Crime and Policing Bill

Esther McVey Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am all in favour of public campaigns and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be a very good idea for people to know that what they were buying was illegal. I suspect many of them already do so. That notwithstanding, if such a campaign could be backed up by a penalty for selling illegal bikes in shops, that would be a far better way of dealing with it. Right now, lots of kids do not know that the bikes are illegal, and they go and take these things and they can pay for them, and that is where the danger comes from. We are shutting the door too late. These kids have gone on to the roads, they have created an accident and they have killed themselves. That is too late for us. What we need to do is get ahead of this and try to figure it out completely.

The final bit of this issue is the fact that people can change the monitors inside the boxes, even on the legal bikes, and lots of them do so. We see them going down the road at 30 mph, which is incredibly dangerous. I am a motorcyclist, I have to say, but Members should not go looking for the leather jacket; I left it at home.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Oh no!

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Don’t get excited—it’s not that great!

Motorcyclists have to be tested even more than car drivers. There are balancing tests and they have to know everything like that. This is absolutely critical, because it is a slightly more dangerous mode of transport—more exciting, yes, but more dangerous. Someone cannot buy a motorcycle in a shop and take it away unless they are able to show their licence and that they are qualified to ride that bike, and that really requires instruction, but people can buy e-bikes—these electric vehicles—without any sort of licence. It seems bizarre that that should be allowed. Even though we want people not to use petrol, diesel and all the rest of it because of the environment, this goes beyond that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 44, otherwise known as Banaz’s law, tabled in my name and in memory of Banaz Mahmod. I am grateful for the cross-party support that I have received for the new clause from 54 Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members and for the opportunity to continue the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and the last Women and Equalities Committee; I am proud to be a member of the Committee.

Banaz was a young woman from south London. In 2006, she was murdered by her father, her uncle and five male cousins in a so-called honour killing. Her crime, in their eyes, was to leave an abusive husband, whom she had bravely reported for rape and violence, and to seek love with a man of her own choosing. Believing she had brought shame and dishonour upon the family, they convened what they chillingly called a council of war and plotted her death. Banaz’s body was found months later buried in a suitcase in a back garden in Birmingham.

This horrific injustice did not begin with her murder, however. Banaz went to the police five times. She reported rape, she named her abusers, she predicted her own death and still her cries for help were dismissed. An investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the police handling of Banaz’s case later found multiple serious failings. This was not only a family crime; it was a community crime. Police estimated that as many as 50 men were involved in plotting the murder, covering it up or encouraging this honour narrative. Banaz’s uncle called her death “justice”. Others called him a hero.

Banaz’s case is not unique. Shafilea Ahmed, Somaiya Begum, Raneem Oudeh, Khaola Saleem and Fawziyah Javed were all women subjected to honour-based abuse. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner estimates that at least 12 honour killings take place in the UK every year. More than 7,000 incidents of honour-based abuse are recorded annually, but the true scale is almost certainly greater.

While I fully support the important steps this Bill takes to tackle violence against women and girls, I am concerned by its insufficient focus on honour-based abuse and I am grateful to the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for taking the time to meet me. However, I must stress that subsuming honour-based abuse within extant law does not adequately contend with these issues and is not sufficiently capable of yielding the change promised by Banaz’s law.

My new clause calls for honour-based abuse to be recognised in law as an aggravating factor in sentencing. It also calls for victim-survivors who act in self-defence or under coercion after years of abuse to have that context recognised as a mitigating factor. With this new clause, statutory guidance across the criminal justice system could be given so that police, prosecutors and courts could be trained to recognise and respond to this high-risk, often collective, form of abuse.

I want to pay tribute to the Bekhal Mahmod, Banaz’s sister. Her courage and the tireless work of Southall Black Sisters have brought us to this point. I will not be pressing my new clause to a vote today, but I hope that Ministers will take this opportunity to reflect on the need to take further action against all forms of honour-based abuse, because the need for reform is undeniable.

[Esther McVey]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I think the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) just ran out of time. I remember that I too raised Banaz’s case as a Back Bencher.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Wheeler]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I do not need to interrupt my speech, because I am about to deal with exactly that point. New clause 48 would create a specific offence along similar lines to cover delivery workers, which is incredibly welcome. These workers deserve protection just as much as in-store staff. They, too, are required to enforce the law and conduct age checks, and this Bill places additional requirements on them regarding the delivery of knives. But unlike in-store staff, they carry out their work without the safety net of colleagues, security or familiar surroundings. As is the case in Scotland following the passage of the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021, home delivery drivers must be included. It is only right that delivery workers in England and Wales receive equal protection, which must not stop at the shop door.

We should never underestimate the important contributions of retail workers. They serve our communities, bring essentials to our doors and keep the nation fed. Without them, the country would grind to a halt. New clause 48 provides the opportunity to give retail workers the protection they so obviously deserve, and I urge hon. Members to take that opportunity and to send a clear message from this place that abuse is not part of the job.

[Esther McVey]

I rise to support new clause 144, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). On Monday, the Government hastily came to the House to deliver yet another U-turn and to announce a national inquiry into rape gangs. It is apparent that this U-turn was forced on them, because whenever any member of the public or Member of Parliament said that they wanted a national inquiry, the response from the Government was that they were “far right”, “jumping on a bandwagon” or even blowing a “dog whistle”—those were the words used by Ministers on the Front Bench.

This was a hasty U-turn. In fact, those on the Government Front Bench were somewhat taken aback, as it appears that the Prime Minister had appointed Baroness Casey of Blackstock in the hope that the whole thing would go away and that the inquiry would not happen. She said that she changed her mind because of the weight of evidence that confronted her. Her words were, “I think I have surprised people in Downing Street and beyond.” She did, and the clincher was that the local inquiries were inadequate, because local authorities could decide whether they were going to commission an inquiry and the Government would not intervene. She also said that of the five local inquiries, only one came forward—that was in Oldham. There was reluctance from local areas to face up to the facts and to accept their failings. Denial ran through absolutely everything.

Denial is like a poisonous thread: it weaves its way through all public bodies, strangles the truth and stops justice coming forward. It is essential that an investigation is held into all the failings of the police, local authorities, prosecutors, charities and political parties. The Prime Minister himself was in denial until Saturday, when the U-turn was forced upon him. He often brandishes his credentials as the former director of public prosecutions, and in 2014 he penned an article for the Guardian in which he acknowledged that there were at least 1,400 victims, but he did nothing until the U-turn was forced upon him.

We need to ask questions about the statutory inquiry, because the public need to know the answers. Who will chair the inquiry? What type of inquiry will it be? It already seems to have been watered down. Will it be independent, a national inquiry or, as it now seems, a national commission? What are the terms of reference? It is not good enough to say that we will hear “in due course”. What are the inquiry’s powers? That is unclear. Will there be judicial powers to subpoena people to give evidence?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I welcome the inquiry and the investigation into who was responsible for helping this scourge to continue unabated, but does the right hon. Lady agree that the 20 recommendations of the Jay review urgently need to be implemented and that the inquiry should not delay the implementation of those recommendations?

[Esther McVey]

The inquiry should not delay that, but the inquiry needs to be done with speed and haste, not be watered down and not brushed under the carpet, because it is essential that the victims’ voices are heard and that they have justice.

The House also needs assurance there will be no exemptions from prosecution in exchange for evidence. It needs to know if witnesses can be compelled to produce documents protected by public interest immunity. When will that happen? It is not good enough that the Home Secretary was saying that it would be three years away, close to a general election. It needs to be done as soon as possible. I also wonder why it will be a statutory inquiry, not a criminal inquiry. Is it because a criminal inquiry can lead to arrest, charges and criminal prosecutions, whereas a statutory inquiry tends to make a series of recommendations to then be acted on? At the end of this inquiry, will we see prosecutions? Will we see deportations?

Time and again, we heard that community cohesion was put above working-class girls. That cannot ever happen again. That issues were not investigated for fear of people being labelled racist cannot ever happen again. If somebody does wrong, the colour of their skin or their religion do not matter: they have done wrong. If they have committed a criminal act it is right that they are brought to justice. This Government will not get away with a watered-down national inquiry. They have been dragged kicking and screaming to deliver a national inquiry. That national inquiry needs to be delivered.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in strong support of new clause 122, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor). I am proud to be the first signatory to it, as I believe it represents a vital step forward in the protection of some of the most marginalised people in our society.

New clause 122 would amend the Crime and Policing Bill to create aggravated offences where the underlying crime is motivated by hostility because of a person’s sexual orientation, transgender identity, disability or perceived identity. It would align the legal treatment of those forms of hate with the framework that already exists for racially and religiously aggravated offences. It delivers on a promise, a promise that we in the Labour party made in our manifesto to the British people: that we would act to close the gap in our hate crime laws and provide equal protection to LGBT+ people and disabled people in the criminal justice system. It is about living up to our values. Labour is the party of equality, fairness before the law and standing with those whose voices have too often been ignored. That is why I joined the Labour party and this amendment is rooted in that tradition.

It is also fitting that we are tabling this new clause in Pride Month and in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling which has caused so much anguish among the trans community. We know the scale of the problem. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation have risen by 112% over the last five years. Against trans people, that figure is 186%. The charity Galop, which supports LGBT+ victims of abuse, saw a 60% increase in referrals in the last year alone. In the year ending March 2024, 11,719 disability hate crime incidents were reported. Shamefully, just 1% of that hate crime involving violence resulted in a charge.

And yet, still, the majority of incidents go unreported. Too many victims still believe the system is not on their side. New clause 122 gives us the opportunity to change that. It would give police and prosecutors a clearer route to charge and convict offenders in a way that truly reflects the nature of these crimes. I know what it means to think twice about how you walk down a street, to pause before holding someone’s hand, and to wonder whether that shout from across the road is something that you can ignore or that you cannot afford to ignore. And I know I am not alone in that. I have spoken to my constituents and to people from far beyond, who tell me they do not feel safe reporting hate when it happens. They do not believe they will be taken seriously. There is a profound failure of trust, one that we in this House have a duty to repair.

This is also about dignity. It is about recognising that, whether you are a trans teenager being punched in a park, a gay couple being spat at on the tube, or a disabled man being harassed on his way to work, all people deserve the full protection of the law. They deserve to know that this country is on their side, and that if they are targeted for who they are, justice will not look the other way. New clause 122 would provide vital protection for disabled people, who remain far too invisible in the public conversation around hate crime despite facing damaging harassment, violence and abuse every single day.

This change is recommended by the Law Commission and supported by Stonewall, Galop and Disability Rights UK. I am proud that it is backed by 104 right hon. and hon. Members across the House. People are simply asking to live their lives in peace and have the right support when things go wrong. I hope we can take a step forward in advancing LGBT+ rights and disability rights today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am going to keep going, because I am conscious that I do not have much time.

To reiterate to the shadow Minister what I said in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been clear that a consistent and common-sense approach must be taken with non-crime hate incidents. Accordingly, it has been agreed with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing that they will conduct a review of this area. I say to the shadow Minister that it was the shadow Home Secretary, when he was the Policing Minister, who introduced the current code of practice and police guidance on non-crime hate incidents. He said:

“The Government fully recognises the importance of ensuring that vulnerable individuals, groups and communities continue to be protected by the police; indeed, this is the purpose of non-crime hate incident recording. We are confident that the code does precisely this.”

It seems odd that he said that the approach was right at that stage, but now he wants to scrap it.

On new clause 144, I was disappointed that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) seemed to have missed the announcement made by the Home Secretary on Monday, which answered a number of her questions. The shadow Minister did not seem to be aware of the announcement either. Using existing legislation in the Inquiries Act 2005, the independent commission will be set up under a national inquiry with full powers to compel individuals to testify, with the aim of holding institutions to account for current and historic failures in their response to group-based child sexual exploitation. The Home Secretary was clear that she is accepting all the recommendations from Baroness Casey.

[Esther McVey]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

No, I am going to carry on.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) mentioned new clauses 87 and 88. This Government have been clear that water companies must accelerate action to reduce pollution to the environment. The Water (Special Measures) Act, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, significantly strengthens the power of the regulators and delivers on the Government’s commitment to put failing water companies under special measures. Among other measures, the Act introduced automatic penalties on polluters and banned bonuses for water company executives if they fail to meet adequate standards.

[Esther McVey]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

No.

On new clauses 85 and 86 about neighbourhood policing, it is clear that this Government are starting to implement our neighbourhood policing guarantee.

On new clause 13, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), the Government recognise the serious consequences that can result from joint enterprise convictions. However, joint enterprise ensures that those who act together in committing a crime are all held responsible. We saw that in the cases of Ben Kinsella and Garry Newlove, as well as many others. We are aware of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend and we will continue to look at that.

I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for not being able to get through all 100 amendments that were tabled. I also need to leave time for the person whose new clause leads the group to respond.

Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report

Esther McVey Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that so many victims and survivors do not come forward. We need to make it easier for people to do so, and recognise the scale of abuse. I agree with her on the really important issue about county lines and the interaction between criminal exploitation and sexual exploitation. Too often, the county lines and criminal exploitation is seen as an issue involving teenage boys, but very often teenage girls are also drawn in—and very often, that also means sexual exploitation. I do not believe that enough investigation has yet been done into that particular pattern and form of child sexual abuse and exploitation. As we strengthen the law on the criminal exploitation of children, we need to ensure that this issue is properly pursued, as she says, as part of the data gathering and through further research.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

This Government have been dragged kicking and screaming to deliver a national inquiry, having dismissed the pleas of the nation as jumping on a far-right bandwagon. That reluctance is why my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) will continue his inquiry and why I will be supporting him it. Will the Government’s inquiry investigate the political motivations behind the cover-ups, including the role of the Labour party, or will that continue to be swept under the carpet?

[Yvette Cooper]

Everyone should want not just to get to the truth about past failures, but to ensure we make the changes to protect children for the future. That includes changes in social services; changes in policing and the police operation, which I hope the right hon. Lady would welcome, to take action to put perpetrators behind bars; and action to gather proper ethnicity data, which simply has not been gathered properly before. Louise Casey’s report is very clear: the data gathering that the right hon. Lady’s Government left behind is totally inadequate. I hope she will agree to all those factors being extremely important, so that we can get stronger protection, and truth, for victims.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

There is an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill that extends the requirement to check illegal working to the gig economy, the zero-hours economy and all those areas that have non-traditional employer-employee relationships. I look forward to being able to operationalise that when the Bill becomes law.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Regarding non-crime hate incidents and the amount of police time taken to investigate them, does the Minister agree that the clue is in the name? They are “non-crime”. Does she also agree that already stretched police should focus their efforts on tackling real crime, rather than being the virtue-signalling thought police?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The Home Secretary has been very clear about the priorities that police forces should actually focus on. As agreed with the Home Secretary, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing are conducting a review of non-crime hate incidents. We will update Parliament in due course on the findings of that review and any changes that may be required to the code of practice introduced by the shadow Home Secretary in March 2023.

Immigration System

Esther McVey Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. I think the previous Government had eight Home Secretaries in the space of eight years, and two of them were the same person.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Without a third country such as Rwanda, can the Home Secretary tell the House where illegal immigrants whose country of origin cannot be established, because they have destroyed their documentation, will be deported to? Is it the case that they cannot be deported, and anyone who exploits that loophole can stay here with impunity?

[Yvette Cooper]

This Government have increased returns since the election; there have been 24,000 returns since the election. That includes an increase of more than 20% in failed asylum cases. It also includes action we are taking to deal with people who claim to have lost their papers and to ensure that we can deliver those returns. We will continue to support other policies, including working with the EU on issues around returns hubs. The Conservatives had two years to run their Rwanda scheme. They spent £700 million and sent four volunteers. That was a waste of money, a failure for the taxpayer and a failed delivery.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Esther McVey Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jo White]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

“People started dying. People were screaming. It is very painful when someone is dying inside the water. The way they die—they cannot breathe...it is very difficult. I never thought I would experience such a thing… It is a harrowing experience I do not want to remember. I was holding on to what remained of the boat and people were screaming. It is something I will not forget.”

This is the witness testimony of Mohammed Omar when he spoke at the Cranston inquiry, which is investigating the UK’s worst small boat disaster. On 27 November 2021, it is believed that 31 people lost their lives. Mohammed said that he was told that 33 people would be aboard the dinghy, but more were added, including children.

Those gang members whose sole focus is on the billions of pounds that their horrific trade generates, who overload boats that are not fit to go into the ocean, who treat human life as having no value, willing to put lives at risk for huge profits must experience the full force of the law. This Bill gives Border Command the powers to pursue, arrest and prosecute those people. Breaking and destroying the gangs is critical to bringing an end to the small boat crossings. Mohammed’s witness evidence underlines how important it is to achieve that.

The Bill not only gives the power and authority to work with our international partners to track down and break up the gangs, with the powers to seize and interrogate mobile phones and laptops to collect data and evidence, but the new amendment will introduce enhanced illegal working checks, putting a stop to those delivery drivers bringing meals or parcels to our doorsteps who cannot speak a word of English, potentially using IDs that have been borrowed or purchased from legitimate employees.

I welcome the raids on the businesses, such as the nail bars, barbers and restaurants employing illegal workers, potentially in slave labour conditions. In January there were 131 raids in my area of the midlands, with 106 arrests. The amendment will mean that those arrested will now face fines of up to £60,000 per worker and prison sentences of up to five years. The French have said that people want to come to the UK because it is all too easy to be swept into the black economy and work illegally. The heavy disincentives of fines and prison sentences have the power to put a brake on the demand for the illegal trafficking of people.

I welcome this Bill. As I said in February,

“crack on with the job, give us a running commentary of every success, publicise the return flights and the jailing of criminals, clear up the Conservatives’ mess, secure our borders, close down the use of hotels and stop the small boats.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 124.]

Today is the next step forward.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 14. This Government came into power on the promise to “smash the gangs” and cut immigration numbers—what an empty, cynical slogan that turned out to be. The exact opposite happened: the gangs were emboldened and the Government lost control of illegal immigration, which is up 31% since the election and 35% in this year.

After the failure to smash the gangs and the poor showing at the recent elections, the Government’s response is another gimmick: the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. It is hollow, its five core principles are a word salad of empty phrases and it is a rehash of old ideas and contradictions. It lacks a deterrent. In fact, the biggest mistake that this Prime Minister has made, in a strong field of contenders, was cancelling the Rwanda scheme. Even the National Crime Agency described that as a deterrent, and it was already starting to work; we saw those coming in by dinghy from France starting to head to Ireland and other countries. Without Rwanda or another third country, there is no way to remove any illegal immigrants who destroy their documents as they come to this country.

As a result of cancelling that deterrent, we have seen illegal migration soar. Some of the levels of illegal immigration will come down, but that will be as a result of what the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), did with his restrictions to stop dependants entering the country and the bilateral deals he made, such as the one with Albania to deport criminals. This Government say that they will now create a new legal framework for immigration judges to prevent illegal migrants and foreign criminals avoiding deportation by exploiting article 8 of the ECHR. That will never happen under the human rights lawyer who leads the Labour party, or a Labour party that champions the ECHR and the Human Rights Act.

The reality is that until this Government get ahead of the curve, get a spine, take the UK out of the ECHR, repeal the Human Rights Act—a law that Labour introduced to cement the ECHR in British law—reinstate the Rwanda scheme and radically clamp down on housing and benefits, I am afraid that immigrants will continue to come to the UK. The British people expect security and prosperity, not platitudes and broken promises. We in this House must act accordingly and vote in favour of new clause 14, which would disapply the Human Rights Act.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

Vulnerable people are dying in the channel and in our asylum system in record, horrifying numbers. Today, yet another person tragically died trying to reach our shores. The exact figures are murky, but from what we know, last year was the deadliest year ever for people seeking asylum in the UK. The UN estimates that 82 people, including at least 14 children, lost their lives in the channel, but French frontline charities believe the fatality rate to be significantly higher. Meanwhile, freedom of information requests reveal that 51 people died in asylum accommodation, and among them were a 15-year-old boy and two babies.

People are drowning while trying to reach safety. Once they arrive, they are dying by suicide, from infectious diseases and from unknown causes in poverty, in low-quality accommodation or on the streets, like the teenage victim of modern slavery who took his own life while terrified of deportation, the father of one who died of diphtheria after being held in a Government processing centre, or the seven-year-old girl who was crushed to death on an overcrowded boat. In several cases of deaths in asylum accommodation, there have been alleged lapses of safeguarding codes. These deaths are utterly unacceptable and often preventable, yet the Home Office keeps no official record. As such, we do not know how many lives are being lost.

The Government rightly want to reduce deaths in the channel, and the starting point must be to know the numbers. My new clause 1, which is supported by 24 MPs, is a call for truth and transparency. It would mandate that the Home Office records and reports statistics and information on the deaths of people in our asylum system who are meant to be in its care and people at our borders. It would provide opportunities for scrutiny and accountability, because no matter where they come from or how they got here, people deserve dignity. We must not allow them to die in silence, ignored and uncared for, so I urge the Government to act. We need a new approach to refugees and asylum. We need to stand up to Conservative Members scapegoating desperate people for the problems that our communities are experiencing after 14 years of Conservative austerity, instead of parroting them.

Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

If my hon. and learned Friend wants to talk to me about any of the details, I would be happy to listen, but of course we want to operate that site properly and appropriately until we hand it back to the Ministry of Defence in September.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Given that the Government do not believe in sending illegal immigrants to third countries such as Rwanda, can the Minister explain how they plan to deport people who have destroyed their documents so that we do not know their country of origin? Or is the solution to keep those people here forever—in hotels, or in one of the 1.5 million homes that Labour plans to build?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Mr Deputy Speaker—sorry, Mr Speaker. I do not know why I am calling you Mr Deputy Speaker today; I have gone back a very long time to when you were, but that was so long ago that I can scarcely remember it. My apologies, Mr Speaker.

The right hon. Lady should remember that the Rwanda scheme was about deporting people for good, not dealing with their asylum claims. That is not in any way what this Government would ever consider doing, which is why that scheme was cancelled.

Rural Crime

Esther McVey Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

Sadly, in the last week my constituency has suffered a spate of rural break-ins on the edge of Exmoor, and a quad bike and a chainsaw were also stolen from sheds in West Anstey earlier this month, in a pattern that we are very familiar with. Just this past week, South Molton and Umberleigh joined a string of other Devon villages where thieves believed to be targeting cigarettes struck local shops and service stations overnight. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when we talk about rural crime, we are really talking about the perception among criminals that rural areas are soft targets for obtaining goods that can be easily fenced elsewhere?

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be brief.

[Ben Maguire]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to that type of rural crime. We have become far too much of a soft touch for these organised criminal gangs.

If we want to tackle crime in this country, we must finally start taking rural crime seriously. The latest figures from NFU Mutual put the total cost of rural crime in 2023 at £52.8 million—an increase of 4.3% on the year before. But those figures only reflect insured losses, and the true cost is likely far higher, as many people do not have trust or confidence that crimes will be properly investigated when reported.

The explosion in thefts of high-value equipment is particularly worrying. GPS theft surged by 137% last year, costing £4.2 million, and farmers cannot simply replace the equipment overnight. Thefts of quad bikes and all-terrain vehicles, which are critical equipment for farmers and rural workers, rose by 9% to £3.2 million. Livestock theft remained at an alarming £2.7 million, with evidence of animals being butchered in the fields and then stolen, causing immense distress to farmers.

Farmers—who faced botched Brexit trade deals thanks to the Conservatives, and who now face a family farm tax because of this Labour Government’s changes to agricultural property relief—are suffering from the scourge of rural organised crime, which is often theft to order. The toll on farmers’ mental health and wellbeing is enormous, and my inbox has been inundated with cases from North Cornwall. One farmer saw his £17,000 all- terrain vehicle stolen in the dead of night, and that was not the first time thieves had targeted his property. Another farmer, in the village of St Kew, lost more than £3,000 in the blink of an eye when thieves broke in and stole vehicles, tools and equipment that he relied on for his livelihood. Finally, one farming couple in Blisland had two quad bikes taken from their locked garage, costing £15,000 to replace. With this particular theft, police travelled all the way from Totnes—a three-hour round trip—showing up three days after the event. They put a few signs around the property, and the farmers have not heard from them since. Those stories make it unsurprising that 86% of countryside residents have said rural crime is negatively impacting their mental wellbeing, as highlighted by various surveys conducted by the NFU.

Yet, one of the most under-reported aspects of rural crime is the mass theft of power tools and machinery from tradesmen and small businesses—a crime that exceeds farm machinery theft in total volume. The figures are staggering. Of the over 3,600 stolen tools recovered by the national rural crime unit, only 77 were successfully returned to their owners. That is just 2%, which is an abysmal rate of return, with a huge impact on the livelihoods of these tradesmen. These thefts can devastate builders, carpenters, plumbers and others who rely on expensive, specialised equipment to earn a living. When tools are stolen, jobs are lost, deadlines are missed and insurance costs soar. Yet, some manufacturers outright refuse to co-operate with crime prevention efforts, as there is currently no legal requirement for forensic markings or GPS tracking on these high-value power tools to help with their recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should not mention any live legal cases during the debate. Members should bob if they wish to be called, and interventions must be brief. We will come to the Front-Bench spokespeople at 2.30 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

As my hon. Friend makes clear, fly-tipping hits every part of our community. In Keighley and Ilkley, Bradford council recently made the decision to close two household waste and recycling centres, which has resulted in more fly-tipping not only in those parts of the rural environment that sit on the urban fringe, but sometimes in the most isolated of rural places. That is incredibly detrimental to many of our constituents. I would very much like to see, as we have previously advocated, a single reporting mechanism for fly-tipping, which would make it easier for police forces to manage the levels of reporting. This must continue to be a priority for all Governments.

Hare coursing has also been mentioned, and intervention is crucial to preventing wildlife crime. I thank all those involved with the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act under the previous Conservative Administration, under which hare coursing now carries the appropriate punishments that recognise the damage it causes, with powers in place to impose custodial sentences, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. As the Sentencing Council stated in its January 2025 consultation,

“The courts now have a fuller suite of sentencing powers, including new ancillary orders, to deal with hare coursing offences.”

Hare coursing may seem to many like an abstract issue, but for the many Members who represent rural constituencies, the offence unfortunately continues to take place. As a result of that Act, however, incidents are being reported. It is encouraging to see that, as of this Tuesday, 16 people have been arrested for the crime, but that underscores the need for the police to ensure that offenders are properly punished. It is highly encouraging that in areas where police forces are taking part in Operation Galileo, hare coursing has decreased by 40%. As I mentioned, the Sentencing Council is consulting on updating its guidance to reflect instances of this crime. I would be grateful if the Minister could keep the House updated.

Without doubt, the other big issue that has been mentioned is machinery and diesel theft. Based on data from the NFU and the Countryside Alliance, one of the most impactful crimes affecting rural communities is theft of agricultural machinery, including vehicles. Data from the NFU indicates that the theft of agricultural goods costs more than £10 million in just the last year, which is a shocking amount.

I give huge credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, whose private Member’s Bill, now the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act, received Royal Assent back in 2023. The Act provided the Government and the police with wider powers to tackle the increasing incidence of vehicle and equipment theft from farms, including of quad bikes and ATVs, focusing on prevention. As my hon. Friend has consistently indicated, there is still a need for secondary legislation. It is comforting to hear that it will potentially be laid before the House by the summer, but the Government need to pass that secondary legislation to ensure the Act includes other agricultural equipment such as power tools.

Members have also mentioned livestock worrying, which involves livestock being attacked or chased by dogs that are not kept under proper control. NFU Mutual found that an estimated £2.4 million-worth of farm animals were killed by livestock worrying in 2023 alone, a rise of 30% on the previous year. Those deaths were not always because of physical attacks or injury. With the lambing season now under way, I worry that the issue will fill all our inboxes in the spring months ahead.

The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill, which is a critical piece of animal welfare legislation, was first introduced under the last Government, and it is now slowly moving back through the legislative process. It received an unopposed Second Reading in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024, having been reintroduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth). I ask the Government to ensure that time is allowed for the Bill to progress as quickly as possible. This much-needed legislation would provide much comfort to many of our livestock farmers, because it aims to address the growing issue of livestock worrying by enhancing protections for farmers, introducing tougher penalties for offenders and expanding police powers. It would also expand the definition of livestock, introduce unlimited fines for offenders and grant the police powers to seize suspected attacking animals and to collect the DNA evidence needed for prosecution.

I reiterate the need for all our police forces to work collectively and collaboratively to deal with rural crime. Rural crime is often isolated, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk indicated, we must enable cross-border interaction and ensure that police forces like mine in West Yorkshire, which predominantly have an urban base but also remote rural fringes, focus on rural crime just as much as more rural police forces.

It seems that rural crime is often a bottom priority for our local leaders and police forces. It is difficult to measure, it is often difficult to observe and it generally impacts fewer people. Rural crime can be reduced, but it requires not just investment but an understanding and prioritisation by decision-makers across all branches of local and national Government. The Opposition are determined to put the prioritisation of rural crime in focus, and I hope that the Minister will be able to match our commitment.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I ask the Minister to leave a few moments at the end for the Member in charge to wind up.

Employer National Insurance Contributions: Police Forces

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of planned changes to employer national insurance contributions on police forces.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I rise to address a matter of significant concern that will affect police forces in my constituency and across the country.

Hon. Members will be aware of the broader tax and fiscal challenges presented by the Government in the autumn Budget, including changes to the agricultural property relief and the cruel cutting of the winter fuel payment, which have been rightly widely condemned, and to which I have objected many times in this House. In fact, this room was jam-packed last night with hon. Members from across the House condemning the Government’s family farm tax. People sat on the ledges here trying to speak—some were not able to—such was the feeling against some of the disastrous consequences of the Budget.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Esther McVey]

I will not just yet. Please allow me to make the case, and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. We know about the removal of the winter fuel payment from nearly 10 million pensioners, we know about the family farm tax and we know about the VAT on private schools. All have received much attention in this House, but we must not overlook the breadth of the ramifications of the autumn Budget, particularly the changes to employer national insurance contributions. They will have a devastating impact on individual employers and businesses, but their impact on our treasured public services has been widely overlooked. I want to focus my comments on the impact on our police forces.

You will be wondering, Dr Allin-Khan, how the Member for Tatton knows what is going to happen here. Did the Treasury conduct an impact assessment? Did the Chancellor generously share the assessment with Members from across the House? Were police forces consulted on such changes? The answer to all those questions is no, as is often the case with the Government’s policy announcements.

Late last year, I submitted freedom of information requests to every police force in the UK, asking for the expected additional costs that each will incur as a result of the Chancellor’s hike in employer national insurance contributions. I was shocked, yet unsurprised, to learn of the devastating impact that the policy will have on our police forces. In my county of Cheshire, the local constabulary will face an additional £3.7 million per year in employer national insurance costs.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate. She is making an excellent speech, as always. She and I are both Cheshire MPs, and we are fortunate to work with the Cheshire constabulary, one of the best forces in the country. Like me, however, she will know the challenges that Cheshire police face with rural crime. It is estimated that the changes to employer national insurance contributions will cost the force £3.7 million. Does she share my concern that that could have a significant impact on rural crime, in particular, especially if cuts are made or funding is diverted away from rural into urban areas?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend and neighbouring MP makes a valid point; £3.7 million is the equivalent of about 67 police officers. That is a recurring expense, not a one-off. In places such as Devon and Cornwall, the police will face a £6.3 million tax bill each year. Greater Manchester will be hit with a whopping extra tax bill of £11.9 million each year. Those are just a few examples, and the list goes on.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The estimated cost for the west midlands is in the region of £12.8 million, which is a huge amount of money. What this Government do not seem to understand is that when the pressure of national insurance is put on to businesses, people cannot squeeze and squeeze profit margins; in the end, that will impact employment, training, and so on. When it comes to the public sector, if we keep squeezing and squeezing, the money has to come from somewhere. Does that mean reduced public services—fewer police officers, as in this case—or will the burden come back on the taxpayer?

[Esther McVey]

My right hon. Friend might have hit on a point, as the burden could well come back to the taxpayer. Remember that this is tax—it is money that will be going on tax, and a bill that the Government are imposing. However we look at it, it is money that the frontline police service are being deprived of. Let us consider the financial burden that the changes will place on the police force. Employer national insurance contributions represent a significant cost for everyone, but they will hit the police especially hard. For police forces that employ a number of police officers and staff to protect our communities, the cumulative cost of the increase will run well into the tens of millions of pounds. To put that into perspective, take West Yorkshire, where the figure of £11.2 million per year is the equivalent of 220 police officers. That is potentially 220 fewer police officers keeping our communities safe as a direct result of the Government’s Budget.

Let me name a few other places, such as my home area of Merseyside—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—Thank you very much indeed. It will be paying an extra tax bill every year of £7 million, which is roughly 130 police officers. Kent will be paying more than £6 million, which is about 100 police officers a year, and Thames Valley police will face an £8 million tax bill every year.

[John Slinger]

The right hon. Lady is making an entertaining speech, as is often the case. In the midst of all those words about tax, I merely point out the Conservative party’s two unfunded national insurance tax cuts and the £22 billion black hole that is based on unfunded spending pledges and kicking the can down the road. What is her suggestion for filling that devastating black hole, which affects our constituents? Is it more austerity, an increase in borrowing or other tax rises? Ultimately, this Government, like any Government, have to deal with the crisis that is a £22 billion black hole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

I think I need to pull the hon. Gentleman up straight away. This is not in any way an entertaining speech—indeed, I would put this down as a horror speech. This is a disgrace of monumental proportions, so the word “entertaining” was used absolutely incorrectly.

Let me talk about the choices that different Governments have made, and where money could have been saved. One example is GB Energy, which the new Government thought they could find money for. They could not find money for the pensioners or the farmers—this Government are giving away half a billion pounds a year to farmers overseas, but they cannot find that half a billion pounds here. We would stop money being spent on things like GB Energy, which does not produce any energy; it seems to me like another quango that will cost money. We would not have increased foreign aid, and I can tell Members one thing that we would not have done: we would not have capitulated to the rail unions, finding money for the railway workers without any modernisation whatsoever. There is a big list of things that we would not have been paying for.

[John Slinger]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Esther McVey]

I will not take another intervention, because I cannot quite get over the word “entertaining” being used about such a devastating policy, which will have devastating impacts on the streets of all our communities. There is a real risk that police forces will have to scale back on recruitment—that is not entertaining. There is a real risk that they will have to cut back on vital training—that is not entertaining—or reduce operational spending in other areas, which again is not entertaining. These decisions could have serious consequences for the police service’s ability to deliver an effective police force. The planned national insurance increases will make it harder for police forces to recruit new officers, particularly in areas where the cost of living is already high. The Government have committed to recruiting more officers, yet those efforts will be undermined by these fiscal pressures through taxation.

A common theme of this Government is their lack of foresight. They failed to consult with Back Benchers, public services and Government Departments before steamrolling ahead with this policy. They failed to understand the impact of the rise in employer national insurance costs on our public services, a mistake so basic that it is sometimes hard to comprehend. I think we all remember the immediate outcry that we heard from GPs, charities, social care providers and hospices. I remember being in the main Chamber when the Secretary of State for Health came to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on this policy, and he was taken aback. He did not know how to answer those questions, and his plea to the Chancellor at the time was, “Where are we going to get that extra money? I hope I will get that extra money, and I will come back to Members later with answers.”

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government must know that this policy is damaging the ability of the police to operate? The Government know it is causing damage to the public sector, and that is why they have exempted the NHS, but they have failed to exempt other public sector services such as the police. They cannot pretend that this policy is not causing damage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend is correct. That is why I highlighted the cost implications of the policy to the Secretary of State for Health that day on the Floor of the House, and he was absolutely taken aback. There was muttering among the Government Front Benchers, and the Government put in a solution straight away, but they overlooked the police. Later in my speech, I will come on to the fact that the Government now think they will put money into this area.

Fewer police will inevitably have broader consequences for public safety. Police officers are on the frontlines, tackling serious and organised crime, addressing domestic violence and responding to emergencies. Every officer we lose or fail to recruit means less protection for communities such as Tatton. To give an example, in Cheshire there has been a significant rise in serious sexual assaults by people who are in this country illegally. Money that should have gone into supporting our police force to halt that crime will not be there, which is making our streets less safe.

This Government are fiscally illiterate. They made a £25 billion grab in employer national insurance contributions at the Budget, without really thinking where that money would come from. Remember, the Government said that they did not want to tax working people, yet we know this will hit working people—the Government never thought where that money would come from. Instead, the measure was born from ideological reasons, whether that meant funding the Government’s net zero obsession, foreign aid or their union paymasters. In introducing the change, the Government have failed to consider the most basic duty of any Government: to protect their citizens.

[John Slinger]

On that point, will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Esther McVey]

I am afraid I will not.

I understand that the Government say that they will pick up the £230 million tab, but that still means that the Government will be paying a tax bill rather than having money to spend on frontline police. Last month, we heard the Home Secretary announce a £200 million boost to neighbourhood policing to fund the recruitment of 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, as the Government said before the election, although they had been very quiet on that for a long period of time.

I wonder whether the Government can do that. The numbers are very similar: £200 million for 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, yet they have given themselves a £230 million a year tax bill. Will those 13,000 neighbourhood police officers ever materialise? In her summing up, will the Minister say what will happen, particularly in light of the national insurance contribution black hole, as those national insurance contributions are to be paid year in, year out? Will the Government pay for those police officers, year in, year out? If so, what will be the amount paid during a whole Parliament? Where will that money come from?

I urge the Government and the Chancellor, through the Minister, to stop this ill-thought-through, ham-fisted Budget change to employer national insurance contributions. The only solution to the problem—

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

On that point, will the right hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

Can I finish my sentence? There is only one solution to the problem that will have the correct consequences: scrap the diabolical tax on our police forces.

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I want to say two quick things. First, my grandmother was born and raised in Birkenhead, so we have some common heritage. Secondly, the right hon. Lady just said that certain Labour Members are driven by ideology, but I want it to be noted that I am driven by a love of country and, in this context, by being tough on crime and on the causes of crime. I thought it was important to provide that clarification for the House.

[Esther McVey]

I thank the hon. Member for saying that. I hope he too shares my delight that Liverpool is top of the football division as well. We all should share a love of this country, and we should all want the best for this country. I too want a safe country, so it is vital that the money goes to the police and the police forces to ensure that happens, and not on increased tax bills. That is why I am asking for this ham-fisted tax increase to be reversed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am also conscious of the loss of experienced officers in that 20,000. We know that the service is now very young; I think about 40% of officers have under five years of service. That presents all sorts of challenges for policing.

I want to make it clear that we have increased the funding available for neighbourhood policing by an additional £100 million. That is compared with the provisional settlement that was announced at the end of last year. We in this Chamber can all agree that neighbourhood policing is so important to our constituents, and the figure for that will now be at £200 million. That investment is to kick-start the delivery of the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers, PCSOs and specials that the Labour Government promised in their manifesto. It will also ensure that public confidence in policing is restored. As I said when opening the debate on the police grant report last week in the main Chamber, the settlement underlines the Government’s commitment to working with the police to deliver the safer streets that all our constituents deserve.

It is worth saying that I spoke to the PCC in Cheshire last week about the funding settlement. He was positive about the settlement that had been announced for his force. He did not raise any specific issues on national insurance, and the force did not raise any concerns in the consultation on the provisional settlement after it was published in December.

[Esther McVey]

Did the Minister receive a further letter from the chief constable, expressing serious concerns about the rising number of serious sexual assaults going on in Cheshire?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As I have just said, the PCC I spoke to last week did not raise any concerns about the financial settlement. Obviously, the PCC and the chief constable use that money in the way that they decide for Cheshire. I have certainly had conversations with the chief constable of Cheshire, and the right hon. Lady is right that I have received a letter from the chief constable that was copied to a number of Members of Parliament in Cheshire.

I accept and recognise that the changes to national insurance contributions will have an impact on public sector budgets, including policing. Although the decision to increase national insurance was made to ensure the sustainability of essential public services, I recognise that the changes create additional cost pressures for police forces. It is useful to note that in 2003, and in 2011 under the coalition Government, there was an increase in employer national insurance to fund the national health service and wider national priorities. So this is not unusual; Governments of both complexions have taken forward changes to national insurance.

It is also worth noting that the changes introduced in the Budget last year broadly return national insurance contributions revenue as a proportion of GDP to the level that they were before the previous Government’s cuts to employee and self-employed national insurance contributions. That sets the context, and this has been done in a way that does not result in higher taxes in people’s payslips.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

I thank all Members for taking part in today’s debate. I think I understood from everyone that they would not want to see police officers taxed off our streets. There was one area on which I did not get consensus, which was why I said that the current Government were fiscally illiterate: what Government Members did not seem to understand is that money going to pay for extra taxes means money that will not be going on the frontline. The very fact that it is going in taxes and has to be compensated for shows that it will not go on the frontline. That is why I am asking for this policy to be stopped and reversed.

There seems to be collective amnesia among those on the Government Benches. The coalition Government came into power because the previous Labour Government pretty much crashed the economy. That was why the coalition was voted in. I have to say that I already see—in just seven months—that this Labour Government with that awful, awful Budget are doing exactly the same thing: they are crashing the economy all over again, but in record time. I just want to make sure that our police and our streets are protected.

I wish to thank the Minister because I know that she takes this matter very seriously. Whatever she said or did not say in the debate today, I know that she will take that message back and I know that she will be fighting to get this terrible employer national insurance contribution policy reversed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of planned changes to employer National Insurance

contributions on police forces.

Antisocial Behaviour in Town Centres

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

Our police station was not closed. The Labour PCC decided to move it out of the town centre to an industrial estate outside Keighley, making it less accessible to many of my constituents.

In addition, in the run-up to the 2019 general election, the then Labour PCC, the then Labour MP for Keighley and the Labour leader of Bradford Council gave false hope and false promise that the police station would be moved back to the centre of town. That false hope just happened to be announced in the run-up to the general election, but what happened? All those plans are now off the table as a result of our new West Yorkshire Mayor deciding that we cannot facilitate that move. I hope we will get an instruction, or as much help from the Government as possible, to move the police station back into the centre of Keighley, from which it should have never been moved in the first place.

On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) made, police hubs are an excellent idea. In many rural parts of my constituency, facilities such as village halls have been used for community-wide engagement. A police officer, a sergeant or the neighbourhood policing team can go along and have dialogue with residents, and communicate and provide reassurance at a micro-local level. We can use such facilities across our constituencies to enable dialogue and better reporting of issues and concerns.

On drug taking, I am very pleased that the Government have taken a stance on nitrous oxide—laughing gas—cannisters, which I have been campaigning to ban since being elected. In the summer months, and particularly on bank holiday weekends, a lot of people get the train from Bradford and Leeds to Ilkley to sit at the riverside and enjoy the sunshine, but sometimes the area is used for antisocial behaviour, and that is not fair for Ilkley residents.

We all face many, many issues with antisocial behaviour. I will quickly touch on fly-tipping. I represent an urban fringe-type constituency, and we have a lot of fly-tipping, particularly in the Worth Valley ward, where Councillor Rebecca Poulsen has been fighting incredibly hard, working with the police, to deal with fly-tipping-related incidents. We must not forget that dumping used construction material, or whatever else it might be, in our beautiful environment is a form of antisocial behaviour in its own right. It was horrifying that, at the back end of last year, our Labour-run Bradford Council decided to close the Keighley tip—a ridiculous decision that would have resulted in more fly-tipping across the constituency. I am pleased to say that after I brought a petition to this House, signed by more than 7,000 people, which Laura Kelly and Martin Crangle heavily campaigned for, Labour-run Bradford Council finally listened and overturned that ridiculous decision. It has now decided to keep the Keighley tip open.

I very much welcome the Government’s plan to put more police officers on our streets. As a Conservative MP, at the last election I campaigned to get 20,000 police officers back on to our streets, and West Yorkshire police has recruited more than 1,000 since I was elected. I want to ensure that they are prioritised in dealing with the many concerns that my constituents across Keighley raise. I urge the Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, to ensure that as many as possible of those police officers are on the streets of Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and Worth Valley to tackle antisocial behaviour and give our neighbourhood policing teams the means that they need.

It is a complete myth that Labour is the party of law and order, and that it actually cares about clamping down and being tough on those who commit offences that cause harm to others and try to rule the streets through fear. I can categorically say that that is not the case at all. Labour will not pull the wool over the eyes of residents across Keighley and Ilkley. It was so determined to secure power in Keighley a couple of years ago that it actively selected as a candidate for Labour-run Bradford council Mohsin Hussain, who only seven years earlier had been given a 12-month sentence, suspended for two years with 250 hours of unpaid community work, after being convicted of an armed street assault in Keighley with a pickaxe handle, causing bodily harm. Another of his gang used a baseball bat. When that individual was released on bail, he was caught accelerating to 77 mph in a 30 mph zone in Keighley, driving through a series of traffic lights at speed and going around the wrong side of a roundabout. Those are the types of antisocial behaviour issues that I get contacted about time and time again. These are unfortunately the very issues that are still happening in Keighley today—physical assaults and extreme speeding. Yet Labour’s answer to all of that is to select and actively campaign for a candidate who a few years previously had been handed a two-year suspended sentence. What is worse is that our West Yorkshire Mayor, Tracy Brabin, who is in charge of implementing our local police and crime strategy, John Grogan, who wants to be the next MP for Keighley, and the current Labour leader of Bradford Council all came to Keighley to campaign, knock on doors and deliver leaflets to get that individual into power. And now, unfortunately, he is a district councillor on the Labour-controlled authority.

What does that say to the victims of antisocial behaviour, the victims of street crime, those who have to put up with physical abuse and those who live near the streets where extreme speeding regularly takes place? My view is that Labour does not care about implementing a strong and robust police and crime strategy. Labour will use any means possible to secure the votes to secure power, taking the votes of people in Keighley and Ilkley for granted.

I say to the Minister that I appreciate the work of the Home Secretary and her predecessors in taking a robust approach to antisocial behaviour. It is an issue that impacts all our constituencies time and again. It is probably one of the biggest issues to fill my inbox. We cannot sing from the rooftops about the good things in our constituencies and promote our businesses without tackling the plague that continues to haunt our town centres. On that, I will hand over to other speakers, as I know that many want to take part in this debate.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to be called in this debate. I will not put a time limit on speeches, but be mindful that we will go to Front Benchers at 10.28 am, and that Robbie Moore will have a couple of minutes at the end to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is difficult for me to answer that, because I cannot speak for other areas. I can speak only for mine, and I must say that in my constituency, the police are never too far away. The issue for street pastors is that they are not police. That is probably why they are approachable, which is one of their advantages. I know from my constituents that they have probably saved people from abuse and physical and other harm, and that they have got people home safely. Street pastors have a working relationship with the police, but they are not the police. They are there to help, and I think people recognise that; the street pastors’ years of involvement in this work on the streets of Newtownards, Bangor, the Ards peninsula, Comber and elsewhere in my constituency have shown that to be the case. The hon. Lady is right; street pastors need to be safe, but in my area, I think they are.

I conclude with this: these issues are prevalent in all constituencies across the United Kingdom. An antisocial behaviour plan has recently been introduced in England, which it seems will tackle the worst of antisocial behaviour in England. I am grateful to the Minister, for whom I have the utmost respect. What discussions could she have with our Department of Justice back home? I believe wholeheartedly that we can do things much better together, because this is a national issue. That is why the debate is important, and that is why I am speaking in it—not that I can necessarily add anything more for the Minister to reply to. I just wanted to let her know that we have some ideas in Northern Ireland. It is good to exchange those ideas, and thereby do better for everyone.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

We move now to the Front-Bench spokespeople.

Spiking Incidents: Prevention

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, although, as we have heard, there are young males who are also victims of spiking. As a father, when my daughter was young and first going out to nightclubs, I advised her to be very cautious. I gave her a list of things she could do to reduce the possibility of inadvertently getting mixed up in spiking and all sorts of other things. The hon. Lady is right to highlight that we should be focusing on the perpetrators and where the problem is, which is why it is so important to have spiking as an overall offence. She is right to say that this is not in any way about telling young women that they cannot go out and have a night of fun.

That leads me on to the next point I want to highlight from the Minister’s letter, which is about violence against women and girls. The Minister writes that the Government are focused on practical rather than legal action, and goes on to list various funding streams for VAWG initiatives. I believe that all of those are important, but they miss the specific point. I, my constituent Maisy, her mother Rosie, so many other constituents of colleagues here—including the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who sent me a case from her constituency—the Stamp Out Spiking group, which is represented here today, and many other colleagues who are not able to be here but would have wanted to, all want to see legal action as well as practical action in the form of a simple amendment such as I outlined earlier.

Such an amendment would also be very practical, I believe. It would enable media, social media, local government authorities, police, licensed victualling associations and nightclub managers to say, absolutely correctly and for the first time, that spiking is a named legal offence—that those who even attempt to do it might be cautioned or prosecuted, and might therefore be convicted of a criminal offence, which would seriously damage their chances of keeping or winning a job. I believe that will be very powerful, particularly for students. That message, clear and unambiguous, is what I believe the law should say, not just as guidance to the night-time economy managers but to everyone. It can be done through a simple amendment, which Government and parliamentary lawyers will be able to quickly come up with. I believe work was already being done on that by previous Ministers. It will add to the commitment made by the Prime Minister and this Government to reducing violence against women and girls, as well as affected males—a point that was made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes).

So, Minister, will this Government see the light, recognise the value of a simple amendment—not a new law; I get the point on that—and recognise that it is both desirable and necessary to get the message out there? This Government and Parliament could be the ones that make spiking completely illegal for the first time. I believe that other Ministers understood that, and I call on Ministers at the Home Office today to finish the job, and avoid the need for further debate and my wasting their precious ministerial time again. That is the challenge today, and I hope very much that the Minister and the Department will rise to it.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

There are a great number of Members wanting to speak in this debate, so I will have to impose a maximum limit on speeches of three and a half minutes, to allow everybody to get in. I will remind people of the times. I will call the Front Benchers just before 3.40 pm, to allow Richard Graham to wind up at about 3.58 pm. I also want to mention that there could be a vote; if so, I will suspend the sitting for that.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

The debate may continue until 12 minutes past 4.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on his determination and perseverance on this issue. The fact that this debate has been so well attended shows the strength of feeling on spiking. It is important to note that the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and the former safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), have taken part in this debate and made their views very clear, which is helpful.

The Home Affairs Committee carried out an inquiry on spiking last year, which reported in April 2022. Some 2,000 victims and 1,400 witnesses of spiking responded to our call for evidence. It is interesting to note that 75% of the victims had not reported the spiking incident to the police. We made a number of recommendations; I want to go through them quickly, and then refer to the letter from the Government dated 20 December. The first recommendation was on education, training and awareness—to aid prevention, detection and reporting of spiking. We also talked about action by local authorities and reviewing the guidance under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003. I am pleased that we have heard reference today to door staff, because they are very important in how spiking incidents are dealt with.

We talked about a national strategy on prevention. There is much good work done locally, but nationally we do not have an overarching strategy. We talked about a duty on all police forces, so that when incidents of spiking are reported, there is access to rapid testing. We also asked the Government to consider whether a new offence around spiking was required. From the letter from the Government dated 20 December, published by the Home Affairs Committee this morning, I was very pleased to learn that the Government plan to have a review of section 182 of the Licensing Act, but I ask the Minister to set out the timetable for that consultation, and to say when we are likely to know the results.

I am disappointed that the Government do not accept the arguments for a new specific offence. They say that there is sufficient legislation on the statute books, but it is clearly not working; it is not being used, reporting is low and prosecutions are very rare indeed. The hon. Member for Gloucester has made a very clear and compelling case for a way forward on a specific spiking offence. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government target is for increasing the use of existing legislation to hold perpetrators of spiking to account? Also, what increase would show that the Government were successfully dealing with spiking offences?

We are told that data can be collected centrally, and that there is a development of central procedures. Can the Minister explain to the House what the process will be, how it will work and what the timetable is for this data to be captured?

In the letter from the Minister, the Government say that their public awareness campaign on violence against women and girls, which is known as Enough, and to which I pay great tribute, covers spiking, but anyone looking online at the information about that campaign would have to search very hard to find any reference to spiking. I ask the Minister to go away and have a look at it for himself, to assess how clear it is that the Government take spiking very seriously in their fight against violence against women and girls.

Some work has been done, which we welcome, but there is much more to do. This is an ongoing issue. It needs to be properly resourced, and Government and statutory responses to the problem need to be embedded, so that the Government uphold their commitment to combatting violence against women and girls.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), not only on securing this debate but on his committed campaigning on this issue.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said that she is sick of young women being told to take precautions. I am sick of that, too, but I am even more sick of the seemingly endless number of ways of intimidating and hurting women that some men think up. I have seen so much of it in my last three years as an MP. We need to be as creative when it comes to stopping them—indeed, to stopping all spiking offences, because, as colleagues have said, although those affected are mostly women, they are not only women.

Sadly, it did not surprise me to see my constituency near the top of the list when it came to support for the petitions related to this debate, because Nottingham saw a spate of spiking in autumn 2021, and last year it had one of the highest number of reported incidents of needle-spiking.

The better the data we have, the better our response will be. I am pleased that the Government asked the National Police Chiefs’ Council to establish a reporting mechanism, so that all police forces can report incidents of spiking centrally. That will help us to gain a better understanding of the scale and nature of the problem. The Government have also worked with clubs, bars and universities to raise awareness of spiking, to help to prevent it. For example, Nottingham Trent University has funded intervention training for staff in city-centre venues, and many other universities have increased bag searches at events, and provide drinks protectors and kits to test for spiking.

Rushcliffe has benefited from the Safer Streets Fund; West Bridgford and Trent Bridge have received nearly £250,000, which has provided new safer street wardens in the evenings, and more closed circuit television. I am a strong supporter of the Enough campaign, which highlights the different forms of violence against women and girls, including spiking, as well as the simple acts that anyone can take to challenge perpetrators of abuse, because at the end of the day only a society can change a culture. However, I take on board the comments that the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee made about the campaign; I hope that the Home Office will review its content on spiking. I am also pleased that the Government have reclassified GHB, the date-rape drug, so that offenders face up to five years in prison.

On the issue of a specific offence of spiking, there are already a range of offences that could cover spiking in certain circumstances. However, what we really need to understand from the Government in the report that I think is being published at the end of April is how effective efforts to prosecute incidents of spiking are under existing laws. We also need to know what the average sentence is for spiking offences prosecuted under these laws—not the maximum penalties for these offences, which is what the Government are publishing in response to parliamentary questions. That is the only way we can gauge whether the existing penalties are likely to provide sufficient punishment for offenders. We need to send a very clear message from this House that spiking is a vicious attack. If someone is going to attack people in this way, whether their weapon is a pill slipped into someone’s drink or a needle jabbed into their arm, they should expect a custodial sentence.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I thank all Members for keeping to the time limit and enabling everybody to speak in this well-attended debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

And indeed there are other male Members here. I am getting myself into trouble before I have even started.

This is an important issue, and we have said that men are affected by it. Yesterday, I was reading in the Evening Standard about people being drugged in a club and having vast amounts of money stolen from them, so spiking is also used as a means to steal, but it still largely affects women. Stamp Out Spiking says that four out of five victims are women.

This crime has historically been dismissed, although it has been around for years. As has been said, it is often seen as the fault of the victim for going out, having too much fun and drinking too much. The stigma that attaches to that means that lots of people do not come forward. Spiking happens because of criminals. It is a violent act with damaging physical and mental health consequences. Women and men should be able to go about their business and enjoy their nights out without fear. It is pernicious and a route to further criminality, be it acquisitive crime, robbery, sexual assault or, in some cases, rape.

We need leadership on this issue. The hon. Member for Gloucester, the Home Affairs Committee and Members on both sides of the House are calling on the Government to act, and move further faster. Just shy of 5,000 cases were reported in the 12 months to September 2022, but as has been said, there is massive under-reporting; many people do not come forward. As the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee said, the majority of people who came forward in her Committee’s consultation did not report anything to the police. That lack of confidence in authorities—that pessimism that nothing will be done—is a real problem, so I ask the Minister, following on from the Select Committee’s recommendations, what more work the Government can do to improve the reporting of spiking, and to support victims in coming forward.

The lack of a specific offence is obviously the main topic that we have been talking about. Last year, Labour added to calls for the Government to introduce a specific offence of spiking and intent to spike. We tabled an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill calling for urgent action, and a review of the prevalence of spiking and the criminal justice system’s response to it. The Government sadly did not agree to it.

The Government could commit today to referring spiking sentencing to the Sentencing Council. Analysis of how many prosecutions occur is very difficult because we do not have all the figures, but there were only 36 prosecutions and 20 convictions over 2020 for what is called “other miscellaneous sexual offences”, of which spiking is one category. In the 10 years to 2020, there were only 286 convictions under that offence. Only three people were prosecuted under section 23 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 in 2020, and there were only 104 section 24 offences of administering poison with intent to injure or annoy. There is a wide range of offences that spiking can fall under. It is complicated. As the hon. Member for Gloucester argues, we should call a spade a spade and introduce a specific offence for spiking.

There is good work being done across the country on this. I went to the west midlands and walked about Birmingham with PCC Simon Foster, who is doing some really good work. West Midlands police have a system in which they attend all allegations, and triage victims in Birmingham safe space areas, which are staffed by security and medics throughout the night. Drugs screening is prioritised, and urine samples are taken within 72 hours. The speed with which those drugs leave our bodies makes evidence gathering far harder, but the police react with a speed that keeps up with that.

In Northumbria, Police and Crime Commissioner Kim McGuinness has placed dedicated officers on patrol in Newcastle’s bustling night-time economy, which I enjoyed when I was at Durham University. They are there to protect individuals and target those who commit offences. We have talked about the Ask Angela scheme in places such as Leeds; more than 650 night-time economy providers have signed up to those scheme, through which those who feel unsafe, vulnerable or threatened can seek help discretely by approaching staff and asking for Angela.

While spiking is a horrid and invasive crime, it is just one of the threats to women engaging with the night-time economy. All too often, bouncers throw out young women, or young people, because they are too drunk, with little care for their safety, when in reality they are under the influence of something that was slipped into their drink. Even when they are leaving because they have had too much to drink, they are still vulnerable and need support. There is some really good work around the country that I would like the Government to look at rolling out. For example, if someone leaves a nightclub in Birmingham, there are lots of phone numbers that the bouncers and others can use to get someone from St John’s Ambulance to come and make sure that person gets home safely. That is simple but really effective.

There is a great epidemic of violence against women and girls in this country. Spiking, as a violent act, in many cases is based on misogyny and lack of respect. When done with a needle, it involves a weapon, too. The Labour party has repeatedly pushed the Government to go further, faster, on violence against women and girls. Labour has produced a comprehensive violence against women and girls White Paper, setting out our vision of a Britain that is safe for women and girls. We have consistently called for VAWG to be part of the strategic policing requirement that has been promised by the Government but not delivered. Police forces are not yet required to tackle crimes against women as a priority. That is unforgiveable, and yet another example of a Tory Government refusing to take concrete action to protect women.

Following on from the Select Committee recommendations, what work are the Government doing to improve reporting of spiking? Will the Minister accept the arguments for making spiking a specific offence? Will he go further on violence against women more broadly, not least by making it a specific strategic requirement?

Yesterday, I was in a youth centre in Croydon, and as always there were a range of leaflets there. I picked one up, and it said, “Keep an eye on your drink. You won’t know your drink has been spiked until it is too late, so be careful.” It can no longer be solely the duty of our women and girls to keep themselves safe. After years of neglect in this area, the Government must step up and take action.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

The Minister should be mindful to leave two minutes for a winding-up speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

I believe that today the Government have heard a very clear message from colleagues from five different parties that something more should be done in law about spiking. I accept that we do not need a new and separate law, and I think most other Members do too, but I also believe that the Minister has registered the strength of feeling about our arguments for amending the existing law to include the offence of spiking in all its different forms.

I thank all colleagues who came and spoke in the debate, some of whom are not here now, understandably. I am particularly grateful for the contributions from the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel); the former safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean); the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson); my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who rightly highlighted the good work done by our police and crime commissioner in Gloucestershire; the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans); and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). They all raised different issues, and the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) made a particularly important speech.

The point of everything that was said in today’s debate is that we have all spoken with one voice in order to represent the thousands and thousands of people across the country who have been spiked. Although some of them are men, they are mostly young women, such as my constituent Maisy Farmer and Lorna Street, who is in the Public Gallery. Many victims have not reported their cases and their hurt, and we have therefore given them a voice today.

We also heard from the Minister that the door is open a fraction, which I appreciate. I believe—I hope that colleagues will join me—that we must now do what we can to push that door further open and reach the success of an amendment.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order.