Police Grant Report

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I join the House in thanking our frontline police officers and staff for their incredible commitment, and the contribution and sacrifices that they make to keep our streets safe. I am grateful to the Minister for her statement, though I must say that it has the familiar quality of a Government announcing success, while the public are left wondering where exactly it has occurred. The Minister has come to the House today to present this police funding settlement as a turning point—as if police numbers are not actually falling, and as if criminals across the country are now packing up their tools and reconsidering their life choices.

However, outside Westminster, the country looks rather different. The public judge policing in a far more old-fashioned way than Ministers. They judge it not by the tone of a statement, but by whether they see officers on the streets, whether the police answer the telephone and turn up, and whether crime is dealt with when it happens—and on those measures, too many of our constituents feel that policing is being stretched to breaking point. This debate cannot take place without us confronting the central fact behind it: Labour promised more police on our streets, but since it entered government, police officer numbers have fallen by more than 1,300. That is not a minor adjustment, or an accounting quirk; it is 1,300 fewer police officers available to respond to crime, protect victims and patrol our communities.

[Matt Bishop]

The shadow Minister talks about reductions in officer numbers. Has he considered perhaps that those officers were coming to retirement, or were suffering ill health and were on restricted duties, and were not the officers seen by the public on the street, so the public perception is just the same?

[Matt Vickers]

This is the net number of police officers making the difference out there on Britain’s streets. There were 149,769; there are now nearly 2,000 fewer—that has a real impact. We hear all this noise about neighbourhood policing. Neighbourhood policing has a huge part to play in the policing model, but we cannot take away the police who respond to 999 calls. Should we badge police up, redeploy them, and leave people waiting longer for a 999 response when they really need one?

[Graham Stuart]

In his powerful speech, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) talked about the rise in scammers and fraudsters. I am concerned about the fact that Humberside will get a 2.4% funding increase, according to a public announcement by Ministers. The police and crime commissioner has shown that, when costs are taken into account, that represents a 2.9% cut. That is why 1,300 police officers have been cut so far, and it is why another reduction of 4,000 is expected next year. The Minister can go through a carefully curated number of neighbourhood officers, but the overall number is down, and the Government are not being straight with us.

[Matt Vickers]

I could not agree more. That is why the number of robberies against businesses has surged, shoplifting is up, and people feel less safe on our streets. Between September 2024 and September 2025—entirely on this Government’s watch—the number of officers fell by 1,318, compared with the year before. More broadly, 3,000 fewer people are working in police forces across the country to keep us safe.

[Andy McDonald]

I hear what the shadow Minister says about police numbers, but what did he say when Cleveland lost 500 police officers on his Government’s watch? Was he concerned then?

[Matt Vickers]

Back in 2010, I was deeply concerned about lots of things—the damage to our economy, the number of people without a job, the challenge of the difficult choices that the Government had to make—but the previous Government left office with record numbers of police on our streets.

[Richard Foord]

Measuring police effectiveness by looking solely at numbers is absolutely flawed. Does the shadow Minister accept in retrospect that the way in which Theresa May allowed police numbers to plummet while claiming that crime was falling was completely flawed? We lost a lot of experience in those years.

[Matt Vickers]

When the Conservatives last left office, we had record numbers of police on the streets. I do not know how many police officers we had on the streets when the Liberal Democrats last left office. [Interruption.] I will make some progress.

In terms of headcount, the picture is starker. In March 2024, under the previous Government, there were 149,769 officers—the highest number since records began. As of September 2025, that number stands at 147,621—a decrease of more than 2,000. When the Minister speaks about supporting the police, the House is entitled to ask a simple question: how can the Government support policing while presiding over fewer police?

Worryingly, the bad news does not stop there. The number of officers in the British Transport police and the number of staff in the National Crime Agency have also decreased, all while the Government announce a national police service that will be created from organisations such as the NCA. The staff who will make up that service are leaving. That is critical because the grant that we are discussing comes against the backdrop of many forces warning about their long-term financial stability.

As the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council said:

“The overall financial picture remains challenging. Many forces are planning service reductions, with consequences for officer numbers, staff capacity and overall resilience.”

That is a direct consequence of the Government’s decisions. There are real funding challenges, here and now, with real consequences for forces and communities across the country. The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners says that this year’s settlement leaves police forces with a shortfall that could be as high as £500 million.

Labour’s own police and crime commissioners across the country have spoken out on the challenges. In my own part of the world, Labour PCC Matt Storey has said that Cleveland police have to operate with

“one hand behind their back”,

and that funding has

“failed to keep pace with the level of inflation, while other funding has been removed and re-allocated”,

making it impossible to maintain current levels of service. I understand that he has written to the Minister on three occasions and is still awaiting a response. Durham’s Labour police and crime commissioner has been even more direct in her criticism. She said that the Labour Government have

“consistently demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of policing and community safety.”

The Minister will no doubt point with great enthusiasm to headline figures. Such spin fails to acknowledge inflation, pay awards and the ongoing cost of the Government’s jobs tax. Many at home will be stunned that our police forces were subjected to hundreds of millions of pounds of costs by way of the national insurance increase, and that the Government have actually taxed the police off our streets. This settlement is not the straightforward increase that the Minister claims it is. It relies heavily on the police precept, pushing more of the burden on to local taxpayers, while forces face rising costs and rising demand.

In 2023, an MP told this House that the then Government’s approach was to

“put up local taxes, put up council tax, push the problem on to local forces”,

and that

“Ministers have chosen to heap the burden on to hard-pressed local taxpayers through the precept.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 935.]

Any idea who that might have been? [Interruption.] Yes, it was the current Policing Minister. Given the Government’s fondness for U-turns, I am not surprised by the Minister’s change of view.

[Jess Phillips]

If the shadow Minister was so upset about this, why did he not do anything about it?

[Matt Vickers]

An increasing burden is being put on local taxpayers. Members can say one thing in opposition, but then they enter government and have to make real choices. Labour’s choices have meant cuts to police numbers, increases in the burden on local taxpayers, and spiralling levels of retail crime and robbery against businesses.

The consequences of that approach are as obvious today as they were then. The reliance on the police precept entrenches a postcode lottery in policing. Areas with strong council tax bases can raise more; areas with weaker council tax bases cannot. Yet the need for policing does not neatly align with local prosperity. Criminals do not check council tax bands before committing burglary. Nor do they decide where to operate based on local authority revenue forecasts. Yet under this Government’s model, two communities can face the same crime pressures but receive very different policing capacity simply because one can raise more money than the other. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what changed her mind about increasing the burden on local taxpayers for funding the police. Given the articulate case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty)—and by the Minister when in opposition—will she tell us when the funding formula review will take place?

The pressures on policing are not diminishing; they are growing. Forces are dealing with county lines, drug gangs exploiting children, organised crime operating across borders, cyber-crime and fraud expanding at an industrial scale, and domestic abuse cases that require extensive time, safeguarding and specialist capacity. They are also dealing with public order demands, which have become increasingly routine. This is a modern landscape of threats that requires modern capacity, and it cannot be met with funding settlements designed for ministerial speeches rather than frontline realities. This settlement will ultimately be judged not by the Minister’s tone, but by its results.

This debate comes down to the difference between saying and doing. The Government can say that they support policing, but too many see numbers falling. They can say that they support victims, but too many see no justice. And they can claim to be tough on crime, while quietly introducing early-release schemes that put offenders back on our streets sooner. Until the Government’s actions match their words, the public will not be convinced—and nor should they be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Rural communities fear that mega-police forces will suck resources into cities, and police officer numbers are already down by 1,318 under this Government. How does the Minister expect police forces to protect rural communities when the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has confirmed that it is facing a £500 million funding shortfall this year?

[Sarah Jones]

The last two Budgets have seen police funding increase by £2 billion, and the public have not forgotten how the previous Conservative Government acted. They slashed police numbers by 20,000, decimating neighbourhood policing. They then tried to reverse their own cuts and increase officer numbers to chase a headline, but they were not bothered that 12,000 of them were sat behind desks, not out in our communities. While Conservative Members have amnesia about their own record, the Home Secretary and this ministerial team are bringing the bold changes we need to reform policing properly.

[Matt Vickers]

Anybody listening to that garbage would not realise that there are fewer police on the streets now than under the last Conservative Government. Research done by the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society shows the huge scale of crime affecting rural retailers. Since this Government came into office, shoplifting and robberies against businesses have surged. Does the Minister think this is because the Government have cut 1,318 police officers, or because they refuse to mandate tagging, curfews and bans for serial shoplifters and those who assault retail workers? Which is it—fewer police or weaker consequences?

[Sarah Jones]

In the last two years of the previous Conservative Government, shop theft rose by 60%—[Interruption.] No, it was 60% in the last two years of the previous Government.

We are taking action through the new offence to protect shop workers, which the previous Government failed to do. We are tackling antisocial behaviour with respect orders. We are putting specialist rape and serious sexual offences teams in every police force. We are taking thousands of dangerous knives off our streets, and knife crime is falling. This Government are taking action that is supported by the police—putting 13,000 more police in our neighbourhoods, and ensuring that they tackle the scourge of everyday crime.

Town and City Centre Safety

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate.

Town and city centres are the lifeblood of our local communities. They are crucial for people, local businesses and our economy, yet under this Labour Government it increasingly feels as though our town and city centres are being not supported but attacked—attacked by a jobs tax that raises the cost of employing people, by surging business rates that punish employers and enterprise, and by relentless pressure on pubs and small businesses, the very places that make our high streets sociable, welcoming and safe. The result is plain to see: businesses are closing. And when businesses are closing, confidence drains away.

Thriving town centres are not just about economics; they are about safety. Communities with busy, successful high streets are more likely to report crime, look out for one another and defend what they value. That brings me—

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Matt Vickers]

That brings me to Stockton, which has a great high street and incredible local businesses. I always encourage people to support Stockton, but I would be negligent in my duty if I did not acknowledge the challenges it faces—challenges that did not arrive overnight. Over decades, Stockton’s Labour council has allowed the town centre to decline and become home to unacceptable levels of crime and antisocial behaviour. When disorder grew, enforcement weakened. When problems became visible, excuses multiplied.

The council’s priorities tell their own story. Instead of employing more civic enforcement officers or street wardens—the people who provide visible reassurance—the council has expanded layers of management on six-figure salaries. It has recently emerged that Stockton-on-Tees borough council spent £15.8 million on recruitment consultants in just three years. Money that could have gone into keeping the town centre safe was instead swallowed up by consultants and questionable spending decisions. Councils have a duty to spend public money wisely, and in Stockton that duty has too often been neglected.

At the same time, instead of using all the powers available through public space protection orders to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, the council’s soft approach has allowed far too much of it to go unchallenged. Worse still, Stockton’s Labour council volunteered itself as an asylum dispersal authority, taking on a completely disproportionate number of asylum seekers. For many years, Stockton has had one of the highest ratios of asylum seekers to residents in the entire country. Those asylum seekers are largely housed near the town centre, placing pressure on accommodation, public services and integration, and leaving large numbers of lone men congregating in the town centre, causing understandable concern for residents and businesses alike.

The situation has been compounded by the council’s permissive approach to housing. It has allowed large numbers of houses in multiple occupation, bedsits and bail accommodation to cluster around the town centre. The result is predictable: people stop visiting, businesses close and crime goes unreported. That creates a doom loop, and Labour councils across the country have perfected it.

What we now see nationally is Stockton scaled up. Since the Labour Government came to power, there are 1,318 fewer police officers on our streets and more than 3,000 fewer people working in policing overall. That is not an accident: it is a choice. Police chiefs warn of a funding shortfall of £500 million. In my local force, the Labour police and crime commissioner says there is a £2.4 million gap—the equivalent of 40 police officers.

Even when offenders are caught, punishment is increasingly optional. Labour’s early release policies mean that criminals are back on the streets sooner—sometimes within weeks—so shopkeepers see the same faces returning, residents see the same behaviour repeated, and police officers see their work unravelled by decisions taken far from their communities. The consequences are clear: shoplifting is rising and the robbery of business property has surged. The Government tell us that crime is under-reported; if that is true, it only strengthens the case for more police, not fewer.

The Government point to measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, but targets mean little if officer numbers are falling. Warm words do not patrol streets. Conservatives believe that safety is not a luxury, but a foundation on which everything else depends. That is why we back our police. That is why we are committed to recruiting 10,000 more officers. That is why we support visible, proactive policing in the places that need it most.

Before the Minister tells us once again that a strategy is in place, may I ask a very simple question? Will she commit today that no police force will lose yet more officers as a result of the Government’s next spending review, or should communities prepare for even fewer police on the streets? That leads me to a second, unavoidable question: does she expect communities to feel safer when there are fewer police, criminals are being released early and Labour councils refuse to use the powers they already have to tackle antisocial behaviour, or is managed decline now official Government policy? Fewer police, early release and unenforced laws are not unfortunate side effects; they are policy choices, and our town centres are paying the price.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Thank you, Ms Lewell, for chairing the debate today.

The House has had a great many opportunities to discuss indefinite leave to remain and its impact on people, including debates in this Chamber on consequential matters such as those working in the healthcare sector and BNOs. Underpinning all these debates is the principle of what constitutes a fair migration system and what does not.

Many Members have made impassioned arguments about what they believe would make a fair system. However, Members who have participated in previous debates on this matter will be well aware that I must respectfully disagree with some of their proposals, particularly any that would create weaker criteria around indefinite leave to remain. The petitions seek either to maintain the five-year period or to provide exemptions to the rules that the Government have set out regarding potential changes to the receipt of benefits. If we were to follow the suggestions in the petitions, the Government’s proposals on settlement would be left in tatters and wholly ineffectual.

When the proposals were announced, the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), said that there was much in them that we supported—partially because much in them was familiar from the amendments we tabled during the passage of the Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. Having spent many hours in the Public Bill Committee discussing that legislation nearly a year ago, I can say with absolute certainty that a 10-year route to indefinite leave to remain is something that we proposed, and it is something that we continue to support.

The right to citizenship and permanent residency should go only to those who have demonstrated a real commitment to the UK, and a 10-year period is clearly more reflective of the level of commitment that many in this country would accept as a reasonable timeframe, in terms of both contribution and time to settle. The British people want and demand tougher action on immigration. We believe that this is a perfectly reasonable alteration to the existing system that puts more robust measures in place to ensure that settlement is based on the long-standing contribution that many of us would expect.

Even though we have seen reductions in net migration, with the Office for National Statistics stating that

“decreases in work-related and study-related immigration”

continue to follow policy reforms from early 2024, the immigration figures remain historically and exceptionally high, and far greater than before the pandemic. The Government must take action to reduce immigration, and they must do so imminently, recognising that the timeframe for these changes is dictated by a significant cohort.

Between 2015 and 2020, total grants of settlement were never over 100,000. In the years either side of that, with the exception of 2010—the last year of the previous Labour Government—they were never more than 200,000.

[Barry Gardiner]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that between 2022 and 2024, even though the number of spaces in the care sector was deemed to be between 6,000 and 40,000, his Government made available 616,000 visas for that?

[Matt Vickers]

There has been a lot of passionate debate today, and well-meaning suggestions for changes or exemptions to the Government proposals were passionately advanced. Some were related to salary, to age or to people’s grasp of the English language; some referred to people’s community contributions, to the make-up of a person’s family or to people’s role in public services. Compassion is infinite, but this country’s resources are not. We need a system that is fair for UK citizens, including those who are currently struggling to get on the housing ladder.

[Cameron Thomas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the point of fairness?

[Matt Vickers]

I will carry on.

Between 2015 and 2020, total grants of resettlement were never over 100,000. In the years either side of that—except in the last year of the previous Labour Government—they were never more than 200,000. In contrast, the Government’s own settlement consultation sets out estimates showing far greater numbers of people being granted settlement between 2026 and 2030. It projects that the peak could reach as high as 620,000 in 2028, with as many as 2.2 million receiving settlement over that period. That is simply not sustainable.

[Mike Martin]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Matt Vickers]

No.

I think we can all understand why people want to achieve settlement more quickly, but the policies we set must be based on what is right for our country. We should maintain our resolve, and ensure that changes are enacted without creating loopholes or alternative routes beyond what the Government have set out. The approach is wholly responsive to the current situation, and reflects the fact that we need much stronger policies that deliver a fair system for British citizens and those who have already legally settled in the UK.

I want to re-emphasise the points raised when the policy was announced, which include the point that the thresholds for earnings to demonstrate net contribution set out in the consultation must be sufficiently high to ensure that those who are granted settlement contribute to this country. Furthermore, the Government’s own work has highlighted some of the mechanisms people use to take advantage of existing immigration rules, so have the Government been developing strong rules to ensure that adjustments to the baseline for behaviour, such as volunteering, represent a significant contribution? If we do not have sufficiently strong criteria for what constitutes working in the community, I fear the proposals risk being undermined.

The British people care fundamentally about fairness. The British people demand stronger borders. Immigration has been far too high for far too long. Too many people refuse to accept that simple fact. As has been said, if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw ever more people on to a path that starts with anger and ends with hatred. We need an immigration system that is fair and proportionate and does not take taxpayers for a ride.

For too long the right to remain in the UK has been seen as an automatic entitlement. It has become a conveyor belt to citizenship, when UK citizenship should be a privilege that is earned through commitment and contribution to our country. The Conservatives believe that the UK is not a dormitory or a hotel, but our home. We must make changes to indefinite leave to remain, both to respond to the levels of immigration and so that we can have a fairer system for the future.

Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I thank you, Mr Vickers, for chairing the debate, and the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for securing it.

The prevalence of drug deaths and the broader misuse of drugs in Scotland is devastating. The fall in drug deaths in 2024 was welcome, but the figure remains the highest in Europe. Between March and May 2025, drug deaths actually increased by 15%, with statistics showing that people in deprived areas in Scotland are 12 times more likely to die of drug misuse than those in the least deprived areas. We all recognise that this must change.

Nevertheless, the question of how we achieve that is not simple. We are right to reflect on how we reached this situation. The monumental failure of the SNP Scottish Government is apparent. Former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon admitted that her Government had taken their “eye off the ball”. I dare say that turn of phrase vastly understates the scale of the crisis that has gripped individuals and communities in Scotland. When my former colleague, the previous Scottish Conservative leader, put forward his Bill in the Scottish Parliament to address this problem, he said:

“This is a crisis that was made in Scotland, and it is one that can be fixed in Scotland, but not if we do not have willing participants in the Government.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 9 October 2025; c. 106-7.]

I will return to the efforts made by my Conservative colleagues in Holyrood later. However, we believe that approaches to dealing with drug use must go beyond the narrow debate about drug consumption centres.

Let me be clear: both the Conservative party and I respect the independence of the Lord Advocate as the prosecutorial authority in Scotland. The last Government were clear that, provided that power is exercised lawfully, we should not stand in the way. Respect for the institutions that underpin our Union is critical, and I would not desire to undermine them. However, that should not preclude us in this place from criticising decisions made in Scotland or from questioning some of the comments underpinning the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report. That is why the Conservative position on drug consumption rooms in England and Wales is simple: we do not support them. That position was set out transparently when the party was in government, and it is appropriate to continue supporting it now.

It is appropriate to offer clarity on this matter. I understand that was a challenge faced by the Scottish Affairs Committee when questioning the former Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). When she was Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, she produced a report that backed such proposals. As such, it would be interesting to hear from this Minister whether she or the Government believe that these facilities are now appropriate.

The reason for our concern is that the use of drug consumption rooms condones or even encourages illegal drug use. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who is a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, stated:

“I cannot ever support the facilitation of addiction as a way of helping to treat addictions”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 111.]

[John Grady]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the key purposes of a consumption room is to reduce harm to people who would, in any event, consume the substances in question? In Glasgow, we have had significant problems with needle-borne viruses, infections and illness, so it is only morally right to help these people, as they struggle with their addictions, to consume in a safe way. Otherwise, people lose their loved ones, their mothers and fathers, and their sons and daughters. It is a question of compassion.

[Matt Vickers]

I definitely believe that we should be helping people with addictions, but feeding those addictions and allowing the illegal use of drugs is not the way forward. There are many ways in which we should support people with addictions and their families, but we clearly have a fundamental difference of opinion about the role of consumption rooms.

As my colleague on the Committee stated, we can never support the facilitation of addiction as a way to treat addiction. That is alongside the impact of potentially encouraging the continued supply of illicit substances, which invariably happens if there are specific locations at which to consume the products of this trade—a trade that, as we all know, has devastating consequences for our communities. Police Scotland states clearly on its website:

“Drugs can be very dangerous to your health and can kill.

The advice of Police Scotland is simple…There is no ‘safe’ way to take drugs, there is always a risk…The only way of staying safe is to avoid drugs altogether.”

Let me demonstrate why we need an effective police response. The county lines programme—which was started by the previous Government, and which has rightly continued—found a notable impact on drug misuse. Its evaluation, released at the very end of 2025, illustrated that drug misuse hospitalisations decreased by 29% in the exporter areas as a result of the county lines programme, when compared with the control group of areas that receive direct county lines funding. At the same time, the evaluation showed a 15% reduction in drug-related hospitalisations, equivalent to 22 fewer hospitalisations on average per quarter, in the importer forces, which were defined as those police forces most likely to be impacted by spillover effects from the county lines programme. Comparing the data to the 2024 evaluation illustrated that the programme is having a continued and seemingly increasing impact on reducing drug-related hospitalisations. Despite the best intentions of those who work at drug consumption facilities, it is inevitable that those taking the drugs will acquire them by criminal means. When we have targeted police action, the evidence appears to show improved outcomes for those who abuse drugs.

Clearly, enforcement is not and should not be the only approach to the problem. That is why the 10-year drugs plan published by the previous Government set out that any plan needed to be underpinned by enforcement and treatment. I appreciate that it was not focused on Scotland, but I would highlight that the previous Government’s drug strategy saw £532 million of additional funding through to 2024-25 to support improvements in alcohol and drug treatment.

Additionally, the previous Government took steps through their consultation—and we have backed secondary legislation while in opposition—to expand access to naloxone to more healthcare professionals and services. As Members will be well aware, the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill introduced by a former Scottish Conservative leader, Douglas Ross, sought to give those diagnosed with drug and alcohol addiction a statutory right to receive treatment from a relevant professional.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware that naloxone is widely used in Scotland by paramedics and the police. As a councillor on Glasgow city council, I had the opportunity to be trained in its use, and I have a vial of it that I can carry around—fortunately, I have never had to use it.

However, I wanted to make the point to the hon. Member that the main driver for considering a safer drug consumption room in Glasgow was the fact that, in 2015, we had one of the biggest outbreaks of HIV infections ever seen in Europe. That was tracked back to the sharing of needles and the fact that people were injecting. That is what sparked the whole discussion about whether Glasgow needed a safer drug consumption room. So this is not just about the criminality or treating those who are already addicted; it is about preventing those blood-borne viruses, which are so harmful to people in their individual lives, but which also have such a devastating effect on our health services. It is about more than just misusing drugs; it is about a whole-society approach.

[Matt Vickers]

One drug death is one drug death too many. We agree on that, and we agree on the need to treat people. However, I fundamentally believe that there is a role for enforcement. I do not believe that giving people the ability to take these illegal products, in whatever environment, helps to end that addiction. There are very varied views on that, but I fundamentally do not agree.

The robust and costed provisions set out in the Bill introduced by Douglas Ross are essential if Scotland is to turn around its record on tackling the dangers of drug use by setting out the treatments that would be available, and the data and reporting requirements on the Scottish Government. It would provide a Scottish blueprint for reversing the trends that we have seen over the last decade. It was welcome that the Labour party in Scotland supported that Conservative-proposed recovery Bill to give addicts the treatment they need. Unfortunately, the SNP and the Green party in Scotland failed to back it, which was shameful.

In addition, the Scottish Conservatives have set out robust plans to end the drugs trade behind bars, following significant increases in prison drug consumption over the last couple of years. That would be achieved by installing window grilles, which have been proven to stop drone deliveries, in all prisons, and by investing in drone detection technology, sniffer dogs and X-ray machines. The scope of those proposals shows the variety of approaches needed to tackle drug use.

We know that the Thistle is an expensive experiment. Obviously, we welcome any decrease in drug abuse and drug deaths, but we must ask whether we want our actions to encourage drug use or discourage it. It is right that the Scottish Government take steps to fix this problem, but I am afraid they are not taking the steps that are needed. I would ask the Minister, when she gets the opportunity, to encourage her Scottish Government counterparts to back the proposals put forward by the Scottish Conservatives and supported by Labour. That would ensure that the Scottish Government got back to providing treatment for those diagnosed with an addiction in Scotland.

Draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application To Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials In Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 General Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the Minister for his remarks on these proposals. We recognise the need to give enhanced powers to those who enforce our immigration and customs laws. It is right that we equip them with all the necessary resources to stop any form of behaviour incompatible with our legal regime.

The equality impact assessment shows that the nationalities encountered by immigration officers in Northern Ireland are comparable to those who have arrived in the UK by small boats, demonstrating the continuing need to give sufficient powers to immigration officials to tackle the problems associated with migration. Conferring powers on to immigration officials to search, seize and arrest should always be welcomed when it is done to stop illegal activity on our border.

Much of the debate about the security of our border has rightly focused on the matter of illegal entry, which has increased significantly under the Government. A range of issues encountered by immigration officers require the Government’s attention. I hope the measures achieve the Government’s stated goals, such as greater interoperability between law enforcement agencies, to tackle immigration issues in Northern Ireland.

Critically, I recognise the Government’s point that

“Colleagues in the devolved bodies requested assurances around accountability which were discussed at working level and resolved to all parties’ satisfaction.”

I welcome those robust assurances, but will the Minister say whether any other issues were raised during those discussions or whether any other matters needed to be resolved?

Given the comments in the explanatory memorandum, will the Minister also say what progress has been made to ensure that the guidance is up to date, ahead of the predicted date for operationalisation in March this year, and whether work is under way to ensure that happens within that timeframe?

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has today said that this Government’s funding settlement leaves our police forces with a shortfall of almost half a billion pounds. We have already seen the number of police officers fall under this Government, and that shortfall could make the situation worse. With crime on the rise and prisoners being released early, will the Government commit to getting police numbers back up to the level they were at before they came into office?

[Shabana Mahmood]

It would be a bit easier to take the hon. Gentleman more seriously if it were not true that 94% of the reduction in police officers he refers to occurred when his Government were in office. From March 2024 to June 2024—before the general election— there was a reduction of 1,232 officers, so I will not take any lessons from him. The details of the police funding settlement will be clarified by the end of this month.

Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Thank you, Dr Huq, for chairing this debate. As we approach the end of the calendar year, I would like to acknowledge the work of Members who have participated in today’s debate, and those across the House who scrutinise the Government’s proposals on immigration and asylum. In the main Chamber, Westminster Hall and the various Committees I have been part of, there have been numerous robust debates considering the Government’s proposals. That has included significant work to put pressure on the Government, for example to ensure that the settlement period for those on British national overseas visas is continued.

I recognise those contributions because what has typically defined those debates is the question being examined today: what does it mean to have a migration and asylum system that is fair to both the British people and those who want to claim asylum in the UK? Members will find it unsurprising that the Opposition’s view of what is fair to the British people is very different from some of the arguments passionately put forward today.

We need an asylum system that ensures consistent and fair treatment for all those who present claims, and for all those who wish to claim asylum in the UK. To focus on one protected characteristic that has been mentioned today, sexual orientation, data from the Home Office in 2024 showed that the 2023 grant rate for claims where sexual orientation was part of the claim was 62%, similar to the grant rate for non-LGB asylum claims in that period. I believe that the country rightly expects us to treat these people as individuals and to ensure that our asylum system works for everyone.

That means we must take steps to make changes to our existing system so that it acts at speed and provides answers for all people, including those with protected characteristics. That matters because, after almost a year and a half of a Labour Government, we have seen small boat crossings up nearly 50% on the same period before the election, asylum cases at an all-time high, and increases in asylum accommodation.

At last, the Government have decided to set out some detailed proposals to crack down on illegal immigration. It is a necessary step, but one taken only after the problems in our immigration system have become much worse. To respond to comments that these problems emerged during the last Government, let me be clear: the Leader of the Opposition has stated from the outset that we are not only learning from the mistakes that were made in the past, but putting forward a new approach. That recognises that far more needed to be done.

To quantify the impact of those changes, we can observe the scale of the challenges that emanate from illegal migration. The number of small boat crossings since the election has been well over 60,000 people, and this year has already seen 40,000 cross. In addition, 110,051 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending September 2025, which was 13% more than in the previous year and 7% more than the previous peak of 103,081 in 2002. For context, between 2004 and 2020, there were between 22,000 and 46,000 people claiming asylum in the UK each year.

Members may imply that we should be cautious about tying illegal migration to the challenges facing our asylum system; however, they are clearly linked. Government statistics show that claims from small boat arrivals were at a record high in the latest year, with more than half of asylum seekers in the latest year having arrived in the UK through irregular routes, which typically means those who arrived in the UK in small boats. Another 38% of asylum seekers had previously entered the UK on a visa or with other leave with relevant documentation. Therefore, we as an Opposition agree that there is a case for significant reforms.

When reforms were put to the House, my colleague the Leader of the Opposition said that the Home Secretary

“seems to get what many on the Labour Benches refuse to accept, and she is right to say that if we fail to deal with the crisis, we will draw more people to a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.”

The current system

“is not fair on British citizens, it is not fair on those who come here legally”,

and it is often not fair on the many people we are discussing today:

“those in genuine need who are pushed to the back of the queue because the system is overwhelmed.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 513.]

That is why the Opposition have promised our support to the Government to get elements of the proposals passed. It is also why our own borders plan sets out systematic changes across our asylum system, which would apply a consistency, so that all individuals who cross the channel and those who are in the UK illegally will be removed at speed. In doing so, we will go back to the original principles that we signed up to in the 1951 refugee convention, so that the Home Secretary will grant refugee status only to those whose countries’ Governments are trying or threatening to kill, torture or persecute them for a reason set out in the convention. It would not, for instance, apply on the basis that the welfare state in a country is less generous than the UK’s. It is a tough plan, but one that I believe is truly fair to the British people and would still allow the UK to create a much more effective asylum system.

If we could end the mass scale of illegal migration, we could look at implementing limited discretionary non-asylum humanitarian schemes such as the Ukraine scheme, which the last Government created. We have said clearly that any such scheme would prioritise women and children who are in genuine need. That would be in stark contrast to today’s data, where over 72% of asylum claims in the past year were submitted by men. That overrepresentation should be a clear sign that our asylum system is skewed in the wrong direction when it comes to protected characteristics, with many women and children being pushed aside.

Ultimately, I think we can all recognise why people want to come to the UK. Our policies towards Ukraine and Hong Kong demonstrate how open and welcoming the UK can be to those under threat. I want our country to be able to demonstrate those values, but they must be accompanied by an end to illegal migration. The number of asylum applications are in excess of historic trends, and we should support changes that adapt our system to deal with the problems we continue to face. Although the Government have often said they will take no lectures from the Opposition, it is clear they have moved towards many of the ideas set out by our party and rejected by the Government during the passage of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. As we move forward, the most positive impact the Government can make is to implement proposals that create changes to our asylum system as quickly as possible.

Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 General Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I recognise that any changes linked to animal testing will always be an emotive topic. Every effort must be made to prevent the unnecessary suffering of animals. The Minister will be well aware of the feelings expressed by many campaigners in advance of today’s debate, and of the strong views on the changes that the Government intend to implement. I welcome the fact that the number of scientific procedures in Great Britain involving living animals decreased between 2023 and 2024, and were at the lowest level since 2001.

Under the last Conservative Government, through the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, £90 million was invested in research, and a further £27 million was invested in contracts, through the “CRACK IT” challenges innovation scheme for UK and EU-based institutions. Furthermore, last year, the then Science Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), announced that UK Research and Innovation would double its investment in research to £20 million per annum in the fiscal year 2024-25 in order to achieve the 3Rs and develop non-animal alternatives.

It is important that we acknowledge and take further steps to reduce the use of animals in research—this statutory instrument is inexorably linked to such procedures—but, as the Government noted in their recently published strategy, the use of animals is still needed in certain circumstances. Given the continued protests around those sites, and the importance of maintaining a world-leading life sciences sector, that undoubtedly poses difficult questions. Finding the right balance between respecting people’s right to express themselves freely and maintaining law and order is complex. As I am sure the Minister recognises, such decisions should never be taken without serious consideration.

Although there was disagreement at the time—some continue to disagree—I believe that the Public Order Act 2023 has broadly struck a fair balance between those rights. It is therefore essential to ensure that any additions to section 7 of the Act remain proportionate and in line with the original intention of ensuring that key national infrastructure is protected. It is self-evident from this debate that the life sciences sector was not in scope of key national infrastructure provisions under the Act. In fact, I understand that the Minister, who was then in opposition, said in the Bill Committee of that Act that she and her colleagues had problems with the scope of the clause relating to such infrastructure on the basis that much of what was listed was already protected in law under existing police powers, and that there were loopholes and inconsistencies.

Furthermore, although there is some explanation in the accompanying documents to the draft regulations, such as the assertion that the police believe powers under the Public Order Act 1986 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 are insufficient, it does not go into great detail on why those powers are unable to address the challenge identified by the Government. Accordingly, will the Minister explain what steps have been taken to use those powers in practice, and what analysis has been done of the differences that this legislation would make for the life sciences sector? Can she point to any examples of how specific protests may have been treated differently?

The economic note estimates that there could be around 40 charges, but it also acknowledges that that figure is highly unpredictable, so can the Minister share any more in-depth analysis of the impact of the proposals? It also notes that, without such measures, the life sciences sector risks withdrawal—that is a significant risk. I would therefore appreciate an understanding of what the sector has said to the Government about the extent to which that could happen.

Ultimately, the ability of businesses and organisations to go about their activities lawfully is essential in our society, and we must find an appropriate balance in protecting public order. As such, I would be grateful if the Minister set out any further detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

That would not occur. The right to strike is protected in legislation, and it is a defence for a person charged—as it is under the existing legislation. As I have said, this has not changed the parameters of the existing legislation; it has just added a definition. It is a defence for a person charged, and the right to strike is one that people have. I am very happy to write to my hon. Friend with more detail about the specific way that this legislation will work, but I want to reassure her that that is not what would happen in that context.

The two aspects of this debate are the testing of animals and peaceful protest. The parameters of this statutory instrument are about protest. To reiterate, peaceful protest is completely fundamental to our society, and a right that this Government will always defend.

[Matt Vickers]

When in opposition, the Labour party said that this stuff was already covered by the legislation. Now, Labour is saying that we need to extend that legislation. Are there any examples of protests that will be covered by this measure that are not covered by existing legislation?

[Sarah Jones]

Yes; that is why we are introducing it. The powers that the police have now, and the powers that they will have when this is added to section 7 of the 2023 Act, will mean that it will be a criminal offence to interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure in England and Wales. That is not a power that we had before. Where disruption or interference risks undermining our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a pandemic, we have a responsibility to act. The life sciences industry is of vital importance to this country, and it must be protected. That is why we have brought forward this instrument, which I commend to the Committee once again.

Question put.

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving the House the chance to discuss this important issue that affects the lives of millions of women and girls across the country. This issue is a stain on our society, and I am sure that Members across the House will support the ambition to halve violence against women and girls. For the same reason, I hope that the Minister can recognise the work undertaken by the previous Government through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the related plan, funded by hundreds of millions of pounds, alongside important changes to legislation in areas such as harassment. While it is clear that much more still needs to be done, those were critical steps in the right direction.

Worryingly, according to data from the crime survey for England and Wales, sexual offences, rape, stalking and harassment have all increased by between 5% and 9% under this Labour Government. That has occurred at the same time as the number of police officers has fallen under this Government. It demonstrates that despite the targets that have been set and the undoubted will of the Minister to reduce these life-altering crimes, there remains a significant gap between ambition and results.

We look forward to seeing the full scope of the strategy, which I am sure all Members would have wished to see sooner. I am sure that Members would have preferred to hear it in the House, rather than in the press. Is there a plan to identify and build on the measures in the strategy that are found to be most effective? Given the Government’s cuts to police numbers, what will be done to ensure that police forces have not only assigned individuals and titles, but the resources needed to tackle violence against women and girls head-on?

[Jess Phillips]

I will pick up on a couple of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. On the reduction in police numbers, I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition cited those figures, too. Just to be clear, 94% of the fall that has been cited was from March to June 2024, which was before this Government were elected. I just want to be clear on the numbers we are talking about.

[Matt Vickers]

Police numbers are produced in March and September. The last official records show—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Minister.