MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(4 days, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Turley
I do not know how much good money the right hon. Gentleman wants to throw after bad, but £700 million on four volunteers was an incredible waste of money.
The British people have a natural sense of fairness. We are a nation that has benefited from centuries of facing outwards towards the world, both reaching out across the globe and welcoming people in. There can be barely a Member here who does not have some historical migration in their family, or family ties to other nations. The British people will always accept those who are genuinely fleeing peril. They will welcome those who come here legally and who contribute. They know we are a place where people can come to build their life and aspire to do great things. Even this House, its representatives and their stories reflect that; we have seen that in the last week or so.
However, the British people will not accept chaos at our borders. They will not accept a lack of control over who comes in. They will not accept the unfairness of a broken system, in which those who break the rules are the ones who benefit from our welcome. Nor will they tolerate expensive and often iconic hotels across their communities being used to house asylum seekers at vast expense to the taxpayers.
Anna Turley
I will make a bit of progress, if I may.
The British people will not tolerate illegal migrants placing pressure on our public services, while efforts to remove them are frustrated. There is no quick fix, but the task of ending the chaos and, crucially, of restoring fairness falls to this Government, and we embrace it. It is only a Labour Government who will fix the broken system, restore control at our borders and bring back fairness to our public services. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) is chuntering from the Opposition Benches, but I am coming to the exact subject of our progress so far, which I hope she will see contrasts nicely with what happened in the previous 14 years.
Anna Turley
I appreciate my hon. Friend drawing attention to that. It was a privilege—in, I think, 2003—to work for the now Lord David Blunkett to close the Sangatte refugee centre, put juxtaposed controls on French shores and end the situation of people coming through as clandestines in the back of lorries with the Bill that we took through at that time as civil servants. It was a privilege to play that role. Here we are, yet again, fixing the legacy of the previous Government.
As I said, the British people will not tolerate illegal migrants placing pressure on our public services while efforts to remove them are frustrated. It is only the Labour Government who will fix the broken system, restore control and bring back fairness, but we will do so without performative cruelty, without the deliberate fomenting of grievance and without destroying our international reputation. Thanks to the action the Labour Government are taking, the picture today is improving, with crossings down, removals up and the system now finally on a more stable footing.
Over the last two years, this Government have acted to restore fairness and control to our asylum system, first by taking the fight to the criminal gangs and bearing down on illegal crossings. One of the first steps the then Home Secretary took following the general election was to establish Border Security Command. The command has had a significant impact, especially in its efforts, alongside a strengthened National Crime Agency, to ramp up law enforcement action on organised immigration crime.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman raising the point about deterrence. It is extremely important but, as I said, the Rwanda deterrent was not effective. [Interruption.] Millions of pounds and a handful of volunteers. It has been disproven and clearly did not have any impact. I will come on to the deterrent that is actually working.
We have also given our agencies counter-terror style powers via the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. In the last financial year, organised immigration crime was disrupted on over 3,700 occasions, up by 46% over the same period. This includes organised immigration crime arrests, which were up 74%, as we took down the criminals behind this vile trade. For example, just in June, two men became the first to be jailed under the new “endangerment at sea” offence for piloting dangerously overcrowded small boats across the channel—that is a deterrent, that is working. We are also denying gangs the equipment and infrastructure they rely on. In May, an operation involving the National Crime Agency and German, French and other international partners seized more than 30 boats, over 20 engines, 360 pumps and more than 9,000 life jackets. Since entering office, we have seized over a total of 1,100 boats and engines.
Anna Turley
I am afraid that one moment of consensus has already broken down. I disagree. We are undertaking a range of consultation and engagement on measures with those partners. The Albania agreement was important, but the Home Secretary is making a number of arrangements, and we look forward to announcing them. I hope hon. Members will be patient with us, but I look forward to making more announcements in the weeks and months ahead.
Anna Turley
I am going to move on. Forgive me.
We have driven up removals to the highest level in a decade—an important point to stop and reflect on—because of the progress we are making, with 80,000 individuals returned since the general election, including immigration offenders, people in the country illegally and foreign criminals. We know, too, that the ability to melt into the illegal economy too often lures people here, so we have raised illegal working enforcement to record levels.
As we rebuild our shattered asylum system, we are also lightening the burden on local communities. The Government committed to ending the use of asylum hotels within this Parliament and we will do so. Two years in, we have already emptied one in three, reducing the hotel population by 50% in the last year and by 71% since the peak under the previous Government. We have cut asylum costs from hotels by £1 billion. That is £1 billion that we can spend on the other priorities of the British people and I think that that should be recognised.
We have made significant progress on the chaos we inherited two years ago, but we know there is more to be done to restore fairness to our asylum system: fairness for genuine refugees, who deserve our sanctuary and wish to contribute to our society; and fairness for British citizens, our constituents, who shoulder the current burden in their taxes and in their communities. That is why we continue to work relentlessly at home and abroad to prevent people from coming here illegally in the first place, dismantle the criminal networks that facilitate dangerous and unnecessary crossings, remove those who break our laws and have no right to be here, and ensure that this country maintains its proud tradition of helping the world’s most vulnerable people where it can, but in a secure and orderly way through new safe and legal routes.
That is why we have introduced the new Immigration and Asylum Bill. It will cut the asylum backlog by making decisions faster and fairer, close loopholes so that those with no right to be here can be rapidly removed, and ask those who have benefited from public support to contribute to their costs where they are able. I thank the Members who are currently scrutinising the Bill in Committee.
I turn now, as the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) implored, to the issues around MOD Bicester. For too long, the way in which we house asylum seekers has not been fair. Billions of pounds have been spent putting them up in hotels, while communities have seen those hotels, often at the centre of their towns or cities, become a symbol of a broken asylum system. Areas where housing costs were low and that already felt left behind were asked to bear more than their fair share, which has been a source of anger and frustration for many people—and understandably so.
As well as reducing the backlog, we are working with local authorities on a fairer distribution of asylum seekers across the country. That means ending the use of costly hotels, and instead, moving asylum seekers into more appropriate accommodation.
Max Wilkinson
Your advice is noted, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Of course it would be inappropriate to house 1,200 asylum seekers on a military base next to a village of a few hundred people, and of course it would be inappropriate to house them on a site that has never previously been used for residential accommodation. That goes without saying. The Liberal Democrats can back that element of the motion, even if we do not agree with the wording deployed by the official Opposition. I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) to deal with the specifics of the local matter when he contributes later.
What must be disputed, however, is the second part of this deeply harmful motion. Brexit has made us all poorer. It has reduced Britain’s standing in the world and made it more difficult for this country to run a safe and controlled asylum system. So why on earth are the Conservatives suggesting leaving the ECHR, which would be Brexit 2.0? Not only would that make the UK a pariah state, but it would likely result in the end of the Brexit deal that they negotiated. The Conservatives often tell us that the Brexit settlement must not be reopened, but that is exactly what they are suggesting.
Once again, the Conservative party is arguing that this country should pursue what would basically amount to a no-deal Brexit, except this time it is not a fringe argument being contested among factions in the Conservative party, but the position of the shadow Front Bench and the Leader of the Opposition, backed by all Conservative MPs. Indeed, their leader has told them that they will be barred from their party unless they adopt the position, which is why so many of them have now changed their mind on the issue.
The drift of the Conservatives away from the centre-right to the hard-right is a dereliction of duty. It runs counter to many of the traditions in British Conservatism. But we know why they are doing it: they are terrified of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) so they chase after him. They increasingly make his arguments as they prepare for their grubby deal. We all remember what happened in 2019, when the hon. Member for Clacton stood down his candidates in alliance with Boris Johnson. People up and down the country are more than aware that those two parties would engage in the same sort of stitch-up again without a second thought, no matter how much Tory MPs and their leader plead the opposite in public.
Max Wilkinson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Of course, the second part of the convention does tackle those sorts of derogations. It is important that we see the convention in its entirety.
As I said earlier, all of this is before we consider the implications for Northern Ireland, which have been well rehearsed in this Chamber. When British people up and down the country hear Conservative and Reform politicians pledging to erase those rights, we must all ask ourselves whether we trust those politicians to give us back those rights when they no longer exist. The answer is, of course, that they will not give us those rights back. [Interruption.] And do not argue with me about the Wolfson report, because that is nonsense.
Leaving the ECHR will mean that we have even fewer opportunities to work on agreements with the EU—the place small boats set off from—to prevent those crossings, and that goes to the nub of the matter that we are discussing today. If we have learned one thing over the past decade, it is that the concept of the UK becoming more successful and prosperous while distancing itself from its closest allies is a total fiction. It was a lie in 2016, and it is a lie today. The only way to move towards an asylum system that works is by working with our European allies, and that means that this Government must first drop their self-defeating red lines, and secondly apply to join the EU migration and asylum pact.
While the media is excited that the Prime Minister has been more expansive in his wording on relations with Europe, it is important to note that he is pledging to retain all his red lines. He is not promising to remove any of them, even though he knows that those red lines are making us poorer and scuppering our chances of an asylum system that could, in future, command public trust, look after genuine asylum seekers and create a fair system, as this country has always had. It will also cost UK taxpayers more and more money.
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Member will know that the framework within which signatories to the EU migration and asylum pact work is different from the Dublin agreement.
Today we renew our calls for Ministers to drop their red lines on Europe and to join the EU asylum pact. We also renew our calls for the Conservatives to recognise the reality that the first Brexit they gave us has failed this country. Do not pretend that giving us Brexit 2.0 will be any better.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Today we are being asked to support a motion calling for the United Kingdom to leave the European convention on human rights. I am going to do something slightly unusual and speak about the detail of a law that we are considering in Committee. While the Conservatives are busy demanding that we tear up an international agreement—an agreement written by one of our greatest wartime Prime Ministers, Winston Churchill—this House is already considering substantive reforms to how human rights law is applied in immigration cases.
The Immigration and Asylum Bill is currently being scrutinised in Committee. That is where we should be having serious discussions about how the system works, what needs to change and how we ensure the law serves the public interest. Clauses 17 to 20 are central to that work. They are not cosmetic changes or empty promises; they are detailed legislative provisions designed to change how courts and tribunals consider human rights claims in an immigration case.
Ben Goldsborough
I am a proud member of the Public Bill Committee, and at the moment we are looking at things such as the ouster clauses that are included in the Bill. We are giving the detail that is needed for the Law Lords and everyone else involved in this process to integrate what needs to be done.
These are not cosmetic changes that we are looking at. Clause 17 addresses sponsor human rights claims. It creates a route for a person based in the UK to appeal the decision refusing entry clearance to an overseas family member where the decision engages their right to family life under article 8. That is a specific change to the operation of the appeal system, with clear rules about how such claims are considered.
Clause 18 goes further by establishing a clearer statutory definition of “family life” for the purposes of article 8 in immigration cases. It provides that “family” would normally be limited to core cohabiting families, partners, and in relevant circumstances children and parents living together. Where someone seeks to establish family life beyond those core relationships, the legislation sets out the circumstances and evidence that courts should consider.
For relationships between adults, that includes whether there are additional elements of dependency beyond normal emotional ties between them. It also makes it clear that the courts must first determine whether article 8 is engaged before going to consider the public interest. That is an important distinction. The existence of a human right does not automatically determine the outcome of an immigration appeal. The court must consider the circumstances and apply the relevant legal test.
Clause 19 strengthens the public interest consideration that courts and tribunals must take into account. It reinforces the importance of financial independence and being able to support and house oneself and one’s family without relying on state support. It also introduces further considerations relating to criminal convictions, co-operation and immigration processes and good character. It clarifies the weight that should normally be given to a private and family life established by people who are in the UK unlawfully having obtained permission through deception or are in serious breach of the conditions of their immigration status. It also strengthens the considerations that apply when decisions could affect a child, including whether removal would have a
“very significant and long-lasting adverse effect”
on them. Those are important changes to a framework within which immigration decisions are made.
Clause 20 addresses cases involving foreign criminals and others liable to deportation. It strengthens the statutory framework for considering deportation, making it clear that the public interest in deporting those liable to deportation must be given significant weight, particularly when such offending is serious. It also sets out exceptional circumstances in which a deportation may be disproportionate, including the impact on qualifying partners and children, and cases involving very compelling circumstances.
Those provisions matter, because the public rightly expect a system that takes criminal offending seriously, enforces immigration rules and makes decisions that reflect the interests of our country. I ask the Conservatives again: if they believe that the law needs to change, why are they not engaging seriously with the changes already before Parliament? If Conservative Members do not think those clauses go far enough, they should explain why, table amendments, test the legislation and make a case using evidence and legal arguments—that is what parliamentary scrutiny is for. Instead, we have a motion before us calling for full withdrawal from the convention as though leaving an international agreement—Brexit, anyone?—would somehow make every difficult question disappear. It would not.
Leaving the ECHR would not by itself clear the asylum backlog, it would not automatically speed up decisions, it would not make every removal straightforward and it would not erase the consequences of years of Conservative mismanagement. The Conservatives had 14 years in government to get a grip on immigration and the asylum system, and they had 14 years to improve decision making, tackle backlogs and ensure that public money was spent effectively, yet they left behind a system beset by delays, mounting costs and a reliance on asylum hotels. Now they want to present themselves as the people with the answers—it is truly extraordinary.
The Conservatives created the conditions of many of the problems the Government are still dealing with; now, they want to distract from that record with another dramatic announcement. Our constituents deserve far better than political theatre. They deserve an asylum system that makes decisions promptly, removes people who have no right to remain, tackles criminality and treats people fairly. They deserve effective enforcement and value for taxpayers’ money. That requires practical solutions, competent administration and legislation that works. It requires a Government who will get on with the job rather than pretending that one grand gesture can solve everything.
A practical example is the Brook hotel in Bowthorpe just outside my constituency: it opened under the previous Conservative Government and closed under a Labour Government. That is what effective management of the asylum system does when a Government are serious, instead of making large grand gestures.
The convention is not beyond reform—there is so much we are doing and so much more to be done—but leaving the convention altogether would be a much wider step than reforming how article 8 is applied. We have already heard about the impact that would have on the Northern Ireland peace agreement. We cannot just singly pull ourselves out of the ECHR.
Sadly, the Conservative party that we all knew when growing up is no longer with us. The action that we are taking in government is what we must do.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. The concerns and worries of women in Piddington about the sorts of people being placed alongside them are shared by women up and down the country. You and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, know better than many exactly what those concerns are, because of the camp in Crowborough. The Government have placed more than 500 young men in Crowborough, in your Sussex Weald constituency, and they are pledging to keep them there all the way till 2030. Madam Deputy Speaker has had to do her best in the face of a Green, Lib Dem and Labour council that has totally failed in its responsibilities to support those residents. The contrast in scale at Piddington, where there are just 350 residents, is even greater.
At the heart of the debate is whether women have a legitimate, reasonable concern to be worried about the people being placed in their communities. I am not afraid to say that I think the culture of the people often placed in these communities is inferior to ours when it comes to women’s rights and attitudes to women. Let us be clear that more than 72% of the people crossing in small boats are men, and the vast majority of them are aged between 18 and 39. They come predominantly from countries like Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. What do the people of those countries—men primarily—think about women and women’s rights? This is not speculation or stereotyping; it is evidence from social surveys and reports of third parties.
In Syria, more than 70% of women report that they are severely restricted in their ability to leave their homes. In Afghanistan, more than 90% of the population think that spousal physical abuse is justified. In Iraq, more than 46% of currently married women are exposed to at least one form of spousal violence and eight in 10 women have suffered some form of sexual harassment. In Pakistan, the UN estimates that between 70% and 90% of Pakistani women experience some form of domestic violence in their lifetime. In Eritrea, misogyny is embedded so deep that over half of women aged 15 to 49 think it is entirely justified for a husband to beat his wife.
Layla Moran
Misogyny exists in many cultures; I would point out that it does in ours, too, and that is well recognised. Did it ever occur to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps some of those people are leaving those countries because they do not agree with those values and that, notwithstanding the issues that we have too, they would rather come to a country that better respects the rights of women? Is he suggesting that every man in those countries holds those views?
Dr Mullan
I wish we had a system in which we could test the hon. Member’s proposition, because at the minute, we have absolutely no idea about the attitudes and values of the people coming from those countries. She is correct to say that we have issues of misogyny in this country, but for our country the equivalent figures to those I have just mentioned are significantly lower. That is the point: these cultures are worse than ours on the many issues we care about in relation to women and girls.
On the one hand, the Government are pledging action on women and girls and driving improvements in that area—we have done so in our society for many decades—but on the other hand they are pretending that the citizens of those countries, which have done none of that work, are exactly the same as us and will come over and treat our women exactly the same. I am afraid that flies in the face of common sense and the clear statistical evidence I gave about rates of crime and the social attitudes of those people.
I am not afraid to say that there is a lot to do when it comes to women and girls in our culture, but we have a significantly better culture towards women and girls than countries such as Eritrea, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a whole range of others, so it is perfectly reasonable for women being asked to live alongside huge numbers of unvetted people from those countries to be concerned and to have worries.
We should not be afraid to call that out, and it has nothing to do with racism. We have a culture of football hooliganism in this country, and it is predominantly white people who engage in that football hooliganism. I am happy to say that; it does not make me racist towards white people. It does not make me racist towards other cultures when I point out the issues and problems that they have, which we should not be afraid to call out.
Max Wilkinson
I think the hon. Member mentioned that 80% of women in one country said they had been sexually harassed in public. What is the rate of women in the UK who report being sexually harassed in public?
Dr Mullan
It is around one in four. It was 80% in the country I referenced, which is significantly more. The equivalent figure for this country is much, much too high—I would want it to be zero—but that makes the exact point, which I think the hon. Member did not want to draw out, that those countries are worse than we are. We should not be importing large quantities of unvetted young men from those cultures without a proper way of dealing with that. We do not have a way of doing that.
The Government inadvertently admitted that, as they have had to actively tell those people not to rape women. That is because they know the things I have said about the differences in attitudes towards women in many of those countries. The question is: what do we do about it? I am clear that it should be up to us to decide who comes here from what countries and on what basis. We should decide asylum policy—not the people smugglers—and the routes on which people come. The Conservatives have been clear and admitted that we should have been quicker in bringing in our own deterrence policy, but we are committed to doing that now and have a plan for it. That is what actually counts.
The only country that has successfully dealt with this issue is Australia. It saw a decrease of more than 90% in the number of people crossing the sea and entering illegally by saying, “If you come here illegally under that method, you don’t get to stay—end of story.” That worked, and we should do exactly the same thing. The Government like to talk about the failure of the Rwanda plan and the four people sent as volunteers. They know that those people went voluntarily. It is clearly not a deterrent if someone goes voluntarily, but we were never allowed to use the scheme as a deterrent to deport people whether they wanted to go or not.
The Government can do everything they want to reform and tweak the operation of human rights laws in this country, but there are two ways in which that approach is fundamentally flawed. First, it does not matter if a claim can be successfully rejected if someone cannot be deported to the country they came from. It is completely futile. Unless the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) thinks that we will deport people en masse to Afghanistan or some other third world, war-torn country, clearly, whatever we might want to do around the validity of their claim is worthless if we cannot send them to another country or back to the country they came from. Secondly, we have talked about the nature of the claims and how we might tweak them. The European Court of Human Rights is a precedent-setting Court. If it makes a ruling and sets a precedent, ultimately, that will hold sway.
I asked the hon. Member for South Norfolk to comment on article 3, which he failed to do. That is just one example of how the European convention on human rights has become totally distorted. Article 3 was originally envisioned to prevent people from being deported to a country where they might face torture. That was the aim of the article. It is now used to say that when someone comes to our country and commits horrendous crimes such as rape, but they have a psychiatric illness, it is torture if the country we seek to deport them to does not have adequate healthcare provision. Under article 3, that is not allowed. Who can reasonably argue that that was envisioned by all the people the hon. Member referenced when they created a set of rights which, at the time, were appropriate and applied appropriately? Does he really think that those people envisioned that, 50 years later, that would mean we could not deport a rapist because he would not get adequate healthcare in the country that we were deporting him to?
The article has been totally distorted from its original purpose, and the question of whether we can operate a safe and decent framework of rights in this country without the use of the ECHR is quite clearly scaremongering. Canada manages it, New Zealand manages it, Australia manages it. They all manage to have a framework of rights and international agreements, and that includes Canada, which is seeking a closer relationship with the EU, which is not part of the ECHR.
Ben Goldsborough
What solution would the hon. Gentleman come up with? It has been stated by the Republic of Ireland Government and Governments around the world that by pulling out of the ECHR, we would be fundamentally undermining the Good Friday agreement, which means that we cannot operate a safe country and borders.
Dr Mullan
I urge the hon. Gentleman to read Lord Wolfson’s report, which makes it clear that we can engage in international agreements. To make the point valid, the hon. Gentleman has to suggest that no other countries in the world manage to enter into complex legal arrangements without both being part of the ECHR. Of course they do. Agreements will be subject to renegotiation. This country is absolutely right to respond to what our people want us to do, which is to protect our borders and put them first, and not the sorts of people we are putting up at taxpayers’ expense in Crowborough.
Chris Murray
Let me make some points and then I will take interventions.
Charities and groups can go to large sites, which are far away from town centres, unlike hotels and HMOs, and the authorities, by providing things such as transport, can practically organise when people will be in one place, stopping the issues of hotels and people hanging around town centres late at night.
Finally, on safeguarding, one of the issues with hotels is that the police were not informed. At larger sites, we can have trained professionals who can spot depression, isolation, re-traumatisation or worrying behaviours, understand the dynamics in groups, and find opportunities to observe, supervise and intervene. Engaging with police and social services is how we tackle those risks.
Let me share what persuaded me about that. I was sceptical of large sites until I went to Wethersfield, which opened under the previous Government—I think it was opened by the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). There, they told me that the work they can do around mitigation and safeguarding is far more effective at a large site than a small site.
Chris Murray
I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and then I will come back to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan).
Chris Murray
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument at all. My argument to the Minister would be that large sites vary. Wethersfield did not work until it was reformed; Northeye did not work.
I am going to do something unusual and say something positive about the Scottish Government for a second—I know the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) is going to have a heart attack over there. [Laughter.] When the Scottish Government opened large sites for asylum seekers from Ukraine on two cruise ships, they were very cost effective compared with the Bibby Stockholm. The argument is not about the principle, but about whether the Home Office can orchestrate it and achieve it through public procurement.
Chris Murray
I absolutely understand why people say that; it is a perfectly reasonable response to risk. However, the role of Government is to mitigate risk. The role of Government is to intervene through public policy and deploy public resources and capacities. That is the best way to mitigate risk. That is normal across policing and all kinds of Home Office security, but in this case it is quite right. The Government of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle placed asylum seekers in hotels without telling anybody in the local community—without social workers, the police or anybody else knowing. The local women had no clue. Most of the cases quoted by the shadow Minister came from that system. He cannot say to the women in Piddington that will leave the ECHR and it will solve everything. That is not realistic and it is not treating them with respect. Far better to say we will try to solve this problem, mitigate the risk and do the stuff required to actually deal with it.
I should have expected to hear what we have heard from the Tories and Reform in this Opposition day debate. These are the people who broke the system and let it spiral, yet they are somehow arguing that leaving the ECHR can happen tomorrow and will solve any issues in Piddington and Bicester—that is for the birds. But I am particularly disappointed in the Liberal Democrats and their amendment. They say that they oppose asylum hotels and they want a better public debate on immigration, but whether it is in Cameron barracks, in Crowborough or now in Bicester, they oppose every large site. They say we should welcome asylum seekers and have a humane system, but it is “not in my back yard” the minute there is one near them. Are they really saying that is for the working-class communities of Britain to tolerate asylum seekers in hotels and in HMOs, but not their constituencies in secure, well-resourced, large public sites? I think that is wrong. The public are fed up of posturing, point scoring, pointless gesturing and nimbyism on this. They want the issue solved, they want it gripped, and if the Government can get large sites to solve the problem, that could be a big part of solving this country’s asylum accommodation challenges.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jo White
This is an imperative for the Home Office. The proposal contained in the planning application includes on-site 24/7 security and CCTV. We have already introduced those measures on other large sites such as Wethersfield, which has operated in that way for years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) identified, safeguarding for the local community is an imperative. It is important and drives the management of the site. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) raised concerns about the planning process. It already includes an environmental impact assessment.
Jo White
The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in.
There were no objections from Natural England. The final cost of the site will only be known following the outcome of the procurement process.
Concerns were raised about article 3. The Government accept that there will be genuinely exceptional medical healthcare cases in which article 3 prevents removal, but they must be exceptional. Article 3 was never intended to guarantee—
Jo White
Cases are inherently fact-sensitive and must always be assessed on their individual circumstances. It is absolutely not for me to say in this House.
Following the recent political declaration on article 3, we are working to secure stronger instant decisions, better prepared litigation and more consistent application of article 3. Further operational policy or legislative reform remain available where persistent barriers are identified.
I say in response to the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) that she was in the Home Office when she approved large sites, including the one that was proposed for RAF Scampton. She knows that in-house services, 24/7 CCTV and security provide a greater level of protection for communities.
This country is proud to offer sanctuary to those fleeing conflict or persecution. It is the right thing to do, and it is a fundamental part of who we are, but that generosity depends on the support of the British public. They must believe that our asylum system is fair. For that, it must be capped and controlled, with decisions and appeals that are fast and fair, and those with no right to be here must be promptly removed. That is the imperative behind every decision this Government take. We are restoring order to our borders. We are making our asylum system faster and fairer, and in doing so, we will ensure that this country can continue to provide protection to those in need—today and for generations to come.
Question put.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Norris
I would stress that, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, no decision has been taken in respect of that site, and suitability assessments continue. We are engaging with the relevant local authorities, health partners, police forces and other partners to minimise the impact on local services and communities in exactly the way that my hon. Friend says.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I want to begin by thanking Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), for securing a meeting with the Minister, local MPs, councillors and residents of Crowborough, where the Minister heard for himself reports of illegal working, groups of young men drinking on the street and the smuggling of alcohol on to the site. If the Government are to force this camp on people, the very least they can do is ensure that people there play by the rules. Can the Minister introduce breath testing and make it clear to anyone drinking on the site that if they are found to fail those tests, their asylum claim will be immediately thrown out?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and his time, to Madam Deputy Speaker for her time and advocacy and indeed to the local councillors for their time. I was very concerned to hear the reports about those drinking off site. We are looking closely, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman, at ensuring that that does not happen. We already block merchant codes on Aspen cards to prevent it. We are talking about a relatively small amount of money—£9.95 each week—but we do not want to see that spent on alcohol. The sites themselves are alcohol-free. I am not quite sure that breath testing is the way that we need to enforce this, but I nevertheless share his vigour to stop it.
Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(3 months 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
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank Members for their contributions and the more than 700,000 people who signed the petition, including more than 1,000 in my constituency of Bexhill and Battle.
This is a very real issue in my part of East Sussex. The Government forced on us the Crowborough asylum camp, just over the border in the constituency of Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), but very close to my own. We met the Minister just last week, alongside local residents and councillors, and heard at first hand about groups of young men gathering in this small rural town to drink on the streets, smuggling alcohol back into the detention centre and working illegally, and all the distress that that is causing. I am not surprised that the Government targeted Wealden for a camp, considering that it is run by Lib Dems and Greens, with their refugee asylum safe haven policy.
At the heart of this debate is a question of control: whether the state and the people on whose behalf it operates have control of our borders or not. For the nation state to have meaning, a country must be able to remove people from within its borders who have no right to be there—whether to send them to offshore processing or detention, or to deport them entirely—and at scale.
I welcome the opportunity to set out the overwhelming rational and moral argument for ending small boat crossings and the illegal people-smuggling trade, which is at the forefront of the petition. Whatever opponents of strong border controls say, and however much they attempt to demonise and caricature those of us who want to see control returned, I know not only that is this what the vast majority of the British public want, but that it is the right thing to do.
We have to be clear-eyed about the status quo. Right now, not only is our asylum policy effectively determined by people’s ability to pay to get here, but the trade itself is putting money directly into the pockets of criminal gangs that are also involved in other crimes, such as drug dealing and violence. Whether someone makes the crossing is not a measure of their need, their comparative level of desperation or fear, or their vulnerability. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Small boat crossings favour the able-bodied, those with sufficient money to pay for the journey and those closest to Europe. They are not based on anything that Parliament or the Government have decided, nor are they a reflection of humanitarian crises.
We know for a fact that every single person making the crossing from France—because they are coming from France—is not fleeing directly from a war-torn country where they are at risk of persecution. Decent, caring and compassionate constituents of mine say to me all the time, “They are safe; they’re in France.” People may have a preference—a desire—to be here instead of in France, but that is not what the asylum system was set up for. That is not what the laws and protections were intended to enshrine and make sacrosanct. However much defenders of those laws and regulations choose to ignore that, the British public can see through it.
The first retort to those criticisms of the status quo is to say, “Well, that’s our fault. That’s our responsibility for forcing them to cross the channel”—as the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), said. But proponents of that argument entirely fail to play through the consequences of the safe and legal routes that they advocate for. I will do so now, in the hope that people might actually consider the matter.
If we set up places whereby people can apply in third countries easily, what would happen? First, those places would themselves become a focal point for potentially large numbers of people seeking asylum, as there are quite literally millions of people living under conditions that would qualify them to seek asylum here in the UK. However much people pretend otherwise, we clearly would have to refuse some of those applications. Of course, the Green party advocates open borders and no restrictions, so maybe it would not refuse any, but let us assume we would not take everybody who applied by a safe and legal route. What would happen then? Would those people simply turn around and say, “Oh well, I tried to get in. I tried to use the safe and legal route; I’ll leave it there”? Of course they would not. Those people would then turn to exactly the same people-smuggling gangs and illegal crossings, and we would be right back to square one, only then they would be coming on top of the ones granted asylum through safe and legal routes.
Even the most humanitarian-minded person would have to accept that there would be limits. If there are limits, we have to say no, and for “no” to mean anything, it has to be enforceable, or the whole thing collapses. Those opposed to deportation for those coming here illegally have no answer to that moral and logical question, so what must we do? We must make it absolutely clear that if someone comes here illegally, they do not get to stay—no ifs, ands or buts. Everything else, in terms of control and having a system that works, is underpinned by that. If we do not have meaningful control—because taking years to deport people will achieve nothing—then all the rest of the policies collapse.
To stand any chance of actually delivering that, we have to come out of the European Court of Human Rights. Anyone who has studied the expansion of the powers of that Court cannot reasonably argue that it is fulfilling the same function intended for it. Some may argue that they are happy with that and welcome it, but it impossible to say that it is operating as envisioned by its creators. Let us take one example: article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which gives the right to be protected from
“torture or…inhuman or degrading treatment”.
That right was constructed in the wake of world war two, in which, as well as being murdered, Jews, political prisoners, homosexuals and other minorities were subject to the most horrendous treatment imaginable: medical experimentation, starvation, death-inducing slave labour.
How is that article 3 right now interpreted? It is now used by potential deportees to successfully oppose their deportation if the standard of healthcare in the country they would be returned to is not sufficient to meet their medical needs—the same standard of healthcare that is all that is available to millions of their fellow citizens in the countries that we would seek to deport them to. When did a right to be protected from torture or inhumane or degrading treatment become a right to access a particular standard of healthcare?
We know that the convention has now gone as far as to be applied to questions of whether a particular Government is doing enough to tackle climate change. That is why even some of our most senior and respected jurists, such as former UK Supreme Court Justice Lord Sumption, are clear about the need to leave. I recommend anyone sincerely interested in this topic to listen to his 2019 BBC Reith lectures on it. He explains clearly how human rights laws are increasingly used in place of the practice of politics, democracy and elections. They have increasingly become questions of balancing. They always were, of course, but the balancing has become finer and more nuanced, and at their heart, those questions are societal and political, not legal.
We should ask how it has come to this situation. It has come about because, at its core, in its willingness to expand its remit and take expansionist interpretations of the law, the European Court of Human Rights is fundamentally misconceived. The law does not exist in isolation. In the nation state, there is an interplay between the courts and judges, the parliaments, the executives, and the people. They balance each other out. Courts are, of course, operationally independent, but if they act intolerably, and if they consistently and gravely make rulings out of keeping with the views of the public they serve, Parliament can step in, as the body accountable to the public. However much in very many ways we want our courts to be independent, it is vital that in the end, ultimately, they are not independent of the people.
This delicate interplay secures legitimacy for each actor in the system, and there is no such interplay in the European Court. That is how it has found itself so clearly removed from the expectations and views of the millions of people of the member states it seeks to advocate for. We can see, over many years, member states seeking to oppose the Court’s expansionist rulings; it has ignored them to its own detriment. We also see other countries—Canada, Australia and New Zealand—that are able to manage fair and balanced rules of law with rights for individuals without the need to be part of any supranational body.
Anyone who argues against these ideas must be careful what they wish for, because the patience and generosity of the majority of the public is at its thinnest, if not exhausted entirely. If we do not respond to that, others with views that we are more widely unhappy with will take control, and the Government who have failed to secure it will be as much to blame as anybody else.
As our current Prime Minister completes two years of his premiership, I hope that Members can reflect honestly. The promises of the Government to take control of our borders and to smash the gangs have undoubtedly been a failure. They gave the impression that tweaks could be made to significantly alter the number of crossings, but that has proven simply not to be the case, and they now have very little time left. The only country with a proven track record is Australia, and it implemented a policy of not allowing people to stay.
Tweaking will not help. One in, one out with France will not help. The sooner the Government realise that, the better for the taxpayer, the better for those who want to be compassionate but do not want to be exploited, and the better for the crime agencies fighting the people-smuggling gangs. Virtue signalling will not achieve anything. Doing whatever it takes to actually regain control of our borders is the only thing that will, and the Government must get on and deliver it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for clearly and comprehensively articulating the key facets of the petition that has resulted in us all being here on this sunny afternoon. I am grateful to him, to the petitioners and to all other Members who have spoken. We have heard a wide range of views. I have listened with interest to the arguments advanced and the various points raised, and I will seek to respond to as many as possible in the time available.
Before I get into the detail, I must do two things. First, I assert again this Government’s unshakeable commitment to tackling illegal immigration. I am sorry to have to remind Members of the situation we inherited, but it was so dire that, two years on, the legacy of past failures remains. When we took office, smuggling gangs saw this country’s borders as a soft target. The enforcement of basic rules had ground to a halt. The system was in disarray.
We have worked hard since July 2024 to turn things around, and our efforts are having an impact. Over 44,000 channel crossings have been stopped in partnership with the French. Under our landmark returns agreement with France, those arriving can face immediate detention and removal. Removals and deportations of illegal migrants and foreign criminals have gone up, as have illegal working visits. We have more officers tackling organised immigration crime, and disruption of OIC is at record highs. Asylum costs, meanwhile, are down, as is the number of hotels being used to accommodate asylum seekers.
We are reducing the pull factors, and we will do whatever it takes to secure effective returns co-operation with our international partners. We will use every lever available to return those with no right to be in the UK. In November, we threatened visa penalties against Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Within weeks, my Department had successfully negotiated new arrangements and it is now conducting returns on that basis. My message is clear: if foreign Governments refuse to accept the return of their citizens, they will face the consequences. That is just the start of our action. Countries that do not co-operate on returns cannot expect a normal visa relationship with the UK.
We do all of that and more, because the Home Secretary has said from day one that we must do whatever it takes to restore order and control to our borders, but we also know that there is much more to do.
Mike Tapp
It is an absolute fact that many of our returns agreements are underpinned by our membership of the ECHR. I will now make some progress.
That is why we are embarking on the most significant set of asylum reforms in a generation. Under our plans, the UK will continue to play its part in helping the world’s most vulnerable people. However, to meet the challenges of today, we must address the fact that this country is more attractive to asylum seekers than other countries in Europe, so we are acting, including through the introduction of new legislation, to build a new fair but firm asylum model, based on contribution, integration and respect for UK laws.
Of course, the reason I mention all that is that it goes to the heart of the problem that this petition seeks to answer, which is the arrival of illegal migrants and their continued presence in this country. We understand why people are frustrated after years of chaos and crisis. That is why we are taking concerted and decisive action to restore order and control.
I will now move on to my second point, which is to address the specific thrust of this petition, namely that the Government should seek to establish offshore detention facilities for individuals who enter the UK illegally.
We have been clear that we will continue to work with international partners to tackle the global challenge of irregular migration. However, interventions must work in practice, they must offer value for money and they must comply with the UK’s international obligations. The Government are doing whatever it takes to secure our borders, including the introduction of the most sweeping asylum reforms in a generation.
The petition also refers to deportation, to which I would reply that more people with no right to be here are being removed from British soil under this Government than at any time in years. Since the election, we have removed or deported nearly 70,000 people who were here illegally.
I turn now to some of the specific points made by Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) made an absolutely fantastic contribution. I agree with him wholeheartedly that it is important that we get the rhetoric right and that it is our responsibility —the responsibility of all of us in this Chamber—to ensure that we do not pitch neighbour against neighbour. Unity is British; division is not.
I turn to the contribution of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). She made a good point about visa overstayers; they do make up a large proportion of those who are here illegally. We have paused the health and social care route and we have also paused automatic family reunion. We are imposing stricter measures on universities to ensure that that route is not abused, and we have already seen the number of those who are seeking to claim asylum after signing up to a university drop significantly. But of course, we are looking to go further across the board on legal migration and overstayers.
The hon. Member also talked about rapists and paedophiles. Everyone here agrees that if a rapist, a paedophile or a criminal has come to this country, they should not be here, and it is important that we make changes to the ECHR—a process that is ongoing at this time—to deport and remove those people.
Mike Tapp
The hon. Member’s party had 14 years to make changes, but they absolutely failed. We inherited their open borders and their broken system, but we are working hard behind the scenes, as we speak, to make the ECHR more fit for purpose.
Let me move on to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who made very good points about the cost of some of these proposals. Everything that we do in the Home Office must be costed and must be affordable to the British taxpayer, and of course we have a duty to protect those who are fleeing war and persecution, which is one of the things that makes Britain so great.
The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) made a good point about the single dinghy having more individuals on it over the weekend. The reason is that we are attacking the supply chains and taking boats out of the supply chain, which means that more people are being forced on to these boats. We acknowledge that that is dangerous, which is why we are working hard with our international partners to stop these boat crossings. Disruptions of boat crossings are now at around 44,000.
Mike Tapp
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We saw the start of the boat crossings crisis only after we left the EU; of course, the Dublin agreement provided some sort of deterrent. However, reopening the Brexit wound is not something I want to do, which is why we are looking at introducing more returns agreements, so that we can deport and remove more people.
Dr Mullan
I do not know whether hon. Members know this, but just for the record, we took more people than we sent back under the Dublin agreement. It did not act as any deterrent, because a person was more likely to get to the UK on the basis of the Dublin agreement than they were to be sent away.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which is now on the record. I would be keen to discuss why he thinks the numbers went up, and why we saw about 180,000 people cross after 2018. [Interruption.] Perhaps that is something to discuss outside this room.
I will now move on to some broader points. I have tried to get around everybody who spoke; my apologies if I have missed anybody.
Immigration Policy
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Norris
I know that the public are eager to see change. We were able to make some immediate changes in November when we announced the policies, and last Thursday we tabled statutory instruments that we hope will effect further changes. Similarly, we made changes to the immigration rules last week, and we will do so at future opportunities when the need arises. Of course, where there is the need for primary legislation—particularly on important appeals reform—that will come in front of the House in the usual way.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The only country that has successfully tackled illegal boat crossings similar to ours is Australia, and it did so not by paying people £40,000 per family to leave, but by sending them to a safe third country. I noticed that the Minister completely failed to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). Does the Minister accept the reality that the only way to tackle this problem will be to get on with having a safe third country to deport these people to?
Alex Norris
I follow the hon. Gentleman’s work. He always says no to large sites and no to hotels, and then proposes fantastical third countries that he is not capable of naming. Ultimately, this is the choice: do people want fantasy, more empty rhetoric and argument, or do they want change and action with this Government? I know what I choose.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Norris
I know my hon. Friend’s constituency well and of where he speaks. We are clear that that hotel and all hotels being used for this purpose must shut. I know colleagues will want information as soon as possible. They may not have to wait too much longer, but it is right that we do this in an orderly and controlled way to ensure that the system works.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker. I am not surprised that the Home Office thought that Wealden, a Green and Lib Dem-run council, would be a soft target to move asylum seekers to, considering that the co-leaders previously seemed more concerned with Calais than they did about Crowborough, but moving asylum seekers into Crowborough training camp in Madam Deputy Speaker’s neighbouring constituency will displace the cadets who are making good use of that facility and, as I understand it, will not save any money. Given that it will not save any money, what is the benefit of moving asylum seekers there?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman knows that this is not purely a financial arrangement. We know that hotels have a profound social and economic impact on communities in this country. We believe that big military sites are better places to house asylum seekers. I appreciate that that is a point of difference, but the hon. Gentleman needs to know that when he advocates against our proposals to use larger military sites, he is saying yes to the use of hotels across the community. To say otherwise simply does not stand up—that is the choice. His view is very clear, as is ours.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Antisocial behaviour is a scourge that has gone untackled for too long. We are funding hotspot policing in our town centres and other areas in which antisocial behaviour is rife; that is having an impact. Our neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will mean 3,000 more police on our streets by next March, will have an impact. We are introducing respect orders, which will be a really useful tool to tackle prolific antisocial behaviour offenders. The message has to be loud and clear: we will not accept this behaviour, and the police are responding.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Sarah Jones
Yes. I was really pleased that charges for shop theft increased by 25% in the year to June 2025, because the police are taking these issues seriously: they are really getting in there, working with our retailers, getting the prolific offenders and tackling the issue. I am always very pleased to meet.
Migration: Settlement Pathway
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is an open, tolerant and generous country. What I have acknowledged in the reforms I have set out, both today and on Monday, is that there is a condition to unlocking the full extent of that openness, tolerance and generosity. It is about having order and control at our borders and a fair, managed asylum and immigration system where the principles of fairness and contribution are at its heart. That is the way we can prove to the public that it is possible not just to have an asylum system, but one they can be proud of.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am not sure it helps the Home Secretary’s cause for me to say that I have a great deal of respect for her and that I thought her interventions this week were very important, particularly those pointed towards members of her party on the left who will make the cause they choose to champion more difficult if the system as a whole is not brought under control. The people who support asylum and refugee processes and want them to be there in future need the system to be brought under control.
My sincere question relates to what I would describe as tinkering around the edges of the human rights laws. The Home Secretary must know that whatever she does to clarify the fringes of the rulings the ECHR has made over the years, they have created a case law that forces our judges to rule in favour of spurious claims. She cannot change that; those rulings are those rulings. Unless we are willing at the very least to have a derogation from some elements of the Court’s decisions, how does she think we can override those well-established rulings which give enormous amounts of rights to people when they are making their asylum claims?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman and I have an obvious point of difference on the European convention on human rights. This Government will not be leaving that European convention. We do not see the case for derogation or any other measures. We believe it is possible to achieve the reforms we need by legislating for the way that article 8 applies to immigration cases, by defining family life and by more tightly drawing up what is known as the public interest test. We will debate that legislation in this House in great detail, but I hope to show to everyone who is currently a sceptic of our ability to stay in the ECHR and get control of our migration system that it is possible to do both those things. The convention—the Human Rights Act brought the rights into our domestic legislation—is an important international treaty and we do not see any reason to leave it or derogate from it. I hope that Opposition Members will engage in good faith on the changes we seek to make to article 8, and the immigration rules in particular, because we think that is one of the best changes we can make to get control of our migration system.
Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend will know that in the spending review, £500 million was set aside for working with local government to try to identify those exact sites that she is talking about and to bring them forward for use. In the spirit of what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) said, and in the spirit of what other colleagues have said about early engagement, there may well be better ways to build public confidence in what is being provided and that it is in the right locations with the right support. Those conversations with the city of Newcastle are ongoing, and we will be working hard to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Let me begin by making it crystal clear that Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), is doing everything she can to object to proposals to house illegal migrants at the Crowborough training camp in her constituency, just over the border from mine. The site is not suitable. It was previously considered by the Home Office and rejected, but it seems that we now have a council willing, for ideological reasons, to roll over to the suggestion that it is used. Councils can object to these proposals, so what objections has the Green and Liberal Democrat-led Wealden council made to the proposals to use the Crowborough training camp to house hundreds of asylum seekers?
Alex Norris
As I have set out, we have had significant discussions with local authorities. They challenge our assumptions, and they challenge scale and location, as is always the case. Nevertheless, I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that when he says, “No, it is not the right location”, he should be clear about what he is saying yes to. Is he saying yes to the continued use of hotels, or is he simply saying they should be somewhere else? I know those conversations will continue, and I encourage the local authorities to engage with local Members of Parliament.
Anti-social Behaviour: East of England
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(1 year, 7 months 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
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The shadow Policing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), is busy on a Bill Committee, so it is my pleasure to respond on his behalf. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this debate. Like the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), and, I am sure, the Minister, I experience these issues in my own constituency as a constituency MP. Just this morning I was on a call with the local police to talk about a recent spate of antisocial behaviour in Bexhill. Again, it is a fantastic place to live, work and raise a family, but it is still experiencing these issues.
Hon. Members present will be aware that the east of England is not easily described in simple terms. As with my own region, its towns, cities and countryside create a diverse landscape, making policing challenging. The urban-rural divide leads to varied patterns of crime and offending, and to different demands on resources. Crime rates in the east of England are lower than the national average, and crimes excluding fraud have seen the rate per 1,000 people fall by 12.5% compared with pre-pandemic levels. Additionally, the antisocial behaviour crime rate is 4.6% lower in the east of England than it was last year. However, that is not enough. We must always be more ambitious in tackling crime; our constituents deserve to live their lives free from the burden of antisocial behaviour.
It is fortunate that in certain regions we have effective police and crime commissioners working hard to address the very issue that we are discussing today. I understand that antisocial behaviour accounts for 14.5% of all crime recorded in the region; it is second only to violent crime at 36.5%. It is essential that the Government work with local forces to implement effective strategies to reduce antisocial behaviour, recognising the damage that it causes in undermining trust within our communities.
The Government have said that tackling antisocial behaviour is a policing priority, and I know that people across the country will welcome measures to curb this behaviour, which does so much harm. Research conducted under the last Government highlighted its impact, with one Home Office study revealing that 66% of people changed their behaviour in at least one way because of antisocial behaviour.
I hope the Minister will acknowledge that Governments of both parties have sought to reduce antisocial behaviour over many decades—and, as we have discussed, over the lifetimes of some of the hon. Members present—but we have not yet been able to completely crack the problem. The previous Government produced an antisocial behaviour action plan and took steps to implement a zero-tolerance approach by banning nitrous oxide, by increasing fines for fly-tipping, littering and graffiti, and by delivering hundreds of thousands of hours of uniformed patrols targeting hotspots blighted by antisocial behaviour. Given my four years as a volunteer policeman, I felt that the immediate justice element of the plan had particular potential.
Data from pilot forces, including Essex, showed that over 100,000 additional hours of ASB-focused patrols were conducted in pilot areas. That led to a significant increase in enforcement activity, including nearly 800 arrests, close to 2,000 instances of stop and search, and nearly 1,000 uses of antisocial behaviour tools and powers.
Jen Craft
I am an Essex MP, and I am interested in the shadow Minister’s comments on enforcement measures over the last few decades. It is my understanding that the issuance of public notices for offences such as being drunk and disorderly, and other low-level behaviour, actually fell to zero in 2023, whereas such notices were consistently issued in 2010. Does he have any thoughts on that?
Dr Mullan
I am not familiar with the data about those notices for the hon. Member’s constituency. Of course, there is always a challenge in distinguishing between the focus of police and patterns of crime. For example, in this debate we have talked about shoplifting but we have seen, at the same time, a decrease in burglaries, car thefts and so on. The police must always be nimble and not allow themselves to be overly distracted by one particular element of crime, but I take the hon. Member’s point seriously.
Recently, the Essex police, fire and crime commissioner outlined the benefits of an additional £1.6 million for hotspot patrols to tackle antisocial behaviour in 15 areas. The first phase of that initiative, known as Operation Dial, resulted in 101 arrests and the issuance of 112 fixed penalty notices—in keeping with what the hon. Member mentioned—across 13 zones. It is welcome that Essex has not been alone in this practice: police forces in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk are also utilising targeted, visible patrols that have the dual effect of addressing antisocial behaviour and serious violence.
Marie Goldman
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative police, fire and crime commissioner for Essex recently proposed getting rid of all 99 PCSOs in Essex? Does the hon. Gentleman think that would ever be the right thing to do?
Dr Mullan
The hon. Lady must forgive me: as I explained, I am not the shadow Policing Minister so, although I have heard about that, I do not know the local circumstances in detail. I am sure that she has made representations to the police, fire and crime commissioner on behalf of her constituents, as is appropriate if she does not agree with that course of action.
Analysis conducted by the Youth Endowment Fund shows that patrols are particularly valuable. Its research, based on meta-analysis, found that hotspot policing has the potential to reduce overall offending by 17%, including reducing violent crime by 14%, property crime by 16%, disorder offences by 20% and drug offences by 30%. What did Labour come in and do? It scrapped the wider roll-out of the immediate justice approach, despite evidence of its clear benefits. Was Labour ready to go with its own ideas, after 14 years in opposition in which to come up with them? No: we faced a lull at a time when the programme we had been successfully delivering could have gone further. We now have to wait for further pilots and a wider roll-out of Labour’s different approach.
Behind the headline figures on police funding, the details reveal a different picture. The funding settlement for the police announced a few weeks ago by the Home Secretary and the Minister increased funding by £1.089 billion, and they made a big play of that figure at the time. However, the funding pressures faced by police forces across England and Wales—including the £230 million extra that police forces will have to pay in national insurance—add up to £1.205 billion for the coming financial year, which starts in just a few weeks. That is about £160 million more than the funding increase.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council’s finance lead—the local chief constable of the hon. Member for Norwich North, as she mentioned—warned that those pressures would
“inevitably lead to cuts across forces”.
The 43 police forces across England and Wales may have to cut up to 1,800 officers to make up that funding shortfall, whereas we delivered the highest ever number of police officers on the country’s streets—149,679—and oversaw a 51% reduction in overall crime, excluding fraud. We should all be concerned about what may happen next.
I will also pick up on the points made about youth services and again refer to my experience as a volunteer police officer. We should always be cautious about supporting a narrative that excuses criminality. The vast majority of young people from all different backgrounds, with access to exactly the same services—whether those service levels are higher or lower than we might want—do not commit crime. We should never say that a lack of a youth club is an excuse for young people to turn to crime. What we actually know is that parental background, parental responsibility and families have an incredibly important role to play. When we support the narrative that excuses criminality, we talk down the many successful parents who are doing a good job of keeping their kids on the straight and narrow, regardless of what local services are available.
Jen Craft
The majority of young people do not commit crime or antisocial behaviour, and obviously there are parenting choices in there to be applauded; however, there is considerable data about, for example, the prevalence of special educational needs and undiagnosed disabilities among the prison population. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some people are at a disadvantage and predisposed to this kind of behaviour? It benefits us all to tackle the root causes of the behaviour rather than just look at its effects.
Dr Mullan
My point is that we have to be clear about the narrative we are all supporting. I did not hear a single Labour Member talk about the important role of parents. I am happy to acknowledge that there are risk factors, but when I talk about these issues I am always clear about the balance, and I did not hear any of that balance from any Labour Members.
I am confident that the Minister will highlight the Crime and Policing Bill, which as we heard was discussed at length last night. One of the provisions that the Government have emphasised is respect orders; however, questions remain about their impact and the extent to which they will produce different outcomes in reducing antisocial behaviour. The Government have stated that the rehabilitative aspects of the orders will make them more effective than the previous regime, and that they will include more robust powers when enforced. Can the Minister clarify what resources will be allocated to support the rehabilitative elements? I note the Government recognise that the success of respect orders is not guaranteed, which is why a pilot scheme is being introduced to assess them. Will she outline where they will be implemented and how their success will be measured?
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), always a doughty champion for his constituents, talked about the importance of housing associations. This is something that I have also experienced as a constituency MP. Will the Minister confirm what engagement she has had with housing associations? In addition, has she had discussions with colleagues across Government to ensure that the approach to antisocial behaviour is co-ordinated across all Departments?
As I have said, we have heard repeatedly from police forces, including those in the east of England, about the strain on their budgets. In Norfolk, the local force has expressed concerns about its £4 million funding shortfall, which has been met with an inadequate level of supplementary funding. Additionally, in Essex, there are the challenges of funding PSCOs that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned—the very group of people that we expect to be able to work in this area. I ask the Minister to give us a clear set of measures and targets for how the Government expect to do so much better through delivery of this programme.
Alice Macdonald
We had quite a lot of consensus in this debate. When the last Government left office, were police numbers going up or down? I believe in June 2024 they were lower than in March 2024. I have heard quite a lot of criticism of our Bill. Can he tell us how he would pay for extra police officers, as I have not heard many solutions?
Dr Mullan
I can point to a number of things that we would not have done. We would not have invested the same level of money in settling public sector strikes at above-inflation pay rises. We would not have given train drivers what I think was a £7,000 pay rise. There are many different ways we would have spent the money. Police numbers ebb and flow, but the hon. Lady talks about the narrative of what we achieved in government; we achieved the highest ever number of police officers.
With the potential of fewer officers, we inevitably create greater risk, making it easier for the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour to avoid detection and confrontation. If the Government are serious about reducing antisocial behaviour, they must ensure that their choices do not result in further cuts to police numbers. If they do not, their pilots and plans will not make the difference that our approaches were making and all our residents will be let down as a result.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and am very interested to hear of his role as a volunteer police officer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this debate. I am grateful to her and all the Members who have spoken passionately about their constituency and made reference to the antisocial behaviour blighting their areas, which needs to be dealt with.
I am a member of the group of MPs who represent the east of England, so I am pleased to respond to the debate as the Minister. I have direct knowledge and experience as an east of England MP. My hon. Friend made a number of important points in her excellent speech on antisocial behaviour. Like her, I pay tribute to the police and the work that they already do on antisocial behaviour in the east of England and all around the country. I will come to neighbourhood policing issues and the Government’s approach to them in a moment.
Today’s focus on the east of England has raised a number of specific local and regional aspects of the debate, and we have been fortunate to have a geographical spread across the east of England. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) spoke about the role of social landlords and tackling antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) referred to the Young Futures programme and the need to engage with young people. He talked about the Thirst youth café, which he said was a good example of the work that goes on with young people.
I am pleased to confirm that we have a cross-departmental approach to working on the agenda around young people. Our safer streets mission is across Government and not just for the Home Office or DCMS. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) talked about problems that older people, pensioners and young children face and the menace of antisocial behaviour from vehicles, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) talked about dirt bikes and the noise, fear and no-go zones. She specifically asked about the need for neighbourhood policing and making sure that police forces act on what the Government ask them to do. I will talk about that in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) talked about not having any PCSOs in Norfolk. That was a decision taken by a previous Conservative PCC. It is interesting because in almost every other part of the country we know how important PCSOs are, and that they provide really important community-based policing.
The Government are working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on a rural crime strategy, recognising the particular issues that rural areas have. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) referred to county lines and vulnerable children. He also spoke about his police ride-along, to see for himself the vital work they do in communities. I will say something about drugs in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) asked about respect orders and the fact that they will apply only to over-18-year-olds. We want to deal with young people who get into bother and engage in antisocial behaviour through our prevention partnerships. They need support and encouragement to do more positive things rather than engage in antisocial behaviour, but of course there are measures that can be brought in if they fail to engage.
I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), that memories in this place can get very clouded. The Liberal Democrats were part of the Government between 2010 and 2015 during the years of austerity when councils saw massive cuts to their budgets, which then resulted in cuts to youth services. I welcome that the Liberal Democrats are now talking about the need to invest in youth services, but we have to remember that when they were in government they were part of the decisions to slash public services.
I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, has a slight case of amnesia about what has actually happened over the past 14 years, with massive cuts to policing. Over 20,000 experienced police officers were lost, as well as many police staff, over the 14-year period, though I recognise that at the end of that time there was a mad scramble to deal with the realisation that cutting police officers had big consequences for all our communities.
Dr Mullan
I think memories are definitely being scrambled. The Government have talked a lot about the supposed £20 billion deficit in day-to-day expenditure. I remind the Minister that it was around £100 billion when we came in in 2010. The Government talk about difficult decisions they had to take; we had five times as many difficult decisions to take as they have.
Dame Diana Johnson
The black hole that the previous Government left this Government to clear up is actually £22 billion. As a Minister who has been in post for nine months, I am very conscious that the whole area of prevention was slashed under previous Conservative Governments, and we are now reaping the consequences. One of my hon. Friends referred to the prison population and the fact that preventive measures were not available; now we see what that actually means.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North mentioned a number of ways in which antisocial behaviour manifests itself at the local level in her constituency, including fly-tipping, littering, loud music and nuisance neighbours. She talked about derelict sites being set on fire, toilets being vandalised, and parking generally being used in an antisocial way. I share her concerns regarding all those examples, which are yet more evidence of the damage and distress caused by antisocial behaviour and the need to tackle it as a priority. ASB is especially damaging when it occurs around people’s homes and the places they visit daily in their communities. It is not merely a nuisance; it has devastating consequences, corroding people’s freedom, damaging their mental health and ultimately undermining their sense of hope and home.
My hon. Friend asked about the Government’s commitment to recruit 13,000 neighbourhood officers and whether the funding package provided will result in more police officers on Norfolk’s streets. The Government have committed to restore neighbourhood policing, which includes putting thousands more uniformed officers on the beat in neighbourhoods up and down the country, including in the east of England—visible and in all our communities, rural and urban. We have made £200 million available to forces in England and Wales for the next financial year beginning in April to support the first steps in delivering those 13,000 neighbourhood personnel. Every part of England and Wales needs to benefit from that pledge.
Our approach to delivery in 2025-26, which will be year one of a four year programme, is designed to deliver an initial increase in the neighbourhood policing workforce in a manner that is flexible and can be adapted to the local context and varied crime demands. That means that the precise workforce mix will be a locally made decision, including in Norfolk. That major investment supports the commitment to make the country’s streets safer, and reflects the scale of the challenge that many forces face and the Government’s determination to address it. Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the PCC in Norfolk, Sarah Taylor, and the Labour council for the work that they are doing. It is crucial that police and partner agencies listen to the experiences of their communities and of victims.
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend raises a really interesting point. On the specifics of that example, we were very clear when the provisional police settlement was announced before Christmas that we wanted to listen to what policing had to say about the figures. One of the issues that was raised was about neighbourhood policing. That is why we put £100 million in the provisional settlement, which we then decided to increase up to £200 million in the final settlement. That assisted PCCs, such as the one we are referring to, to say that the proposals put forward in December could change. We are a Government who want to listen to and work with policing, and PCCs of all complexions are clear that neighbourhood community policing is something that the Government are going to drive forward. I think that almost all of them want to work with us on that.
The antisocial behaviour case review is an issue that needs to get a bit more attention. This is a tool—a safety net—that can support victims of persistent ASB to ensure that action is taken, by giving those victims the ability to demand a formal case review to determine whether further action can be taken. The Victims’ Commissioner has talked a lot about it, and wants to ensure that everyone is aware that they can ask for a review if they do not feel they are getting help from the statutory agencies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North mentioned antisocial driving and speeding, which I and many other hon. Members spoke about extensively in a Westminster Hall debate last week. The Crime and Policing Bill, which was debated yesterday in the main Chamber, will give the police greater powers to immediately seize vehicles that are being used in an antisocial manner, without having first to give a warning. Removing the requirement to give a warning will make the powers under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 easier to apply, allow police to put an immediate stop to offending and send a message to antisocial drivers that their behaviour will not be tolerated.
I was particularly saddened to hear my hon. Friend’s examples of staff needing extra support to deal with antisocial behaviour in libraries. No one should face that kind of abuse in their workplace, especially not in a place set up to help the public. She also spoke about the public resources being spent on repairing vandalised property and fire crews attending arson. That is precisely why we are determined to intervene early to prevent young people in particular from being drawn into antisocial behaviour and crime, and to put tough measures in place to stop persistent adult perpetrators of ASB.
Sadly, the sort of incidents that my hon. Friend and many others spoke about are happening in lots of areas of the country, so I want to touch on the national context. As we have heard, antisocial behaviour takes many forms: off-road bikes, nuisance neighbours, unruly gangs roaming the streets and creating intimidation and fear, or any other manifestation of this menace. It causes distress and misery in all our communities. The impact on decent, law-abiding people is undeniable: they are left feeling isolated and frightened at home, in their neighbourhoods or in their town centres. As we have heard, the enjoyment of parks and other public spaces is affected.
I have said this before, but fundamentally this issue comes down to respect—respect for our laws, our fellow citizens and our expectations as a society. None of us can accept a situation in which the actions of a selfish few blight the lives of others, but that is happening too often and in too many places. It needs to stop.
The response to antisocial behaviour has been weak and ineffective for too many years, and this Government are determined to put that right. As part of our plan for change, we are delivering a wide-ranging safer streets mission. A central part of that mission is tackling antisocial behaviour, with a particular emphasis on improving the police response, alongside tougher powers to tackle perpetrators. We are committed to restoring and strengthening neighbourhood policing and taking steps to tackle antisocial behaviour.
Dame Diana Johnson
I think that the shadow Minister—obviously he is not the shadow Policing Minister—
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes, I am sure he is doing his best. I would say to him that, over 14 years, the previous Conservative Government removed targets in the Home Office and removed the accountability structures that the Home Office should have set in place. We are going to have a performance framework in the Home Office so that we can hold police forces to account—something that was dismantled under his Government.
To add to that point, over the last decade, we have seen that decline in neighbourhood policing to such an extent that many of the bonds of trust and respect between the police and local communities have been damaged. Neighbourhood policing sits at the heart of the British policing model. It is a critical building block in helping communities feel safe, and the public rightly expect their neighbourhood police to be visible, proactive, and accessible. Through our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we will restore those patrols to town centres and ensure that every community has a named neighbourhood officer to turn to.
Those working on the ground are best placed to understand what is driving antisocial behaviour in their areas and the impact it is having, and to determine the appropriate response. That goes to the point that hon. Member for Broxbourne raised about housing associations and their ability to use the law to tackle antisocial behaviour in housing. I believe that the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 do not go far enough. The Government will ensure that police, local authorities, housing providers and other agencies have the powers they need to respond to antisocial behaviour.
We will put that right—we have discussed this already—by introducing respect orders. Under these new measures, persistent adult perpetrators of antisocial behaviour will face tough restrictions such as bans on entering the areas where they have been behaving antisocially, such as town centres or other public places. Anyone found breaching a respect order could also face being arrested and could end up behind bars. We will pilot these measures initially to ensure they are as effective as possible, before rolling them out across England and Wales, and this will be supported by a dedicated lead officer in every force working with communities to develop a local antisocial behaviour action plan.
Practitioners and antisocial behaviour organisations have also asked for additional changes, to enhance the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and improve the tools that local agencies have at their disposal to tackle antisocial behaviour. These changes include extending the maximum time limit for dispersal directions from 48 to 72 hours, increasing the upper limit for fixed penalty notices for breaches of community protection notices and public spaces protection orders from £100 to £500, and extending the power to issue a closure notice to registered social housing providers, among others.
We will also introduce a duty for key relevant agencies, including local authorities and housing providers, to report ASB data to the Government. Following commencement of the Crime and Policing Bill, regulations will be laid to specify which data the relevant agencies should provide, and the form and regularity of submission. This change will give the Government a clearer picture of local ASB and how the powers are being used by local agencies, which will inform future local and national activity. This measure will close a key evidence gap to ensure a strong and comprehensive national picture of ASB incidents and interventions. These changes are long overdue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford raised the Young Futures programme. We are very clear that no single agency holds all the levers to tackle antisocial behaviour. We must work in a multi-agency way to reduce ASB and make communities safer. We are committed to intervening earlier to stop young people being drawn into crime. An essential part of achieving this will be the Young Futures programme, which will establish a network of Young Futures hubs and Young Futures prevention partnerships across England and Wales, to intervene earlier to ensure that vulnerable children are offered support in a more systematic way, as well as creating more opportunities for young people in their communities, through the provision of open access to, for example, mental health and careers support.
Police Accountability
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend. Neighbourhood policing has to be at the heart of restoring or rebuilding the confidence of communities in policing.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome much of what the Home Secretary has said. The police officers we are talking about, including Martyn Blake, are often deployed to protect local communities from violent criminal gang members, as he was doing. Does the Home Secretary agree that for a local MP to describe one such violent gang member as a “well-loved” member of the community, and for the Runnymede Trust to describe as unaccountable a police officer who was subject to a full court hearing and process undermines, rather than builds, community confidence?
Yvette Cooper
It is really important that we have the full confidence of communities in the police and the confidence of police to be able to do their jobs. Decisions on individual cases are rightly for independent organisations, whether that be the courts or the misconduct process, but those have to operate within a framework and it is our responsibility to make sure that the framework is right. It is currently not right and that is why we have set out the reforms within which those organisations need to take decisions.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson
It was a great pleasure to be on that visit with the local constituency MP. We will consider funding around the police settlement in the weeks and months ahead.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
A few days ago, the Home Office published a notice about the use of the Northeye detention centre in my constituency, telling residents very little except that no decision had been made. As a matter of urgency, will the Home Office publish what options it is considering for the centre’s use and commit to a timetable for telling residents when it will come to at least a provisional decision that I and my constituents can feed into?
Dame Angela Eagle
The site was purchased by the former Government. I understand the uncertainty that has been caused by this, especially in the local community, and they will want to know the Home Office plans for the site. A decision will be made on the use of the Northeye site at the earliest opportunity and I will keep the hon. Member informed.