Matt Vickers MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 27 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q 28 What is the single biggest thing the Government could be doing to drive down illegal arrivals, and what could we be doing to aid your agency in doing its job? Rob Jones: There is not one thing that you can do to tackle these problems; you need a range of measures that concurrently bear down on them. The problem that I focus on is the organised crime element, which needs concurrent effort in a number of areas, designed to undermine the business model that supports organised immigration crime. That means tackling illicit finance; the materials that are used in smuggling attempts and the supply chain that supports them; the high-value targets based overseas who are involved in supplying materials and moving migrants; and those who are closer, in near-Europe, who are involved in it. From an organised crime perspective, it is about concurrent pressure in a number of areas to make the incentives for being involved in organised immigration crime no longer viable. Jim Pearce: From my perspective, you need to look at this at both ends of the scale. What we are probably thinking about at the moment is prosecution and putting people through the courts. Actually, we know that, in other thematic serious and organised crime, prevention and early intervention work just as effectively. We would call that disruption. Disrupting the patterns, and the ways of working that Rob just described, earlier would obviously prevent victims from becoming victims in the end. It is the 4P approach, which I am sure most of you have heard of. It is about working from neighbourhood policing, with a local factor, in order to gather intelligence, and putting that into the system all the way up through our regional crime units and into the National Crime Agency and high-end prosecution, international and online. Sarah Dineley: I concur with my two colleagues. I do not believe that there is one single measure that would impact so significantly that it would reduce migrant crossings to zero. It is about having a suite of measures—whether they are prosecutorial or disruptive in nature—that taken together will allow the prosecution and law enforcement teams to work together to tackle the gangs. It is always important to remember that a criminal justice outcome is not necessarily the right outcome; there are other outcomes that can tackle organised immigration crime and gangs effectively.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I understand that comment, but do you not think that, as part of that approach, it should be an obligation on the Government to remove people who come here illegally? Dame Angela Eagle: No, we certainly have not said that. As soon as people’s asylum claims have been properly processed, and the appeals that they are allowed to make are finished, if they have failed, we will seek to remove those people—but not to a third country.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you have anything to add on that, Karl? Karl Williams: I have two brief points to reinforce what Tony was saying. It feels to me like the Bill focuses on disruption and the interdiction of routes for entering the country illegally. It does not do much on deterrence. As the impact assessment says, on pillar 3, the changes to measures for going after the gangs, it is very uncertain what the outcome will be. That is because there is no evidence base here. The only country that has succeeded in stopping small boats is Australia. There was some interdiction work with Indonesia, but it was primarily about the offshoring agreement, which was a major plank of its deterrence. I would like to see deterrence measures added, not just disruption. Secondly, on the Border Security Command, to reinforce what Tony said, data information is really important. Migration policy, legal and illegal, has generally been bedevilled by very poor quality Government data. It seems the new Border Security Commander will have limited ability to take operational control. One thing I would like to see them have is power to access and pull together data, so that we can have a much better picture.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q What concerns, if any, do you have about the Bill as drafted? Jim Pearce: From a policing point of view, there would be insurance around safeguarding. For the electronic devices, for example, I understand the benefits that would come from the counter-terrorism-style powers to be able to seize electronic devices. I am confident that that is managed through the measures in place around reasonable suspicion and having to get the advice from a senior officer. It is about operationalising that, putting it into practice, and making sure that our staff understand through education and training. Any change in legislation requires training, finance and input. Those are the types of things that I would be thinking about. Rob Jones: I agree. It is about the professional development and the guidance for officers who are using new tactics and new tools against this threat, and making sure that we are ready to go with very clear guidance on how officers should look to engage the new offences in the Bill. Sarah Dineley: Clause 17 and one of the subsections of clause 18 create extraterritorial jurisdiction for the offences, and it would be remiss of me not to highlight some of the challenges that that will bring. We have a system of judicial co-operation, something called mutual legal assistance, whereby we can obtain intelligence and evidence from our overseas counterparts at both judicial and law enforcement level. We work very hard on building those relationships to collaborate. To that end, the Crown Prosecution Service has a network of liaison prosecutors based across the world. Specifically, we have liaison prosecutors based in the major organised immigration crime countries—Spain, Italy, Turkey, Germany, Netherlands and Belgium—and two in France, one of whom is actually a dedicated organised immigration crime liaison prosecutor. We use them to foster and build those relationships so that we have that reciprocal exchange of information where required. That is not to say that is without its challenges. I flag that as something that we will continue to work on, but it has challenges.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you have any particular concerns about the Bill as drafted, or any suggested ways in which it might be improved to achieve its ends? David Coleman: The sad fact is that I do have reservations about the Bill, but I do not have any magical solutions to put that right, I am sorry to say. It is, after all, an intractable problem, this question of asylum and migration. My concerns are that we have to, we are forced to, restart or intensify a war that we may not easily win. Rather like, as I suggested in my note, the war against drugs, it will be difficult—probably perpetual and probably indecisive. It will have some effect. It will consume a great deal of effort. It may involve unkindness to asylum seekers and possibly risk to those doing the investigations. It is, I think, very much second best to the idea of trying to deter migration for asylum claiming in the first place. That, of course, was dismissed by the present Government as being unfeasible, unworkable and unkind, so the Rwanda scheme was scrapped. However, although it sounds rather brutal, it seems to me that the only obvious way of deterring movement to Britain is by making the movement to Britain unattractive. The obvious way of doing that is to divert at least some of the claimants somewhere they will be safe but will not enjoy the benefits of being in a rich country. There are four ways of dealing with the issue, are there not? One is to have open borders, so that everybody who wants to come can come. Then there are two ways of being nasty: one is being nasty to the smugglers themselves, which is, I suppose, what the Bill is primarily about, and the other is being rather nasty to people who wish to claim asylum, which the previous policy did. Alternatively, you could have special routes for selected people who can be investigated, possibly by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and then admitted. That has, as far as I can make out, been ruled out by the Government for the time being.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The Illegal Migration Act also made provisions, in sections 57 and 58, for scientific age verification. We are removing that as well. Why would we want to remove those powers from our agencies? We have seen the consequences for safeguarding and the impact that that could have on young people. Why would we not want to give the agencies all the powers that they could have? Dame Angela Eagle: There are real issues about the accuracy of scientific age assessment. At the Home Office, we are in the middle of doing work to see whether we can get a system of scientific age assessment that is robust enough to use. We are certainly not ruling it out, but the effects in that legislation were all about the duty to remove—it was about trying to define children. You will remember that in the IMA, the duty to remove excluded children, which perhaps created a bigger incentive for people to claim that they were children when they were not. The scientific age assessment clauses in that Act were related to the duty to remove. Given that we are repealing the vast majority of the Illegal Migration Act in this Bill, we removed those clauses. I would not, however, want to give the hon. Gentleman the false impression that we have completely abandoned the idea of doing scientific age assessment. Currently, we are trying to assess whether there are ways of doing it that not only are cost-effective, but can be relied on. It is not an easy thing to do; there are no very easy solutions to whether it is accurate. We are exploring those areas ahead of making any subsequent announcements about if—and how, if we do—we use scientific age assessment.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q But we have taken that out. Dame Angela Eagle: We have taken that out of primary legislation because it was connected with the duty to remove, which was about the interplay of the Illegal Migration Act and the Rwanda Act. As I have just said, it was flawed legislation that did not work in practice.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Looking at the changing approach, particularly around the repeal of the Illegal Migration Act, repealing section 2 of the Act removes the obligation on the Government to remove people who arrive here illegally. What is the rationale behind that? Dame Angela Eagle: The Illegal Migration Act was flawed legislation, which did not actually work. It was so flawed that the previous Government, even though they put it on to the statute book, did not actually commence much of it at all.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you think that the Bill will be effective in achieving its aims? How could it be made more effective? Professor Brian Bell: I think it is fair to say that it is an open question whether it will be effective. The evidence from lots of previous experiences is that it is actually very hard to deter this kind of activity, but I suppose you have to try everything you can and see what works. If something does not work, you try something else. In some sense, it is an unanswerable question at this point, and it may be unanswerable in the long run. Suppose that the Bill is passed and small boat numbers go up. That does not prove that the Bill failed, because we do not know what the counterfactual is of what would have happened without the Bill, and vice versa: if the numbers go down, it could just be that the number of people who wanted to come to France and then on to England had fallen. It is going to be very difficult to directly observe the effect. Whenever you think about these issues, you always have to think about both the deterrence and sanction effect, which is what the Bill is focused on, and then how you change the underlying incentives.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Are there further specific measures to strengthen the hand of your agency that you would like to see in the Bill? Sarah Dineley: From a prosecution point of view, I would say it is a matter for the legislators to decide what legislation they feel is appropriate. The Bill as drafted does add to the toolkit of measures we have available. Rob Jones: From my perspective, the measures that make the most difference and are the most significant in tackling the organised crime element are on preparatory acts, in clauses 13 to 16. They give us the ability to be pre-emptive, proactive and very disruptive, giving us something we have not had before—the ability to act before people actually commit an offence under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, which is the facilitation offence. That is an important opportunity, because we are driven by trying to reduce the highest-risk crossings and trying to prevent crossings. We would not choose to react to crossings and then investigate; we want to act as quickly as we can. These measures create the ability to do that—to go much sooner, have more impact, and build momentum, so that the people who are behind these attempts really start to feel the pressure. Jim Pearce: In addition, the Bill provides the opportunity to increase clarity and focus, with the ability to gain information and intelligence through the seizure of electronic devices, for example. I know this is controversial. Being able to do that with a very clear power to search, seize and then download, as opposed to potentially—I am not saying this has happened—misusing existing powers, will give clarity because you can say to an operational police officer, immigration officer, or a member of the National Crime Agency, “This is what you use in order to get that defined intelligence at the end.”

• 27 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you think the new endangerment offence will make any difference to channel crossings? Dr Peter Walsh: Evidence from academic research shows that the impacts of deterrence policies are fairly small. The main reason for that is that migrants often do not have accurate or detailed knowledge of policies in destination countries. Their understanding of those policies is often lacking in detail and wrong, and it is often influenced by what they are told by their smugglers or handlers, who have a vested interest, of course, in downplaying risks. There is also some statistical evidence that looks more broadly at what drives unauthorised migration and asylum applications around the world. That has found that domestic policy is not statistically one of the more important factors. Instead, geopolitical developments, conflict—civil, ethnic or international conflict—ecological disaster and regime change are all statistically much stronger drivers of unauthorised migration and asylum applications in particular countries. Finally, rounding out the picture, when an asylum seeker decides which destination country to move to, that calculus is influenced not just by policy—policy is one of the things that they take least account of—but by things like the presence of family members, members of the community, friends, language and in some cases, in the context of small boat arrivals, escaping the Dublin system. Individuals may have claimed asylum in other EU countries—maybe those claims are outstanding or have been refused—and they understand that if they move to the UK they cannot be returned to the EU, because we are no longer a part of the EU and of the Dublin system that facilitated that.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q What provisions would you like to see in the Bill—you talked about a broader approach—that are not in there? Enver Solomon: We would have liked to see more provisions that look at opening up targeted, additional humanitarian pathways, additional legal routes, and additional mechanisms for people to seek humanitarian protection and make applications for asylum without necessarily having to take dangerous journeys. We have advocated for a targeted humanitarian visa to be piloted for specific nationalities where there is a high grant rate. We would also have preferred to see the full repeal of the Illegal Migration Act 2023—not all provisions have been repealed. It is very positive that a significant number have been repealed, and that the Government have started to clear the backlog and essentially end the meltdown of the asylum system under the previous Administration, with the failed implementation of the Act. That is positive, but we think that retaining other provisions in the Act, particularly the provisions on inadmissibility, and not repealing the differential treatment provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, contribute to greater dysfunction in the system. The Government’s laudable and correct intention to bring greater efficiency and competence to the system is absolutely right, but having multiple pieces of legislation that just create greater dysfunction will not ensure that you get an effective end-to-end system. You do that by ensuring that you have reliable, speedy decision making on asylum; that decisions are right first time; that if people are granted protection, they can move through the system effectively with appropriate support; and that if people are not granted protection, the right steps are in place to support them. The focus needs to be much more on getting the asylum system to function, with a clear vision of its purpose, than on layering more and more legislation on to an already incredibly complex legislative system, which actually just creates further dysfunction.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q First, what are your views on the functions and objectives of the Border Security Command, as set out in the Bill? Enver Solomon: I am happy to take that one. Our view is that this legislation is rightly seeking to disrupt the criminal gangs—the smuggling gangs. The trade is heinous; it is very damaging to people and it needs to be stopped. In that context, the Border Security Command is an understandable response. I think the issue that we have with it is that it is very difficult to simply rely on enforcement to tackle what is a complex and challenging situation. The Bill is putting multiple eggs in the basket of enforcement, not just through the Border Security Command but by introducing a number of new offences. Our view, based on our frontline practice and work over many decades with people who have come to this country from war zones, having fled persecution or having been victims of modern slavery, is that that strategy will fundamentally fall short, because it is very difficult to change behaviour by adopting a primarily enforcement approach, which is primarily driven by further prosecution and creating new laws. Essentially, new laws, such as the offences created in the Bill, are pretty much a blunt instrument to deal with behaviour that drives people to seek protection in other countries and to come here seeking asylum. I think that the evidence, from the offences created in previous legislation, demonstrates that they have not acted as a deterrent. To sum up, enforcement is an understandable and legitimate approach, but it is only one approach, and it needs to be combined with other approaches that focus on international diplomacy and co-operation, and, critically, on additional legal routes. If you look at the evidence, particularly from the US under the previous Administration, the combination of those three can have a demonstrable impact on reducing irregular arrivals. Despite the intention that this Bill has set out, our concern is that it will not deliver the outcome—the understandable and credible outcome—that the Government are trying to achieve, which is to stop the people smugglers and to stop people making dangerous crossings. It is focusing too much on an enforcement-driven agenda.

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member know how much national insurance contributions are costing our police force, and the impact that they will have on police numbers in Cleveland?

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for high street business. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. High streets and town centres play a huge role in our communities. They are a place where people come together, they define our sense of place, they can be a source of local pride and they can be home to a huge number of jobs and opportunities. Retail is the largest private sector employer in the UK. When coupled with the hospitality sector, they are some of the biggest drivers of social mobility. There are endless stories of those who started as shelf stackers or pint pullers making it to the boardroom, with jobs that are accessible to all and where hard work can pay off. Then there are the small family businesses—the people-powered engine room of our economy, with individuals who dared to take the risk and have a punt, who get up early to drive their businesses forward, creating jobs while adding colour, flavour and vibrancy to our town centres. In recent times the rise of online shopping and changing consumer habits, coupled with the cost of living, have created a challenging environment for many businesses operating on our high streets. It is for that reason that now more than ever we should back the great British high street. It is also why it is so astonishing that the Government’s Budget not only failed to back our high streets, but actually seems to be beating them into extinction. The national insurance tax raid, the slashing of small business rates relief and the ending of the community ownership fund will do irreparable damage to our high streets, and that is before we mention the impact and costs of the Employment Rights Bill. In the last Parliament I campaigned for the 75% relief for leisure, hospitality and retail businesses. That was game changing for many, but with the stroke of a pen the Chancellor slashed that relief, ending the lifeline that was thrown to many employers. It is estimated that that will represent a 140% increase in business rates for more than 250,000 high street premises in England. The average shop will see business rates increase from £3,589 to £8,613. The average pub will see its business rates increase from £3,938 to £9,451, and the average restaurant will also see its bill rocket from £5,051 to £12,122. That is a huge cost for small businesses in an already challenging environment that will prove insurmountable for many. But it does not stop there. The Government’s national insurance tax raid—their jobs tax—is doing exactly what everybody said it would do. Job losses in the retail sector are already mounting up. Tesco has announced plans to axe 400 jobs. New Look is expected to close as many as 91 stores.

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right. For many small businesses, the specific relief for leisure, hospitality and retail has already been slashed from 75% to 40%, the end consequence being a more than doubling of what they are paying. It is just not affordable for businesses that are struggling to carry on employing people and doing business, especially with the other challenges that come their way. It is simply not affordable. It is the wrong thing to do, and it has a cost for our communities and those employers. As I said, funds such as the community ownership fund were not just about a lick of paint but turning around vacant and lifeless high streets, and they created community spaces that were valued, restoring pride in our towns. What is more, community-owned assets are estimated to contribute £220 million to the economy each year. My constituency of Stockton West saw real progress under the last Government in taking our town centres forward. In Thornaby, the £23.9 million town deal we secured from the last Government has allowed us to achieve many things, including the creation of a new vocational training centre, security and energy interventions in some of the most challenging housing, upgrades to cycling infrastructure and much more. It is allowing us to build a new swimming pool in the town centre, which will drive footfall to businesses. For years, Thornaby’s skyline was dominated by the eyesore that was the disused Golden Eagle hotel, but now, thanks to money from the last Government and following a long debate with the council, it is finally coming down. Those moves are game changing for Thornaby. They will drive further footfall to local businesses and restore pride in our town centre.

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. Looking at the value of high streets, it is not just about businesses and jobs. They are places where people come together, and they can tackle isolation. There is also the feeling of pride in our town centres. Businesses only have so much money to give in tax, and it is going that bit too far now, to the point where we will lose businesses forever. I will carry on my list of wonderful things that are going on in Stockton. In Yarm, levelling-up money from the last Government has meant that we are seeing nearby Preston Park improved and upgraded with new exhibition spaces. There are upgraded toilets, a café and more parking. We are sorting the disused aviary and creating a tribute to our railway heritage. This will drive visitor numbers to our area and complement the changes taking place in the high street, where we have seen the town’s skanky public toilets replaced. Streetscape interventions are planned to make the town centre more accessible, and we have gained a much-needed car park. The levelling-up money from the last Government has also helped the town council in Yarm to deliver on its ambition to renew our town hall, creating a visitor centre fit for the amazing high street that Yarm has. In Stockton, £16 million of future high streets funding has allowed for the complete reconfiguration of our high street, also making way for our new £25 million diagnostic hospital. Securing the money for the diagnostic hospital remains my proudest contribution during my time as an MP, because I know the huge difference it will make to the people of Stockton. We ran a petition and gathered thousands of signatures to demonstrate public support. I was involved with the NHS trust and local authority officers drawing up the bid at its inception, and, when the bid was initially rejected due to a prolonged delivery timetable, I met the Secretary of State to hear his reasoning, and then, that same day, met directors from all the stakeholders to come back with a renewed timetable and a plan to unlock this investment. In the very near future, the doors will open on that centre, which will provide 104,000 lifesaving tests, checks and scans to local people every year and, importantly, it will be yet another reason for would-be punters to come to our town centre and support local businesses. Those interventions, funded by the last Government, are game-changing for my community and other communities across the country, repurposing our town centres to drive footfall and keep them as the vibrant hearts of our communities. But now the taps of governmental investment look to have been turned off: efforts to innovate and reconfigure town centres will be paused; our high street businesses are being battered by the Budget; and the consequences are there for all to see. Too many businesses are closing; too many jobs are being lost; and boarded-up high streets and town centres will eat away at the pride people can have in their communities and town centres. I ask the Minister whether the Government really appreciate the challenges posed to high street businesses by the national insurance increase, and, similarly, the impact of slashing the business-rates relief for small leisure, hospitality and retail businesses. Will communities across the country ever again be able to benefit from the game-changing interventions brought about by the community ownership fund, the levelling-up funds, town deals, and other such funds, which allowed for those interventions to protect the future of our high streets? As a former Woolworths worker, I could go on all day about the loss of iconic retailers, and about the impact of the Budget on post offices, on local pubs, and on opportunities for young people. And I will not even mention my Labour council’s ridiculous plans to introduce car parking charges in Yarm and Stockton high streets—I have probably said enough on that. I will leave it at that. Suffice it to say that I am a fan of the great British high street, and believe that securing its future should be a priority for any Government.

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  As a former Woolies worker, I know only too well the consequences for businesses. Not only are we squeezing many businesses out of a future; there is a cost to be paid on the prices in those stores and costs on those jobs and the opportunities that they provide for young people and others to get on in life. There are huge costs to what has been done. We can only squeeze so far. The pips are definitely squeaking in retail. Sainsbury’s has announced plans to axe 3,000 jobs. Retail and hospitality are already two of the most taxed businesses in our economy, but the sectors employ large numbers of people in entry-level or part-time roles, so are disproportionately hit. A CBI survey of business leaders found that 62% are slashing hiring plans. Almost half will be forced to lay off staff, and 46% are looking to delay pay rises for their workforce. Almost every Labour Government in history has left office with more people out of work than when they arrived. With these measures it looks like the Government are trying to set a record. All too often we see employment figures as numbers, but the jobs that will be lost as a result of this measure are not just numbers; they are families without the security of a pay packet, people stripped of ambitions, dreams and aspirations and left on the scrapheap. The commercial director at the British Independent Retailers Association gave a realistic but depressing summary of what the Budget means for retailers. He said it was the “Worst Budget for the high street in my 35 years working in retail”, and that it showed a “complete disregard for the thousands of…shop owners who form the backbone of our high streets. Small retailers, who have already endured years of challenging trading conditions, now face a perfect storm of crippling cost increases; their business rates will more than double…while they’re hit simultaneously with employer National Insurance increases.” The outlook is bleak for traders because of the Budget, but it goes beyond that. The previous Government sought to support high streets by responding to changing consumer habits and investing to reconfigure our town centres and create other reasons to go to them. Funds such as the community ownership fund allowed people to take back control of their community assets and turn around vacant, lifeless high streets. They were about more than a lick of paint. They were about creating valuable community spaces and restoring pride in our towns.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  Greater Manchester has one of the highest crime rates in the country, with many suffering as a result of antisocial behaviour, but this weekend we saw police officers knocking on the door of a grandmother because she dared to criticise a Labour councillor for his role in the pensioner-hating WhatsApp scandal. Does the Home Secretary agree that is a waste of police time?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Sexual Exploitation and Trafficking · Hansard source

  More

  Fiona from Bradford was failed numerous times by social services and local police after suffering horrific sexual abuse at the hands of gangs of men while in a care home. Bradford’s local authority has shamefully sought to block a local inquiry into the issue. In Fiona’s own words: “The Government can’t just leave it down to the local councils to decide if they’re going to be investigated, they’re going to have to enforce it.” Will the Home Secretary reconsider a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs? If not, how will she guarantee that cases like that can never be allowed to happen again?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Police Forces · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for chairing this debate. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this important debate, and for all her work in raising awareness of this issue and its consequences. The last Government recruited 20,000 more police officers, ensuring that there were more police officers on our streets than ever before. Why would anyone think that the solution to any problem would be a tax raid on our police forces? Any MP who has engaged with their PCC or chief constable knows that the funding settlement put forward for local police forces by this Government is entirely inadequate. Just the other week, when questioned by Nick Robinson about the absurd tax raid on local police forces and the fact that the police funding settlement will cut the number of police on our streets, the Minister conceded that she was not going to pretend that it is not challenging for police forces. Since then, the Government have painted a different picture, understating the impact that this could have on our police forces and on police numbers. At first glance, the settlement may appear generous in cash terms. However, there is a sleight of hand. The Government are claiming to have increased police funding by £1.09 billion, masking their tax raid on our police forces and their failure to build police pay awards into the baseline. The previous Conservative Government provided in-year funding for PCCs to cover the police pay award, adding this to the baseline for subsequent years. By contrast, the in-year adjustment for this year’s pay settlement was not added to the baseline, so about £200 million of the apparent increase this year simply makes up for that omission. Furthermore, as hon. Members have said, some £230 million of this apparently generous settlement will go straight back to the Treasury to pay for the Government’s national insurance tax raid on our local police forces. The Government are literally taxing the police off our streets. Therefore, about £430 million of this apparently generous increase just makes up for the Government’s choices. Adjusting for that, the increase in funding for policing next year is not £1.09 billion, but more like £660 million, or nearly £300 million less than the last increase under the previous Government. Make no mistake: this tax raid on local police forces, created by our own Government, will have real consequences for communities across England and Wales. There are estimates that the shortfall in police funding could see 1,800 fewer police on our streets. My force, Cleveland police, has already been placed under special measures, with a recent report from His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services giving it an inadequate rating for responding to children at risk of harm and for investigating child abuse, neglect and exploitation. It is deeply concerning and entirely unacceptable that vulnerable young people are being let down in such a way. Protecting children should be a priority for the Labour Government and for Cleveland’s Labour police and crime commissioner. These children deserve better. Does the Minister agree that creating a shortfall in funding for a force could lead to more failures in responding to and investigating child abuse, neglect and exploitation in Cleveland?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Police Forces · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Member will have seen, in previous years, we were increasing the funding by more. In fact, last year we increased by £300 million more than what Labour is doing this year. We were not raiding our police forces with national insurance tax raids; we were putting the pay award into the baseline. I would be wasting less money on GB Energy. I would not be looking to give train drivers on £55,000 a year a bumper pay rise of almost £10,000, with no efforts to increase productivity. It is about priorities. Policing was a priority for the Conservative Government. That is why 20,000 more police officers were put on the streets, reaching record numbers. The Government have pointed to their promise to recruit 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, but we all know that a relatively small number—just 3,000—are new officers. Most of the claimed 13,000 are either reassigned or redeployed, are part-time volunteers or are police community support officers with no powers of arrest. That redeployment is concerning for many. Will the Minister assure MPs that when their constituents ring 999, they will not have to wait longer for an emergency response because response officers have been redeployed to neighbourhoods? Will she guarantee that police numbers will not fall any lower than the current level as a result of her funding settlement? Given the nature of modern policing and overtime, to what extent did the Government consider the impact of overtime on the increased national insurance cost, and could there be a further shortfall as a result? We owe a huge debt of gratitude to our brave, hard-working police officers, PCSOs and police staff. They deserve resources and support, not tax raids and funding shortfalls.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to people who have been here throughout and have contributed to the debate. Some of the changes in the Bill weaken rather than strengthen our ability to deal with the issue. Creating a route to British citizenship for those arriving here illegally—enticing more people to come—cannot be part of the solution. Weakening our ability to scientifically verify the age of those arriving, creating huge safeguarding risks in our education and care system, is also not part of the solution. The National Crime Agency, and examples from Governments around the world, show that a deterrent must be in place, but this Bill does the opposite by removing the deterrent that is currently in law. It seems to stem from the misguided belief that arresting a small number of these heinous criminals will be enough to stop the crossings. Even though we would all like that to be the case, it is a vast oversimplification. On deterrence to stop criminals, we all agree on the need to arrest the people behind these crimes, which is why, in 2023, there were 246 arrests of people smugglers and 86 arrests of small boat pilots—and I am still stunned that the Labour party opposed life sentences for people smugglers. We need measures that stop people boarding those boats in the first place, however, because failing to do so not only harms our country but fails those who endanger their lives by making that perilous journey. Where legislation increases enforcement powers, enables further interventions and enhances data availability, we will welcome it. The experience of the enforcement authorities must be heard to ensure that they have the necessary powers. These sensible measures should not, however, be bundled into a Bill that simultaneously weakens the Secretary of State’s authority. The Home Secretary’s remarks failed to acknowledge the impact of the repeals. [ Interruption. ] She could have commenced them with the stroke of a pen. We must ask why this Bill repeals sensible provisions. It is stunning that the Government would prefer to weaken their powers rather than strengthen them. Turning specifically to the repeals of previously passed legislation, I ask the Government what is wrong with the principle that if someone enters the UK illegally, they should never have a path to British citizenship. Why remove that provision? British citizenship is a special privilege, not something to be granted lightly. Those who enter our country illegally—breaking our laws—should not be offered a pathway to citizenship. Regularly granting citizenship to such individuals undermines the deterrent and sends the damaging message that breaking the law can lead to benefits. That harms the UK and endangers those who risk their lives to come here. Additionally, the legislation repeals the Secretary of State’s ability to regulate consent for scientific age assessments where there are no reasonable grounds to withhold consent. That was a sensible step to prevent the abuse of the system. Some may argue that the provision is unnecessary, but between 2016 and September 2022, around 8,000 asylum cases involved age disputes. In about half, the individuals were assessed to be adults. Removing that power again weakens our legal infrastructure. We have also suggested significant but appropriate changes to indefinite leave to remain and citizenship. Why should the right to stay not be dependent on someone’s willingness to contribute and obey the law? Last week, the Brussels correspondent for The Times reported that the European Union is drafting plans to overhaul the post-war refugee convention in what may be one of the most significant shifts in migration policy for decades. That is a clear signal of a growing consensus across the western world that the legal structures and institutions that restrict the Government from doing what is best for our country, and that have been obstructive, are no longer fit for purpose in tackling this significant issue. While EU countries look to put together a deterrent scheme similar to the one cancelled by the Government, we must ask what the Government are trying to achieve with this legislation. Rather than implementing the significant changes being seriously discussed in Europe, or those that have been effective in Australia, they are opting for limited interventions. They are focused on tweaks to the system while simultaneously reducing their own powers in other aspects of the legal framework. That is not the decisive leadership that we need from the Government of the United Kingdom; it is a weak approach stemming from weak leadership, and for that reason I urge the House to vote for the reasoned amendment. It would be far better for the Government to go away, return swiftly with the necessary legal changes, and adopt an approach that genuinely deters people from coming to this country illegally. I remind Members that despite pledges to smash the gangs, as of yesterday crossings were up by nearly 28%. That demonstrates that, as we warned the Government, their plan is not working, and the reality is that there are no easy fixes to this problem. There are significant challenges in addressing the issues arising from channel crossings, but we do not believe that the appropriate response is to dismantle legislation that provides the Government with powers they could use for the benefit of the country. That would be capitulation, and a charter for illegal immigration. I say to the Government: bring forward a Bill that enhances the ability of enforcement agencies, rather than one that strips them of their powers. We need a solution that takes the transformative steps to reduce illegal migration significantly, and action that secures our country’s borders and stops these life-threatening crossings. It is wrong to tell the world that if someone comes here illegally they can become a British citizen. I urge Members to back the reasoned amendment.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Today’s remarks from Conservative Members have been clear—we understand the public’s frustration that more has not been done to reduce these numbers. They are too high, and they must be lowered. During the election campaign, Labour said that it wanted to smash the gangs, but since it took power, small boat crossings have risen by 28%. Before the election, we were closing hotels, yet now 6,000 more people are in hotels, and the number of people arriving in small boats and being removed is down. Conservative Members remain deeply concerned that this Bill and the Government’s approach would represent a backwards step. Rather than utilising every power available, they are focused on tweaking existing laws and stripping away powers that were previously put in place. That is not the approach that the UK needs; rather, we need legislation and a strategy that establishes powers to stop illegal migration for good. I can already hear Labour Members criticising the last Government. We do not deny that numbers were far too high—quite the opposite—but it was the last Government who introduced a deterrent, one that was scrapped by the Labour party immediately upon taking office before it could even begin. The Leader of the Opposition has been abundantly clear that despite efforts made by the last Government, far more needed to be done to solve the problem. The problem for the Government is that, despite their complaints about their predecessors, this legislation is unlikely to provide anything like a real solution. The immigration crisis is undoubtedly one of the biggest challenges we face as a country, and it requires bold action. If people believe that they can arrive here illegally and stay, they will continue to come in ever-increasing numbers. The cancelling of the deterrent was an act of national self-harm. The increase in small boat arrivals since the Labour party took office makes that clear for the whole House to see.