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.

Napier Barracks Asylum Accommodation

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I have explained that many aspects of the judgment found in favour of the Home Office, and I have also explained that improvements have been made subsequently. The contracts are monitored on an ongoing basis, but I repeat again that the challenges of managing 60,000 people in asylum accommodation in the middle of a pandemic are very considerable.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I see this issue about public health in a pandemic as a little bit of a distraction technique, frankly. Pandemic or no pandemic, I am pretty sure that most Labour Members would rather have these people, who are largely illegal immigrants, in elaborate hotel accommodation for as long as possible—potentially indefinitely. Does the Minister agree that if we are going to do what the elected Government were asked to do, which is take back control of our borders, it might be necessary in time to be open to looking at human rights law, because it seems that these judges, who are so often out of step with public opinion, are a blockage to us doing what we need to do?

Fire Safety Bill

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]]

I welcome the Bill but, nearly four years after the Grenfell disaster and despite assurances by the Government, hundreds of thousands of people are still living with the fear that they could be next. It is a scandal that this is the first and only piece of primary legislation on fire safety that this Tory Government have brought forward to prevent such a disaster from ever happening again.

In Liverpool, 10% of buildings are still covered in highly flammable cladding, with a further 5% covered in fire-retardant cladding. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service has suffered a 35% cut to its funding and lost one third of its firefighters since 2010. Austerity has combined with roll-backs and safety regulations to make a perfect storm.

Time and again, we have heard promise after promise that the recommendations of the first phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry will be fully implemented, yet the Bill does not include a single recommendation from the inquiry’s first phase. Does the Minister agree that his Government have fundamentally failed to take the necessary steps to keep people safe in their own homes?

Today, and for months now, we have heard from Members across the House about the nightmare situations faced by many leaseholders across the country who have been left physically, mentally and financially trapped in dangerous housing. Many of my constituents have contacted me for support. They are worried sick about being trapped in unsafe housing, crippled by costs they did not incur and with no end in sight.

One pensioner wrote to tell me that he had just been sent a bill for £20,000. He has no savings and no possibility of paying the bill. Two young NHS doctors want to sell up and take positions in hospitals in the north-east, but they cannot; they are trapped in a flat they cannot sell, faced with the possibility of mounting debts due to flammable cladding that they did not install.

I ask the Minister how he sleeps at night, knowing that his Government’s move to cut red tape has left hundreds of thousands at risk in their own homes, and how he can justify asking the leaseholders of those unsafe homes to foot the bill. It is the responsibility of this Government to identify the buildings covered in dangerous cladding and make them safe before another disaster occurs, and to bring the companies that profited from cutting corners and compromising the safety of residents to justice.

Enough is enough. We are now at a crisis point. Instead of further delays and prevarication, I call on Members across the House to do the right thing today and back Lords amendments 2 and 4 so that we can get a grip of this crisis before it is too late.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

The first surgery I ever had as a Member of Parliament was about the issue of cladding. It was with residents of St Francis Tower in Ipswich. They were being chased for bills of thousands of pounds for unsafe cladding that they had nothing to do with; it was not their fault. Since that first meeting, there has been case after case after case after case. It is a huge issue in Ipswich, a huge issue in my constituency, and it is destroying the lives of many of my constituents. That is why I am speaking here today.

There has been a significant move forward since that first meeting; since that first surgery appointment, we have moved forward. The £5 billion support has helped many of my constituents. The waking watch fund, although I do not think it will be enough, is a step in the right direction—we are getting there—and the Building Safety Bill is itself 100% necessary and welcome. However, I am still at a point right now where there are a significant number of my constituents who are leaseholders, often living in buildings over 18 metres, where there are significant issues to do with fire safety that will cost thousands of pounds to remedy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) has just touched on, and the support announced recently does not cover them. So they continue to have this uncertainty hanging over them, not just at a regular time but during a pandemic, when, more often than not, they have a million and one other concerns and anxieties influencing their lives. Ultimately, that is why I believe that we have moved significantly forward. I am very interested in the possibility that a Building Safety Bill will pick up on the issue and make sure that we address those leaseholders who are living in buildings that are unsafe and where there are significant issues and significant costs are currently being placed on them. It is not specifically about cladding; there are other issues and other factors that make these properties unsafe.

Grooming Gangs

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 300239 and 327566 relating to grooming gangs.

I would like to thank the 131,625 people who signed the first of the e-petitions that we will be debating today, calling for the release of the Home Office review into this issue, which of course has now happened. The second, smaller petition, signed by over 30,000 people, is calling for a public inquiry into the issue of grooming gangs. Clearly, this issue is of huge importance, and it has caused immense distress to a huge number of people across the country—the victims themselves who have been victims of this appalling crime, but also their friends and family, and I would add to that the whole communities that I think have been shocked and appalled by what has happened.

I think there is a sense, though, from this Home Office report that it is not quite what many people were intending. When I talk about “many people”, ahead of this debate, being a member of the Petitions Committee, although I do not represent a constituency where this has been a big issue, I found it incumbent upon myself to speak to other hon. and right hon. Members who have knowledge in this area, but also to some of the victims of this appalling crime, to gain a greater understanding of what their views are and also their views on the report. Many of them do feel that the report does not go far enough; they believe it only touches upon the issues. If it is the start of something far more significant, then okay, but if it is the end of it, they will feel very unsatisfied. I would support them in saying that I do believe further action should be taken.

One of the key problems has been the lack of data, which has made it difficult to go into detail regarding the characteristics of the grooming gangs and those involved. That has been problematic. Some hon. Members have raised the point that if the data is just not available, then surely we can just look at those who have been convicted and gain a pretty accurate picture of the kinds of individuals who have been engaged in the matter. That has been raised before.

Of course, those who are most responsible for this appalling crime are those who have been found guilty—those who have carried out the evil act. They are the principal individuals, but there is also a great sense in many of the communities and in towns such as Rotherham and Rochdale—although the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has done brilliant work on this issue, showing great courage in standing up for and battling for her constituents—that they have been failed over a long period of time by the state, at both local level and national level. They feel like this issue was swept under the carpet because it was seen as being inconvenient and not politically correct to talk about it. That is how they feel; that is the hurt that they feel, and it is incumbent upon all of us in this House to address those concerns and give them a sense that justice has been done, and also that the lessons have been learned, so that we can try to ensure that we do not continue to have these appalling crimes happening within our society.

There is a wider point here, though, about this issue and about whether it was political correctness, for want of a better word, or something else—concern about cultural sensitivities—but does seem in many cases that the majority of those who have engaged in this evil act came from one particular community. Many feel—and I agree with them—that if it is the case that certain crimes are disproportionately committed by members of certain communities, we should be open and honest about that and address it, because actually, by sweeping it under the carpet and not addressing it , it makes tensions and divisions worse down the line.

I would say that, as a society, we have a long way to go when it comes to tackling racism. I do not think we have completed that journey yet, but would it not be great if, as a society, we were mature enough to have these difficult discussions, while never losing sight of the fact that the vast majority in our society stand against racism, and against stigmatising particular communities? This issue does need to be addressed.

We look at the role of racism and how many of the victims of this appalling crime feel as though there is concern from certain individuals that they would be branded a racist or called out for being a racist if they spoke the truths as they know them to be on some of these matters. Actually, the view of a lot of these victims, who more often than not are white working-class girls—our girls—is that they were on occasion specifically targeted because of the fact that they were white, because of their western-ness, and because of the fact that they were not Asian. That is how they feel. I would encourage those who disagree with how they feel to have a discussion with them, because that is how they feel. Therefore, the information and data about the ethnic background of those who have been found guilty of these crimes is necessary if we are to gain a profound understanding of this appalling crime, learn the lessons, and ensure that it never happens again. If we do believe that this kind of racism towards white girls is a driver here—if we do believe that it is the case—and that it is an aggravating factor, then we need to address it, and we need a report that addresses it and gets under the skin of the issue in a way that it has not so far.

I planned not to talk at great length here today. Although I do, as a Member of this place, feel passionately about this issue, as it happens my constituency has not been impacted by it as much as many hon. Members’ constituencies have, so I want to make sure that they have as much time as possible today to talk about some of the stories within their own constituencies, because I think that is very important. I would like to thank the founder of the petition, George MacDonald, and the victims I spoke to as well. I think it is right to say that the abuse of young girls conducted by grooming gangs has shaken society and we should do everything in our power to eradicate it.

I would also like to thank, on behalf of the petitioners, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the actions she has taken. Like her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), she has been very robust on this issue. I feel that if it had not been for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, there probably would not have been any report all. At the end of day, any report is better than no report, in particular any report that at least promises that in future we will get the right data to be able to look at this issue and come up with solutions. As a member of the Petitions Committee, I support the petitioners in their desire for further action to be taken, so this can be looked at more thoroughly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hunt]

I would like to thank all the contributors to this very powerful debate. I think there was quite a lot of cross-party agreement on many of the core issues. I am grateful for the Minister’s commitment that this is not the end of the process and that these difficult questions will continue to be asked. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) was on the review group, and I know that he had significant concerns that, even now, there is significant pushback from certain elements of the establishment to the steps that the Government need to take to get to the root of this, to understand it properly and to make sure that we nip this in the bud and do not continue to have a situation where primarily our girls of this country are suffering this appalling abuse.

As I said at the start, my heart goes out to the victims of this abuse, all their friends and family and the communities. We must not allow political correctness and a concern about sensitivities to get in the way of addressing these issues, because it does not solve the problem. It can often make it worse, and this is much too important an issue to get wrong. I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 300239 and 327566 relating to grooming gangs.

Protections for Emergency Service Workers

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I would like to make a few brief comments. I thank emergency service workers in Ipswich, especially for what they have been doing as the pandemic has been happening, and in particular Suffolk police. I do not think anyone who joined Suffolk police ever thought that they would have a role in policing social interactions and enforcing social distancing rules. Indeed, I do not think any police officer ever thought that they would have to do that. It is not something that they want to do or that is very easy. I thank Suffolk constabulary for getting the balance just right and being acutely sensitive to the need to ensure that the virus is contained, but also not overstepping the mark. Huge thanks go to them and also to the Kestrel team, whom I was out with a few weeks ago on a patrol across Ipswich. They are dedicated and truly exceptional professionals.

With regard to the tragic death of PC Andrew Harper, I have been moved, like most of the country, by that story and the fantastic campaign that Lissie has run. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) and other hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who have also been involved. I was very sad that I was not able to meet her. I was due to a few weeks ago, but because of self-isolation, I was not able to do so. I was very glad, though, to co-sign, with 21 colleagues, a letter to the Attorney General, calling for tougher sentencing in this area and mandatory life sentences for those who are found guilty of appalling crimes against our emergency service workers.

Many of the points that I wanted to make have been made by others, so I will just say, as cogently as I possibly can, what I truly believe and I think other people and colleagues also believe, which is that our emergency service workers are the best of the best. They have come to the fore more than ever before during this pandemic, and we need to back them up and hold to account those who commit crimes against them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, in what is a very well-timed debate, given the increasing period of difficulty and complexity the whole country is going into, which will yet again present challenges for our frontline emergency workers, not least the police. I am grateful to Members for their heartfelt contributions and their recognition of the amazing job the police have done during the lockdown, alongside their emergency worker colleagues.

Our brave workers, across all emergency services, do an extraordinary job in the most difficult of situations, keeping us safe, day in and day out. Those jobs can be tough. Many of them face more danger in a week than most of us will see in our lifetime. I am only too aware of the sacrifices that our police officers and other emergency workers make to protect us. They face the danger so we do not have to. That has never been more apparent than over the past few months. They continue to serve our country courageously, day after day, and I cannot speak highly enough of the bravery, commitment and sacrifice they make each day during these difficult times. As somebody who has spent a lot of my adult life involved in policing, I have seen that on a particular and singular basis on the frontline, many times.

[Tom Hunt]

I am glad that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) mentioned spitting and the appalling situation of police officers being spat at, particularly with covid about. It has caused great anxiety for many police officers. Will my hon. Friend assure me that there are robust punishments in place for those individuals who use covid as a weapon?

[Kit Malthouse]

I am just coming to that point, if my hon. Friend will bear with me for a moment. I hope that my speech will cover most of the issues that have been raised during the debate, but I will come to one or two questions at the end.

A number of Members made the point that it is completely right that we should support and protect our emergency workers to the greatest extent possible. It goes without saying that an assault on an emergency worker is completely unacceptable in any circumstances. There is no excuse for it—there is no excuse in background, circumstance, resourcing or any other wider issue.

Throughout the year, we have heard reports of people deliberately spitting and coughing on emergency workers in an attempt to weaponise the virus against those who look to protect us. Such behaviour is utterly disgraceful, and personally I cannot understand what is going through the twisted mind of somebody to do such a monstrous thing. It is vital that those offenders face the full force of the law. Their actions constitute an assault.

Throughout the year, we have seen examples of tough sentences imposed on those using coronavirus as a threat against emergency workers. In April, an individual was sentenced to a total of two years in prison for assaulting police officers, including biting and coughing at them, claiming they were infected with coronavirus. Someone who deliberately coughed at a police community support officer and assaulted another officer was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment a week after the incident.

However, the Government want to go further and send a clear message that those kinds of attacks will not be tolerated. That is why we recently announced our intention to legislate to double the maximum penalty for assaults on emergency workers from 12 months to two years—an example that I hope colleagues north of the border in Scotland will follow.

We must also look at what happens when much more serious attacks take place—so serious that in some instances they have claimed the lives of those who put themselves in harm’s way to protect us. The deaths of Sergeant Matt Ratana, whose moving funeral I had the privilege of attending virtually this morning, and PC Andrew Harper epitomise the kind of bravery and extraordinary sacrifice that will not be forgotten. We are determined to do everything in our power to protect those who put our safety before their own, by ensuring that the police have the tools and resources they need to keep themselves and us safe.

The Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor were pleased to meet Andrew Harper’s widow, Lissie, who has been mentioned by a number of Members, to discuss Harper’s law, and I hope to meet her myself soon. We will continue to work with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that assaults on emergency workers are handled with appropriate severity across the criminal justice system, and that includes the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary. It might be interesting to compare the sentences given for assaults on police officers, for example, with those given for assaults on judges.

Dealing with traumatic incidents and helping people who often experience traumatic events can have real consequences, and not only for the victims. These are not jobs that can be left at the office: the pressure of the role will leave its mark on a person’s personal and family life. That is why the Government have invested £7.5 million in a new national police wellbeing service. Following two years of development and piloting, that wellbeing service was launched in April last year, providing evidence-based guidance, advice, tools and resources that can be accessed by forces, as well as individual officers and staff. There is an emphasis on prevention and on helping forces to identify mental health issues early through psychological screening, giving officers access to support before a problem takes hold. The wellbeing service offers a wide range of services, from practical workshops to individual guidance.

However, as hon. Members have mentioned, the Government are going to go even further to ensure that our police get the support and protection they need. We have accelerated work to introduce a police covenant, and remain absolutely committed to ensuring that it has a meaningful impact on those working within, or retired from, policing roles, whether paid or as a volunteer. We expect to establish a robust governance structure in the coming months to drive progress, and policing partners have already been involved in those discussions. The covenant will be enshrined in law, and the Home Secretary will have a duty to report annually on progress. Our focus will be on health and wellbeing, physical protection, and support for families. We will continue to work closely with policing partners to ensure the covenant has a lasting impact on our police.

Those of us who have been out with police officers, as hopefully many Members have been, know that they confront violent situations every day to keep the public safe. The recent review of officer and staff safety conducted by the National Police Chiefs’ Council highlighted a number of areas where improvements can be made and where partners can work together to improve the protections for our police. To carry out their vital roles and stay safe, it is essential that police are equipped with the right protection, training and tools, including the latest, most accurate Taser, body armour, and body-worn cameras, as the review quite rightly highlighted. This, along with the police covenant, provides an opportunity for us to make a significant difference to the lives of those working in policing and their families.

However, we should not forget that there are other emergency service workers who are worthy of protection, not least in the NHS. The NHS violence reduction strategy aims to protect those workers against deliberate violence and aggression from patients, their families and the public, and to ensure offenders are punished quickly and effectively. We also know from the tragic events of Grenfell Tower and from major incidents like Whaley dam the extent of the physical and psychological challenges our firefighters can face, as hon. Members have referenced.

In 2018, the Government launched the fire and rescue national framework, directing all fire and rescue services to have in place a people strategy to support their staff, including a specific focus on mental health and wellbeing. I am pleased that this has inspired positive action, and that the National Fire Chiefs Council’s wellbeing board continues to instigate positive change across the sector, focusing on prevention, early intervention and individual support.

The emergency services are among the most selfless and courageous members of our society. They deserve every support and protection we can give them, and I know it will have been heartening for them to hear the unequivocal support they have received from every Member who has spoken this evening.

Immigration

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 321862 relating to immigration.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time today, Sir David. I want to start by paying tribute to the more than 125,000 people—including 202 from my constituency—who signed the petition to stop illegal immigration and secured this important debate in Parliament. I am glad to be able to introduce this petition to Parliament as a member of the Petitions Committee. Well over four years ago, more people voted to take back control of our money, our laws and, crucially, our borders than voted for anything in the history of this country. This petition is another powerful democratic reminder of our responsibility to deliver borders in which the people in this country can have confidence.

Before I get into the petition’s substance, I want to head off arguments often made on the left that seek to stifle meaningful debate such as this on illegal immigration. Contrary to what they may say, wanting to have a fair system of rules to govern who enters our country is not about being anti-immigrant or anti-refugee. The vast majority of my constituents who write to me about the issue are not anti-immigrant and they are not racist. Like me, they are immensely proud to be part of the diverse town of Ipswich, which has benefited enormously from immigration and shown its spirit of generosity to some of the most needy refugees coming directly from war-torn countries. Last month, I visited the Suffolk refugee centre in Ipswich to hear some of those people’s stories, including from people who have become successful entrepreneurs in our town.

Our asylum system should be based on compassion, but for that to work, it must also be based on rules that people can have trust in. That is the thrust of the petition, along with a poll by YouGov in August, which found that 73% consider illegal channel crossings to be a serious issue. I know from talking to people in my constituency and elsewhere that the overwhelming mood among the public is one of frustration at the lawlessness we so often see in our seas. Added to that is the vexation that a great country such as ours, which has voted to take back its sovereignty, seems to have its hands tied when it comes to controlling who comes into our island home and removing people who are here illegally. The vast majority of people in this country know that, without borders, we do not have a country and that while we should welcome the world’s best and brightest and those genuinely seeking refuge, who want to come here legally, our hospitality must not be taken for granted.

Perhaps the most important word in the petition, though, is the word “action”. The public’s patience is hanging by a thread, and we have reached the point where words will no longer suffice. Today, I want to underline how action is urgently needed in two key areas if we are to mend the public’s broken trust in the integrity of our borders. The first is stemming the flow of people entering this country illegally, and the second is ending the abuse of our broken asylum system.

I will start with the issue of illegal entry and the unprecedented number of illegal migrants we have seen crossing the channel this year. So far in 2020, more than 7,000 people have entered our country that way, which is more than five times the number who arrived via that route in 2019. It has been particularly difficult in recent months for the law-abiding majority in the UK to see these boats flouting our laws with near impunity on almost a daily basis when we are being asked to follow some of the greatest restrictions on our freedoms that this country has ever had to impose.

The images we have seen on our TV screens of these illegal boats arriving at our shores are a stark reminder that, more than four years on from the 2016 Brexit vote, we still have not taken back control of our borders in a meaningful sense. The only way to prevent these illegal crossings is by sending a clear message to everyone thinking of coming here illegally that all attempts will be futile. We must look at what the Australians did with Operation Sovereign Borders, where they blocked all boats from landing in Australia. After the policy was introduced, the number of people trying to enter Australia illegally by boat dropped from over 2,600 a month to just over 200.

We must be prepared to deploy similar safe-return tactics. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking at a range of options, including learning from the Australian approach. The shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), has said that that approach lacks compassion. I would like to hear today from the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) exactly how the status quo is compassionate when it fuels the evil trafficking of human beings and dangerous sea crossings that we currently see. What exactly is Labour’s position on this matter, and what would it do?

It is good that the Government are working with the French to prevent these crossings, but we must be clear that our ability to protect our borders should not be contingent on the French or any other third country being willing to play ball. We must have the capacity to act in our own national interest, and after the EU transition period has ended we must extricate ourselves from all EU and international rules that prevent us from towing these boats all the way back to France, if necessary.

Sending out the message that illegally crossing the channel just will not work is also a humanitarian necessity. When the leadership of the Labour party and others in the liberal left establishment are content to turn a blind eye to crossings, it plays into the hands of the ruthless people smugglers who exploit these vulnerable migrants, often taking their money only to push them out to sea in unseaworthy boats and without lifejackets but with instructions to threaten to throw themselves overboard to prevent them from being picked up by the French authorities.

The tragic case of a 16-year-old Sudanese boy who washed up on a French beach in August, having drowned while trying to reach the UK, should never have been allowed to happen. I understand that another death may have happened this weekend in the channel. Those who refuse to act to stop these crossings or who even encourage them out of an ideological attachment to open borders are putting the people they claim to want to help in immense danger. By way of contrast, in the five years before Australia implemented its zero-tolerance approach to illegal boats in 2013, 877 migrants drowned trying to make the journey. Since then, I understand that none has.

Let us move on to our asylum system. Coupled with stopping illegal entry, we must also diminish the pull factors that cause migrants to attempt these dangerous crossings in the first place. At the heart of that must be overhauling our broken asylum system, as these migrants know that, if they can reach our shores and claim asylum, the overwhelming chances are that they will be able to stay for good. Of about 9,000 people who have crossed the channel illegally since the start of 2019, less than 3% have been returned, despite about 80% of those this year being found to have no credible asylum claim here in the UK.

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has rightly pointed out, the exploitation of our asylum system is abetted by certain liberal sections of our legal establishment who exploit our human rights law and submit multiple bogus claims on behalf of migrants who have already had their claims rejected to stop deportations. The spectacle we saw earlier this month when 29 out of 30 failed asylum seekers were taken off a deportation flight at the last moment following the intervention of human rights lawyers is a clear demonstration of how the law as it stands is not on the side of the people it is meant to serve.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has her finger on the pulse, especially compared to the Labour party, which last year voted at its party conference to make the problem much more difficult by closing all immigration detention centres. By contrast, the actions the Government have set out in their response to the petition, including withdrawing from the Dublin regulation and the EU’s common asylum system at the end of the transition period, will help us end the situation where the UK takes three times as many asylum seekers from the whole of the EU as we send back.

However, I urge the Minister to go further today than the Home Office’s written response to this petition, which says that

“if a migrant has chosen to evade immigration control or enter the UK illegally, then they can have no expectation of remaining in the absence of a genuine claim for UK protection”.

The expectation should be that anyone who has deliberately chosen to enter this country through an illegal route— those who do so have often travelled through many safe European countries to get here—should have no expectation that they will be able to stay.

To the public, it is unjustifiable that if they break the law, they will be punished, but if someone breaks our immigration rules, they stand a chance of being rewarded by getting to stay here. Tackling that is an essential part of building an ever more compassionate asylum system. Ideally, all asylum claims would be processed in centres that are outside the UK and close to the most needy. It is completely unfair to those who want to come here legally and directly from war-torn countries—it is also unfair to the taxpayers who fund our asylum system—if economic migrants from safe countries such as France can jump the queue ahead of them.

There is an important debate to be had about whether the country can accept more asylum seekers legally, but that is an entirely separate debate and one that will be difficult to have until members of the public have confidence that our laws are being followed consistently. What the public will not accept is the notion pushed by some on the left that because, in their eyes, we do not take enough refugees legally, we are somehow deserving of illegal attempts to breach our borders.

I know that the Home Secretary appreciates the urgency of this issue. I recognise the need for a robust dual approach to tackle illegal entry and our broken asylum system, if we are to get a grip on illegal immigration. That is the only approach that delivers for the millions of people who voted in the 2016 referendum, and that is both fair to the law-abiding people in this country and compassionate towards those who need our help the most.

However, I ask the Minister to be completely clear with the public that we will not leave the job almost done. Everyone who breaks our laws to come here must be removed, and we must take matters into our own hands when it comes to acting with autonomy in the English channel to protect our sovereignty. This is a test of the country’s political will, and I trust that the Minister will ensure that we seize all opportunities to take back control and ensure that our country is no longer a passive actor.

Over the past few months, I have received significant amounts of correspondence on this issue, and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members are in the same position. There is a desire for us to be pro-immigration for people who want to contribute and integrate, and for us to have a rules-based process that is driven by compassion for those who are most needy and vulnerable. However, most of those who have written to me do not want a situation that looks like lawlessness, in which people can jump the queue. We need a rules-based system that has compassion at its heart, but we need to deal with illegal immigration as a matter of absolute priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hunt]

I want to thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate and the Minister for his statement. I have had the benefit of discussing this matter before with the Minister. I am confident that this is not a simple thing to deal with. It is complex. It is not straightforward.

I appreciate that, as much the petitioners would like us to snap our fingers and sort the problem out, in many respects, the Government’s hands have been tied. Clearly, after 31 December, the Government will be in a much better position to take the kind of action we need to take to deal with this issue.

I may not have been quite clear, but I tried to say in my speech that I think there should be an expectation that someone who arrives in this country illegally will be sent back. Ultimately, there is a legal process to go through. If someone rejects that process by not following it, we must ask the question whether they are that different from anybody else who knowingly breaks the law. In my view, the answer to that question is “no”.

Many hon. Friends have made the point that there is a fact here. However good an individual may think their grounds are for claiming asylum and moving to Britain, at the end of the day they have come from a safe European country. My understanding is that an asylum seeker is someone fleeing from an unsafe country. If they are leaving a safe country, by definition, I struggle to see how they are a refugee. I am broadly comfortable with the Government’s position.

I know that the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) is pretty moderate and balanced. He spoke after my maiden speech. He seems like a nice guy. On the point of being under new management, we will see. Ultimately, I think that to deal with this issue effectively the Government will have to take some robust action. Legislation, such as an asylum Bill, will come through this House, and it will be interesting to see how Her Majesty’s Opposition react to that kind of legislation.

In terms of new management, it is an interesting tactic when the manager does not even send his players out on the pitch. Frankly, it sometimes feels like that is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. At some point, those players will have to be sent out on the pitch and will have to vote one way or another. Abstaining is not a long-term strategy. It is a long Parliament and time will tell. I do not mean to be too political, but clearly I have been.

I thank all the petitioners. This is a very important issue that matters to millions of people up and down the country. I thank all the hon. Members who contributed. I thank you for your wonderful chairmanship, Sir David, which I have had the pleasure of twice this afternoon—I have been spoilt. I thank the Minister, in particular, for a robust statement, which was reassuring and will reassure many of the people who signed this petition.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 321862 relating to immigration.

Birmingham Attacks and Extinction Rebellion Protests

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

As I have pointed out endlessly in the last hour and a half, I completely agree that non-violent civil disobedience is perfectly legitimate—indeed, it is a fundamental right of mine as a citizen of this country—but that is not the same as committing a crime or attempting to curtail the rights of others.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

My thoughts and condolences are with the victims of the attack in Birmingham. Yesterday a 13-year-old boy was threatened with a knife on Colchester Road in Ipswich and today, as my hon. Friend mentioned, there has been a tragic attack in Kesgrave, which is just outside Ipswich. Will he pledge to make sure that Suffolk constabulary has the resources it needs to tackle crime and also that those caught in possession of a bladed weapon fear the consequences? My fear right now is that they do not.

[Kit Malthouse]

As my hon. Friend knows, Suffolk will receive an uplift of police officers over the next few years, and I know it is making good progress on recruitment so far. Although he is right that those who perpetrate knife crime need to fear the consequences, the critical deterrent factor in crime is the perception of the likelihood of being caught. The recruitment of more police officers and the powers that we give them will help with that in Suffolk, as it will elsewhere.

Channel Crossings in Small Boats

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

Clearly, improving economic conditions in source countries is a vital part of tackling this problem upstream, as indeed is working with law enforcement agencies in those countries to disrupt the dangerous and ruthless criminals who operate in those areas. Work with the overseas aid budget is an important part of that, but so is trade. As we negotiate trade agreements around the world, that will also help to encourage economic development in some of the source countries. As employment is created and prosperity generated, I hope that will also reduce the economic incentives for the kind of mass migration we are currently seeing.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

The Labour party could not be more out of touch with the vast majority of people on this issue, and I am quite surprised that it brought it forward. However, Labour party strategy is not a matter for me. One of the key drivers of illegal channel crossings is our easily exploited asylum system. Once inside the system, illegal migrants know the chances of being able to stay for good are high. Will the Minister prioritise bringing legislation before this House that eliminates the vexatious aspects of our asylum system, such as repeated asylum claims on different grounds, and consider the wisdom of using taxpayers’ money for legal aid claims to support those who have come over here illegally?

[Chris Philp]

Speaking frankly, my hon. Friend is right in much of what he says. There are considerable issues with the way our asylum and immigration system has been operating in this area. I can confirm that there is considerable policy work under way to address areas where the UK’s immigration and asylum system is being exploited and abused. We are working on developing legislation to address those loopholes in exactly the way he describes, because we will not tolerate our system being abused in any way.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am reassured that the Prison Service and the probation service are doing all they can to address this. Of course we want to put more into the probation service and to make sure that prisoners of all sorts are properly looked after, and I believe that this Government and this Bill have that at their very heart.

Furthermore, we must guard against a flurry of statutory reviews, which are costly, time-consuming and unnecessarily bureaucratic. As previously outlined by Ministers, there are already various routes of scrutiny of how the probation service and the Bill are functioning. Parliament has great power to question and to debate, and there is no lack of scrutiny in this regard. The Government have accepted that it is important to keep a close eye on these matters and to ensure a close, continued dialogue with all the Bill’s stakeholders.

New clause 2 would require a

“review of the impact of the…Act on…deradicalisation programmes in prisons.”

It is said that there is limited evidence of the impact of longer prison terms on reoffending, but in fact the evidence available to us indicates that prisoners in custody for longer periods do come to terms with their offending and are able later in their sentences to undertake constructive remedial activities. I believe that long sentences do work.

We also want to protect our young people and keep them safe from the evils of radicalisation. There is no dispute over that, but new clause 6 would mandate the Secretary of State to review

“the effects of the provisions of this Act on children and young offenders.”

It is worth remembering that the young people in question are very few in number. In 2019, only four of the 22 people convicted of terrorist offences were aged between 18 and 20, and not all of those four would even meet the criteria for the serious terrorist sentence. Therefore, we are talking about astonishingly small numbers for those aged between 18 and 20. Given those statistics, the Government position is that it may be the case that nobody of that age will be affected by the Act, and as such requiring a review by statute does not seem sensible or a good use of time.

These amendments address important concerns and certainly come from a good place. I thank those who have tabled the new clauses for throwing a spotlight on the National Probation Service, deradicalisation programmes and the radicalised children and young offenders. However, I believe the best mechanism to deal with these issues is the scrutiny provided by parliamentary debate. I agree that we must follow the aforementioned matters closely, and I firmly believe that we have all the tools needed to do that. In the context of this Bill, statutory reviews are not necessary or particularly effective. I greatly welcome this Bill, as laid down by the Government on behalf of the people of Rother Valley, and I greatly commend and approve of the Government’s dealing with terrorism and the robust way we are dealing with terrorists, both in this country and abroad. We must not let them come to our shores and if they are on our shores, we must stamp them out and stamp them out effectively. So I look forward to this Bill being passed.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), and I pay tribute to some of the heartfelt contributions, such as the ones from the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). This is an incredibly emotive topic. Since I was elected, I have made the case on a number of occasions that sentences must do what they say on the tin and be transparent to the public. The untenable status quo, where criminals are consistently let out part-way through their sentences cannot hold, and it damages public faith in our criminal justice system that sentences are not honest. When it comes to terrorist offences, the stakes could not be higher. Both the Fishmongers’ Hall terrorist attack in November last year and the Streatham attacks in February were carried out by known terrorist offenders who had been released automatically at the halfway point of their sentences. This Bill will see dangerous terrorist offenders spend longer in prison, and that is an important step in the right direction.

We must avoid any attempts by Her Majesty’s Opposition this afternoon to make the Bill any less robust when it comes to offenders between the ages of 18 and 21. The Opposition have made the case that young adults are inherently different in terms of their maturity and that they should be treated differently, but it cannot be forgotten that we are still referring to adults who have committed the most serious terrorist offences. These adults, to all intents and purposes, have the same rights and responsibilities as every other adult in the country. Labour Members are attempting to diminish the actions of young adult terrorist offenders, but I have frequently heard them extol the maturity of people even younger than 18 when it suits them, particularly with regard to extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. Rather than gerrymander the different stages of adulthood when it suits us, we must be prepared to be clear that at 18, adults should be able to fundamentally tell the difference between right and wrong, and should know that any action they take that is likely to result in the deaths of multiple people is completely inexcusable.

We must be similarly robust in the case of Shamima Begum, the young terrorist who left our country to join the murderous ISIS terror organisation, which is responsible for the deaths of thousands, including British citizens. Her actions were a betrayal of this country and everything it stands for. When she was standing in a Syrian refugee camp afterwards, she said that she did not regret joining ISIS. I share the anger of many of my constituents at the Court of Appeal’s recent decision to allow her to return to the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, this represents another decision from our courts that is completely detached from the public interest and what the majority of the law-abiding public consider to be appropriate for someone many believe has committed treason.

[Alexander Stafford]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the Government that this decision by the courts is reprehensible and we should do everything we can to fight it?

[Tom Hunt]

I could not agree more. We need to be robust in fighting it. It is not just on this issue but on many others that there is this disconnect.

The Bill is an important step in our fight against the scourge of terrorism, which seeks to attack the foundations of our society and cause divisions between us. The mandatory 14-year prison sentences for the most serious terrorist offenders that the Bill includes will provide a strong deterrent against terrorism and send a clear message to those who want to spill blood on our streets out of hatred for our country that they will not be tolerated. I call on the Government to go even further over the coming months in looking at the out-of-touch decisions that are coming from our courts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) rightly said, and to deal with the Shamima Begum case.

This is a very sensitive issue. I appreciate that terrorist offences have touched the lives of many right hon. and hon. Members. We need to be robust in confronting it. We cannot make excuses and apologies for the people who take these actions. Yes, it is important—I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry)—that, for the public interest, people are able, under certain circumstances, to rehabilitate, but it is also important for the public interest for there to be a strong deterrent, and a message to deter future evil acts like some of those that we have discussed today.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the passionate speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt).

I spoke in the debate back in February when the Government passed emergency legislation to ensure that terrorist offenders would no longer be released early and automatically. I am glad that we are now doing all that we can on this. We must continue to root out terrorism from our streets. I am pleased that the earliest point at which terrorist offenders will even be considered for release is after they have served two thirds of their sentence. Indeed, no terrorist offender will be released before the end of their full custodial term unless the Parole Board agrees.

This Bill will ensure that serious and dangerous terrorist offenders spend longer in custody, and it improves the ability to monitor and manage those of concern when they are released. It is only right that offenders still viewed as a threat to the public will be forced to spend the rest of their term in prison. Members of my party stood on a manifesto that promised to keep us safer, with investment in our police force and our Prison Service, and that included stronger measures to deal with terrorism.

It was thanks to the exemplary work of the Prison Service during the pandemic that I recently wrote to the governor at HMP Bure in my constituency, to voice my gratitude and appreciation for the fantastic work that the prison staff, healthcare staff and civilian staff there are doing, given the unprecedented challenges we face, during covid. We must do all we can to strengthen confidence in our criminal justice system and make society as safe as we can from cowardly acts of terrorism, which devastate lives and communities. That could be no better emphasised than by the heartfelt and moving speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). The Bill, along with the doubling of the number of counter-terrorism specialists and probation staff, will absolutely do that.

We already have a MAPPA—multi-agency public protection arrangements—review, a Prevent review an HM inspector’s report and three-year post legislation. It is unnecessary to have yet another layer of review. A serious terrorism sentence for the most serious and dangerous terrorist offenders is a welcome move. We are going to get tough on terrorism and ensure that those that set out to hurt innocent people will spend at least 14 years in prison and up to 25 years on licence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) said, recent attacks show that the Bill is necessary; that sentencing needs toughening, but so does the investigation, the monitoring and the management of offenders.

Reading Terrorist Attack

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work they do is vast and complicated and based on intelligence at home and sometimes abroad. We must all reflect on the way they work. They make difficult decisions and judgments based on the information they have. I commend and pay tribute to them in every way for the work they do and the way they do it.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

My thoughts and condolences are with the victims, their friends and their families. I take my right hon. Friend’s point about media reports and will be careful about what I say, but I will ask one quite direct question. Does she agree that our legal system has become a roadblock preventing the elected Government of the day from being able to take decisions on the basis of what is in the best interests of the law-abiding majority, by inhibiting our ability both to deal with illegal immigration and to deport those we know pose a risk to our country?

[Priti Patel]

I have spoken previously on the Floor of the House about the complexities of immigration, the immigration system and immigration law, and I have touched on the difficulty of deporting foreign national offenders. There are many challenges in the system, and we intend to overcome them and to reform the system in any way we can.