Town Centre Safety
Debate between Nigel Evans and Tom Hunt(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The town centre has become one of the dominant issues in Ipswich. When I talk to constituents, it comes up perhaps more than any other issue, particularly over the past year or two. In the time that I have been the MP, there have been a few tragic cases. A few months after I was elected, my constituent Richard Day was killed on St Matthew’s Street. Early this year, a teenager was killed in a knife attack in broad daylight on Westgate Street. That had a chilling effect throughout the town. Just a few days ago, at the Clapgate Lane Conservative Club, an attacker held a knife to the throat of one of my constituents. I have written to those at the club and will be visiting it soon to discuss how they are recovering from that incident, which was very chilling.
The thing about the town centre is that some of the most inspiring people I have met in Ipswich have been in town centre businesses. Just this Monday, before travelling to Parliament, I visited Miss Quirky Kicks, which has relocated in Ipswich and has a new café-bar—if anybody in Ipswich is listening and wants to go, I suggest that they do. There is also Geek Retreat Ipswich, which of course is part of a national franchise but is actually pretty decentralised. Geek Retreat Ipswich does fantastic work. It had its two-year anniversary recently. Its work to support neurodiverse individuals in particular should be commended.
As the Member of Parliament for an area that has a great history and a town centre with inspirational businesses, but which faces challenges, it is sometimes difficult to get the balance right between representing the concerns of my constituents and not talking the town down. That is a difficult balancing act, and although I do my best to get it right, some people might think that I do not always get it right. I cannot pretend that things are a bed of roses, because I think my constituents would look at me and wonder if I was on something, so I have to speak frankly and directly about the challenges as I see them.
When I knock on doors at the moment, I hear the reality that a lot of Ipswich residents who have lived in the town their whole lives are shunning their own town centre; they are going to Bury St Edmunds, Woodbridge and other areas. That is a problem, and there are many reasons for it. Some of the things that affect our town centre affect town and city centres up and down the country, and they are not easy to tackle: the growth of online retail; empty units; business rates, which need further reform; and, of course, the Labour council’s car-parking charge, which, according to my recent survey, 76% of people think are too high—I am just dropping that one in there.
Safety and crime is probably the No. 1 issue. The reality is that large numbers of my constituents do not go into the town centre because they do not feel safe and secure doing so. On that point, we have had shared prosperity funding to increase the number of PCSOs in the town centre during daylight hours, we have had safer streets funding and, of course, we have had our share of the 20,000 police officer uplift, so we have more bobbies on the beat in the town centre. In the Suffolk constabulary, I deal perhaps the most with Superintendent Martin. I have a huge amount of time and respect for what the constabulary does—it will always have my backing.
What people are saying in their responses to my survey is clear. I personally enter all the survey responses myself. So far, I have entered almost 1,000 responses. It is a bit of a weird thing, but I like to feel the responses, and I can only do so if I enter them myself—it is very strange and is making my flat look a bit of a bomb site at the moment, with envelopes and surveys everywhere. But anyway, the nuts and bolts of the issue are that, when asked, “Do you support a zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour?”, 91% of responding constituents agreed. When it comes to the groups of large men we see—the groups of large men congregating and acting in a very antisocial way in the town centre, who are not dispersed by or engaged with by the police as directly as I would like—some 88% of those who responded to my survey said that they think those groups should be dispersed. Shoplifting is also a problem in the town, and 91% of respondents agreed that there should be tougher punishments for shoplifting, while only 3% disagreed.
The survey asked people which two of seven things would make the biggest difference towards getting them back into the town centre, and No. 1 of the seven was the police adopting a tougher, zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour, so although I have a huge amount of respect for our police, we need more of them in the town centre. In addition, we need them to adopt a more robust attitude to dealing with the individuals in the town centre who are blighting the experience for the majority of my constituents and undermining a beautiful town and its historic centre. If people are not going into the town centre because of the behaviour of a small minority, that is a real problem.
On the shoplifting point, we do need to have the deterrent there. There is a challenge here, however, because some of those engaging in shoplifting are younger. One of the businesses I spoke to earlier this week said that those engaged in shoplifting are 16 and 17-year-olds, so it can be more challenging to deal with them.
In conclusion, based on my survey responses, when it comes to town centre safety, we need to boost the police presence in the town centre, adopt a zero-tolerance attitude and crack down incredibly hard on the rogue minority who are blighting the experience of the majority. We need to disperse the groups of large men who are hanging around and put in place much tougher punishments for those who engage in shoplifting. We have a great town in Ipswich—I am very proud to represent it—but the reality of the situation is that thousands of my constituents are shunning their own town centre because they do not feel safe. That is not me talking down the town; it is me seeking to represent my constituents. I am not going to stand here and pretend that everything is wonderful. Yes, I welcome the uplift and the shared prosperity funding, but we need action. We need to turn the situation around, and I will continue to work with the Minister—for whom I have quite a lot of time—to try to get robust action for my constituents.
Papers Relating to the Home Secretary
Debate between Nigel Evans and Tom Hunt(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I do sympathise with hon. Members, but it is quite a narrow motion. I am really pleased that I am sitting in the Chair and not on either side of the House.
Christmas Adjournment
Debate between Nigel Evans and Tom Hunt
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate, but I share the views that have been expressed by many hon. Members and hon. Friends about Sir David Amess not being here with us. I have only been a Member of this place for a short while, but even after that short while, I felt it was a bit weird being here today. This debate cropped up on me. I had not really thought about it—in fact I only put in to speak a little bit earlier, because I forgot it was going to happen—and for a moment one of the things I remembered most about him was his contributions towards these debates. He will be missed forever, and it is on days like today when we especially remember him.
I have a few local issues and a few national issues. I have been pretty active in the Chamber this year. In my first year I was in this place, I made 86 interventions in different debates. I was quite pleased with that, bearing in mind that my predecessor made 82 and his main re-election claim was that he was the hardest-working MP in Suffolk. I was quite glad to get 86 in my first year. I think this year I have made about 79, so it has dropped a little bit, but normal service will be resumed next year.
I continue to be involved in campaigns in Ipswich. The funding of core public services continues to be a huge priority for me and many of my Suffolk colleagues. Just this week, me and all six of my Suffolk colleagues sent a letter to the Department for Education on special educational needs and disability funding. For whatever reason, young people with learning disabilities in Suffolk are probably the most poorly funded in the country—not just compared with large metropolitan areas, but compared with counties that are very similar to us. It makes no sense. My view is that, whatever their postcode, a young person with learning disabilities deserves exactly the same level of support as anybody else. It is not about taking away from other areas; we are just saying that young people with learning disabilities in Ipswich and Suffolk deserve the same support as anybody else with learning disabilities.
I am continuing my campaign nationally on learning disabilities. As a dyslexic and dyspraxic, I am a broken record on the Education Committee on those two issues. I was pleased when my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) announced that he is also dyslexic and that he is moving forward with the ten-minute rule Bill on the requirement to screen all primary school children for dyslexia. I was proud to co-sponsor that Bill, and I will continue to work closely with him on that important mission.
We know that around half of prisoners have dyslexia, and around four in 10 entrepreneurs have got dyslexia, so the stakes are incredibly high. Given the right support and with an early diagnosis, there is no reason why dyslexics cannot be among the most productive and creative people in our country. If they do not get the right support, they can often go in the wrong direction.
Like many hon. Members and hon. Friends in this place, I continue to be very active on the issue of cladding. I also eagerly await the further support that has been promised. Though many of my constituents have been supported through the building safety fund, many have not. I have been clear that I will continue to campaign on this issue, because I believe that no leaseholder should be left behind, and some have been—through no fault of their own. That campaign must continue.
I want to raise a slightly different issue on cladding. We have had a few examples where buildings have been successful in getting funding through the building safety fund, only for shrink wrap to emerge. One large tower block in Ipswich—St Francis Tower—was one of the first buildings in the country to get access to the building safety fund. That was good news, until shrink wrap covered the building and hundreds of residents were expected to live behind that for up to a year, with virtually no natural sunlight and very little air.
I have been clear in this place that I believe that Block Management UK and OANDA—the companies that have put shrink wrap on the building—have not behaved in an acceptable way. There are other buildings in Ipswich where this is happening. Those companies seem to have listened a little to the debates around what happened at St Francis Tower, and breathable material is shortly to be erected on another building in Ipswich. I went to see it, quite excited about this great development, but it was not that breathable. It is slightly better than the shrink wrap around St Francis Tower, but not by that much, to be honest.
My message to the Government is that Ipswich is ahead of the game when it comes to accessing the building safety fund. We have experienced some of these pains before other areas. I do not think it will be long until there are other hon. Members and hon. Friends raising exactly the same issues in this place. I have been looking to secure an Adjournment or Westminster Hall debate to raise awareness of this issue. Yes, we have got to get money from the building safety fund, and dangerous materials do need to be removed, but we have got to carry out that work in a way that is sensitive to the mental health of the people who are expected to live in those buildings.
Freeports continue to progress; town deal projects continue to progress. Ipswich Town football club is mid-table in league one at the moment; it is not great. I was at a Charlton game recently at The Valley. We lost 2-0, but it was great to be with 3,000 Ipswich fans in strong voice. Not many of them actually recognised me; I seem to get recognised more at Portman Road than when I go to the away matches. I have been going despite the concerns about omicron. I will be at Portman Road this Saturday to see them—hopefully—defeat Sunderland. As a Newcastle United fan, I have two reasons to hope that Sunderland are unsuccessful on Saturday.
There are three more national issues that I want to touch on—things that I feel strongly about. One of them I have been banging on about quite a lot, but two of them, for whatever reason, I do not feel like I have had the opportunity recently to air my views in this place. I want to talk quickly about child cruelty. I know that many Members have mentioned this, but in the case of Arthur’s tragic death, I want to put on record how disturbed I was by that. I know we all know about what happened, but if Members have not listened to and seen the clips and the videos of the abuse that he suffered, my advice would be to do so, as difficult as it is, because we have to confront and not hide away from the horror of what happened.
I noticed yesterday that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) raised the case of Star Hobson at Prime Minister’s questions, which is also incredibly disturbing. It is enough to bring any of us to tears when we think about what must have been going through the minds of those young, defenceless people—how vulnerable they were, and how incapable they were of doing anything to protect themselves as horror was placed on them and there was no escape. Their last moments would have been feeling alone, desperate and unloved. It is vitally important that any failings in children’s services in those relevant local authorities are looked at urgently and lessons are learned so that this cannot happen again. We know that some of this was linked to the fact that lockdowns were taking place, so it is another very real reminder of the consequences of lockdowns and how some of the most vulnerable people in our society pay the greatest price and have done. We must do what we can to avoid them.
In terms of covid as an issue, it is in some senses good that this has been a positive debate. We all will do what we can to remain positive and, when we go back to our constituencies, to be positive and lift up people we meet with a bit of Christmas spirit and cheer, but it is quite sad, because for millions of people in this country, last Christmas was a very dark and depressing time. We were looking forward to having a Christmas that was much more normal, much more positive and much more festive. Like many Members, I have enjoyed over the past few weeks going to Christmas craft events, seeing Christmas decorations made and going to a number of different carol services. For one, I was asked to dress up as a wise man, which was an interesting costume, and give an incredibly long reading. It was an essay, which was quite difficult, but I got through it and I was pleased to have been able to do that.
My concern is that if we are not careful, this Christmas could be quite similar to last Christmas, and that is a sad thing. It is an incredibly challenging time for our hospitality sector at the moment and for many people who will test positive. Even if they do not get that ill from having it, they may have to spend Christmas alone, and there will be lots of people in that position.
It is important, though, that we accept the brutal realities of lockdown restrictions. For some people they may not be that bad, but for other people, the mental health consequences of lockdowns are debilitating. Even the fear of a lockdown and the uncertainty that surrounds whether one may or may not take place will be taking a great toll on the mental health of millions of people up and down the country. That is not to say that I think this is an easy situation or that we should not be concerned about the omicron variant; it is just to say that in any decision we make, we need to have a rounded debate and discussion in which all the factors are considered: the economic effects, the impact on livelihoods and the impact on mental health.
We need to begin to think about what the long game is here. When does it end? If it is the case that we can—I hope—get through the next few weeks without too much devastation in terms of economic effects and potential loss of life, there will be more variants. There will be another variant perhaps in two months’ time, three months’ or four months’ time that could have 31 mutations or 32 mutations. If we act and continue to act in a just-in-case way, I do not really see where this ends.
At some point, as a country and as a world, I think we need to figure out in the long term how we live with this. We all know people—there are millions of people in this country—who are shadows of the people they were 20 months ago; who have lost confidence, whose development has been stifled, and that is across all age groups. I have incredible concern about our young people and how their chances have been blighted. This is a difficult time for us, and I do not envy the Prime Minister being in the position that he is in. The ultimate responsibility lies at his door. As a Member of this place, I would just say, let us always think in the most rounded way possible. It has been a pleasure to contribute to the debate, local, national, light-hearted and much more serious and sombre.
With regard to child cruelty, I do think we need to look at children’s services. We need to prevent what has happened from happening again. We also need to look at whole-life tariffs. I think we would struggle to find a person in this country who would not accept that retribution does have a legitimate role to play in the justice system, particularly when it comes to the most heinous crimes and the most evil individuals such as the individuals behind the barbaric crimes that I outlined earlier in my speech.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the Front-Bench responses to the Christmas Adjournment debate.
Income Tax (Charge)
Debate between Nigel Evans and Tom Hunt(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Hunt
I am not going to take any interventions at the moment, okay, so stop trying.
In terms of the circumstances we face at the moment, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) asked why we broke a manifesto pledge on tax. The key reason was the pandemic, and actually we spent £407 billion on dealing with the pandemic. That is why we had to do what we did. It was remarkable—the furlough scheme was absolutely the right thing to do, and it was incredibly impressive how quickly it was put together and it saved millions of people’s jobs. But when we were coming to end of that scheme, I was concerned myself about what it would do to unemployment. The suggestion that it could have been 12% was not unreasonable, and I feared that it could be around that level. The fact that it is 5% at the moment is a significant achievement. Regardless of our politics, every Member in this House should be really pleased about that and the fact that there are huge numbers of people in work, in a secure job, who we feared might not be. A lot of that is to do with the ingenuity of the Treasury, the Chancellor and his team. I thank them for that because it saved many of my constituents’ jobs.
On help with the cost of living, I very much welcome the decrease in the universal credit taper by eight points. The key thing about universal credit is that it was to try to ensure that it always pays to work—that work pays. Decreasing the universal credit taper by eight percentage points furthers that aim and saves some of the people on the lowest incomes a significant amount of money. That is to be welcomed. We should probably work to try to reduce it even more in future, but in a sustainable way that matches up with being responsible with our public finances.
Freezing fuel duty is also to be welcomed, as is increasing the national living wage. Apparently we are stealing Labour’s clothes—that is what I have heard—but I would like to think we are doing so in a responsible, sustainable way. It is absolutely right that as a party and as a Government we are single-minded about trying to do everything we can to support some of those on the lowest incomes in society. Many of those people are in my constituency. They are on lower incomes but want to work to get a higher income, and want the support to do so. There is a lot in this Budget that does that.
I am very passionate about the hospitality sector in Ipswich. We have some of the country’s best pubs, and we have some great breweries in Suffolk. The biggest cut in beer duty for 50 years is to be welcomed. I was one of the 100 Conservative Members of Parliament who wrote to the Treasury requesting that this happened. Only recently I was at the Belstead Arms, with its fantastic landlord Steve, who started the pub up in January 2010 and has got through a remarkably difficult period. He, for one, is very happy about this decision, as are the other 40 to 50-odd landlords in Ipswich, some of whom I will be visiting this weekend, but not too many.
The business rate reduction is also very welcome. It is one of the biggest reforms of business rates we have seen. It is not just tinkering; it goes much further than that.
Many right hon. and hon. Members will know that special educational needs are one of the things I feel most strongly about, partly because I myself had learning difficulties. I know I am a bit of a broken record in talking about that. I had dyslexia and dyspraxia. When I was 12, I had the reading and writing age of an eight-year-old. I was very lucky to get the support that I needed, so I am acutely conscious that a huge number of young people who are in the same position that I was do not get the support that they need. Not everything about special educational needs is about money, but a lot of it is, because most of the most powerful interventions we can make in special educational needs are resource-intensive. It is incredibly welcome that that has been recognised by increasing the special educational needs and disabilities budget by £2.6 billion over the next three years, with 30,000 extra special needs places. Yes, special schools are part of this, but better provision within a mainstream setting is part of it as well.
I see extra money for SEND as an investment, whether it is for prisons, where about a third of prisoners have some kind of learning disability—I reckon it is actually more like 50% if we diagnosed everyone who went in—or for children in care, over 50% of whom have learning disabilities. There is often pressure on families when their children’s needs are not met. Recognising that is incredibly important, and that is what the Government have done.
I want to finish by talking about levelling up and whether it is working for Ipswich. I think that in many respects levelling up is working for Ipswich. When some of my constituents heard about levelling up they feared that it was all about the north and the midlands. They were concerned that deprived parts of East Anglia would be forgotten—I actually mentioned that in my maiden speech. There are many examples of where the Government do recognise that it is not just about the north and the midlands. Ipswich has received £25 million from the town deals, and there are 11 discrete projects, many of them focused on skills. They are at the heart of levelling up and they make a massive difference to the lives of many of my constituents. We have had safer streets funding—in particular, for two parts of town with the worst problems of antisocial behaviour. We have a freeport just down the road in Felixstowe—one of just eight—which will hopefully bring forward 10,000 new jobs. We also have an opportunity area in Ipswich—one of only 12.
But there is one area where I would like to see the Government go a lot further. If we are going to sort out levelling up, we need to look at the way in which we fund our public services, and more specifically the funding formulas that lie behind the way in which those public services are funded, principally in two areas: education, particularly special educational needs; and police funding, where I do think Ipswich gets a raw deal. In Suffolk, police spending per head is £114.20 while in London it is £298, but we also compare very unfavourably with similar counties.
On SEND, there is a multi-academy trust with one school in Tower Hamlets and one school in Ipswich, and spend in Tower Hamlets is four times higher for children with mild to moderate learning difficulties, two and a half times higher for moderate to significant, and two times higher for significant to severe. It does not matter where it is—whether a child with a learning difficulty is in Ipswich, Birmingham or London, they are of the same inherent worth and value. There is no reason why random historical funding formula anomalies should mean that they get less funding and support per head than any other young person. That needs to be looked at.
I welcome this Budget. It is focused on the cost of living, focused on levelling up, and focused on allowing us to recover from an unprecedented pandemic.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind everybody that, unlike yesterday, there are wind-ups at the end of the debate today. Members are expected to come back for the wind-ups if they have participated in today’s debate.
Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities
Debate between Nigel Evans and Tom Hunt(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That is a continuation of the question, as the hon. Lady knows.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I want to raise with the Minister concerns about certain organisations prejudging the Sewell report for political ends without fairly assessing the findings. One concerning example was the Runnymede Trust, which organised a campaign against the report over a week before it was published and broadcast a live-streamed event with Patrick Vernon, chair of Labour’s racial equality advisory group, where they argued that the report’s authors were equivalent to holocaust deniers who had been asked to develop a strategy on antisemitism. Does the Minister agree that not only does that kind of bad faith political action undermine the Runnymede Trust’s charitable objective of improved race relations, but that the shameful treatment of the report’s commissioners might actually discourage ethnic minorities from contributing to public life and public debate? I also thank her for her statement.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Debate between Nigel Evans and Tom Hunt(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Hunt
We are talking specifically about clauses 46 and 47. We are talking specifically about this money. My argument is that, under these clauses, the people of Scotland and its representatives will have far more influence over how that money is spent than under the status quo. I am glad you intervened on me, because I wanted to give you some political advice, because you are very good at giving political advice to us—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. You are not the only one who is doing this, Tom, but I remind everybody to not use the word “you” unless you are referring to me. You are speaking through the Chair.
Tom Hunt
I am very sorry, Chair. I know that you have let me get away with it once or twice before, and it is right that you are stern. Getting back to this important point about political advice, and in the spirit of co-operation, I would say that I am proud of the Union. I am a Unionist. My Welsh grandfather fought for Britain in the second world war, and I love every nation in the United Kingdom, and that includes Scotland. I want Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom, but I respect the fact that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has a different view, and I respect him and all his people.
However, one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), denigrated this country, entire and whole, on Monday, saying that we have a history to be ashamed of. He went back over the past 200 years and found different reasons why we should be ashamed of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at a time when we reflect upon the battle of Britain and how it was Scottish pilots, Ulster pilots, Welsh pilots and English pilots who made the most decisive intervention. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath says that we are a country of chancers and lawbreakers, but we should be proud of the fact that we made a decisive intervention in standing up to the most evil regime in modern history. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire should reflect upon that.
Going back to clauses 46 and 47, I do not see a power grab. I see greater opportunities for the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and also the people of England and the constituency that I represent, because we all have crazy examples of how the structural funds have been spent in the past. Let us come together as a House and frame the way that money is spent and invest it in our communities.
I am not surprised that the Labour party has taken a position that seems to be slightly contrary to supporting the Union, because we know that some Opposition Members see no problem with mocking St George’s flag. I found it interesting on Sunday night that a shadow Front Bencher was mocking new Conservative MPs for being proud of the Union flag and for having the Union flag in their backgrounds while they were speaking. I am as proud of the Union flag as I am of St George’s flag. I rest my case.
Summer Adjournment
Debate between Nigel Evans and Tom Hunt
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this final debate before the summer recess. I am going to talk about one specific issue that is linked to the constituency that I have the honour of representing, but which also affects the whole country—that is, the use of social media in prisons.
This is a particularly pernicious crime. Social media is often used by convicted criminals to brag openly about how they are continuing to break our laws even from behind bars, and how they are still enjoying freedoms that should have been taken away from them, such as communicating with the outside world. These social media posts display a lack of respect for our criminal justice system, and, even worse than that, they show complete contempt for the victims of crime, their families and friends.
Victims and their loved ones should not have to live with the fear and anxiety that perpetrators can continue to have a presence in the community or even use social media to contact them. It often feels like the person who victimised them is taunting them on social media when they are posting from inside prison. The use of modern technology to post on social media is a way prisoners can essentially break out of prison walls and carry on causing anguish and misery to all those they have hurt. This is a completely unacceptable state of affairs, and it cannot be allowed to continue.
This anguish has repeatedly been felt in Ipswich since the brutal murder of Tavis Spencer-Aitkens in June 2018, which left our town in a state of shock. Five men were sent to prison in connection with Tavis’s death—four for murder and one for manslaughter. It is now my understanding that all five of them have made social media posts since being locked up. Most of us can only imagine the additional pain this has caused Tavis’s family as they seek some sort of peace after his tragic death.
I want to go into detail about three of these cases that have been brought to my attention since my election and set out clearly how this problem has persisted. The first case occurred in January, when Callum Plaats, who was convicted of Tavis’s manslaughter, posted a picture of himself grinning on Facebook, along with the caption, “Five years left lightwork”—five years being the remaining amount of time he expects to serve in prison if he only serves half his 14-year sentence. At the time, I called for Plaats to serve his full sentence given this contemptuous and insulting act of criminality from behind bars, and I stand by that today.
I thank the Prisons Minister for meeting me following that case and setting out the work that the Government are doing to combat social media use in prison. The extra £100 million being invested in detecting mobile phones in prisons and stopping them getting in there in the first place is welcome, and I am in no doubt about the Government’s commitment to tackling this issue, but two further cases of social media use by Tavis’s killers since then have caused further concern that more needs to be done.
In April, Aristote Yenge, who was convicted of Tavis’s murder, posted on Instagram calling on people in the community to get in contact with him. In the post, he brazenly detailed the prison he is in and his prisoner number. I called on Facebook to take this account down, which it did, and the Prison Service launched an investigation. But just this month, Kyreis Davies, who was also convicted of murder, posted a picture of himself posing on Snapchat. This latest post is a particularly bitter pill to swallow, after Davies recently had his sentence reduced on appeal from a minimum of 21 years to just 16 years. I have spoken before in the House about the anger that this sudden reduction has caused in Ipswich. His recent criminal communication from prison has only added to the disbelief and confusion in our community about why this murderer will now be released, a free man, in his early 30s.
Ultimately, I think all of us can probably accept that it is completely unacceptable that individuals convicted of murder and asked to spend a life sentence in prison are able to freely communicate on social media from inside prison. It is against the rules, yet it continues. Every single time they post, the hurt and anguish felt by friends and family of the victims only increases. When this House comes back in September, the House must debate this and the Government must take action to eliminate the use of social media in prisons. Yes, the investment in technology to detect mobile devices is welcome, but we should go further. There should be a strong punishment for all these individuals who use social media in prison, to serve as a deterrent for anybody else who considers doing that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The winding-up speeches will begin at 6.32 pm, and I have six names on the call list, so if everybody sticks to five minutes, the last person will not quite get five minutes, but almost everybody will get equal time.
UK-EU Negotiations
Debate between Nigel Evans and Tom Hunt(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition is beginning to develop a reputation for going to ground on the most contentious issues, such as whether his party supports an extension of the transition period or whether he continues to think backing freedom of movement is democratically acceptable after the 2016 referendum and the general election—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Mr Hunt, resume your seat for just a second, and I will explain that the Minister is not responsible for the policy of Opposition Members. Please could you get to the question for which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responsible.
Global Britain
Debate between Nigel Evans and Tom Hunt(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Hunt
I share my hon. Friend’s view on that. Indeed, I hope that Ipswich will become a free port.
We know that 48% of the UK’s containerised trade goes through the port of Felixstowe, and a total of £80 billion-worth of goods pass through it every year. Both of these ports are major contributors to the East Anglian economy, and I know that my right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary will share that view. We must remember that the ports do not just support the people employed directly by them, and that the business done at the ports ripples throughout the economy, supporting many thousands of jobs and livelihoods in the community. It is my firm belief that, as we leave the European Union and embrace a more global Britain, ports such as Ipswich and Felixstowe and the communities surrounding them can do even better if given the right tools to do so.
As members of the European Union, our trade policy has largely been made in Brussels, where the voice of East Anglia is but a whisper as 27 other countries with competing interests jostle for position on the EU side of trade negotiations. Some have said that trading off some of our interests in order to negotiate as part of a bloc is worth it because we have greater clout in negotiations with third-party countries, but that argument is meaningless if many of the proposed EU trade deals never see the light of day. Recently we saw the long EU-US negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership fall through. We also saw the negotiations with South American countries fall through. The EU-Canada deal, which eventually got through, did so only after the Walloon regional parliament in Belgium finally agreed to adhere to its main ambitions.
Inside the European Union, we have also been greatly restricted in our ability to designate docks, and the industrial clusters that rely on them, as free ports. Designating free ports would give our manufacturing sector a huge boost and create thousands of jobs. Given that most of our ports are located disproportionately in areas of high deprivation, employment growth from new free ports would occur where it is needed the most.
While we have been tied to a sluggish European Union, and paying for the privilege, the rest of the world has been moving forward at pace. In the past, before the internet, refrigerated shipping and the rapid rise of the developing world, regional trade blocs were understandably seen as the future, but today trade is more and more global. The EU now has an increasingly small share of the global economy and it is estimated that 90% of world output growth in 2020 will be generated outside the European Union. As a member of the European Union, our trade patterns have reflected these irresistible trends. The share of UK exports going to the EU has fallen from 55% in 2006 to 45% in 2018. In the face of all this, the EU has exhibited its protectionist tendencies. EU tariffs are high on goods such as food and clothing, which disproportionately impacts the least well-off in our society. These tariffs are also unfair to the least well-off people in the world, as those in developing countries struggle to compete in our marketplace on fair terms.
By way of contrast, other countries have reaped the benefits of embracing global free trade as independent nations. Among the most successful of these is Chile. Although not a large nation, it has struck free trade deals that cover 86% of global GDP, including with the EU, China, the USA, Japan and Canada, and a partial deal with India. I believe that if Chile can do it, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can most certainly do it as well.
Outside the European Union, we can pursue a bold free trade agenda with the interests of East Anglia and its powerhouse ports at the forefront. We can be nimble and we can do trade agreements quickly, and I am glad to see that the Government have not lost any time in this endeavour, with deals with South Korea, Switzerland and Israel set to take effect once we leave the European Union. I am pleased that dialogues are also under way with many other nations, including the United States and our Commonwealth partners in Australia and India. I welcome the fact that one of the Government’s principal aims in these discussions is to ensure that our trade policy reflects the needs and the potential of the whole of the United Kingdom, because the potential of Ipswich and East Anglia is enormous when it comes to trade. The ports of Ipswich and Felixstowe have already had investment in preparation for Brexit, and both ports have the potential to expand. An estimated 98% of non-EU crates pass through the port of Felixstowe as quickly and as easily as goods arriving from the EU thanks to cargo tracking systems, which allow many goods to clear customs before they even reach the UK.
Furthermore, Ipswich’s workforce and community are ready to take advantage of the benefits of increased trade, as they have done for centuries. Like I said, East Anglia just needs the right tools in place to realise its trading potential, which will benefit the whole country. The people of Ipswich and Felixstowe, some of whom work in the ports, and elsewhere in our region stand ready to help the Government achieve their ambition to be the greatest country on earth, but we need Government support for our rail and road infrastructure to help us do just that.
Some 48% of the country’s containerised trade comes through the port of Felixstowe, but the only route around Ipswich involves a bridge that closes when it is windy. That simply is not good enough. We need a solution for the Orwell bridge so that it never has to close. We also need an Ipswich northern bypass, and we need to sort out Ely North junction. We need the complete electrification of rail routes across East Anglia, because rail freight currently goes down to London and then up again because of inadequate rail infrastructure.
The people of Ipswich are world beaters when it comes to international trade, and they stand ready to embrace competition. We in this place must remake the UK as a beacon for free trade around the world once more while ensuring that the people of this country have every opportunity to benefit fully from that. To be a truly global nation, we have to be nimble, dynamic, flexible and buccaneering. We should not be inward-looking, rigid, protectionist or sclerotic. I said in my maiden speech that this is the greatest country in the world, and tomorrow presents a fantastic opportunity to spend the next decade proving that to everyone around the world.
NHS Funding Bill
Debate between Nigel Evans and Tom HuntMonday 27th January 2020
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Hunt
Absolutely. The levelling-up agenda touches many parts of the country, including not only the north of England but East Anglia. I agree with my hon. Friend.
I wish to take this opportunity to touch on a recent CQC inspection report on the East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust. The trust was formed following the merger of Ipswich and Colchester hospitals in July 2018. The inspection gave the trust a rating of “requires improvement”, which is of course disappointing, but had just one of the 80 inspection criteria been different, the trust would have received a “good” rating. We should hesitate before we draw direct comparisons between the previous inspection five years ago, which rated Ipswich Hospital “good”, and the latest inspection, which also covered Colchester Hospital, which was previously rated as “requires improvement”. Nevertheless, the report’s recommendations for improvement will be important to bear in mind as we consider health funding going forward.
The report mentioned cutting referral waiting times, improving capacity for emergency mental healthcare, and ensuring that staff have the right training to provide patients with the correct care. All those aspects must be priorities, so I welcome the provision in the NHS long-term plan for better training opportunities for NHS staff, as well as additional staff and funding for mental health services. I trust that the Government will closely consider the specific needs of Ipswich and East Anglia as the plans are moved forward in the interests of levelling up the whole country.
Planning permission has recently been approved for a brand-new £35 million A&E department at Ipswich Hospital, which is expected to open in spring 2020. I look forward to an invitation to cut the ribbon. The new department will make a real difference for the more than 100,000 people it will treat every year. I hope the Government will recognise that and continue to support further significant upgrades in Ipswich.
Investment has been confirmed for a new orthopaedic centre in the East Suffolk and North Essex Trust area by 2024, and I know that many in Ipswich are concerned that it may be located in the centre of Colchester. I want my constituents to know that I will closely monitor the developments around the new orthopaedic centre to ensure that they will be able to access services smoothly and with minimal disruption. I will endeavour to ensure that if the orthopaedic centre is located in Colchester, patients will have to go there only for main operations, and that all other appointments should be made in the hospital closest to them.
The key point is that those twin investments—the A&E department in Ipswich and the new orthopaedic centre, wherever it may be located—may not have happened had a merger into a single trust not taken place. The merger of Ipswich and Colchester hospitals has the potential to provide a critical mass when it comes to delivering the resources that local people need for their health and wellbeing. A further example of that is that, since the merger, radiotherapy treatments for cancer patients in Ipswich have been maintained in Ipswich at the same rate, when there were fears that they might have been moved elsewhere. In addition, the staff vacancy rate, which was 12% before the merger, is now 9%.
I call on the Government to further communicate the benefits of the merger, to give people confidence in the system and to give them every reassurance that both Ipswich and Colchester hospitals can improve together. Rather than there being a situation in which one hospital drags another down, it must be the case that when two hospitals come together, the good one drags up the one that is struggling. It must not be the other way round. I will continue to have a watchdog role in respect of the merger. Some of the initial improvements, particularly the new A&E department in Ipswich, are positive, but I will not hesitate to question any developments that may not be in Ipswich residents’ interests.
Before I move on from the recent inspection report, it would be remiss of me not to congratulate our local NHS staff in Ipswich, who have been identified as delivering outstanding practice in critical care, maternity services and community health in-patient services, as well as good levels of practice in many other areas.
I also wish to pay particular tribute to members of the Indian community in Ipswich, who fill many roles in our local NHS services. Their commitment and dedication to their work is unquestionable. The role that the Indian community plays in our local NHS is one of the driving reasons why I wish to express my wholehearted support for the Government’s plan to attract the top talent from around the world to work in the NHS after Brexit, to help provide vital services on which we rely every day.
It is important that we prioritise those who have the most to contribute. I am glad that the Government have identified this as a priority component of a new Australian-style points-based immigration system that we will bring in, with a preferential visa system for those seeking to work in the NHS.
I recently met the chief executive of Ipswich hospital and have been invited to visit the hospital shortly to meet all the hard-working staff. I look forward to hearing further about how we can work together to improve the hospital that we all care for so passionately.
I wish to make one final key point on NHS resources, which is incredibly important to my constituents and to the public as a whole. Earlier, I mentioned Ipswich’s new A&E department. The business case for this project took almost a year to approve, when it should have taken a matter of months. For every month of delay, I understand that the cost to the taxpayer was around £167,000, which is mainly due to inflation and increased building costs. I am well informed that the approval process for big NHS capital schemes is too archaic and that part of the problem is a merger of NHS Improvement and NHS England and that the new organisation has not had time to streamline its approvals process.
As well as additional investment, we must ensure that hard-earned taxpayers’ cash is being used efficiently at every stage of healthcare provision. I urge the Government to take this into account, too, as we Conservatives continue our long and proud stewardship of the NHS.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The time limit is six minutes with immediate effect.