Asylum Seekers: Right to Work

Julian Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered asylum seekers and the right to work.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bailey. I have taken an interest in the rights of asylum seekers for some years now. One of the very first events I attended as a councillor in Glasgow in 2007 was the opening of Refugee Week, the inspirational and ever-growing festival co-ordinated by the Scottish Refugee Council. That was the first time I heard directly the testimonies, experiences and views of those who had fled violence and persecution. They told their stories through music and dance as well as in words, because the trauma they were expressing was often beyond description.

The right to seek asylum is set out in the universal declaration on human rights, and it is one of the most important obligations in international law. However, it has become clear to me over the past few years that sadly in the UK we are not fulfilling our duties to asylum seekers. We often keep them in a situation of destitution and danger, with little acknowledgement of the difficulties that led them to flee. Worse still, we are devaluing these precious human beings. Asylum seekers have skills they could bring and talents they could share. These are people who have overcome everything and lost so much. The very least we should do as a nation is give them a means of living in dignity, and I believe, as I will lay out, that there are circumstances in which they should have the right to work. That is consistent with the position that the Scottish National party took, along with Labour Members, in proposing amendments to the Immigration Act 2016 to enable asylum seekers to work if they had been waiting more than six months for a decision. The UK Government sadly rejected the amendments.

With no permission to work, asylum seekers survive—it is barely survival in many cases—on £5 a day. That affects more than 8,000 asylum seekers in the UK. The right to work was withdrawn by the Labour Government in 2002. At present, asylum seekers can work only if they have been waiting for a decision for longer than one year and they have skills relevant to the occupations on the shortage occupation list, which covers only jobs that few or no UK nationals are able to perform. Those are often very specific jobs, such as various types of scientists and engineers, as well as trades such as professional dancer or musician, which require specific qualifications and experience, as well as an employer who is willing to take a person on when they do not know how long they may be in the UK.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I know she does a great deal of work in this area. I want to focus briefly on volunteering. In Solihull, many volunteers provide an outstanding service to our communities. Solihull Welcome, for example, supports new asylum seekers with great information, food and clothes. Does she agree that to integrate asylum seekers further into society, we must promote voluntary work?

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree, and I congratulate the organisation in Solihull on doing that. However, I have found in some of my casework that there are barriers even to volunteering. The Home Office has held that against one of my constituents, whom I had intended to mention later, who was volunteering for the British Red Cross. When he applied for naturalisation as a British citizen, that was held against him as a means of demonstrating bad character. It is bizarre, but his volunteering and his good work in an attempt to integrate into the community in Glasgow was held against him.

It can also be difficult for asylum seekers to prove that they have professional qualifications and so should have access to the shortage occupation list. Depending on the circumstances in which they fled, they may not have documentation, and it may cost to transfer or update their qualifications. That approach prohibits asylum seekers from offering their skills while they are still waiting on decisions. Many asylum seekers have been waiting for longer than six months. The latest figures that I can find suggest that more than 20% of asylum seekers wait longer than six months to have a decision made. During that time, they cannot bring in any money, and they find it difficult to support their family.

The recent working paper, “Restricting the economic rights of asylum seekers: cost implications,” published by Dr Lucy Mayblin and Poppy James at the University of Warwick, outlines the significant savings there would be to the public purse should asylum seekers be given the right to work. There would be a benefit to the UK if they were allowed to do so. Dr Mayblin’s research indicates that significant savings could be made on asylum support payments—both section 95 and section 4 —if asylum seekers were given the right to work. If just 25% of all asylum seekers currently receiving asylum support participated in the labour market, that would reduce the overall asylum support bill, both in cash and for accommodation, under sections 94 and 4, excluding staffing and admin costs, from more than £173.5 million to just over £130 million. That would save about—I rounded the figures up, because some of them are lengthy—£43 million in asylum support payments, without making asylum seekers destitute. If 25% of all asylum seekers were able to obtain employment, section 95 payments would decrease from about £63 million to £47 million, and section 4 cash payments would decrease from more than £9 million to just less than £7 million, based on 2014-15 figures.

Even with increases in the asylum support rate to 70% of the jobseeker’s allowance rate, if we enabled 25% labour market participation, savings could be made to the asylum support bill. Estimates suggest that the total asylum support bill—again in cash and for accommodation, under sections 94 and 4, and excluding staffing and admin costs—could decrease from £173.5 million to £152 million, a saving of about £21 million. The Government are always looking to make savings, so I offer helpful suggestions for where those might be made.

Those figures, however, represent more than just money. Case studies available on a host of websites, such as that of the Scottish Refugee Council and the Regional Refugee Forum North East, speak of dignity, and of the impact on family life of not being able to work. I quote from one of the testimonies on the RRF website:

“It’s a degrading situation. You feel useless in a place that sings democracy. Not being able to work is degrading to me. It is something that has been taken away from me, something that I believe is a right that nobody should lose. It’s depressing because my background is feeding my own family. We have very strong family values. I have a big duty of care that has been stripped away. And not being able to do that for myself I feel a failure in life. I feel very much a failure in life. The kids, I would have loved to do anything that the children would ask me for. But this position is a crippled life.

As a volunteer with the refugee service and as a leader for my own community, which is the Zimbabwean Community in the North East, I have witnessed people who are so depressed, who I can say they are now mentally disturbed, people who had skills but cannot use them anymore. It’s like somebody taking a certain measure of power away from you. If you lose that something, it won’t just go, it will go with a part of yourself that makes the You inside you.”

That is a powerful statement. There is appalling waste of human potential during that time; people can wait for years without working and contributing as they would dearly like to do.

Scamming: Vulnerable Individuals

Julian Knight Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the elderly and vulnerable are a high-risk group from having harm done to their financial, emotional and psychological wellbeing from criminals who target them with scam calls, post and visits; praises the work that trading standards bodies do to combat scams; calls on financial institutions and the communications industry to put in place mechanisms to protect potential victims from scams; further calls on the Government to recognise the threat from scams to victims’ ability to live independently; draws attention to the measures proposed by Bournemouth University, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and National Trading Standards Scams Team on financial harm as useful first steps in tackling such scams; and calls on the Government to make suggestions on further steps to tackle such criminality.

It is difficult to overstate the damage done to our economy and society by fraud and scam artists. Such people prey on some of our most vulnerable citizens and can strike at many points in our lives, whether we are buying a home, hiring a tradesman or investing in our pensions. As a former consumer rights and personal finance journalist, I have seen at first hand the real harm that these fraudsters can do. They not only leave people poorer, but can cause a huge range of health and confidence problems far into the future.

While working for the BBC in 2003, I covered the story of a Southampton pensioner who fell victim to scam artists pretending to represent something called the Canadian lottery. They convinced him to wire £1,600 to Canada as an administration fee to unlock his winnings, which of course never materialised. Instead, there were only escalating demands for more cash, and good money went after bad; indeed, in the end that individual paid out more than £9,000 to those fraudsters. In a particularly cruel twist, I remember he told me that he had been told to wait up with his wife, because someone would call at his house to deliver a cheque for his winnings and a bunch of flowers. The door was never knocked on. When he spoke to the fraudsters again, they laughed down the phone at their own cruelty. It is very easy to form snap judgments about people who fall victim to these sorts of schemes—indeed, the victims often blame themselves, which is one reason why only 5% of cases come to light—when we ourselves have been lucky enough never to fall victim to one.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a good case. Does he agree that these crooks are getting ever more sophisticated? Using scanning technology and the ability to take pictures from the internet, they often copy the logos and trademarks of reputable companies, which makes it even harder to detect the scam.

[Julian Knight]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There is an ever-rising tide and the methods are becoming more sophisticated. While we are talking about logos, these people use governmental logos—that of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs among others—so that they can pretend to be quasi-governmental. They also use logos that are very similar to governmental logos and those of other institutions. He is quite right to raise that point.

As I say, it is easy for us to rush to snap judgments, and some people do that about what they perceive as their own foolishness. However, the gentleman I was discussing was no fool. He had run his own business for more than 30 years. The scammers were not only persuasive but, as they often do, preyed on his very best instincts, especially the thought of how he could help his children with the winnings.

I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for co-signing the motion. I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have talked to me prior to the debate to recount their stories of constituents who have been affected. I was struck by one from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who wrote to tell me that an elderly lady in her constituency was robbed of almost £35,000 by people posing as, of all things, an anti-fraud unit from her local bank. Unfortunately those fraudsters were not caught, and as the banks are not liable, her savings have not been returned. That has had a devastating impact—not just financial but emotional—on the lady concerned.

Those incidents are just two among the thousands that occur each and every year. They highlight why we need to do more to combat this detestable style of crime. I thank the many external organisations that got in touch with me, especially those that provided so much useful data and information, such as the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, Age UK, Financial Fraud Action UK, Standard Life and the Fairway financial consultancy.

The cost of fraud to the economy is truly astonishing. According to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, it amounts to £52 billion a year. Numbers can get thrown around, but to put that into context, £52 billion is more than we spend on defence or education. If we were to cut that figure by just 10%, we would reinject £5 billion into people’s savings and the wider economy itself. That would equate to much of the economic boost that has come about in recent years due to payment protection insurance payouts.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for leading the debate. A quarter of the population of my constituency is over the age of 65, and the average age of those being scammed is 74, so my constituents are particularly concerned. He talked about financial cost, which is of course important, but those being scammed are some of the most vulnerable in society. This is an issue of not just the financial cost, but the human cost.

[Julian Knight]

I could not agree more. The demographics in our constituencies are very similar, certainly in terms of age—in Silhill ward in my constituency, 40% of people are over 65. As my hon. Friend says, the average age of scamming victims is 74. Fraudsters have many different ways of making their approach, but in the main they instinctively target elderly people—although not to the exclusion of everyone else—because, frankly, the older generation is quite polite. They do not want to put the phone down straightaway and they might respond to a letter. However, as I will explain, as soon as someone does that, they enter a whole new world in terms of the information gathered by these fraudsters.

The national average cost of fraud per victim is purportedly just over £1,000, but the amounts can be a lot higher. I was staggered to find that in my constituency the average cost is £9,000 for each event of fraud, which probably reflects our relatively affluent population and also the fact that we have an older population, as my hon. Friend and I discussed a moment ago. Older people are disproportionately the target of scammers, but we must not forget that the youngest reported victim that I have been alerted to was only 19. Can we imagine starting out in life, effectively, as an adult, and finding that one of our first experiences is to be hoodwinked by one of those despicable fraudsters? That demonstrates that no one who is old enough to handle their own finances can afford to be complacent about the risk of fraud.

Being stung is often only the start of the process. A victim’s details can be sold on more than 200 times, putting them in the sights of a much larger pool of international criminals. The National Trading Standards scams team has found an astonishing 106,000 potential victims of fraud on captured criminal target lists. The fraudsters call those sucker lists, which shows what they think of people. Investigations suggest that the names of 560,000 victims from the UK are already in circulation.

We must not fall into the trap of considering only financial costs as the social and human damage caused by fraud can be just as severe. Indeed, according to trueCall, the phone screening service, the impact of scamming is comparable to that of violent crime. For starters, 29% of victims suffer a major depressive episode in the 20 months after a crime, compared with just 2% of non-victims.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Has my hon. Friend also considered the risk and actual harm caused when scammers market fake medicines online? That is a particular problem. Operation Pangea has been seizing many such products as they come into the UK, but people need to be aware of the danger of buying from online pharmacies. They need to be sure that they are buying from a reputable agent of the pharmacy industry in the UK, and people can look at logos to check that they are doing so.

[Julian Knight]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. She will have come across that issue in her role as Chair of the Health Committee. As I understand it, such cases are not simply a question of being defrauded of money; they can actually cost people their lives, in the worst possible circumstances.

As well as depressive episodes, 45% of victims suffer a generalised anxiety disorder compared with just 15% of non-victims. The stress that victims suffer can both exacerbate pre-existing health conditions and induce post-traumatic stress, and 10% of victims have unexplained hospital admissions within three months. The circles of these frauds—their effects within our wider society—roll outwards and outwards. More horrifyingly, people who have been defrauded are two-and-a-half times more likely than non-victims to be in care or dead within two years of the event. Scammers take so much more than cash. They can rob us of our self-confidence and elderly citizens of the ability to live independently.

We should not forget the people who fight back. I have enjoyed reading stories of people called scam baiters, who turn the tables on these predators by wasting their time and making fools of them. I particularly liked one story that the BBC covered a few years ago of a gentleman who managed to persuade a Nigerian scammer to daub himself in war paint to prove his dedication to a made-up religion. Overall, however, the clear knock-on effects for personal independence and relationships add huge invisible costs to the headline figures of fraud.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent case he is making about this very important subject. From personal experience, I know that some scammers concentrate on people who are beginning to suffer from short-term memory loss. Will he explain to what extent that is a feature of this phenomenon? If it is, as I suspect, a very significant feature, does it not highlight the importance of people who are beginning to lose their faculties trying, whenever possible, to give power of attorney to reliable relatives so that they are not vulnerable to being taken advantage of in this way?

[Julian Knight]

That is absolutely correct. We also need better training for bank staff. Nationwide is very good at spotting the signs of when an individual is being defrauded. I remember one case that was told to me by my grandmother, who is 91, of a lady on her estate who had tried to withdraw several thousand pounds from the Nationwide with two burly men behind her. That case related to fake tarmacking and the usual fake repairs. Nationwide must be commended for stopping that withdrawal from happening. The Post Office, too, has put in place such training. My right hon. Friend is right to make the link between scamming and the ever-increasing instances, due to longevity, of dementia in our society. This is another challenge we must meet as a society through financial institutions, and family and other support networks.

The clear knock-on effects for personal independence and relationships add huge invisible costs to the headline figures I mentioned, both by increasing demand for state support and simply in terms of human misery. One of the reasons why fraud is so difficult to tackle is that it can take many different forms. Con artists are adept at exploiting people’s unfamiliarity with the technical aspects of a product or service in order to trick them. They are also quick to exploit the latest news story or Government initiative, and sometimes simply try to exploit our generosity after a natural disaster by posing as someone in need of disaster relief. An email apparently coming from a disaster zone and asking for help is a very common trick of the fraudsters.

Several constituents have visited my surgery to complain that their insurers will not allow them to take money out of their pension funds to invest into unregulated investments—so-called “penny shares”—which allow scammers to sell people worthless stocks and other asset classes. I am sure that other hon. Members have received similar visits. I have had to be very clear to those individuals that their insurers are perfectly right and that they should never put their pension at risk. I encourage Members to remain vigilant about such stories. This “pensions unlocking”, as it is called, is just one way in which con artists are trying to exploit the Government’s new, more liberal pensions system. I fully support the Government’s desire to give more power to individual savers, but such cases highlight the importance of developing anti-fraud protections alongside policies, rather than after they are implemented. That applies to our regulators, too.

Impersonating banks is another common form of financial fraud, as the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury discovered. According to Financial Fraud Action UK, scammers are now targeting individuals directly for passwords, passcodes and PINs as security systems become ever more sophisticated and complex. FFA UK reported that losses to financial fraud totalled £755 million in 2015, but that was only what was reported. Worryingly, that figure represented a 26% increase on 2014, despite bank and card company security systems intercepting and preventing £1.76 billion of fraud, or £7 in every £10 of potential losses.

Fraud is also flourishing on the internet. According to consumer group Which?, more than 5 million online scams were carried out last year, with an astonishing £9 billion lost to fraudsters. It also reports that six in 10 of us reported being targeted by online scammers in the 12 months up to May this year. Frankly, I am surprised the figure is only six out of 10; I am forever being asked to wire money to various parts of the world, basically for it to be laundered. The most common types of fraud are phishing emails—usually purporting to be from a bank or senior official—seeking money, and bogus computer support.

Alongside this cutting-edge crime, the more traditional forms of fraud flourish too, such as false tradesman tricking people into paying extortionate amounts for unnecessary work and often providing cover for outright distraction burglaries into the bargain. I was struck by a case sent in by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute on this very point. The case involved a 78-year-old pensioner from Lincolnshire who lived alone and was isolated from family. The pensioner was conned out of his house by a conman who convinced him that major repair work was needed on his property. After being cold-called and visited, he agreed to will part of his property in return for the work being carried out. However, the documents he signed actually gave the house to the scammers, who then placed him in a caravan park. It was only the victim’s testimony in court that guaranteed a conviction. The officers involved had no doubt there were other victims, silent victims, who had lost homes in this way.

The huge financial and human costs of fraud make the case for action clear, but the problem could very well be much more serious than we realise. The CTSI believes that only 5% of scams are ever reported, with fear and shame keeping victims silent and preventing them from seeking help. There are already some very strong efforts in this area. In addition to the preventive measures by banks and card companies that I have already mentioned, trading standards has been collaborating with charities and the police to afford better protection to victims. For example, there has been a concerted effort to provide previous victims, and those whose age or health makes them likely to be victimised, with call blockers. These have so far protected 1,600 vulnerable people and blocked 95% of 81,000 attempted nuisance calls.

Based on the overall statistics, trading standards estimates that more than 11,500 scams, which would have been carried out, have been stopped. Expanding the capacity of trading standards, as many have called for, would make these efforts more effective. More needs to be done, especially when the resale of personal information makes so many people vulnerable to crimes such as identity theft. The CTSI has called for much stricter regulation and control of personal data to counter industrial-scale and legal harvesting of personal data which can then be put to illegal use or sold on. So often, the first purchase of the information can be done through clicking a box, for example to sign up to a newsletter. The information then goes into the ether. I do not believe that people know quite what they are signing up to: there is no transparency. The first few purchases of that information might be bona fide and legitimate. Further down the scale, however, we start to find in investigations that holding companies, which are a front, are effectively buying in the information for fraudsters.

Despite the fact that 85% of people, a huge majority, think that businesses have an equal or greater responsibility to protect their customers from fraud than consumers, the Cyber Security Breaches 2016 Survey found that only 5% of firms invest in ongoing monitoring of hacks into their systems, despite more than six in 10 reporting such breaches. I know from personal experience that some banks have a long way to go in their own security arrangements, too. Very recently, HSBC asked my wife to send some very sensitive financial and personal information to a private email address. That was legitimate. It was bona fide. But what on earth is a bank doing allowing private and sensitive information to go outside its own networks?

Some firms report to me the astonishing claim that some of our current systems work against responsible corporate behaviour. A partner in the financial consultancy firm Fairway wrote to me that the Financial Ombudsman Service was holding his firm accountable for losses incurred via some very risky, and frankly quite murky-sounding, investments that his firm had clearly warned its clients to avoid because they would put their life savings at risk. One adjudicator at the FOS had apparently suggested that the firm should have refused to advise the people involved. How can we have a system that makes it harder for people engaged in potentially problematic and risky investments to receive professional advice? It is essential for us to ensure that our regulators are focusing on the authors of dodgy investment schemes which blur the line between legitimate business and outright fraud, and not unfairly penalising those who try to help.

The Government can also make a real difference by stress-testing policies and building anti-fraud protections into them as they are developed, rather than waiting until afterwards. I know that the Cabinet Office has made great strides in relation to the sharing of information throughout the Government to track down benefit fraudsters and other financial scammers.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on an excellent speech. I strongly endorse what he has said about Government schemes. He mentioned pensioners earlier, and in recent years, particularly in south Wales, they have been targeted by green deal scams. I agree wholeheartedly that it is important for the Government to build in safeguards when they are developing policies, to prevent people from being scammed on the back of legitimate Government schemes.

[Julian Knight]

That is a very good point. I remember the fraud that took place way back when tax credits were launched. The fraudsters cotton on incredibly quickly, and they see the opportunities. They seem to be extremely flexible in that regard. Scam artists are very quick to move on any new opportunity. They cost the Government hundreds of millions of pounds by exploiting the green deal, and, before that, Labour's tax credits proved so vulnerable that the online portal set up to claim them is still closed a decade later.

We also need much clearer warnings for people. Despite the best of intentions, much of the advice on offer is too cautious, and contains too much room for doubt. There is too much reliance on caveat emptor. It would be much better to lay out some very clear rules, such as these. If a tradesman knocks on your door to say that you need surprise repairs, just say no. Thank him or her, and, if you are worried, call a reputable professional yourself. If someone tries to convince you that you have won a lottery that you did not enter, just say no: it cannot be made clear enough that that never happens. If someone tries to persuade you to make a risky investment with your pension, just say no: that precious investment has to look after you in your old age. If you want to invest, always take the time to seek proper, independent professional advice.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman as worried as I am about the number of people who respond to communications? He mentioned the lottery. Once people have responded to one communication, they will receive many more. I heard of one person who received up to 10 or 20 a day. Moreover, the communications are coming from abroad, which means that they cannot be intercepted and stopped. It is causing a great deal of heartache to very vulnerable people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) responds to that intervention, let me point out that, while I appreciate that he is making some extremely important points and the House is very attentive, a great many other Members wish to speak, not just in the current debate but in the next. I am sure that he will conclude his speech very soon.

[Julian Knight]

I am actually on my last paragraph, Madam Deputy Speaker, but thank you for the reminder.

The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) is absolutely correct. If the Post Office is alerted to the position, it will stop mail and set up a separate “scam mail box”, which is a very good initiative.

Fraud is a detestable crime which preys on our worst fears and best instincts, and I hope that, together with the police and other organisations and across the Government, we can start to stamp it out.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) on securing this debate on a subject I must confess I did not know nearly enough about. But I do know now that my own constituency is affected by scams in the same way as are many other hon. Members’. One of the local police divisions informs me that the main scam taking place there is one that has been referred to in this debate. Crooks pretend to be from the bank and state that unusual activity is happening on the victim’s account. Information is requested, and then a so-called safe account is set up, and the victim is asked to transfer the money to that new account, which, of course, is almost the opposite of safe.

A local officer there, PC Blades, informs me that

“we are talking about large sums of money being taken”,

with an equally large impact on the victim. He also confirms that it seems that

“a lot of fraud activity goes unreported as persons feel ashamed at being caught out with such scams.”

Tragically, as we have heard, this is the picture all across the country, with the average victim being 74, and the average loss £1,000, but with many losing much more, yet only 5% of victims report being scammed to the authorities. I have been astonished to learn about the scale of the problem—the number of people losing out, the financial losses resulting, the range of industries affected, the different types of scam, and the techniques and technologies employed, from vishing to phishing and cold calling to copycat websites.

The only thing that is less of a surprise is the personal distress and misery caused, which Members have eloquently described. I, too, was horrified to read that victims of mass marketing-type fraud in particular are often placed on so-called suckers lists and their details are then sold on to other fraudsters, increasing their risk of becoming a repeat victim. So anything that can be done to clamp down on that practice must be done.

This is all rather depressing reading, so how do we set about that task of preventing scams and bringing perpetrators to justice? We all have a responsibility in raising awareness by highlighting ScamSmart or Know Fraud, by supporting Scorpion or Pension Wise, and by backing campaigns such as scam awareness month and the excellent “Avoiding scams” information leaflet from Age UK. I confess that Action Fraud had barely entered my consciousness until a few months ago. By introducing this debate, hon. Members have made me determined to ensure that as many of my constituents know about it as possible.

The messages that we have to promote are not particularly difficult ones, but they are easy to forget under pressure, particularly for vulnerable people. The first message, which other hon. Members have mentioned, is that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is—certainly if a cold call is involved. I know that we will be returning to that issue next week. Another message is that people should take expert advice, and the local citizens advice bureau will be happy to help. Also, people should not be afraid to doubt someone’s honesty when they are being asked to part with cash. Unfortunately, a lot of people find that difficult.

[Julian Knight]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the information from the local citizens advice bureau—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. A load of time has been used already and we have an oversubscribed debate next, so it is unfair to use more time making interventions. Does the hon. Gentleman really need to intervene? I think that he was hoping to speak for two minutes at the end anyway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Knight]

I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate. The variety of stories and concerns highlights the fact that this subject touches so many of our constituents, and, in some instances, our immediate families. I welcome the Minister to her place and her commitment to focus the Government on tackling this most cruel and silent of crimes. This issue concerns not just Government, but private firms, the third sector and the wider society in general. Fraud will always be there, but we can make it harder for those involved if we act together.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House believes that the elderly and vulnerable are a high-risk group from having harm done to their financial, emotional and psychological wellbeing from criminals who target them with scam calls, post and visits; praises the work that trading standards bodies do to combat scams; calls on financial institutions and the communications industry to put in place mechanisms to protect potential victims from scams; further calls on the Government to recognise the threat from scams to victims’ ability to live independently; draws attention to the measures proposed by Bournemouth University, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and National Trading Standards Scams Team on financial harm as useful first steps in tackling such scams; and calls on the Government to make suggestions on further steps to tackle such criminality.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Knight Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

It is incredibly important that when people return—and we hope that they do—they are properly introduced back into society. If they pose a threat, it is important for that threat to be managed, and it is also important that if they can be removed from radicalisation, we take the right steps to do that. I will certainly review the hon. Lady’s request for the publication of the number of passports, for instance, that have been withheld from individuals. First and foremost, however, I assure her that we have measures in place to ensure that these people are not just left alone and we do not lose track of them of them, which would pose further risks to the British people.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

T5. Fraud and scams have a huge impact on individuals, especially the elderly, who are seen as easy prey. Does my hon. Friend welcome the Back-Bench debate on scams that I shall be leading on Thursday, and will he commit himself to considering what more can be done to tackle this rank criminality?

[Mr Wallace]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the leadership that he has shown on not only fraud but consumer rights in ensuring that the vulnerable in society are not taken advantage of. We have set up a Joint Fraud Taskforce, inviting, for instance, Age Concern to help to protect the elderly, so that we can do more to ensure that in future the people who commit those crimes are caught and the elderly are defended from unscrupulous behaviour.

Persecution of Religious Minorities: Middle East

Julian Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—he is being most generous—and congratulate him warmly on securing this important debate. Does he agree that we need to know the extent of the problem in terms of people coming to the UK? Is he aware that the Home Office does not compile statistics on claims for asylum on the basis of religious persecution? Does he agree that we should perhaps consider doing so?

[Jim Shannon]

I shall address that issue later in my speech. The all-party group of which I am chair recently published a report called “Fleeing Persecution: Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom Grounds”, which contains lots of information. In it, we make 10 salient points that we feel are important. We will hold a meeting with the new Minister to discuss these matters and ensure that those points are taken on board. I am sure that other hon. Members will speak to them later in the debate as well.

Weak governance in Syria and Iraq has left societies in which violent terrorist groups wreak havoc and implement their own rule of law and punishments, in blatant violation of international human rights standards and law. Although it is not a legally binding statement, last month the UN commission of inquiry on Syria determined that Daesh is committing genocide against Yazidis. The commission also found that Daesh’s abuse of Yazidis—a small ethnically Kurdish religious community—amounts to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman brings a salient point into the debate. Yes, we need to be aware of that. We need to be aware of integration into society and of how we can do it well. We also need to be aware of the problems that come off the back of that.

When working with partners in the middle east, it is crucial that we discuss means for individuals to be free within their own nation’s context to manifest their religion or belief and that we build and implement action plans for each context. Although traditionally less of a focus in political and diplomatic discussion, long-term strategies that integrate lessons from the past must be encouraged and supported in Iraq and Syria and across the whole region. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that. To truly secure human rights and restore long-term peace, not just emergency responses but a long game and a considered perspective are necessary.

As chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, I encourage DFID—the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) referred to this as well—to be sensitive to the complexities that religion brings, particularly to political action, which in many cases is contradictory to international law, that people use religion to justify. Even in the recent Turkish coup, we saw turmoil used as an opportunity to target and attack churches in Trabzon and Malatya. Using that and countless other incidents across the middle east to dismiss religion as too tricky and to determine that it is the main cause of violence and wrongdoing is simplistic. The underlying political motives must be recognised and tackled.

Let us just look at the coup in Turkey. The coup is over, but many, looking from the outside in, will say, “Is this a chance to suppress human rights in Turkey?” Many of us feel that it could well be a chance to clamp down on all opposition. Is that what we want? Is it what should be happening? No, it is not. Is Turkey a safe place for religious groups at this moment in time? The evidence says that it is not.

[Julian Knight]

Will the hon. Gentleman also reflect on the fact that Turkey’s Government used to be very secular and that there are now many disturbing indications that religion is being used as a battering ram to bring about intolerance within society to help the political elites?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We all would concur with what he said, and we thank him for his intervention and for reminding us.

It is good sometimes to look where the story is beyond the headline stories and the media. The real story of Turkey is suppression, the denial of human rights and deliberate discrimination against other ethnic and religious groups. We have to look beyond the 6,000 people who have been arrested and the coup that failed because people did not want it and turn our attention to what will happen off the back of it.

The Department for International Development already works with faith communities to eradicate poverty, but I urge it to ensure that, where aid is provided or contracts are awarded overseas, those things are channelled to civil society organisations and Government programmes that can demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of freedom of religion or belief and how their work will have a positive rather than a negative impact. That will not only help DFID’s November 2015 strategic objective to strengthen global peace, security and governance but will help achieve sustainable development goal 16, which is to secure peace, security and global justice.

The all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief this year brought out another document entitled “Fleeing Persecution: Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom Grounds”, which I intend to speak about, because the motion we are debating is about the

“persecution of religious minorities in the Middle East and its effect on the UK”.

We need to look at how can we help influence what is happening in the middle east and best ensure that those coming here also have the opportunity to have their freedom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate.

Religion causes all wars. We have heard that, have we not? A throwaway comment at a dinner table, or something overheard in a conversation? It is historical nonsense. It is a calumny of the highest order. Economics and doctrine, and their perversion, have been the root of most wars in the past 100 years, in our experience. The second world war was not caused by religion. In the first world war, religion had a marginal impact, perhaps in the tertiary areas of the conflict zone. In the 16th century, even the French wars of religion did not have all that much to do with religion.

The reality is that religion, which is about hope and about people trying to find a path through life and a way, with their loved ones, to a truth that they can believe in, is being used for the darkest of all possible purposes. It is, in effect, being perverted in the most extreme circumstances. It is being used to hang other issues on.

What we are experiencing in the world, however, is perhaps also a result of the 24-hour news culture, with this thing in our faces all the time, making us much more aware of the daily tragedies going on in the world. Furthermore, persecution on religious grounds seems to be more acute now than at any time in living memory, perhaps going back even beyond the Armenian genocide at the time of the first world war. Religion has become the basis for, or a means of bringing about, conflict, replacing conventional war, which has been put aside.

Given the changing nature of conflict, it is important for us as a sovereign, democratic and just society to stand up and say when we believe that something is terribly wrong. Therefore, what has happened to the Yazidi people in Iraq and beyond, and the Christians, is genocide. That is clear, and we absolutely should be saying so as a nation.

What do we do, apart from using that word and calling something genocide, rightly to force a programme on those who are indulging in such abominable acts? When Robin Cook was Foreign Secretary, we had an “ethical foreign policy”, which seemed to have a hint of post-imperial angst about it. To me, an ethical foreign policy should be one in which we link our aid and economic engagement to how countries treat their minorities. Surely a litmus test for any society is how it treats its minorities.

If intolerance reigns in a society, frankly, there will be little rule of law, or contract law, and little good governance. From a corporate viewpoint alone, that is a bad investment; from a moral viewpoint, it is also a bad investment. We should therefore think carefully about how we position our international aid budget, which I am glad to see that we have kept at 0.7%. I want to see us use it in future to target countries that show they will protect the rights of minorities in their societies.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. He is absolutely right that we should be looking at religious persecution as a cause of poverty, displacement and many other degrees of suffering. Does he agree that if DFID did so, and looked more carefully at it as such a cause, we could prevent, down the line, a great deal of not only suffering, but humanitarian aid expenditure by the international community?

[Julian Knight]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which returns to what I was saying about how the countries that indulge in such activities are actually bad investments. In effect, they are proving themselves to be unworthy of the aid that we are giving them. We need to be thoughtful about exactly how economically engaged we are with those countries.

In Turkey, we have seen increasing intolerance. Under Atatürk, the formation of modern Turkey was about a secular society—religion still played an enormous part in society, but the governance of Turkey was secular. It is now moving away from that and, too, hanging on to religion some of the darker elements in that society. We have to be very aware of that in an important neighbour on our doorstep. In 1999 or 2000, I think, when we were looking at the crisis in the Balkans, we were saying, “Isn’t it horrific that this goes on on Europe’s borders?” but Turkey is on Europe’s borders as well. We should be thinking about that in connection with our sphere of influence.

To conclude, we need to consider the APPG report. When we deal with individuals—after all, this is about individuals—we have to be much more thoughtful and better trained in how we do so. The better statistics help, so that we know the reasons why people are coming to this country—are they fleeing religious persecution?—as does better training for Home Office and UK Border Force personnel, in particular to assess whether an asylum seeker is a victim of religious persecution.

I imagine that it can be difficult for people to speak up, especially if they are members of a minority and have had to hide their religious light under a bushel. When they come to another country, the person they are seeing is not only in a uniform—perhaps not the reassuring figure that we might see, but a threat and authority—but someone from whom they would have kept things quiet, and now they are having to open up, often in a foreign language, and in a completely alien environment. I understand how people might find that incredibly difficult and their silence might be perceived as something different. We need to spend time with such individuals, and we need to support our staff to do so, in order to help all such people not only in our country, but in the camps, close to the conflict zones.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before I call Peter Grant, I assume that the proposer would like two minutes at the end of the Minister’s speech.

Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the UK) Bill

Julian Knight Excerpts

Friday 11th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hollobone]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and frankly I am shocked, and my constituents will also be shocked, by those figures. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of what he has just told the House, but I am disappointed that those figures should come from him during a debate on one of the 13 sitting Fridays when the Government themselves should be flagging up this information about the huge financial burden to British taxpayers of incarceration, prosecution, capturing these people, and sorting them out after they leave. All of that together adds up to nearly £1 billion, which is an awful lot of money.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Hollobone]

I will happily give way to every hon. Member, but I just want to finish this point before giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight). At a time when each and every year this country is spending more money on public services than it raises in taxation, a state of affairs that has been true ever since 2002 and which the Chancellor himself said will not be fully addressed until 2019—here we are in 2016, spending more money each year than we raise in taxation and we still have an annual deficit—this issue is costing this country £1 billion a year, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, and I am sure that he is absolutely right. That is a shocking state of affairs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes a very intelligent intervention—naturally, because he is that sort of fellow, but also because he has in his constituency HMP Stafford, so he is more attuned than most Members of this House to issues involving prisoners, their families, deportation, repatriation, punishment and rehabilitation. He makes an extremely good point. The Bill does not seek to send convicted foreign national offenders back to their country of origin only to see them released in that country, and potentially able to come back to our shores. There would need to be a system in place—a Government-to-Government agreement—whereby individuals can be transferred, often against their own wishes, to their country of origin, and it is guaranteed by that Government that they will then serve the requisite time in incarceration in that country.

[Julian Knight]

rose—

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Hollobone]

I will happily give way, but I just want to finish this particular point. The other crucial aspect of the Bill, which might not now be as explicitly mentioned in it as it might be after we have had a go at it in Committee, is that in my view and that of my constituents, if foreign national offenders are sent back to their country of origin they should be banned from returning to this country. Their personal details—their name, date of birth, fingerprints and all the rest of it—should be with our Border Force so that if they ever attempt to gain re-entry into this country they are stopped from doing so.

[Julian Knight]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Knight]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being most generous and diligent in how he is taking interventions. His account has been forensic in its detail, and he is making a compelling case. I am absolutely shocked at the figure of £850 million, but this is not just about numbers or forensic analysis. It is also about individual stories and individual victims, and a country that is wronged. I draw his attention to the case of William Danga, 39, a Congolese national and convicted rapist who, while challenging his deportation proceedings on human rights grounds, went on to abuse two children in this country. Will my hon. Friend reflect on that?

[Mr Hollobone]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us a specific and individual example of how rotten the system has become. How has it come to pass that in Britain in 2016 we are unable to deport a Congolese rapist? It should be one of the first duties of Government to keep our country and our citizens safe, and we need to send back to their country of origin people who believe they can get away with such horrendous crimes in our country. My hon. Friend has given us an individual and specific example of why we need to change the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend is correct. We could strengthen the Bill in Committee with specific clauses to that effect. In Justice questions this week I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), whether it was true that as a member of the European Union, we are not allowed to deport EU foreign nationals who are in prison in our country and ban them from ever returning, and he confirmed that that is the case. We can therefore say without fear of contradiction in the Chamber today that it is not absurd to say that if we remain a member of the European Union, crime will be higher and we will have more criminals in our country. Under the rules of free movement we are not able to stop EU criminals coming into this country, and we are not able to deport back to EU countries those who have been convicted of serious offences and imprisoned.

[Julian Knight]

I thank my hon. Friend for showing characteristic generosity in taking interventions. I echo his views on the Human Rights Act. It seems anathema to me that as a country with the best part of 1,000 years of common law, we have to accept a Human Rights Act designed for countries that have experienced fascism within living memory. We did not go down that road. We are Britain and we have the common law.

The point about increased capacity in prisons is interesting. That would allow us to pursue a more vigorous justice regime, particularly in the case of burglary. My hon. Friend is aware that it is becoming commonplace that many burglars are not receiving custodial sentences, which is an appalling state of affairs. Burglary is a crime that impinges on people’s lives. Will he reflect on the need for greater capacity in our prisons?

[Mr Hollobone]

Interventions of such quality will, I hope, earn my hon. Friend a place on the Bill Committee. We could put a robust clause in the Bill specifically to deal with burglars and burglaries. He is right—for some reason, the seriousness of burglary has gone down the Home Office’s agenda.

The same is true of the breaking of shop windows in our high streets. I remember 20 years ago speaking to my local police commander, who said, “Philip, it’s an absolute rule of mine that we will not accept shop windows being broken in high streets, and we are going to clamp down on this really hard.” I think most hon. Members would say that shop windows are broken regularly in their high streets, perhaps even monthly. That shows that when we do not keep pursuing such problems vigorously, the seriousness with which they are taken declines.

That is a concern for our constituents, who are frightened about burglaries. Even if nobody is injured in a burglary, somebody’s home is tainted permanently by the intrusion and the theft of articles. Particularly for elderly people, that can often lead to a deterioration in health, and ultimately, in some cases, the old person sadly dies, not directly at the hands of the burglar but as result of the trauma of having been a victim of burglary. My hon. Friend speaks for his constituents and the country in highlighting that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes a very helpful intervention; his lateral thinking on the issue demonstrates that he is an assiduous Member of the House. In answer to his question, I believe that each year about 4,000 people with British nationality are imprisoned overseas. I got that figure from Prisoners Abroad, which seems a very worthwhile human rights and welfare charity; it provides those people with humanitarian aid, expert advice and emotional support.

I hope that we will get the official figure from the Home Office or the Foreign Office when the relevant person arrives. Some of those British nationals will be in prison not because they have been convicted of any crime, but because they have been detained by the authorities of whatever country they might be in—and most of those countries will have criminal justice systems that are far less rigorous than our own.

It seems to me that, were we to sort this system out, 4,000 British nationals could be repatriated to serve their time here. I am not suggesting for one moment that all 4,000 would return immediately, but my hon. Friend asked for a figure and that is the one I have. In practice, the number of returnees would be a lot lower. Of course, that number is still a lot lower than the number of foreign nationals convicted and imprisoned in this country.

[Julian Knight]

Presumably the figure would be far lower, because many of the people imprisoned overseas will have been imprisoned for short periods of time, and perhaps for relatively minor offences that, for the purposes of the Bill, would not require deportation.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.

Mr Speaker, you will be relieved to hear that I do not actually know any personal details of any of the Polish prisoners, so I will not trouble the House with that information, but I am grateful, as ever, for your wise counsel and guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

I can see that the Bill Committee will be extremely interesting. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point. I would take the view—I think other members of the Committee, although perhaps not all, would too—that a foreign national in this country who shoplifts should be removed forthwith and never be allowed to darken our shores again.

[Julian Knight]

On the definition of “may be” and the point that trivial crimes may be offences

“for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed by a court”,

if foreign nationals commit a crime such as burglary, which is potentially due a custodial sentence in law, but that sentence is not dished out by the court, they would, effectively, come within the remit of the Bill.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I agree with him. That is why we have to be so careful about the wording. It may be that we need to strengthen the clarity of these provisions in Committee, because all too often, sadly, our courts do not impose a custodial sentence, even though they have the opportunity to do so. My understanding, and my intent in the Bill, would be that, even if a prison sentence is not imposed, as long as the offence carries the potential for imprisonment, the person should be deported, removed, transferred or repatriated—whatever the technical term is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend speaks a great deal of common sense, as always. I have nothing but admiration for hard-working Jamaicans in this country who contribute much to our economy. What I would say, though—this is, in part, the purpose of this Bill—is that the fact that 160 nations around the world are represented in Her Majesty’s prisons is a stain on those countries’ reputations, which I would have thought those countries would want to try to get rid of. The way to get rid of it properly is to come to an agreement with this country, under which they take back their prisoners to prisons in their country. Then we will not have to have debates like this or read out lists of shame. Of course, the numbers from each of the countries involved are small, but as a percentage of our national prison population they are significant, and the cost to British taxpayers, as we have heard, could be north of £875 million a year.

[Julian Knight]

In actual terms, I suppose the numbers are small, but is my hon. Friend aware that the Polish figure is just over 900 from a population of, I believe, about 40 million, whereas the Jamaican figure is over 500 from a population of 3 million? That is a stark difference. I also echo the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on the contribution of the Irish and Jamaican populations.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight those figures. There is a particular issue with Jamaica and drugs, and I think that is where the problem arises. To be fair, Her Majesty’s Government have recognised that. In September 2015, the UK made an agreement with the Jamaican Government to start sending Jamaican prisoners serving time in British jails back to Jamaica. That is exactly the sort of arrangement that needs to be put in place with as many as possible of the 160 countries.

The agreement was concluded at the end of September by the then International Development Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps). The official announcement of 30 September 2015 said:

“The agreement was concluded today after years of negotiations as the Prime Minister made the first visit by a UK Prime Minister to Jamaica in 14 years.

It is expected to save British taxpayers around £10 million over 30 years once the first prisoners are returned from 2020 onwards.

The UK will provide £25 million from the government’s existing aid budget to help fund the construction of a new 1500 bed prison in Jamaica…The prison is expected to be built by 2020 and from then returns will get underway.”

I know many supporters of the international aid budget are present, as are one or two Members who have slightly different views. Whatever one’s views on Britain’s international aid budget, I think we can all agree that it is extremely generous. I believe we are the only major western economy to hit our millennium goal target of spending 0.7% of our economy on international aid. I would hope that we can all agree that spending part of the international aid budget in this way makes a huge amount of sense. If we spend it on building prisons in those countries that have a large number of nationals imprisoned in our country, we can start to send these people back to those prisons, saving British taxpayers’ money being spent on incarcerating them in our jails.

I am disappointed, however, that it seems to take so long to build those prisons. I do not understand why it takes five years to build a 1,500-bed prison in Jamaica. If we asked the Royal Engineers to put up a building, I am sure they could do it in double-quick time, and then we could start shipping these people back pretty soon.

I encourage Her Majesty’s Government to make more such arrangements. They could certainly look at my list of shame for further opportunities. We have got to No. 4 on the list, which is Jamaica. No. 5 is Albania; there are 472 Albanians in our jails. Close behind in equal sixth place is Latvia. Let me get that right—I think it is Lithuania with 471, in equal sixth place with Pakistan. I am not an expert, but I believe the population of Pakistan is a lot bigger than that of Lithuania, so for Lithuania to have the same number of prisoners as Pakistan says something to me about why our membership of the European Union is not doing us any favours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is the problem. Is the Home Office going for soft-touch people? We had that debate last week with the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees. He gave a skilful performance from the Dispatch Box, but he could not really deny my hon. Friend’s impeccable case. Indeed, the Minister admitted that there are more than 30,000 illegal asylum seekers who cannot be deported, on top of the people we are talking about today, and all that has to do with the Dublin convention and the Human Rights Act 1998.

There was a firm pledge in the Conservative party manifesto to deal with article 8 of the European convention on human rights. There has been massive controversy and publicity about that, and I cannot understand why we are still waiting. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, she will tell us what has happened to our reform of human rights legislation, because this is a matter of great public interest.

Rod Liddle gave some interesting examples of such cases, and others have been enumerated in other newspapers. Let us consider the case of Baghdad Meziane. Baghdad is a convicted al-Qaeda terrorist, with links to the appalling people who committed that atrocity in Paris recently. As Rod Liddle states:

“He was convicted in a British court of raising money for al-Qaeda (and also of the ubiquitous credit-card fraud) and sentenced to 11 years in prison. At his trial the judge pointed out, perhaps unnecessarily, that Meziane was a very dangerous man and recommended deportation once his term of incarceration had expired.”

But no. This “very dangerous” and unpleasant man, was actually released from prison five years early and allowed to return to Leicester. He was not put on the first available plane to Algiers, whence, despite his name, he originates.

“Baghdad argued that to deport him would contravene his human right to a normal family life.”

Therefore this man, this dangerous individual, has been released back into our community in Leicester because he claims a right to family life, and despite lengthy legal battles, all our debates, and the Home Secretary’s attempts at legislation, in Leicester he now resides.

[Julian Knight]

May I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to another example where process and legality are failing? Andre Babbage was released from detention by the High Court because there was no prospect of deporting him to Zimbabwe, because he does not have a passport and does not wish to return there, despite a high chance that he will reoffend.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is what the public cannot understand. People are laughing at our system, and we are asking the Government to take action. Rod Liddle also mentioned the case of J1—we are not told his real name, because that would apparently breach his privacy:

“J1 is a known friend and colleague of one Mohammed Emwazi, usually referred to by his stage name of Jihadi John”—

that is the Islamic State’s late madman whom we know all about.

“J1 is known to be a senior organiser for Somalia’s exciting Islamic terror franchise, al-Shabab, and has links to the Muslim extremists who tried to blow up London on 21 July 2005. For five years we tried to kick him out, but we have now given up and he is not even under surveillance any more”.

Or how about CS? Again, we do not know CS’s real name because of her right to privacy:

“But at least we know that CS is a Moroccan woman and the daughter-in-law of…Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Masri, now serving a life sentence in the USA for terrorism-related offences. It’s the European Courts of Justice blocking her deportation, because she is the sole carer of her son in this country…She was found smuggling a sim card into Hamza’s Belmarsh cell.”

We cannot kick her out of this country, and we clearly need a Bill such as the one we are discussing. When the Minister replies, she needs to tell the British people why we cannot deal with such people.

Let us leave jihadists for a moment. The article continues:

“There’s always the child rapists. Shabir Ahmed, aged 63, is serving a 22-year sentence for having been the ringleader of a gang of Pakistani paedophiles in Rochdale. Ahmed is petitioning the European Court of Human Rights to prevent his deportation. He claims that his trial was ‘institutionally racist’”.

The Home Office may fight, but I suspect that this man will be staying in a prison in this country.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will deal with that point in a moment, and that is precisely what Migration Watch UK—a very respected charity—is arguing. The article continues:

“We can’t even get rid of the criminals who actively want to leave. Mohammed Faisal is a convicted ‘drug lord’ who is reportedly ‘desperate’ to get back to Pakistan.”

However, the Home Office has messed up his papers, so he is staying put in this country.

“And what of the Yardies?” —

Jamaicans have already been mentioned—

“We couldn’t send them to serve their sentences in Jamaica because the prisons are so bad it would breach their human rights.”

So, as I made clear in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, “in desperation”, we are spending £25 million of taxpayers money on

“building them a nice prison there, maybe with views over Montego Bay. There is a plethora of national and supra-national legislation protecting the rights of the foreign criminal: the Human Rights Act, the Dublin Convention, the European Court of Human Rights, the European Courts of Justice. But none protecting the rest of us.”

There are all those conventions and Acts of Parliament, but what about the British people who are paying for all this? They cannot understand how, after 10 years of debates, these people are still with us. They are laughing at us. It is not just a question of money; they are literally laughing at us. Many of them are not just serving time in prison, but they are being let out of prison and back into our communities, having committed appalling crimes. They are not being kicked out. [Interruption.] And no doubt they are indeed receiving benefits. That is why the British people are fed up and want action to be taken. It is unlikely that my hon. Friend’s Bill will get to Committee because it is a private Member’s Bill, but therefore the Government should act, and that is why this debate is important.

There have been many other cases. The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph have run a long-standing campaign, and we owe them a great debt for dealing with this issue and trying to raise it on the national stage. The Daily Telegraph put it well:

“Sixty years ago, with the horrors of the Second World War still fresh and raw, lawyers devised a set of principles designed to prevent a repeat of the Holocaust and other depravities. This was the European Convention on Human Rights, enshrined in British law under Labour’s Human Rights Act in 1998. In 1950, those lawyers did not set out to protect an immigrant’s right to bowl a cricket ball on a Sunday afternoon”—

or any of the other absurd examples that we have seen in the press recently—

“nor did they agonise over any of the other absurd scenarios, uncovered by our campaign”.

[Julian Knight]

The tentacles of the Human Rights Act spread far and wide and in ways that are perhaps not obvious at first to the outside observer. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable for the Advocates General of the European Court of Justice to argue that the UK cannot expel a non-EU national with a criminal record who happens to be the parent of a child who is an EU citizen?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Yes. There are so many absurd examples. Those lawyers, who were dealing with a Europe that had been devastated by fascism and Nazism and trying to create a reasonable body of law to protect us all, could not have foreseen how their work in 1950 in setting up the Council of Europe, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and I are proud to have served, would mean that criminals could deliberately misuse and abuse the system.

There are appalling examples. For instance, Lionel Hibbert, a 50-year-old Jamaican criminal who fathered three children by three mothers within four months of one another, claimed he should not be deported because of his right to family life. Hon. Members will think that that is a ridiculous claim, but British judges agreed with it and overturned the Home Office decision because of that man’s claim to family life. In another example cited by The Daily Telegraph, the violent drug dealer, Gary Ellis, a 23-year-old Jamaican, convinced a court that he had a stable family life with his young daughter and girlfriend, when in fact she had split up with him years previously and refused to allow him into her home.

The court’s willingness to believe those stories and attach inappropriate weight to them is a huge problem—I concede that to the Government—but therefore we need more legislation. Ultimately, the courts have to subscribe to legislation passed by this House to make this absolutely watertight: if someone is convicted and if they are a danger to our society, they can be deported. That is what the Bill is about.

Let me deal with the suggestion from Migration Watch, which is very much like what is suggested in the Bill. We know that there are some 10,000 foreign nationals in custody, and that only about 1,000 recommendations for deportation are made each year. We know that something is wrong. Should there not be—this is what the Bill is about—a presumption that deportation will be recommended for a wide range of offences that attract a sentence of 12 months or more, as well as for offenders who are illegal immigrants? The trigger should be lower for a second or third offence. Central records should be kept, including biometric information, which should be available to visa-issuing posts overseas to prevent offenders from applying for a visa under a false identity. I refer again to my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering. That is a problem—there is nothing to stop somebody whom we have finally managed to deport from simply changing their identity and coming back.

We know that the current arrangements for the deportation of foreigners convicted of criminal offences are extremely unsatisfactory. Let us a least agree on that. When the Minister replies to the debate, let her acknowledge that the arrangements are unsatisfactory and that we should do something about it.

There are no clear guidelines for the courts. The general principles have not been revised sufficiently. Only 5,000 to 6,000 recommendations were made annually in recent years. There are no statistics on the number of deportations that are carried out, and no feedback to the courts. An offender cannot only appeal against a recommendation for a deportation; they can also appeal against a subsequent deportation order. They can claim asylum and appeal against a refusal of asylum. They can then seek judicial review of removal instructions following the failure of their claim. Who is paying for all those procedures? Who is benefiting from them? Is it the British public or is it lawyers and the convicted criminal? As I have said, that all happens at public expense.

Deportation cannot be recommended as a sentence in its own right, and nor can it justify a reduction of a sentence. Deportation recommendations are often considered towards the end of a custodial sentence. Why not at the beginning? That is what the Bill is about. If someone is convicted, on day one, this should be part of the sentence: “It’s deportation, chum.” Why are we still arguing about it years into someone’s sentence?

As I have said, there is nothing to stop a deported criminal from returning to Britain under a false identity. A recommendation for deportation is a matter for the courts, but a decision is for the Home Secretary, who takes into account the circumstances in the offender’s country of origin, humanitarian aspects and considerations of public policy. That sounds very fair, but what is being done on the ground?

The offender may appeal to an immigration judge against the Home Secretary’s decision. The current position in law is that the court must consider whether the accused’s presence in the UK is to its detriment. I believe—Migration Watch and many other people believe the same—that that is the wrong yardstick. There should be a zero-tolerance approach to serious criminal behaviour by foreign nationals, which should involve a presumption that deportation will be recommended for any offence that results in a 12-month prison sentence.

That sounds entirely logical, and if the Bill by some miracle becomes law, that is effectively what will happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering talked of the Bill going to Committee, where I am sure he would prepared to accept a compromise. If the Minister comes back to us with a sensible compromise, we will consider it. I am sure he would be prepared to withdraw the Bill if the Minister announces today that we are adopting that policy of zero tolerance that involves a presumption that deportation will be recommended in any offence that results in a 12-month sentence.

That is a moderate proposal—it is the Migration Watch proposal, but my hon. Friends might want to ask for more. Migration Watch and I believe that the trigger should be a six-month sentence on a second conviction and a three-month sentence on a third conviction. Currently, magistrates may impose a maximum sentence of only six months, but that is to be increased to 12 months. Until that change is made, the approach I have suggested would mean that magistrates could recommend deportation for a second offence only. That, too, is a moderate proposal.

It is currently not possible to make deportation part of the sentence. Why? That is what we are asking for in the Bill. The law should be changed to permit that, to reduce the amount of time that foreign prisoners spend in prisons. Our jails are already so heavily overcrowded that we cannot carry out proper rehabilitation—we cannot afford it, and it is bad for prisoners. Surely the approach we are suggesting would be much better for prisoners. It is much better for the welfare of prisoners that those 800 Poles who are currently in our jails, or the 500 Jamaicans or Irish, are sent back to prisons in their countries, particularly when there is a foreign language involved, so that they can be rehabilitated and gradually put back into their own societies. It is not good for them or for our taxpayer that they are kept in our prisons.

Police Funding, Crime and Community Safety

Julian Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is very striking when we look at the figures for Bedfordshire how many officers are not on the frontline but in the back office. That is one of the things that most police forces have changed over the years, but there is clearly more scope for that to take place in Bedfordshire. Under a different police and crime commissioner—a Conservative police and crime commissioner—I am sure that it would.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I want to pick up on that point about the financial management of Labour police and crime commissioners. In the West Midlands, for instance, the Labour PCC, David Jamieson, has reported £100 million in reserves, yet he chose before the spending review to fire huge swathes of vital PCSOs in a highly politicised move and then had to reverse the decision after the spending review. The message is, “If you want to play politics with the police, vote Labour.”

[Mrs May]

I have to say that I agree with my hon. Friend. If we look at the figures, we see that the cash change in resource reserves since March 2014 in the West Midlands is £27 million. The choice has been made to put that money in reserve—into the bank balance—rather than into officers on the frontline.

Migration into the EU

Julian Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[James Brokenshire]

As I have indicated, the UK is more than lending a hand by dealing with some of the significant factors that push people to cross the sea and with the organised immigration crime that is facilitating that. We are also providing expert support to the European Asylum Support Office, Frontex and Europol. The UK is demonstrating, through a broad range of measures, its commitment to solidarity with European partners in dealing with the crisis at hand.

On returns, which some Members have referred to in the debate, the unprecedented numbers of migrants and refugees arriving in Europe mean that it is more important than ever that each and every EU member states fulfils its responsibilities to process all those arriving, provide refuge to those who need it and return those who do not. As part of those efforts, all member states must have legislation and processes in place to identify and weed out abuse of their asylum system.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Will the Minister praise the work of local councils in stepping up to the plate when it comes to the migrant crisis? For example, Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council has dealt with a large number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and has become a beacon of best practice in the west midlands.

Riot Compensation Bill

Julian Knight Excerpts

Friday 4th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood]

A key purpose of the Bill is indeed to have a more effective, streamlined and clear mechanism or procedure to enable those businesses and individuals to get the compensation they need within the timeframe necessary to make a difference in getting their lives and businesses back on track.

In 2011, the coalition Government responded to the riots by agreeing to cover the costs incurred by the police in compensating homeowners and businesses under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. That was one part of the package that the then Government announced in response to the scale of the destruction suffered in some of our major cities. I am sure that Members on both sides of the Chamber recognise the importance of the creation of a high street recovery fund immediately after those riots, which helped local communities to decide for themselves on measures, specific and relevant to their area, that would get their high streets back on their feet. However, we cannot necessarily rely on future Governments choosing to underwrite police force liabilities or investing additional moneys in rebuilding areas hit by riots.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

This issue is not just about the riots of 2011; many other localised riots have led to very extensive and expensive bills for local police forces. For instance, the total bill for the rioting in Bradford in 2001 amounted to £450 million, even though it was a localised riot.

[Mike Wood]

I fully agree. In the region we both know best, the west midlands, there were the Handsworth riots in 1985, which I have already mentioned, and of course the riots in the same part of Birmingham in 1981 and 1991. Such localised riots have a huge impact on the local community, and cause huge cost to businesses and individuals directly affected.

We need to act now to build a new compensation system that works. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) said, that system needs to be fair to the people and businesses affected by riots and fair to the taxpayers who, ultimately, will always foot the bill.

In the wake of the 2011 riots, work was conducted by the independent Riots Communities and Victims Panel, which looked at both the root causes of the disturbances and the prevention of future riots. Other studies were conducted specifically to examine the response of the police. Although the Government have done a lot of valuable work on the causes and the immediate responses to the riots, now that we have had time to reflect on and learn from those terrible events, it is right and necessary to ensure that the current legislation is updated to make it fit for the 21st century and to enable the victims of riots to be adequately compensated.

Recognising criticisms of the limitations of the 1886 Act, the Home Office undertook an internal review, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary then commissioned a full, independent review of the legislation. The reviewer, Neil Kinghan, spent months collecting evidence from riot victims, the police, insurers, loss adjusters and many others before publishing his conclusions. He made recommendations concerning a number of areas of the existing framework. Many of those recommendations are brought forward in the Bill.

Neil Kinghan accepted that there remains a need for legislation that provides for riot compensation to victims, but that the existing legislation is simply not good enough. Fiddling around the edges of the legislation would not be enough to make it work for the 21st century. We need to repeal the 1886 Act and replace it with new legislation that reflects the world as it is now, rather than the world as it was in the 1880s. The Bill seeks to make that change by updating the legislation and modernising the compensation system, making it fit for purpose in today’s world.

This is not the first time that changes to the Riot (Damages) Act have been considered. Under the last Labour Government, there was a public consultation on full repeal of the Act, but in the end, no changes were made. I do not believe that simply repealing the 1886 Act is the answer. While there is a superficial attraction in removing the strict liability that police forces have for damage to property suffered during a riot, there is general acceptance that there are principled and practical reasons for its retention.

Neil Kinghan’s review agreed that the first duty of the police is to maintain law and order. When that law and order breaks down, resulting in a riot, it is right for the police to be held to account and to pay appropriate compensation. On a practical level, strict liability provides simplicity for the victims of riots and a clear framework for the police. Requiring victims to demonstrate negligence or other direct fault would not be equitable in the circumstances. It would require evidence that is often extremely difficult to collect in the immediate aftermath of a riot and would inevitably lead to increased conflict between local police forces and the communities that are hit by rioting.

The 2011 riots underlined the importance of maintaining this historic protection for the public, as it provided a number of people with a vital means of support when they needed it most. It is right that people are provided with the financial means to repair, renew and recover so that they have the confidence to return to their roles at the heart of our communities.

The independent review found near consensus in favour of retaining the police’s strict liability—a finding backed by the report of the London Assembly’s budget and performance committee on the aftermath of the riots. It is right that we protect communities from such shattering losses by doing what we can to help them back on their feet. However, what cannot be right are the lengthy bureaucratic delays suffered by those who need our help, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate referred, and the idea that the country has a bottomless purse to draw from to pay for damage caused by criminals.

The Bill makes much-needed changes to address those concerns, while still supporting households and businesses affected by rioting. Although, as I have said, I accept the arguments for retaining the principle of police liability for riot damages, I do not accept that we can continue with limitless liability. Whether through police budgets or central Government, the public purse cannot be expected to pick up costs that are the reasonable responsibility of private insurance.

The Bill proposes to end the unlimited compensation afforded through the 1886 Act. Instead, it will set a cash cap, set at the appropriate level of £1 million, on each individual claim. The Government determined in their early review that if such a cap were in place in 2011, 99% of the claims made after the riots would have been compensated in full, but the limit would have saved the public purse tens of millions of pounds in compensation for the very largest claims.

As prudent homeowners, most people hold some form of insurance for their property. The same is true of most business owners. In the most recent cases, more than 80% of the compensation has been paid as reimbursement to insurance companies. Despite that, measures to cap compensation have been supported in principle by their largest representative body, the Association of British Insurers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

Many insurance policies already have business disruption cover, and focusing on direct losses, with a fair cap of £1 million, will allow businesses or individuals to reclaim quickly the significant sums that they need to get back on track.

[Julian Knight]

rose—

[Mike Wood]

I give way to my hon. Friend, who knows a lot more about this.

[Julian Knight]

Does my hon. Friend hope, as I do, that if the Bill moves forward today it will encourage the industry and the Association of British Insurers to engage further with business owners and make them aware of such things as business disruption cover? In addition, they could make them aware of the Bill’s provisions.

[Mike Wood]

That is precisely what I have been calling on the ABI and other insurance bodies to do leading up to today’s debate.

I turn to the Bill’s provisions on a riot claims bureau. It sets out that the Secretary of State may assume responsibility for managing riot compensation claims. That is appropriate if rioting spreads across more than one police force area, as it did in 2011. It may also be appropriate at the request of a local policing body, particularly in one of the smaller police force areas, should the volume of compensation claims prove challenging to manage and be beyond its capacity. It is not about taking away local policing bodies’ financial autonomy. It is merely about providing capacity, consistency and additional oversight where necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), who is the proud son of a west midlands police officer. I know from my dealings with him on matters to do with West Midlands police and fairer funding that he is a strong advocate for law and order and justice in the west midlands.

I commend and support the Bill. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who is no longer in the Chamber, made a powerful speech in the shadow of the 2011 riots, which were obviously a great shock. What started as a local, limited protest burst into rank criminality. Ordinary individuals going about their daily lives found themselves embroiled in terror, violence and damage to property on an unprecedented scale in my lifetime. Even in daylight hours, ordinary people were being abused by feral elements in our society.

At the time, the police cautiously and correctly went about extinguishing those four days of violence in our society. Following on from that, the Prime Minister made many telling remarks, including that we would hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice. That is exactly what happened. I was pleased that the judiciary listened to the public voice on that occasion and handed out some exemplary sentences to those who had rioted. There was much talk in the newspapers about people being sent to prison for stealing relatively small items such as bottles of water, but it was the aggravated nature of the criminality that counted in this respect. Our authorities did their job and correctly followed through on what they had promised. The only area where there were problems—this has been mentioned by many hon. Members—related to compensation and delays to compensation. One of the main reasons for that was that they were acting under the auspices of antiquated and outdated legislation.

The Bill, which I hope will proceed to the Committee stage, correctly defines “riot”. It gives it a much more modern, telling and understandable definition. It tidies up much of the antiquated language used in the late 19th century. As the right hon. Member for Tottenham mentioned, it is difficult for people who do not have English as their first language to understand what constitutes a riot and to apply for compensation under the 1886 Act.

[Kevin Foster]

I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that many people for whom English is their first language would find it difficult to understand the definitions in the 1886 Act.

[Julian Knight]

English is my first language, and I, too, find it very difficult to understand fully the wording of the Act. That is not the only reason, but it is another reason why we need this update. Let us not forget that the Bill comes after very extensive, independent reviews, such as the Kinghan review. I welcome the fact that there is a lot of thought and consideration behind the Bill. We can see that in the careful way that many of its measures have been drafted and in the way it has been promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South, who has worked incredibly hard on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay focused extensively on the provision of new for old, and I completely agree with him. As someone who worked on a range of financial matters, particularly personal finance, for the best part of a decade and a half, I must say that I know of no insurance policy that would replace items on an old for old basis. That almost disappeared 20 or 30 years ago, so to continue to insist that an item is replaced by one of a similar age is, frankly, ridiculous and completely out of kilter with modern society and modern insurance practices. The provision of new for old will give greater clarity and certainty for all those affected by riot, including small businesses.

The cap of £1 million per claim is eminently sensible. As I understand it, if there is a claim of £1 million for a building, there may be a separate claim by another individual for the loss of its fabric and other elements. That aspect takes good account of rising modern property prices. The advent of a riot claims bureau is also welcome. I want to know a bit more detail about exactly how it will work, but I am sure that that, like many other elements of the Bill, will be examined in Committee.

The Bill reflects the reality of modern insurance patterns not only in the provision of new for old, but, frankly, in recognising the existence of the motor car, which did not exist in 1886. I believe it does not make provision for third-party cover. As someone who has written about insurance and other financial matters, I know that third-party car insurance is almost extinct. In fact, if someone applies for a quote on a website, they will almost invariably find that car insurers’ quotations are higher for third-party cover than for fully comprehensive cover. To be honest, car insurers think someone taking out third-party cover is a bad insurance risk per se, so they are unlikely to write the business. It is good that the Bill covers the modern car, as well as tools and other items that may be left in vehicles overnight.

The Bill will allow for compensation to be paid more quickly, which we all desire. The proof of the pudding will of course be in the eating, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay said, if the Bill does not go into Committee, we will simply be left with the 1886 Act and we already know how it works—or does not work—in relation to compensation. I do not agree with the idea that legislation should be introduced just because something must be done, but the fact that the Bill has already been considered extensively by an independent review reassures me that such matters will be looked at further.

I share some of the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Tottenham about the 42-day limit, so I welcome the Minister’s comments. I look forward to seeing how that plays out in Committee in catering for those who, as the right hon. Gentleman said, may be suffering a great deal of shock, may not have English as their first language and may need a gentler approach to time limits and more understanding in relation to time barring.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay asked whether the Bill would lead to increased premiums. Most claims will be paid out up to the £1 million cap, but, knowing the insurance market, I genuinely believe that the effect on premiums would be very marginal. Home insurance is in fact a very profitable business, unlike—strangely enough—car insurance. In the past 20 years, the car insurance industry has made a profit from writing its policies on only four occasions. Home insurance is generally quite a cash cow—a Steady Eddie, as it were—for the insurance industry. Let us not forget that there are moves ahead to help out on insurance premiums, such as by clamping down on the compensation culture and the no win, no fee blight in our society. Looking at it in the round, the effect of the Bill will be very marginal and will not be felt to the degree that some people fear.

Some legislation is brought forward almost because it is said that something has to be done and this feels as if we are doing something—I always vehemently oppose that aspect of lawmaking—but the Bill advances and upgrades the law, makes it more relevant to our society and sets us on a new footing so that if such an awful eventuality happens again, we can, I hope, respond more quickly and in a better manner.

Mr Shaker Aamer

Julian Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Government response to the return to the UK of Mr Shaker Aamer.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. My interest in this matter stems from various press reports, such as this BBC report from the time of Mr Aamer’s return suggesting that he would be entitled to a large and secretive sum of compensation, allegedly in the region of £1 million. That, apparently, is in line with compensation paid to previous inmates of Guantanamo Bay who have returned to the UK.

I wrote to the Minister on this subject and, as always, he wrote back to me swiftly and directly, for which I am grateful. I could read out the whole letter because it is only a couple of sentences long, but I will not. The important sentence states: “In 2010, Kenneth Clarke, the then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, made a statement in the House of Commons. In it he noted that Her Majesty’s Government had inherited the issues around the treatment of UK detainees held by other countries from previous Governments and that these issues needed to be addressed.” The letter goes on to say: “To that end, Mr Clarke informed the House ‘that the Government have now agreed a mediated settlement of the civil damages claims brought by detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.’ The details of that settlement have been made subject to a legally binding confidentiality agreement.”

I wrote to the Minister asking for confirmation that Mr Shaker Aamer will not be entitled to money, and that is the response I got, so I think it is fair for me to assume that Mr Aamer will be in line for substantial damages. If the Minister wants to intervene at any time to tell me that that is not so and to rule it out categorically, I will happily cut the debate very short and finish now.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. On a day when the Chancellor has announced difficult decisions in the spending review, many of my constituents will be horrified at the thought of compensation being paid to Mr Aamer. Will my hon. Friend reflect on that for a moment?

[David T. C. Davies]

I will further reflect on that and say that my hon. Friend’s constituents are absolutely right. I am horrified at the prospect of this happening. It is completely and utterly wrong that Mr Aamer should be entitled to any compensation.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will come to in a minute because there are three families in that position in Monmouthshire.

The then Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, made the point that the cost of fighting a court case was

“estimated at approximately £30 million to £50 million over three to five years of litigation.”—[Official Report, 16 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 753.]

That is a very high figure, and I find it hard to believe, but I am not a legal man. In any event, if we are right then we should fight these cases. We should not simply have a situation where people can pitch up and say, “I’m going to sue the Government for £1 million and it will cost you more than that to defend the case, so you’ll have to give me the money.” This Government should be a Government of principles and if we believe that we are in the right, we should fight these cases and not simply hand out cheques to people.

[Julian Knight]

On that point, I wonder whether the figure of £30 million to £50 million that he just cited is in relation to our fighting the case and losing it. If so, what would be the figure if we fought the case and won?

[David T. C. Davies]

Exactly, and I wonder how much of that £30 million to £50 million would be the costs being submitted by the lawyers working for these people—actually, the statement does not make that clear, so I cannot comment. However, my hon. Friend makes a very good point.

If the Government showed a willingness to go to court, it might well be that Mr Aamer’s extremely expensive lawyers would think twice about bringing the case to court. There is certainly an implication of that in this report from the BBC and other press reports. In this report, Mr Stafford Smith, one of the main lawyers involved, implied that he was not going to bother suing the Americans because he had no chance of getting money out of them. As far as I am concerned, let Mr Aamer’s lawyers fight for their money in Britain, and let the Minister and the Government do everything in their power to stop them from getting it.

There are facts that need to come out here. Mr Aamer himself obviously felt that the extreme brand of Islam favoured by the Taliban at that time in 2001 was preferable to anything on offer in the UK. He chose to go out there to Afghanistan.

Policing

Julian Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Seema Kennedy]

First, I am not nodding it through. That is why I am speaking. The right hon. Gentleman mentions the figure of 25%, but the police and crime commissioner has spoken of a figure of 40%. They are both speculation about something else.

I would like to speak about the funding formula. We are talking about cuts and safety, but we can have a safe country only if we provide a strong economy so that, in future, our children are safe. It is all very well saying, “Safer now,” but if we destroy the economy in the longer term, it will not be safer now or later.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I am struck by the similarities between the actions of the police and crime commissioner in my hon. Friend’s constituency and those of the commissioner in my area of the west midlands. In her constituency area, the police have £65 million in reserves and yet are closing police services. In my area, we have £100 million of reserves. Will she reflect on that fact?

[Seema Kennedy]

I will reflect on it and address it later.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Byron Davies) referred to deployment. It is not just all about the money, but about how well it is spent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said.

The consultation period on the funding formula is ongoing. I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice met all Lancashire MPs. Anyone who knows Lancashire—many Members do—will know that it is a unique county. It is mixed urban and rural—small towns with villages next to them. Lancashire MPs believe, on a cross-party basis, that the technical changes to the modelling have disproportionately disadvantaged Lancashire.