Antisocial Behaviour

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler.

There were 3,707 reported cases of antisocial behaviour in York over the last year, out of 14,500 reported offences—shoplifting comes in at about 1,700. It is a serious issue in my constituency, as my community organising over the summer has shown. It includes young people using e-bikes, shoplifting, and groups of young people just gathering with nothing to do.

We need to talk about not just addressing the issue but preventing it. That is where I want to focus Ministers’ attention. Our youth services were decimated in 2011, and we are paying a heavy price for that. Cash-strapped local authorities struggle to meet their statutory responsibilities, let alone provide those essential services on top.

If we invest early, we can see incredible results. York youth partnership is working in a multi-agency way to address the issues that young people face. We are getting youth hubs from the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Government are putting money into bringing people into a different space after offending, but I want prevention to be at the heart of our approach. When I talk to the police, they say it is a job for the local authority; when I talk to people in the local authority, they say it is somebody else’s work. We need to put the investment in. I want to see our local authority working with the police on reformulating all these services.

Whether they are covered by the DWP, falling out of education or causing antisocial behaviour on our streets, these young people are the same young people. We need a formulation that will bring all of them into a productive space, giving them opportunities for the future.

Immigration: Earned Settlement

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am already reviewing the way in which the sponsorship register works and the conditions required of companies before they can sponsor workers coming into this country, and I will report to the House on that.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will read the detail in the consultation, but I am concerned about retrospective changes because our word should be our bond to people coming here. Also, in an economy where skills and contribution do not correlate with wages, I find the Home Secretary’s proposals prejudicial on that basis. Will she look at that again in the light of the consultation, so that we can put fairness at the heart of this?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I disagree with my hon. Friend, as she knows from my statement today, which has listened to the consultation responses in detail. As I have set out in answer to other hon. Members, the position for settlement applications is that the rules apply at the point at which the decision is made, not when someone has come into the country. That has been settled law and settled policy for a very long time, and it will not change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I was pleased to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency last week, where I saw for myself the struggles that those rough sleepers are having. We are trying to go through the piece of work to update the creaking infrastructure that was left to us by the last Government. I have certainly taken that issue away.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am concerned that recorded crime figures in York Central reached an 11-year high this summer. About a third of those were antisocial behaviour offences, and retail crime reached its highest level, with around 15,000 offences in August alone. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that places like York are properly funded and have all the resources that they need to tackle crime so that we can get on top of this rising level of offending?

[Sarah Jones]

We are increasing funding and putting more neighbourhood police into our communities. I have seen some really good examples of town centres where retail crime has plummeted because the police and retail are working together to target persistent offenders. We are also looking at introducing a new pilot on persistent offending. I would be happy to talk to her more about that.

Immigration and Asylum Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have been far too generous, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will plough on, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right: the way to make sure that the interpretation of international human rights law is in line with what the general public would expect and with the original intention of the drafters is to work with our international colleagues—not to rip up human rights law and give up on it, but to make sure it is fit for purpose.

Just as article 8 has been exploited by those facing legitimate removal from our country, so has our modern slavery system. Human trafficking is an abhorrent crime, and we will always provide the support victims need, especially vulnerable children. For that reason, the Bill strengthens a number of those protections, especially by placing child trafficking guardians on a statutory footing and making sure that modern slavery decisions about children are devolved to local authorities, so that those closest to the child—those best placed to make decisions about the support they need—make those decisions properly. We are also strengthening slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders, ensuring that law enforcement can restrict offenders’ movements and work. Clauses 44 to 49 raise the standards for businesses and public bodies. They must report on their actions to identify and tackle abuse in their supply chains, or face potential fines of up to £1 million.

However, we know that we must also address the growing misuse and abuse of those protections. In 2025, modern slavery claims by arrivals on small boats reached an all-time high. Over half now relate to alleged exploitation overseas, rather than here in the United Kingdom, and claims are increasingly being used to frustrate legitimate removals from this country. Last year, over a third of charter flight returns failed to go ahead because of a modern slavery referral lodged at the last minute. Foreign criminals have seen the opportunity—in recent years, last-minute claims have been made by a convicted rapist, a gangster jailed for possession of a firearm, and an attempted murderer. In every case, those claims successfully delayed their removal from this country.

For that reason, part 5 of the Bill introduces measures to address abuse in the system. In particular, we make it clear that anyone who poses a threat to public order or national security will not receive modern slavery protection and support. This includes any foreign national who has received a custodial sentence, including if that sentence was suspended. In clause 36, we make clear that delayed disclosures have a damaging effect on a person’s credibility unless there are good reasons. By doing so, we further reduce the incentive to make claims as late as possible.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will not, because Madam Deputy Speaker wishes me to wind up quickly.

In clause 37, we close another significant loophole. As it stands, those whose claims turn out to be unfounded can continue to receive taxpayer-funded support for a 30-day recovery period. The Bill will ensure that we stop providing protection for those who we know do not need it.

This Government are committed to the protections provided by human rights law, but those protections must be applied fairly. That means ensuring that they are always given to those who are truly in need, and it means ending the abuse that runs contrary to their spirit and intention. The measures in the Bill are realistic and proportionate, and are designed to protect those who are genuinely deserving while bearing down on abuse that erodes public support for the very existence of such protections.

A fair asylum system is one in which claims are heard fast and fairly, and where protections are upheld for those who need them, but not for those who seek to abuse them. It is one in which we provide support, but expect that those who are in a position to contribute do so. Every day, we ask our constituents to bear the burden of funding our asylum system. As that asylum system has spiralled out of control, the weight on their shoulders has grown. That is not fair, and it was also never foreseen; the original drafters of the refugee convention could never have imagined that the British people would spend billions each year on asylum support. To continue their legacy—providing protection to those in need while retaining public support—we need to adapt to our new reality. We need a fair way of addressing the challenges of the world as it is.

To that end, part 4 of the Bill creates a new contributory principle within our asylum regime. It does so through clause 23, by introducing a power that requires those who have received taxpayer-funded support to pay back a portion when they can. This measure reflects a principle that most people would recognise as fair: once you are able to contribute, you should.

Refugees have immediate access to the labour market and housing, and many go on to work, build successful lives and contribute enormously to our society. Payments under our new system will be proportionate and made over time; no one will be asked to contribute more than they can afford, but payments will not be optional for those who can make them, and those who have received support but have been removed from the country will not be able to return until their debt is repaid. There are some to whom this will not apply, including children and anyone who came to this country via a safe and legal route. Clause 23 of the Bill introduces this new power; however, the precise design of the payment programme will be set out in draft regulations, which I will share with the House during the Bill’s passage through Parliament. There will be ample opportunity for full parliamentary scrutiny of these changes.

That brings me to the end of the Bill. It must be read in the light of the inheritance that this Government received—borders out of control, an asylum system in crisis, and a burden placed on the British people that was simply too great. This country has long provided support to those fleeing war and persecution, and proudly so, but the chaos that the Conservative party left behind has eroded public trust in our asylum system. This Government have already done much to restore order at our borders, but there is more to do. That is the goal of this Bill: to ensure that decisions and appeals are fast and fair; to provide protection to genuine refugees; to offer protections under human rights laws for those who are in genuine need, while closing loopholes that have too often been abused; and to ensure that the generosity of the British people is not forgotten, and that people can contribute when they are in a position to do so. This is a Bill that will provide fairness for genuine refugees, but also fairness for local communities, thereby making sure that we secure our asylum system for generations to come.

Asylum Accommodation

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

Having visited such hotels, I recognise that they are not as advertised—or distorted—by others. The ultimate distorters are the human traffickers, for whom it is a significant upside to say not only that the conditions are good, but that it is easy to work illegally from the hotels. We must change that reality. I am concerned, as all colleagues would be, about the public conversation on this issue, and the risk that vulnerable people and their neighbours often face. We are never far away from challenge in that space, but it is incumbent on us to ensure that we do not play into that rhetoric. On the case that the hon. Member raises, every case will always be heard individually and on its merits. I cannot promise to intercede in that case, but I will ensure that the system handles it properly.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

This decision looks like the politics of the past, not the future; a decision made in Whitehall, not in our communities. In 2022, RAF Linton-on-Ouse was deemed unsuitable as a site, because the drainage and sewage system would need major restoration, there would need to be an upgrade in the power capacity, and there are no amenities near the site—and the site has deteriorated further since that decision. The inadequacy of public transport, and other forms of transport there, also stands out.

In my human rights city, we rejected the proposal last time, and we worked cross-party in order to put forward that case. People from Linton-on-Ouse contacted me over the weekend, restating those reasons for rejection. Will the Minister listen to local residents and local authorities? City of York council, which I spoke to this afternoon, has said that it has not been offered any resources, planning or engagement regarding the decision, yet Linton-on-Ouse faces York and there would be major implications for the city. Will the Minister ditch this plan, work with MPs and find an alternative way forward?

[Alex Norris]

I am well aware of York’s status as a city of sanctuary—[Interruption.]—or as a human rights city, forgive me. I always want to work with the people of York to ensure that asylum seekers are humanely housed. Nevertheless, the challenge today is that we have around 100,000 people in the supported population and 170 hotels, give or take. We have to change that reality. There are limited options. I believe that this is the best way forward, but I know from what my hon. Friend and others have said that it is incumbent on us to show that we can deliver it in a way that is respectful of the local community. That is what we are seeking to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is a bit behind the times; we have already announced that we are reforming that formula.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

T9. Academics, professionals and environmentalists have experienced dozens of arrests and yet no charges have been upheld. At a recent vigil for the trees, there were more police than protesters. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the over-policing of my constituents, who are literally standing up for nature, and ensure that we see off these draconian Tory policies, which over-egg the policing needed for environmentalists?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question—[Interruption.] The right to peaceful protest and public assembly is one that we must protect, but it must be balanced with the need to maintain public order and keep the public safe. Perhaps she could write to me with further detail. If she wants to have a meeting to talk about it, I would be very happy to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that under this Government, removals have now reached 60,000. That is up by 31% on our predecessors, so I cannot accept the argument that we are not removing people at pace and at scale. The routes by which people come generally depend on which country they come from and how likely they are to have their claim accepted.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituent was just 13 months old when she came to this country. As a teenager, she was taken into care. She was then groomed and exploited in county lines and is now serving time in prison. Why are this Government deporting her, when she has only known this country? Will they instead look at giving her proper rehabilitation and getting her life back on track?

[Alex Norris]

The Secretary of State has a strict legal liability to remove anybody who gets a sentence of a year or more and, from today, anyone who gets a suspended sentence of a year or more. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has raised an important case. If she sends the details, I will look at it closely.

Immigration Reforms

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing the debate.

I have to say to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes): I do not know who he thinks is working in our NHS and in our care sector, providing the skills, or who he thinks the engineers are who are coming here and building our houses in order to support our economy, but we certainly need immigration to support our economy and public services, which have been so severely under-invested in over the past 14 years.

We know our world is challenged. It is stretched and stressed, as we have seen with climate change displacing communities and war springing from that. We are seeing floods and famine across our planet, and as a result people are moving so that they can experience some dignity in their life. Some people come to our shores because they want dignity, and I have to say to the Government that the dehumanisation of fellow citizens of our planet is a complete disgrace and it is not in my name, and it is not in the values of our party.

Our party was built on solidarity between communities. The responsibility of a Labour Government is to bring those communities together, as we always have in our tradition, through the trade unions and through our party, to ensure that we are investing in those communities and bringing fantastic integration, as we are seeing in York, where we recognise the dignity in one another and bring it to the fore. The Government seem to have lost their way, and as a result they are losing support. They have certainly lost their beating heart, which must be re-found.

The draconian policies that are coming out of the Home Office are deeply damaging to our party and our future, as well as to our country, and I plead with the Government to change course. We know that Reform is not interested in the agenda—Reform Members just want power and have not even turned up for this debate today, so why follow them? Why not put a different stake in the ground with a different tune, which talks of different values—the values that we hold deep, the values that we place in those people, including the care workers who are serving our parents’ generation to ensure that they have dignity in later life? I say to the Government: change course.

Change course, as well, on our universities. The policies that have been brought forward for our universities are forcing them into financial ruin. International students have choices, and they used to choose to come to British universities; they are now going overseas. I know from the two universities in my constituency the consequences of the policy. Remove the international student levy, which they should not be paying, and remove the NHS surcharge, which clinicians revile. Ensure that instead we give universities the opportunity to be more inclusive and to have more home students, which the policy clearly rails against.

We have heard about already in this debate the impact of leaving the EU on migration levels. We need to recognise the risk-sharing opportunities of working with our European colleagues in a much more cohesive and comprehensive way. We used to be under the Dublin agreement, and we knew the rules. Since leaving the EU, we have not been part of that expression and working together with other countries. We cannot do this on our own, and we have seen the consequences of that. As imperfect as the asylum and migration management regulations are, at least they put risk-sharing at the heart of the agenda. We should be part of that too.

Town and City Centre Safety

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing the debate. York may have a purple flag, but the feeling of security is certainly not spread across my community. There are particular areas of crime where we have great concerns, such as bike and shop theft—I welcome the measures that the Government are taking on that—and personal safety across our city.

We have already heard about the challenges people face with substance misuse. We have to drive that public health model to ensure that there are safe places people can use, and that they get the help and public health support that they need. We also need to go upstream and ensure that we are addressing the waves of county lines, which come into the city of York and cause much disturbance. We must ensure that we have early intervention and a seamless approach to youth services in our city. I called two meetings—

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a great speech, outlining the need for more youth services. In Darlington, I have called for the council to apply a public spaces protection order, which would allow them to remove balaclava-wearing people who commit anti-social behaviour. We are seeing an escalation in such activity from young people, who are trying to be “the big man” in the town and wearing balaclavas to hide their identity from the police. What is her view on that?

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she is doing in Darlington. Clearly, PSPOs can be used in a really powerful way to create safer spaces in our town and city centres.

I called two meetings in York, one for the night-time economy in the city and one for the daytime economy, because they operate in very different ways. I called together all the agencies involved to examine, first, where the strategies for the two economies can be co-ordinated and come together, and, secondly, the specific issues for each economy.

The issue that came to the fore was CCTV and ensuring that there is a proper strategy for it, including making sure that cameras are switched on, are in the right places and are of the right resolution, so that we can identify crime. I am working with agencies across our city to ensure that we have proper CCTV protection. I am also looking at how we can ensure there is co-ordination across the different agencies that work in our city, which is really important.

However, the words that come to the fore so often are that we need more bobbies on the beat. We need more police on our streets, and there is also an issue with the funding formula for policing. When I spoke to our deputy mayor for police and crime, they highlighted the real challenges in areas such as North Yorkshire, which is a huge rural area with crime hotspots in our urban spaces. I ask the Minister to look at that funding formula again.

Let me briefly mention Unite’s important campaign, Get Me Home Safely—I declare my interest as regards Unite. We need to ensure that our taxis are safer. I want to ask the Minister what has happened since Casey’s recommendation on changing taxi licensing regimes. We operate a safe taxi licensing process in York. We want to ensure that there is such a process in the city, and that we have the resources to control and monitor it. Will she also consider how we can protect our transport staff? I know that the RMT has campaigned hard for that, because it is so important.

In closing, I thank all the agencies that keep our city safe.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. My word is my bond, and when we break our word we break our bond—not just with those people who have trusted our country, given up their lives and come to serve us, but across society as a whole. It is a particular challenge at this time, so we have to build trust. That starts with how we respond to this White Paper.

The problem at the heart of the White Paper is the wrong diagnosis and the wrong prescription. Prescribing the wrong medicine makes a patient sicker, and that is exactly what will happen. We have a serious skill shortage across our country. Our health and care systems are creaking. We cannot get the right care in the right place at the right time. For our children, we need teaching in our schools, we need a generation’s worth of houses built and we need infrastructure across the country. If we put skills at risk and create insecurity, our economy will not function, our public services will continue to crumble and our society will be worse off, causing more pain across those communities that desperately look to Labour to find solutions.

I therefore say to the Government that the only place where this policy belongs is in the bin. It has completely misread what the country is saying. Having gone through the detail—I will be putting in a submission to the consultation—around the earned settlement, I have to say that it is gendered. It is built on a premise that we know to be biased against women. It is built on the patriarchal belief that someone with higher pay or status is worth more. Instead, we should be thinking about justice and fairness for everyone, no matter how much someone earns or what language they speak—of course, the report does not once mention our second English language, British Sign Language. It should not matter what contribution someone makes. For some disabled people who come here, just being is being part of our communities. Of course, the paper then gets into the prejudicial rhetoric around recourse to public funds. We must be a country that shows our standards, compassion and morals, and this paper certainly fails on each of those criteria.

In response to this paper, I say to my constituents that my word is my bond. If these proposals progress, I will vote against the Government and ensure that many of my colleagues join me in the Lobby, because this is not a Labour policy.