Wendy Morton MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The latest data from the Environment Agency shows nearly 17,000 reports of waste crime across England in the past year, with the west midlands sadly showing the highest concentration of incidents. Waste crime costs the UK economy around £1 billion annually, and no doubt the Labour-led Birmingham bin strikes are not helping. Can we have a debate in Government time on the problem of waste crime and the need to take action to tackle both waste crime and the bin strikes, which have been going on for over 100 days?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Fly-tipping · Hansard source

  More

  When it comes to cracking down on litter and fly-tipping, I would welcome anything the Government do. However, during proceedings on the Crime and Policing Bill, which passed through this place this week, Government Members had ample opportunity to accept various new clauses and amendments that would ensure stricter tackling of littering and fly-tipping, but failed to do so. What message does that send to those who go around tossing litter and fly-tipping, and, importantly, to the many volunteers in constituencies like mine who work day in, day out, to clear up that litter?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am clear that Traveller and minority groups absolutely do have rights, but they also have responsibilities. When this law was put in place, there was good reason for it: to redress some of the imbalance. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that repealing this law would leave our communities unprotected against unauthorised Traveller encampments? In areas like mine, the police became involved in a game of cat and mouse. Excrement, litter and worse was left in our communities. Would not a repeal leave the police with no powers to tackle the issue?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that accepting the amendment is one way in which the Government could reach out to businesses and traders and show that they are on the side of local businesses and the people who get up every morning and go out to work—in effect, “white van man”—for whom tools are key to being able to do the job, as are the farm implements that are also subject to theft?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is an important point about pride in where we live and about hope. As I travel around the country, I often take a mental note of the number of potholes I drive across; there is a noticeable difference from one authority to another. I have to say that Walsall is quite good at the moment when it comes to filling potholes. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about litter and communities. My local authority of late has been successfully prosecuting some litterbugs. I have seen a couple of examples on social media just this week of individuals who have been treating the high street in Pelsall as their own personal litter bin, and the local authority has gone after them and fined them. That sends a strong message, but there is more we can do. Although much of this is about clearing up after these people, we also need deterrence to stop this happening. A lot of it is down to a lack of respect for the community and antisocial behaviour, for want of a better word, and it is a burden that we should not expect the taxpayer to keep shouldering. We have reached something of a tipping point, and we need to do something more than letting people walk away with a slap on the wrist. Whether it is bin strikes, as we have seen in Birmingham, rural fly-tipping or littering, a lot of our communities feel absolutely fed up and overwhelmed, and they want action. I support the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister because, taken together, they form a serious and joined-up response that would help to protect and support not only our communities and those who want to keep them clean, but the local environment and wildlife too. Similarly, it is often local farmers who face the burden of fly-tipping. When fly-tipping happens on their land, the cost of removing it falls to them. It hardly seems fair that they are left to foot the bill for waste that they did not create. Amendment 172, on clean-up costs, seeks to address that. I have heard time and again from frustrated landowners and farmers that the system often punishes the victims of fly-tipping, not the perpetrators.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes an important point. There is a social and community cost that is difficult to evaluate. I am fortunate to have some fantastic volunteers and groups, including the Wombles group, that go out and litter pick. I do not mind going out and helping when I can. There is a great sense of a community coming together, but nothing is more frustrating than litter picking a street, walking back and finding that one of the tossers has just tossed some more litter out of their car.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out those policing numbers. Does he share my concern about the additional police officers we are getting? When I look at our figures for the west midlands, the boost is coming from deployments. I worry about where they are actually coming from and just how much of an increase we are really going to see.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will my right hon. Friend give way?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On neighbourhood policing, I welcome the fact that we have some extra capacity coming into the west midlands, but I have not yet had clarification on whether the money that is coming to the west midlands will cover all the extra national insurance costs. The Labour police and crime commissioner is already saying that his budgets are underfunded under the Labour Government.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As we have heard, the Bill is broad in scope. Before I turn to the couple of amendments that I support, I want to recognise that the Bill’s scope is evidenced by the breadth and number of amendments and new clauses. It is worth gently reminding ourselves that a number of the measures were carried over from the Criminal Justice Bill, which sadly fell due to the general election almost a year ago, though there are obviously new clauses and amendments. I hope the Minister is in listening mode, in change mode and is willing to work across the House, and I hope that she accepts some of these amendments, because they would go a long way to further improving this legislation. I have read through the Bill, and much of it goes right to the heart of the communities we seek to serve and represent. There are topics in the Bill that regularly pop up in my inbox and I am sure into colleagues’ inboxes as well. I want to cover two specific areas. The first is fly-tipping and littering—an issue that I have spoken about on many occasions in this Chamber since I was first elected. I support the amendments and new clauses tabled by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). In an intervention earlier, I touched on the cost of littering to the country. I think I said that it was £1 million, but I meant £1 billion; I hope that can be firmly corrected, because it is a big difference. [ Official Report , 17 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 189.] (Correction) The principle is the same—it is money that could go back into our communities—but £1 billion spent on managing littering and fly-tipping is a huge amount of money that could otherwise buy a huge amount of services for constituencies up and down the country.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  According to Keep Britain Tidy, littering and fly-tipping cost the country £1 million a year. [ Official Report , 17 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 206-207.] Does my hon. Friend agree that that is money that could go to frontline services, so it is about time we took more stringent measures to change behaviour, along with some good enforcement?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes another important point about tackling waste crime—I think that is the technical phrase for it. Again, that is something that I see locally. Enforcement matters, but there also has to be strong reminder—I hate to use the word “education”, so perhaps “reminder” is best—to our constituents: if somebody comes to you and says they will clear your rubbish away, your need to think carefully about where they are putting that rubbish. In my constituency, fridges and mattresses have been dumped. I was driving down Bridle Lane last year and saw a whole lorry or van-load of rubbish that had been fly-tipped in the middle of the road. That meant that the road had to be blocked. That is outrageous and it needs to stop.

• 21 May 2025 · Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing this debate. She has spoken with passion and sincerity in this place, not just today but on a number of occasions. I join her in welcoming the delegation from Ukraine, who will surely, after listening to this debate, be totally convinced of the cross-party support for their country and its people. The passionate and emotional contributions today have made that very clear. Many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), have reflected on their personal visits to the country and its people. Few crimes are as harrowing or telling as the theft of a child, but that is what we are debating today: the forced abduction, deportation and ideological reprogramming of Ukrainian children by the Russian state. We need to call it out for what it is. It is not a relocation or an evacuation, which the Kremlin may dress it up as, but a systemic, state-sponsored assault on identity, sovereignty and humanity itself. Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, more than 19,500 Ukrainian children are known to have been forcibly removed from their home and transferred across Russian-occupied territory into Russia itself. Independent estimates suggest that the true figure could be more than double that. As we have heard today, with each child taken, we see families torn apart, culture erased and the future of a nation under threat. Behind every number or statistic is a child, a family, friends and loved ones. I want to make three points. First, Russia’s actions are not just indefensible, but calculated, deliberate and disgraceful. Secondly, during our time in government, the Conservatives led the way not just with weapons and sanctions but with unwavering moral clarity and practical action in support of Ukraine. Thirdly, I urge the Government to be clear-eyed and bold. They should build on what we started and not flinch in the face of Putin’s cruelty. I have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine twice: once as a Foreign Minister in 2021, and again in 2023 as a Back Bencher with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. On my first visit, I stood alongside Ukrainian leaders at the launch of the Crimea Platform, which was a powerful signal of international solidarity. Even then, Russia’s creeping aggression in Donbas and Crimea cast a long shadow, but the spirit of the Ukrainian people shone through. When I returned two years later, though, Ukraine was in the grip of war as a result of Putin’s illegal invasion. Towns were scarred by missile strikes, civilians were forced underground and families were scattered across borders, but what struck me most was the resilience of the people I met: parliamentarians who had lost colleagues, mothers who had sent their sons to the frontline, children who were being educated in bunkers at school, and civil society leaders who were rebuilding community life amid chaos. They were resisting not just an illegal military invasion, but an assault on their identity, their history and, as we have heard clearly today, their children. That is why the forced deportation of Ukrainian children is such a grotesque element of this war—it is wrong. These are not isolated incidents; they are part of a strategy to wipe out the next generation of Ukrainians by forcibly assimilating them into Russia—renaming them, placing them with Russian families and indoctrinating them in so-called re-education camps. That is not just child abduction; it is cultural erasure. That is why the International Criminal Court has, rightly, issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and his commissioner for children’s rights, Maria Lvova-Belova. Let me turn to what we as Conservatives did in government in response. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the UK did not hesitate. We were among the first to send advanced weapons to Ukraine, including anti-tank missiles, long-range precision arms and air defence systems. We trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops under Operation Interflex, co-ordinated international aid and introduced the largest, most severe package of sanctions in UK history, targeting around 2,000 Russian individuals and entities. We also sanctioned Maria Lvova-Belova over the forced transfer and adoption of Ukrainian children. Under our watch, we did not stand with Ukraine just in principle; we stood with it in practice. We understood, and we understand, that helping Ukraine to defend itself was about not just charity—it was about national security, and we treated it as such. We also understood, however, that Russia’s war crimes required a broader response. That is why we supported the gathering of evidence for war crimes prosecutions, championed media freedom and democratic resilience in Ukraine, and supported Ukrainian civil society, which is the lifeblood of any free nation. I was proud, in and out of government, to advocate for Ukraine, from sanctioning oligarchs and calling out disinformation to welcoming Ukrainian families into British homes through the Homes for Ukraine scheme, including some in my own constituency. What are the Government doing to build on that legacy? I am sure the Minister will set that out. The moral imperative could not be clearer. Returning these children must be a top diplomatic priority, not just for Ukraine, but for the entire international community. If we do not act now, we normalise the weaponisation of children in conflict and we send the message that the forced erasure of national identity can go unpunished. What are the Government doing to press international bodies, including the UN and the OSCE, to intensify efforts to track and return these children? What support is the UK providing to Ukrainian and international NGOs that are engaged in tracing, documenting and litigating these cases? What diplomatic pressure is the Government applying to countries that are complicit in circumventing sanctions or turning a blind eye to Russia’s war crimes, including Belarus, which has been directly implicated? I welcome the commitment to £3 billion in annual military aid to Ukraine, but how much funding is earmarked for protecting civilians, documenting atrocities and countering the ideological indoctrination of abducted children? Ukraine does not need just tanks; it needs truth and justice. I end with this: in every Ukrainian family torn apart by abduction, there is a mother waiting, a father grieving and a sibling left behind. Each stolen child is not just a tragedy, but a test of whether the democratic world will match words with action. We on this side of the House say that we must. We led the way in government, and we will continue to hold the line in opposition. We owe it to Ukraine and the families, and we owe it to every principle that this place is meant to defend.

• 14 May 2025 · Gaza: UK Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  The situation in the middle east continues to cause concern. That is why we on this side of the House have been clear on the need to see the return of the hostages and a lasting ceasefire. Although we welcome the release of Edan Alexander, there are still 58 hostages held in Gaza by the Iranian-backed terrorists. Those who are still alive are being held in the most dreadful and appalling conditions, without access to aid and medicines. What they and their families have been going through for approaching 600 days is unimaginable. They must be released as a matter of urgency, so can the Minister give an update on the diplomatic steps being taken by the Government to secure the release of the remaining hostages, and what is Britain contributing to those efforts? This conflict would have been over long ago, had Hamas released the hostages, and the House should not be in any doubt that Hamas and their Iranian sponsors are committed to wiping out the state of Israel. Can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken, with international partners, to deal with the threat to peace, security and stability posed by Iran? We have constantly asked for a strategy to tackle Iran, so when will this come forward? The Government have shared our view that Hamas can have no role in the future governance of Gaza, so can we have an update on the practical steps the Government are taking to secure this outcome and end the misery that Hamas are inflicting on Gaza and the threat they pose to Israel? We have debated aid access to Gaza on several occasions, including in recent days, so can the Minister tell us exactly how much UK-funded aid, both directly and indirectly through multilateral organisations, is waiting to enter Gaza and give us a breakdown of what that aid is? The Government have known for a number of months about the concerns Israel has about the delivery of aid to Gaza and aid diversion, so can the Minister today explain what discussions have taken place with Israel, and what practical solutions Ministers have offered to support the delivery of aid that addresses its concerns? Has the Minister been directly engaged in the discussions that have taken place with Israel and the US over alternative ways to get aid into Gaza? Does he have a view on this and will the UK be participating? We have also been clear that while we continue to press for humanitarian aid and accountability, we do not consider the actions in Gaza to constitute genocide. The case brought by South Africa to the International Court of Justice is not helping—

• 13 May 2025 · Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I am grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks. I welcome this opportunity to debate sanctions on Syria and this measure that the Government have introduced, but before we get into the substance of the matter, may I raise with the Minister a point relating to the process? Will he explain why the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office press release announcing the relaxation of sanctions was issued on 24 April and the legislation was signed by the Minister on 23 April, but it took a week for a written ministerial statement to be laid to Parliament announcing these changes, on 30 April? Can he explain why this discourtesy was shown to the House, and give an assurance that statements on changes to sanctions will in future be made to the House first whenever possible, and certainly in a timelier manner? As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has said in the House on multiple occasions, the Opposition are of the view that we need to exercise extreme caution when it comes to lifting sanctions on Syria. Syria is at a fork in the road, and there is still no guarantee which path it will take. The situation is very fragile and remains volatile, as clearly demonstrated by the appalling clashes between the pro-Government and Druze communities in recent days. Millions of Syrians remain displaced, facing hardship and suffering, while the security situation on the ground is volatile, with the country still vulnerable to criminal gangs smuggling weapons, drugs and people; still at risk of continuing to be exploited by terrorists; and still exposed to the malign influence of Iran. Few will shed tears for the end of the vile, tyrannical Assad regime, which bore responsibility for repression, torture and death on a truly horrific scale and, infamously, the use of chemical weapons against its own people. However, there is still an onus on Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham to prove that it is serious about putting Syria on the path to a future that is materially different and better than that under the monstrous tyranny of the Assads, including when it comes to the protection of all communities, groups and minorities. With that in mind, we need to judge HTS and the transitional Government solely on the basis of action, not words or statements about a future vision. Will the Minister give his latest assessment of the number of groups and militias operating in Syria, and say how he will ensure that this relaxation in sanctions benefits the people of Syria? Co-ordination of course is also important, so I will take the opportunity to ask the Minister what co-ordination, if any, he has undertaken with both the US and European allies on the approach to sanctions. The last Conservative Government helped to lead a co-ordinated approach when it came to Syria, but the UK does not appear to be trying to lead efforts on sanctions policy in the post-Assad period. We see key players in the international community now taking different approaches to the lifting of sanctions, when what we really need is consistency of message. We understand that the US is seeking to impose conditions on the lifting of sanctions, including over the removal of chemical weapons and counter-terrorism measures—indeed, there have been reports of letters being exchanged on these matters as the US seeks assurances—but it appears that the UK is not doing so. Will the Minister explain why he does not want to apply conditions? On what basis has he made the decision not to row in behind the US approach? We recognise that regulation 5 of these regulations contains a list of high-level and laudable purposes for the UK’s decisions, but that is not the same as a concrete condition. On this point, the Minister will be aware that page 2 of the explanatory memorandum summarises the purposes of the regulations as being, “to promote the peace, stability and security of Syria…to promote respect for democracy, the rule of law and good governance in Syria, including in particular promoting the successful completion of Syria’s transition to a democratic country…to discourage actions, policies or activities which repress the civilian population in Syria”. Will the Minister explain what direct discussions have taken place with HTS about the requirements that we expect it to be able to fulfil? If he has not placed conditions on this decision, will he explain why he has not done so? The Minister will be aware that the shadow Foreign Secretary tabled a written parliamentary question on 24 February on “conditions he”— the Foreign Secretary— “plans to apply to the Government of Syria in relation to the relaxation of sanctions.” The Minister who answered on 24 March did not give a direct response to that part of the question, so I would like to give this Minister the opportunity now to give a direct answer. Is this relaxation of sanctions directly linked to a clear set of conditions placed on the transitional Government, and will any future relaxation of sanctions be directly linked to conditions too? It is also important for the Minister to explain what assurances, if any, he has been directly given by the transitional Government of Syria on adhering to the standards that we expect of them. What measures will be put in place to ensure that this relaxation of sanctions does not lead to investments and resources being abused? Syria remains a fragmented country, with different groups and militias exercising control, and conflict and violence still taking place. How often will the Minister review the impact of the relaxation of sanctions, and will he commit to putting sanctions on entities and people in Syria if the standards that we expect in relation to protecting rights are not met? I ask that because section 10 of the explanatory memorandum gives some details on the Government’s approach to monitoring and reviewing this legislation, but seems to suggest that the Government will look only at the effectiveness of maintaining or relaxing the sanctions regime, rather than tightening it up, and that a specific review provision is not needed. The relevant section asks, “ What is the approach to monitoring and reviewing this legislation? ” and section 10.1 states: “If His Majesty’s Government determined that…it was no longer appropriate to maintain a sanctions regime or specific sanctions measures, that regime would be removed or amended accordingly. In the case of the 2019 Regulations, that would include the measures introduced by this instrument. As such, the Minister does not consider that a review clause in this instrument is appropriate. Will the Minister clarify his approach to reviewing and monitoring, which is important? If the transitional Government or other entities in Syria are not acting in an appropriate way to deliver stability to Syria and protect rights, will the current sanctions regime be amended, or will the Government consider introducing a new bespoke sanctions regime and set of regulations? Will the Minister commit to giving a regular update and statement to the House on the status of Syria and the progress, or lack of progress, being made, and whether he is considering any further amendments to sanctions? Does he expect to make any further amendments this year? On monitoring the impact, what criteria will the Minister use to judge whether the lifting of sanctions has had the effect he desires, including on the security front, which will also be important? Turning to more specific provisions, on 25 April the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation at HM Treasury issued a financial sanctions notice that updated references to the 310 individuals and 39 entities to which sanctions apply. With the Assad regime over, can the Minister confirm whether any of those individuals are still in Syria, or have all fled? We know that Assad is in Russia, but does the Minister know the whereabouts of other individuals? Will the Government still consider adding names of individuals and entities to the list, should evidence emerge of the complicity in Assad’s crimes and the repression of Syria by those either currently in Syria or elsewhere? We agree those sanctions must remain in place, and those responsible for heinous acts be held to account. Will the Minister give details on the work under way with international partners and the transitional Government in Syria to bring those responsible to face justice? Will he give an update on his assessment of compliance with sanctions in place? I now turn to the impact of the amendment. Section 9.2 of the explanatory memorandum states: “The lifting of sanctions creates trade and investment opportunities for the UK. The impact on UK growth is expected to be positive but negligible, due to the small size of the Syrian economy. Any such trade and investment with Syria will remain subject to other existing legal regulation including international sanctions.” Does the Minister have an estimate of the impact this would have on UK businesses? Will support and assistance be provided to any UK businesses looking to invest in Syria as a result of these changes, to ensure safe operations? How will he monitor new investments in Syria, to ensure that they are for the benefit of the Syrian people and are not making their way into the hands of those who will undermine our objectives in Syria? With regard to regulation 6 of the 2019 regulations, headed “Designation criteria: meaning of ‘involved person’”, the amendments would add references to the regulation applying to activities during the period of the Assad regime, which is defined in the regulations as the period ending on 8 December 2024. They state that those designated will be persons involved in a range of abhorrent activities, including “repressing the civilian population in Syria” and “the commission of, or obstruction of an independent investigation into a serious human rights violation or abuse in Syria.” Can the Minister confirm whether that will mean that anyone who may obstruct investigations into human rights abuses that happened under the Assad regime but where the obstructive actions took place after 8 December 2024, will not be covered by that provision? Ensuring that evidence is secured is vital to bringing criminal cases against those responsible. Anything that could compromise that must surely be a concern. In the 2019 regulations, regulation 6 defines “prohibited activities related to chemical weapons” and regulation 7 lists “stockpiling or retaining chemical weapons” as actions that can lead to sanctions being applied. Will the Minister confirm whether those aspects of the regulations will apply to anyone who has been maintaining chemical weapons, or obstructing any efforts to investigate and dispose of chemical weapons held in Syria currently, since the fall of the Assad regime? Or does the measure apply only to persons involved in those activities up to 8 December 2024? I am sure that the Minister will share our concerns about the risks of chemical weapons not being secured and disposed of. Can he give an update on the international efforts to deal with chemical weapons in Syria and any progress that the transitional Government are making on that issue? Finally, only an appropriate and inclusive constitutional future will ultimately guarantee peace and stability for Syria, so we should make sure that our policy on Syria’s economic recovery, of which sanctions are of course a part, is not decoupled from ensuring that the right governance structures are in place. On that basis, what is the Minister’s latest assessment of transitional Government’s progress and the plans that they have laid out? We seek assurances on all those points, and I trust that the Minister will give full answers to all those questions when he sums up.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. We should all be really concerned that the Government have quietly abandoned their pledge to hold five local inquiries into grooming gangs. The victims still need justice, the public still need answers, and we still need a full inquiry. In the meantime, can the Minister tell us what specific actions—not just references to AI—her Department is taking to ensure full transparency and public confidence in the cases that do come to court?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Fly-tipping: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), the hon. Members for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) and for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), and the shadow Ministers for contributing to the debate. It seems to me there is a lot of cross-party support when it comes to fly-tipping and litter. I think we all agree that we need to do more and go further. I for one will certainly follow the Crime and Policing Bill closely in the coming weeks. It was clear, though, that we disagree on the situation in Birmingham. It is disappointing that, time and again, Government Members would not condemn the strikes, and that the Government continue to wash their hands of the shocking ongoing situation in Birmingham and on the doorsteps in so many local authorities, including my own. I say gently to the Minister that if he is serious about taking back control of the streets when it comes to rubbish and waste, will he please start in Birmingham? Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the impact of fly-tipping on communities in the West Midlands.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Fly-tipping: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for explaining that the police and crime commissioner has bid for some additional police officers, because try as I might, using written parliamentary questions and debates, I have been unable to find out how many police officers the west midlands will be getting out of the 13,000. Despite budgets and everything else, does the hon. Member agree that if someone is resident in Birmingham, where they have had a council tax increase of 17.5% in the last couple of years, all they want is to get the strike ended, their bins emptied and the streets tidy again?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Fly-tipping: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps the Minister’s records are not as up to date as mine. I want to gently point out that Walsall council successfully prosecuted an individual for fly-tipping a fridge while serving a suspended sentence order in February 2024.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Fly-tipping: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are some beautiful villages in the Scottish Borders, and I have been fortunate to visit many. He highlights how these community-led initiatives have not just improved local cleanliness but have helped to foster a strong culture of environmental awareness, education and civic pride. That proactive and community-focused approach sets Walsall apart from the ongoing challenges faced by neighbouring areas, where waste management issues continue to spiral. Walsall’s model should be a beacon of best practice for other local authorities to follow. Turning back to the national picture, when we were in Government we took decisive action to tackle the scourge of fly-tipping. Under the antisocial behaviour action plan, in July 2023 we increased the upper limit of on-the-spot fines for fly-tipping to £1,000. We also supported local authorities to better deliver for their communities. In 2022, we launched the fly-tipping grant scheme, which awarded £450,000 to crack down on fly-tipping in local communities. Following the success of measures including roadside CCTV, social media campaigns and targeted surveillance in hotspot areas, we almost doubled the funding available for councils in 2023 to £775,000. In Walsall, the use of CCTV has made a big difference to some fly-tipping hotspots. Last May, we went further, announcing a third round of grants that would see 26 local authorities across England benefit from a share of almost £1 million, with individual grants of up to £50,000. There is always more that we can do; the work is not finished yet, because the litter and the fly-tipping are still out there. What plans does the Minister have to build on the successes of the grant scheme, and can he announce a fourth round? Birmingham could take advantage of that if there were another round. In 2024, our manifesto pledged to punish polluters by making fly-tipping an offence that carries penalty points against a driving licence. That is a sensible measure that would introduce a further deterrent by directly linking fly-tipping to driving penalties. I believe we must further consider this type of action. Individuals and businesses would think twice about offending if they risked losing the ability to drive or getting points on their licence. It may even allow us to deter those who choose to absorb the costs of a fine. The forthcoming Crime and Policing Bill is a golden opportunity to implement this type of reform. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), has tabled an amendment to the Bill to introduce the relevant legislation. The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), said she would ask her counterpart at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to consider the benefits of endorsing penalty points for fly-tippers. I read a report prepared by Policy Exchange, called “Litterbugs 2.0”—I am sure the Minister or his officials will have seen it—which calls for higher penalties, a local authority league table and, interestingly, a national litter awareness course. Those are all worthy ideas that we need to continue exploring, because we cannot just rely on volunteer litter groups or councils. Government cannot do everything; there needs to be a cross-Government, multi-layered approach. Will the Minister enlighten us on his views on this matter? I am sure that he shares my desire for sensible reforms that strengthen the deterrents against fly-tipping. Personally, I would like that extended to litter as well because, try as I might, I have yet to find a clear definition of the difference between fly-tipping and litter, so let us tackle it all in one go. In a recent litter pick in my constituency, I could not help but notice that litter was being thrown indiscriminately out of vehicles—hence my previous point. At the weekend, members of a local litter picking group asked very pertinent questions around the littering on slip roads to highways. If the Minister has not noticed already—I am sure he has—I suggest that when he is travelling or driving he takes notice of the vast quantities of litter and fly-tipping that we often see on the sides of roads or slip roads going on to motorways. Could he clarify whether the responsibility is with councils or National Highways, and whether the approach is the same right across the country? It is time that we properly recognise the incredible work of volunteers. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) has rightly highlighted the importance of providing funding to local parish councils and encouraging collaboration with local businesses, particularly to support the installation of more automatic number plate recognition cameras to deter and catch offenders. Could we find a way to offer greater recognition for some of those litter champions, maybe through the honours system, which could do so much more to inspire and reward people at the grassroots level. Those individuals and groups who go above and beyond in their communities deserve more than a thank you—a lot of them would not expect it, but they do so much good work. In Walsall borough, we are proud to have over 1,000 registered volunteers and nine community litter picking hubs, where residents can sign up and collect equipment. A huge amount of good work is happening at the grassroots level, but Government must play their part, too. We cannot expect councils and volunteers to carry the full weight of this challenge alone. To conclude, I have a few asks for the Minister, who I am sure would be disappointed if I did not. Sitting through DEFRA questions in the main Chamber the other week, I saw so much cross-party support for tackling this problem; there must be some way that we can move this agenda forward. Can we have a national debate and a clear action plan that leads to real, measurable delivery that makes a difference to our communities? Will the Minister consider the appointment of a litter and fly-tipping champion in Government—as we have champions and envoys in other Departments—to lead a joined up, cross-departmental approach? I assure him that I am not bidding for that job, but it could be a really important role. Could we have for a strong commitment to education and a zero-tolerance strategy? It is so important that we shift public behaviour. That is what a lot of this is about—shifting public behaviour and attitudes towards fly-tipping and litter so that it is not acceptable to drop litter. Finally, on enforcement, we need to move beyond warm words and see concrete actions to tackle this costly and persistent blight on our communities. With the promised 13,000 extra police officers, perhaps that extra resource could be used to tackle this nationwide problem.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Council Guidelines · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the news today that the Sentencing Council had a last-minute change of heart on pre-sentencing reports. To go back to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), why did it take the efforts of the shadow Justice Secretary to get the Lord Chancellor to have a change of heart on that important matter? We did not get an answer on that before.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is much in this Bill that I welcome, because of course it was announced by the last Government. However, this Government need to go further, and we will push them to do so. A major part of the Bill is its increased focus on neighbourhood policing, which is commendable. I have always advocated in this Chamber for greater levels of neighbourhood policing on our streets and more visible policing in our communities. I pay tribute to my own neighbourhood policing team in Aldridge-Brownhills, who serve my local community day in, day out. They are truly locally based officers who care about our local community, and I thank them for all they do on our behalf. Sadly, my neighbourhood policing team will soon find itself without a permanent, dedicated home, because the Labour police and crime commissioner has decided to sell off the family silver right across the west midlands. As well as selling off the police station in Aldridge in my patch, he is selling our next nearest police station in Sutton Coldfield. He has already sacrificed the next nearest one in Kingstanding—that building is going to become a Domino’s Pizza takeaway. The Government want more police officers. That is great, but in the west midlands, their own police and crime commissioner does not want to house them. It is unacceptable that police stations across the west midlands are slowly being phased out, diminishing the role of neighbourhood policing, all at a time when more power is being sucked towards central Birmingham and the PCC headquarters at Lloyd House.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady makes an important point about neighbourhood policing. Does she agree that local police stations should be integral to this plan?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, because of time. That headquarters has benefited from a staggering £33 million-worth of upgraded decoration as a result of local communities losing their local police stations—including the former Brownhills police station—in phase 1 of the closure programme. Surely, that is not right. I draw the Minister’s attention to several written parliamentary questions to which I do not believe I have received a full answer—in particular, my question concerning the funding of the proposed 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers. While those new officers are welcome, as I have stated, the Government have not yet fully said how they will be funded after the first year, so I would be grateful for clarity on that. It is imperative that there is certainty that those are fully funded new officers who will be added to base budgets for future years, not a one-off Government expenditure, after which the local taxpayer will pick up the tab through an increase in the precept. The Government face similar questions regarding their decision to fund national insurance increases. Once again, they have been circumspect in their responses to my questions in Westminster Hall and to written parliamentary questions. It is very important that the Minister comes clean today and clarifies that the grant given to police authorities to cover the Chancellor’s job tax is not just a one-off, but will be added to those authorities’ base budgets. As the Minister is very aware, if that is not the case, this will be yet another stealth tax by the back door by this Government, punishing our constituents. There is so much in the Bill that I would like to talk about, but before I conclude I will touch briefly on knife crime. I welcome the Government’s commitment to halving knife crime, which comes on the back of a series of measures passed by the last Conservative Government. Sadly, in 2017, my constituent James Brindley lost his life to knife crime in Aldridge. Since then, his parents have dedicated their lives to helping eradicate the scourge of knife crime. They have established the James Brindley Foundation to help educate young people across the borough of Walsall to turn their backs on carrying a knife. Back in August 2022, I was really proud to be present at the unveiling of one of a number of knife bins across the borough, funded through that foundation with help from local businesses and sponsors. James’s parents have a simple ask, and I will be a bit cheeky and press the Minister on it today: will she work with her colleagues in the Department for Education to see whether knife crime prevention could be considered for inclusion in the national curriculum? My constituents demand safety, which is why the last Conservative Government fully funded 20,000 new police officers. We welcome the 13,000 new police officers, but my constituents want them to be fully funded and housed in the neighbourhood. The Bill fails to give all the guarantees that I am looking for. On that basis, I hope the Minister can provide me with some clarity when she sums up the debate.