Matt Vickers MP: speeches 2025

484 published records · newest first.

Speeches

5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
Last year there was funding of £900 million-plus; this year it is only £660 million. The hon. Gentleman is completely overstating what the Government are giving police officers. [ Interruption. ] He is wrong. We managed the finances to put the largest ever number of police officers on the streets of the UK. The Minister has given no guarantees that she will maintain that.
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
I am sure that the Minister will have opportunities to come back to me. Can she assure MPs that when their constituents ring 999, they will not have to wait long for an emergency response, because response officers have been redeployed to neighbourhoods?
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
Go on—you are welcome.
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
As we have heard, once you take out your national insurance tax raid and the pay rise that you took from the base, it is more like £660 million, which is £300 million less than last year’s settlement from the Conservative Government.
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
By the measurements in September, that is not the case. By the time September came— [ Interruption. ] Is the Minister going to give us the guarantee that the numbers will not go down any further as a result of the funding? The Government have undeniably set well-intentioned goals. Halving knife crime and tackling violence against women and girls are ambitions that will be celebrated across Parliament and across the country, but what are the actual measures for halving violence against women and girls? Without enough police officers available to prioritise those issues, progress will be far more difficult. Moving forward, will the Government commit to fully funding pay increases and ensuring that additional tax burdens are not placed on police forces in the years ahead? What has been put forward today does not do enough to provide the resources that the police need to tackle criminals in our society, meaning that the only winners will be those who thrive on criminality.
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
I was just wondering whether the Minister knew how much this national insurance tax raid was going to cost her local police force and those hard-working police officers in her part of the world.
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunities to contribute. I know that Labour Members do not like this fact, but the Conservatives left office with record numbers of police and thousands more officers on our streets than ever before. All we are doing is calling on the Government to try at the very least to maintain that number, not reduce it. In reality, the Government are placing police forces in an impossible position. How do they expect forces to meet their financial obligations without cutting officer numbers? The Government will point to their intention to recruit new neighbourhood officers, but we all know that includes only a relatively small number of new officers—just 3,000. Most of the claimed 13,000 officers are either being reassigned, are part time, are volunteers or are PCSOs with no power of arrest. Given the existing budget shortfalls, I am concerned that that level of recruitment will not be enough. The £200 million allocated in that inadequate settlement appears insufficient to meet the Government’s stated objectives.
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
Does the Minister think that reducing the number of people working in response policing to make up the numbers in neighbourhood policing will improve or reduce response times?
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
Taxpayers—the people who go out day and night, work hard and cough up for the national insurance rise. It is those small businesses battered by the Government’s slashing of rates relief on leisure, hospitality and retail businesses—absolutely horrendous. Those hard-working men and women out there paying their taxes fund these police officers. The second big issue with the funding formula is that previous Conservative Governments provided in-year funding for PCCs to cover the police pay award, which was then added to the baseline, so any increase was on top of that already elevated baseline. By contrast, the in-year adjustment for this year’s pay settlement was not added to the baseline, so about £200 million of this apparently generous increase simply makes up for that omission. Around £430 million of that apparently generous increase actually makes up for the Government’s own choices. Adjusting for that, the increase in funding for policing next year is not £1.9 billion at all, but more like £660 million—nearly £300 million less than the last increase under the previous Government. That actual increase of £660 million is not enough to meet pay and inflationary pressures. Freedom of information requests from police forces highlight the financial strain, with some forces not receiving the full amount required from the Home Office. That shortfall must then be covered, either by local taxpayers or through cuts elsewhere. I would be interested to hear the Minister for Policing’s view on this, given that her party was a strong proponent of freezing council tax in 2023—a principle that, like so many others, seems to have been abandoned now that Labour is in government. All that means is that police budgets are overstretched and the forces will inevitably have to make tough decisions. Although estimates vary, the National Police Chiefs’ Council projected in December a £1.3 billion funding gap over the next two years, which the council’s finance lead said would inevitably result in job losses. Other estimates suggest that the funding shortfall is closer to £118 million per year, even when accounting for the additional funding announced last week. Regardless of which estimate we use, either should be of serious concern to the Home Office and the Government. Given current staffing costs, the lower figure of £118 million could mean job losses for over 1,800 officers, which is unacceptable. Yes, a Labour Government who are borrowing like no one is watching and spending like there is no tomorrow could still leave us with 1,800 fewer officers on our streets.
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
Have a play with Hansard and let us see. In fact, the sum of £230 million alone could have funded the recruitment, or at the least the retention, of thousands of officers who could have been out there protecting our neighbourhoods. Instead, it will be funnelled back into the Treasury to cover a host of other public sector pay demands from Labour’s union paymasters.
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
Before engaging in the substance of the debate, I thank the brave, hard-working police officers, PCSOs, police staff and volunteers who work tirelessly to protect the public. They work day and night to make our communities safer, and run towards danger while others run away. We recognise the huge sacrifices that they make, giving their time, their health, and in the most tragic cases, their life. I know that MPs across the House recognise our responsibility to support the police in their work. I am therefore pleased that Members have expressed their concerns to the Minister about this settlement. The reality is that the funding settlement put forward by the Government is inadequate. Everyone in this Chamber who has spoken with their local police force knows that the settlement will not provide the necessary resources, particularly given the inflationary pressures. Last week, when questioned by Nick Ferrari about the absurd tax raid on our police forces and the fact that her settlement will cut the number of police on our streets, the Minister said that she was “not pretending that it isn’t…challenging for police forces”. Today, however, she and her colleagues are attempting to present a different picture, understating the settlement’s impact on reducing police numbers, and the financial challenge that it poses to our police forces. Last week, she stated that PCCs and chief constables must make local decisions about the composition of their forces. Will she now acknowledge that her Government’s decisions have created that impossible position for police leaders? At first glance, the settlement may appear generous in cash terms; however, there is a sleight of hand. The cash increase is not enough to cover new financial pressures, the biggest of which have been created by the Government. The funding will not be sufficient to sustain police forces. Without further action, it will ultimately lead to reductions in officer numbers. Since the funding settlement was announced, numerous PCCs, chief constables and representative bodies have warned the Government about the challenges that it will create. Why are police forces so concerned? The impact of this year’s funding must be assessed in the context of two key factors. The first is the Government’s increase in national insurance contributions. Some £230 million of this apparently generous settlement will go straight back to the Treasury to pay the Government’s own tax raid on our own police forces. The Government are literally taxing the police off our streets. Economic data has already shown the harm that the national insurance raid has inflicted on businesses and jobs, but it has also reduced the financial benefit that the police will receive from the settlement. Since the Government chose to impose this tax nationwide, it is only right that the Home Office should fully cover the cost of the tax increase for police forces, but the Government now claim that the £230 million that covers their own tax hike somehow counts as a funding increase. It is not a funding increase; it just covers an extra cost that the Government have imposed on our hard-working police forces. Would that money not have been better spent on more police officers, investments in technology to improve efficiency—something that the Government claim to prioritise—or targeted interventions?
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
rose —
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
I will carry on; I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities for everybody to contribute to the debate. Thanks to measures introduced by the then Conservative Government, the total number of officers stood at 149,769 in March 2024—the highest headcount since comparable records began.
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
We have heard a great deal from Members across the House about the grant and the impact it will have on various communities. I reiterate my earlier point that we are deeply concerned about the effect that will have on policing. Members do not need to take my word for it; they can listen to the words of police leadership. Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, previously said that the force would be “scaling back our ability to tackle serious violence and organised crime”. Norfolk’s chief constable, Paul Sanford, who is the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead for finance, described the funding package as challenging and said that cuts were inevitable. One of Labour’s own police and crime commissioners, Joy Allen, PCC for Durham, also said the money “may not go as far as we would all hope” and that “We will have to wait and see what this additional funding covers and how long it lasts”. Does the Minister think the £100 million announced will be enough to stop those cuts? Unfortunately, we have seen that sentiment reflected not only in words, but in the actions of police forces. Lincolnshire Police says there is a budget gap of £14 million. To manage that, it plans to reduce the number of police officers by around 200, bringing the total down to 1,000 officers by 2028-29, alongside cancelling the upcoming police officer intake for March. Lincolnshire is unfortunately not alone. In Essex the shortfall in the Government’s police funding settlement led the police force to announce plans to eliminate all 99 of its police community support officers— [ Interruption. ] I am coming to it; worry not!—and reduce staff numbers by around 65 people. While I acknowledge that that was prior to last week’s announcement, Essex will still receive £2.2 million. However, Essex Police had identified a £5.3 million budget shortfall, so it is still over £3 million short. While the additional funding is welcome, it will not be sufficient to bridge the gap. That is a direct result of the funding shortfall. Derbyshire’s chief constable stated that its budget shortfall of £1.5 million by the end of the financial year had increased to £5.5 million after the Budget. However, it did not stop there. She said that it was compounded further by the Home Office grant settlement in December, which increased the amount that the force needed to balance the books to more than £8.5 million. In that context, last week’s announcement appears to be only 18% of the previously announced shortfall. Meanwhile, PCCs across the country—from Norfolk Constabulary to Thames Valley Police, and even in my home force of Cleveland Police—have repeatedly highlighted the challenges they face while having to increase the precept. Those decisions expose the hollowness of Labour’s so-called neighbourhood policing guarantee. How can the Government claim to be delivering that if forces must cut staff simply to maintain officer numbers at their current level? Another aspect of this debate is the decision to increase funding through precept rises. During last year’s debate, Labour’s then shadow policing Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), said from the Opposition Benches that “the Government have lifted the cap on the precept so that PCCs can raise it by £13 next year for band D properties. That in itself is a challenge for people’s finances, but it also creates differential challenges across the country… That failure of leadership has consequences for less well-off areas”. —[ Official Report , 7 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 286.] Yet now that the Labour party is in government, its stance appears to have changed. This year’s precept increase is even more significant than the one announced last year. Like so much about this Government, they promise one thing to win an election and do completely the opposite when they are in charge. Given their actions now, will they acknowledge that they underestimated police funding needs when in opposition, and seem to be continuing to underestimate them now that they are in government? Of course, we will not do anything to stop the police from getting the resources they need, so we will not vote against the motion, but I hope the Government recognise that their actions will not only make their job more challenging but risk undermining communities across the country. They have used a sleight of hand to pretend that the extra money for policing is more than it really is. As a result, police forces will not have enough funding to meet cost pressures, and cuts to police numbers are inevitable. If the Minister for Policing disagrees, will she guarantee that total police numbers will not fall from the record level at the previous Government’s last national workforce count of 31 March 2024? I know that my colleagues want to work with the Government to empower police forces in their constituencies by giving them all the resources they need. However, we remain concerned that this settlement is a sign that the challenges that the Minister for Policing refers to will only grow over the course of this Parliament. Instead of a tax raid, we should give our police forces the resources they need and show our brave frontline officers the respect and support that they deserve.
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
After the last Labour Government’s spending and borrowing splurge caused the economic crisis of 2008, cuts were made, but the hon. Gentleman should be happy because thereafter we increased the number of police officers on the streets of the UK to record numbers: 149,679. That is the highest number of police officers ever on our streets.
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister be honest and acknowledge that in order to achieve what has been outlined, officers will need to be reassigned? If so, will she assure us that those officers will be assigned appropriately? Can she assure MPs—
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
No, I am going to make some progress, thank you very much. Some might say that the Minister is giving with one hand and taking with the other. However, given the tax rises, it is clear that she is giving with the left hand and taking back with the far-left hand— [ Interruption. ] Does the Minister want to intervene?
5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source
More
That is a false statement, actually—it is misleading. I have definitely mentioned police funding in the House before.
30 Jan 2025 · Local Post Offices · Hansard source
More
I thank the Members who brought this important debate forward. For generations, the local post office has been the beating heart of our towns and villages. That is certainly the case in Stockton and Thornaby. It has been more than just a place to send and receive mail; it has been a cornerstone of community life and a trusted space where people access essential services, stay connected with loved ones and support their businesses. Yet today, we stand at a crossroads. The pressure of modern technology, financial constraints and shifting consumer habits have placed our post offices under real threat, and all those challenges have been made so much worse by the Government’s national insurance tax raid and the slashing of business rates relief. There are threats to the future of the post offices in Stockton and Thornaby. In Stockton, our post office has changed location over the decades but has been ever present and ever valued. It was hoped that a franchise in a retailer could protect its future, but the impact of the national insurance tax raid and the slashing of business rates relief are forcing retailers across the country to close stores and axe jobs. In Stockton and Yarm, the impact is compounded by the Labour council’s introduction of short-stay parking charges. Retail is one of the most important sectors in the country. It is the largest private sector employer in our economy and often sits at the very heart of our communities, and it is the biggest social mobility driver around. In the last few weeks, however, we have seen fantastic retail giants, including Sainsbury’s and Tesco, axing jobs and killing opportunities. In Stockton, we have heard the sad news of WHSmith’s closure. The store has hosted the post office, but it looks set to close its doors as a result of the Government’s war on high streets. I have met representatives of the Post Office to share my concerns about the impact that the closure will have on so many of my residents, particularly the elderly. The current post office is not due to close until May, and it has committed to working with me to look at alternative franchisees and locations in the town. I am delighted that a number of potential operators have already shown an interest. In Thornaby, the situation remains concerning but unclear. The local postmaster has a lease, but the community were recently shaken when a planning application went forward for a Pizza Hut to take the post office’s place. The community spoke and put forward their objections, and the application was rejected. There are fears of an appeal. I have engaged with the post office and the town centre as recently as this morning, and hope remains that we can find a way forward. The post offices in Stockton and Thornaby are essential. Their closure would not simply mean the loss of a building; it would mean the loss of convenience, social interaction, footfall in the town centre and economic stability for many. Given the recent announcement that NatWest is closing its Stockton branch, our post offices are absolutely vital to our local towns. I am determined and hopeful, and will do everything I can to keep our post offices’ doors open in Stockton and Thornaby.
30 Jan 2025 · Free 1-hour parking in Yarm · Hansard source
More
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the people of Stockton West. Yarm has the most beautiful high street in the country, with an amazing offer of retail and hospitality businesses. However, it faces a huge threat, as the Labour council is set to axe one-hour free parking, which poses a real risk to the high street, its businesses and jobs. Supported by local councillors Andrew Sherris, John Coulson and Dan Fagan, more than 2,500 people have signed a similar petition online to protect Yarm’s one-hour free parking. I welcome the opportunity to present the petition today. Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of the residents of the constituency of Stockton West, Declares that Stockton Council must keep Yarm ’ s free 1-hour parking; further declares that free parking is crucial for supporting local businesses, encouraging footfall, and helping Yarm ’ s economy thrive; and further notes that the Council ’ s changes to eliminate 1-hour free parking risks harming small businesses and deterring shoppers. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure that the high street in Yarm is supported with free 1-hour parking. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003040]
21 Jan 2025 · Asylum Seeker Hotel Accommodation: Reopening · Hansard source
More
What would the Minister say is a sensible period of notice that she would like the Home Office to give before migrants arrive in a hotel?
21 Jan 2025 · Asylum Seeker Hotel Accommodation: Reopening · Hansard source
More
Thank you, Sir John, for chairing your third debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for proposing this discussion on an important issue for many MPs and their constituents across the country. If we need to provide accommodation for those who arrive in the UK seeking asylum, it is critical that we do all we can to ensure that that accommodation is cost-effective and does not unduly burden our communities. Unfortunately, we know all too well that hotel accommodation for asylum seekers fails to meet either of those criteria. Despite the disagreements that have been expressed today, this is an issue on which all Members of the House can and should agree. As the Minister is aware, significant steps were taken by the last Government to reduce the number of people housed in hotel accommodation, which went from a peak of 56,042 in September 2023 to 29,585 at the end of June 2024. That is a 47% decrease. That was accompanied by the closure of many hotels from their peak number. It was therefore welcome to see this Government’s manifesto promise to close asylum hotels entirely. The pledge was clear: the Government would “end asylum hotels”. That is a goal that we all hope they will achieve, as it would undoubtedly benefit communities across the country. The unfortunate reality, however, is that since this Government took power, we have gone in the opposite direction. Official Home Office statistics show that as of 30 September, 35,651 people were in hotel accommodation, an increase of 21% since the general election. Instead of hotels being closed, we have seen the contrary: the Minister informed the House last week that there has been a net increase of six hotels since the election. We have heard from MPs that announcements about new hotels are often made with little notice, leaving minimal time to prepare and a lack of clarity. Although the Government should undoubtedly improve that process, surely the most impactful approach would be to reduce the reliance on hotel accommodation altogether. Sometimes it is too easy to focus on statistics. Although they provide an important part of the picture, it is through speaking to residents that we hear about the very real consequences for communities. In November, Councillor Nathan Evans invited me to visit Altrincham to see the huge impact of such a hotel on his community. I spoke to residents, business owners and the local chamber of commerce about the direct and indirect effects of Labour’s decisions. They emphasised the need for safety, security and clear communication. Those were reasonable requests that they felt had fallen on deaf ears at both the Home Office and the local authority. As well as the concerns about security, there was a very evident impact on the local economy. In Altrincham, the loss of nearly 300 hotel places in the local hospitality sector was huge. Families who had worked day and night for years to create incredible small businesses, operating in an already challenging environment, now had to deal with another huge and unpredicted blow to their footfall. I suggest that the Minister considers visiting Altrincham, not only to see some incredible small businesses with a unique offering, but to see the impact of the decisions she makes. Too often, places like Altrincham receive information at the last minute, leaving them unable to prepare and taken aback by the sudden loss of normal business generated by these hotels. That lack of warning undermines trust and further fosters animosity towards the system. I understand that this is a complex issue, but will the Minister consider the suggestion that the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), made in November: that greater notice be given to MPs before a hotel opens in their constituency? I also ask the Minister how sites are chosen and what consideration is given to proximity to local schools, care homes and centres for the vulnerable, as well as the impact on the local business community. I recognise that the Minister and other hon. Members will point out that the number of people housed in hotels was too high under the last Government. They are correct, and my party does not shy away from that fact. The Leader of the Opposition has been clear that mistakes were made regarding immigration. Nevertheless, the last Government were taking steps to rectify these issues by closing hotels and attempting to halt illegal immigration. Since the election, however, we have seen increases both in contingency accommodation and in dispersal accommodation. Ultimately, the Minister, like the rest of us, knows the root cause of the problem: the illegal and dangerous channel crossings. As of 19 January, 24,132 people had crossed the channel in small boats since the election, a 30% increase on the same period in 2023-24. What is more, the number of those being deported is actually going down. We need a deterrent. If people arrive here illegally, they should not be allowed to stay. Until that is the case, they will continue to arrive in ever increasing numbers. Despite pledges to “smash the gangs”, it appears that the gangs remain active and evasive. This behaviour underscores the importance of deterrence, as highlighted by the National Crime Agency and reportedly by the head of the Government’s Border Security Command. Policing alone is insufficient. The rise in small boat crossings illustrates that scrapping the UK’s deterrent policy before it had even started was a short-sighted decision; in fact, it was a decision of national self-harm. The deterrent approach has been successfully implemented in other countries such as Australia, which managed to resolve similar issues through decisive action. We have even seen it working here in the UK, with the Albania returns agreement reducing arrivals by more than 90%. Given the increasing numbers and the failure to reduce small boat crossings into this country, will the Government reconsider whether their approach to illegal migration has been effective thus far? On costs, the Government’s policy is to expedite asylum decisions. Consequently, the costs associated with accepted migrants risk being obscured within the welfare system. The Home Office has previously acknowledged that it has no estimate of the potential cost of benefit claims and council-housing bills for those individuals. Will the Minister commit to recording and publishing the costs for migrants whose asylum claims are accepted? I know that the Minister has previously stated that hotels are a temporary measure, not a solution. While she may be well intentioned, the continuing small boat crossings suggest that the need for contingency accommodation is unlikely to subside without decisive action. Can the Minister therefore explain whether there is a contingency plan should small boat crossings persist? Additionally, will the Government ensure that every possible policy option is explored to reduce the number of people in hotel accommodation in a cost-effective manner?
21 Jan 2025 · Asylum Seeker Hotel Accommodation: Reopening · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →