Crime and Policing Bill (Third sitting)
Jack Rankin Excerpts(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Vickers
Well, yes. The Government seem to think that we should not criminalise 16-year-olds but they should have the right to vote. I think it is the other way around: responsibilities come after people show their part in the world. I think we should be voting at 18, which allows people to become informed and knowledgeable about the process and the world around them.
If you go back to families in my constituency, some of the antisocial behaviour that they are suffering at the hands of 16-year-olds has real consequences for them, and there should be real consequences for those who inflict it upon them.
Matt Vickers
Well, I will give the Ministers the reasons for it. We are talking more broadly about the powers and sanctions given to help us to tackle antisocial people who create havoc on some estates and cause absolute uproar. No one wants such people to move in next to them. Does the Minister want the empty house next door to be occupied by someone who is committing antisocial behaviour and failing to comply with the responsibility of being a civilised member of society?
Matt Vickers
How many housing authorities did we invite to the evidence session?
Matt Vickers
We did not invite any to the evidence session. I think the amendment would be welcomed, but I am sure we will hear from the relevant agencies and authorities in due course.
David Taylor
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have spoken about members of my family who have suffered drug abuse; sometimes that did lead to antisocial behaviour and they suffered the penalties of it. It is right that we need to look at dealing with some of the root causes.
This issue is a scourge in my community and it has been for many years. I recall another couple who came up to me at a community event just before Christmas. They said that they lived on a completely normal street but then, at one point, a house on the street turned into a drug den, where there was a drug dealer. They told me, “It is striking. This is just a normal street and all of a sudden, we are dealing with people coming at all hours of the day, leaving drugs and paraphernalia all over the place. There is swearing and antisocial behaviour.” A neighbour went out to confront the people coming to buy the drugs, and one of them turned on the neighbour and drove at him with their vehicle—that is how bad some of these offences are.
I therefore welcome that the new respect orders allow courts to impose restrictions and positive obligations, which my hon. Friend referenced. As a result, offenders can be required not just to stop harmful behaviour but to engage in programmes of drug rehabilitation, which I hope will get to the root cause of this problem.
The overarching issue with antisocial behaviour in Hemel Hempstead is that it has been ignored in the past, with one resident telling me that authorities do not really think it is that bad. The new respect orders send a strong message that such behaviour will have real consequences, therefore restoring trust in policing and the justice system. I have made the case several times that Hemel would very much welcome being included in the pilot for the new respect orders, should the Bill pass, and I reiterate that today. I thank the Government for taking seriously the plight of antisocial behaviour, as demonstrated by clause 1, and I hope that we can work together to ensure that it is enforceable as quickly as possible, and to bring about real change for residents across our country and in my Hemel Hempstead.
Jack Rankin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. As members of the Committee have said, antisocial behaviour really is one of the scourges of our communities right across the country. Although it might often be described as low-level, compared with more serious crimes, it is deleterious to community cohesion, and it clearly has significant effects on people’s mental health.
I was looking at some YouGov statistics earlier: 28% of people in the country at some point felt unsafe where they live because of antisocial behaviour; 14% said that antisocial behaviour where they live has affected their mental health; and 15% have said that they have been scared at some points to visit their local shop. That is reflected in my surgeries, as I am sure it is in the surgeries of Members across the House.
Last month, I went to Eton town council. Eton is a prosperous place, as people might recognise, but even for Eton as a town, there were two primary issues that the council brought up with me relating to antisocial behaviour. That included from the night-time economy, whether that is shop windows being smashed, indecent exposure or laughing gas. We also have problems with BB guns being shot at swans—indeed, youths not too far in the past killed a swan. What we find, in many instances, is that an incredibly small number of individuals create havoc for a whole town, so I welcome clause 1 and the powers that respect orders will give the authorities. The clause can give them more teeth to get at the repeat offenders who are causing this kind of damage across our town.
I know it is not necessarily appropriate at this point for me to speak to the amendments, but I would like to say two sentences on amendment 31, if you would allow me, Mr Pritchard. I think this behaviour is often done by 16 to 17-year-olds, so it is a bit of a shame that that has been put to one side.
The Chair
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman was seeking advice, so may I kindly offer it? Please stick to the particular issue in the clause.
Jack Rankin
On the more substantive point, there were some missed opportunities to toughen the clause up a bit. The perception of respect orders is that they could become ASBO mark 2. I recognise that they are a little tougher than past measures, but there is bit of a missed opportunity.
David Burton-Sampson
As other Members have said, antisocial behaviour is out of control. Around 35% of respondents to the crime survey for England and Wales in March 2024 said they had witnessed or experienced antisocial behaviour in their area. We must remember that a significant amount of antisocial behaviour goes unreported, so the reports that we get are probably a misrepresentation of the level of antisocial behaviour that is actually out there. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead that it is an indictment of the previous Government’s record that action was not taken on this issue, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Windsor welcomes the respect orders and can see that this Government are starting to take control of antisocial behaviour.
Crime and Policing Bill (Fourth sitting)
Jack Rankin Excerpts(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Taylor
We welcome measures to combat fly-tipping. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset has already mentioned, the problem is particularly concerning for rural landowners and farmers, who often have to deal with the cost of this environmental crime on their land. Amendment 4 intends to give parliamentary oversight and democratic control over the guidance. That is a good thing, which we should all support. However, I understand the concerns about delays. I think there is a balance between accountability, parliamentary approval and delays. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I am glad to see clause 9 because, as several hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have mentioned, fly-tipping is a particular problem in many rural constituencies. In Berkshire, where the majority of my seat lies, there were 7,700 instances of fly-tipping in 2023-24. We are a small county, but that is 20 reports a day. In the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, where most of my constituency is, the figure rose to 1,902 in the past year, which is up 52% on the year before, when we had 1,249. The issue is of greater prevalence than in the past, and I welcome the Government including clauses to try to make a difference.
We have also seen a change in the nature of fly-tipping. Two or three years ago, in Berkshire, most of it was on council land, in car parks or parks, in the hope that the local authority might pick it up, but now we see what might be called smaller-scale highways incidents, with the dumping of waste on public roads, pavements or grass verges. In the past year, 778 of the 900 instances in the royal borough consisted of what were described as a car boot or less. To me, that indicates a prevalence of individuals or waste from small-scale dumpsters, perhaps from small businesses—perhaps we are seeing fewer large-scale illegal waste operations. I put that very much in the bucket of antisocial behaviour.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West and the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said, that is a particular concern to local farmers. I will quote Colin Rayner, a constituent of mine and a farmer. I will first declare an interest, that Colin is a personal friend and the president of Windsor Conservatives, but he is well placed and I pick him for his expertise rather than my relationship with him. To quote the Maidenhead Advertiser, he said that
“the family farms have incidents of fly-tipping every day, from a bag of garden waste to lorry loads of waste…‘We have made our farms into medieval forts to try to reduce large loads of waste been tipped on the farms’.”
He has also spoken to me about the cost to his business of extra security and, indeed, of the cleaning up.
That last point is why I welcome the amendment moved by the Opposition to make the cost sit with the offender and not with the landowner. It is not appropriate that Mr Rayner and his companies pay; the person who is offending should. Also, new clause 24 on driving licences, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, seems to be a way to get at just such small-scale operations. That might be something that is tangible and real to a small business or an individual doing the fly-tipping. I absolutely welcome the amendment and the new clause.
When the guidance comes forward, I encourage the Minister to be as tough as possible—which I think is her intent, but perhaps she will speak to that in her wind-up. We should use the power to search and seize vehicles in the case of persistent offenders. I want to see serious fixed penalty notices for people caught fly-tipping, and I want extra powers of investigation and prosecution. I will welcome the Minister’s comments.
Dr Sullivan
Fly-tipping is a blight on our communities—I think we all share that view. The misconception is that fly-tipping is small scale, but it is committed by criminals and unscrupulous small waste-removal businesses that can have links to organised crime. It is a huge money-making machine. It is an issue that local authorities have had to grapple with for many decades. In many cases, it has been worsened by environmental measures and stronger recycling and waste collection rules.
I pay tribute and give credit to my local authority, Gravesham borough council. In 2019, it set out a bold antisocial behaviour strategy, which looked at fly-tipping at its source and at its heart. In 2020, the council set up the environment enforcement team, which has used a variety of different techniques to prevent, to tackle, to educate and to prosecute. Since then, 386 community protection warnings, 50 fly-tipping fines and 12 duty-of-care fines for waste carriage breaches have been issued, as well as 39 cases resulting in successful prosecutions in court.
The council and its media team work closely with Kent police to raise awareness and deter potential offenders. I would like to put on record my thanks to its team. The council was able to take that action because of past legislation, including the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. I could go on, but there are now many legislative options for local authorities to tackle the issue and take people to court. Where fines are handed out, there is an issue with the backlog in the courts, but I know that the Minister is looking at streamlining some of those court issues, which arose from the neglect of the last 14 years.
Jack Rankin
Clause 10 introduces a new offence of
“possessing an article with a blade or point or offensive weapon with intent to use unlawful violence…to cause another person to believe that unlawful violence will be used…or…to cause serious unlawful damage”.
The introduction of this new offence bridges the gap between being in possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon and threatening somebody with a bladed article or offensive weapon. I commend the intent of the clause wholeheartedly, and thank the Government for it.
I do, however, support amendment 39 and new clause 44, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, although I do thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West for his thoughtful interaction, which has given me pause to consider how these might interact. Perhaps in his summing up the Minister could comment on where, between the two of us, the truth lies.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff West mentioned, the two measures that have been tabled by the Opposition attempt to bring forward some of the recommendations from the report by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, following the heinous Southport attack—and I would like to associate myself with hon. Members’ comments of sympathy with those families. I have had cause to read that report, which I had not done ahead of this Bill Committee. I will quote relatively extensively from page 27, which I think is appropriate given the serious nature of these matters. Paragraph 5.25 says:
“Firstly, possession of an article in private where it is held with intent to carry out a mass casualty attack or other offence of extreme violence. Aside from firearms, it is not, with some limited exceptions, an offence to possess a weapon in private…One can envisage a scenario in which the police, acting on intelligence, find a crossbow, notes about a proposed attack, and material idolising the Columbine killers. At present, the defendant might be arrested on suspicion of terrorism but could not be prosecuted for this conduct. The government is proposing an offence of possessing an offensive weapon in public or in private with intent for violence, with a maximum of 4 years imprisonment in the Crime and Policing Bill.”
As the hon. Member for Cardiff West also quoted, the report goes on to state:
“This offence appears to fill an important gap, although where a killing is contemplated, the available penalty appears too low for long-term disruption through lengthy imprisonment.”
From my understanding, in changing that maximum sentence from four to 14 years, the Opposition’s amendment 39 seems to be an expert-led example of where we are trying to constructively add to the Government’s legislation.
New clause 44 seeks to fill a gap, given the need for a more general offence on planning mass casualty attacks, outside of terrorism legislation. Again, I will quote from Jonathan Hall KC’s report. He says on page 28, in paragraph 5.26:
“The law is flexible where multiple individuals are involved. It is therefore an offence for two individuals to make an agreement (conspiracy to murder), for one individual to encourage or assist another, or for murder to be solicited, even though the contemplated attack is never carried out. But it not an offence to prepare for an attack on one’s own unless sufficient steps are taken that the conduct amounts to an attempt. This means that no prosecution would be available if the police raided an address and found careful handwritten but uncommunicated plans for carrying out a massacre.
By contrast, under terrorism legislation it is an offence to engage in any preparatory conduct with the intention of committing acts of terrorism. This includes making written plans. The fact that the prosecution must prove terrorism, not just intended violence, is some sort of safeguard against overbroad criminal liability.”
It seems to me that new clause 44 is an attempt to close that gap. I welcome clause 10, but our amendment and new clause simply reflect the suggestions of the KC, who wrote quite a considered report. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
Something that I think we in this House agree on, that I know the police agree on, and that I think the wider public agree on—hon. Members might hear me say this a lot in Committee—is that prevention is always better than detection. I rise to speak having lost, in my previous career, a close colleague and friend to a crime involving an offensive weapon. I only wish we could have prevented that incident.
In essence, the clause is about preventing violence before it occurs. It strengthens penalties for repeat offenders, and aligns with the Government’s broader goal of making communities safer by addressing growing concerns around weapon possession and use in violent crimes. Given the increasing prevalence of offensive weapons such as knives, bladed articles or even corrosive substances, the Bill updates the law to better reflect modern threats. By including a broader range of dangerous items and increasing the focus on intent, the Bill addresses the changing patterns of criminal activity.
I am particularly pleased that the intent provision covers the possession of a corrosive substance, given the rise in acid attacks across the UK. This change is crucial to addressing the growing threat of individuals carrying dangerous substances, such as acid or other corrosive materials, with the intention to cause harm or instil fear. The reference to intent highlights the Government’s commitment to protecting citizens. By targeting the intention to cause harm before it escalates, the clause will help to prevent violent crime and make communities safer.
Clause 11 is vital in addressing the growing severity of offences relating to offensive weapons, including the possession, sale and manufacture of dangerous weapons. By increasing the maximum penalty from six months’ to two years’ imprisonment, the clause will significantly strengthen the deterrence against these crimes and ensure that offenders face stringent consequences. The introduction of either-way offences—allowing cases to be tried in either magistrates courts or the Crown court—will provide the police with additional time to investigate and gather sufficient evidence. That will improve the effectiveness of the justice system in tackling weapon-related crimes, reduce the availability of dangerous weapons and, ultimately, enhance public safety. It will also give police confidence in the laws that they are trying to uphold.
Finally, I broadly support the intent and understand the sentiments behind new clause 44. However, having sat on the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill Committee, which dealt with Martyn’s law, I believe that this issue has been covered elsewhere, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West said. I therefore do not think it is needed.
Asylum Seeker Hotel Accommodation: Reopening
Jack Rankin Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of re-opening hotels for asylum seeker accommodation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and a privilege to speak in this Chamber on an issue that is important to the British public and that needs to be urgently addressed by the Government. It is great to see that colleagues from both sides of the House have made time to discuss an issue that is emblematic of the failure in our current immigration system. The failure is, I concede, one of both sides, but it is worsening under the latest Government.
This issue cuts through to the public because it is so visible. These are not—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry, but there are Divisions in the House. We will suspend for 15 minutes for the first Division and an additional 10 minutes for each further Division. There are to be three Divisions, so we will return in 35 minutes.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
The sitting is now resumed and can continue until 6.5 pm. I will call the Front Benchers to speak at 5.43 pm.
Jack Rankin
It is a privilege to speak on an issue that I know is important to the British public and needs to be urgently addressed by the Government. It is great to see colleagues here from all sides of the House.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disappointing that there are no Members from the Government Benches here to take part in this debate?
Jack Rankin
I was trying to be generous in my remarks, but I think the point has been made for the record.
This issue is emblematic of the failure of our current immigration system. I will accept, for the Minister, that this is a failure of both sides of the House, but I would say that it is deteriorating under the new Government. The issue cuts through with the public because it is so visible. These are not detention centres in specific coastal areas or on the fringes of our towns. They are often hotels at the very heart of our communities throughout the country—north, south, east, west, rich and poor. Constituents can see how their taxes are being misspent and how their borders are being mismanaged, and they mark the state’s homework. Why are we allowing tens of thousands of people to enter this country illegally each year? Why are we entertaining a farcical so-called asylum system benefiting only those who break the law, and lawyers funded by taxpayers?
Datchet is a lovely Thameside village in my constituency, of about 4,000 people. At its heart is an old-fashioned village green with a church, a pub and—unusually for a village that size—a hotel. The hotel is enabled by Windsor castle being less than a mile and a half away. Datchet sits on the north bank of the Thames, and literally just the other side of the river is Home Park, the private area of Windsor castle, where both Their Majesties and Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales live. In November that hotel—the Manor hotel—was reopened at great public expense to 85 “single adult males” who in my view are illegal economic migrants. If they are in such a location as Datchet, a mile from Windsor castle, then they are everywhere.
The Manor hotel is just one of 14 asylum hotels that have opened since the election, evidence of Labour’s broken manifesto pledge to close such hotels. With 220 hotels around the country now being used for such asylum accommodation, I am told that one in three Members of Parliament will be dealing with this problem. That shows just how endemic it is. This reopening was thrust upon my constituents with just 24 hours’ notice. Commandeering hotels at such notice without consultation requires some efficiency. Just imagine if that pace and efficiency could be used to deport these very migrants.
That is to say nothing of the detrimental effect such a change can have on local pride and community cohesion. With 85 adult men in a small village of 4,000 with no warning and no information provided about who they are and where they came from—if any vetting at all has been done—my residents, and the constituents of Members across the House, are right to be concerned. When the hotel was previously open for a public meeting, residents raised numerous concerns about antisocial behaviour associated directly with the hotel, including verbal abuse, public defecation and the photographing of children outside schools. These are the real-life impacts of this effective asylum amnesty.
I have since pressed the Minister in the main Chamber to provide my constituents with a timescale for the ending of the misuse of the Manor hotel, but my question was brushed aside, as many similar questions posed by colleagues on this topic have been.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He touched upon the lack of notice that was given to his constituents, and that is certainly what I have experienced with the Roman Way hotel in my constituency. There is a lack of information forthcoming from the Government. He refers to numbers of 220 hotels—14 of those opened since the election, but that figure had to be forced out of the Government by an urgent question. Does my hon. Friend hope that the Minister will be open about how many hotels have been opened since the general election, the total number and, most importantly, when they are going to be closed?
Jack Rankin
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention; I am sure the Minister takes note of his questions. My view is that yes, the public simply deserve transparency on this issue. The men individually cannot really be blamed; they are acting, arguably, in their own best interests, but we, collectively, are the fools for putting a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow—we need to remove it.
Ultimately, to stop the use of asylum hotels we need to stop the boats, and there is only one way to do that—deterrent, deterrent, deterrent. Nobody who comes to this country illegally should be able to claim asylum. France is a safe country. They should be arrested immediately and deported within days to their country of origin or a safe third country. With the correct political will, it really is as simple as that, but Labour scrapped the deterrent before it could even begin.
Instead we have an incentive system that, at every step, encourages illegal economic migrants to chance their arm. For example, smuggling gangs know that they can equip migrants with unseaworthy vessels because they know they will be picked up by the British authorities before they sink. Migrants know that once they land, armies of lawyers and campaign groups will fight to keep them here while they are housed in hotels and given an allowance for the trouble. The latest data shows that a staggering 66% of those arriving on small boats are granted asylum. We have a system that works against the interests of the British people.
The Labour Government say they want to smash the gangs and end the backlog by recruiting caseworkers, but without deterrents those commitments are meaningless—the flow will continue. The Minister admitted—in my view—the futility of smashing the gangs when she described it as playing whack-a-mole. The Conservatives spent years trying to do the same, and although we made progress on cutting crossings from Albania—note, with deportation—the wider problem remained. Repeating the same exercise and expecting a different result is madness.
While the initial cost of housing is funded nationally, when that asylum is granted that cost—in my understanding—falls on the local authority. Could it not be the case that the extra caseworkers provided by the Government will simply be rubber-stamping asylum claims to cut the backlog, but then simply transferring the cost to another one of the taxpayer’s pockets through social housing benefits and the welfare state? Increased processing simply means more asylum cases granted, and pushed and smeared into the welfare state. One of my local councils, the Lib Dem-run royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, has recently asked to increase council tax by 25%; how can it be expected to find extra resource for 85 illegal economic migrants entering our welfare system?
In the main Chamber, the Minister celebrated processing 11,000 decisions a month. The approval rate last year was 52%, which could mean as many as 66,000 illegal economic migrants granted asylum and entering our welfare system every year.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a local councillor. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we have more people processing these claims, and we process these claims even quicker, more people will come? That is actually a pull factor, because they can get through the system much more quickly than they have been.
Jack Rankin
I agree wholeheartedly, and that is why I have broadened my remarks. To talk about cutting the backlog is not of interest to me, if that simply means processing people into the welfare system. That is getting a number down artificially. We need to stop people entering the top of the funnel, as it just becomes a problem elsewhere.
In 2010, the approval rate for asylum cases was 26%—so we have seen an unprecedented rise in the acceptance of these cases. I will also note that in 2010, hotels right across this country, including in my constituency, were used to house tourists rather than asylum shoppers. I appreciate that the Minister has provided a March target for closing nine hotels, but with 23,000 individuals crossing on small boats since the Government were elected—up 29% on the previous year—where will those new arrivals go? We will have to wait for the summer, when small boat crossings are at their highest, to truly measure any progress.
Whilst I am sure we would all welcome the closure of asylum hotels in our constituencies, I am concerned that the Government are simply transferring this problem to other parts of the state, and that also hides the issue from the public and fails to tackle the root cause. At my most recent surgery, a constituent told me that her son was being served notice by her private landlord because the local authority was able to offer landlords much more for private rented accommodation to house illegal economic migrants who have just been processed. They are simply being passed into the welfare system and a taxpayer is being displaced, with the housing benefit being provided to a foreign citizen. That is a truly stark warning. It is my fear that the Government’s current proposals in this area, including extra caseworkers, are a surface-level solution to a deeper underlying problem.
I ask the Minister to address the concerns outlined in my speech, including by providing the latest update on the closure of hotels, particularly the Manor hotel in Datchet, her plans for bringing in deterrence, and an update on the impact of approving hundreds of thousands of claims on the welfare state up and down the land.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I thank everybody who has contributed to this crucial debate. I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson); my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford); and the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). I thank the hon. Members for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) and for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for taking part, even though I did not necessarily agree with their contributions.
The Minister is right to say that the Conservative party failed in this policy area and that she has a mess to clean up, but she is wrong about the reason for that mess. She seemed to suggest that the Rwanda deterrent distracted from the day job, which she seems to think is processing all these people. I do not think that is the problem. We want to stop the people coming. The reason why the Rwanda deterrent failed is because there was never enough political will behind the Conservative Government for them to do everything that was necessary to make the deterrent work, notwithstanding the provisions on human rights and the international accords that the Minister mentioned. I thank her for her pledge to continue to close the nine hotels by March, and for her apology. I welcome her comment that she will keep us all informed on which specific hotels are to close.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of re-opening hotels for asylum seeker accommodation.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jack Rankin Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Malhotra
Our priority is to understand and learn from the events in the past and focus on the future by ensuring that the Department is inclusive and considers the impact of all its work on people from every background.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
The Government are committed to bringing down net migration after it hit record highs under the last Government. We will do that by taking a different approach, linking skills and migration policy so that immigration is not used as an alternative to tackling workforce problems in the UK. The Home Office publishes migrant journey analysis, which shows the proportion of migrants granted indefinite leave to remain over time, helping to inform on who might seek to remain in the UK in the long term.
Jack Rankin
The mass import of low-skilled workers could cost the taxpayer more than £61 billion—a financial ticking time bomb. Will the Minister commit here and now to extending the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain or bringing in new qualifying criteria?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Gentleman would do well to hold his own side to account for their record on net migration. The Government recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country. There is always a place for overseas recruitment for firms looking to grow, but it must not be the first port of call, and we must ensure that our migration system is controlled, managed and fair.
Migration and Border Security
Jack Rankin Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
No, I do not think that is the right thing to do. We need to clear the backlog, speed up decision making and ensure that those who do not have the right to be here are swiftly returned. Where we have had people arrive from Ukraine or Hong Kong, we want to see them working, being part of the economy and being able to support themselves and their families, but where somebody does not have the right to be here, the important thing is to make the system work and make sure that they can swiftly return.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Villages such as Datchet in my constituency are bearing the brunt of the fact that 6,000 more illegal economic migrants are staying in asylum hotels since this Government came into office. These single adult males represent something like 2% of the village’s population, so what assessment has the Home Secretary made of the extra pressures on vital local services, particularly GPs and dentists? What assurances can she give my constituents that they will not miss out on vital appointments as a result of the sudden demographic change?
Yvette Cooper
We think that using asylum hotels is the wrong way to respond to the system that we have, which is why the increase in the backlog as a result of the previous Conservative Government’s collapse in decision making has been so damaging. That is why we now have additional caseworkers in place and asylum decisions back at the levels that they were previously, so that we can clear the backlog and make sure that we do not need to use asylum hotels. The previous Government opened 400 asylum hotels and quadrupled the cost of the asylum accommodation system. That has a shocking impact on the taxpayer, and we are already saving money by bringing the costs down.
Asylum Seekers: Hotel Accommodation
Jack Rankin Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Angela Eagle
Yes, but it is tough and difficult, and to be successful, it requires international co-operation across borders operationally, politically and diplomatically, and we are doing that.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Yesterday the Minister finally replied to my letter after my Datchet constituents were given next to no notice about single adult males being housed at the Manor hotel. She said the numbers housed there could reach as high as 85 people, and she gave no indication about how long they would be there, in breach of her manifesto commitment. Will she now give my constituents a concrete timetable for when the misuse of the Manor hotel will end?
Dame Angela Eagle
Our manifesto commitment was not to close all asylum hotels within four months of being elected.