Modern Slavery Bill

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister said:

“The case has not been made for extending the GLA’s remit at this stage beyond the core areas the Act sought to address.”––[Official Report, Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee, 14 October 2014; c. 480.]

She has recently undertaken a review into gangmasters legislation, and determined that there should be no extension of its remit. I am saying—I hope the hon. Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) will take heed of this—that new clause 1 simply gives power to the Secretary of State to extend that remit, should they seek to do so. Were I to be Minister in a few months’ time, I would want to consider extending the scope of the gangmasters legislation because widespread views from trade unions, charities and academics suggest that many people are underpaid or exploited in areas not covered by current legislation.

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

As I understand it—forgive me if I have the wrong end of the stick—new clause 1 is simply to make it easier should a future Minister determine that it is necessary to widen the scope of section 3 of the 2004 Act. Will the shadow Minister give the House some indication as to what difference that would make in terms of time scale and bringing forward that legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay]

I want to develop the theme of how we can make prosecution and enforcement quicker and easier. I am aware that a number of Members who wanted to speak earlier have not yet been able to do so, and I shall therefore keep my remarks short.

I want to speak about new clauses 16, 17, 18 and 19. Let me begin with new clause 16. At present, it is very difficult for police in areas such as Wisbech in my constituency to identify houses in multiple occupation. The presence of 20-odd people in a two-storey house often does not meet the legal definition of an HMO. One of the ways in which we can make life easier for the local police is to give them clearer powers and rights to inspect letting agencies, and require gangmasters to keep records in the form of rent books and tenancy agreements. At present, when there is a breach of a tenancy agreement, it falls to the tenant to bring a private prosecution. How realistic is that? How realistic is it to expect someone who has been trafficked, who does not speak English and who does not understand the law to bring a private prosecution against his landlord?

We need to make it quicker, easier and therefore cheaper for the police to identify concentrations of HMOs. They need to be able to go into those houses, establish whether the law relating to, for instance, rent books is being adhered to, and take action if necessary. That will necessitate rights of access to the records of letting agents, and a requirement that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority can then use for leverage in relation to gangmasters.

New clause 17 seeks to build on the lessons this House can learn from scrap metal merchants being forbidden from taking cash payments and asks how we can create an audit trail for financial investigators in terms of the known abuse around the minimum wage legislation and the way people are being paid. At present wage slips will often simply show that someone was on for one day—it could have been seven hours, it could have been 12 hours—and when payments are made, they are made in cash. Straight away, deductions are taken for accommodation and for vehicles, so the abused worker never actually receives that money. Often they are told when they come into the country that they are not allowed a bank account. Obviously that is erroneous information, but they do not know otherwise. New clause 17 therefore addresses how we can make it easier for the police to follow the money—follow that audit trail—so that once money goes into an account, it is with the worker and it becomes harder for the rogue gangmaster to deduct it at source, which is what currently happens.

New clause 18’s provision is, I fear, almost a well-worn theme. I had a debate on it in Westminster Hall in 2012 and 2013. The measure was being blocked by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, although I was told privately that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was supporting it. The reality is that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority does not have the full range of tools available. It has draconian penalties available in terms of criminal sanctions, but they are almost never used because the standard of proof is high and the amount of time required is extensive.

To put this in context, do Members know how many inspectors the GLA currently has? It has 35 for the whole country. There is one covering the whole of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. An inspector could spend their entire time just driving around my constituency, never mind the rest of the county and the two counties combined. The LGA has 35 inspectors and a budget of £4 million. We need only think about how much a supermarket makes in a week to see how well resourced the GLA is.

[Mr Nuttall]

Not Tesco.

[Stephen Barclay]

Tesco has some serious questions to answer in terms of its supply chain and the way some of its operations have been conducted. I do not want to return to the earlier debate, but if one looks at some of the difficulties Tesco is having in terms of its profit warnings, one wonders how accurate some of its statements on its website might be, especially given its statements on other areas.

My point is we need to make it easier for the GLA, at a time when it is resource-constrained, to take enforcement action. One of those ways is to hit rogue gangmasters in the pocket, through civil fines. There is a lower evidential requirement for that and it is quicker and cheaper, and we should be facilitating that. I hope the move of the GLA from DEFRA into the Home Office gives more clout within Whitehall for this long-overdue change.

New clause 19 addresses what happens when a gangmaster is found abusing workers in one sector. The shadow Minister touched on that in his opening remarks. It is illogical that where someone is operating in one sector or industry illegally, we seem to assume that that sinner is suddenly a saint in another sector. The additional costs of the extra 1 million temporary workers currently within the unregulated sector would place a huge burden on the GLA, so I am sympathetic to the Minister in terms of the constraints on extending into the unregulated sector, but we need to make that easier. Where a gangmaster has been shown to be rogue in one sector, that is the gateway through which we can make a foray into the unregulated activity of that specific gangmaster, not of the whole unregulated industry.

This is a very good Bill that will make a huge difference in constituencies such as mine and it signals the Government’s intent in this area. When the Minister responds, I hope she will consider the operational difficulties faced by the police and the GLA in particular, and bring forward measures that make their job easier, quicker and cheaper, and therefore more likely to be achieved.

Refugees and Migrants (Search and Rescue Operation)

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

We play our part within the EU. We continue to lead discussions with individual member states and across the EU membership on long-term and short-term solutions to why people are getting on those boats and to the transit of people across nations to the north African coast. We take that responsibility very seriously, backed up not just by rhetoric but by investment through our international development focus and the money provided to support it. We stand proud of the UK Government’s record in providing that assistance.

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

It would help to reduce the attractiveness of this country as a destination for illegal immigrants if being an illegal immigrant was made a specific criminal offence, as provided for in the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), the Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s support for that measure?

[James Brokenshire]

Our focus is on ensuring that we have strong and effective borders, which is precisely what our Border Force is doing, with more checks undertaken under this Government than under the previous Government. We are also focused on ensuring that where people are not here legally—when they come to this country and are not found to be in need of humanitarian protection—we put in place measures to see that they are returned. Indeed, I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise the work done under the Immigration Act 2014 to achieve precisely that: to ensure that, through measures on rented accommodation, bank accounts, driving licences and other issues, the very steps he is advocating are actively assisted.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting the poor record of the previous Labour Government. On their watch, 2.5 million people were allowed to come into this country. It is absolutely right that our focus should remain on returning net migration to sustainable levels, from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands. I know that the shadow Home Secretary has said that she wants to talk more about immigration, but the Labour party’s record says it all.

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

Our membership of the European Union brings with it a right to free movement into this country for people from other EU countries, and that brings with it a feeling that our friends in Commonwealth countries are being completely discriminated against. Is not the only solution to that problem for us to leave the European Union and be free of these rules once and for all?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes his clear point, which he has made consistently over the years. He is right to say that we need to focus on net migration from outside the EU, as well as the implications of free movement. That is why we made the changes that we have made to reform benefit entitlements. I say again that free movement is absolutely one of the aspects on which we will want renegotiation to take place.

The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs Opt-outs

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), who put the arguments succinctly. I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). Both my hon. Friends summed up the flavour of the debate. As we approach the end of the debate, the arguments on both sides have been fairly put, so I will not detain the House for too long.

As we saw in the recent European elections, there is a strong feeling in this country that we should have less interference from Brussels. The justice and home affairs opt-outs give us a golden opportunity to demonstrate to the British public that we are in tune with how they think about the European Union. They want less interference from Brussels, not more.

There is a strong feeling that people thought they were entering a common market back in 1973, and they voted to remain members of it in 1975. It was referred to back then as the European Economic Community and the Common Market. Effectively, it was a free trade area. However, those behind the grand euro project were not satisfied with just a common market. They saw it as just the first step towards building a single European superstate. The European Economic Community soon became just the European Community—the word “economic” was dropped altogether, reflecting the wider and grander aims of the European project. The European Community swiftly became the European Union, as another step was taken towards creating a single superstate.

Why did I start with that background? I did so because the European Union’s powers over justice and home affairs are an example of its growing power and influence. It has become far more than just a common market. It already has its own Parliament, its own flag, its own national anthem, its own civil service, its own foreign and diplomatic service and its own court. It has all the attributes of a state, so it is no surprise that those behind the European project want to develop a single Europe-wide system of justice and home affairs.

At a time when there is a desire among millions of our fellow citizens for the European Union to have less influence, we should be taking this golden opportunity to take back powers. Let us be clear on what is at stake: above all else, this is a matter of principle. If we exercise an opt-in—voluntarily, because there is no obligation on this country to opt in—it will mean that yet again the powers of the institutions of this country will be reduced and power transferred to the institutions of the European Union. At a time when we are saying to the British public that we want powers back from Brussels, it is not, I would venture to suggest, a very good start to voluntarily give up power over these 35 different measures.

As the Government themselves said when they gave evidence to the House of Lords European Select Committee:

“the practical effect of the ECJ gaining full jurisdiction in this area after the transitional period”—

which, of course, means from 1 December 2014—

“is that the ECJ may interpret these measures expansively and beyond the scope originally intended. This concern is compounded by the fact that the ECJ has previously ruled in the area of Justice and Home Affairs in unexpected and unhelpful ways from a UK perspective”.

So there we have it. The Government know that there is a real risk that once these powers are handed over to the EU there is no turning back and the European Court of Justice can interpret them as they think fit.

In the Government’s response to the European Scrutiny Committee’s November 2013 report on the block opt-out, the Government said the following about the rulings of the ECJ:

“We have also set out our concerns with the impact of these judgements on the domestic law. If we disagree with the ECJ’s interpretation of legislation, it will be impossible for the UK to amend the law itself. Indeed, it would be very difficult to alter it at all as this would require the Commission to propose an amendment to the EU legislation itself, or a cohort of Member States to do so under the auspices of a Member State initiative.”

Such a cohort would have to consist of a quarter of all member states. The European Parliament’s agreement would also generally be needed to amend the relevant EU legislation.

We must not forget that the European Court of Justice, in determining cases, would start to apply its human rights jurisprudence, arising from the European Union’s own charter of fundamental rights, to the UK’s policing and criminal justice system. It would, therefore, be all very well for us to try to negotiate or even unilaterally opt out of the European convention on human rights, but the fact remains that if we remain members of the European Union we would be bound by the European Court of Justice and its implementation of the EU’s charter of fundamental rights.

Perhaps the most worrying of the measures that it is proposed to opt back into is the European arrest warrant. We have heard much about it this afternoon, but let us be clear about what the European arrest warrant means. It gives other countries in the European Union the power to demand that a British subject be removed from this country and incarcerated in a foreign jail without any evidence being placed before a British court. Worst of all, the European arrest warrant could be used for some act or omission that is not a criminal offence in this country, where the conduct is wholly within a foreign country. Indeed, that aspect—dual criminality—was one of the principal grounds that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used to argue against the introduction of the European arrest warrant in the Extradition Act 2003. He voted against it.

There is perhaps a silver lining to every cloud. As someone who thinks that this country would be better off outside the European Union, let me say this in conclusion. If the Government decide, as I am sure they will, to opt back into these measures—despite what those of us who have reservations might think, I am sure that in the fullness of time this House will vote to allow the Government to do so—they will hand over power to the European Union on these issues for ever more. However, in so doing, they will provide yet another reason why, I believe, in the fullness of time millions of our fellow citizens will decide that the only way for this country to regain its own sovereignty will be to vote to leave the European Union.

Extremism

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have answered this question on a number of occasions. Law enforcement agencies continue to pursue this matter, as they have done since the absconds.

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

Does the Home Secretary agree that one of the best ways to prevent the development of extremist views is through the work of interfaith groups, such as the Bury Muslim Christian Forum in my constituency, which provides a platform to explain the implementation of the Prevent strategy?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is right to promote and recognise in this House the good work being done by the Bury Muslim Christian Forum in his constituency. It is exactly that sort of work at community level—people coming together to increase their understanding of each other—that is so valuable in the work of integration of our communities.

Justice and Home Affairs Opt-out

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2014 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I do not agree with him on our membership of the European Union, but I agree with him that the British people should have a say on the matter. That is something I want to address this afternoon.

It is welcome that the Government have, for once, made available Government time—not Backbench Business Committee time—for a debate on the Government’s opt-out decision, and I welcome, and happily support, the Government’s decision to opt out of the 128 measures. I do not support the opting in side of it: we should just leave that where we are. We have opted out and that is good enough for me. I suspect that millions of our citizens will find it rather strange that, at a time when all the debate in the country is about pulling powers back from Europe, we are going to unilaterally, without anybody putting their arm up our backs, opt in to giving the European Union more powers over our affairs.

Those who voted for the Conservative side of the coalition Government back in 2010 will be particularly surprised by this decision. They will have voted, in May 2010, for a Conservative manifesto that had commitments relating to Europe that were largely based on the speech given on 4 November 2009 by the present Prime Minister, the then Leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, entitled “A Europe policy that people can believe in”. Of course, millions of people did believe in it. After calling for the repatriation of various powers to turn back

“the steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into almost every aspect of our lives”,

the Leader of the Opposition, as the present Prime Minister then was, called for an opt-out of aspects of social and employment legislation, a complete opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights, and negotiations to return powers over criminal justice matters. He said:

“We must be sure that the measures included in the Lisbon Treaty will not bring creeping control over our criminal justice system by EU judges. We will want to prevent EU judges gaining steadily greater control over our criminal justice system by negotiating an arrangement which would protect it. That will mean limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and ensuring that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.”

That is the Europe policy that many people did believe in. They, like me, will be surprised that the Government are proposing to opt in to 35 of the 128 measures over which the Government have exercised their opt-out. Although that is significantly fewer than the 93 in respect of which the opt-out will remain, 41 of those 93 are essentially irrelevant to the United Kingdom, and the Government themselves admit that many of the other 52 will have very little impact on the UK.

So what is my perspective? Millions of people in this country have already decided, as I have, that the country would be better off outside the European Union, and many millions of others are biding their time. They are waiting to see what the outcome of the Prime Minister’s negotiations with our European partners will be. Back in the early 1970s, those who were around and old enough to be conscious of what was going on in the political world thought that we were entering into a free-trade arrangement with our European partners, and that is what they want us to return to. I suspect that the fact that we are now proposing to opt back into matters relating to justice and home affairs—an entire area of policy which they never dreamt would one day be subject to the control of a foreign body and a foreign court—will only add to the millions of people who have already decided that the United Kingdom would be better off outside the European Union.

I think that this decision should be made on a “policy area by policy area” basis. I know that that might mean 35 separate votes, but so what? I agree with the Select Committees which have said that the issue is so important to the affairs of our country that if that is what it takes, that is what our Parliament should be able to do. Whatever mechanism is used, however—whether it is a single, en bloc vote or a series of separate votes—I am absolutely sure that if the outcome is a decision to opt back into 35 of the measures, or some other number, many of our fellow citizens will decide that that is the final straw. They will note our irrevocable decision to cede to a foreign court powers that govern the lives of people in this country, and will conclude that the best thing that they can do is vote Conservative in the next general election, and then, when they have their say in a referendum in 2017, vote—as I will—for this country to leave the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was going to come on to the other areas of creeping supranationalism.

The same is true of Eurojust. Although Britain will not opt in to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office—I very much welcome the fact that Ministers have made that clear—if one looks at the fine print, which the Deputy Prime Minister always encourages us to do, the new Eurojust regulation encourages close co-operation with the EPPO through the back door. If we opt back in to the Eurojust regulation, we will therefore have a close relationship of support for the EPPO. That is something else that needs to be looked at.

Even here at home, outside the political arena, we have had a timely warning from the High Court, and from Mr Justice Mostyn in particular, about the risks of creeping supranationalism. The last Government, to great fanfare, negotiated the British opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights. However, we found out from a case in the High Court in November 2013 that that counts for nothing. Again, so that I cannot be accused of spinning the language, I will refer directly to what Mr Justice Mostyn said. In respect of the opt-out he said:

“it is absolutely clear that the contracting parties agreed that the Charter did not create one single further justiciable right in our domestic courts. The assertion in the…protocol that no new rights are created seems to me to be a misleading product of political compromise because on any view the Charter enunciates a host of new rights which are not expressly found in the European Convention on Human Rights signed in Rome in 1950.”

He continued:

“However, my view that the effect of the seventh protocol is to prevent any new justiciable rights from being created is not one shared by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg.”

He went on to say:

“The constitutional significance of this decision can hardly be overstated.”

That is a timely warning from another senior British judge about what is actually happening.

If we listen to our colleagues, partners and friends in the European Union, they are telling us the same thing loud and clear. Viviane Reding, the vice-president of the European Commission and the Justice Commissioner, made it very clear in a speech in Brussels on 4 September 2013 that the EU wishes to acquire the powers of a nation state in the rule of law area. She said explicitly that the EU needs a formal justice Minister and stronger powers to police national criminal justice systems, including

“detailed monitoring and sanctioning powers”.

We must not only look at the snapshot of measures that are before us now, but ask whether in five or 10 years’ time we will find ourselves enmeshed in a common pan-European justice system over which we have lost substantial democratic control. On the evidence, the answer is almost certainly yes.

I want to talk about the European arrest warrant in particular because, between the two poles of UKIP, which suggests that we should just opt out en masse, and our Labour and Liberal Democrat colleagues in this House, who suggest that there is nothing wrong with it, there is a common-sense—dare I say it—third way or at least a middle course. That is to have binding treaty relations on extradition, but to ensure that we have safeguards in place to protect British citizens. We must not make the Faustian bargain that was debated by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset of sacrificing a few innocent people to snag a few guilty fugitives.

If one looks at the data, one finds that the number of European arrest warrants that are received by the UK has trebled since 2004. The latest figures on warrants issued from the first quarter of 2013 showed that the UK receives 33 warrants for every one that it serves. A number of colleagues on the Liberal Democrat and Labour Benches have talked about the lop-sided nature of UK-US extradition, but that is nothing compared with the European arrest warrant, empirically and factually. One cannot take issue with the lack of reciprocity in our extradition relations with the US and not see the same problem in the European arrest warrant. One Briton is surrendered each week. That is up from five per year in 2004.

I accept that we needed a more streamlined process than existed before. I accept that we need a treaty basis for that. We ought to get to a stage where we can talk about reform of the European arrest warrant. I do not think that we will achieve that if we opt back in at this stage.

[Mr Nuttall]

I agree with many of the points that my hon. Friend is making. Will he clarify whether, in his opinion, it would be possible to reach such an arrangement, with a separate treaty, if this country were outside the EU?

[Mr Raab]

Of course it could be reached. I was a Foreign Office lawyer for six years. I would love to obsess, fixate and opine on all the legal niceties, but this is about political will. Ultimately, these issues come down to political will.

Many Members have quoted ACPO’s submission on the importance of the European arrest warrant. I accept that it has been very clear about that. However, as I said earlier, it has not been able to assess how many fugitives would go free if we did not opt back in to the European arrest warrant, but went down an alternative route. That is the Achilles heel in its argument. In fairness to ACPO, if one reads on from the statement that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) read out, it says:

“That said, extradition did exist before 2004 and so it could operate without it”—

that is, without the European arrest warrant—

“as it does with non-EU states.”

The idea that we would face a cliff edge and that fugitives would go free left, right and centre—we have the tabloid scare stories about terrorist suspects and paedophiles—is nonsense. The only way in which that could happen would be if the EU was prepared to cut off its nose to spite its face and refuse to have any extradition relations with us at all. What possible interest would it have in doing that?

I listened carefully to the police evidence, as I think has been borne out by my comments today. I also want to look at the non-police evidence. Fair Trials International has given evidence at length about the miscarriages of justice that have taken place. The appalling miscarriage of justice in the Andrew Symeou case, in terms of both the incompetence of the Greek system and the gruesome jail conditions that he ended up in, are passed by very glibly by those who suggest that we should opt straight back in or that we should opt back in and then somehow reform the system without having the leverage that we have now.

I have the constituency case of Colin Dines, who is subject to a European arrest warrant that alleges his involvement in a mass telecoms fraud involving the Mafia back in Italy. No evidence has been presented of his links to that crime. No attempt has been made to come to the UK to interview him, to get his side of the story or to see if the matter can be straightened out. In the process, with the stress and the strain, he has suffered a stroke, only to find out that the case is crumbling and that the substantive charges look very likely to be dropped or, at least, that a face-saving way out will be found by the Italian authorities. There are other cases, such as those of Edmond Arapi and Deborah Dark.

I respect the Liberal Democrat position on the European arrest warrant, but when I heard the Deputy Prime Minister, in the Farage-Clegg debate, dismissing the Symeou case as “fantasy”, it was deeply disappointing. It was right that he subsequently corrected his position on the Symeou case. As someone who has met the family of Mr Symeou and the other victims to whom I have referred and who still sees the Dines family, who continue to suffer from the European arrest warrant, I find the glib dismissal of a civil liberties issue by the Liberal Democrats difficult to reconcile with their supposed advocacy of British freedom.

Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill

David Nuttall Excerpts

Friday 17th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I think that responsibility for this rests solely with the United Kingdom. While wearing the hat as I have just described, I have come across a lot of evidence of organised criminal networks bringing people into our country illegally. The networks are usually based overseas and take very large sums from often very unfortunate migrants.

Once the migrants get here, they can be assured that they are here with impunity, because they will be able to lie low and will not be subject to any criminal sanctions. That gives them a perverse incentive to come to the United Kingdom rather than go to another European country where the rules are stricter and being there without authority gives rise to criminal penalties and sanctions.

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

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case for his Bill. Since it was given its First Reading, has he received any objections to it from any quarter, and, if so, from which groups has he received them?

--- Later in debate ---

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

On the points made by the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), I cannot help but think that no similar points were made against the International Development (Gender Equality) Bill. When we considered that Bill earlier, it was suggested that its provision could easily be dealt with by Ministers without the need for legislation, but the Minister of State, Department for International Development, gave all manner of reasons why they should be enshrined in legislation. Let me put on the record that I support the Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill, and I am pleased to be one of its sponsors.

May I deal briefly with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) about the human rights aspect? I want to refer to the case of Haroon Aswat, a suspected terrorist, whom the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has prevented this country from returning to the United States of America. It comes to something when we cannot even return suspected terrorists to the US on the grounds that it is not a fit and proper country to which to return people. That really calls the whole system into question. It is the most developed nation on earth, so if the European Court of Human Rights says that it is not a safe nation—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

Certainly.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Did I hear my hon. Friend correctly? He said that the United States is the most developed nation on earth, but surely it is only the sixth, after all those of which the Queen is sovereign.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, quite right. It is perhaps more accurate to say that the US is one of the most developed nations.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

The largest.

[Mr Nuttall]

It is certainly the largest developed nation.

I do not want to detain the House for too long, because I am keen that the Bill should proceed through the House today.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I will be brief, but I cannot resist intervening, because I do not often have the chance to put right my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) on a constitutional matter. Her Majesty the Queen is of course the sovereign of 16 nations, not only six.

[Mr Nuttall]

rose—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I was excluding those that are basically still colonies.

[Mr Nuttall]

That is the solution, and we now have agreement on that issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has referred to the poll carried out by Lord Ashcroft on 28 and 30 June that asked 2,013 people about the merits or otherwise of various Bills. I obviously do not know why each of those individuals decided their views about each Bill, but on this one to introduce criminal sanctions against those in this country illegally, 86% of people said that it was a good idea, while only 9% said that they were not bothered either way. Therefore, only one in 20 people did not think that this was a sensible measure.

I am not surprised by that, because I see no reason why the Bill should not be on the statute book. It makes perfect sense that if somebody has entered this country illegally, through whatever means, it should be possible to find them guilty of having committed a criminal offence. For that reason, I fully support the Bill.

Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill

David Nuttall Excerpts

Friday 17th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Lord]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I am pleased to inform him that our armed forces charities, those that help not only those currently serving and their families, but ex-service personnel and their families, are hugely and universally supportive of this measure. I have been grateful to them for their advice and support during this Bill’s passage through this House.

The measure in this Bill was identified by the Armed Forces Covenant Cabinet Sub-Committee as a priority commitment. Once implemented, it will provide the Secretary of State with the discretion to overlook the current requirement in schedule 1 the British Nationality Act 1981. As I said a moment ago, it is not anticipated that the volume of naturalisation applications from forces personnel will increase dramatically as a result of the Bill. Rather, it will help a small number of applicants who will become eligible to apply for naturalisation earlier than would otherwise have been the case. The numbers benefiting will be modest, but important none the less. UK Visa & Immigration does not hold data on the numbers of service personnel and ex-service personnel naturalising as British citizens, but as I said to my hon. Friend, we reckon that the number is something in the region of up to a couple of hundred cases per year, and no more. Not all those cases will require the discretion provided for by this Bill, but where they do, it is only right and fair that the people involved should benefit from it.

I am grateful to the Home Office and to all Members from across this House for their support as we put this Bill together. Throughout the process, we have listened to the organisations that so ably represent members of the armed forces. I am grateful for their input and I hope that they will be pleased by the result of this Third Reading debate. Should the Bill pass this House this morning, I have asked Lord Trefgarne to pilot the Bill through the other place.

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

I am relieved to hear that my hon. Friend has found a noble Lord willing to take up the task of piloting the Bill in the other place. Has my hon. Friend been given any indication by him on whether he foresees any time scale difficulties, given that their lordships are now having to consider the European Union (Referendum) Bill, which is in the other place?

[Jonathan Lord]

I am delighted to say that Lord Trefgarne is helping Lord Dobbs in his endeavours in the other place on the European Union (Referendum) Bill, and I am assured that this Bill will not do anything to hold up progress in the other place. Of course, Conservative Members would like to send Godspeed to the European Union (Referendum) Bill, but I am pleased to say that the passage of my Bill should in no way affect its progress.

My Bill is an important part of our package of measures to ensure that those who are willing to put their life on the line in defence of our country are treated fairly by the immigration system. The principles enshrined in the armed forces covenant between the nation and our armed forces community make it absolutely clear that those who serve and who have served should, at the very least, face no disadvantage as a result of that service. On that basis, it has been a great honour and privilege to move the Bill on Third Reading, and I commend it to my colleagues and to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is, as always, a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I add my thanks and congratulations to those that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord), both for taking up this Bill and bringing it to the House, and for steering it so successfully through Committee and bringing it back for Report and Third Reading today.

Like my hon. Friend, I am pleased that the Bill has not been amended in any way, which is a tribute to the way that it was drafted. I know from experience, and we will see this in relation to the next Bill that we discuss, that a Bill that appears to be in order is sometimes found to need technical amendment. In this case, however, that was not necessary.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, this is a small Bill in many ways. It might not affect huge numbers of people, but it is very important in ensuring that we play our part in fulfilling our commitment to the armed forces covenant, and in ensuring that those who have served our country are not at any disadvantage compared with those who have lived a purely civilian life. We owe it to those who place their lives at risk to do all we can to ensure that they are not disadvantaged in any way as a result of their military service.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking may have slightly misunderstood my intervention. Although I am clearly very anxious, like him, that the European Union (Referendum) Bill makes good progress, I was slightly concerned that the progress of that leviathan Bill—leviathan not in length but in importance—might push this Bill aside and make it difficult for it to get through the other place. I hope that that is not the case.

[Jonathan Lord]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, and for his concern about this Bill and the referendum Bill. I can assure him that, as far as I know, my Bill will be well received by the House of Lords. The referendum Bill is now in Committee, so if my Bill passes through the Commons today, I am told—and very much hope, as does my hon. Friend—that it can go through its stages, and that neither Bill will be disturbed on their passage through the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I am extremely relieved to hear that, as I am sure the whole House and those who are affected by this Bill will be. I hope that the Bill proceeds smoothly through Third Reading today, that the other place is welcoming and hospitable to the Bill, and that it has a speedy passage through the other place, so that those who are affected by it can benefit from it as soon as possible. I wish it well.

Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The money made available both to the police and the Security Service was made available around the TPIMs package, and obviously there are a number of ways in which that funding will have been used to enhance their capabilities. As to the individuals under TPIMs, there are regular reviews of the nature of the measures attached to them. As I said, those reviews take place regularly and for every subject of a TPIM.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Will she explain what action will be taken against Mr Mohamed to protect the public if he is caught?

[Mrs May]

When Mr Mohamed is caught, as I hope he will be, he will of course be guilty of a breach of his TPIM order, and I would expect appropriate prosecution to follow.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

As I keep repeating, my view is that these machines raise serious issues, but we need to take a fair and decent approach to the issue of problem gambling, while not over-regulating bookmakers. We therefore need to do our research and look at the matter in detail so that we can come up with a balanced, sensible and fair way forward.

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

Does the Minister agree that one effect of allowing B2 gaming machines in bookmakers is that they help to maintain the viability of these offices, providing employment for local people and an environment where those with a gambling problem are more likely to be identified and pointed in the direction of the help they need than if they were to sit at home gambling on the internet, where, incidentally, they could gamble any amount they liked?

[Mrs Grant]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. As I have just explained, we need to take a proper, balanced and decent approach. We do not want to over-regulate bookmakers, but it is a priority for the Government to protect the vulnerable.