Matt Vickers MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The Bill makes a change to the Police Reform Act 2002, but my understanding is that there are no nationally compiled figures showing which powers are being used to seize bikes, and that the Road Traffic Act 1988 is actually allowing many people to seize bikes without the notice set out here, and probably more quickly, easily and efficiently. Does your force use the Police Reform Act, the Road Traffic Act or an array of all the above?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Having read the Bill, is there anything that concerns you or that you think we could improve upon, and are there any measures in this area that you would like to see added to the Bill? Sharon Maciver: The measures outlined in the Bill are a significant step forward in providing a legal framework that specifically tackles the criminal exploitation of children. We hear first-hand through the services that we deliver across Scotland, England and Wales the devastating impacts that exploitation has on children, on their families and on communities. We published a report in 2024 that analysed safeguarding incidents that had occurred for 140 children. Within those incidents we found that 50 children had been stabbed as a result of criminal exploitation, and a further 48 children had been harmed with weapons, including acid, dog chains and metal poles. We heard that a number of those children who had been physically harmed had not attended emergency services when they needed it. For me, there was an issue there when we think about the current system and the trust that children have in accessing the system, which should be there to safeguard and protect them. As a starting point, we welcome the introduction of the new offence and the preventative orders in sanctioning those who choose to exploit children. In terms of the risks that we see, we welcome the new offence but we have some concerns around the wording in relation to how the offence would be applied to those children who are seen to be under the age of 18. The wording refers to an offence being committed if it is reasonably believed that the child was under 18. Last year, we had a review into the criminal exploitation of children chaired by Professor Alexis Jay. Within that, we heard significant evidence and concerns around the adultification of children, recognising that these children too often do not acknowledge their own exploitation, and as such they receive a justice response as opposed to a welfare-first response. That is a consideration we need to make in terms of language, first and foremost. Secondly, we welcome the prevention orders in the Bill, but we need to think about the potential impacts on children and how we feed back information to safeguard and protect them. If we think about a prevention order or an offence being placed on an individual who chooses to exploit children, we need to think about whether that child is named as part of the offence, and the potential repercussions that that could cause for them. However, if we choose not to name a child, how do we ensure that sufficient information is shared among the agencies that safeguard them, making them aware of the measures that might be imposed as part of this order? That, for us, is of critical importance. In terms of the protection of children, I could go on to talk about measures we would like to see in the Bill, but I appreciate that you may want to come in. Or would you like me to continue?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q We know that dispersal orders and public spaces protection orders are of huge value, and that they can have a big impact in controlling antisocial behaviour and so on. The Criminal Justice Bill liberalised the use of such orders—it made them more accessible to police officers and local authorities. Why would we want to remove some of that freedom to put them to use more easily? What is the rationale for that? Dame Diana Johnson: On dispersal orders, we have taken the view that this is a power that should be given to the police and kept with the police. We do not think it should be used by local authorities. We think it is a serious power, and the number of hours it can be used for is going up, so the police are best suited to make those types of decisions.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Earlier we heard legal opinions about the fact that moving offences under £200 into triable either way could lead to significant delays. On prolific offenders coming time and again, it was suggested earlier that speedy justice is effective justice. Do you think it is important that justice is dealt out speedily in these cases, and should that play a part in our decision making? Graham Wynn: Yes, it is important. If not dealt with speedily, the people who could give evidence in the trial or to the court might well have moved on, or they might no longer recall the offence or work for the same retailer, especially when there is a violence issue, so speedy and swift justice is worth while and makes the point. In terms of the types of sentences, when we were in the EU the Commission always used to say in its directives that the sentence must be “dissuasive”. I think that is a good term: the penalties must be dissuasive. On exactly what the range should be, it is for the Government and people to place it in the context of other offences and evidence of what works best.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q As part of the Criminal Justice Bill there was a proposal that anybody responsible for three incidents of assaulting a retail worker or shoplifting should be mandatorily subjected to a curfew, a tag or a ban. Do you think there is a role for curfews, tags and bans in dealing with this problem? Paul Gerrard: As I said before, I think whatever intervention will stop the behaviour is important, and the things you just described could easily do that. A custodial sentence could do it too, but so could things like rehabilitation orders. Over the last couple of years, we have worked in specific partnerships with 19 police forces managing 700 offenders, less than 7% of whom received a rehabilitation order. Any retailer will tell you that substance abuse is a real driver of much of this behaviour. It cannot be right that only 7% are getting rehab orders, because you are not tackling the root cause. On the things you describe, absolutely, but I think there is a range. It is about what will stop the reoffending behaviour. It could be custodial, rehab, curfew or tags. Christopher Morris: There are two ways to look at it from the retail worker’s perspective. When someone has been into the store and committed serious violence or posed a significant threat to a retail worker, that retail worker still has to go back to that same place of work and carry on performing the same task and will be constantly worried that that incident could happen again. Where there are significant incidents and issues, a ban or a curfew might well be appropriate in certain situations, to ensure that the retail worker is protected and stop mental health impacts from the initial incident.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you have any views on the approach to hyper-prolific offenders and how to ensure they are properly sanctioned? Dr Newport: I think there should be provision in the Bill to ensure that, particularly for career criminals—people with 15 previous offences to their name—the more offences they commit, the longer they spend in prison for their current offence. That is technically in the current guidelines, but there are a lot of exemptions in the way they are drafted by the Sentencing Council. It should be put into statute that that is a direct, clear statement that the Sentencing Council should follow, and we should make sure it is super clear to judges.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q There are limitations on the ability of the police to seize them from places including private dwellings. Do you have a view on that? Councillor Garratt: In terms of vehicles, I think that is positive. Another thing about private dwellings or properties, which is not related to vehicles, is the provisions on GPS-tracked devices. You can stick a GPS tag on all kinds of things, including mobile phones and bicycles. That is an extremely useful power that we would welcome, but it also requires the police to decide that it is a priority to track those things. Dr Newport, who I believe is coming later, chained his bike outside Scotland Yard, which definitely has the power to look at its own CCTV and chose not to. That challenge will remain. I produced a report a couple of months ago showing that every six minutes a mobile phone is stolen in London. That is increasing year on year. We did some polling and the majority of Londoners are now wary in the way they use their phone. You see people turning away or going into doorways, essentially because the criminals who are stealing these phones are operating in a fairly risk-free environment. Anything that introduces some countermeasures to that is very welcome, and making it easier for the police to track and apprehend those people is also very welcome. Councillor Conway: We welcome the provision on cars to help to create a peaceful and respectful environment. I am very aware of the issues that can happen locally with that. Obviously, increased collaboration between councils and police may require further resourcing, but I note, again, that we are already delivering that collaboration on the ground. We do that quite a lot, but it would be very welcome to have an increased focus and more resourcing. I wanted to pick up on phones. I was fortunate to represent the LGA at the mobile phone summit that the Home Secretary organised—the Minister was there—and that summit was very welcome. I note, again, that through a proactive relationship with our local police force, really effective action is happening. Local councils have a real role to play in how we work as leaders of place, and how we tackle the crimes that affect people’s everyday lives. As a Barnet councillor I should add that we are fortunate in Barnet to have funding from the Mayor for London for a specific violence-reduction-unit project over the next two years. That is designed exactly to tackle the mobile phone issues, with a whole range of after-school activities, and we enable people to mark their property and so on. There are solutions to things, and we really welcome the framework that the Bill will provide, but local government needs resourcing to deliver effectively on some of the obligations that are coming in. Councillor Garratt: Can I make an additional point closely connected to that? New powers are proposed in clauses 78, 80 and 81 on SIM farms and electronic devices used for vehicle offences. They are good measures and we welcome them. I have a useful suggestion. In 2023, an additional power relating to lock-on-type offences was added to stop and search, to allow police to stop and search someone on the basis that they were looking for equipment that would be used for a lock-on-type protest. With the new offences relating to SIM farms and electronic USB devices that plug into a car and allow people to steal it, it would potentially be useful to add an additional stop-and-search power so that the police would be able to stop and search people they believe are equipped for those crimes. Otherwise, there is potentially a gap, whereby a new crime has been created but it is difficult for the police to enforce it.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q On powers specifically, is there anything you need that you do not have that we might be able to provide? Councillor Garratt: Resourcing is an issue, and I suppose I am bound to say that prioritisation can be an issue. We have seen councils change control and a new administration decides that it is more of a priority and makes it more of a focus. The one area where there is a gap between the law and public perception would be when you have private land that is adjacent to a highway. If it is on the highway, it is the council’s responsibility, and the council can use its resources and deal with it. However, if it is adjacent to the highway, councils, particularly with their resource constraints, are not enthusiastic about spending their resources on someone else’s property. These places might look as though they are part of the highway, but actually they are not. You get these little bits of land, often on corners and things, that are technically private property, and that makes them the property owner’s responsibility. That is an area where there is a question mark at the moment. Councillor Conway: Just to note, councils do not have the powers to take enforcement action against large-scale fly-tipping, which has been a focus recently, or where criminal activity is involved. Any statutory guidance would need to be clear on that point. We do a lot locally to target fly-tipping. We as a local council actually announced today some very successful work that we have been doing, but there are gaps that need to be resolved together.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Are stronger provisions needed to ensure that police and victims are informed when a sex offender changes their name? Baroness Newlove: Yes. I have looked at what is in the Bill, and it is something I have worked on for quite a while with the Safeguarding Alliance. Sarah Champion MP was involved when we were working on the Victims and Prisoners Act. I still have a problem, because the clause does say that the offender who comes out must inform the police. For me, it is always been about trust, and I just think it is wrong that we rely on the offender to inform the police and probation. That is what has gone wrong in the first place. To agree that a prisoner can change their name in prison is utterly unbelievable; and to rely on and trust the offender will notify the agencies—it still worries me that it is not the other way around.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Having read the Bill, is there anything that particularly concerns you? Is there anything you think we could improve on? Are there any measures that you would like to see in the Bill that are not there as it stands? Councillor Garratt: At the London Assembly, a big part of our work is scrutinising the Met police, including people’s concerns about policing and particularly around protests—we have had quite a lot of disruptive protests recently in London. There are some concerns about finding the balance between the way that the police and the courts interpret the powers that the police have to police protests, and how the general public, as expressed to me, interpret those powers. That goes in two directions; it is not all one-way traffic. My perception is that there is a gap in the Bill, or perhaps an opportunity, to do something about disruptive protests. If you look at section 12 of the Public Order Act, it sets out the gap between substantial and minor disruption to the community. On the face of it, that seems a perfectly reasonable and sensible way to distinguish between significant disruption, which the police ought to act on to remove protesters, and minor disruption, which is just a normal part of life. We have challenged the commissioner on his officers not acting to remove, for example, people who park themselves in the road, glue themselves to things or lock on to things. His challenge to us is that his officers are enforcing the law as it exists and as it is being interpreted by the courts. In particular, the Ziegler judgment essentially sets a high bar for what constitutes substantial disruption. For example, when people park and block a road, it is not considered substantial disruption. I would like to see some thought in the Bill as to how the police can be empowered to make sure that people can still protest in the way they would like, because it is an important democratic freedom, while other people are not prevented from just going about their life or their day. In the other direction, I also see a challenge—again, it is not addressed in the Bill, but it could be—around what I think of as an emerging de facto blasphemy law, which is quite concerning. People who wish to protest are almost always annoying somebody in some way with the issue that they want to protest about. Rarely do people protest in favour of or against things when everyone agrees with them. I have a concern about when the nature of that protest touches on religious or cherished beliefs, and people often react very negatively to that. You then see the police, and seemingly the courts, viewing the person who is reacting angrily to the protest as, in some ways, the victim, and the protester as, in some ways, the protagonist or cause of the problem. I think, having removed the blasphemy laws in 2008, the will of Parliament seems to be that you are allowed to offend people’s religious sensibilities. We saw the example in Manchester with the burning of the Koran, and there was an example at the Turkish embassy in London. There are numerous examples along those lines, where section 4A of the Public Order Act seems to be used to determine that if you are causing harassment, alarm or distress, that is enough to block somebody from being able to carry out what otherwise would seem to be quite a peaceful protest. There is scope for the Bill to address both of those problems. Councillor Conway: I was not going to comment, but I will on the bit about protest. We really welcome the Home Secretary’s amendment to the Bill that was announced last night about intimidation at places of religious worship. As a Barnet local councillor, that has obviously been a key area of focus for our communities, in particular during the past year and a half. I think that balance between intimidation and the right to protest has been very fairly dealt with, and it is a very welcome introduction to the Bill. I am pleased that we are here today to represent local councils. Local councils, councillors and our officers are at the frontline of delivering community safety, and of keeping everybody safe and protected in our boroughs, district councils and all the areas across the country. Every point on my list that I want to make focuses on resources. There is some really good stuff in the Bill, but it needs careful working through so that there is no obligation or statutory duty without the resourcing to properly deliver it on the ground. On training, I can give specific examples as we go along. With regard to collaboration, that is something that people in local government, as leaders of place, are very good at. However, we need the resourcing to do it. I know that at the moment, we in local government talk about resources in every space, but they are essential. That is particularly the case in areas such as social services, for example, with some of the duties there. Broadly, we welcome the Bill overall. It has some really important measures in terms of cuckooing and child protection. As someone who leads on community safety on the ground, I think that those things are vital. There are measures in the Bill that will save us from having to try to find different ways around things so that we can directly go to the heart of the problem. It is key that you keep talking to local government—particularly about fly-tipping. You cannot see the word “fly-tipping” as a local councillor and not have something to say. It would be great for the LGA to have further in-depth discussions with the Government as to how that is delivered locally and effectively. We are absolutely vital for doing that.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Having read the Bill, is there anything that concerns you, anything you think we should be doing a bit more of, or any things that you would like to see in the Bill that are not in the Bill? Baroness Newlove: I only have 15 minutes, so I will not drag on. I welcome what is in the Bill, there are some issues on mandatory reporting, police vetting and the antisocial behaviour case review. Suky Bhaker: The Suzy Lamplugh Trust specialises in stalking and harassment, so speaking to the specific introduction of new clauses on stalking, we welcome the introduction of statutory guidance on additional protection for victims, on the right to know. and the additional measures around stalking protection orders, but some details need to be caveated within those clauses.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Last but not least, you might know that off-road bikes are a real hobby horse of mine. They are an absolute nightmare in my part of the world, as they are in many others—they are an epidemic. They are largely non-road-legal bikes that are being used by youngsters to commit antisocial behaviour or to enable crime. We have mentioned today briefly that there are several powers available to police. You are slightly editing section 59 of the Road Traffic Act, and we talked about the Police Reform Act 2002, which you are amending to allow people not to be given notice. Are the Government willing to look further at what more we could do in that space, particularly around allowing the police access to private dwellings, what happens to these bikes when they are seized by the police and any measures that could limit the sale of these bikes and reduce the number that are getting on to the streets? Dame Diana Johnson: It is very disconcerting when you keep being lit up and then plunged into darkness, so I apologise if I cannot remember everything you said, but we certainly think that what we are introducing to get rid of the warning requirement is important. All members of the Committee know how the use of e-vehicles to commit antisocial behaviour blights communities, whether it is motorbikes, mini motos or e-scooters. We think this is a really important tool that the police will be able to use to seize these vehicles without having to give the warnings, because we know that that frustrates the police and communities. We think that removing the warning requirement will be very impactful, but I am certainly prepared to look at other measures as well.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Having read the Bill, is there anything that concerns you or anything you think we could improve, or are there any measures that you would like to see in it Bill that do not currently feature in it? Dr Newport: There are some points that might be helpful to bring up in broad terms. One of the chief issues that I have heard from the police since starting the campaign a few months ago is that there are a bunch of barriers to things they are trying to do. Some of them have said it that is becoming more and more difficult just to do the basics of their job, so the more things can be streamlined and the clearer we can make what is going on to the public, the better. Many of us have CCTV, Ring cameras and so forth on our houses. I think there should be an opt-in national database to which homeowners can upload their footage and be paid a nominal fee of some amount annually. At the moment, officers go door to door to collect footage when something happens. At Christmas, everyone on my road had their tyres slashed, and the police had to go round to try to get footage from everyone’s Ring cameras individually. That obviously takes a lot of time, and on Christmas day there are not many police around, so things become very complex and take a long time. If there were a national database, I am sure many homeowners, like me, would simply upload the footage. It would be there, and the police could download it straightaway. Connected to that, homeowners sometimes require planning permission to mount CCTV on their home in case it oversees a public area. If there were exemptions to that, neighbourhood policing would become a lot easier and a lot of burglaries and petty crimes would be easier to solve. If people are attacked in an alleyway, it would be possible to easily get hold of footage that otherwise might be very difficult. That is just on the CCTV side. I have also heard a lot of complaints from officers about their computer systems. They say that the old systems are very difficult to use, take a lot of time and crash frequently. On some of the newer systems, I have heard a lot of complaints from officers who say that they find the Met system extremely difficult and that it breaks all the time. There is some evidence to suggest that arrests dropped significantly when the new system at the Met was introduced, but it has been very difficult to get any information on that. Freedom of information requests are not successful, and in fact Chris Philp asked in Parliament about it and did not get an answer. A clause to ensure much more transparency about procurement and the effects of different systems would go a long way to helping the public know what is actually going on inside. It would also help the police explain to the public why there are so many problems—for instance, why so many crimes are simply falling through the net.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The challenge for the Government is that a huge amount of money is spent managing protests in this country. In London, we spent around £53 million managing pro-Palestinian protests. Some of the measures are designed to aid the police in managing protests and protecting the public from people who would do them harm. How do you think we can best balance the need to allow peaceful protest with the need to prevent disruption and prevent people from using face coverings to avoid being detained by the police? Venita Yeung: That is an interesting question. I can only speak from the experience of anti-CCP protests, most of which are very peaceful and do not result in any kind of arrests. To balance the needs of public order, the police could always communicate with protest organisers ahead of the protest, and improve their relationships with community leaders to see how they can facilitate a peaceful protest, instead of deploying measures that inadvertently assist authoritarian repression.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Having read the Bill, is there anything that concerns you that could be improved? Are there any measures you would like to see in it that are not currently in it? Venita Yeung: I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to a grave risk posed by the public order clauses, particularly those that would criminalise the act of concealing one’s identity at protests. For many Hongkongers in the community, face coverings at protests are not a matter of convenience or anonymity; they are a matter of safety—a shield against foreign repression. This is not theoretical; it is already happening in our country. As you may know, in the past few years, the national security law in Hong Kong and article 23 has created a climate of fear. Its extraterritorial reach means that even actions taken in the UK can result in repercussions thousands of miles away. Even community groups that meet privately with parliamentarians often ask not to be photographed or named publicly, for fear of being identified by foreign state actors. At anti-Chinese Communist party protests, which often take place in the UK, it is very common for participants to be photographed by pro-Beijing individuals, as mentioned in the report by the Intelligence and Security Committee in 2023. Those images are often passed back to Hong Kong or Chinese authorities, or circulated on Chinese platforms such as WeChat group chats or Weibo. As a result, many protesters have been doxed and their families back home visited or harassed by the police force. It is a common tactic deployed by authoritarian regimes to silence dissidents and mobilise their members in the overseas diaspora to monitor fellow members of the diaspora and minimise or silence democratic, dissenting voices. The press has documented multiple cases of Hong Kong protesters and Chinese international students being reported by their peers for attending peaceful protests in the UK.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Having read the Bill, is there anything that concerns you or anything you would seek for us to improve? Are there any measures that you would like to see in the Bill that are not currently in it? Sam Durham: I lead on rural crime for the National Farmers Union, and we are quite keen that the Bill is rural-proofed so that rural communities get the benefit from these changes as much as possible. Our quick view of the Bill is that the area we are particularly interested in is fly-tipping—that really blights rural communities and private landowners. We feel that there is currently a gap in local authorities addressing that. Some work very effectively on it, others rely on the police and others rely on other Government agencies. We find that it is not clear to a landowner with a fly-tipping incident how it gets dealt with. It is a bit of a lottery across the country. The improvements on guidance in the Bill are to be welcomed. We welcome that side of the legislation. We feel that the ability to search without a warrant for electronic goods—that was mentioned by the previous speaker—could have benefit for agricultural theft. We encourage our members, wherever possible, to fit tracking devices to their vehicles and machinery. Having talked to some of the national police chief leads I have contact with, they would welcome the ability to track a stolen tractor or quad bike and then enter the premises where they believe it to be. I know that the legislation is focused more on phone theft, but we think that there could be the added benefit of addressing equipment theft. We welcome the Government pushing for secondary legislation on the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, which should help that side as well. Finally, one thing that my members mention to me quite a lot, which is on the offensive weapons side, is that they deal quite a lot with poaching and other incidents on-farm. One unfortunate trend we have experienced in various parts of the country is the use of catapults. They are being used to kill wildlife and farm animals, as well as to cause criminal damage to tractor windows and the like. Catapults could be added to the list of offensive weapons. A criminal element is using them now, because if they are caught in possession, it is not so easy for the police to push a prosecution through. That is what we welcome in the Bill so far.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Turning to the measures on the antisocial use of vehicles and being able to seize them without notice, the council and the police in my part of the world face a huge problem. What is your experience of that? Do you think we need to be doing more than we are doing in the Bill? I realise that this is not the only power that police and local government have to act on it, but what more can we do in that space? Councillor Garratt: It is a problem. The measure would allow the seizing of a vehicle, effectively on one action rather than two actions. As the law stands, the problem is that the police officer would have to witness it happening, speak to the person to give them a warning and then wait for it to happen again. If they just drive away, they have obviously got away with it, so the measure in the Bill to potentially allow the police officer to seize it at that first instance is useful. You sometimes see cases of what we are talking about around London or streamed live on social media: people meeting up and doughnutting around car parks and driving up and down, with huge crowds of people very close. It is overwhelmingly a public safety issue, so being able to simply seize those vehicles at that point would be a very useful power.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q We have heard lots of comments about fly-tipping, and we know it comes at huge cost to the taxpayer and local authorities. The measures in the Bill talk about guidance. The last Government increased fines and penalties for these offences. If the guidance can maximise the impact that local authorities can have and their understanding of what they can do, that is great, but will you give us a flavour of what that guidance might look like? How effective do you think it will be? Are the Government prepared to engage with or consider suggested improvements in this area during the Bill’s progress? Dame Diana Johnson: Thank you for the question. Having heard the evidence this afternoon, and this morning as well, I am happy to reflect on what has been said. Clearly, setting out the statutory guidance that will be made available will help to provide a consistent approach. Points were made about the inconsistent way that fly-tipping is being dealt with, and about the fact that perhaps not all local authorities are using all the powers they have. I think there is merit in having that statutory guidance set out, but I am willing to look at other proposals that might come forward.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Having read the Bill, does anything concern you? Could anything be improved? Are there any measures that you would like to see in it that do not currently feature in it? Emily Spurrell: I suppose the first thing to say is that there is a lot in it that we welcome. There is a lot in it that, as PCCs, we have been calling for for a long time—for example, the extra protection for retail workers and the recognition that they should not have to face assaults while doing their job; the measures to strengthen the ownership for businesses and sellers to crack down on the sale of knives online; the greater powers in relation to the ASB case review to achieve more consistency across the country; and the police appeals measure, because currently we do not have the ability to appeal the outcome of the police tribunal. There is lots in the Bill that we welcome, and I think it will go a long way to support some of the issues that we face locally. The one thing I would highlight, which will come as no surprise and I imagine you have heard it from many others today, is resource and our capacity to deliver on some of these issues. We welcome all the actions—there is a lot to welcome—but there is some anxiety, particularly among police forces, about being able to meet the demand and about not raising the expectation of the public that, because these powers now exist, suddenly there will be a huge swathe of activity in the area. It is all about resourcing and being able to deliver on the new activity. Matthew Barber: A lot of the measures in the Bill were in the previous Criminal Justice Bill. A lot of that work is welcome, and there is some consistency. For me, a lot of the provisions fall into two categories. Some are closing loopholes. As far as the public are concerned, certainly, there are some really welcome moves on allowing the police the ability to enter premises without a search warrant where electronic devices with location detection are available. That has been a huge frustration for the public—they expect the police to be able to do that and do not understand that the current law prevents it. There is some tidying up of those elements. There are some other very welcome areas, such as drug testing on arrest—the Thames Valley force has been rolling out one of the pilots—but that falls into the second category of provisions: ones that will need significant resources. In this case, that means resources not just for police forces to provide the kits and the testing, but for our local authority and health partners to provide the treatment that will come as a result of drug testing on arrest. Several measures in the Bill will require potentially significant resources. One of those measures is the monitoring of sexual offenders—those on the sex offenders register. Again, some welcome moves are expected by police forces, but that will put additional resource burdens on policing. I think it is worth noting for the record that police forces do an awful lot of work in protecting the public from predatory sex offenders, which often goes on behind the scenes—it is not seen by the public, but it is vital and needs to be properly resourced. If Parliament were inclined to go further in that area, it could allow the police to interrogate the digital devices of those on the sex offenders register. At the moment, that only happens if there is a sexual harm prevention order in place specific to that offence. Given the proliferation of online grooming and the proliferation of people on the sex offenders register, that additional power could be helpful in detecting other offences. Roger Hirst: In common with my colleagues, I very much welcome the provisions in the Bill. I echo Matthew’s comments about the additional costs related to drug testing on arrest. I will also bring it to the Committee’s attention that there have been real problems with the industry providing the equipment for that. It is under-resourced at the moment. There is some investment that needs to be made, probably via us, in helping the industry develop. At the moment, we are not doing anything like as much as we would like to do, simply because of the constraint of materials. It is probably single-digit millions, but it is a substantial investment that needs to be made. I particularly welcome the provision to make spiking a separate offence. That is certainly something that we in Essex are seeing in our night-time economies; sadly, it is a growing area and one where we need to be able to provide better protection. Being able to point to it as an individual item and make some noise about it will be really powerful to prevent it from happening. I think that plays into the overall Government ambition to reduce violence against women and girls. There is an opportunity in the Bill to pick up on some other items that we have been looking for for quite a long time. We PCCs and PFCCs are very much victims’ mouthpiece in our areas, and we are in contact with many victims’ groups. I consistently get feedback that victims would very much like provision for convicted offenders to be required to attend their sentencing hearing. There is a feeling of a lack of justice when that does not happen, and a feeling that they as victims are not seeing justice exercised in the way they would wish to. I also get feedback that victims would very much like to see mandatory life sentences for the worst categories of homicide. There are some homicides that are egregious enough to mean that it is fairly obvious that the person is unlikely ever to be able to be released without at least creating the risk of harm to the public. Following up on what Matthew said about dealing with sexual offenders, there is also the opportunity to ban sex offenders from changing their name. There is nervousness among the public that sexual offenders are not always known, are hard to track and can evade the monitoring that is supposed to be there for offender management, so that would be extremely welcome. The last thing would be bringing in an offence of aggressive begging. We have that in our city centres in Essex and it can be very disruptive. There is certainly a lot of feedback from traders and town centre operators about aggressive begging. Whether it is Southend, Colchester or Chelmsford, we certainly see the centre of town being disrupted.

• 20 Mar 2025 · British Sign Language Week · Hansard source

  More

  I have not learned any BSL to any competent level, but I promise I will endeavour to do so before next year’s debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this very important debate. I want to celebrate the incredible contributions of the deaf community and BSL users across the United Kingdom. BSL is not just a language; it is a vital means of communication that connects people to their families, their communities and essential services. I was recently invited to visit MeSign by Steven Francis, who is a deaf person, a teacher of BSL and an incredible advocate for his community. I also got to meet Michelle Teasdale, who was born to deaf parents and founded MeSign, which brings together the deaf community. The pair, and their amazing team at MeSign, hold events that allow deaf people from across Thornaby and further afield to come together. Their amazing organisation tackles isolation and allows deaf people to share the challenges and difficulties they might be facing. They helped me to understand that for deaf people, written English is in no way a direct equivalent to BSL. The barriers and challenges created by deafness mean that reading written English, particularly when jargon-riddled or technical, can be difficult for many. BSL is their first language. It is vital that public services make themselves accessible to all. All too often, we see that there is investment in translators for those speaking foreign languages, but having access to translation for BSL is a postcode lottery. That is not acceptable, and more must be done. Steve and Michelle told me that my local authority contact centres, many GPs and many local employment services fail to offer BSL interpretation and are not as accessible as in other places. The reality is that technology means that it would be as simple as having an iPad and access to a translation service. People who want to sort out everyday issues such as council tax bills, or to understand changes to bin collections, are left isolated and frustrated. They lose their independence and have to rely on family and friends to help them. The worst and most heartbreaking example that Steve and Michelle shared with me is about deaf people who use health services having to rely on family members to interpret what they are being told—imagine someone having to interpret a diagnosis for something like cancer to their deaf parents. That is completely unacceptable, and it cannot go on. Huge progress has been made, but we need to go a lot further. We need to ensure that all public services are accessible and offer BSL interpretation. I will continue to push my local service providers to raise their standards. I welcome today’s debate, as it seeks to push this issue up the agenda.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Lots of processes are in place, but we are putting down a principle. It is the same as the skilled worker visa threshold of £38,700. We have to set a line that requires people to be self-sufficient and not a drain on resources. This is the line that we are setting. There are also Hongkongers. By 2025, nearly 180,000 British national overseas visa holders had escaped Beijing’s iron grip—huge British talent. More than 20,000 Afghans have been resettled since the Kabul airlift. Those were the right things to do, and we would exempt them from this proposal. These are not random arrivals; they are people we invited, whose stories of sacrifice and loyalty resonate with the values that we hold dear, from duty to decency. We would not renege on those commitments and tarnish the trust that we have built. Let us cast our eyes across the globe, because other nations are not just theorising about this; they are proving that it works, day in, day out, with systems that do not just talk a good game but deliver tangible, measurable results that we would be foolish to overlook. Take Australia, a land of vast horizons and sharper borders, whose points-based residency system does not mess around. If someone is pulling in less than 53,900 Australian dollars—£28,000—and they are dipping into welfare, Australia will show them the door, an approach that is saving taxpayers billions. These are not quirky outliers or flukes; they are lessons carved in policy stone and shining examples that tying status to contribution is not some pie-in-the-sky dream but a practical, proven playbook that delivers real savings and sharper borders, and stands up to scrutiny. New clause 32 lifts straight from that script, making £38,700 the line in the sand, with no benefits to lean on and no criminal record to tarnish the deal. It is not radical; it is road-tested, and echoes what works elsewhere on the globe. Critics might cry, “Unworkable!” but the conditions in new clause 32 are trackable. HMRC already logs income for tax. The Home Office flags criminals under the UK Borders Act 2007, and the Department for Work and Pensions tracks benefits down to the penny. We are not reinventing the wheel—just syncing data to enforce the rules, with £38,700 as a clear line, 10 years as a fair test, and exemptions for the Ukraine, Afghan and British national overseas schemes, showing that we can tailor it. This is a framework that says, “If you’re here for the long haul, you’ve got to bring something to the table, not just pull up a seat.” Australia and Canada have shown us the path with lower costs and tighter controls; we would be stupid not to take it. I would like to know why the Government would disagree with the principles behind the new clause. Why do the Government want foreign criminals to remain in the UK with indefinite leave to remain? If the Government believe in the £38,700 amount for skilled workers to obtain a visa, why would that not apply to people remaining in the UK indefinitely?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We have just had a lengthy discussion about the Human Rights Act and the impact it has on deportations. However, if she agrees so wholeheartedly on the principle, I am sure she might consider backing our amendment. There are a number of countries where the UK has a significant number of foreign national offenders currently serving in British prisons. However, we deport only a small number of those foreign national offenders each quarter. Our new clause 42 would require the Secretary of State to use a visa penalty provision if a country is not co-operating in the removal of any of its nationals or citizens from the UK, or in relation to the verification of their identity or status. We have done this by amending the Nationality and Borders Act, so that the ability to impose visa sanctions is not discretionary but mandatory. We know that there are countries that are hard to secure returns to. We believe strongly that that should not be without consequences for those countries. New clause 34 shifts the lens to where it belongs—on the victims left in the wake of foreign offenders, not the perpetrators gaming the system. In 2024, theft offences alone averaged just 8.1 months—a shopkeeper’s livelihood dented, a pensioner’s purse snatched, or a family’s peace of mind and sense of security destroyed. Public order crimes averaged just 9.6 months, with more huge consequences for the wellbeing of victims who are left with a fear of entering public spaces or unable to go about their ordinary lives. Yet the one year deportation bar enables those culprits to linger, post-sentence, free to reoffend while victims wait for justice that never comes. This clause says, “Enough.” Any conviction, for shoplifting or worse, triggers removal—no Human Rights Act excuses—because every day a foreign offender is allowed to stay is another day a British victim’s trust in the system erodes. Why are the Government okay with that shadow hanging over our streets? New clause 42 would force nations to play ball uphill. We see too many countries dither and delay in refusing to take back offenders. Mandatory visa sanctions flip that script. No co-operation, no UK visas for their elite. Watch fast how passports materialise when there are real consequences. Why is Labour soft-pedalling when we could wield this stick, clear the backlog and reduce pressure on prison places?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. We believe that the right to remain in this country is a privilege, not a right. We also believe that to be able to stay in this country, a person must contribute to this country. As recent research by the Centre for Policy Studies has outlined, there is a risk that many of those coming to this country are either low-paid workers or have dependants who may or may not be working. Those individuals are likely to represent a long-term burden on the country’s finances rather than be net contributors. That sentiment has been reiterated by liberal publications such as The Economist , which only last week said in one of its leaders that “governments must also learn from the policy mistakes that lend it credibility.”

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think they are relevant; they are things that both the public and I are bothered about. They show the failings of the system and why people are so concerned about the way that it is going. As a result, the judge allowed the father’s appeal against deportation as a breach of his right to family life under the European convention on human rights, citing the impact that his removal might have on his son. An attempt to deport a Sri Lankan paedophile, who was convicted of assaulting three teenage boys, was delayed over claims that deportation would breach his human rights.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 35 would require the Secretary of State to specify a cap on the number of spouses or civil partners who may enter the UK and on the number who may enter from any one country. It would also amend the immigration rules to set a salary threshold. We know that there is abuse of the current provisions that allow spouses or civil partners to come to the UK. Our amendment is designed to tighten up the rules so as to make abuse less likely. We believe that it is important for the Secretary of State to set a cap for the number of people who can enter the UK as a spouse or civil partner, and that the number of persons from any one country who enter as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor should not exceed 7% of the maximum number specified. We seek to tighten up that route to entering the UK by ensuring that the applicant provides evidence that the parties under subsection (9)(a) were married or formed a civil partnership at least two years prior to the application; that each of the parties intends to live permanently with the other as spouse or civil partner, and the marriage or civil partnership is subsisting; that the salary of the person who has a right to abode in the UK, or indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, equals or exceeds £38,700 per year; and that people cannot sponsor their first cousins under this route. We believe those changes are necessary to ensure that the relationship is genuine and subsisting, and that the sponsor is able to support their partner once they arrive in the UK. That is part of ensuring that we treat living in this country as a privilege, not a right, and that those coming to the UK to live will contribute to our country. New clause 39 would place restrictions on the granting of visas and indefinite leave to remain. That is another change to achieve our objective that those who come to the UK are able to contribute. The new clause would ensure that visas were granted only where an applicant or their dependants will not apply for any form of social protection, including housing from the UK Government or a local authority, and where the applicant’s annual income will not fall below £38,700 during the relevant qualification period. If either of those conditions fails to be met, the visa will be revoked. The new clause also specifies that a person cannot qualify for indefinite leave to remain if they are a “foreign criminal” under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007; if they or any of their dependants have been in receipt of any form of social protection from the UK Government or local authority; or if their annual income has fallen below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period. The new clause would not apply to those who have come to the UK through the Ukraine, Afghan or British national overseas schemes. New clause 40 would introduce some accountability for this place in the overall numbers of migrants coming to the UK per year. It would establish a mechanism whereby Parliament would approve a binding cap on all non-visitor visa routes set out by the Secretary of State. We believe it is important that the House seriously considers the benefits and trade-offs to this country. The new clause is designed to give the House greater accountability for that decision. New clauses 35 and 39 would build a wall against the quiet epidemic of immigration fraud that has been seeping through our spousal and visa routes—think of sham marriages brokered for £10,000 a pop, or visa overstayers masked by flimsy claims of support. The two-year marriage rule, the £38,700 threshold and the “no first cousin” clause are not just hurdles; they are detectors rooting out paper partnerships before they drain us dry. The new clauses would anchor immigration to a bedrock of self-reliance, because a Britain that thrives does not prop up newcomers who cannot stand alone. In new clause 35, the £38,700 sponsor salary, which matches that for the skilled worker route, would ensure that thousands of spousal entrants yearly would not tip the welfare scales further. New clause 39 would double down, barring visas and indefinite leave to remain for anyone who dips below that level or taps social housing, for which 1.2 million people are already waiting. This is not exclusion; it is economics, tilting the balance towards those who lift us, not those who lean on us. New clause 40 is not just a cap; it hands the House the reins of our migration system. The new clause would make Parliament the arbiter, through a binding cap debated here, voted on here, owned here and on which we are fully held to account by the electorate.