Deregulation Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

This group contains amendments to schedule 18, which makes provision for repealing legislation that is no longer of practical use. Before I outline the amendments, may I say how much I welcome re-encountering the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) and for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), whose very helpful and constructive approach in Committee has improved the Bill?

The Mining Industry Act 1920 and section 20 of the Mining Industry Act 1926 will be repealed as they are no longer needed for mining and quarrying. Most of the Mining Industry Act 1920 has already been repealed, and we now seek to repeal the remaining provisions. That will not affect rights to ownership. The remaining sections are outdated administrative arrangements. For example, functions were originally conferred on the Board of Trade, but were long ago transferred to the Secretary of State through a transfer of functions. Sections 18 and 22 concern the powers to make drainage schemes for groups of mines, but they are now dealt with by negotiations between mine owners and other local landowners. Sections 25 and 26 are technical provisions.

Overall, the only matter that needs to be mentioned is section 20 of the 1926 Act, which provides for the establishment of profit-sharing schemes. It of course pre-dates the nationalisation and privatisation of the coal mining industry, as well as modern companies legislation. Such legislation should apply to coal mining companies in the same way as it applies to any others, so there is no need for any special provision. However, the amendment contains a saving provision, because it would clearly not be fair to undermine any existing profit-sharing schemes, and they will be allowed to continue.

Most of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 has already been repealed. Section 37, which relates to the licensing of tidal works by harbour authorities, disapplies the requirements of section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949. That Act has already been repealed, so the saving provision is no longer of any practical effect.

Amendment 59 will extend the repeal of the Milk (Cessation of Production) Act 1985 to Northern Ireland. EU legislation in 1984 set up a system of production—the milk quota system—in which, in essence, each producer was allocated a quota. That will end on 31 March 2015, so the underlying EU legislation will cease to be effective next April. The amendment will allow the Bill to repeal and revoke all relevant UK legislation relating to Northern Ireland, as well as England and Wales.

Amendment 60 will ensure that the saving provision in paragraph 3 of schedule 18 to the Housing Act 1988 will cease to have effect in England, although it will continue to apply in Wales. The saving provision has become redundant in England. Essentially, sections 56 to 58 of the Housing Act 1980, which have been repealed, enabled landlords to grant assured tenancies for newly built or newly repaired dwellings. The vast majority of tenancies were converted in 1989 into new style assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988. Sections 56 to 58 were repealed subject to a saving provision, which is now being abolished because there are no longer any assured tenancies under the 1980 Act in existence in England, and it is therefore redundant.

To turn to the non-Government amendments, amendment 73 would require the Government to revoke section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for raising that important issue. The effect of section 73 is that public service broadcasters cannot charge cable services for the inclusion of their channels on these services.

Section 73 is part of a much wider framework supporting the availability of television and investment in television programming in the UK. A variety of rules and regulations affect the production, availability and ease of discovery of public service programming and its relationship with the different platforms—cable, satellite, digital TV and terrestrial—that carry it. They include the obligations on public service broadcasters to offer their content to all relevant platforms, the rules governing payments by broadcasters for technical platform services and the powers for regulators to compel these services to carry public service broadcast content.

This is an area with many competing interests. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport produced a policy paper, “Connectivity, Content and Consumers” last year. The Government stated that their policy objective was zero net charges, where fees for access to the main platforms—cable, satellite, digital TV and terrestrial—would be cancelled out by charges made by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, so creating a zero net charge regime. That is close to the current market position, and it recognises the benefits to platforms, public service broadcasters and consumers.

Section 73 is an integral part of that picture, but the arrangement is under pressure. Online services rely on section 73 to exploit public service broadcaster content, but no benefit flows back to the public service broadcaster.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

The problem is that the litigation has been going on for four years already. Of course there are competing interests, but does my hon. and learned Friend not accept that section 73 was created in the 1980s, when the Government wanted to encourage the roll-out of the cable network? Given that that policy objective has been achieved, the section should surely be repealed.

[The Solicitor-General]

I agree to a considerable extent with the point that my hon. Friend makes. There is no question that the legislation was introduced to help cable roll-out. However, it is the definition of a cable service that is at issue in the Court of Appeal case. It is correct that it has taken a considerable amount of time to get to this point, where the Court of Appeal will soon be able to list the case and, hopefully, determine it. Having waited for that period for a definite conclusion, it would be wrong to act in haste and perhaps repent at leisure. I will be interested to hear his remarks and I think that there will be time for him to make them—I hope so, anyway.

I am pleased to announce that the Government will support the defamation amendment—amendment 4. It is a sensible amendment. As the House will be aware, the Government have made a commitment to repeal section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. Their response to the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 2013 stated that

“repealing Section 13 would be the wisest course of action”

and that the Government

“intends to do so when Parliamentary time and a suitable legislative opportunity allows.”

There has long been discussion about the provision. The 1999 and 2013 Joint Committees on Parliamentary Privilege recommended that section 13 be repealed. The Government agree with the conclusion of those Committees that section 13 is at odds with the principle of freedom of speech, which it is the privilege of this House as a whole to enjoy, not just individual Members. Section 13 also creates an imbalance, because one party to a proceeding may choose to use the parliamentary record when the other party does not wish that to happen. The provision has never been used and it creates an anomaly. For those reasons, I urge the House to accept amendment 4.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

As my hon. Friend says, it was forward thinking. However, those 10 years have elapsed and we are left bereft of a long-term strategy. With no communications Green Paper and no communications strategy, is it any wonder that it is left to Members such as the hon. Member for Shipley to raise such key issues? Having said that, we are not confident, given the lack of strategy and long-term vision, that the Government would have a handle on the impact of repealing this measure. We therefore find it difficult to support amendment 73.

I will turn briefly to amendment 4 on defamation. As the Solicitor-General said, it has cross-party support and it appears to be sensible, so we will support it.

[Philip Davies]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), and I am grateful for her kind words. From what she said I understood that there is overall, general support—if perhaps not specific support—for my point. This is the second day running on which my amendments seem to have had more support from the Labour Front Bench than from the Government Front Bench—a rather uncomfortable position in which to find myself, but I am grateful nevertheless.

I will speak briefly because time is limited and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) wishes to contribute. Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was created in the 1980s, when the Government—understandably—wanted to encourage the roll-out of the cable network to stimulate competition with terrestrial TV. That was a noble aim, but it has been achieved. The cable network now reaches half the population, and there is fierce inter-platform competition between pay-TV platforms and free-to-air TV platforms. It is therefore clear that section 73 is completely outdated and not achieving the purpose for which it was intended. That purpose has already been achieved, so the measure needs to be repealed.

Since cable TV derives even greater value from public service content, and delivers less and less in return as more adverts are skipped on pay TV, section 73 is preventing the normal commercial response, which would be to commercially negotiate the supply of content, putting at risk investment in the programmes that people want to see. Why should public service broadcasters, which are investing heavily in the UK’s creative economy, subsidise the business models of large global companies such as Liberty Global? That is clearly not fair. The litigation that the Solicitor-General mentioned has already taken four years and could still take a while longer, and I am not sure that we can afford to sit back and wait more years, while the issue is kicked into the long grass in such a way. Under the Communications Act 2003, public service broadcasters must, under their current licences, offer their public service broadcast channels to cable and satellite platforms so that consumers will not lose out if that is repealed.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said, the Opposition have a lot of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, but we were not clear whether it means that things would be opened up for negotiation—whether or not to pay; how much to pay—or whether no payments and no broadcasting would be possible. That is our uncertainty.

[Philip Davies]

It would enable a normal commercial arrangement to be reached, but it would not do anything to stop the terms of the Communications Act 2003, under which broadcasters must offer their public service broadcasting channels to cable and satellite platforms. That would still be the case, but the amendment would enable a commercial negotiation to take place, which would be fair to both parties. Otherwise, the situation works for neither party; it is to everybody’s advantage that an agreement is reached. Terrestrial broadcasters want their content on cable, and cable wants that content out there, so there is reason for reaching an agreement.

[The Solicitor-General]

I am carefully following my hon. Friend’s logic and he is looking at two aspects: pay TV and satellite. The fastest-growing area, however, is online, which is what the court case is about. Does he recognise that it would be a mistake to leave matters on the basis he suggests, without taking account of the online position? That needs to be tackled once we know the court decision.

[Philip Davies]

All these matters need to be tackled, and my amendment seeks to say just that to the Government. The problem is that they are not being tackled and are causing an unfair disadvantage to public service broadcasters. That is my point. Pay-TV companies are charging monthly subscriptions for access to pay TV, when most of the viewing is on public service broadcasting channels, which are an essential part of the offer being made. For example, ITV invests around £1 billion a year on programming, the majority of which is original UK content, driving UK economic growth and provided free to viewers at no cost to the taxpayer. Continuing to do that depends on its being able to make a commercial return on its investment, which at the moment it does not.

Section 73 currently allows platforms and online operators to extract increasing amounts of value from free-to-air content, with no return to investors, rightsholders and talent, or the UK creative economy. Those platforms are perfectly happy to pay for other channels on ITV, such as ITV2, ITV3 and ITV4, through normal commercial negotiations, so it is hard to understand why they would not also be prepared to do that for the main channel. Section 73 of the 1988 Act is completely outdated and does a great disservice to public service broadcasters. It has created unfair terms and conditions for public service broadcasters, and even if the Government do not accept my amendment, I hope that they will consider the issue and come back soon with proposals to deal with this serious anomaly concerning cable TV and online content.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Surely one of the cornerstones of British law is that everybody is equal in the face of it. Either people should have to wear helmets for safety reasons or they should not. If a Sikh can decide not to wear a safety helmet on religious grounds, why cannot other workers decide not to wear them on grounds that they choose for themselves? Why should we have different laws for different people in this country? Many people find that troubling and offensive.

[The Solicitor-General]

An important history and a religious ethic applicable only to Sikhs are involved in this matter. It is a religious tenet for a Sikh male to wear a turban—that is not true of other religions. It is therefore a special circumstance. While addressing that, I should say what a great contribution the Sikh community makes in our country. Sikhs should be free to practise their religion and that central tenet of it. In certain circumstances, it would be wrong to allow a person not to wear their helmet because of the extreme danger involved—for example, when a fireman goes into a burning building. The circumstances where this provision cannot be followed are very narrow.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

1. What her projected time scale is for implementing all the border systems programme aims.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

Keeping the UK’s border secure is our priority. By the end of this Parliament, we will develop replacement primary border security systems, deliver exit checks, improve resilience of all current business-critical systems, increase advance passenger information coverage, and complete implementation of second-generation e-gates.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful for the Home Secretary’s answer. However, what progress has been made in the procurement process for the e-borders contract given that the UK industry was first approached in early 2013 and nations such as Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico have been able to complete similar procurements and implementations in as little as six months?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the procurement process. We have done two things in the Home Office: first, we have looked to make absolutely sure that we have identified the right technology that is necessary; and secondly, we have changed the approach we take to procurement to move away from the mega-monolithic contracts that tended to be entered into by the previous Government so as to be able to parcel the contracts up into smaller packages that mean we are more flexible and that a greater range of companies is able to bid for those contracts.

Domestic Violence (Police Response)

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

Thank you, Ms Clark, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) for granting it.

Why are we holding this debate and why is the issue important? First, we need to consider the context of and the facts about domestic abuse. Last year, 77 women were killed by their partners or ex-partners, and each of those horrific incidents carries with it a story of fear and abuse, often over many years. It does not matter where in the country one is; abuse takes place in so many homes and communities that we must address it. I am pleased to see a mix of male and female colleagues here, because I stress that the issue affects men, women and children, and the men affected are often forgotten. According to the survey done of England and Wales last year, there were 700,000 male victims, but I would say that that is probably an under-representation of the real numbers, as men are less likely to come forward and say that they have been victims of domestic abuse or violence. We should consider trying to change that perception.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on the comments that she just made. To reinforce her point, the report stated that only 10% of men said they would tell the police about an incident of domestic violence, compared with 27% of women. Undoubtedly, men under-report domestic violence, although the figures for both men and women are still considerable.

[Mary Macleod]

I completely agree. Those numbers are sad, showing that people, especially men, do not yet feel that they can come forward. Additionally, abuse and violence against men is still more accepted: “It’s all right for a woman to hit a man.” Work must be done at all levels and across communities to say that that is completely unacceptable, just as it is unacceptable for a man to hit a woman.

The current crime survey showed 1.2 million female victims in England and Wales, but again, as my hon. Friend says, that is an underestimate. There has been an increase, but that may be partly due to the fact that more people feel that they can talk about the problem. Recent figures for England and Wales show an increase of 37% over the past five years, and the Metropolitan police in my constituency in west London report 41%. The figures are complex for the reasons that I have mentioned, but it is enough to know that it is a major issue in communities in this country and around the world.

It is also disturbing that one in three girls and 16% of boys aged 13 to 17 report having experienced some form of sexual violence, which highlights how much we need to do from a young age in our schools and communities to say that such violence should not be tolerated, especially now in the age of the internet, cyberabuse, sexting and digital means of communication, which are having an impact as well. At the moment, the cost to the UK economy is estimated at about £16 billion a year. If we can do something, not only will it transform people’s lives and change their futures, but it will help with the mountainous cost to the UK economy.

On any given day, more than 7,000 women and children in England are resident in a refuge. We do not have enough refuges; I am not sure whether there is a refuge for men in the country. I feel passionate about the subject because of those statistics, and because the world’s first refuge was set up in my west London constituency, in Chiswick, by Erin Pizzey in 1971. That is partly why I got so involved in the issue. Sandra Horley as chief executive of Refuge, as well as Women’s Aid and the many other organisations in the area, do incredible work to support women and children.

I have spoken at a number of conferences and visited several refuges to speak to the women and children there. They all have moving stories to tell, and one’s heart goes out to them, but that also highlights how important it is for us as Members to speak in schools and communities. I try to do so. At every school that I go to, whether primary or secondary, I talk about it, as I do in the churches, mosques, gurdwaras, Islamic centres or Hindu temples in my constituency. Wherever I am, I bring up such issues, because I feel that it is important to talk about them and get everyone engaged in supporting them. All stories are different. Just this morning, I received an e-mail from a constituent who fears for her safety and that of her son and is desperately seeking help to move to a different part of the country. Those are the people whom we absolutely need to help.

This debate is timely, because it follows a number of key publications: the Police Foundation report “Are we doing enough of the right things to tackle domestic abuse?” in November 2013; the Home Office report “A call to end violence against women and girls: Action plan 2014”; the report by the all-party parliamentary group on domestic and sexual violence, “Women’s access to justice: From reporting to sentencing”, which was supported by Women’s Aid, in March this year; and the recent report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, “Everyone’s business: Improving the police response to domestic abuse”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Macleod]

My hon. Friend makes an important point.

The Mayor of London has developed a strategy on violence against women and girls for 2013 to 2017. The Metropolitan police have identified a senior officer to lead on domestic abuse, and established a continuous improvement initiative known as Operation Dauntless. One of the strands of the operation is targeting domestic abuse perpetrators and managing their behaviour to reduce reoffending. The top five highest-risk perpetrators in each borough will be identified, and tactical plans will be put in place.

The HMIC report on the police response focused on four key aspects of the issue, and showed that we cannot be complacent and that there is much more to do. They were whether a force is effective in identifying victims of domestic abuse—particularly repeat victims and vulnerable victims; whether the initial force response to victims is effective; whether victims of domestic abuse are made safer as a result of the police response and subsequent action; and whether the force has the appropriate systems, processes and understanding to manage domestic abuse and risk to victims in the future.

The study identified some good points. Domestic violence and abuse are a much higher priority—they are a top priority for the Metropolitan police in my constituency in the London borough of Hounslow. Another finding was that 79% of victims were happy with the initial police response. Multi-agency partnership working has become more commonplace. That is the right approach, and can include multi-agency risk assessment conferences and safeguarding hubs.

Eight forces were singled out for particular praise, and I am sorry that the Metropolitan police was not among those. They are Lancashire, Dorset, Durham, Warwickshire, Norfolk, Northumbria, Suffolk and Thames Valley; they were felt to be doing a reasonable job. In Hounslow the police hold a weekly one-stop shop where victims can seek advice. There are monthly multi-agency risk assessment conference meetings. Four independent domestic violence advocates are on hand, and there are action-trigger plans for repeat cases. The police have issued TecSOS phones to the most vulnerable victims, so that they can seek help at the push of a button.

Operation Dauntless contributed to the fact that more than 200 more domestic violence cases were investigated last year, so it made a difference.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend’s list did not include West Yorkshire police, the force in my area; but I have spent a lot of time out with the West Yorkshire police and have always found that they take domestic violence seriously as a crime. It is one of their top priorities. The report showed that for every 100 incidents of domestic violence that they went to, 88 arrests were made. That shows that they take the matter seriously. We should not think of forces as either failing or succeeding; there are many shades of grey in between.

[Mary Macleod]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I listed some police forces that appear to be doing well, but even they can improve. My police force and borough treat the issue seriously, and they know that they must treat it as a top priority for their local community, but there is still more that we can do to encourage them to improve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Government is fully committed to tackling wildlife crime in all its manifestations. We are certainly happy to look at any suggestion on how we can enhance our efforts further.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Proposed changes to dangerous dogs legislation contained in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill could mean that police officers, vets or officers from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who deal with or remove a dangerous dog that bites somebody, will be charged with a criminal offence, attracting up to five years in prison or 14 years if anyone dies as a result. Will the Home Secretary look at such unintended consequences before we implement further knee-jerk legislation, compounding an area of law that is already a dog’s breakfast?

[Norman Baker]

I do not recognise my hon. Friend’s description, nor would I describe the legislation he refers to as “knee-jerk”. It has been subject to proper consultation and due consideration by this House in Committee and elsewhere. It is important that we deal with dangerous dogs. It is also important to ensure that dog owners behave responsibly towards those who may be affected adversely by their activities.

Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 17th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Flushed by my success on the previous Bill, I start by saying that many Members will remember the Government’s publicity campaign in which vans went around telling people that, if they were here illegally, they should leave or face penalties or arrest. In fact, on closer examination, it is clear that the warning signs on those vans were of no more value than the sign that someone puts at the end of his garden saying, “Trespassers will be prosecuted.”

There is no criminal law against normal trespass. Likewise, it is not a criminal offence to be in this country having entered without authority or having overstayed once the legal authority to be here has expired. I do not think I am alone in finding it extraordinary that people can be in the United Kingdom without legal authority with impunity. They are not guilty of any offence because there is no offence. We are prosecuting hundreds of thousands of people for watching television illicitly without a television licence, but people who are here having broken our immigration laws are not subject to any criminal sanction.

When I raised the matter with the Immigration Minister, whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench for this debate, he said, “Wouldn’t it be rather pointless to make it a criminal offence, because you would be prosecuting people and locking them up in prison when what you want is for them to go home?” I have built the Bill around that point. The penalties set out in clause 2 would accommodate his concerns.

Clause 1 states:

“Any person who is present in the United Kingdom after 30 June 2014 without legal authority shall be guilty of an offence…Any person who after 30 June 2014 enters or attempts to enter the United Kingdom without legal authority shall be guilty of an offence.”

We need to make it clear that the Government and our country do not tolerate people who break our immigration laws by coming into this country illicitly or by staying on after they should have left.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I very much support his Bill. Does he agree that there is currently no deterrent to somebody chancing their arm and trying to get into this country illegally, because the worst that can happen to them is that they will be sent back to where they come from? If his Bill was passed, the risk of losing their liberty might deter them from trying in the first place.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me give a bit of background. I discovered that when a bystander in the port of Poole sees illegal immigrants from the continent getting out of the back of a van or lorry and decides to call the police, the police are not interested because they have no power of arrest as the person has not committed a criminal offence. All they can do, if they are feeling generous with their time, is tell those people to go to Croydon to report to the immigration and nationality directorate, which will tell them how to get back home. Not surprisingly, such people do not go to Croydon but go elsewhere.

[Philip Davies]

Did my hon. Friend consider a more draconian measure for his Bill, such as saying that anybody who entered the country illegally would be greeted by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)?

[Mr Chope]

I do not think I can comment on that, particularly because the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) is not in the Chamber.

We then come on to the question of penalties. Let me illustrate the point with an example. I have a constituency case of a person who came here on a visitor’s visa. As they are married to a British citizen, all they needed to do was keep renewing that visa but they did not apply for an extension within the specified time and as a result they have been refused a new visa. I discussed with them whether they should appeal against that refusal, but there is no power of appeal and the advice that is given is that if an in-country application for a visa extension is rejected the person should voluntarily make their own way back to the country from which they came as it is possible they might be subject to a deportation order in due course. Of course, under the law a deportation order is subject to appeal so the authorities do not want to make many such orders as the appeals would clog up the immigration tribunal system. People therefore overstay their visas with impunity as there is effectively no sanction against them. The only sanction arises if they want to visit their country of origin to see a relative or something like that, when they suddenly find that they do not have the right paperwork to get back into the country. They can lie low in this country with impunity for months or years.

I think it would be reasonable to say that somebody guilty of an offence on summary conviction should be subject to a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or a fine that would be unlimited in England and Wales and would not exceed £5,000 in Scotland or Northern Ireland. A person would be brought before the court and, under the provisions of clause 2(2), would be ordered to be deported.

Unlike the present laws relating to deportation, which are rarely exercised, certainly for relatively minor offences—they are not applied in the cases to which I have referred—the deportation order would be mandatory unless the Secretary of State certified that it was against the public interest. In practice, the person would come before the court and, if found guilty, would be fined and deported or imprisoned, probably not for very long, pending deportation. The deportation would be ordered by the court, rather than the immigration authorities—the Border Agency—which is what happens at present.

An official from the Scotland Office contacted me, wondering what will happen in Scotland when the Bill is on the statute book. She pointed out that in Scotland deportation orders are not made by the courts; they merely make a recommendation to that effect. She agreed that there is nothing to stop the courts being given the power to make specific deportation orders, which I think is fundamental to clause 2. If people are here without legal authority, the most important thing is that they are deported as soon as possible, rather than kept in custody at great expense. Rather than being subject to a recommendation of deportation, they should just be subject to deportation.

While driving to the House this morning, I saw a big, brand-new van on which were the words, “Home Office Immigration Enforcement”. I could not see whether there was anybody inside the van, other than the driver. I suspect that the large lettering was designed to reassure the public that something is being done about all this, but my experience, which I have referred to briefly today, leads me to believe that that is another game of bluff and bluster by the Government and that, in reality, they do not have the will to ensure that our borders are kept secure and that people who enter illegally are found guilty of an offence. [Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) is chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench. He might think it unusual for me to be concerned about Government policy, but I think that this is another area of Government policy that could be tightened significantly. That would be in accordance not only with public interest, but with the will of the public. In the popular mind, illegality means being against the criminal law, and if someone is guilty of a criminal offence they should be subject to the consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I rise to put on the record my support for the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). In all the words he used to describe it, he missed out “modest”, because it would merely strike a blow for common sense. I do not see why anybody could have any great objection to making being an illegal immigrant a criminal offence. Indeed, I would have thought that most people think that that is already the law of the land. I am sure we are all grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting this issue.

I would like to raise a couple of additional points beyond what my hon. Friend said—I agreed with every word—regarding matters that go hand in hand with the Bill and that the Government need to address. First, there is the need to extricate ourselves from the European convention on human rights. One of the major problems that this country faces in kicking out illegal immigrants is the Human Rights Act 1998 and the fact that the European Court of Human Rights, time after time, compels the United Kingdom to keep people in the country who have no basis for being here. Unless we tackle that issue as well, even my hon. Friend’s best intentions will be thwarted. I make an appeal for us to scrap the Human Rights Act, which has become a charter for criminals and illegal immigrants, and to get ourselves out of the European convention of human rights, because it is no longer acting in the UK’s national interest.

My other point, which I particularly direct at the Minister, is that people who have served their prison sentence for being in this country illegally should then be automatically kicked out. Unfortunately, on too many occasions when illegal immigrants are sent to prison having committed other criminal offences, even those people are not automatically deported from the country, as most people would think is the blindingly obvious thing to do. Far too many of them are released back on to the streets to go into hiding or to go out and commit more crimes. The Government can do an awful lot to get their performance right in making sure that any illegal immigrant who is caught is kicked out of the country straight away, which, on too many occasions, does not happen.

As part of that overall strategy to stop people coming here illegally and to make it easier to kick out those who are here illegally, I hope the Government will make much more rapid progress on the e-Borders project, the contracts for which the previous Government made a complete pig’s ear of. We are way behind other countries and the project has the scope to help prevent people we do not want to come to this country from coming here. Surely we should be striving to stop these people coming here in the first place. The trouble is that once they are here, the Government then have a job getting rid of them. The e-Borders project would make a massive difference if introduced properly and stop some of these people getting here in the first place. The Government could do a lot better.

The second issue on which the Government need to pull their finger out is exit checks. We are in the ridiculous situation whereby the Government keep absolutely no track of who leaves the country. This is slightly relevant to my hon. Friend’s previous Bill: we are already fighting with one hand tied behind our back, because we have absolutely no idea which of those people who have come here have left. I think I am right in saying that the coalition agreement said that exit checks would be in place during the course of this Parliament, but time is running out and I see no great sign that everything the Government said they would do to deal with these immigration problems is going to be sorted out.

The Government could do an awful lot more, irrespective of my hon. Friend’s Bill. There can be no doubt that making sure that being here illegally is a criminal offence and that people can be sent to prison for it would act as a deterrent to prevent them from trying to come here in the first place. As I said in my earlier intervention, there is nothing to deter somebody from chancing their arm, because the worst thing that can happen to them is that they will be sent back to the country they came from without receiving any punishment whatsoever, so of course lots of people are going to come here.

Many of my constituents tell me, “People come into this country illegally because we are so generous and give them too much money,” but I think that is a myth. I do not think it has anything to with that. I think that the reason why so many people chance their arm and come to the UK is that they realise that once they get here, the chances of their ever being kicked out are pretty remote. That is what drives them to come to the UK and we have to be much more robust at making sure that anybody who is here who should not be is kicked out. I am absolutely certain not only that the Bill will be very popular with the public, but that it will make a real difference in tackling a problem that my constituents are sick to their back teeth of hearing about and on which they feel that the Government are not taking any meaningful action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend anticipates what I was about to say. He refers to a question he asked me a few Home Office Question Times ago. He basically asked me whether there was an offence in relation to this issue and why we did not prosecute people who are in this country unlawfully. I replied that that was against the law, but that our strategy was to secure such people’s removal from the United Kingdom. I think I made the point during that session of Home Office questions that it was not sensible, on the grounds of cost of the process, to prosecute everybody who is here unlawfully. My hon. Friend will know—he has expressed opinions about this before—that legal aid being what it is, the taxpayer would, even with our reforms, be likely to have to pay both prosecution and defence costs. Putting such offenders in prison would also be at taxpayers’ expense, and that would be necessary before we could remove them from the UK.

[Philip Davies]

The Minister talks about the cost of throwing these people into prison, but he was also bandying around the fact that £5,000 fines could be imposed, which I would have thought amounted to getting money into the Exchequer. If he does not want to send these people to prison because of the cost, will he tell us how many £5,000 fines have been levied on these people since he has been the Minister and since these marvellous laws that he has talked about have been in place?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend will know, because he follows criminal justice matters intently, how much it costs to keep someone in prison. He knows that it costs very much more, even for six months, than £5,000. We are talking about costing the taxpayer significant amounts of money. I shall come on in a few moments to the number of people who are removed from the country; I would certainly not want to fund the cost of keeping them all in prison.

The current strategy is that we try to remove people who are in the United Kingdom illegally. Every year of this Government more illegal migrants have departed from the UK than in any year before 2010, and that trend was continuing in 2013. We remove two groups of people from the UK. Our preference is that people who are here unlawfully leave of their own accord. There is a clear reason for that: if someone leaves of their own accord, it does not put a huge financial burden on the taxpayer. If we have to go through the process of arresting and detaining someone, and going through an enforced removal, sometimes including escorts, the cost of removal can be upwards of £15,000 per person. I would rather not burden the taxpayer with that. In 2012-13, 44,000 people were removed from the country. It is worth repeating that figure of 44,000, because the polling seems to show that people think that nobody is removed from the UK, whereas the actual figure is significant. The number of people removed voluntarily because they found that it is not easy to be in the UK illegally increased by 30% between 2009-10 and 2012-13. That is the right approach to take. Part of the reason for the measures in the Immigration Bill is to make it more difficult to be in the UK unlawfully, so that more people will choose not to come here unlawfully in the first place and so that those already here will find leaving the UK a more attractive proposition than staying here unlawfully.

[Philip Davies]

Has the Minister not considered the fact that being much tougher on illegal immigrants might deter others from coming here? He seems to be suggesting that the worst thing that will happen to someone who comes to this country illegally is that the Minister, like Sergeant Wilson in “Dad’s Army”, is going to say, “Would you mind awfully leaving?” How is there any deterrent to stop anybody coming here in the first place illegally if that is the worst that is ever going to happen to them?

[Mr Harper]

Not only do 40,000 people a year leave, but in addition to those who leave voluntarily we enforce the removal of about 15,000 others, and that demonstrates that we are very effective. Part of the reason for the measures in the Immigration Bill is to make coming here illegally less attractive. We are also seeking to make it clear that people who come here unlawfully will find it difficult to be able to work; they will not have access to free treatment on the national health service; and they will not be able to have a bank account or a driving licence. In other words, it will be very difficult for them to be here. So it will be both less attractive to come here unlawfully and more attractive for those already here to leave, and the evidence shows that we are making progress on that.

The Bill contains another set of penalty provisions. The first set of penalties are the imprisonment and the fine, which of course are already in legislation. The Bill also proposes provisions on deportation and makes reference to the “public interest”. That doubtless relates to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made about the convention and the public interest test. Immigration legislation already provides for removal powers without the need to pursue a prosecution, so we have not only administration removal powers but deportation powers in criminal cases. Under schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, immigration officers have the power to remove an illegal entrant. An illegal entrant is for these purposes defined as a person unlawfully entering or seeking to enter the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order or of the immigration laws, or entering or seeking to enter by means which include deception. Unlike with the criminal sanction, there is no requirement for the migrant knowingly to be an illegal entrant. That is important, because it removes a defence which there would be in a criminal case in relation to the person having to know that they were breaching the law. Section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 gives immigration officers a power to remove a person who remains beyond the time limited by the leave—in other words, an overstayer. Once again, for the purpose of removal there is no requirement for the overstaying to have been knowingly committed.

Part I of the 1971 Act sets out the Secretary of State’s power to deport an individual where it is deemed to be conducive to the public good or where there is a court recommendation for deportation, and the UK Borders Act 2007 further sets out that, subject to the exemptions listed, where a foreign national is sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment the Secretary of State must make a deportation order.

That is the point, welcome though it is, that has fallen foul of the provisions of the European convention on human rights. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said when he expressed frustration about that, but that is why I hope that he welcomes the provisions in the Immigration Bill, which I set out. If he has not looked at them already, I can tell him that we have set out very clearly in them the public interest test. In other words, judges can weigh up the private interests of the people concerned against the public interest test that Parliament will set out, if it passes that Bill. If someone is a foreign national offender and they have committed a crime, the normal position is that they will be removed from the United Kingdom.

I think that my hon. Friend will also welcome the fact that the test makes it clear that if someone is here unlawfully or in a precarious immigration position—in other words, they are not here for very long—the court should put very little or no weight on any private or family interests built up during that period. Someone cannot come here unlawfully, create a family relationship and then expect that relationship to count, and to be a way of their avoiding being removed from the United Kingdom. That is very welcome, because I think that most Members, and most members of the public, will have the same view that I do: if someone has committed a serious offence, it is not right that they are able to stay in the United Kingdom because they have created some sort of family relationship while they should not have been here. I think that provision will be very welcome, and I hope that it will receive my hon. Friend’s support.

It is also worth saying that the removal powers that I have set out do not carry an in-country right of appeal before removal can take place. In the Immigration Bill, we propose extending the use of non-suspensive appeals so that we can remove more criminals whose article 3 rights are not engaged—in other words, those who would not suffer torture or worse in the country we are removing them to—before they are able to appeal. They will still have an appeal right, but it must be exercised out of country. My hunch is that appeals will not then take place, because most of those appeals are filed by people to try to delay their removal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and other hon. Friends who support the measure are usually assiduous—this is a position that I welcome—and particularly on Fridays in persuading the House, whether by dint of argument or through their use of time, that where legislation is not necessary, it should not be passed by the House. I frequently marvel at their creativity. Sadly, as a Minister, it is an activity in which I am no longer able to partake. They give the House many reasons why many Bills which other Members may support should not be put on the statute book.

My plea to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and my other hon. Friends is this. I hope that I have effectively demonstrated, as the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) did, that these provisions are already on the statute book and are well supported by members of the public, as one would expect, given that they are sensible measures. Knowing my hon. Friends’ general sense that we should not burden the statute book with unnecessary legislation, I hope that they will acknowledge that the offences are already on the statute book, and will think it not worth troubling Parliament to pass legislation that does not give us any more tools to deal with those who abuse the law.

Finally, I hope that I have demonstrated that this Government, through some of the operational measures we are taking and the provisions in the Immigration Bill, are absolutely determined to address this issue, although we welcome those who come to the country lawfully. The hon. Member for Croydon North was right to put on the record that those who wish to come here lawfully to work, study and contribute to the country, and to pay taxes that make us all wealthier, are very welcome indeed. The Government are absolutely determined that those who have no right to be here or those who abuse our laws should be dealt with.

Having provided that clarity, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will feel able to tell the House that he does not wish to proceed with the Bill, and I hope that I have not failed to convince him that that is the right course of action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I believe the event will be of real national significance. It is a wonderful opportunity for people to take up rugby and to be inspired by sport. I have every confidence that tickets will be dealt with fairly and properly.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

If fans from New Zealand and Australia buy tickets for the world cup final in the expectation that their team will get there and one or both are knocked out in the semi-final, we will need a mechanism to allow supporters from those countries to sell them on to the supporters of the countries that are in the final. Does the Minister therefore not accept that the resale of tickets for the rugby world cup is not only inevitable, but desirable?

[Mrs Grant]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. At the end of the day, we want people to be able to watch a fantastic rugby tournament. The Government do not believe that legislation is necessary to control tickets; we believe that organisers, promoters and ticket agents should be looking at what they can do to protect customers and to make events accessible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady is right that we want to ensure that more women see apprenticeships as an opportunity to get into different fields, particularly STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—related occupations. We know that the gender pay gap has a significant link to the career choices that women make, and apprenticeships have a good role to play.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Is it not slightly embarrassing for this Government and Labour to be lecturing about equal pay when the Equality and Human Rights Commission, under the previous Government and still today, pays white people more than it pays ethnic minority staff, pays disabled staff less than its non-disabled staff, and pays women less than it pays its male staff?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right to ensure that we are transparent about the reality within public organisations, such as that to which he refers. My Department publishes its pay so that everybody can see how it treats individuals, and I am pleased to say that the gender pay gap in my Department has disappeared. I hope that by ensuring that transparency of salary information we will continue to see more Departments in the same position.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The figures show that the proportion of police on the front line has gone up under this Government.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Home Secretary will know that I am a strong supporter of the police, but I hope she will bear in mind the lack of confidence that exists in the way that complaints about the police are investigated. For the public to have confidence in the police, it is important that complaints are properly investigated. I have some serious issues in west Yorkshire about how a particular case has been dealt with. Will she look again at how West Yorkshire police investigates complaints about its own police officers?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of ensuring that complaints against the police are dealt with properly and the concern that members of the public often have about the police investigating themselves. That is precisely why we are giving extra resources and powers to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. In future, the IPCC, rather than the police themselves, will investigate serious and sensitive complaints against the police. I am pleased to say that for the other complaints that will remain with the police at local level, many police and crime commissioners are looking at how they can introduce a degree of independent oversight or consideration of those complaints.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I have to be honest with the hon. Gentleman: given that I have been in the job for only about three weeks, I have not read that document page by page, but I am happy to look at it and come back to him on those issues.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Is the Minister aware that virtually every new gambling product since the 1970s has been referred to as the crack cocaine of gambling and that to think that this is unique is ridiculous? Given that people can lose an unlimited amount of money within a minute on a five-furlong sprint at Epsom, does she agree that opposition to FOBTs is ridiculous, particularly given that they have a bigger rate of return for the punter—97%—than any other gambling product in any betting shop or casino, or anywhere else for that matter?

[Mrs Grant]

My hon. Friend raises some interesting issues, but work has begun and we will look at all the evidence and all the research. In addition, we will put pressure on the industry to develop its own harm mitigation measures. We must ensure that those measures work and that their success is evaluated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I am not sure that I accept the version of events that has been given. The hon. Lady will of course understand, as will the whole House, that there is a balance to be struck between the unnecessary retention of DNA in terms of civil liberties and the need to prevent serious crime. Striking that balance is something that the Government are very keen to get right.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Is it the Government’s view that taking steps to increase awareness of and prevent violence against women and girls is more important than increasing awareness of and preventing violence against men and boys, or is it the Government’s view that it is equally important to increase awareness of and prevent violence against all of them?

[Norman Baker]

I certainly agree that it is important to act on violence against any individual. Of course, it is predominantly against women and girls and vulnerable adults, and they must come first in our consideration, but it is also true that the £40 million recently allocated to deal with these matters includes a strand to deal with violence against men and boys.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The coalition agreement said that exit checks would be in place by 2015. Will the Minister guarantee that this commitment will be met and explain how he will deliver on it?

[Mr Harper]

As my hon. Friend might be aware from conversations elsewhere and questions I have answered, that is a clear coalition commitment, and through the work we have done already, including through the data we collect on our e-Borders programme, we already have quite a bit of coverage of those coming into or out of the UK. It is a much better system, actually, than exists almost anywhere else in the world. Further work needs to be done, and that work is under way, as we progress towards 2015.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Home Secretary will be aware of the legal case between Leeds United and West Yorkshire police, which was won by Leeds United, leaving West Yorkshire police to pay £1 million back to the football club, leaving us in a situation in which my constituents will be robbed of police officers to police yobs at football matches at weekends. May I urge the Home Secretary to intervene in this case to reverse that intolerable position?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend will be aware that it is not for Ministers to tell judges and courts what decisions to come to. Clearly, it is an operational matter for individual police forces to determine how to police football matches. I part company with him in his description of football fans as yobs, as football is a much safer game to attend for spectators than it was 20 or 30 years ago, largely as a result of better policing and widespread revulsion by respectable football fans at the yobs who used to deface the game.