Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the UK) Bill

Debate between Craig Whittaker and Philip Hollobone

Friday 11th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hollobone]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I share your sentiments, but at least it is reassuring that the Minister will turn up to the debate. Let us hope that we can ask questions of her later on. Before I take the interventions that I promised, let me say that part of the problem is that foreign national offenders and their deportation, removal, transfer, repatriation, or whatever we want to call it, is a major policy issue that falls between two stools. There are two major Departments of State that are basically responsible for this area, and all too often one blames the other for why the situation is not being tackled. That is why it is the Prime Minister himself who needs to take on board this issue. Indeed, he promised the House that he would, yet six years into his premiership, the problem is not going away. If anything, it is getting worse.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Hollobone]

I give way with a great deal of delight to my hon. Friend.

[Craig Whittaker]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He has obviously done a great deal of research, as he has some impressive figures. I think that he said there are 10,442 foreign national prisoners from more than 160 different nationalities. Can he enlighten the House on the mix between EU and non-EU foreign nationals who are in our prisons?

[Mr Hollobone]

The forensic analysis of my hon. Friend’s brain is illustrated to us all, because that is exactly the question that needs to be addressed. According to the figures that I was sent in response to my parliamentary question at the end of January, the breakdown, continent by continent, is as follows: 20% of foreign national offenders in our country come from Africa; 18% from Asia; 1.5% from Central and South America; a whopping 47% from Europe; 7% from the West Indies; and a negligible percentage from Oceania.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I bow to his huge knowledge and experience of the Council of Europe and its various pronouncements. He is right to highlight the EU prisoner transfer agreement, introduced some years ago, which was meant to be the great panacea for the number of EU citizens in our jails. We were apparently going to be able to send EU prisoners in our jails back to their EU countries.

[Craig Whittaker]

I want to apply a different principle. My hon. Friend has noted that there are 10,442 foreign nationals in our prisoners. Can he tell us how many British nationals there are in prisons around the world? If we applied the same principle to them, how much would it cost us to have them back in our prisons?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

As ever, my hon. Friend sums it up really rather well. He makes the case that his constituents would make, which is that our membership of these international organisations should work both ways. We are spending a great deal of British taxpayers’ money in defending Lithuanians from the Russian threat, and the very least they could do is to take back their 471 nationals from this country to prisons in their own country. After all, we are supposed to have an EU prisoner transfer agreement, from which Lithuania does not have a derogation, so I do not understand why there is a problem.

I am anxious, as I am sure you are, Madam Deputy Speaker, to complete my list so that I can move on to other aspects of the Bill. There are some important countries at the bottom of the top 10. India, with 458, is No. 8, and I am looking for No. 9 on my list—

[Craig Whittaker]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hollobone]

Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend because while he intervenes, I shall try to find No. 9.

[Craig Whittaker]

Clause 1(1) will exclude

“any foreign national convicted in any court of law of a qualifying offence”.

Will my hon. Friend clarify what would be a qualifying offence? We have trivialised things such as shoplifting as minor offences, but, having been a retailer for 30 years, I can assure him that some of us feel that it should be a qualifying offence. I also point out that a former Minister for Crime Prevention said at the Dispatch Box not too long ago:

“Someone might start with shoplifting, but who knows where they will end up?”—[Official Report, 5 January 2015; Vol. 590, c. 10.]

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes a very helpful intervention. He speaks from personal experience and with great knowledge of these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this important debate, which is of course just as important to my constituents as many other debates in this Chamber. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for bringing the Bill forward and my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for his excellent presentation today.

The Bill’s purpose is straightforward: if someone came to this country, committed an offence and was given a term of imprisonment, they would be deported to the country from which they came. Furthermore, that person would not be permitted to enter the UK again. Of course, the Government already use a range of measures and powers to remove foreign national offenders from the UK, a point to which I will return shortly. As such, the Bill’s real emphasis relates to countries within the European Union, as made clear in the first line of clause 1. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering said that 40% of the 10,442 foreign nationals in our prison system are actually from the EU.

[Mr Hollobone]

It was some time ago now, but I think I said 47%.

[Craig Whittaker]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I stand corrected if I misheard the figure that was given to the House.

Under the Bill’s provisions, foreign criminals would not have the right to return to the UK once they had been sent back to the European Union. Thus, they would be removed without any reference to human rights legislation, the stipulations of the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactments.

Britain is a tolerant, welcoming country for those who come here to work hard and to create a better life for themselves. Those who abide by our rules and contribute towards society will always be welcome. However, I appreciate the concerns of my constituents in relation to those foreign nationals who come to this country legally, in receipt of our hospitality, and then go on to commit serious offences.

[Craig Whittaker]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Like many other Members, I receive letters, emails and phone calls from my constituents on many matters. This issue is as important to my constituents as any, so, yes, he is right to make his point.

Such behaviour can undermine the trust that exists in our communities and create tensions that others can exploit. Although I have considerable sympathy with the broad intentions of the Bill, we need to consider what measures are already in place to deal effectively with this matter.

The Government are already able automatically to deport non-European economic area nationals who are convicted in the UK and given a single custodial sentence of 12 months or more for one conviction. I think that that has already been pointed out by several Members in the Chamber today. In circumstances where automatic deportation cannot be applied, the power already exists to seek to deport a foreign national offender on the grounds that it would be in the public interest to do so. When somebody has been removed, they are then prohibited from re-entering the UK while the deportation order against them remains in force. As a deportation order has no expiry date, it remains in force indefinitely unless a decision is taken to revoke it. Those individuals who have been handed a deportation order will be subject to the relevant Border Force checks, which means that, under the existing system, the Government are able to keep out those who have previously been deported.

Members will be aware that the Immigration Act 2014 contains a public interest consideration in relation to deporting foreign nationals. Section 19 clearly states that the law should be on the side of the public and that the starting point is to accept that foreign criminals will be deported. Indeed, it says:

“The more serious the offence…the greater is the public interest in deportation of the criminal.”

In addition, the Government have previously made it clear that article 8 of the European convention on human rights should not be used to allow the private and family life rights of criminals to supersede the rights of ordinary members of the public to be protected from serious criminals.

Section 17 of the Immigration Act also provides for a revised deportation process so that, in cases where there is no real risk of serious irreversible harm to the individual, a foreign national offender can exercise their right of appeal only from outside the UK, thereby allowing for a more timely deportation. That section is particularly relevant when one considers that most foreign national criminals do not appeal once they have returned to their home country. By the end of 2015, more than 2,600 people had been removed under these new “deport first, appeal later” powers since they were introduced in July 2014.

In October 2014, the Government reduced, from 17 to four, the number of criteria on which foreign criminals could appeal against their deportation. That was a welcome reform that was necessary to stop criminals exploiting the system and lodging one appeal after another to avoid deportation. Finally, in situations where the level of the crime committed does not meet the threshold for deportation, the Government can take administrative action to remove offenders who have no legal right to be in the United Kingdom. Subject to certain expectations, foreign national offenders who have received a custodial sentence can be administratively removed from the UK and will face a mandatory refusal under immigration rules of entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom.

The measures that the Government have introduced over the past few years have undoubtedly strengthened our ability to adopt a firm and vigorous approach in protecting the general public, although the management and removal of foreign national offenders will continue to present many challenges, as has been mentioned today. The number of foreign criminals removed from the UK increased last year to 5,277, representing a significant improvement on the 2011-12 numbers.

Of course, when it comes to deportation, there is a distinction between EU and non-EU nationals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering has made very clear. It is important to remember that the free movement of people is not unqualified, and the existing requirements pertaining to free movement are that a person has to exercise their right to work, study or set up a business. In the event that they fail to exercise any one of those rights and, furthermore, that they abuse our hospitality by committing an offence, they should be removed and kept out of the country. Our existing power of imposing a re-entry ban of one year helps to facilitate that too.

Furthermore, the UK has implemented the free movement directive—that is, the 2006 EEA regulations on immigration. Under the regulations, EEA nationals can be removed from the United Kingdom on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health. All EEA nationals who receive a custodial sentence are considered for deportation or administrative removal. However, it is important to bear in mind that a decision to remove somebody from a country cannot be made solely on the basis of a criminal conviction, as other factors must be taken into account. As it stands, the Bill stipulates that an EEA national who has been convicted of an offence should be deported solely on the basis of that conviction without due consideration being given to a wider range of factors and, indeed, to the individual’s circumstances as required under the regulations.

For that reason, the Bill is incompatible with the freedom of movement directive. In relation to that point, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering will draw my attention to clause 1(1) and argue that it reinstates our national sovereignty and removes the UK from some of our previous obligations under EU migration law. However, I am not convinced that the issue is quite that simple and would in fact suggest that it is far more complex than the Bill acknowledges. As a nation, we are bound by a plethora of European and international obligations, directives and treaties that all require careful consideration as part of the Bill. Indeed, the European immigration regulations to which I referred a few moments ago are only a small part of the wider legislative and regulatory landscape that must be taken into account.

There is also the small matter of a referendum to consider and, depending on the result, many of the issues discussed as part of this debate might need to be approached in a different light. I wonder whether we are being slightly premature in considering these issues now.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am listening closely to my hon. Friend’s interesting remarks, but he seems to imply that the incompatibility of the Bill with the EU freedom of movement directive is a bad thing. I think many of us would say that it is a good thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Whittaker]

I thank my hon. Friend for his always considered interventions. On this point we may have a slight disagreement. In the Calder Valley we have 1.8% unemployment and I can assure my hon. Friend that without freedom of movement and the labour that that brings to the factories in the Calder Valley, many of the factories would not be there. Perhaps we could have a further discussion about that.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way a second time. He began his remarks by saying that we have freedom of movement in the EU, but that is not without qualification. Would it not seem sensible to those like him who want to stay in the European Union for the EU states to negotiate and agree that freedom of movement does not apply to convicted criminals? I cannot see why there should not be an EU-wide agreement whereby someone convicted of a qualifying offence would not be allowed to cross any of the boundaries within the European Union. If staying in the European Union really does make us safer, which is what my hon. Friend believes and I do not, surely that would be a sensible measure to take.

[Craig Whittaker]

My hon. Friend has a point, but what are qualifying convictions? Many of us and many of our children committed silly crimes in our youth. Would we exclude people from freedom of movement around the EU because of a previous misdemeanour? There would have to be tight and clear criteria for qualifying convictions.

Even if we leave the European Union, we may well find ourselves bound by other international treaties and obligations which restrict our ability to exclude foreign nationals, in much the same way as this Bill suggests the European Union does at present.

The Government already employ a range of powers to remove foreign national offenders from the UK and have legislated over the past few years to strengthen their approach. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering supports the measures that this Government have taken, and was somewhat reassured by the response of the Immigration Minister when my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough presented this Bill only last year.

However, I appreciate that my hon. Friend has genuine concerns about our existing ability to deport foreign prisoners to EU countries, and that those concerns are shared by many people throughout this country. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering for highlighting the challenges that we continue to face in protecting the public from those who come to this country and abuse our hospitality by committing serious offences.

Although I have considerable sympathy with the aim of the Bill, I believe it must be considered alongside an evaluation of our existing international and European obligations and responsibilities. Whether we agree with them or not, the fact remains that those currently exist, and debating these issues in isolation from our pre-existing legal commitments is not the most conducive approach and fails properly to acknowledge the inherent complexity of the subject. It is worthy of detailed discussion and debate in the House and, although I cannot support the Bill in its current form, I hope that Members can explore some of the wider issues at stake in greater detail on other occasions.

Bradford & Bingley plc

Debate between Craig Whittaker and Philip Hollobone

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for securing this important debate on behalf of thousands of Bradford & Bingley investors. It finally gives us an opportunity to speak up for those among our constituents—and there are many in Calder Valley—who have been affected by the nationalisation.

The issue has perplexed and bemused many of my constituents who bought shares in the company in a rights issue in 2008, only eight weeks before the Government of the day nationalised it. They bought shares not because they were high rollers who invest in the stock market to make a quick buck, but because many of them are shrewd pensioners who thought they were making safe, long-term investments for their future in retirement. One might say, “Well, if you invest in the stock market, you should be aware of the risks. You should expect the peaks and troughs and be prepared to take the rough with the smooth.” Every one of my constituents who contacted me from Calder Valley has highlighted that very point; but they have gone on to say that the balance sheets of the bank were good, and were definitely in a stronger position than those of many banks that the Government of the day decided to bail out.

One might also argue, as Lord King did a year ago, that it was Britain’s faulty banking accounting rules that failed investors. My constituents would argue that in that case the same faulty rules applied to all banks. Even so, the Bradford & Bingley was still showing a stronger balance sheet than many of the banks that were bailed out. We know that from the banking crisis post mortem published by the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum.

It seems ludicrous that within eight weeks of the bank’s rights issue in 2008, the Government nationalised it. It is even more staggering that within days they provided a further £60 billion of support to two Scottish banks that had weaker balance sheets than the Bradford & Bingley. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned, his constituents, like mine, and thousands of other investors from west Yorkshire and beyond, believe that the decision to nationalise the Bradford & Bingley was a flawed one, made in haste and not consistent with the treatment given to other banks.

How must those investors feel, after the revelations of the past week about low-cost loans secured by a political party and party political donations from yet another failed bank, whose chairman is disgraced? How must they feel when they read the allegations that the Royal Bank of Scotland, one of the very Scottish banks bailed out by the previous Government, forced some customers out of business? Only yesterday I presented the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills with clear evidence of an attempt to do just that to the business of one of my constituents. How would you feel, Mr Betts, if you had invested in an organisation that was treated totally differently from other banks that have failed or are failing, I expect you would feel pretty miserable and furious. I expect you would feel abandoned by the previous Government and helpless before the current Government, who seem unwilling to launch an inquiry.

Perhaps I can sum up those feelings in the words of a 65-year-old Calder Valley resident who invested for his retirement. He wrote to me:

“after being encouraged by the Bradford & Bingley rights issue in 2008 I was staggered at the nationalisation that took place only eight weeks later. Since the mortgage books are now in good health the treatment that I have received as a member of the public in 2013 with all of the talk of honesty and transparency does nothing to help me explain to my grandchildren why they should be good members of society. Especially when their role models in government have behaved so atrociously personally with regard to their use of public money for their own ends, in ensuring the protection of our societal structures and in taking accountability for establishing the truth about many travesties that have taken place over the last few decades.”

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his impressive speech. The opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) were equally impressive. My constituent, John, a forestry worker on low agricultural wages, was bequeathed 2,400 Bradford & Bingley shares by his late father. They were worth about £11,000 and are now effectively worthless. We talk about the billions of pounds that have gone into saving some of Britain’s banks. However, in the case of the Bradford & Bingley, ordinary people lost sums that to them were very large, although they are inconsequential compared with the billions that the former Prime Minister and Chancellor doled out at the time.

[Craig Whittaker]

My hon. Friend is right. Many small investors, not just in Calder Valley but around the country, lost hard-earned cash that they had saved all their lives to invest in what they hoped would be a better future in retirement. That is exactly what I am talking about. My constituent whose words I quoted, Mr Anthony Ottery, suffered in exactly the same way as John did.

Mr Ottery’s comments are a small sample of the feelings of many of my constituents who feel badly let down by what happened. It does not help that many questions remain unanswered. People have struggled, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, to get the information through freedom of information requests. The Bradford & Bingley action group seems to be thwarted at every turn. There are, as my hon. Friend also noted, three key questions that remain unanswered. What was the exact reason for the expropriation of the company? Should the rights issue have been permitted to proceed, and were shareholders wrongly induced to subscribe to it? Finally, were the comments of the directors and the investor relations department about the strength of the company, made only days before nationalisation, at best misleading and possibly untrue?

When, to coin the phrase of my hon. Friend, a Government confiscate the property of their citizens without reason, explanation or compensation—particularly when they have a duty of care to those citizens—surely that alone is a reason to call for an inquiry into what happened. Governments can call inquiries—there are currently three on Co-op bank matters. Surely the citizens who cannot get answers with respect to the failed Government who failed to regulate the banking industry and took away their assets should at least be given those answers and an inquiry into the seeming scandal of the Bradford & Bingley.

On behalf of my constituents in Calder Valley and thousands of investors in west Yorkshire and beyond, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley in asking the Minister for an inquiry into what happened at the Bradford & Bingley.