work collaboratively across agencies to avoid going down the criminal route with arrests. In some circumstances, however, it is sadly necessary to make arrests, particularly when members of the public, visitors, businesses and others are badly affected.

Will the Minister set out her thoughts on the Government’s approach to antisocial behaviour and criminality among young people, given that the respect orders in the Crime and Policing Bill apply only to people over 16? That potentially leaves a gap for powers available to police and others in that regard. We need to ensure there is no lawlessness on our streets. Irrespective of the age of the perpetrator, we do everything we can to avoid arrests, but we must ensure that police have the powers they need.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

That was the final Back-Bench speech. With the forbearance of those on the Front Bench, I wanted to get in all hon. Members, given the importance of and interest shown in the debate. I would be grateful if they would bear that in mind in their responses. I call Luke Taylor, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Matt Vickers]

That brings me to Stockton, which has a great high street and incredible local businesses. I always encourage people to support Stockton, but I would be negligent in my duty if I did not acknowledge the challenges it faces—challenges that did not arrive overnight. Over decades, Stockton’s Labour council has allowed the town centre to decline and become home to unacceptable levels of crime and antisocial behaviour. When disorder grew, enforcement weakened. When problems became visible, excuses multiplied.

The council’s priorities tell their own story. Instead of employing more civic enforcement officers or street wardens—the people who provide visible reassurance—the council has expanded layers of management on six-figure salaries. It has recently emerged that Stockton-on-Tees borough council spent £15.8 million on recruitment consultants in just three years. Money that could have gone into keeping the town centre safe was instead swallowed up by consultants and questionable spending decisions. Councils have a duty to spend public money wisely, and in Stockton that duty has too often been neglected.

At the same time, instead of using all the powers available through public space protection orders to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, the council’s soft approach has allowed far too much of it to go unchallenged. Worse still, Stockton’s Labour council volunteered itself as an asylum dispersal authority, taking on a completely disproportionate number of asylum seekers. For many years, Stockton has had one of the highest ratios of asylum seekers to residents in the entire country. Those asylum seekers are largely housed near the town centre, placing pressure on accommodation, public services and integration, and leaving large numbers of lone men congregating in the town centre, causing understandable concern for residents and businesses alike.

The situation has been compounded by the council’s permissive approach to housing. It has allowed large numbers of houses in multiple occupation, bedsits and bail accommodation to cluster around the town centre. The result is predictable: people stop visiting, businesses close and crime goes unreported. That creates a doom loop, and Labour councils across the country have perfected it.

What we now see nationally is Stockton scaled up. Since the Labour Government came to power, there are 1,318 fewer police officers on our streets and more than 3,000 fewer people working in policing overall. That is not an accident: it is a choice. Police chiefs warn of a funding shortfall of £500 million. In my local force, the Labour police and crime commissioner says there is a £2.4 million gap—the equivalent of 40 police officers.

Even when offenders are caught, punishment is increasingly optional. Labour’s early release policies mean that criminals are back on the streets sooner—sometimes within weeks—so shopkeepers see the same faces returning, residents see the same behaviour repeated, and police officers see their work unravelled by decisions taken far from their communities. The consequences are clear: shoplifting is rising and the robbery of business property has surged. The Government tell us that crime is under-reported; if that is true, it only strengthens the case for more police, not fewer.

The Government point to measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, but targets mean little if officer numbers are falling. Warm words do not patrol streets. Conservatives believe that safety is not a luxury, but a foundation on which everything else depends. That is why we back our police. That is why we are committed to recruiting 10,000 more officers. That is why we support visible, proactive policing in the places that need it most.

Before the Minister tells us once again that a strategy is in place, may I ask a very simple question? Will she commit today that no police force will lose yet more officers as a result of the Government’s next spending review, or should communities prepare for even fewer police on the streets? That leads me to a second, unavoidable question: does she expect communities to feel safer when there are fewer police, criminals are being released early and Labour councils refuse to use the powers they already have to tackle antisocial behaviour, or is managed decline now official Government policy? Fewer police, early release and unenforced laws are not unfortunate side effects; they are policy choices, and our town centres are paying the price.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baggy Shanker]

It is great to speak under your chairship again, Mr Dowd. I thank all Members for their contributions and interventions. I remind the Lib Dem spokesperson that the UK extends beyond London’s boundaries, and I remind the shadow Minister that the debate was about town and city centre safety—maybe he picked up the wrong notes.

Collectively, we have managed to highlight the serious issues that constituents across the UK want Ministers to hear. I put on the record my thanks to the Minister for meeting the family of Gurvinder Singh Johal, as she did recently, and for her reassurance that the Government have already increased policing numbers by 2,400. I look forward to getting that number to 13,000 during this Parliament, as she says.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I thank everybody for their forbearance—everyone got in to speak—and the Front Benchers for their slightly truncated responses.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered town and city centre safety.