Injury in Service Award

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Emergency service workers are the bedrock of society. They are the people who run towards danger while others run away, and they are there in our hour of need and deserve our utmost respect. I pay tribute to every emergency service worker across the country for the incredible job that they do, in difficult circumstances, to serve the public and their local communities.

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate and those who have engaged with and supported this campaign. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), who secured the debate and ably set out the need for this recognition. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), who has long championed this cause.

Tom Curry, who joins us in the Gallery today, is a truly remarkable campaigner who is not prepared to take no for an answer. Tom served in Sussex police as a detective, but he was forced to retire early after suffering a life-changing injury. It is fair to say that Tom is not a quiet man, but he is a great man who brings people together and has spearheaded this campaign. I know that hon. and right hon. Members across the House will want to join me in paying tribute to him and all the former emergency service workers who join us in the Gallery today.

Tom calls it a “scandalous national disgrace” that those forced to retire through injury in the line of duty are not awarded a medal, and I agree entirely. It is time that we honoured their service. These individuals have put themselves in harm’s way to serve our communities, and their injuries have cost them their job—often, a job that they had dreamed of all their lives.

Earlier this year, alongside the hon. Member for Cheadle, we welcomed dozens of former emergency service workers to Parliament. It was an insightful and, at times, very emotional discussion. Anyone who listened to their stories, and to the real impact on those people’s lives and that of their families, could not oppose awarding this recognition. Each and every former emergency service worker there had a story—many Members will have heard about the experiences of their own constituents, but there is one story I would like to share with the House today. Elsie Galt, who also joins us in the Gallery today, is a former police officer. She was injured while serving with Merseyside police, involved in a horrific road traffic accident with a lorry. Sadly, her injuries were severe, and have left her relying on crutches to remain mobile. To join us today, Elsie has travelled from the Scottish highlands on the night train, and will make her return journey on the same train later today—that is how much this debate means to her. She wants to see recognition for other people who might have to endure what she has had to live through. Elsie’s determination is truly inspiring.

Turning to the specifics of this campaign, the ask is very simple—that those injured in the line of duty must be recognised. As it stands today, no such medal exists other than for actions of high gallantry, but for understandable reasons, very few of those medals are ever awarded. It is right that those who serve our communities and are injured in the line of duty have their service recognised. The proposal has very clear qualifications, replicating the established injury on duty pension criteria. I also understand that both the Fire Brigades Union and Unison fully support this proposal. Thanks to Tom’s determined efforts and perseverance, such a medal was already being looked at by the last Government after the then police and fire Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp)—who is now the shadow Home Secretary—ensured that the matter reached the Cabinet Office, which oversees the awarding of decorations and medals. There appears to have been little progress or news since the election, but given that the new Policing Minister is one of the 219 MPs who signed up to support this campaign, I am hopeful that we can rely on her to take it forward.

I urge the Minister to listen to the campaigners and the Back Benchers. This is a no-brainer—let us get it done. We have heard some excellent contributions from Members across the House today, and I hope the Minister understands just how important this issue is to former police officers in the Gallery and right across the country. I hope he will be able to update the House on progress today, and I also ask him to commit himself and the Policing Minister to meet Tom Curry. I think if Tom were stood at this Dispatch Box, his question would be “When, not if, will we award these heroes the recognition they deserve?” Emergency service workers do so much for us; now it is time that we do something for them.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

The Opposition join the Minister in thanking our colleagues in the other place for their work on and scrutiny of this Bill. I would like to thank my colleagues Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies of Gower, as well as numerous members of the other place, including Lord Jackson, for their work.

The subject of the Bill is extremely important to this country and its future. I am afraid the reality is that, under this Labour Government, illegal immigration has got much, much worse. We are in the grip of an immigration crisis. Small boat crossings have surged. They are up 55% against the same period before the election. In the nine months before the election, the number of people in hotels had gone down by 47%, but since this Government came to power, it has gone up.

This country is our home; it is not a hotel. We need stronger borders to make sure that those who come to our country share our values, contribute to society, and are not simply a drain on the resources that taxpayers fund. The Bill will remove powers that allow us to detain and deport people who arrive here illegally. It will remove powers that allow us to mandate scientific age tests for those who arrive here illegally claiming to be children. It will allow people who break into our country illegally to become British citizens. Those who break into our country should not be allowed to stay.

This week, the Home Secretary announced a new plan, which she says will tackle the immigration crisis.

Lords amendment 37 would ensure transparent data on one of the key contributors to the high immigration that the Government say that they want to reduce. Transparency matters for public trust and accountability. Opposition to the amendment is completely at odds with the Home Secretary’s rhetoric, and the action that she promised us earlier this week. Once again, the Bill has been nowhere near as ambitious or radical as it needs to be to stop dangerous crossings in their tracks. The Government should be using every tool available to control immigration and make our country safer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

With the leave of the House, I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions and to those who took this legislation through all its previous stages.

Let me address some of the points made today. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) made some important points around online advertising and the responsibilities falling not on the providers, but on those sending those messages or putting out those advertisements. We think that is the current gap in provisions that we need to fill, but providers have a really important responsibility too. There are provisions in the Online Safety Act 2023 that relate to that work, but I reassure him that we talk to providers and will continue to engage with them to ensure that their platforms are not being used for what is the ultimate trade in human misery. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) mentioned that issue as well.

I share the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen made about conflict resolution. We talk about upstream working, and that is the ultimate upstream working—it is very much Britain’s place in the world. British Aid works to tackle famine and disease and also works on education, particularly for women and girls, which we know can be transformative around the world. I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s point about our work overseas, which the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), also talked about. That work and that international co-operation are crucial, and I assure colleagues that we are doing that day in, day out, as I always say.

We had the pleasure of hosting the Berlin process in recent weeks. I said to all my counterparts that we are dealing with these shared challenges, and they agreed. The organised immigration crime networks, which we are talking about and which are addressed in this legislation, are by definition sophisticated and global, and we are engaging with them in different ways. We have to ensure that we have as good a co-ordinated approach as possible.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, given his long professional work in this space and his work on the Home Affairs Committee. I am grateful to him for enhancing the process of this Bill’s passage and other processes, and he is right: at the root of this issue are death and misery, which is exploited by criminals. We must tackle that, but those criminals’ networks are sophisticated, so as their capabilities increase, so must ours. That is the purpose of this legislation—both being able to tackle where those criminals advertise their services, and giving Border Security Command and others the tools they need to tackle them. I totally agree with his point about the value of data in its collective form, rather than any one strand, which I will address when I respond to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers).

I thought that the Lib Dem spokesperson was slightly unfair—which is not in his nature—in his characterisation of what happened on Monday. Everything we talked about on Monday builds on what we are putting in place through this legislation; it is all part of the same approach to tackling both organised crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said, and the supply and demand challenges in this area. I know that the Lib Dem spokesperson thinks the work on safe routes that we announced is really important. He and his colleagues are going to want to take part in that process, and of course they will have an opportunity to do so.

That brings me to the Opposition spokesperson. He has a terribly difficult job—the word I wrote down was “desperate”, but I am not going to use that word in this context. “Difficult” is what I will say to the hon. Member for Stockton West, because he wants people in this place and those watching us to believe that there is in some way anger among Conservative Members at the circumstances we find ourselves in today regarding hotels and small boat crossings, as if these are not phenomena that can be dated to within much less than a decade and started on the Conservatives’ watch. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Monday, and as I will say again, any contribution from the Conservatives that does not start with an apology will not wash with the British public.

[Matt Vickers]

Is the Minister aware that in the nine months up to the election, the number of people in hotels fell by 47%? It has now gone up, and the number of people arriving in this country has gone up by 55%, while the number of those arriving in small boats and being removed has gone down. It is just not on—it is a car crash.

[Alex Norris]

Again, I know that the hon. Gentleman has to try hard to desperately defend the previous Government’s record and their failure. He knows as well as I do that the original sin in this area was the six-year head start that he and his colleagues gave to organised crime, and he will now chirp from the sidelines while we break that cycle. We are getting on with the job while the Conservatives talk about it.

Let us talk about the removal of the deterrent—that is not quite within the scope of the amendments made in the other place, but the hon. Gentleman talked about Rwanda, as his colleagues did the other day. I would gently say that from the day that the Rwanda deal was signed to the day it was scrapped, 84,000 people crossed the channel, so the idea that it was in some way a deterrent is for the birds. Until and unless colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench enter the real world, they are going to struggle for credibility.

[Matt Vickers]

Those people who arrived in this country illegally were going to Rwanda. Where are they now?

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman will know that in this Government’s 16 months in office we have removed 50,000 people who had no right to be here.

[Matt Vickers]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman can ask the questions, but he cannot give the answers as well. I am afraid that I will not give way again—I am going to finish my point. When it comes to removing people with no right to be here, our record in office is a 23% increase on what the Conservatives managed to do.

On Monday, we heard something very interesting from the Leader of the Opposition. She committed Opposition Front Benchers to co-operating with what she said was such an important shared endeavour, and we have an opportunity to test that today, because the hon. Member for Stockton West heard what I said in my opening speech. He heard about my belief in transparency in this area and building public confidence through transparency in the statistics, which he also expressed in his contribution.

[Matt Vickers]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman really does have to let me finish my point before I give way. He heard about this Government’s commitment to that, and about the work that is under way. Having known each other for as long as we have, I hope he will take it in good faith that we are committed to publishing stats that will mean people know what is going on in this area. On that basis, the hon. Gentleman does not really need to support the Lords amendment, but I will let him make his case.

[Matt Vickers]

People out there are really concerned about people arriving illegally in this country claiming to be children, and the impact that that can have on our education and care settings. This Bill removes our ability to scientifically age-verify some of those people, but more than that, since this Government came to office, they have stopped publishing the data on age disputes on arrival. What do they have to hide? Why will they not publish that data?

[Alex Norris]

I am afraid that panto season is starting early, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Alex Norris]

We want to bring forward a whole set of data on this issue that helps people get a picture of what is going on—I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) heard me say that, but the hon. Member for Stockton West certainly did. I have made that commitment from this Dispatch Box, and that is what we will do.

[Matt Vickers]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Norris]

I will not give way, as the hon. Gentleman has more than had the opportunity to make his case. We have said that that is what we will do, and that is what we will do. On that basis, there really is no need for Lords amendment 37, but as I say, we will test the co-operation of Conservative Front Benchers. Will it last even 48 hours? From the hon. Gentleman’s demeanour, I suspect it will not.

It is so important that this legislation reaches the statute book quickly. The need for these powers is urgent, and we are down to one point of disagreement with the other place. This Bill is central to the Government’s actions to strengthen border security. It includes new, transformative measures to deliver on our manifesto commitment to identify, intercept, disrupt and prevent serious and organised crime through new criminal offences, expanded data-sharing capabilities and improved intelligence. It will disrupt the business models of organised crime groups and reduce unlawful migration to the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

That is always the challenge, because we live in a world of misinformation, disinformation and, I am sad to say, occasionally bad faith. However, my antidote to that is the same as my hon. Friend’s: better transparency is the best way to see our way through. He is exactly right that we already publish a vast amount, including on visas, returns and detention. He is exactly right that we keep things under review in line with the code of practice for statistics.

I say gently to Opposition colleagues that we have made a commitment. Many of them did not see my opening speech, so it perhaps bears repeating. We understand the heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public in the number and type of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals and what happens to them. It is in everybody’s interest for that to be known. It is also in everybody’s interest for that dataset to be as good as possible.

[Matt Vickers]

People out there are concerned about 30-year-olds trying to get into classrooms with 13-year-olds. They want to know how often it is being tried. Why have the Home Office and the Government stopped publishing the data around age verification?

[Alex Norris]

It is getting to the point where I might not be able to help the Opposition spokesperson, because I have answered the question. It is in nobody’s interest, as I say, for important information to not be available. We are preparing it as a whole dataset. I said that in opening, and I have said it in response to him at least once, and I have said it again. [Interruption.] I hear the question, “When?” As soon as we can accurately publish it, that is what we will do.

There is a danger that we are down to the narcissism of small differences on this Bill. I do not really think that this is the hon. Gentleman’s principal objection, but I know that he has committed from the Opposition Front Bench, as did the Leader of the Opposition, to co-operation in ensuring that we tackle the pernicious crime of organised immigration crime and that we have order and control at our borders. I look forward to their co-operation.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 37.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Rural crime and tool theft are out of control. A tradesman’s tools are stolen every 21 minutes, and when a farmer or tradesman has their equipment stolen, it causes complete misery and costs them severely. Their means of work are then all too often sold in broad daylight at car boot sales. Will the Government adopt our rural crime and tool theft plan to crack down on the sale of stolen goods and on the misery being caused to so many farmers and tradesmen?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we are committed to the implementation of the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 and fully support its intentions. Indeed, it was brought forward by a Member of his own party—the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). We support the Act and are working with colleagues across the policing landscape to ensure that we can do just that. But I will not take any lessons from the shadow Minister who left crime in the state that it was, had no rural crime strategy, unlike this Government, and whose record took our police away from our neighbourhoods—we will put them back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Joy Allen, Labour’s very own police and crime commissioner for Durham, has said that the Government have consistently demonstrated their complete lack of understanding of policing and community safety. Does the Minister think that she said that because the Government have cut police numbers by 1,316 since they came to power, because crime is surging, or because senior police officers are warning that the Government are creating a funding crisis?

[Sarah Jones]

I pay tribute to Joy Allen, who I know very well. She is a very good police and crime commissioner, and I thank her for all her work. I know that our announcement last week was difficult for police and crime commissioners to hear, but we thank them for all the work that they do and will continue to do for the next two years.

What do the public want? The public want police in our neighbourhoods fighting crime. Did the Conservatives deliver that? No, they did not. Neighbourhood policing was slashed, the number of police community support officers was halved, and the Conservatives failed to tackle the fundamental problems in policing that need reform. Policing is the most unreformed part of our public services. We will make—the Home Secretary will make—the tough decisions in the coming weeks in order to put policing on the right footing for the future.

Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Since this Government entered office, the illegal immigration crisis has gotten seriously worse on every front. The number of people arriving in this country illegally is up, and not just by a little bit; arrivals are up by more than 50% compared with the same period before the election. Before the election, the number of migrants staying in hotels had fallen by 47%. It has now gone up, and fewer of the people breaking into this country illegally on a small boat are being removed.

We are now in a position where the Government are putting forward a proposal that, in opposition, they described as “an admission of failure”. The Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), is unable to say whether the plan will save us money or cost us more. We also hear that this proposal will involve accommodation on a site that is directly next to homes provided to the families of our brave armed forces personnel. Have the Government consulted those families about this plan?

All this demonstrates that we need much stronger proposals than the weak efforts the Government are presiding over. That is why we have put forward the borders plan, which goes beyond tinkering with the system. If we want to stop the use of this accommodation, we need to change completely how we approach this problem and ensure that all illegal immigrants are removed within a week. It is a comprehensive plan based on our proposals to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, reform how our asylum system operates, and remove the blockages that have prevented the removal of illegal entrants. It is a proposal that is not only practical, but fair, as those who come to the UK illegally should not be housed at the taxpayer’s expense in ever greater numbers. People need to know that if they break into this country, they will be detained and deported. That is how we will solve this crisis.

I will finish by asking the question we are all wondering: when will the asylum hotels close? Will the Government commit to closing all asylum hotels within a year?

[Alex Norris]

What an optimistic effort by the hon. Gentleman! He invites us to believe that he and his colleagues have worked out in 14 months how to fix a system that they broke over a period of 14 years. The British public saw through that in July 2024, and I suspect that they will see through it again.

The hon. Gentleman talks about removals. Of course, removals are up—over 35,000 since we took office. When it comes to the question of why we have hotels in the first place, what was the original sin? It was that Conservative colleagues stopped assessing claims. That is why we have hotels, and it is why we have made the efforts to shift the backlog.

The reality is that the system is broken. It is a very simple equation—it is a complicated issue, but a simple equation. We are a very popular country and people want to come here. Of course we are popular—we are the greatest country in the world, with brilliant institutions—but that popularity is also due to the fact that people are sold a dream that they will be able to come here, live in a hotel and work illegally. Until and unless we attack those two fundamental factors, nothing will change. We know that the Conservatives do not oppose the plans we are debating today, because after all, they used two military sites themselves.

Knife Crime

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Thank you for chairing this debate, Ms McVey, and I offer my condolences and pay tribute to those whose lives have been tragically lost as a result of knife crime. We recently saw the tragic dangers posed by knife crime during the appalling terrorist attack at Heaton Park, and I offer my condolences to the victims of that cowardly attack. As has been said, today marks four years since the death of the great Sir David Amess, whose family I am sure will be in all our thoughts.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this important debate, for his ongoing work to highlight the impact of knife crime, and for his straight-talking common-sense efforts in this place. Crimes involving knives are devastating. The lives lost, and the crimes committed using those weapons, scar our society.

Given the Government’s ambition to reduce knife crime by half, I look forward to hearing what the new Minister has to say about the methods they intend to use to reach that ambitious target, which we would all like to see achieved. Under the last Government the headline rate of crime, excluding fraud and computing misuse, dropped by more than 50%, showing that such reductions in crime are possible. As shadow Minister in the Crime and Policing Bill Committee, I listened carefully to the proposals put forward by the Government. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will welcome the Government bringing forward further proposals that could deliver reductions in such crime even more swiftly.

Although the number of hospital admissions related to knife crime has declined from its peak, it remains far too high. That problem is further exacerbated by the concentration of offences in hotspots: the crime survey for England and Wales from March this year shows that the Metropolitan police service area accounted for 31% of all offences, West Midlands police recorded 8%, and Greater Manchester 6%. The Met police recorded a staggering 9% increase, and data up to December 2024 shows that London accounts for 45.9% of all knifepoint robberies in England, despite having only 15.5% of the population. The Government must take further targeted action to address the situation. Over the past decade, steps have been taken, from banning knives to legislating for the serious violence duty and the role of violence reduction units, and violence against the person has decreased significantly since 2010, but knife crime remains far too high.

I welcome measures in the Crime and Policing Bill that replicate the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill for more stringent rules on knife possession and expanded police powers. Increasing the penalty for those selling to under-18s is clearly a welcome means of protecting young people, but as police have highlighted, its practical impact on investigation timeframes will be critical in their efforts to prevent the illegal sale of these weapons. It is also important that, when police search a property, they have the authority to seize and destroy weapons where there are reasonable grounds to believe they may be used in unlawful violence.

Legislation alone is not enough. Getting more knives off our streets requires us to have more police on the streets, with the power to act and a focus on the crimes that really matter. The previous Government put a record number of police on our streets, and when the Conservatives left office there were more police on our streets than ever before, but since Labour came to power, we have seen a real hit to police funding affecting both the headcount and the resources available to police. This Government hit our police forces with a £230 million national insurance bill—literally taxing the police off our streets—and their failure to build the pay award into the funding settlement, as the previous Government had, is a further £200 million hit to funding.

The result is that police numbers are falling when they need to be increasing. The number of police officers, police community support officers and staff has already fallen by 1,316, and looks set to get much worse. The biggest hit is to the Met, which deals with a disproportionate amount of knife crime, as we have said. I hope that the Minister will be an active champion for our brave police officers, PCSOs and staff, and take the challenge to the Treasury so that police get the resource they need to tackle knife crime and save lives.

As I have said many times before, not only do we need to put more police on the streets, but we need them to be able to focus on the crimes that matter. Non-crime hate incidents have morphed beyond all recognition, and well beyond their intended purpose. Originally intended to apply when there was an imminent risk of crime, they now tie up 60,000 police hours every year—policing our tweets rather than policing our streets. The argument is well trod, whether in the press or in this place. Will the Minister comment briefly on what is being done to ensure that our police can focus on the crimes that matter most, such as knife crime?

The most direct way for the police to remove the threat posed by knives is to remove the knives from those who might do harm with them. Yes, we need to tackle gang culture and improve education so that young people are aware of the risks and harm created by their actions, and yes, we need to restrict sales to prevent young people from getting hold of weapons, but we also need to give our police officers the power, authority and backing they need to remove knives from the hands of those who might do us harm.

Stop and search removes knives and saves lives. We can see that in London without a doubt. There is a correlation between the Mayor’s decision to allow stop and search to decrease by 60% between 2021 and 2024 and the fact that the volume of knife crime offences increased by 86%. We need to remove the barriers that prevent our police officers from using stop and search. We debated this issue at length during the passage of the Crime and Policing Bill, and we encourage the Government to make appropriate amendments to legislation, including the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code A, to make it easier for officers to use.

Just before the election last year, the Government gave the Home Office £4 million to fight knife crime and boost the use of technology, including new technologies that can detect carried knives from a distance. What progress has been made with that, and what steps are the Government taking to harness new technologies in the fight against knife crime?

Given the impact of knife crime on families and communities, reducing it is an essential task for the Government. I hope that the Government will consider what more they can do to increase the ability of police to clamp down on these awful crimes. Alongside measures relating to education and support, we must ensure that our police are properly funded, deployed and resourced to tackle knife crime.

Draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2025

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 General Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I echo the Minister’s thoughts and sympathies with regard to the horrendous incident inflicted on your community.

For the reasons the Minister has outlined, I can state clearly our support for this order. We all recognise the need to maintain our international agreements and to ensure that our extradition laws remain in line with our current realities. On the more positive side of the ledger, it is always welcome to see the enhanced agreement with Chile; the UK’s first extradition treaty with the country dates back to the 19th century.

Although this piece of secondary legislation encompasses multiple countries, it would be improper not to reflect on the terrible situation faced by those who have had to leave Hong Kong, and by those who have remained and suffered abominable infringements of their rights. Those rights, once so firmly instilled, have withered away under intolerable changes in the law. Jimmy Lai’s recent trial is a timely reminder of how people’s freedoms continue to be undermined.

Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom itself, we see complete disregard for individual freedoms. Pro-democracy protester Bob Chan—a Hongkonger—was injured after being dragged on to consulate grounds and beaten by assailants in 2022. More recently, the use of bounties by Hong Kong’s police force, encouraging the targeting of opposition voices, is heinous. That underscores why it was paramount that the last Government took steps to suspend the treaty, and it is right that the Government recognise that concern by continuing legal steps to sever extradition powers. I hope that the Minister and his former colleagues, many now outside the Home Office, recognise the need to be robust with representatives of Hong Kong and China when dangers present themselves.

On the order itself, I thank the Minister for providing written assurance to my colleagues about these proposals, as it is right that we make sure that any changes the UK makes do not undermine the security of people living in this country, and that extradition is not a tool that can be misused. I particularly welcome his commitment that the Government will never allow a situation where Hongkongers or people of any other nationality are extradited for politically motivated purposes. I hope that the Security Minister continues to take steps to ensure that, including by making certain that no diplomatic building can be used for malign purposes.

It is right that our extradition system is fit for purpose, so I am pleased to be able to support these proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Let me begin by welcoming the new Ministers to their places.

The last Conservative Government recruited a record number of police officers, but earlier this year we discovered that despite Labour’s promise of more police, the headcount had already fallen by 1,316 since it came to office. Both the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have warned that we will lose even more officers. When will the Minister restore police numbers to the levels they were at under the last Conservative Government?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my opposite number for his welcome. Let me also use this opportunity to thank the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who did a brilliant job as Policing Minister over the past year.

Under the last couple of years of the Conservative Government, shoplifting soared: we saw a 70% increase. Street theft rose by 60% in two years, and the Conservatives ignored antisocial behaviour. Violence and abuse against shop workers was at epidemic levels, and the yo-yoing of the police numbers did not help; the hon. Gentleman may remember that the Conservatives cut them by 20,000. We are prioritising neighbourhood policing. We will ensure that the police have the resources that they need, and we will use new technology to ensure that we are tackling crime as much as we can. Those 3,000 neighbourhood police officers will be in place by next year, and the 13,000 police officers that we have pledged in our manifesto will make a real difference to people’s lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Lots of people know that under this Government, the number of people arriving illegally has hit a record high. What many do not know is that this Labour Government are repealing the power to scientifically test the age of those arriving and are hiding the data on the number making false claims about their age. Why are the Government doing away with powers that could prevent adult migrants from getting into classrooms with children, and why are they hiding this data from the British people?

Draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 General Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the Minister on her new role in what I am sure will be the first of many encounters. In what can be a divisive Department, I am pleased to begin with an issue on which we can agree.

The Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, put forward by the previous Government during the last Parliament, sought to enable joint processing between qualifying competent authorities and intelligence services under part 4 of the Data Protection Act 2018. As the Minister summarised, it was rightly recognised that there was an increasing expectation that law enforcement and the intelligence services would work jointly in operational partnerships, particularly in response to lessons learned from the tragic terrorist incidents at the Manchester Arena and Fishmongers’ Hall.

Under the existing regime, it is understandable that sharing data across Data Protection Act regimes proves cumbersome, making the necessary decision making in our national security infrastructure more challenging. Removing those obstacles and allowing partnerships to process data under a single regime is a step to be welcomed. Any measure that enables more effective and efficient use of data to enhance our national security is to the benefit of us all. Indeed, it is essential that we learn from the events of the past. We owe it to the victims of these abhorrent acts of terrorism. As such, we should welcome the change in the Government’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and the regulations debated today.

Regarding joint processing, it has been noted previously that the controls and safeguards under part 4 of the 2018 Act will apply. Although I am aware that each body has expertise to manage the use of data, the creation of a single regime can pose specific challenges. Therefore, considering that some of the data used in such cases may be particularly sensitive, have Ministers engaged sufficiently with the relevant agencies and competent authorities to ensure that they are prepared to use the new rules effectively and without incident? In addition, although the use of designation notices by the Home Secretary is an integral part of the new regime, I must ask Ministers whether they are satisfied that the process for providing notices for joint controllership of specific processing will be effective.

Although I appreciate that, for security reasons, the Minister will not be able to provide details as to why one competent authority has been included, it will be useful to receive assurances that robust systems are in place to ensure that such processes include appropriate safeguards and that the data being used is in line with the notice. These safeguards are critical, as we all recognise the public’s desire for their data to be protected while ensuring that national security is maintained. I therefore welcome the draft regulations and hope they are implemented effectively.

Orgreave Inquiry

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Growing up in the north-east, I know the emotions stirred by the miners’ strike; decades after the events, they continue to cause significant division and disagreement in our communities. Regardless of people’s views on the rights and wrongs of the incident, historic events such as this, which saw conflict and violence on our streets, will always be deeply regrettable.

We must acknowledge that in the decades since, no Government—including the last Labour Government, which had 13 years—deemed it necessary to establish such an inquiry. That Labour Government included three current Home Office Ministers, with the current Minister for Border Security and Asylum, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), serving in the Home Office at the time. If this inquiry has a real contribution to make, why did the then Labour Government not hold one? What has changed?

As Members will know, there have been previous calls for such an inquiry, but when the decision was made not to grant one, it was based on reasoned grounds. There has been a passage of time, and there have been significant legislative and systematic changes in the decades since. As the Home Secretary said in her written statement,

“there have been significant changes in the oversight of policing since 1984, and to the way that public order is now policed”.

Does the Minister believe that an inquiry is likely to result in any meaningful and relevant lessons for today’s policing system?

The Minister is a long-standing advocate for those impacted by infected blood—a case of truly disgraceful systematic treatment over decades. Similarly, the Hillsborough panel highlighted the deep injustice of a tragedy involving this police force, but both those inquiries understandably came at considerable cost. Will the Minister outline what the Department anticipates that delivering a proportionate and meaningful inquiry on this issue will cost?

The press reports on the proposed chairman raise serious questions about his ability to act in a politically neutral and independent manner. Can the Minister assure the House that the inquiry will not be political in nature and that it will listen to the views of all parties present on the day, so that it is not merely an example of the Government putting the interests of the unions ahead of the police? As with so many issues recently, this raises questions about the commitment of the Government to supporting brave police officers, who act within the law to do their job. Can she confirm that the Government are committed to supporting police officers who put themselves in harm’s way to keep public order and comply with their training and instructions?

Finally, I note from the Government’s publication that the inquiry will be statutory, with powers to compel individuals to provide information where necessary. That sounds remarkably similar to a request that we have made to the Government, which was repeatedly rejected. The victims and survivors of rape gangs deserve detailed updates on the progress of that inquiry, yet the lack of information about how the new inquiry will be set up and how it will compel evidence leads me to conclude that the Government have prioritised the miners over the minors who suffered horrific exploitation at the hands of rape gangs. This Labour Government’s union paymasters should not determine the pecking order of justice in this country. There are still perpetrators of child sexual exploitation and those who covered it up who have gone unpunished, yet the Government have chosen to prioritise this inquiry. In her audit, Baroness Casey spoke of the need to implement inquiries that are time limited. I ask the Government to focus on this issue and, given their initial refusal to do so, ensure that action is taken at a much greater speed to bring about justice for those young, vulnerable women who suffered at the hands of rape gangs.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I was going to start by saying that I welcomed the shadow Minister’s initial comments, in which he recognised how the situation at Orgreave all those years ago still casts a shadow over communities in Yorkshire, the north-east and other parts of the country. I must say that I was surprised by some of his comments, because I know that he is a good man and is trying his best to fulfil the role of shadow Policing Minister. I will answer his questions, and will come on to the issue of grooming gangs that he raised in the latter part of his contribution, but I must say that I found his comments extremely distasteful, as well as not accurate or correct.

First, I will deal with the question of why we are having this Orgreave inquiry. Our manifesto committed us to ensuring that there was a thorough investigation or inquiry, so that

“the truth about the events at Orgreave comes to light.”

We are delivering on that manifesto commitment today. As I said in my statement, we are also committed to rebuilding public confidence in policing, and campaigners and mining communities have spent decades searching for answers about what happened. The purpose of the inquiry will be to aid the public understanding of how the events at Orgreave on 18 June 1984 and immediately afterwards came to pass. I hope that explains why we are taking this action today.

The shadow Minister asked about the cost. We have been very clear that the Home Office will meet the cost of the inquiry. We are also mindful that we want the inquiry to be as expeditious as possible, and to be value for money. That is why we have looked at the model of the Hillsborough independent inquiry—we think that is a good model to follow. Certainly, there will be conversations with the chair about the projected cost and the timeline that he will want to set out.

Turning to the issue of the chair, again I was really disappointed by the shadow Minister’s remarks about the bishop. Bishop Pete has previously supported calls for an inquiry. It is important to note that that was in the context of his pastoral role, in which he has supported members of the diocese of Sheffield who were impacted by the events at Orgreave. He certainly did not show any favour towards either the police or the picketers when calling for that inquiry. I do not think that that call detracts from the necessary credibility, impartiality and independence that I believe Bishop Pete will bring to his role as chair of the inquiry. He has the backing and support of the key stakeholders in taking that role forward. It is also important to remember that the chair of the inquiry will be supported by a small group of independent members, who will have expert knowledge in certain areas to help the chair fulfil his terms of reference.

As the shadow Minister said, the inquiry is statutory. That is because we recognise the importance of ensuring that documents can be brought forward. It is important that people can be compelled to produce documents and that witnesses can be compelled as well.

Finally, the shadow Minister referred to the issue of grooming gangs. He will know that a great deal of work has been done to make sure that the hideous, appalling situations that have been uncovered around the grooming gangs will now be dealt with. The Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), has given statements to the House, as has the Home Secretary, and there has been a clear list of the actions that are being taken. It is absolutely right that that work is done. Of course, when the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse was set up under the previous Government, there was support across the House for the work of Professor Alexis Jay. It is a great pity that the previous Government did not enact any of Professor Jay’s recommendations. That is the hugely shameful state of affairs that this Government inherited, but I am absolutely clear that this Government are dealing with grooming gangs. That is the right thing to do, but equally, setting up the Orgreave inquiry today is the right thing to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

May I join you, Mr Speaker, in marking the anniversary of the 7/7 London bombings? Our thoughts are with the victims and families, and all who did all they could to help those in need.

Yesterday, Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley called the spending review “disappointing”, highlighting that he is being forced to cut 1,700 officers and staff. Policing may not be a priority for this Labour Government, but the last Government put a record number of police on our streets. Will the Home Secretary commit to keeping total number of police officers above 147,746, as it was under the last Government—yes or no?

[Yvette Cooper]

Unfortunately, the trouble is that actually the Conservatives did not put police on the streets. They may have tried to reverse the massive cuts that they had made to policing after 2010, but they did not put police on the streets. Neighbourhood policing was slashed under the Conservatives and some areas saw neighbourhood policing halve as a result. I am glad to say that this year the Metropolitan police will put 470 additional neighbourhood police on the streets, as a result of the support that they have been given.

[Matt Vickers]

I think that was a failure to commit to that total number. During the passage of the Crime and Policing Bill, we asked the Government to stop our police having to investigate playground squabbles and hurty words online as non-crime hate incidents, and now senior police officers are joining that call. Merseyside chief constable, Serena Kennedy, has said:

“Non-crime hate incidents are having a disproportionate impact on trust and confidence in policing”.

I realise that U-turns are quite fashionable for the Government, so will the Home Secretary now finally scrap non-crime hate incidents and save 60,000 hours of police time?

[Yvette Cooper]

I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that police forces are following the guidance that the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), drew up on this issue. We have a review that is happening under the College of Policing at the moment, but the shadow Minister refers to the Crime and Policing Bill, which is introducing new measures on stalking, spiking, respect orders, e-bikes, off-road bikes and a whole serious of different issues, and which sadly the Conservatives voted against—so much for caring about tackling crime.