Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Wendy Morton and Matt Vickers

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I would like to express my appreciation to all those who have worked on the legislation to develop and shape the policies, whether they be the majority developed under the previous Conservative Government or members of the Bill team, who I am sure have provided helpful assistance to Ministers. As I am sure we will hear today, some of the measures in the Bill are the result of amazing people who have suffered the worst experiences, but who have worked to ensure that others do not have to suffer them in future.

In addition, considering the context of the legislation, it is right to pay tribute to the excellent work of police officers across the country. Week in, week out, those serving in our police forces put themselves in harm’s way to keep our streets safe. Those who serve and place themselves in danger cannot be thanked enough. Many people ask themselves whether they would have the bravery to stand up and intervene. Officers across the country do so on a daily basis. Thanks to the efforts of the previous Conservative Government, the police force numbered over 149,000 officers in 2024, with 149,769 recorded in March 2024. This was the highest number of officers, on both full-time equivalent and headcount basis, since comparable records began in March 2003.

[Wendy Morton]

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

[Matt Vickers]

I wholeheartedly agree. There are a lot of concerns about the neighbourhood policing guarantee and where the resource comes from: whether it is through specials or volunteers—of course, we want to see more of them—or redeployments. When people ring 999, they want to know that they are going to get the response they expected. They do not want to see that depleted to move officers from one bucket to the next. That has real consequences. The biggest hit to our police force numbers at the moment will be the national insurance rise—the tax that is taxing police off our streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

According to Keep Britain Tidy, littering and fly-tipping cost the country £1 million a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is money that could go to frontline services, so it is about time we took more stringent measures to change behaviour, along with some good enforcement?

[Matt Vickers]

I could not agree more. A small minority wreak havoc on our countryside and our streets, and create absolute chaos. That is what this amendment is about: tougher sanctions to divert people from doing such mindless things.

The money wasted every year on cleaning up would be better spent on frontline services, such as filling potholes or providing community services. Instead, it is used to clean up after those who have no respect for others or for our natural environment. The most common location for fly-tipping is on pavements and roads, which accounted for 37% of all incidents in 2023-24. The majority—59%—involved small van-sized dumps, or an amount of waste that could easily fit in a car boot. It is therefore logical to conclude that a significant majority of fly-tipping incidents stem from vehicles. Using a vehicle to dump a van full or a boot full of waste should come with real consequences, and the people who do it should feel that in their ability to use their vehicle, as well as through financial penalties. The previous Government increased fines for fly-tipping from £400 to £1,000, but we can go further to deter people from dumping on the doorsteps of others. The amendment would require the Home Secretary to consult on the establishment of a scheme of driving licence penalty points for fly-tippers and those who toss rubbish from vehicles.

In Committee, the Minister pledged to engage with DEFRA on this issue. By passing this amendment, we could go further by committing to undertake a consultation to develop a workable and effective scheme. For the benefit of all those who want to be able to enjoy their green spaces, and for our environment and the wildlife that suffers at the hands of fly-tippers and those who toss waste, I urge Members to support the amendment. Let us send a message to the mindless minority who wreak havoc on our green spaces.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to draw the attention of the House to amendments 167, 168, 170 and 171, which, among other Conservative proposals, aim to strengthen respect orders. We have heard the Minister speak both in Committee and in the Chamber of the role these orders can play in tackling antisocial behaviour. The success of the policy will be contingent on its effective enforcement by the police, and on perpetrators being aware that they will face tough sanctions if they breach the orders. I hope the Government will continue to consider these amendments.

I draw Members’ attention to these amendments as they are indicative of the constructive approach Conservative Members have taken towards improving the Bill in ways that we believe would benefit the legislation as a whole. I hope that Members across the House will give serious consideration to our amendments and new clauses over the coming two days.

The Minister and I have spent more time together than she probably ever envisaged, and I believe we can agree that the Bill contains some sensible and proportionate measures: greater protections for our retail workers, efforts to tackle antisocial behaviour, and more measures to tackle vile and horrendous child exploitation. However, we can work together to go further, and that is what our Opposition amendments seek to do.

High Street Businesses

Debate between Wendy Morton and Matt Vickers

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for high street business.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. High streets and town centres play a huge role in our communities. They are a place where people come together, they define our sense of place, they can be a source of local pride and they can be home to a huge number of jobs and opportunities. Retail is the largest private sector employer in the UK. When coupled with the hospitality sector, they are some of the biggest drivers of social mobility. There are endless stories of those who started as shelf stackers or pint pullers making it to the boardroom, with jobs that are accessible to all and where hard work can pay off. Then there are the small family businesses—the people-powered engine room of our economy, with individuals who dared to take the risk and have a punt, who get up early to drive their businesses forward, creating jobs while adding colour, flavour and vibrancy to our town centres.

In recent times the rise of online shopping and changing consumer habits, coupled with the cost of living, have created a challenging environment for many businesses operating on our high streets. It is for that reason that now more than ever we should back the great British high street. It is also why it is so astonishing that the Government’s Budget not only failed to back our high streets, but actually seems to be beating them into extinction. The national insurance tax raid, the slashing of small business rates relief and the ending of the community ownership fund will do irreparable damage to our high streets, and that is before we mention the impact and costs of the Employment Rights Bill.

In the last Parliament I campaigned for the 75% relief for leisure, hospitality and retail businesses. That was game changing for many, but with the stroke of a pen the Chancellor slashed that relief, ending the lifeline that was thrown to many employers. It is estimated that that will represent a 140% increase in business rates for more than 250,000 high street premises in England. The average shop will see business rates increase from £3,589 to £8,613. The average pub will see its business rates increase from £3,938 to £9,451, and the average restaurant will also see its bill rocket from £5,051 to £12,122. That is a huge cost for small businesses in an already challenging environment that will prove insurmountable for many. But it does not stop there.

The Government’s national insurance tax raid—their jobs tax—is doing exactly what everybody said it would do. Job losses in the retail sector are already mounting up. Tesco has announced plans to axe 400 jobs. New Look is expected to close as many as 91 stores.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate. The point he makes is a really important one. He has mentioned New Look and Tesco. I think we have already heard comments from Marks and Spencer; HSBC is another group. We are hearing of job losses from some of those big high street names, but smaller businesses are affected as well. Does he agree that we cannot simply keep squeezing and squeezing businesses and thinking, “Well, they are making lots of profit; they can pass it on to their customers.” We squeeze them out of business, which means loss of jobs, loss of vibrancy on our high streets and loss of that sense of community that is so, so important.

[Matt Vickers]

As a former Woolies worker, I know only too well the consequences for businesses. Not only are we squeezing many businesses out of a future; there is a cost to be paid on the prices in those stores and costs on those jobs and the opportunities that they provide for young people and others to get on in life. There are huge costs to what has been done. We can only squeeze so far. The pips are definitely squeaking in retail.

Sainsbury’s has announced plans to axe 3,000 jobs. Retail and hospitality are already two of the most taxed businesses in our economy, but the sectors employ large numbers of people in entry-level or part-time roles, so are disproportionately hit. A CBI survey of business leaders found that 62% are slashing hiring plans. Almost half will be forced to lay off staff, and 46% are looking to delay pay rises for their workforce. Almost every Labour Government in history has left office with more people out of work than when they arrived. With these measures it looks like the Government are trying to set a record. All too often we see employment figures as numbers, but the jobs that will be lost as a result of this measure are not just numbers; they are families without the security of a pay packet, people stripped of ambitions, dreams and aspirations and left on the scrapheap.

The commercial director at the British Independent Retailers Association gave a realistic but depressing summary of what the Budget means for retailers. He said it was the

“Worst Budget for the high street in my 35 years working in retail”,

and that it showed a

“complete disregard for the thousands of…shop owners who form the backbone of our high streets. Small retailers, who have already endured years of challenging trading conditions, now face a perfect storm of crippling cost increases; their business rates will more than double…while they’re hit simultaneously with employer National Insurance increases.”

The outlook is bleak for traders because of the Budget, but it goes beyond that.

The previous Government sought to support high streets by responding to changing consumer habits and investing to reconfigure our town centres and create other reasons to go to them. Funds such as the community ownership fund allowed people to take back control of their community assets and turn around vacant, lifeless high streets. They were about more than a lick of paint. They were about creating valuable community spaces and restoring pride in our towns.