Relocation of Migrants in need of International Protection (Opt-in Decision)

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 9355/15 and Addendum and No. 11132/15, international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece, No. 11843/15 and Addendum, establishing a crisis relocation mechanism, and No. 11844/15 and Addendum, international protection for the benefit of Italy, Greece and Hungary; and agrees with the Government’s decision not to opt in to proposals establishing provisional measures for the relocation of individuals in need of international protection or to the proposal establishing a crisis relocation mechanism.

The motion covers a series of EU proposals on the relocation of migrants within the EU. They formed a central part of the EU’s summer response to the ongoing migration crisis and have been the subject of long negotiations within the EU and of previous debates in the House.

The current migration crisis has been described as the worst refugee crisis since world war two. It has severely tested the ability and resolve of the EU and member states to provide a comprehensive and sustainable response that is able to support member states under the most pressure and ensure protection for those in real need of it. The situation has been and remains complex and fast moving. Proposals have been brought forward and adopted extremely quickly; at times, Interior Ministers have met almost weekly, and as soon as proposals were adopted, they were often superseded by others.

Since the crisis began, the Government have been clear about our views on relocation: it is the wrong response. It does absolutely nothing to address the underlying causes of the crisis and does nothing more than move the problem around Europe. Relocation also reduces incentives for member states to tackle abuse, process applications and strengthen their borders. It may also encourage more migrants to travel illegally to the EU. We must ensure that the permanent relocation proposal does not reduce the obligation on all member states to have fully functioning border and asylum systems.

The Government have consistently stated that the UK would not opt in to measures, whether temporary or permanent. I apologise to the House for the fact that we have had to override scrutiny on these relocation measures. The European Commission brought forward proposals on relocation as a response to an emergency situation. The Prime Minister and Home Secretary were required to make the Government’s views on such measures clear in hastily arranged EU Council meetings.

The debates on relocation continue within the EU. Only a tiny number of people have been relocated under the agreed temporary measures and many member states are now stepping back from their previous commitments. Concern is growing about the merits of the permanent mechanism.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with the position of Slovakia? It believes that the decision should have been taken by unanimity.

[James Brokenshire]

Obviously, we are not party to the arrangements as we are using our opt-out. My hon. Friend highlights some of the issues that have arisen since the measures were put into place. I am aware that Slovakia and Hungary have recently filed legal challenges in the European Court of Justice against the relocation scheme. There are relevant concerns. In our view, the proposals are ill conceived and many more now question the viability of relocation as a tool to manage the migration crisis.

Riot Compensation Bill

David Nuttall Excerpts

Friday 4th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood]

I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point. It is important that alongside any new legislation and regulation we have the co-ordination at a community level to support the people he mentions, who, as he says, are often in our most vulnerable communities.

The basis for switching from old-for-old to new-for-old is one of basic fairness for riot victims. It cannot be fair for them to be expected to engage in extensive negotiations on the book value of a three-year-old dry cleaning machine, as was the case in one claim in 2011, and then to have to search for such a machine at the specified price just at the point when they are trying to rebuild their homes or their businesses. A new-for-old system is already used in most private insurance policies, and it would mean that victims could set about the important business of getting their lives, homes and businesses back on track.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is right to say that new-for-old replacement will be welcomed by businesses that are affected by a riot, but often the most worrying and biggest problem for such businesses is the consequential losses that arise from that destruction and loss of property. Will he explain why those losses will not be covered, and why they are expressly excluded?

[Mike Wood]

As my hon. Friend says, the Bill would explicitly restrict a police force’s liability to direct losses, and it would exclude the consequential losses to which he refers. This is a question of fairness and affordability, because the potential impact on the public purse would be enormous should the riot compensation scheme be extended to cover full consequential losses.

[Mr Nuttall]

There is a cap, so any claims would be limited and caught by that cap. Bearing in mind that that exclusion exists, does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important that all businesses—especially small businesses—are made aware of the limitations of the Bill, and the need for them to take out insurance to cover otherwise uninsured losses?

[Mike Wood]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and businesses need to do as he suggests. This is about what private insurance should reasonably cover. Although direct losses tend to be relatively easy to quantify, consequential and other indirect losses can be more difficult to quantify, and they cause much more difficulty for public authorities when assessing and paying for those claims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I hope that none of the properties I own is ever affected by a riot, but that is a theoretical possibility.

I rise to speak briefly in support of the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on introducing it this morning. It is a pleasure to debate a Bill that does not seek to add further cumbersome regulations or which creates more problems than it seeks to solve.

We have heard a lot about what happened in London in 2011, but, as the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) mentioned, Manchester and Salford were also affected by riots in the summer of 2011. In August 2012, it was reported that Greater Manchester police had paid out £442,000 for uninsured claims and £584,000 for insured claims under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. It was a very big story locally. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned JD Sports, which has its headquarters in the borough of Bury. It was one of the companies affected when its store in Manchester was looted.

As hon. Members have said, the riots demonstrated the need to look again at the 1886 Act and to update what is widely accepted to be archaic and out-of-date legislation. While updating it, however, we will still maintain the principle that as the police are responsible for the maintenance of law and order, they should be liable if law and order breaks down and a riot breaks out. The Kinghan review, which was set up to look into how the 1886 Act could be improved, decided that maintaining such a statutory principle was the best way forward, but we could have provided for these losses to be dealt with as losses for uninsured motorists are dealt with through the Motor Insurers Bureau. I agree that we should maintain the existing principle from 1886.

The legislation has to deal with the competing interests of taxpayers, whom the Government want to protect by restricting the amount that is paid out, and uninsured businesses and individuals, who need to be protected when they are affected by loss. It makes absolute sense in the 21st century that the legislation should cover vehicles.

I agree that there is a simplicity in having a cap on claims of £1 million, but the amount needs to be kept under review. We do not want to think in 40 or 50 years’ time, “Oh dear, we should have reviewed that £1 million limit because it is woefully inadequate.”

[Mike Wood]

To reassure my hon. Friend, there is provision in the Bill for the sum to be amended by regulation, without the need for primary legislation. The intention is very much for the £1 million to increase as appropriate.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is right that that ability is written into the Bill, but it requires the Government to take a proactive approach and make use of it.

[Mr Lammy]

On the very sensible point that the hon. Gentleman is making, is he worried, as I am, that the Government will recognise that £1 million is inadequate only after another riot? It is very unlikely that the Government would return to the limit between riots, because there would be no reason to do so.

[Mr Nuttall]

That is my concern. We need an assurance from the Minister that someone will look at the limit every few years because, as the right hon. Gentleman says, there is a danger that the legislation will be dusted down and looked at only after the event, as happened after the 2011 riots, when everybody realises that it is woefully out of date. A proactive approach is therefore needed.

Where I perhaps part company with the right hon. Gentleman is on whether the riot claims bureau should be a permanent body. Was he suggesting it should be?

[Mr Lammy]

No.

[Mr Nuttall]

No, he was not suggesting that. I would not have agreed with that. I do not think we could set up such a body and have it permanently in operation.

[Mr Lammy]

Given the infrequency of riots, it would be quite a nice job to have, because someone would not work very hard, would they?

[Mr Nuttall]

That is the point I am making. Thinking back to the Toxteth riots in the early ’80s, they are mercifully infrequent.

In urban areas that are seen as most at risk, it would make sense to have a stand-alone leaflet available that could be distributed in the event of a riot, so that business owners and affected individuals could be given information simply and straightforwardly in the immediate aftermath to put their minds at ease. They would then know what they needed to do and that they needed to do it within 42 days, or whatever the limit was. They would be aware straight away of the need to take action. In this day and age, there could also be a permanent website after the Bill reaches the statute book, as I hope it will, that can be found easily by somebody who does a search on the internet.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am certain that when the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) went around all the destroyed buildings and spoke to the people whose livelihoods had been ruined, he told them, “This is what you’ve got to do.” I entirely endorse the point that an aide memoire should be available immediately to people who wanted to help, particularly Members of Parliament. This is a situation where Members of Parliament can help out big time. When there is a riot, it affects us directly, and that goes straight the way through local government. MPs should be there in protection of their constituents. They should have an aide memoire in their pocket that says, “Sign there”.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support on that point.

In conclusion, I congratulate again my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South on introducing the Bill. He is absolutely right that the legislation should be updated and the archaic language replaced. It is one of the key requirements on us as legislators to produce legislation that can be understood not just by us, but by those who have to use it outside this place—in this case, by the police and members of the public who may be affected in the event of a riot. That is what the Bill seeks to do. I wish it well and hope it has a speedy passage through this House. [Interruption.]

Mr Shaker Aamer

David Nuttall Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[David T. C. Davies]

There are certainly a lot of facts that have yet to come out, and I might refer to a few in a minute. I will first address the statement by the then Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), in 2010. He made a couple of points setting out why he would make large payments to the previous Guantanamo Bay inmates who returned to the UK.

I will not try to read it out but, in summary, the former Lord Chancellor said that the Gibson inquiry would not be able to begin until the claims had been resolved. My first question is: why not? I do not see why outstanding claims should prevent an inquiry from being set up. In any case, the Gibson inquiry subsequently ended because apparently nobody was satisfied that it would be impartial. There is no Gibson inquiry now, so that particular problem will not occur in the case of Mr Aamer.

My right hon. and learned Friend’s second point was that he felt there was absolutely no admission of culpability in any of the matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) has just referred. If we, as a Government or as a country, are not culpable of any misdeeds in these people’s cases, why on earth are we not saying so and fighting the court cases? If there is any culpability, it certainly does not lie with any Minister of this Government or the previous coalition Government; the blame will rest with someone else—so maybe someone else, and not the British taxpayer, should be held accountable.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling speech. What does he think the families of the brave members of our armed forces who lost their lives in Afghanistan will think about this news?

[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.

Paris Terrorist Attacks

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Indeed. That co-operation is important. We are looking to enhance co-operation in a number of areas, including in relation to the movement of firearms, as I indicated earlier, and in relation to the exchange across borders of information about criminality and criminal records, so we can all better protect our citizens in future.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, in particular that there will be increased border checks for vehicles entering the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that to further reduce the risk of illegal immigrants and illegal firearms being brought into the United Kingdom, every single vehicle entering this country should be thoroughly checked?

[Mrs May]

Decisions on the extent of checks on any particular vehicle will be taken at our borders by the Border Force. It operates under a clear mandate. It has increased the number of checks it is undertaking. It will be looking for those who are trying to enter the United Kingdom illegally and for those who are trying to bring in firearms illegally. It has had success in both those areas; our Border Force officers do an excellent job for us.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Sadly, the right hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that a shocking number of those who find themselves being exploited and subjected to child sexual abuse will have been in the care of the state. That is an appalling record for the state, and it has gone on for many years. It is one reason why the Justice Goddard inquiry will look at how institutions have, or have not, undertaken their duty of care. As part of the work that we did following the Rotherham report, we are working with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Education to see exactly what approach should be taken at local authority level with those in care and others who report abuse to the local authority.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote, it increases the likelihood that they will be regarded and treated as adults and that they will therefore become the victims of sexual exploitation?

[Mrs May]

I would not link the voting age with child sexual exploitation. In the Home Office, we have included 16 and 17-year-olds in our consideration of a number of areas, including this issue and domestic violence. We recognise the vulnerability of those who are 16 and 17, who are sometimes treated as and considered as adults but are equally as vulnerable as younger people and need the protection and care we should be giving them when we deal with these difficult issues.

Clandestine Migrants (Harwich)

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The relationship with the authorities in the Netherlands is particularly strong and has resulted in a joint action plan that will embed regular data and intelligence sharing between Border Force and its Dutch equivalent. Intelligence is already being shared that is helping to improve Border Force targeting and in the future we plan to run joint operational activities on common threats in the Netherlands to enhance security. The strong joint working that we see already will be enhanced.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Earlier this year, a case was reported of a failed asylum seeker whose application had been refused in 1997 but who, incredibly, was still here in 2015, mainly owing to the Human Rights Act. Will the Minister please confirm that all the illegal immigrants found at Harwich will be returned within 18 days, never mind 18 weeks, 18 months or 18 years? If that is not possible because of the Human Rights Act, it will be yet further evidence of why we urgently need to review our human rights legislation.

[James Brokenshire]

It is right that any asylum claims should be appropriately considered, and that is what will happen. As I have already said, the Government have done a great deal to speed up and improve the process of examining those claims. My hon. Friend has a good point about the ability to appeal. We believe that further steps are needed on various different routes, so that appeal rights can be maintained, but out of the country. That is what we have done with foreign national offenders and we want to extend it further into other routes.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right to identify the significant increase in the number of people coming to this country from inside the European Union as the key reason we have failed to meet our net migration target. However, crucially, not only has the coalition already taken steps to tighten up on movement from inside the European Union—for example, by reducing access to benefits—but the Conservative party has clearly set out what we would do in government after the election to deal with free movement and tighten up further to reduce migration from inside the European Union.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary recognise the sense of grievance felt by citizens of Commonwealth countries who for years have abided by the rules when trying to get into this country as immigrants, only to see EU citizens being able simply to walk in and out of the country at will?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a point about Commonwealth citizens, many of whom have come to the United Kingdom and contributed greatly. We are clear that we want to tighten the rules on people coming from inside the European Union, particularly in relation to the ability to claim benefits, which I believe will have an impact on the number of people coming here, but in order to do that we need a Conservative Government to be elected on 7 May.

Child Abuse Inquiry

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am firmly committed, as are all Members of this House, to ensuring that we get this inquiry up and running fully, with a chairman. I have apologised to the House and to the survivors for the fact that two chairmen have resigned, but I would also say to the hon. Gentleman that it is this Government who agreed to set up this inquiry. Yes, we are now in a position where we have to look for a further chairman, but we have a panel set up and it is our intention to ensure that that inquiry gets fully up and running with a chairman and that we get to the truth. That is what everybody wants.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

The Home Secretary is absolutely right to proceed with care and caution in the appointment of a new chairman, because it is essential that whoever is chosen should be the right person for the role. Is she confident, however, that once the new chairman is appointed, the inquiry will report in a shorter period of time than the Chilcot inquiry is taking?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The inquiry will be looking into significant issues and it will not be able to come to decisions in a short space of time. However, the panel members I have spoken to are clear—as am I—that they should recognise the need for striking a balance between getting to decisions and ensuring that they are doing the full job. This is not an inquiry that should simply be pushed into the long grass, and we need to have some answers for the survivors within a reasonable period of time. I have said before in the House that the inquiry panel, under the new chairman, will have to look into whether they report to survivors and survivors groups, to this House and more widely on a more ongoing basis than would normally be the case, because of the nature of the issues that they are dealing with.

Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Bill

David Nuttall Excerpts

Friday 5th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

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

I say immediately what a pleasure it is to see my hon. Friend the Minister on the Front Bench. It seems just a short while ago that he and his now wife used to campaign for me, in those halcyon days in Basildon. It is very good that he is the Minister responding to the debate. I also want to praise our hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who piloted the Bill through the House last year but did not have my good fortune. I also thank all Members for giving up their valuable time and serving in the Committee.

I am sure the House will agree that the available figures for identity crime are worrying. Figures published by the National Fraud Authority revealed that almost one third of UK adults had been the victim of identity crime at some point. It is estimated that 4.3 million adults were victims in 2012 alone. Of those, 2.7 million lost money, with an average of £1,200 lost per person. To the most vulnerable members of our society, the damage caused goes much further than just this loss of money. Some victims spend a lot of time attempting to clear their names and are chased by debt collection companies unaware that the person has been the victim of identity crime.

Of course, criminals are not concerned about the damage they cause and will continually try to stay ahead of the game by obtaining the latest specialist printers to make a wide range of false documents. They rely on members of the specialist printing industry to supply the specialist printing equipment to them, either by tricking suppliers into thinking they will use it for legitimate purposes, or by colluding with unscrupulous specialist printing companies. By supplying this equipment to people who will use it to commit crime, they enable some of the most serious crimes affecting this country and compromise the safety of the public.

I recently met the Metropolitan police, and was concerned to hear that they have numerous recent examples of illegal document factories being uncovered and documents relating to thousands of identities being found. This includes passports, driving licences, birth certificates, immigration documents, EU identity cards, national insurance number cards—the list goes on. However, in none of these cases has the police been able to prosecute those who supplied the specialist equipment to the criminals, even when there was evidence that they knew what the equipment would be used for. That is why the Bill is needed.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting his Bill through to Third Reading. I was delighted to serve on the Bill Committee. Will he confirm for the benefit of the House that the Bill will place no costs on business—no extra regulation or bureaucracy—and that the only people who will suffer as a result of the Bill are the criminals, who deserve to suffer?

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I am very surprised by an Opposition and a Labour party that have PCCs out there such as Vera Baird—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Gentleman decrying the work that Vera Baird does? That is interesting—we have a Labour party that decries its own PCCs.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that turnout in elections for PCCs might improve if we went back to using the tried and tested first-past-the-post method?

[Mike Penning]

We are thinking carefully about the two by-elections and about what methodology would help to increase turnout, but if Labour Members keep running them down, it is no surprise that police and crime commissioners in their own areas—and the shadow Minister told me that they were doing a fantastic job—[Interruption.] Members can try and shout me down, but, at the end of the day, they will not succeed.