Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that, should they wish to speak and be called in the debate, they need to bob. Members wishing to speak need to be here for the opening and closing statements. Wind-ups will begin at 10.30 am, with two minutes at the end for the mover of the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my excellent hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this debate. He has been most generous with some of his suggestions—almost unusually so, which I shall come to shortly.

It seems to me that we must have the courage to look internationally at what works elsewhere. We look to New York city in the early 1990s, which had a simple slogan: broken windows. It starts right at the ground level. What was a lawless city was transformed by saying, “We want no broken windows, no graffiti and no antisocial behaviour”. It worked. They flooded the streets with a visible security presence.

We know that having a proper deterrent also works. My hon. Friend was more than generous—unusually so—with his traffic light system of three strikes and out. I prefer a premier league football-style scenario: they get a yellow card and then they get a red card. The consequence would be that people would know that they, as a family, would lose their home if their youngsters misbehaved by, for example, revving their cars, smoking drugs or playing music from morning to dusk and throughout the night. These are the experiences that I hear about from my constituents in Boston and Skegness and in between. It is so unfair because, regardless of whether a person is a pensioner or they are going out to work to pay their taxes, mortgages or rent, it is unacceptable that those who live next door or nearby, who are not going to work, are causing absolute mayhem.

We have to have the courage to say that with rights come responsibilities. With the right to have a social housing home or a council home comes the responsibility both to look after it on the inside and to be part of the community on the street, in the housing estate and beyond. In the same way, the right for sick people, or people who are looking for work, to receive a benefit comes with the responsibility to contribute to society by looking for work. We must instil that within our culture. A deterrent is really important, so if someone does not behave, it should be two strikes and they are out and they should lose their home, in the same way that if someone does not look for work or misbehaves, they lose their benefits. If people understand that, maybe all of a sudden things will change.

We do not need more legislation—the legislation already exists. For example, public space protection orders can be used much more widely than they currently are, and councils need to be much braver in using them not just in town centres but in residential estates.

Police forces are massively stretched. In my county of Lincolnshire, the police force has the worst funding formula in the whole country. That is the subject of a review, and the situation has to change, but there are other things one can do. For example, housing associations could use PSPOs and private prosecutions. I have seen that recently, and we know it can work. Private prosecutions, rapidly used—they are always used by housing associations on nuisance tenants—would send a message: “Unacceptable behaviour has consequences. You will be fined. You will be prosecuted. You will lose your home.”

What is required is not more resources, but a proper focus on using the existing legislative framework and other aspects that are available. If we do that properly, we can make a significant difference, but it is a cultural thing. We have to make it clear to everybody that this selfish, horrific behaviour is unacceptable to communities, to decent, hard-working families and, frankly, to this country.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

We now move to the Front-Bench contributions, starting with the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I know that the hon. Gentleman would be. He has always stood up for his constituents and, indeed, for mine and for those of every Member of this House. I always admired that, and I know that he will continue to do it.

In the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, we gave more powers to social landlords and to victims. We have all met victims at our surgeries and been to see the situations that they live in, but now they can demand that the agencies ensure that their problems are dealt with more effectively by bringing those agencies together. We also gave social landlords more power to evict offenders—the people who are guilty of this kind of abuse—and we added resources of £160 million.

Legislation is nothing without implementation, and we need the right policing resources, as a number of Members referred to. I must pick up on the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), about policing numbers. I agree that we should have more police on our streets, and we have record numbers today, but he cannot simply walk away from some of the choices made by his party and my party post-2010, when police numbers were cut. Looking back now, that was the wrong thing to do, but he cannot walk away from that. Police numbers dipped and then grew again under subsequent Conservative Governments. They now stand at a 50-year record, which is probably a record in anybody’s lifetime.

I will pick up on the point about the three strikes policy, which formed the basis of the speech by the hon. Member for Ashfield. He thinks that it should be three strikes, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said that it should be two strikes, and the hon. Member for Mansfield, in a fantastic speech, which was most unexpected—he is welcome to join us on the Conservative Benches any time he wants—said that it should be one strike.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness made the point that benefits are a privilege, not a right, and that people should have to search for a job and behave well, for example, to get those benefits. We introduced the claimant commitment to do exactly that, so we have taken action in this area, which was of course extremely controversial. We have had to stand up time and again in debates to defend our sanctions policy, because we do not think it is right that people can simply leave the labour market and not try to find work. Again, action was taken there.

The hon. Member for Ashfield talked about where people would live if they were kicked out of these houses, which is a controversial point, of course. That made me think about my mum, who was a social worker who rehabilitated offenders. When people came out of jail, she would try to find them a job and a house. Eventually, she convinced landladies to put up those people, who were trying to get the second chance that most of us would like to ensure that people have. She then built a purpose-built hostel for them, but she had a very clear rule: no drink or drugs while they were in the hostel or one of the bedrooms provided by the landladies. The Probation Service said, “You can’t do this because these people have very difficult lives.” The hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) pointed that out, and I agree that these people have very complex lives. Nevertheless, my mum always stuck to the line that if the person did not abide by the rule, they could not be in the landladies’ guest houses or the hostel. It was “one strike and you’re out”—as simple as that. Everybody knew the rule. It was tough love, but it worked. She got many people back on the straight and narrow because she was very straight down the line about it. I am sure that there were no more resources then than there are today. Resources will always be tight, so we have to show tough love to people in that situation and say what the rules will be.

I am keen to hear what the Minister is going to do about this issue. He is a very decent man, but I do not believe that he is going to show the tough love that we need. I fear that he—well, not him personally, but his Government—will be too weak, and I think that in 2030, when possibly his ministerial career has ended and a new Minister has taken his place, he will look back in anger at the fact that he did not do more.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I gently remind the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for Lee Anderson to wind up.