Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

As usual, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) talks a lot of good sense.

I am uniquely badly affected in my constituency. As a result of our inability to control illegal migration, the Government want to put 2,000 illegal migrants into RAF Scampton, which our local social services simply cannot cope with, and would probably atrophy £300 million-worth of investments. My constituents are not focused on whether we have Rwanda or not Rwanda; they just want the boats to be stopped, or at least severely mitigated. We have heard many criticisms and good knockabout stuff from the Opposition, but the only solutions that anybody in the world has come up with to stop illegal migration are either with pushback, which is uniquely difficult in the channel, or with offshoring, and nothing works. Therefore we have to do something.

The world is in such a parlous state that there is no end to the misery and the number of people who want to come here. I hear that we should speed up asylum applications. That is all very well, but the more we speed them up, the more people will come. I hear that we should do more on the beaches of France. I understand that—I do not understand why the French cannot do more—but that will not stop them. The only thing that will work is what the Government are trying to do.

It is all so unfair. This morning, I mentioned the case of Maira Shahbaz, who was raped and abducted in Pakistan, and who is still waiting to get here. She is a genuine asylum seeker. So many genuine asylum seekers cannot get here, because illegal migrants are abusing the system. There is nothing wrong with them individually; they are all nice young men who just want a job. However, if somebody breaks into your house and decides to steal your stuff, the police turn up, remove them and arrest them. We are in an absurd situation where people are entering this country illegally. Run by criminal gangs, they are jumping the queue, putting their lives at risk, and we are doing nothing about it. The public are just appalled. They cannot understand what is going on. They do not understand why we are putting people up in comfortable hotels, or in comfortable former airmen’s rooms. They do not know what is going on. They are paying for all of this and they want it to stop.

I hear all these different groups in the Conservative party. A House divided is a House that will be destroyed. We must work together; there is no other solution. I hear all the different voices that are going on, so I will just say that the Society of Conservative Lawyers and the Policy Exchange—not left-wing groups—think that this Bill will work. The Government think that it will work. The ERG has some doubts, but we have to work together to try to get this Bill through. Let us get it through Parliament as quickly as possible, get it through the Lords and try to stop the boats.

We can legislate all we want to ignore the ECHR, including rule 39 interim measures, but even if we did so, we would very soon face a final judgment from the Strasbourg Court, by which everyone agrees we would be bound. That is the legal situation. The only way that we can remove the Strasbourg Court is by leaving the ECHR. That may well happen, but the Government do not have a mandate to do so at the moment. They cannot get it through Parliament; it is a matter, I suspect, for the next manifesto. Meanwhile, this Bill probably goes just about as far as we can go. I am sorry, but we must be realistic: this is all we can get through Parliament.

As both the Society of Conservative Lawyers and Policy Exchange have said, a Bill would not be workable if it did not allow for narrow claims for individual circumstances. Even the report of the ERG’s star chamber seems to accept that there should be some possibility of claims in cases of bad faith. The key question is whether our system can process and dismiss those spurious claims quickly enough. Under the arrangements we have for removal to Albania, illegal migrants have even wider avenues for claims, but they have still led to a 90% fall in small boats arrivals from Albania.

The Bill is roughly in the right ballpark, but I hope that before the Committee stage the Government will consider whether clause 4 can be tightened further and whether they can share further evidence of the ability to process and deal with spurious claims. It is a question of will. In 1939, when we were facing a world war and a crisis, overnight we exported—

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will give way very quickly, yes.

[Karl Turner]

What does the hon. Gentleman think of the reciprocal arrangement for the Rwandan Government to send asylum seekers to this country?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course none of us like any of that, but we have to get the Bill past the courts. We have to get it through Parliament. We have to be realistic. The Supreme Court has opined that there is a risk—I would say a vanishingly small one—that failed asylum seekers might be sent back to Iraq or Syria. Therefore, in order to get the Bill through Parliament and past the Supreme Court, the Government have had to make that concession. We do not like it, but that is the real world.

Politics is about reality. Therefore, this Bill must go through and be dealt with as quickly as possible. The onus on the Government now is to ensure that we can speed up the removal cases. It would be ludicrous if many hundreds of migrants, having come here illegally, were allowed to delay matters for up to a year by going to a tribunal, the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. The whole scheme will be bogged down and we will look completely ridiculous as a Government.

In order to survive and have a hope of winning the general election, the Government must also sort out the problem of legal migration. We cannot have a situation where 700,000 people are pouring into this country every year. We must pay care staff a proper salary so that we can get more of our own people working in that sector. We must deal with illegal migration, deal with legal migration and, by the way, build some more houses for our own people.

If we start working together as a party, if we stop making personal attacks on each other, if we stop questioning one another’s good faith, the Conservative party has a chance—because what has Labour got to offer? No solutions at all. If Labour gets into power it will never sort out this problem. The only hope is this Government and this Conservative party.

Town Centre Safety

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I welcome the debate, because it is so important to talk about the safety of our town centres and our high streets. In the Cities of London and Westminster, I am proud that we have what is perhaps considered the nation’s high street: Oxford Street. We also have Regent Street and Bond Street. Equally importantly, we have amazing local neighbourhood high streets, such as Marylebone high street and St John’s Wood high street—it is not in my constituency at the moment—which I visited last week for Small Business Saturday. On my visit, I was shocked to hear from shopkeepers about the rise in shoplifting. I also recently met the Marylebone Association in Marylebone high street, where local people are really concerned about the huge increase in shoplifting. I have spoken to shopkeepers and heard about the work that local councillors in Marylebone are doing with local retail staff. Some are now locking their doors and not allowing people in until they know who is coming in. Waitrose on Marylebone high street has taken away so many products—alcohol in particular—because it has had organised gangs going in, particularly at certain times, in an organised operation. I would like to see the local police do a lot more to tackle shoplifting, particularly in places such as that.

I also welcome the debate today because it is really important that we talk about the local policing of town centres. I know that the Government have put dealing with town centre safety very much at the heart of policing. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) mentioned the Government’s retail crime action plan, which is important. Things such as the antisocial behaviour action plan and the safer streets programme devolve money, funding and action to local communities, councils and police. I want to highlight the importance of police and crime commissioners and police chiefs in ensuring that our town centres and high streets are safe.

In London, we have a rather interesting situation with the Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan. Crime has gone up in the seven years that he has been Mayor, and 11% in the last year alone—that is 1,100 extra crimes. Research has been done recently on crime on the tube, which has risen more than 50%, fuelled by thefts and robberies. People come to the centre to shop or have a good night out in the night-time economy that we offer in the west end, but Oxford Circus and Leicester Square are among the worst tube stations for theft. That has happened under Sadiq Khan as the police and crime commissioner for London. My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) raised that issue when he intervened on the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), and said that Sadiq Khan has failed to recruit more than 1,000 extra officers on top of the 3,666 police officers that the Government have funded with the Met and the City of London police.

It is important to understand that it is up to local police teams. In London we have an excellent borough commander, Louise Puddefoot, ably supported by Chief Superintendent Beth Pirie, but their hands have been tied in Westminster. We have amazing neighbourhood police teams but they are often taken away from their neighbourhood duties to undertake ceremonial and protest duties, because Westminster is home to more than 500 demonstrations, marches and protests each year, in addition to the ceremonial activities such as the changing of the guard. I recently wrote to Assistant Commissioner Rolfe to ask whether the Met will establish a central police team that will undertake those ceremonial duties, so that we do not lose our neighbourhood police teams on a weekly basis. It is important to acknowledge the excellent work of our neighbourhood police officers, who are equally frustrated to be taken off neighbourhood duties for ceremonial duties.

When our neighbourhood police officers are taken away for ceremonial duties or protests, a huge vacuum is left. There has been a huge increase in antisocial behaviour around the cathedral on Victoria Street, Great Peter Street and around St Matthew’s Primary School. I have been heartbroken to read letters from year 6 children in that school, outlining what they see as they walk to and from school: men urinating and defecating in the street outside their school; men and women taking drugs and acting antisocially. I want more police action on that.

I recently held a local public meeting just off Victoria Street with the cathedral area residents group. More than 100 people turned up, and they were sick to the back teeth of dealing with all the antisocial behaviour in their neighbourhood. It is imperative that the police and Westminster City Council take a zero-tolerance approach to it. I am disappointed to report that in the last 18 months there has been a real increase in antisocial behaviour across Westminster, particularly people who are street drinking and begging. I would like the council to do an awful lot more. I produced a crime plan last year, having conducted a survey across Westminster to which nearly 5,000 people responded. Their top priority was more police officers on our street. If we see them in our neighbourhoods and high streets, that will prevent crime and stop the shoplifting. We need to get a grip of this.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

If the hon. Lady thinks that we need more police officers, should she not support Labour’s motion?

[Nickie Aiken]

I go back to my earlier comment: the Government gave funding to the Labour Mayor of London, but he failed to use that money to recruit up to 1,000 extra police officers on top of the 3,600 that the police have funded. That money went back into the pot, and other police forces have taken advantage of it. Over the last seven years under Sadiq Khan we have seen failure, failure, failure in many areas, but the biggest one has been crime. Any community across London will say that their biggest concern is crime and antisocial behaviour. Sadiq Khan has failed to answer that concern.

Local people want a zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour and crime, particularly in our beloved shops including major brands across Westminster. Last summer I visited Boots in Piccadilly, and was shocked to hear about the number of incidents it is dealing with day in, day out. It is the only pharmacy open at midnight, so people who desperately need medication will go there. With the night-time economy as it is, Boots staff are often victims of assaults and shoplifting. They call the police, but they do not turn up.

In all my meetings with local people over the last year or two on this issue, that is the biggest concern that they raise: that when they call the police, they do not turn up. It might not be a life-threatening issue—someone might not be about to die—but they want the police to come and deal with someone comatose on the street or a shoplifter. The public must not give up on the police. They do an amazing job, and officers are there for us day in, day out, but they are being let down by the lack of serious leadership in the police in making sure that our bobbies are on the beat and doing what they should be doing. The public need to be encouraged to continue to report crime. I have only just learned that it is possible to report crime on Twitter or Facebook. It is really easy. The person reporting it will get a crime report and can follow it up. The police need information so that they can put the resources where they are needed.

To conclude, I welcome the opportunity to debate the importance of town centre and high street safety. We need more police officers on our streets. In London we have a Labour Mayor who has let us down time and again. It is not about funding police officers but about recruiting them and putting them on our streets.

Draft Immigration (Age Assessments) Regulations 2023

Karl Turner Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2023 General Committees

[Robert Jenrick]

I do agree that the methods are well rehearsed and have been used by other European countries, including ones that we would respect in the way they handle such issues. In fact, X-rays have an error rate of two years, but we are not looking to apply an exact age or age range, as I have described: we are looking to reduce the likelihood that an individual might be an adult posing as a child. If it is any comfort to Members who are interested, both the Government’s chief scientific adviser at the time, Sir Patrick Vallance, and the chief medical officer, Sir Chris Whitty, reviewed the issue and support its soundness, and they praised the method of the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee. I hope that reassures Members that this matter has been considered in some depth across Government, taking advantage of all the advisers that we Ministers have.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I declare an indirect interest in that my wife is a tribunal judge on the first-tier tribunal in the immigration setting. Has the Minister made an assessment of the cost implications of the policy, which sounds terribly expensive? Where does the cost fall? Will the NHS have to undertake this work, or will the Home Office be responsible for footing the bill?

[Robert Jenrick]

As Members would expect, we have given thought to how we will operationalise the plan, and there are different ways in which one could do that. We have not yet set out a detailed plan in the public domain, but it is likely that the measure will be delivered in the first instance by local authorities in a community setting, but paid for by the Home Office as part of the immigration service. We do not expect the cost to be borne by local authorities. In fact, the policy is likely to reduce the overall burden on local authorities, because today many local authorities, particularly those that encounter a high number of asylum seekers, are spending a great deal of money on navigating the Merton age-assessment process and looking after individuals as a result. If the process can be done in an expeditious way, supported and funded by the Home Office and central Government, there should be an overall cost reduction for individual local authorities.

Let me conclude my remarks by simply saying that I should note—

Immigration Rules: Offshore Workers

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of immigration rules affecting offshore workers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The “Saudi Arabia of wind” was how the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) described the potential of the offshore wind sector—perhaps one of his few boasts with which I agreed. One new offshore wind farm alone, Berwick Bank in the Firth of Forth, off my constituency in East Lothian, would provide enough electricity to power more households than Scotland possesses. In energy-rich Scotland, however, folk find themselves fuel poor. That, though, is a separate debate.

The opportunities of offshore wind are much more than simply lower power costs for our people. They must encompass work for individuals and communities, especially where old industries are gone or are being scaled down. It should be a renewable energy revolution, creating new types of work and jobs for young people, as well as retraining those in sectors such as fossil fuels, where a transition is as necessary for our planet as it is for our country. A just transition has been promised, and that must be more than just a glib phrase.

There are almost 50,000 offshore oil and gas workers in the UK. As their work ceases—as it will, with only the pace of it subject to debate—there is a duty to provide for them. They have given so much in recent years, often in very trying and dangerous circumstances. Of course, it is not just in offshore wind that other opportunities will now arise; there may be opportunities in carbon capture and storage or hydrogen. There are skills gaps now and no doubt there will be in future years. It is right that there should be an immigration and visa system to provide for them. Our economy and our environment demand no less.

This debate is therefore not anti-immigration. Instead, it is anti-worker exploitation. Exploitative employers must not be allowed to undermine UK employment laws and import low-paid migrant labour as a matter of course, and on terms and conditions unacceptable on the UK mainland or even in the oil and gas sector. That would be an abuse of desperate people, and a shameful sell-out of the rights of our own workers.

It is not alarmist to warn of the dangers. We have already seen the hollowing out of the UK merchant marine sector over recent years: 85% of seafarers in the UK shipping industry are non-UK nationals. More recently, we have seen the abomination of the P&O scandal—a disgrace acknowledged by this Government. This is not “stop the boats”, but save the Scottish and UK seafarers, and those classified in that category. It has already been happening in the offshore sector.

Next to the Berwick Bank offshore wind field in the Firth of Forth lies the Neart na Gaoithe field. Compounding the insult of turbines not being constructed locally was the injury to UK and Scottish seafarers who were laid off and replaced by cheap south Asian labour. Many had moved to work there from oil and gas, as a constituent of mine did, seeing it as an opportunity to be closer to home.

There is a grave risk that what happened in Neart na Gaoithe will be replicated elsewhere. UK seafarers and other offshore wind sector workers are being supplanted by foreign labour. I do not mean essential skills that can only be obtained on a global basis and are required for development and operation. Instead, it is foreign labour, exploited and working for rates of pay and under terms and conditions that would be unacceptable on the UK mainland or in the oil and gas sector.

The Neart na Gaoithe debacle came about as a result of the extension of the offshore workers exemption, which was initially the subject matter of the debate. That loophole has thankfully since ended, though too late to provide any satisfaction for those who lost their jobs. It is interesting to note, though, that RenewableUK wrote to the then immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), in August 2021 suggesting ending the waiver for migrant labour in the sector. It also stated that UK workers were losing out on contracts to construct

“UK offshore wind farms to workers from as far afield as Asia, where regulations are less robust, thus creating an unlevel playing field for British firms.”

The letter went on to narrate how UK jobs were lost as a result of a subcontractor.

That shows that immigration restrictions are not damaging to the interests of responsible UK employers or indeed any other nation’s responsible employers; they are damaging only to unscrupulous ones from anywhere. That warning was sadly ignored. A refusal to disclose the number of jobs in construction and maintenance of offshore wind farms filled by migrant labour under the initial concession compounded that problem.

Now, the 2017 offshore wind workers immigration rules concession has been replaced with the Immigration (Offshore Worker Notification and Exemption from Control (Amendment)) Regulations 2023. The regulations, though, leave a gap. It is one thing that foreign seafarers simply passing through UK waters are not covered—that is understandable and quite appropriate. However, the definition of foreign seafarers

“passing through UK waters from non-UK waters to a place in the UK or vice versa”

leaves open the opportunity for exploitation in the sector. Will the Minister undertake to address that loophole?

Moreover, as well as the numbers employed in the sector growing, the nature of the work will also develop and change. New technology such as floating offshore wind turbines allow for expansion far beyond the limits of territorial waters. Ships and support vessels will be operating further out at sea and, rather than them being serviced from onshore ports, there will be flotels, offshore living platforms and ships moored nearby for workers to live and work on. The expansion beyond UK territorial waters—the 12-mile limit that applies from the coastal shore—will also bring issues that need addressed. The issue is less serious within territorial waters, though significant risks still apply. Let me explain.

Even with the ending of the offshore workers extension, it is not difficult for employers to recruit cheaper foreign labour—it is already happening with foreign labour in the UK on visas living onshore when not working offshore. Most worrying is the potential exploitation in the sector outwith territorial waters, where many of the new wind farms will be located: beyond the 12-mile limit, yet still within the 100-mile UK exclusive economic zone. Some working there will be seafarers. Others, though, will have other skills but may operate on ships or vessels for the sector. As things currently stand, they may find themselves classified in law as seafarers or considered to be operating under international maritime laws.

We already know that issues exist with health and safety legislation as the recent Valaris 121 tragedy confirmed. When a ship or platform is not attached to a turbine, it is not UK health and safety laws that apply but international maritime law. That absurdity has seen the loss of a UK seafarer’s life in an accident only 100 miles from Aberdeen under the jurisdiction of Liberia: a country on the west coast of Africa. That is not just wrong—it is perverse. Hopefully, though, coming discussions will address that.

However, as with health and safety legislation, so with employment legislation, whereby the national minimum wage does not apply for those operating outwith territorial waters yet still doing so within the UK’s exclusive economic zone. Of course, some responsible employers even apply the living wage across their supply chain, although monitoring and enforcement of it can be problematic. Surely, though, employment legislation that applies in the UK should extend to this sector? After all, steps were rightly taken to extend such protections to the oil and gas sector when it first took off.

As well as ensuring that existing UK workers’ rights are protected in the new sector, there needs to be action so that immigration laws apply to the sector. Recently published Government guidance to immigration staff on incoming labour to the UK only refers to “continental shelf workers”. As with the health and safety situation, there is a failure to provide for the new offshore wind sector. The definition of a continental shelf worker comes from the Petroleum Act 1998 and relates to those operating in the oil and gas sector. To be fair, when that legislation was written, the technology for offshore wind, let alone for floating offshore wind, had not even been thought about. As a result, there is no guidance that applies for immigration officials when labour is recruited for the offshore wind sector. That appears to be an oversight, even if there is an understandable reason for the failure.

However, it must be noted that section 87 of the Energy Act 2004 applies civil law to renewable energy installations. That specifically includes those outwith the 12-mile territorial limit and within the exclusive economic zone. No doubt that was done to protect the interests of the corporations involved in the offshore sector. They need to be able to litigate for damages, to enforce contracts, and to preserve their proprietorial and economic rights. I accept that recourse to UK courts and the imposition of UK laws is sensible and required. The rule of law is fundamental for commerce and trade. But the rule of law is equally necessary in civil society and for our citizens as much as for our corporations. Extending coverage of existing laws and providing recourse to courts should therefore apply to workers’ rights and safety, just as it does for economic development and corporate profits. Rights applied in the oil and gas sector must be replicated in the offshore wind sector, and agreements between trade unions and employers should similarly apply.

The danger is that in order to maximise profits unscrupulous employers will seek to import foreign labour, who will work under terms and conditions that we as a country would not tolerate, either on our land or in the oil and gas sector. Those working on ships or based in flotels or other vessels in the exclusive economic zone will be denied those rights. As things stand, employers will not even have to go through the relatively minor hoops and hurdles that apply for migrants working within the territorial limit.

As I said at the outset, this speech is not anti-immigration; Scotland requires new people. This speech is anti-exploitation of workers, protecting those entitled to a just transition and others who are simply seeking a start in the natural bounty that is off our shores. Also, though, it is about protecting workers from abroad who are so desperate for work that they are prepared to accept terms and conditions of employment that we already consider unacceptable on our land and in other sectors.

We must ensure that what happened in Neart na Gaoithe or with P&O, which was even worse, is not repeated. This issue is about the protection of workers in our growing offshore wind sector, whether they are from this country or from abroad but working here. There is ample opportunity to do both, because even after providing employment for all the current oil and gas workers, as well as creating new jobs for others of all ages, there will still be a need to bring in migrants to work. However, that should happen where skills are missing or labour is just not to be found. It should be about economic necessity, not the circumvention of hard-won and vital individual and collective rights. Equally, as we have heard from RenewableUK, this is about protecting responsible employers from those who are unscrupulous. The rights and laws that we have onshore, which have also operated in the oil and gas sector, must be extended to the offshore sector within and without territorial waters.

Will the Minister ensure that UK immigration rules applying to the offshore sector secure the protection of UK workers by basing this on specific need where skills shortages have been identified? Moreover, will he ensure that they are temporary regulations, and subject to regular oversight and transparency? Finally, will he require employers of migrant labour to adhere to the UK employment laws and the national minimum wage that we expect to be enforced on the UK mainland, on our islands, and in our oil and gas sector?

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I need to know that both the mover of the motion and the Minister are happy that he should make a short speech. Is that the case?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) not just for allowing me the opportunity to speak briefly, but for securing this incredibly important debate.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the scandal of P&O Ferries sacking 800 British seafarers a little over a year ago. The anniversary of that terrible event in British maritime history and industrial relations was on 17 March. That was the 12-month anniversary of 800 people being sacked and thrown on the scrapheap over a Zoom call. It was utterly deplorable. I am afraid that the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 that the Government brought forward with a view to sorting out that travesty simply does not cut the mustard. The reality is that there is still a legislative lacuna and the Act that was brought forward to sort it out simply does not do the trick.

I mention the P&O issue because it is incredibly relevant to this. It is clear that we need a smarter immigration system, and we desperately need Government investment to retrain offshore workers. We also need investment from the private sector in the maritime industry, but the Government have to help. They have to put their hands in their pocket and put up some moneys to retrain people and skill them up to work in the offshore sector. Regrettably, they have not done that.

I have lost count of the number of times I have spoken with Immigration Ministers over recent years and they have assured me—privately, very often—that they intend to address the issue of continually extending the regulations to, in effect, allow foreign workers to come into this country, work in the offshore sector and, frankly, work for an awful lot less than they would be expected to earn if they were British seafarers.

I ask the Minister: what do we need? By the way, I thank him for allowing me to contribute briefly to the debate. What we need is sectoral collective bargaining in the offshore wind sector. That would prevent the undercutting of pay and conditions in this growing industry. There are huge opportunities for people who go to school in the constituency of the hon. Member for East Lothian and, indeed, in mine. Kids could look forward to prosperous, good careers working in the offshore sector, but we need such a collective bargaining agreement to make that happen.

By the way, I have been involved in this stuff for many years now, and any suggestion that this would be challenged and is impossible because the UN convention on the law of the sea would prevent such a collective bargaining agreement is just utter nonsense. That is simply not right. If the Minister is about to be briefed by civil servants saying, “Well, there’s a problem with that, because the UN convention on the law of the sea prevents such collective bargaining agreements”, that is simply not right. There is nothing in international law or, indeed, domestic law that says that that would be an issue. I pray that the Government get a grip on the situation. They should not continually extend the regulations to allow offshore workers to come in and do these jobs. I do not think that it is a problem—

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is eating into valuable time. He is probably right that we should allow the Minister to respond to this debate now.

[Karl Turner]

I am very grateful to you, Sir Christopher. Very briefly, the Government need to do much more to address this issue. It has continued for long enough. They need to get a grip.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

I have visited our clandestine command and control team, headed up by Dan O’Mahoney and Border Force officials, and we have a military presence. Some very impressive technology is being used, such as surveillance drone technology, to enable and facilitate better co-operation with the French.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Why do the Government continue to extend the temporary offshore wind workers concession? The industry is not even asking for it. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issue?

[Mr Speaker]

A quick yes or no will do.

HM Passport Office Backlog

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I turn to priority services, for which appointments are released three weeks in advance. Although appointments are released daily, there is currently high demand, so we are exploring and implementing a range of options to help support people who are seeking access to those services. That work led to the recent opening of an eighth public counter offering urgent service appointments, in Birmingham, and a further increase in appointment availability to help support those people who need their passports quickly.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Foster]

There is, though, one area of the service that we recognise as being not up to standard: the advice line. Teleperformance, which operates the passport advice line, has not achieved the required standard to support customers seeking to make contact about their applications. Officials have worked constructively with Teleperformance towards a rectification plan and, mostly, through the addition of more than 500 staff since mid-April. Its performance has improved significantly, but it remains short of where it needs to be. Officials and I remain focused on ensuring that that is resolved as quickly as possible.

Suppliers have previously been able to resolve issues facing their services through such constructive work. FedEx, the parent company of TNT, resolved the delivery delays experienced at the end of last year and is currently delivering within its contractual service levels. As mentioned, in anticipation of the surge in demand and to provide greater resilience to the delivery network, some domestically delivered passports are arriving via DHL—HM Passport Office’s partner for international deliveries—and supporting documents are being returned via Royal Mail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

First, the constituent made the right choice by contacting his Member of Parliament, who I know will raise his case diligently. We will certainly be interested to hear the example. Our evidence is that the vast majority of passports are delivered successfully and appropriately, but, where something has gone wrong, we are concerned to hear about it. If the hon. Member provides me with the details afterwards, I will be more than happy to follow up.

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Foster]

The failure of the telephone line means that constituents have waited longer than they should have done. There have also been difficulties in receiving prompt updates to inquiries made by right hon. and hon. Members on their behalf. The number of HM Passport Office staff supporting the Home Office’s MP hotline and offering input and surgeries at Portcullis House has steadily increased. That will be monitored to ensure that those services to colleagues continue to improve. I am advised that people are now waiting much less time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

The routes that colleagues can use to get in contact should not be used to expedite a passport application ahead of a holiday, particularly if the application was submitted only recently, because that is to the detriment of other customers who have been waiting longer and who have no lesser need for these services. Yet, we will always react if we can when there are compelling and compassionate circumstances, as hon. Members have highlighted, or, as several hon. Members will know already from their dealings with me, where there are family funerals or compelling reasons for international travel or where matters could not have been foreseen.

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Foster]

I am also grateful to colleagues who are giving advice to their constituents in these circumstances as well as for planned travel and for reminding constituents that contacting the passport advice line continues to be the best way to discuss options to get a passport soon. However, as we have made clear, the service standard needs to improve. A “Dear Colleague” letter has been circulated to provide help to right hon. and hon. Members in assisting their constituents.

I must pay tribute again to the staff at HM Passport Office who are working tirelessly to process approximately 250,000 passport applications each week. I am grateful for their continued efforts. It is a pity that others wish to rubbish those, despite not having any ideas or proposals of their own—they are doing so merely for their own political end.

[Kevin Foster]

I have already outlined several things. We are recruiting more staff, we have opened a new inquiry counter, we are having increased delivery capability, and we have been planning for some months.

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Foster]

I pay tribute to HM Passport Office, where people are working hard—many have been working at weekends as well. Many people are continuing to receive their passports in good time ahead of their holidays this summer.

[Karl Turner]

Very briefly, will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Foster]

Go on, then.

[Hon. Members]

Hooray!

[Karl Turner]

I am very grateful to the Minister for eventually giving way. My intervention will not be that brilliant, actually. Why is he unable to say what the backlog stands at? Is it because he does not know or because he is afraid to say?

Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right. There are a number of points to make on that. I know that the Minister for Crime and Policing recently visited that team. First and foremost, when it comes to the most appalling crimes of child abuse and sexual exploitation, a number of significant measures were passed through Parliament in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, including tougher sentences, which, as I have already said, the Labour party voted against.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Priti Patel]

Let me make a bit more progress.

Following the incredible response to our public consultation, we published the violence against women and girls strategy. The Government have passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and launched the multi-year “Enough” campaign to challenge and change misogynistic attitudes. These are terrible crimes that disproportionately affect women and girls, such as domestic abuse, sexual violence, stalking and female genital mutilation. Addressing them is our priority and responsibility. The Government’s rape review found a steep decline in the number of cases reaching court since 2016. One of the key reasons for this was the number of victims withdrawing from the criminal justice process, and in too many instances the criminal justice system has simply not been good enough and has failed victims. Across Government, my colleagues and I intend to transform support for victims by ensuring that cases are investigated fully and pursued vigorously through the courts.

[Karl Turner]

The Home Secretary talks about victims; why is crime up 18% but prosecutions are down 18%?

[Priti Patel]

I will come on to that as well, but first I want to speak about the rape action plan. We will increase the number of cases reaching court back to 2016 levels, which means reducing the number of victims who withdraw from the process and putting more rapists behind bars.

Crucial in how the Government will do this is not just money but investment in capabilities and the court system. The Government are investing over £80 million in the Crown Prosecution Service to tackle backlogs and recruit more prosecutors across the entire the country, because we need to start tackling this inequality. There is a significant inequality; that is in part a result of factors such as the way charges have been made and prosecutions brought, but there are other challenges as well.

Policing and Crime

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

I praise the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) for his maiden speech, which gave a positive and full description of his constituency. As a committed Unionist, I look forward to some very lively debate on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) gave an incredibly thoughtful and powerful speech, which spoke to the heart. He made a point about a sense of place and identity, which we can all relate to in our constituencies and our lives, and he will be a very valued addition to the Government Benches.

This debate is about policing and crime. Our police are heroes. I have already spoken in this place of the incredible support that my family received from Karen Cocker of South Yorkshire police. I also pay tribute to Angus Hopper and Jamie Riley of Durham constabulary for their personal support over the past few months.

Across my constituency, whether it is in Bishop Auckland, Spennymoor, Barnard Castle or Shildon, local residents overwhelmingly tell me that they want us to take tough action to tackle crime, particularly on things like anti- social behaviour, which has such a sustained impact on people’s day-to-day lives. Several times in Spennymoor, a bus in transit has had its windows shattered, with air rifles the suspected weapon. In the last incident, the projectile narrowly missed hitting a passenger. That cannot be allowed to continue. For people out there, cracking down on crime is not rocket science, but a common-sense policy, and that has been championed by the Blue Collar Conservative group, which I am proud to be a part of.

We tackle crime in a variety of ways and a large part of that is through empowering our incredible police. Increasing police numbers is so important and I am delighted that County Durham will receive an additional 68 officers in the first tranche of recruitment. I will, of course, be lobbying for a group of those officers to come to crime hotspots in areas such as Spennymoor to help keep my constituency’s streets safe. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) is right to highlight the plight of rural crime. The additional officers are also welcome to help to support our incredible, award-winning local farm watch in Teesdale to help to crack down on farm theft and other rural crime.

On extra officers, Labour Members say often, “It’s not enough”. If they were cast in “The Greatest Showman”, their favourite song would inevitably be “Never Enough”, because whatever the Government propose, it is never enough. Labour always pledges more, with no transparency over how that will be funded.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that the Government that she represents as a Back Bencher have cut police since 2010 by more than 20,000? Does she not want to say that they should take some responsibility for that savage, deliberate and unnecessary cut to policing?

[Dehenna Davison]

Labour Members seemingly forget that the reason that the purse strings had to be tightened at all was the mess in our public finances that we were left with. We have brought those public finances under control and strengthened our economy, meaning that we can now invest properly but sustainably in our public services, and that is exactly what we are doing.

There will be 68 new officers for County Durham, but let me emphasise that this is only the first tranche of recruitment and there is more to come. This is about not just the number of officers, but making sure that our existing officers feel valued. I am delighted to support the police covenant and the moves to allow special constables to access the full benefits of being members of the Police Federation. Those are all positive steps to support our incredible police.

Something that I reckon I will not say too often in this place is that I agree with the shadow Home Secretary about the need for serious policy on law and order, but I reject strongly her view that her party is the one that will deliver that serious policy. Labour’s talk on sentencing is weak and feeble, while we are planning a new sentencing Bill to review sentencing right across the board. As an early part of that, the House debated a new statutory instrument yesterday on ending the automatic halfway release point for serious offenders. I admit that I was a bit disappointed to see so few Labour Members in that debate, although I welcomed the really strong and moving contribution from the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), as her contribution also was today.

Getting sentencing right is so crucial. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton is right to speak about the importance of protecting our prison officers. Following the recent incident at HMP Deerbolt, I raised this with the Justice Secretary and met the prisons Minister—the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer)—to discuss the need to roll out additional protective equipment to keep our prison officers safe.

As someone whose father was killed through violence, as I have mentioned in this place several times, I spoke yesterday about the need for victims to be represented in the legislative process on crime and justice. On that note, how does the shadow Home Secretary dare to sit opposite and accuse Government Members of having disdain for victims of crime? It is a shameful accusation and totally trivialises a debate of such crucial national importance, for the sake of a snappy 10-second social media clip. The victims of violent crime do not want rhetoric; they want action and results. That is why the Government are listening and taking steps to extend stop-and-search powers.

We plan to extend emergency stop-and-search powers only to help to get weapons off our streets and protect our citizens. In 2017-18, stop and search resulted in over 48,000 arrests, with almost 8,000 of those for weapons and firearms. Our proposed changes have been welcomed by many, including the National Police Chiefs Council lead for stop and search and Caroline Shearer, who founded Only Cowards Carry after her 17-year-old son, Jay Whiston, was fatally stabbed in 2012.

The victims and families of the victims who have been affected by violent crime know that it is common sense that stop and search can save injuries and save lives. After all, the job of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, which we as a party recognise and are further acting upon. With 20,000 new police officers, funding for the roll-out of protection through tasers, enhanced but targeted stop-and-search powers, tougher sentences and more, I am proud to support the Government’s amendment.

EU Referendum: Race Hate Crime

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I want to make it clear that this Adjournment debate is not about people who voted to leave. Many good people voted to leave, as they believed we will be better off out of the European Union. Today’s debate is about the rhetoric and images used by some in the leave campaign.

Growing up as the child of Pakistani immigrants in the 1970s, I frequently received abuse such as “Go back to your country” or “You smell of curry.” Often, the words I heard were, “Go back home.” The words stung because they implied that I did not truly belong in this country. Growing up, this taunt haunted many of my generation and others as well. Words such as “Paki” and signs on doors saying, “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs” still haunt many of us.

If we fast-forward to 2016, it feels like nothing has changed. I still receive abuse, and it is not just racially motivated. I have frequently been subjected to rape and death threats online—often I am told I should be sent to Saudi Arabia to be raped and lynched—but I will not be frightened off, despite the fact that I am one of those MPs who regularly hold drop-in surgeries in my constituency and I have no idea who will come to see me. These people will not prevent me from carrying on connecting with my constituents and giving them the best service I can.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by my constituent Leroy Vickers, who describes four very serious incidents of racially aggravated offences. He says that in the past two days he has witnessed a man on a bus telling a passenger, “Get off the bus, Paki”, witnessed racially aggravated abuse in a takeaway, and heard a man of Jamaican descent say that for the first time since he was about five or six he is hearing the N word used regularly. What does my hon. Friend say to that?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

That is also the experience of so many of the constituents and other people who have written to me. That is why I am very grateful that I managed to get this Adjournment debate.

We have had words such as, “Go home, Polish vermin”, posted through the letterboxes of Polish residents in Cambridgeshire; heard of young Muslim school girls being cornered and intimidated, with people saying, “Get out, we voted leave” and “I can even give you a suitcase”; and seen signs in Newcastle urging the Government, “Stop immigration and start repatriation”, with words such as “This is England, we are white, get out of my country”.

Poppi Worthington

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He did an incredible amount of work as children’s Minister to deal with the failures in the system that we have seen here and he raises some very important points, many of which I, too, have raised with officials today. If he will forgive me, I will write to him on the specific points. May I also—I failed to do this earlier—offer to meet the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), because I think that there are many things that it is important we discuss face to face?

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is clear that there were multiple failings in this tragic case. I appreciate that the Minister has said that she does not want to jeopardise any further investigation, but it is terribly troubling that His Honour Judge Jackson remarked that “the police investigation was clearly deficient and that the police failed to launch a real investigation until nine months after Poppi’s death” and that the case is “more than usually troubling”. Will the Minister support the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for a separate police investigation by a separate police force? Will she also support the publication of the IPCC’s draft report on this case?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman asks about the failings in the police, and that is what the IPCC report will contain. We will know more when we see that report, but it cannot be published, even in draft, before the second inquest. I am sure that he understands that it is very important that that inquest can take place in a fair and open manner so that we get to the facts of the case and understand what happened. He will know more than anybody that Judge Jackson was looking at the balance of probabilities, whereas a criminal case would need to be beyond reasonable doubt—different levels of proof and of evidence are required. The hon. Gentleman understands that. I want to get to the bottom of this. I want to have the full inquest and understand exactly what happened, at which point we can determine the appropriate action to be taken.