Ukraine: Urgent Refugee Applications

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

Certainly, no one should be being advised now to go into Ukraine to get visas or for any other purpose. I am very happy to pick up the case to see what has happened in this particular instance. Certainly, a person should be able to collect a visa from any VAC, but I hear what is being said, I do not doubt it, and I am happy to pick up on it.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I met with four of my Ukrainian constituents last week. They have been bowled over by the generosity shown by the people of Ipswich, particularly by the Polish community. There is actually a lorry approaching the Ukrainian border today, carrying £8,000-worth of gifts from the Polish community. I have two questions. I met with Olena whose family are currently stuck in Kharkiv. Can I have a quite update on the possibility of a humanitarian corridor for her family to get out of Kharkiv, not to Belarus and Russia, but to a safe European country? Secondly, Viktoria said that if some of the people who are eligible for the family scheme do not want to take up that option can it be transferred to somebody else very close to them who might not strictly qualify for the family route?

[Kevin Foster]

Certainly, in terms of the situation on the ground in Kharkiv, we have to be very careful about how we take President Putin’s offers of humanitarian corridors, not least because they are rarely respected and often may well be used as a cover for breaches of international law that then follow. We need to be quite careful about the whole concept of humanitarian corridors. I have already said that travel across Ukraine is extremely dangerous, and that people should not wait until they have any form of visa. If they can, they should get into a neighbouring country and then seek to come to the United Kingdom. Certainly, with the family route, people can either sponsor the family, or, see whether there is space available. The wider sponsorship group will come in if there is someone they know and love in Ukraine, whom they would like to sponsor, or if there is someone who has managed to get to a safe bordering country, whom they would like to sponsor to come here.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the issue of youth violence is a key priority for the crime and justice taskforce, led by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. My colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have recently allocated £540 million to additional youth services up and down the country, which is a fantastic initiative to enable young people to be engaged in productive activities so that they are not tempted by a life of criminality.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I am very happy that Ipswich is getting £25 million through a town deal, but when I talk to town centre businesses and my constituents I find that many of them are very concerned about crime and antisocial behaviour. It is actually putting some people off going into the town, and in Dial Lane a number of businesses have had their windows smashed. Does my hon. Friend agree that as we support our town centres in coming out of the pandemic it is crucial that we tackle antisocial behaviour, and that one way in which we can do that in Ipswich would be by looking at the police funding formula for Suffolk, which I have banged on about quite a lot, to make sure that we get a fair deal and a bigger police presence in the town centre, so that businesses and my constituents feel 110% secure to spend money in the town centre?

[Rachel Maclean]

I am pleased to say that because of my hon. Friend’s ardent campaigning there are more police officers in his area. I wish to highlight for him the safer streets fund, which is exactly the kind of initiative that we are putting into town centres to tackle these issues, through things such as better street lighting, CCTV and additional security for residents. The latest round of our safer streets fund is focused on targeting violence against women and girls. That will specifically look at patrols, safer streets and training and the night-time economy.

Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. It is surprising to be called so early in the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) for sponsoring this debate, which is of relevance to many right hon. and hon. Members in this place.

Sadly, Ipswich has been at the heart of much crime and antisocial behaviour, some incredibly serious, and some seemingly less serious but perhaps connected to the most serious crime. We have had some tragic incidents in Ipswich over the last few years. Tavis Spencer-Aitkens was brutally murdered three years ago outside his father’s home, as a result of county lines and gang violence in Ipswich. Richard Day, an Ipswich man, was killed in the town centre in tragic circumstances.

There are some things we can do that some may say involve us getting tougher with crime, particularly when it comes to sentencing, to make sure that those who commit the most serious crimes are appropriately punished. From time to time Members will see me speaking to that. But it is not just about having a tough approach to sentencing. We also need to spend some time thinking about the lives that a lot of these individuals lead, to put ourselves in their shoes and to imagine that we are them, and that we are in a school where we are not successful, perhaps because we have learning disabilities—we know that the proportion of those in prison with learning disabilities is incredibly high.

If an individual does not feel like a success at school because they are not getting the success that they need, their needs are not being met, and they go back home and potentially there are problems with their home life, and there is nothing to do in their local area—no club for them to join, and they cannot get a sense of belonging from anywhere—the brutal reality is that, for some, joining a gang does give them that sense of belonging. The way to tackle that is to give them a positive sense of belonging. If we put ourselves in their shoes, we want to have the positive pulls and less of the negative pulls.

What I actually want to talk about today is the seemingly less serious antisocial behaviour. We say “less serious”, but in the minds of many of my constituents it is very serious. I lose count of the number of times that I talk to constituents—long-term Ipswich residents who have lived in Ipswich their whole life—who are critical of the town centre. Often I think they can be unfairly critical of the town centre, because we have some fantastic businesses in the town centre that work incredibly hard to make it an attractive destination. Most of the residents’ concerns are to do with antisocial behaviour and not feeling safe in the town centre.

If we are to have a conversation about regenerating our town centre, by all means let us engage in a debate about business rates reform, town deals and levelling-up funds, but we also need to have a conversation about crime and the fear of crime, because if that is deterring people—my constituents—from going into the town centre to spend money, we need to deal with that as well.

I want to touch now on an issue on which not everyone will agree, which is to do with large groups of individuals—more often than not young men—who congregate in and around the town centre, more often than not drinking alcohol, often leaving litter afterwards, and acting in an incredibly antisocial way. Constituents get in contact because they, or often their daughters, have been on the receiving end of inappropriate comments and have been made to feel intimidated while going about their business. That is simply unacceptable.

I often talk to the police and ask, “What opportunity is there to disperse these groups?”, because I think that should be part of the police’s remit, and they often say, “Unless they are clearly breaking the law and it is really obvious, there is nothing we can do.” I would personally like to see the police empowered to play their role in making our public spaces safe, secure environments in which the law-abiding majority feel safe, and that they want to go to.

There is an element here of tolerance, which is important, but I think we should be intolerant of antisocial behaviour. I do not care who it is who is forming in large groups, acting in an antisocial way, making people feel uncomfortable; I do not care where they are from. If their behaviour is not acceptable, it needs to be communicated to them.

There is a number of things that we can do, and I have touched on one of them, which is the police having more of a remit to disperse groups of young men who are having a detrimental impact on the town centre in Ipswich. We also need fair police funding in Ipswich. We know that Suffolk is one of the most unfairly funded police authorities in the country, so we need a commitment to review the national police funding formula as soon as possible. I must stop going on and draw my comments to a close. Thank you for indulging me, Mr Robertson, and allowing me to go over the time limit.

Asylum Seeker Accommodation: RAF Manston

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

As this is about short-term processing, we would not necessarily expect facilities of that kind on site, but of course they will be a key consideration when it comes to dispersal and initial accommodation.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I must say I have some sympathy with the need to act quickly bearing in mind the scale of the problem, so I do not really have concerns about the lack of consultation. Does the Minister agree with me, though, that if individuals are concerned about the quality of the accommodation, the simple answer to that is to not come over here illegally and actually apply for asylum in the safe European country in which they are present? They are not from Afghanistan; they are in France. It is hardly surprising that the Opposition opposes this—I know you would like them all to be in four and five-star hotels; you have made that quite clear—but will the Minister promise me that offshore processing is being looked into seriously?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer across the Chamber to the shadow Minister as “you”. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows by now that when he uses that phraseology he is referring to the Chair, so I ask him to observe the conventions. I call the Minister.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for the support that he indicates for the measure. Our position on Hamas is clear and it is public. Hamas must renounce violence. It must recognise Israel and accept previously signed agreements. Credible moves must be made towards those conditions. They remain the benchmark against which intention should be judged.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I will take one more intervention and then, Madam Deputy Speaker, I suggest that I make some progress.

[Tom Hunt]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Last weekend, an Israeli tour guide was murdered in Jerusalem. My understanding is that the individual who committed that murder was a member of the political wing of Hamas. Surely that goes to prove that this arbitrary distinction between a military wing and a political wing is not accurate, and that, in its entirety, Hamas is a terrorist organisation and deserves to be labelled as such.

[Damian Hinds]

The incident that my hon. Friend mentions is a timely reminder, and our sympathies are very much with the victims and their families and friends. I will come on, if I may, to the important point that he raises about the distinction, or lack thereof, between the so-called political and military wings.

The threat posed by terrorist organisations varies depending on each group’s ideology, membership and ability to train members. Groups such as Hamas train members in terrorism, as well as preparing and committing terrible acts of violence against innocent members of the public. We have a duty to our allies, as well as to our own people, to tackle groups that inspire and co-ordinate terror on the international stage. Although we can sadly never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, we must always do all that we can to act against and mitigate the danger it poses, and to seek to keep the public safe.

Some 78 terrorist organisations are proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Thanks to the dedication, courage and skill of counter-terrorism policing, and our security and intelligence services, most of these groups have never carried out a successful attack on British soil. Proscription is a powerful tool for degrading terrorist organisations and I will explain the impact that it can have shortly. We propose to amend the existing listing of “Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades”, or Hamas IDQ, in schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to cover Hamas in its entirety.

Under section 3 of TACT 2000, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently concerned in terrorism. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe that organisation. The Home Secretary considers a number of factors in considering whether to exercise her discretion. The relevant discretionary factors for Hamas are: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat posed to British nationals overseas; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

The effect of proscription is to outlaw a listed organisation and ensure that it is unable to operate in the UK. Proscription is designed to degrade a group’s ability to operate through various means, including: enabling prosecution for the various proscription offences; under- pinning immigration-related disruptions, including the exclusion from the UK of members of groups based overseas; making it possible to seize cash associated with an organisation; and sending a strong signal globally that a group is concerned in terrorism and is without legitimacy.

Channel Crossings in Small Boats

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady can shake her head, but it is also important that we deliver safe and legal routes in a fair way, so that those individuals who are fleeing persecution are given the support they seek.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary share my surprise that the Opposition have decided to bring this urgent question forward, because of course not only have they voted against the Nationality and Borders Bill, but they are also voting against the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, which in ending Cart judicial review will make it far easier to deport illegal immigrants?

[Priti Patel]

Well, I do not think I have much to add. My hon. Friend has absolutely made the case for voting for that Bill and for the reforms that we are bringing in, and the Labour party is behaving like a computer that says no all the time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

The comments by Richmond Council certainly contrasted with the approach that the Lib-Dem leader of Torbay Council took when first asked to take part in the Afghan resettlement scheme, but it made a welcome U-turn and we will play our part. Work is being done across the Government to support those who arrived as part of the emergency evacuation back in August, and those who will arrive under the resettlement scheme, to ensure they can be housed quickly.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

18. What steps she is taking to speed up the removal of illegal migrants.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

Our new plan for immigration makes it easier to remove illegal migrants who have no right to be here. The one-stop process that we are introducing through the Nationality and Borders Bill will be fundamental to delivering on that in future. The Home Secretary has also been setting up a mix of formal and informal returns agreements with other countries, in order to tackle the drivers of illegal migration. Examples of that work include our new formal arrangements with India and Albania.

[Tom Hunt]

Does the Minister agree that when millions of people voted to leave the European Union, they did so to take back control of our borders—no ifs, no buts—and on our own terms, not only if the French agree? Does he also agree that, in a spirit of taking back control, we need to intensify our movements towards offshore processing, which we know was successful in Australia where, when it was introduced, the numbers fell of a cliff straightaway?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a passionate advocate for his constituents on this issue. I, too, was on the frontline of that campaign in 2016, and I am very sympathetic to the point that he makes. There is no one single solution to this problem. The measures that we are introducing through the Nationality and Borders Bill are comprehensive, but we also need that co-operation with our French partners, and to tackle this issue upstream.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Tom Hunt Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christian Wakeford]

It is almost like they are creating another argument for the Online Safety Bill. They want to insult us via virtual participation, and then turn their screen off and hide away because they cannot deal with the arguments. What we are hearing is generally insulting and, quite frankly, wrong. We are truly representing the views of the people—the views of our constituents.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when Labour Members point at us and imply that we are racist, they are also pointing the finger at millions of former Labour voters who actually agree with us on this matter?

[Christian Wakeford]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend any more; he puts it far more succinctly than I possibly could.

We also see the Opposition turning their back on the British people and the red wall all over again. We have had this debate many, many times, but unfortunately the Opposition are not listening—well, they are not here. What we are seeing is a paradigm shift whereby the Labour party no longer represents those working-class communities. It is no longer listening to those working-class voters. Thankfully, on this side of the Chamber we do listen.

There is also a particularly harmful argument that we have heard far too many times in the debate. It is about listening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison). In Ipswich, we have extended the hand of friendship to huge numbers of refugees over the years. We have a very significant Kurdish community in Ipswich, which has made a massive contribution to the town, supported by the Suffolk refugee centre.

Only recently I was in the Bloom Lounge, which is quite a trendy, upmarket cocktail bar in Ipswich, where I had pornstar martinis and all that sort of stuff. It is run by Erion and Francesko. They run the hugely successful new cocktail bar, and they came here from Albania. They were refugees. They fled Albania, and the people of Ipswich and this country extended the hand of friendship to them. What is more, Erion is a Conservative councillor. The local Conservative party in Ipswich is a party of refugees—far more so than the local Labour party.



We have a major problem here. We must realise that there are those who make the decision to come to this country illegally. They shun the legal process and come here illegally—break the law. Every person from that category who stays limits our capacity to show compassion towards the most genuine of refugees. There is also a limit to how many refugees we can take, so we need to be realistic about that. Each one of those people who decides to come here illegally—some are economic migrants—means that one fewer family can be supported. That is the reality of the situation.

The Labour party makes this charge of racism, but the vast majority of the British public support the position that we are adopting today. Frankly, they probably want to go a bit further. That is the reality of the situation and that comes across in the correspondence that I receive. The vast majority of people in this country abhor racism. They welcome immigration, and they want to extend the hand of friendship, but what they do not want is lawlessness. What they do not want is what we are seeing at the moment. Sadly, the message that is going out is that once you are in, you are in, so it is worth the risk. The consequence of that is the loss of human lives, an unsustainable pressure on public services, and a limit on our ability to show compassion towards the most needy.

I have met the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) on many occasions to discuss this issue. He knows my views on it, and I am rather robust on the issue. I have to say that I never thought that the French would deliver on this for us. Ultimately, the people of this country voted to take back control of our borders and they do not want a situation in which we are dependent on the French playing ball for us to be able to do so. This Bill enables us, on this vital issue, to take back control and make sure that we deliver, but we must deliver. We can sit on these Benches confident that the vast majority of our constituents and the British public—decent British people—stand four-square behind us, but their patience is wearing thin. We cannot be here in six, seven or eight months’ time with the numbers that we are seeing today, because it is a problem and it is getting worse. Denying that there is a problem is for the birds.

The Labour party will vote against this Bill tonight. Ultimately, Labour’s position would mean that we have thousands more people attempting this dangerous route. The Labour party would probably put all those individuals up in hotels. The Labour party would send out a clarion call, “Come over. Once you’re in, you’re in.” That would put intolerable pressure on public services. That is the Labour party’s position, is it not? It is the Conservative party’s position to have a humane system that welcomes genuine refugees through a rules-based system, but that acknowledges that many people attempting this route are not refugees. Some are and they should follow the correct procedures, but many are not.

I welcome this Bill. I am incredibly proud to support it, but we need to deliver it. My view is that all options should be on the table when it comes to this vital issue, because this simply cannot continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous]

I invite the right hon. Member to read the refugee convention and he will find there what the actual law is. On the basis of his logic, we would only be taking asylum claimants from France, Ireland and Belgium.

Looking at the detail of the Bill, many hon. Members have quite rightly highlighted the odious clause 12, which creates a two-tier system for refugees based on how someone arrives in the country and their mode of transport, not on the strength of their claim. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) put it, it is

“judging them on how they arrived, not what they have left.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 757.]

Once again, sentence first, verdict later.

[Tom Hunt]

It is wrong to say that there is no difference between somebody who has broken the law by coming here from another safe European country illegally and somebody who has come here through a legal process. Surely they should be treated differently.

[Bambos Charalambous]

Criminalising people who have come to this country irrespective of what they have left behind makes them criminals. What law have they broken when they are seeking refuge here?

What we have seen playing out in the channel crossings over the past few days occurred because the Government have closed down all safe routes for refugees to travel to the UK for protection. People are being driven to make dangerous journeys because they are out of options. To this callous Government, it is all a game—pure theatre. The Tories use all migrants, an ever-easy target, as a distraction from their own institutional failings and the gross inequality that falls upon their citizens.

The Bill does nothing to propose refugee resettlement or family reunion routes and will only put more pressure on Britain’s broken asylum system. About 10% of arrivals are expected to be unaccompanied children. The Government should be properly addressing the issue of safe routes for claiming asylum and helping unaccompanied children. Penalising refugees is a clear breach of article 31 of the refugee convention, but even more disconcerting is that clauses 27 to 36 seek to interpret the refugee convention to suit the Government’s whim. Unilaterally deciding how international law should be interpreted never ends well for the Government. The reason they feel the need to do so here is that they know they will be humiliated when those clauses are challenged. Once again, it is not so much a case of marking their own homework; more a case of being judge, jury and executioner.

One thing the Bill will almost certainly do is ensure that people seeking asylum here are kept longer. Whether through imprisoning asylum seekers for four years in our prisons or detaining them in barracks, that is an awful lot of money to spend on something that is not going to work. I dread to think what impact that will have on our creaking criminal justice system. Again, we have not seen the sums. Why not? Surely the Home Secretary will have cleared this with the Chancellor and costed it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman mentions Syrians fleeing war crimes. Our resettlement programme has principally focused on Syrians fleeing war crimes, who, via the UNHCR working in the region, have been able, safely and legally, to come to this country in greater numbers than are seen in any other European resettlement programme. That is quicker, safer and easier than illegally crossing the channel in a dinghy. We are not just running Europe’s resettlement programme; as we speak, we are bringing locally engaged staff from Afghanistan to the UK, and we have opened up a route for British nationals overseas from Hong Kong to come here, escaping the oppressive regime of the Chinese Communist party. In addition, 29,000 people have come in the past six years as part of refugees family reunions. So when the Opposition claim that we are not offering safe and legal routes, that is simply not true.

The Scottish nationalists have been saying that Scotland would like to do more. I am very disappointed, as I said in my intervention, when I was able to get in, that out of the 32 local authorities in Scotland only one, Glasgow, takes dispersed asylum seekers. If Scotland wants to do more, they have the opportunity to do so. Moreover, when it comes to taking unaccompanied asylum seeking children under the national transfer scheme, Scotland took only a very small handful of the 600 or so who were transferred last year. Scottish National party Members cannot talk about money, because those children have more than £50,000 a year of funding going with them. There are children right now in Dover who need to be looked after, so I call on the Scottish Government to put action behind their words and take some of those children on—tonight. They do not need independence to do that; they can do it now.

Let me be clear: we will always play our part for those in genuine need, but we should choose who deserves our help. Illegal immigration undermines that choice. Instead of the UK being able to choose the children and families most in need, illegal immigration instead allows those who pay people smugglers or who are strong to push their way to the front of the queue.

[Tom Hunt]

rose—

Amnesty for Undocumented Migrants

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Hon. Members should be aware that social distancing is no longer in operation, but I remind you that Mr Speaker has encouraged us to wear masks. I also remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of Westminster Hall debates, and Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. Members participating virtually should leave their cameras on for the duration of the debate and must be visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall clerks at westminsterhallclerks@ parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 567681, relating to an amnesty for undocumented migrants.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The petition calls on the Government to

“grant an urgent Amnesty to Undocumented Migrants living in the UK.”

It attracted 103,440 signatures, and I thank each and every one of those people for participating in our democracy by signing the petition, which has led us to debate this very important issue.

It is clear that covid-19 has added a bit of impetus to the decision to sign the petition. There has been concern about the ability of undocumented migrants to get access to a vaccine, which is of benefit both to them and to the wider society, because we know that people are less likely to transmit the virus when they have had the vaccine. That seems to have given the petition a bit of added impetus, because having an unstable existence is made even more challenging through covid-19. As for many things, covid-19 has made a challenging situation more challenging, so I can understand the decision of 103,440 people to sign the petition.

In terms of what the petition calls for, it is as simple as granting an amnesty to all undocumented migrants living in the UK, except those who have a criminal record. The petition was quite clear that if someone has a criminal record, they should not be the beneficiary of the proposed amnesty, but I have to say that there is not much more detail than that. I assume that the petitioners want to treat every undocumented migrant the same, regardless of whether they are someone who has been living here for over 10 years and who has put down extensive family roots, or somebody who, quite frankly, arrived here last weekend on a dinghy from Calais. That is something that the petition is missing, because there is no clarity. I can only assume that the petition is essentially referring to every single undocumented migrant. I also assume that it would be a one-off amnesty for all undocumented migrants, but I am unsure about whether the petitioners wish it to be something that happens routinely—for example, every five or 10 years. That is also not clear. What is clear is the desire to regularise the status of all undocumented migrants, which is what we will be debating today.

The arguments in favour of the petition are clear. There are many individuals and families who have come here as undocumented migrants. Some may have come illegally in the first instance. Some may have come here legally, but the legal time that they are allowed to be here has expired and they are looking to regularise their position. It is a combination of both of those. However, there are many who are making a positive contribution to our country in difficult circumstances. At the moment, it is a very challenging situation for them.

There is also an argument that, by regularising their status, it actually leads to their paying more taxes, which is beneficial to the taxpayer. I have some sympathy with the argument that says we should treat people a bit differently if they have been here for 10 or 12 years and have put down extensive family roots. Is it really realistic, or likely, that the Government will deport migrants at that stage? It is incredibly unlikely. If we are of the view that it is incredibly unlikely that we are ever going to deport migrants in those circumstances, there does seem to be a strong argument that we should regularise their status, and perhaps an argument could be made for an amnesty. However, in terms of the arguments against, and in relation to the petition, I simply cannot support treating a family who may have been here for more than 10 years the same as somebody who came here last weekend in a dinghy.

We also cannot make assumptions about every single person who is in the undocumented migrant category. The reality is that there will be some people who have come into this country through an illegal route. We do not know whether they are genuine refugees; it is impossible to know whether all of them will be. Among them there will be some economic migrants, so ultimately those individuals would likely be the beneficiaries of the blanket move as suggested by the petition. That is something that I cannot support.

If we were to support a blanket amnesty for every single undocumented migrant, it would be impossible to sustain that position while at the same time not being in favour of open borders. I find it very difficult to understand how you could support an amnesty—and potentially have one regularly, every five or six years—and not support open borders. As a Member of Parliament of this country, I would never support open borders. It would put unsustainable amounts of pressure on our public services. There would be all sorts of problems with social integration if migration was unmanaged to that extent. It would also limit our country’s ability to show compassion towards the most genuine refugees and to have a laws-based, rules-based immigration system that allows us to welcome the brightest and the best who want to come to this country to make a positive contribution. More to the point, it would be a slap in the face for all of those people who have moved to this country legally and who have followed the—often cumbersome—rules. They have followed them. They have done their side of the bargain. They have moved here legally. This would be a slap in the face to them.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Member know that a lot of the people that we are talking about, undocumented migrants, have come here legally? They are undocumented not through any fault of their own. Does he accept that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hunt]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Member, I did make the point that the proposal would apply both to those who may have entered the country illegally and to those who may have entered legally but for a fixed period of time that has expired. Yes, it is a mixture. That is why I am against a blanket amnesty. It would be a significant movement away from the case-by-case approach that the Government are currently taking, which takes into account the differences between cases and the nuances of different circumstances. An amnesty would not do that.

Yes, some of the individuals who would benefit from an amnesty would be those who came here legally but whose time has expired, who are struggling with the process, who have been here for 10 years and who are making a positive contribution. However, it would also include those people who have shunned the laws of our country, who have deliberately come here illegally and who, frankly, have no more right to be here than the families or individuals who are patiently waiting to come here legally. That is the reality of the situation.

We are also talking at a time when the Government are dealing with the significant challenge of the illegal crossings from Calais—

[Anne McLaughlin]

Will the hon. Member take an intervention on that?

[Tom Hunt]

No, I am not going to take another intervention. That is a situation in which individuals, regardless of their circumstances, are knowingly deciding not to engage with the legal process for claiming asylum or to immigrate here in a legal way, but to shun that legal approach and come here in an illegal manner. The danger of a blanket amnesty is that it would send out a message to all of those people who come over illegally and fuel an evil trade in human lives. It would potentially make the situation a lot worse. The money fuelling this evil trade in human lives would increase and potentially more lives would be put at risk, because if we adopted a position such as the one set out in the petition, which is very close to an open borders immigration policy, essentially the message would be: “Once you’re in, you’re in. So get over here, ignore the processes, because it’s worth the risk”. The risk is very real; it could lead to the loss of lives.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Would the hon. Member be surprised to hear then that his own Prime Minister has toyed with the idea of exactly what is being called for in this petition—an amnesty for anybody who has been here for a certain period of time? The Prime Minister has also talked about it recently.

[Tom Hunt]

With the greatest of respect, if the hon. Member has read the motion in the petition, she will see that that is not what this petition is calling for. It mentions nothing about being here for 10 years. Essentially, it is a blanket amnesty for every single undocumented migrant. People across the political spectrum have floated and supported the idea of a limited amnesty targeted at those who have been here, say, for over 10 years. As I said earlier in my speech, I believe there are some merits in those arguments.

However, this petition is not calling for such an amnesty; it is calling for a situation that sits very closely to an open border policy, in my view. I think it would lead to chaotic results, unintended consequences, unsustainable pressure on public services, problems with social integration and, as I also said earlier, it would limit our capacity to promote a compassionate, generous, rules-based immigration system and approach to refugee resettlement, which could benefit this country and which, I believe, is supported by the majority of people in this country.

That is sort of the wider picture. Of course there will be examples of where the status quo fails individuals and individual families, and we need to work with that system to improve its efficiency and how quickly it deals with these cases, so that it can turn them around as quickly as possible and get people the outcome they need as soon as possible, so that they can plan their lives with certainty. Of course, that is something that I support.

However, the current Government position is that if someone has been in the country for a long period of time, there are opportunities to regularise their status. Nevertheless, I think it is appropriate and fair that that is done on a case-by-case basis, because we cannot make huge generalisations with regard to those who come under the category that we are talking about today, because the motors vary and the circumstances vary enormously.

In conclusion, although I sympathise with the reasons why people have signed this petition and their concern about the circumstances that many people face at the moment, the petition is not focused enough in what it is calling for. To me, it is calling for a blanket amnesty for every single person, many of whom have come here illegally and shunned the legal process. It would be a slap in the face for those who have come here legally, and there would be serious unintended consequences.

If the hon. Members taking part in this debate believe in this petition as it stands, they should run with that policy in a manifesto in a general election. There would be a resounding answer from the British people, namely that they would not support this proposal. The vast majority of people in this country see the benefits of immigration and are compassionate towards refugees, but they want a rules-based system and this petition would fly in the face of that.

For all those reasons, I would be unable to support this petition, but I am glad that this subject will have a good airing today. Having looked at the call list, I predict that perhaps we will hear some arguments being raised that are different to those I have raised. There probably will not be much reiteration of the arguments I have just made, until perhaps the end of the debate.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

I will put on an informal time limit of five minutes at the moment and we will see where we get to with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hunt]

Thank you very much, Mr Hosie, for chairing this debate so expertly. I thank the Minister for his response and every other participant for making this debate pretty well-tempered and balanced.

[Anne McLaughlin]

So far.

[Tom Hunt]

The hon. Lady should not worry. As I was saying, it has been a pretty balanced debate in which we have heard both sides of the argument. I also think that there is a shared concern for the individuals in question. However, this is a very complicated issue, with unintended consequences.

It seems to me that very few Members agreed with the petition’s call for pretty much a blanket amnesty for every single undocumented migrant. However, I think there is space somewhere for a very important debate about how we can potentially do something in this area.

Obviously, one of the real concerns is what amnesties might mean in terms of encouraging future illegal crossings. In some respects, if the Opposition supported the Bill going through Parliament today and if that Bill were enacted, as I hope it will be, they might think that the public were in a much better place to have a debate about a reasoned amnesty and pathway for citizenship because there would be public confidence that, in doing so, we were not fuelling illegal crossings from the continent. That may be, at some point, where we get to: if there is confidence that we have a rules-based immigration system and we are confident that we are in a better position to tackle illegal crossings and make determinations about the people who aspire to live in our country, perhaps at that point we could have that important debate about amnesties.

Actually, there are some shortcomings when it comes to an amnesty for those who have been here for over 10 years. I said that I saw some of the arguments in favour of that, but it is a complicated issue.

Clearly, though, this has been a productive debate. This issue needs to be debated much further; I am sure that it will be. Again, I thank the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition. Hopefully, they will feel that, at the very least, the issue—in a general sense—has had a good airing and been thoroughly debated today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 567681, relating to an amnesty for undocumented migrants.

Sentencing Regime for 17-year-olds

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I rise to outline in detail a quite tragic incident that took place in Ipswich—an incident that really shook the town and caused great upset and hurt. I hope it can spur some reform with regards to the criminal justice system.

Richard Day was a constituent of mine. I only had the opportunity to represent him for a short time. I did not know Richard Day—I had not met him—but having met his brother and a lot of people who did know him and were touched by him, it is very clear that Richard Day was an incredibly popular man who touched the lives of a huge number of Ipswich residents. He was a 45-year-old man with three brothers. He was an engineer with UK Power Networks. He had just completed four years of training. He was incredibly passionate about what he did. He was a season ticket holder at Ipswich Town football club. He was passionate about his town, he was passionate about his family and he was passionate about his friends. In the words of his brother Krissy, “He would give you the shirt off his back.” That was the kind of man he was. He would have done anything for anyone. He was the sort of man who deserved only good things to happen to him and only good things to happen to those who were closest to him.

On 22 February 2020, Richard went to see Ipswich play Oxford in a football game. Ipswich lost one-nil, which has happened a fair bit over the last few years, but I think he had probably got a bit used to it, so he was in good spirits, despite the fact that Ipswich lost that game. He went to the Cock & Pye pub. He met up with his brother Krissy and his younger brother. His younger brother was involved in a music band, and he went somewhere else in town to see his brother playing. For the first time in a long time, all four brothers were together on that night, Saturday 22 February.

Richard was the eldest brother, and not only did he provide invaluable support to each one of his three brothers, but he cared for his mother, who had health problems. He did everything he could to support her. After the gig, he walked home to watch, I believe, a boxing fight that was taking place that night. It was before midnight, and he walked up St Matthew’s Street, which is a pretty prominent street in Ipswich. It is a street that I myself have walked along when I have walked up to where I live after going to a bar or a restaurant.

Earlier that day, Andrea Cristea, who had a youth detention order and was awaiting sentencing for a violent crime, was going about his business, frankly, pretty determined for trouble—pretty determined to cause a lot of damage to someone and a lot of grief to someone. Unfortunately, that person was Richard Day. Richard Day was set upon by this individual. He was attacked violently. There was a punch thrown to the neck, which would end up being the lethal blow.

We could say, “Well, it got a bit out of hand; it was something that happened,” but far from offering assistance when Richard Day lay on the ground dying, Andrea Cristea went through his pockets, stole his wallet and was seen standing over my constituent—as he was dying—laughing. This happened in the town that I represent, it happened before midnight, and it happened in a prominent place. Clearly, this has caused immense upset to the family of Richard Day, all of his friends and everyone who knew him, but it also shook the town and, frankly, I do not really think that we have recovered from it.

I was very thankful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for visiting Ipswich in March 2020. I spoke to her about this incident, which had caused great nervousness in the town. Frankly, there have been many antisocial behaviour problems in the town that I represent, and when something like this happens, it causes great unease. I was grateful to the Home Secretary for visiting Ipswich, talking to residents and talking to the local police force. That is the effect of what happened on the family and the town.

On 26 April 2021, a judge issued the sentence for Mr Cristea. He got four years in a youth offenders institute, but of course he will be let out automatically halfway through, so it is pointless calling it four years. It is not four years; it is two years. This individual had already served a significant amount of time on remand, so we are looking at him being released incredibly soon and presumably back on the streets of Ipswich. I have spoken to people with a wide range of views on law and order issues, but not a single person in the town I have spoken to about this particular sentence believes that it is appropriate or that it delivers justice. They believe it is far from that.

I wrote to the Attorney General to ask whether they could review the case in the Court of Appeal. I knew it was a long shot, and in some senses the family felt that the judge’s hands were tied because a lot of it was to do with the Sentencing Council guidelines, but we thought we would give it a try. We were unsuccessful, and I understand the reasons why we were unsuccessful. I am grateful for the letter I received from the Solicitor General, who sent me the letter and discussed it with me offline as well, to explain her immense sympathy with the family, but also why she felt she was in the position that she was in.

There are several consequences that I can think of now. There are the consequences for the family. Their belief is that no justice has been served. As the family of the victim, their confidence in the criminal justice system has been shaken as a result of this. They are so far away from feeling like justice has been served. They believe this pitiful sentence is almost an insult. What kind of deterrent does it provide to anybody else potentially involved in this kind of illicit behaviour, when somebody who behaves like this can get away with it?

There is also the consequence for public safety. As I said before, this particular individual, who had committed multiple crimes before he ended up in the offenders institution where he currently is, could well be back out on the streets of Ipswich again. How can we guarantee that he will not do something similar again? The judge said that he took public safety into account, but that an extended sentence would not help the situation. I find that hard to believe.

Why did I apply for this Adjournment debate, which is only my third Adjournment debate? First, I did so because I wanted to put on record the remarkable man I have learned about and the contribution that he made to his family and to his town, and the fact that he should never be forgotten. I also did it because of the sense of anger felt not just by his family but by pretty much everyone in the town, and hopefully to try to spur some of us to think about the consequences of this and about how unhealthy it is that so many people’s confidence in the criminal justice system is so shaken by a sentence such as this. It is a sentence that we can all look at and know it is wrong.

I simply do not think it is enough to abdicate responsibility and say, “Oh well, it’s the Sentencing Council, it is this and it is that.” Ultimately, people look to their elected representatives to put in place a law and order system that they can have confidence and faith in and that they believe delivers justice. So I believe that this House and this Government need to look at the system and take appropriate action to ensure that sentences such as this are not issued in the way that they are.

It was manslaughter that Mr Cristea was found guilty of, but for me it was an incredibly sinister kind of manslaughter. He has shown no contrition whatsoever for the damage he has done or for the life he took away that will never ever be forgotten by the family of Mr Day. He was 16 when the incident took place and 17 when he was sentenced. It seems wrong that, if he had been over 18, he probably would have got something like nine years and there is such a dramatic difference if you are a 17-year-old as opposed to if you are an 18-year-old—almost more, I believe, than the difference if you are a 12-year-old and if you are a 17-year-old. I understand that the Government are looking at a sliding scale in relation to murder, but not in relation to manslaughter, which is what we are talking about today, and which is what caused such immense destruction to the life of Richard Day.

I am very serious about the point about public safety. I do not know what the plan is for Mr Cristea when he comes out of where he is at the moment. My view is that I do not want him to step foot in the town that I represent ever again. I believe that he is an appalling man, and I believe he could do further damage. I would like an assurance that he will not be back in the town that I represent. I do not know what his nationality is. I understand he is not a British national, but I may be wrong. I do not know whether he has been able to apply for settled status while he has been in the criminal justice system. If he has done, I find this ludicrous, and I would think there is a very reasonable argument to be made for deportation. I see very few redeeming features in this individual. I think he has had nothing but a negative impact on our country and our town. At the very least, if we cannot look at his sentence, it would be some comfort to know that he is going to be deported.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the House tonight? He has done his constituents proud. His dutiful attention is on record, and we thank him for it. Does he not agree that the automatic halving of sentences should not apply to cases involving manslaughter, and that we in this House have a duty to the families of victims to ensure that changes are made to legislation in every area of the UK? Legislation may enable his constituent’s killer to serve only 10 months after sentencing, and it is absolutely right that he should be getting more.

[Tom Hunt]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member, who I am very honoured has made an intervention in the second out of three Adjournment debates. I do not think he has intervened in all of them.

The Government have made some very good moves. They have ended automatic release for those found guilty of some of the most serious offences. If someone gets sentenced to 25 years in prison, no longer are they let out automatically halfway through, so there have been some moves in the right direction, but I agree: I think we need to go further. I am perhaps quite old-fashioned, but I like things to be what they are called on the tin, so that if someone gets four years, they get four years; if they get two years, they get two years; if they get nine years, they get nine years. Unless there is exceptional behaviour and a very good reason for early release, they should not get early release. Do not call it four years if it is not four years.

There is a wider point here about the extent to which we as elected representatives can shape these issues, because I think the public should have input into our law and order. I do not think we should be scared of trying to have an influence. I will conclude now, because I would like the Minister to have time to reply. I guess I wanted to have this debate as I wanted to put on record Richard Day, the man that he is and how he will be remembered. He will always be remembered. I am not just saying this. He was loved—much loved—by a very large number of people in the town. He was a typical Ipswich man: good, honest, good values, and patient with his football team. He deserves for there to be a legacy. That involves us remembering him, but also being determined that other families do not have to go through the pain that his family have gone through. That is how I would like to leave this debate, and I would be very grateful if the Minister outlined to me what steps will be taken to strengthen our criminal justice system to ensure that people such as Mr Cristea pay a much, much higher price for the unbearable pain they have inflicted.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for securing this evening’s Adjournment debate. Let me thank him also for the very moving and powerful speech that he has just made, paying very eloquent tribute to his constituent, Richard Day, who was so tragically killed just over a year ago. It was clear from my hon. Friend’s description what a loved character Richard Day was around Ipswich. It is fitting, as my hon. Friend said, that he is recalled so fondly in this Chamber in Parliament.

The case that my hon. Friend has described to the House obviously raises a number of issues, particularly touching on how children or people under the age of 18 get sentenced, the unduly lenient sentence scheme and various other issues that he mentioned. As he said, the way that people are sentenced under the age of 18 is different from the way that adults are sentenced, reflecting the fact that they are less mature when the offence is committed.

Despite that, however, there are a number of options that judges have available to them to make sure that, where appropriate for serious offences, there are a full range of options available that they can use at their discretion. For example, a section 250 sentence can be given for serious or grave offences. There are special sentences of detention for terrorist offenders of particular concern. People under 18 can get extended determinate sentences for serious sexual, violent or terrorist offences where the court considers them to be dangerous. They serve a longer sentence and serve at least two thirds of that in prison, and more if the parole board thinks it is not safe to release them. They can be given a discretionary life sentence where the offender poses a significant risk. And, of course, for murder there is a mandatory life sentence. Judges, in sentencing someone even under the age of 18, have all those options available under current law if they choose to use them.

We have gone further to protect the public against offenders of all kinds in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which passed its Third Reading less than half an hour ago. That contains many measures to protect our constituents, for example ensuring that serious and dangerous offenders spend two thirds of their sentence in prison, not half—exactly as my hon. Friend called for in his speech. In fact, those provisions apply to offenders under the age of 18 as well, where they receive a standard determinate sentence of over seven years for a serious sexual violent offence, to make sure that they are kept off the streets for longer to protect the public and to make sure the sentence served in prison better reflects the sentence handed down by the court. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that. Of course, he voted for that just half an hour ago—at least I assume he voted for it half an hour ago.

[Tom Hunt]

indicated assent.

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend is nodding. He did vote for it.

We have those measures to ensure that serious and violent offenders will spend longer in prison, both adults and, in those circumstances, those under 18. We are also making changes, which my hon. Friend touched on, to the sentences handed down for those under 18 for cases of murder. I know the case was manslaughter, which I will come to in a minute, but for murder, rather than having a standard 12-year starting point for children, we are now going to introduce a sliding scale in the Bill that has just passed Third Reading in the Commons. It will reflect the seriousness of the underlying offence. It will use, as a starting point, the sentence that an adult would have got for the same offence. It will vary, depending on the seriousness of the offence, but it will also have a sliding scale based on age. Instead of someone who was 17 when the offence was committed getting a significant discount, as happens at the moment, it will be only a 10% discount, which addresses some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised. It goes down to 66% of the adult sentence when people are aged 14 to 16, and then to 50% for the lower age ranges. That will ensure that people who are just under the age of 18 will have a longer sentence than is the case at the moment, so that is a very important change.

We are also, in the Bill, reducing the opportunities for people who committed murder as a child to have their minimum term reviewed—it will be less frequently once they cross the age of 18. All the measures that we in this House supported just half an hour ago will serve to stiffen sentences for people under the age of 18 who commit very serious offences, including murder, compared with the situation today. That is moving in the direction that my hon. Friend mentioned because our constituents want to see such very serious offences properly punished with longer custodial sentences and more of those sentences served in prison. That will protect the public and build public confidence in the system.

My hon. Friend asked some specific questions about this case. Obviously there is a limit to what I can say about individual cases. He asked about licence conditions following release. That is a matter for the Probation Service. I can see that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), is with us; he has ministerial responsibility for that area. I think we can ensure that this case is drawn to the attention of the Probation Service. The victim’s family will have the right to make representations to the Probation Service as it considers the conditions it might set. We can certainly ensure that the family have that opportunity in this case so that they can make their views known.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich asked about the possibility that the accused in this case—or, now, the person who has been convicted of this offence—may not have British nationality. He asked whether they might be subject to deportation proceedings if that is the case. Under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, anyone who receives a custodial sentence of more than a year is considered for deportation. Therefore if the defendant or accused—the convicted, in this case—is not a British national, because the sentence here was more than one year, they will be eligible for mandatory consideration. That will happen automatically, as a matter of routine, not because I am standing here saying that it will happen. Obviously, we can ensure that that is not overlooked administratively, although I am sure that it will not be in any event.

My hon. Friend correctly observed that this new sliding scale, which we legislated for just half an hour ago, applies to murder but does not apply to manslaughter. He asked whether it is equitable that the sliding scale applies to one offence but not the other. It is an interesting point, although not one that I had considered prior to him raising it just now. I will therefore take that point away and consider whether the sliding scale that we have legislated for regarding murder should also apply to manslaughter. After having looked at it and thought about whether there are any legal or other considerations to take into account, I will get back to my hon. Friend. On the face of it, the point is worthy of proper thought, so I will take it away and look at it properly.

I again thank my hon. Friend for raising this extremely serious case. I extend my condolences to Richard Day’s family. He was taken from them so suddenly and so brutally, and it is fitting that he has received the tribute that he has tonight from his own constituency MP.

This Government are committed to ensuring that serious offenders spend longer in prison. We have been legislating today to ensure that more of the sentence is spent in prison. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said and there are some points to take away. This Government stand on the side of victims. We stand on the side of those who have suffered as a result of crime. Our commitment is being enshrined in legislation this very day, but where we need to go further, we most certainly will.

Question put and agreed to.