Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the UK) Bill

Debate between Henry Smith and David Nuttall

Friday 11th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith]

My hon. Friend is rightly focusing on foreign nationals who are given a custodial sentence. However, over the past decade or so, UK Government statistics have shown that less than 10% of those who are convicted of a crime receive a custodial sentence. That suggests that the number of foreign nationals who have been convicted is in the region of 80,000 or more.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is right that much of the debate this morning has focused on the foreign national offenders who are in our jails, who, by definition, are those who have committed the most serious offences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, even those who have committed 100 offences are more likely than not, when appearing before the courts, not to be sent to prison. When somebody is convicted of a minor offence, it is pretty difficult to sentence them to a term of imprisonment.

The latest figures from the Ministry of Justice on the prison population, up to 31 December last year, show that 978 foreign national offenders have committed crimes so serious that they are subject to extended determinate sentences. The same figures reveal that 2,399 foreign national offenders have sentences of less than four years, so those people could well be—and most likely will be—back on our streets before the next election.

The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), confirmed in a written answer on 23 March last year, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), that the foreign national prison population in the UK included 1,657 people who had committed violence against the person, 1,035 who had committed a sexual offence, 1,192 who were in prison for drug offences, 527 who were in for robbery and 400 burglars.

Let me bring those thousands of offences to life with just one example. Mircea Gheorghiu is a Romanian national who served a six-year sentence for rape in Romania, where he had also been jailed twice for cutting timber without a licence. He reportedly entered the UK in 2002 following his release, after serving only two years and eight months of his sentence. He remained in the country while his wife and children stayed in Romania. In January 2007, Romania joined the EU, so he was allowed to stay in the UK. He was arrested for drink-driving and convicted in November 2007, and banned from driving for 20 months. When his criminal past was uncovered, the Home Office rightly deported him under the new “deport first, appeal later” scheme. However, following an appeal at the immigration tribunal, the press reported on 28 February that because Mr Gheorghiu was an EU citizen, incredibly he was allowed to return to the UK. Why? Because the two judges in the tribunal ruled that his crimes—he had originally been convicted of rape in Romania—were not serious enough to warrant deportation, and that EU citizens should be removed before their appeal hearings only in exceptional circumstances because of their right to free movement and the human right to family life.

Criminal Records (Public Access) Bill

Debate between Henry Smith and David Nuttall

Friday 13th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which fits neatly with my point about available technology and the sort of database that could be created. It is quite likely that a private sector organisation could put such information into a searchable database on the internet, which, as my right hon. Friend rightly says, could easily be accessed on a mobile phone. That is the way in which the internet is going. It is more and more likely that people will carry their own personal computers around with them—tablets are already available —and if a search can be made on a desktop computer in an office, it can be made as one walks down the street. I see no reason why that should not be the case. I cannot see the problems with that.

The main point is that the information must be accurate. We already have the technology to make that happen; of that there can be no doubt. We have already seen the excellent Home Office website that enables individual householders to search right down to street level to find the number and category of crimes committed in their area. Having seen how complicated that website is, covering every road and street in the entire country, I think that the proposed database would be much easier to construct. Provided that measures were in place to ensure that the information on the register was accurate, which could be done easily by ensuring that people could check their own record free of charge, I see no reason why—

[Henry Smith]

Does the Bill not merely extend information that is increasingly becoming publicly available, as my hon. Friend is setting out? In the Sussex police force area, the recently passed Sarah’s law allows people to check whether anyone in their neighbourhood has been convicted of a child sex offence. That has empowered people, and certainly has not led to any vigilantism.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Generally speaking, people can be relied on to treat this information, which is publicly available, with common sense and reasonableness.

One area where problems are likely to occur is when people change their name. I know that what we can do to prevent people from giving false names is of particular concern to the Home Office, because there is no law that prevents someone from changing their name. A name can be changed simply by statutory declaration, rather than by going through the complexity of doing so by deed poll. No one has to give a reason for wanting to change their name. In fact, many people do so for the slightest of reasons, perhaps because they do not like their name. I am not normally the first to suggest further regulation, but I wonder whether the need to monitor sex offenders, in particular, might result in some further control, to ensure that those convicted of sex offences are not free simply to change their name and walk away from their past.

This short Bill would be warmly and widely welcomed outside this House. I wish it well on Second Reading and look forward to seeing it on the statute book before too long.

Consumer Protection (Private Car Parks) Bill

Debate between Henry Smith and David Nuttall

Friday 13th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

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

I am acutely conscious that we have very little time left before the Adjournment debate, so I shall try to give the abridged version of a Second Reading speech. I am also conscious, while I am talking about time, that it was only just over a year ago that I was elected to this place and I would not have imagined that I would be presenting a private Member’s Bill on the provision of consumer protection and private car parks. Whenever I contribute in the Chamber, I try to bear reference to my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament and, in my time as a Member of Parliament, I have unfortunately come across a rogue car park operator in my constituency that, for the most minor infractions or for no offence at all, regularly issues motorists with apparent fines or at least demands for payment for very dubious reasons.

The operator often claims payment from motorists, saying that they did not purchase a ticket, but when a motorist produces evidence that they did indeed buy a pay-and-display ticket the operator says that it was not properly displayed and demands payment. Many people are, in essence, intimidated into parting with their money; demands are often made for £70 rising to £140 if the amount is not paid within two weeks. Many elderly and vulnerable people have been tricked into making a payment that is not a criminal fine but merely a demand from a private car park operator. Many fear for their credit rating, because they receive threatening letters, often with the claim that the company will send in the bailiffs.

When I raised the issue with the planning and licensing sections of my local authority, I was told that planning legislation does not allow local authorities properly to control the actions of such rogue private car park operators. Their operations are not covered by the licensing regime either.

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

Is it not the case that car park operators are required to identify through visible signs the status of the land on which they encourage people to park? The signs must show the terms that apply and any penalties for contravening them. If an individual falls foul of those obligations, in essence, they have only themselves to blame.

[Henry Smith]

I agree. If somebody contravenes the conditions for parking on private land, it is perfectly reasonable for the private operator to seek restitution. However, as I said earlier, operators often claim that people have not purchased a ticket when, in fact, they have, and demand payment. There are many responsible private car park operators, but I regret that a minority let down the industry.

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

Debate between Henry Smith and David Nuttall

Friday 22nd October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is right. My concern is that if this legislation were allowed to proceed in this form, that sort of slipshod behaviour might be allowed to continue in future. I submit that one reason why a line of cases has been brought before the courts is that employers have upheld the will of this House and have sought to secure full compliance with what was originally intended. I stress again the importance of what was intended not by the 1992 Act but by the Employment Relations Act 1999, which was introduced by the Labour Government.

In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said—I agree with him—that we begin to understand the full effect of this proposal only by looking at the legal framework in which employees and employers operate. The starting point is the contract of employment itself. Under such a contract one individual, the employee, provides his or her services or labour for the benefit of another, the employer. In return, they are paid for the labour they provide. The work is manual labour in some cases or it could be “white collar” work, as we call it, or it could be providing expertise on a particular subject. It follows that withdrawal of that labour is a very serious matter and, unsurprisingly, the law attaches serious consequences if someone breaches that agreement, as it does with any other breach of contract,.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Is it not the case that elections are held by other legal entities, such as public limited companies or national organisations, and are sometimes used for trustees and so forth? With those other legal entities, is it not the case that complete compliance with the law is necessary, rather than “substantial compliance”—whatever that vague term means legally?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In most areas of the law, people are quite rightly expected to follow it to the letter. In the particular area of trade union law, the possibility of human error coming into the process is taken care of, I submit, by the provisions of section 232B of the 1992 Act, which specifically allows for minor, small, accidental failures to be completely “disregarded”. That raises the question of why on earth this Bill is being introduced at all, particularly following the decision of the Court of Appeal in the British Airways plc v. Unite case earlier this year. I accept that it was only a majority judgment, but it was nevertheless a judgment of the Court of Appeal, so it should be given time to bed down, as it put forward a fairly clear view of the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. One of the problems with the interpretation of the clause relates to what is accidental and what is not. I submit that we are going to have exactly the same problem if we change the law and introduce the concept of substantial compliance. We are not any further forward than we were.

[Henry Smith]

Does my hon. Friend think it in order that the House should legislate to allow for incompetence, whether accidental or deliberate?

[Mr Nuttall]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I certainly do not think that it is appropriate that the House should legislate for incompetence, and effectively that is what this Bill is leading towards. It is effectively saying that there could be 70%, 60% or 80% compliance with the law and that would be okay. I might be wrong, but I am of the opinion that members of the public outside this House rightly expect a trade union, or indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire said, any other group, to comply with the law to a much higher degree.

I think the degree of compliance should be 98% or 99%, which was the intention in 1999 when the then Labour Government introduced section 232B providing for small accidental failure to be disregarded. The new provision refers to

“the failure…or the failures taken together”,

so it mirrors the current situation in that duplicate failures would be permitted. It also states that

“there has been substantial compliance with the provision or provisions in question”

and

“on a scale which is unlikely to affect (in the case of a ballot) the result of the ballot or…a reasonable recipient’s understanding of the effect of the notice”.

The problem is that that provision takes us no further forward. Employers are just as likely to say, “Well, has there been substantial compliance or not?” It is not clear, so we are no better off than if we were to ask whether there had been a minor or accidental failure. Therefore, this provision will prove to be a treasure trove for lawyers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is right. One of the defects of the Bill is that there is no definition of what constitutes substantial compliance under the law; we have no idea at all about that.

The current law is particularly detailed, however. For example, section 226A of the 1992 Act requires that a union must give notice

“not later than the seventh day before the opening day of the ballot”

to

“every person who it is reasonable for the union to believe (at the latest time when steps could be taken to comply with paragraph (a)) will be the employer of persons who will be entitled to vote in the ballot.”

All sorts of questions arise, such as what happens if someone is set to become an employee but is not working on the day? They will never have a chance to vote; are they to be included or not? I do not want to address all these questions today. I simply put that one as an example of the problems that will arise if the Bill is enacted.

[Henry Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is precisely why the 1999 and 2004 legislation introduced by the previous Government—to whom I do not give credit for very much—did not allow for substantial compliance? The point my hon. Friend makes illustrates precisely why they saw the sense in not allowing for that.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Back in 1999 there was a new Labour Government with a substantial parliamentary majority, and they could very easily have introduced a measure along the lines of the Bill, but they did not do so because it is a bit of a dog’s breakfast. It is not clear what substantial compliance means; there is no definition in the Bill and our attention has not been drawn to any previous case law or to any academic analysis of what would or would not constitute substantial compliance.