Anti-social Behaviour: East of England

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) on securing this important debate this afternoon. Some antisocial behaviour problems can be extremely localised down a single street, in a block of flats or between neighbours, ruining the lives of individuals targeted but sometimes going unnoticed by the wider community.

In recent months, many constituents have written to me and asked for help in dealing with antisocial behaviour problems caused by their neighbours in housing association properties. Research found that those living in housing associations are up to 30% more likely to experience criminal or inconsiderate antisocial behaviour compared with those who own their own property. That sort of behaviour ruins lives, and when it is happening in the vicinity of our own homes, there is often no escape.

The situation is made even worse when the victim is vulnerable due to their age or a medical condition. Sadly, it is far too common for me to hear that housing associations responsible are failing to take this issue seriously. As I have said before in the House, it is clear that, as well as the police, housing associations must play a full role in dealing with antisocial behaviour. While I welcome the Government’s rhetoric on tackling the scourge within our communities, it remains to be seen whether their new respect orders will be fully utilised by housing association providers. From my experience, they are not always interested in hearing about antisocial behaviour problems in the first place.

Previously in the House, I was told that

“existing civil injunctions will be renamed as housing injunctions, which will deal with that more low-level antisocial behaviour between neighbours.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 799.]

The explanatory notes to the Crime and Policing Bill state that housing injunctions can be applied for in the same way as the previous civil injunctions. How exactly will renaming something that already exists help to deal with this type of behaviour in our communities, when my constituents are telling me that the current system does not go far enough? I look forward to clarification on that specific point from the Minister, when she winds up this debate.

What has been proven to cut antisocial behaviour is hotspot policing, and I am pleased to say that the fruits of this can be seen in my constituency of Broxbourne, thanks to the efforts of our fantastic police and crime commissioner, Jonathan Ash-Edwards, and our hard-working local police officers. In January alone, Waltham Cross saw more than 682 hours of additional police patrols being carried out, eight arrests were made, and two weapons were seized. That increased visibility is reassuring to residents and prevents crime before it actually occurs. In some hotspot areas in Hertfordshire, antisocial behaviour has been reduced by up to 50%, which I absolutely welcome.

Our constituents, whether they live in social housing or are simply using their local town centre, expect and deserve to feel safe. As the Minister knows, driving down antisocial behaviour is crucial to achieving that, and I will be watching the Government very closely to see whether they follow through on their promise.

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this debate on an issue of deep importance to our constituents. I start by acknowledging that Hertford and Stortford is a fantastic place to live, work and learn. My parents moved to Hertford in the late 1990s because they wanted the best start in life for me, and growing up I was lucky enough to benefit from the diverse offering of opportunity in our semi-rural community.

Our residents are deeply proud of our towns and villages and want our local area to thrive, but too often, instances of antisocial behaviour cause huge disruption to their lives and blight our communities. In the year ending March 2024, there were just over 2,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour in Hertford and Stortford. Those are not simply statistics. Each incident leaves residents who feel less secure on their way home from work, in our town centres, or even in their own home at night. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work being done by police in our community. I am pleased that tackling retail crime and antisocial behaviour in Sawbridgeworth is a priority for the police, with extra patrols and public appeals to identify perpetrators. Likewise, I welcome the use of regular speed checks on Hadham Road in Bishop’s Stortford to tackle antisocial and dangerous driving, with one driver issued with a traffic offence report after he was caught speeding at 54 mph in a 30 mph zone.

[Lewis Cocking]

Does the hon. Member agree that when police set up patrols to catch people who speed, the news quickly gets on to apps to tell people coming down the road that there is a policeman standing there with a speed gun? Does he think the Government should explore whether to ban apps that do that, so that we can catch people who speed on our roads?

[Josh Dean]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that interesting point, which I will certainly consider. It is important that we tackle antisocial driving and speeding. We have a specific incident spot on West Street in Hertford, where residents have been campaigning to deal with antisocial driving and speeding not just since I was a councillor there a year ago, but for the past 25 years. I am sure Members will not mind me pointing out that that is longer than I have been alive.

We know that antisocial behaviour takes many forms, often going hand in hand with crime, and that means that our police have to fight on multiple fronts, but they will always have my support when they take positive steps to tackle antisocial behaviour in our community. We know there is more to do, and I welcome this Labour Government’s commitment to cracking down on the antisocial behaviour that blights our communities, including through the tough new measures in the Crime and Policing Bill. Residents regularly disturbed by e-scooters and off-road bikes misused on our streets will welcome the removal of the requirement for police to issue a warning before seizing vehicles associated with antisocial behaviour.

Ours must also be a Government who tackle antisocial behaviour at its roots, so in the time I have remaining I shall talk about antisocial behaviour among young people. Too often in semi-rural communities like mine, young people are driven to antisocial behaviour by lack of provision and support. The famous image of the loitering youth only exists because there is so rarely anywhere else for them to go, such was the decimation of youth services under the watch of the previous Government for 14 years.

I pay tribute to the work of the charities and voluntary organisations filling gaps in youth services in our community, particularly the Thirst Youth Café in Bishop’s Stortford and FUTUREhope in Hertford, where I once volunteered. Their work not only deters young people from antisocial behaviour and the more serious crime it acts as a doorway to, but builds their confidence, so that they can find the path that is right for them and contribute positively to our community.

I warmly welcome the work that this Government are undertaking to introduce a network of Young Futures hubs to support young people’s development in communities like mine, to improve their mental health and wellbeing and to stop them from being drawn into a life of crime and antisocial behaviour. I am also encouraged by plans to develop a new national youth strategy to deliver better co-ordinated youth services at the local, regional and national levels, and to help all our young people to reach their full potential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald)—my Norfolk colleague—on securing this important debate.

Statistically, Norfolk is one of the safest counties in the whole country, but antisocial behaviour is still very much a concern county-wide, including in South West Norfolk. I am regularly reminded that statistics offer little comfort for those experiencing antisocial behaviour. Nationally, according to the crime survey for England and Wales, a record 24% of people believe that antisocial behaviour is very or fairly bad. I do not think it is unreasonable for people to expect to feel safe in their own communities and their own homes.

During the Conservatives’ 14 years in government, instead of delivering law and order, they did the exact opposite. They hollowed out neighbourhood policing and gutted and broke the criminal justice system, so that more than 90% of crimes now go unsolved.

[Lewis Cocking]

I remind the hon. Member that the last Conservative Government recruited 20,000 police officers across the country and the only force not to meet that target was the Metropolitan police under Labour mayor Sadiq Khan.

[Terry Jermy]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. In Norfolk, there were fewer serving police officers at the end of the last 14 years than there were at the start. We have made that point repeatedly.

Some 240 police community support officers were scrapped entirely and not replaced on a like-for-like basis. The then Conservative police and crime commissioner cut all police community support officers—Norfolk was the first force in the country to do so. As a former youth worker in the constituency and a long-time councillor, I saw the immediate impact of that decision. PCSOs were able to make connections with the community; they met councillors and residents’ associations, and collected and shared information where possible. In Thetford, the largest town in my constituency, there was a PCSO based in the main high school, who built a rapport with young people that paid dividends later on.

Labour’s mission in government is to restore trust in our justice system as a key pillar of our society, and that mission has begun. I am delighted that just yesterday the Home Secretary highlighted the pledge to provide 13,000 more neighbourhood police and community support officers, alongside an extra £200 million of funding in the next financial year.

I am very proud to be a Labour MP in a rural constituency, and I am particularly pleased that this Government are looking to deliver a new rural crime strategy. We need a fresh approach to tackling crime in rural areas. We must recognise that crime and antisocial behaviour is different in rural areas. Crimes such as hare coursing and livestock worrying are major issues in my constituency and of great concern to residents.

I pay tribute to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and its Freedom from Fear campaign, which seeks to prevent violence, threats and abuse against workers and protect them from antisocial and threatening behaviour by the public. I have spoken to staff in village shops across South West Norfolk who often work alone and in very remote areas. The abuse of retail workers is a huge concern to them. The Government understand the need for further protections and I was delighted that just yesterday, on Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill, the Home Secretary announced that we will introduce a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker.

I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the opportunities and the programme for delivery for rural communities in the east.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lewis Cocking]

The Minister mentions a multi-agency approach. I think the public get frustrated with us when we have meeting after meeting about the same issue. What assurances can she give us that this multi-agency approach will lead to action taken on the ground to solve some of this antisocial behaviour in our communities?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am very focused on delivery. Of course we want partner agencies to all be sitting around the table, but we want them to deliver, and that is why, for example, we are putting additional funding into neighbourhood policing, to ensure that there is a local presence. We are bringing in respect orders. We have introduced these new measures so that we can see what is working and where there may be problems that we need to address in a different way.

I want to mention shop theft, because a number of hon. Members also mentioned it. We know that it has a huge impact on town centres, where many small and independent businesses trade, and it is at record high levels and continues to increase at an unacceptable rate. In the last two years before the general election, shop theft went up by 60%, and more and more offenders are using violence and abuse against shopworkers. It is damaging business and hurting communities. It is vital that people feel safe in their local shops and in their local areas.

The police have given a commitment in the retail crime action plan to prioritise attendance where violence has been used towards shop staff, where an offender has been detained by store security, or where evidence needs to be secured by police personnel. Although retailers have indicated early positive outcomes, there is much more to do.

As set out in the Crime and Policing Bill, we will end the effective immunity, introduced by the previous Government, that was granted to the low-level shop theft of goods worth less than £200, to end the perception that those committing low-value shop theft will escape punishment.

We are also introducing the new offence of assaulting a retail worker, to protect the hard-working and dedicated staff who work in shops. Everybody has a right to feel safe at work. The new offence will carry a maximum prison sentence of six months and/or an unlimited fine. However, as a reflection of the need for us to take a tough stance, with meaningful criminal justice consequences, the offence will also come with a presumption that a court will apply a criminal behaviour order. This will prohibit the offender from doing anything described in the order, which might include a condition preventing specific acts that cause harassment, alarm or distress, or preventing an offender from visiting specific premises.

I also wanted to mention drugs. Tackling illegal drugs is key to delivering the Government’s mission to make our streets safer, halve knife crime, crack down on antisocial behaviour, and go after the gangs luring young people into violence and crime.

The issue of county lines was raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead. I say to him that there has been some really excellent work to try to smash county lines; it is work that this Government will continue and are committed to. Since July 2024, over 400 county lines have been closed and there have been hundreds of arrests, which is very positive.

In conclusion, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North for securing this debate today; I am grateful to her and to everyone who has contributed to it. Antisocial behaviour plagues the lives of all those it affects. It is a serious threat and under this Government it will be dealt with as such, in the east of England and everywhere else.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member makes an important point, because we have to do this work in co-ordination with other countries. Alongside the UK’s setting up the Border Security Command, France is setting up its new organised immigration crime unit and a new intelligence centre and is strengthening enforcement. Alongside the UK’s strengthening our law to be able to go after the preparatory supply chains used by the people smugglers, Germany is also committed, as part of our new agreement, to strengthen its laws so that it can take action against the warehouses that we know hold huge numbers of the flimsy boats that are then used to transport people across the channel, putting lives at risk. He is absolutely right that this has to be done in co-operation and co-ordination with other countries, because the best way to strengthen border security is to work in co-operation.

The National Crime Agency is also clear that some of the organisers are here in the UK, such as those who do the facilitation, organise the supply chains and organise and help plan some of the routes, the dropping-off points and the advertising. Some of them are based in the UK, so we need the powers to be able to go after them here. If we are asking France, Germany and other countries to do their bit to help go after the criminal gangs, we need to make sure we are doing our bit, too.

That is why, to be honest, I find it absolutely astonishing that the Conservatives are planning to vote against Second Reading and against the provisions we are putting forward. [Interruption.] There is no point doing, “Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, but”; the impact of the reasoned amendment from the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) is to refuse to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which puts forward counter-terrorism-style powers to go after the criminal people smugglers and traffickers who have undermined border security and put lives at risk. We have seen reasoned amendments from Reform and the Scottish National party, too, all wanting to oppose this Bill and the powers we need to go after the criminal gangs. Frankly, they should all explain why they want to let down the people of this country and stand up instead for the people smugglers and the traffickers who are putting lives at risk and undermining our border security. On the Government Benches, we believe we should go after those gangs, because theirs is a vile and illegal trade.

The Bill also strengthens intelligence gathering and intelligence sharing to tackle organised immigration crime. It will make it easier for customs data to be shared with the Home Office and police and provides for data held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency on UK-registered trailers to be shared with law enforcement in real time. The House will remember the terrible case where 39 people died in the back of a trailer in Essex. The Bill will help detect attempts to smuggle people or goods into the country illegally via lorry. It will also provide for biometric checks to be taken more easily in different locations, including from Scottish ports and evacuation routes.

Importantly, the Bill also restores order to the asylum system by putting an end to some of the failed gimmicks and unworkable mess that the previous Government left us. That includes sorting out the chaos created by the unworkable and contradictory provisions in the Illegal Migration Act 2023, most of which are so unworkable that Conservative Ministers never commenced or implemented them. Some 34 major clauses were passed by this House but never commenced, because Ministers knew they would not work. Sixteen more were commenced, but never operationalised, because they were simply unworkable. The chaotic combination of section 9 and section 2 meant that anyone who arrived could claim asylum, get asylum support and get put up in an asylum hotel, but the Home Office could never take a decision on their case, so they would have to stay forever—an asylum Hotel California which people never leave, while the backlog soars and the taxpayer foots the bill.

We are repealing many of those chaotic, gimmicky and broken laws, including the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, which will allow us to withdraw from the UK-Rwanda treaty that would otherwise have cost us hundreds of millions of pounds more for an unworkable scheme.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The Home Secretary mentions asylum hotels. The Government have actually opened more asylum hotels since they have been in office. Can she give us a date when she will have met her manifesto commitment to close the last asylum hotel?

[Yvette Cooper]

I would just point out to the hon. Member that his party’s previous Government opened 400 hotels. This Government have already cut the cost of asylum accommodation substantially, and we continue to do so. We have also had to start clearing the backlog that was created by the previous Government collapsing asylum decisions in the run-up to the election, creating total chaos.

The Bill is about restoring order to the immigration and asylum system and rebuilding our border security. Immigration has always been important to the UK, but that is why it should be controlled and managed so that the system is fair. Our country will always do our bit to help those who have fled persecution and conflict, but the system needs grip and control, not gimmicks and false promises. Unlike our predecessors, we will not claim that there is a single fantasy gimmick that will solve the serious challenges. The gangs have been allowed to take hold for six years, so it will take time to loosen that grip and smash the networks that lie behind them, but there is no alternative to the hard graft of going after those gang networks, which have been getting away with this for far too long. Nor is there an alternative to working with international partners on this international crime, building new alliances against organised criminals—not just standing on the shoreline shouting at the sea.

If all the other parties are serious about tackling the criminal gangs that undermine our border security and put lives at risk, if they are serious about tackling crime, if they are serious about tackling criminals, and if they are serious about protecting our borders, they will support the Bill. The gangs do not care about borders, or whether the people they exploit live or die, but we have a responsibility to the British people, who rightly expect our borders to be secure, to go after the criminal gangs that are undermining them. We have a moral duty to prevent further tragedies, and stop the gangs that undermine border security and put lives at risk. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

We must bring migration numbers down. They have simply been far too high for far too long. My constituents say that to me loud and clear, and I completely agree with them. Unfortunately, despite the Home Secretary’s words, I am not convinced that the Bill will go far enough. The Government have ignored the National Crime Agency, which has stated that a deterrent is essential to prevent small boat crossings. They are now repealing the legal basis of the deterrent that the last Government introduced, ignoring the fact that there has been a 30% rise in small boat crossings since they took office.

The Government are ignoring their own Back Benchers, who just last week were calling for a stronger stance on immigration, by repealing the laws introduced by the previous Government to toughen up the system. The Illegal Migration Act 2023 placed a duty on the Secretary of State to remove illegal migrants to their home country or a safe third country and ensured that those entering this country illegally would never be eligible for British citizenships. No ifs, no buts: someone entering the UK illegally should never be able to claim citizenship. British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. What message does repealing those measures send to our constituents or those considering the dangerous crossing? Frankly, it shows that if someone manages to get to the UK illegally, this Labour Government will let them stay for good.

I fully support what the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has set out this afternoon and support the Conservative amendment. Citizenship and permanent residency should not be handed out freely. The ability to access that status should be heavily restricted. It must not be available to those who have a criminal record, have claimed benefits or have accessed social housing. We must be clear that individuals who enter the country illegally should never be granted indefinite leave to remain or citizenship, and I am disappointed that the Bill does the exact opposite.

Clauses 1 to 12 provide a framework to enable Border Security Command to fulfil its role as an effective border security system and set out that the commander must minimise threats to our border security. The commander has been in place since September—what has this new organisation been doing in that time? It certainly has not tackled the threats to our border security; as I have said, small boat crossings are up by 30% since July.

My constituents want to see immigration, both legal and illegal, under control. As their MP, I will vote for measures that reduce net migration numbers to avoid the situation recently forecast by the Office for National Statistics. This Bill fails to do that.

Asylum Seeker Hotel Accommodation: Reopening

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jack Rankin]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention; I am sure the Minister takes note of his questions. My view is that yes, the public simply deserve transparency on this issue. The men individually cannot really be blamed; they are acting, arguably, in their own best interests, but we, collectively, are the fools for putting a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow—we need to remove it.

Ultimately, to stop the use of asylum hotels we need to stop the boats, and there is only one way to do that—deterrent, deterrent, deterrent. Nobody who comes to this country illegally should be able to claim asylum. France is a safe country. They should be arrested immediately and deported within days to their country of origin or a safe third country. With the correct political will, it really is as simple as that, but Labour scrapped the deterrent before it could even begin.

Instead we have an incentive system that, at every step, encourages illegal economic migrants to chance their arm. For example, smuggling gangs know that they can equip migrants with unseaworthy vessels because they know they will be picked up by the British authorities before they sink. Migrants know that once they land, armies of lawyers and campaign groups will fight to keep them here while they are housed in hotels and given an allowance for the trouble. The latest data shows that a staggering 66% of those arriving on small boats are granted asylum. We have a system that works against the interests of the British people.

The Labour Government say they want to smash the gangs and end the backlog by recruiting caseworkers, but without deterrents those commitments are meaningless—the flow will continue. The Minister admitted—in my view—the futility of smashing the gangs when she described it as playing whack-a-mole. The Conservatives spent years trying to do the same, and although we made progress on cutting crossings from Albania—note, with deportation—the wider problem remained. Repeating the same exercise and expecting a different result is madness.

While the initial cost of housing is funded nationally, when that asylum is granted that cost—in my understanding—falls on the local authority. Could it not be the case that the extra caseworkers provided by the Government will simply be rubber-stamping asylum claims to cut the backlog, but then simply transferring the cost to another one of the taxpayer’s pockets through social housing benefits and the welfare state? Increased processing simply means more asylum cases granted, and pushed and smeared into the welfare state. One of my local councils, the Lib Dem-run royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, has recently asked to increase council tax by 25%; how can it be expected to find extra resource for 85 illegal economic migrants entering our welfare system?

In the main Chamber, the Minister celebrated processing 11,000 decisions a month. The approval rate last year was 52%, which could mean as many as 66,000 illegal economic migrants granted asylum and entering our welfare system every year.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a local councillor. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we have more people processing these claims, and we process these claims even quicker, more people will come? That is actually a pull factor, because they can get through the system much more quickly than they have been.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. My comments today need to be viewed in the context of my interest as a local councillor.

My constituents in Broxbourne have borne the brunt of this policy in recent years. I hear loud and clear on the doorstep how angry they feel. The Home Office took control of the Marriott hotel in Cheshunt in 2022. It was just one of three hotels in my constituency at the time. In my general election campaign, I said I would fight daily to ensure that the hotel was closed to asylum seekers; and when I was leader of Broxbourne council, I fought tooth and nail to prevent another two sites within my constituency being used as asylum accommodation. The hotel in Cheshunt has since supported one of the highest numbers of asylum seekers in the east of England, while Hertfordshire as a whole was the individual council with the most hotels housing asylum seekers in 2023.

The situation we are discussing is plainly unsustainable, with millions of pounds a day being spent on these hotels across the country. My constituents have been feeling the impact on already overstretched public services. You cannot get your child into the school you want and you have to wait longer to see a GP locally.

I welcomed the actions that the last Government took to reduce reliance on asylum hotels, but there is no getting around the fact that my party made mistakes. However, it is definitely getting worse under this new Labour Government. Ultimately, it is only by deterring people from coming to the UK illegally in the first place that we will be able to get a grip on the asylum system and the immigration system. The Labour manifesto promised to end the use of hotels for asylum seekers, but the Government have been more focused on delivering promises that were not in their manifesto: increasing national insurance on business, imposing the family farm tax and stripping winter fuel payments from pensioners.

I am seriously disappointed that, in January 2025, we are discussing the reopening of hotels for asylum seeker accommodation. There were 35,651 people in hotel accommodation at the end of September, up 21% from the end of June 2024. That is a 21% increase since Labour was elected on a manifesto commitment to end the use of asylum hotels. The downward trend that was started by the last Government has been reversed, and since the general election, 14 more hotels have been taken over for the purpose. Hotels were supposed to be a temporary measure, but they are starting to feel anything but temporary to my residents in Broxbourne. The Minister has said that nine hotels are scheduled to close by March, but I have my doubts that the Government will meet that commitment.

The Government have failed to take the necessary steps to deter the number of asylum seekers coming to this country illegally in the first place. Small boat crossings are up since July, and so are the number of cases awaiting a decision in the asylum backlog. I urge the Minister to put the words “smash the gangs” into action by getting a proper deterrent in place, ensuring that every failed asylum seeker is removed, closing all the asylum hotels and significantly cutting immigration.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I should have said before the previous speaker that if Members wish to speak, they need to bob.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) on securing it and thank all Members who have contributed.

I remind hon. Members of the strained asylum system that this Government inherited. Listening to all the contributions, I had to pinch myself and think about the reality: we had 14 years in opposition; we have had six months, getting on for perhaps seven, in government—yet everything is somehow our fault. There was a slight nod in some of the contributions, including those of the hon. Members for Windsor and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), towards the mistakes that were made in the running of the asylum system during the past 14 years. Mistakes certainly were made, and they leave legacies: messes to clear up and difficult things to do.

We inherited a system with massive backlogs. There was an attempt to introduce a completely different system, the so-called Rwanda deterrent and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which distracted the Government from the day job, as I have called it. Because of the design of the Illegal Migration Act, we also had a huge build-up of those who had arrived in the system from March 2023, when the switch was meant to be being arranged. They were put in hotels with absolutely nowhere to go, with no prospect of having their claims looked at and awaiting a theoretical trip to Rwanda. No trip ever happened.

To those who say that the Rwanda scheme was a deterrent, I gently point out that from when it was first announced in the Bill to when it was scrapped, 84,000 people crossed the channel in small boats. If that is a deterrent, it is a very peculiar one. Deterrence is difficult to achieve when people are desperate. We have to look to see whether that worked, and I do not think it did. It led to a huge build-up. The hon. Member for Stockton West hinted at that when he pointed out that the previous Government had more than 400 hotels open at one point. That was because of the build-up in the old system and the build-up in the new system. In the old system, people were in huge queues. With the new system, the previous Government’s idea was that they would not even process any of them: they would just hold them in hotels until the new system was up and running. In essence there were two backlogs.

The previous Government then decided that they would make a massive attempt to clear what they called the legacy backlog: the people who arrived before the Rwanda scheme was designed and announced. They did that for first asylum decisions in 2023. Those who were granted asylum left the system, and many ended up homeless, but those who were not granted asylum appealed. Those who were not granted asylum in that gallop to deal with the legacy backlog are still in the appeals system. The number of people in the appeals system doubled as a result of the previous Government’s work on the legacy backlog. We then had the legacy backlog dealt with at first hearing, with half of those cases going into the appeals system, and a growing number of asylum seekers who had arrived after March 2023, with no prospect of being dealt with at all, just filling hotels. That is why the previous Government had more than 400 hotels.

We can disagree about whether the Rwanda scheme would have worked. Personally, I do not think it was a deterrent—that so many people crossed the channel while it was in prospect demonstrates that it was not a deterrent. It also cost a great deal of money: the National Audit Office said that the payments the Government agreed to make to people who were going to be deported to Rwanda amounted to around £156,000 per person over five years. In theory, they were going to deport 250 people a week. I do not think that was realistic or that it was ever going to be deliverable. Opposition Members are entitled to a different view, but the view of the Government is that the scheme was not going to work.

We are dealing with an issue with no easy answers. There are international agreements that we have signed up to, including the refugee conventions that give protection to people who are fleeing danger and were put into place after the second world war. We are now in an era where we have more people on the move because of events around the world than we have had since the second world war, which has put pressure on the asylum systems of all countries.

There are asylum seekers and there are economic migrants. When listening to the hon. Member for Windsor’s contribution, I was a bit distressed that he did not distinguish between the two; he seemed to think that everyone who arrives is automatically an economic migrant who ought to be deported. That is his view, but it is not the view of the law. The previous Government, under his party, had a system that tried to see whether people who were claiming asylum were actually asylum seekers or were failed asylum seekers—there is a difference.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister outline her Government’s policy and what she is going to do? She has given us a history lesson on what has happened, but what are the Labour Government going to do moving forward? Can she give us a date for when they are going to meet their manifesto commitment to close the last asylum hotel?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am happy to go on to what we are doing, but the legacy that one inherits is important and has to be taken into account when thinking about how we deliver for the future. We said that the Rwanda scheme was not going to work and that we would restart asylum processing. We also said we were going to set up the Border Security Command, which has been done. Opposition Members will know that there is legislation pending on border security and asylum, which hopefully will come before the House in the not-too-distant future. It has taken shape, but it is going through various processes to get agreement on when we can publish and introduce it.

Given the concern of Members in this Chamber, I hope they will attempt to engage positively with the new Bill when it is published, so that we can get the Border Security Command up and running as quickly as possible with the correct powers, including counter-terrorism powers. That will allow us to take more effective action to start dismantling and disrupting the activities of the smuggler gangs. In the last few years we have seen them be allowed to grow across the channel, becoming increasingly sophisticated and industrialising their processes. I hope all Members will agree that we have a duty to take action. We want to restore order to the asylum system so that it operates compassionately and efficiently. That will enable us to exit hotels and bring down the cost of the asylum system by billions of pounds.

Let me address the motion specifically. The strain on the system has necessitated the continued use of hotels in the medium term to enable the Home Office to deliver its statutory responsibilities to house asylum seekers while their claims are looked at. Of course, the more efficiently and effectively we can look at the claims, the less trouble we will have trying to house people—as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) said. I disagree with her comments about the right to work. There are legal ways of trying to get into this country with a right to work that are processed through the visa system. We cannot have people getting around that by coming illegally and then having the right to work. That would be a huge pull factor that we simply do not want to countenance. She and I will disagree about it, but that is the Government’s view.

Since the general election, nine hotels have closed. Fifteen hotels were opened temporarily, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Windsor for the speed with which that had to be done. It is not ideal and I would not want to be in that position again. I have asked Home Office officials to be more open and transparent, as far ahead of time as possible, to try to give warning. We do not want any nasty surprises, but the hon. Gentleman had one. I have apologised for that—

Migration and Border Security

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We have been working with other European countries. We have a new agreement in place with Italy to go after the illicit finance that underpins many of the criminal gangs. The work that Prime Minister Meloni has done already has helped to significantly reduce Mediterranean crossings. We are working with Italy, and we think that work is important.

We are also working with Germany on supply chains and with Bulgaria on supply chains, including on how boats and engines are being moved across Europe. We are of course working with France on tackling the organised gangs, including some of the Iraqi-Kurdish gangs operating in northern France, so that we can pursue those gang networks to prevent dangerous crossings.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The asylum hotel in Cheshunt in my constituency is already putting pressure on strained public services, including local GP surgeries. The Government’s manifesto committed to closing asylum hotels. Can I ask the Secretary of State when she will honour that promise, or will the list of broken promises to the British people get longer?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are determined to clear the backlog so that we can end asylum hotels. In 2019, there were no asylum hotels, so it was the previous Government who increased and opened about 400 of them. There are still around 220 asylum hotels in place.

We have had to deal with the shocking crashing of the asylum system. Just before the election, the previous Government effectively stopped a whole load of caseworkers from making decisions on asylum cases and pushed the backlog up—we also had to clear that over the summer. That means that we can make progress on bringing the backlog down, so that we can start to clear hotels and ensure that we save money for the taxpayer. We have already saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds this year.

Respect Orders and Antisocial Behaviour

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

There are many right hon. and hon. Members who are pitching for their constituencies to be one of the pilots, and I will certainly add Reading to the list.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Antisocial behaviour affects all our constituencies, including my constituency of Broxbourne. Some antisocial behaviour can be very localised—down a specific street, in a block of flats or between neighbours—and some of the levers to solve that antisocial behaviour lie with housing associations. Will the Minister outline how we can bring housing associations to the table? They will play a key role in solving and tackling antisocial behaviour.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As I said in my remarks, housing associations and social housing providers will be able to apply for respect orders. I ought to say, as well, that the existing civil injunctions will be renamed as housing injunctions, which will deal with that more low-level antisocial behaviour between neighbours. Housing associations might want to use those as well, but they will be able to use both respect orders and housing injunctions.